or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › Inside tipping and outside engagement.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

# Inside tipping and outside engagement. - Page 47

Quote:
Originally Posted by rainmaker

Sanatarium reserviert !

No kidding.... I deserve it...  Having said that - Is there one in the Alps that I can get a discount for?  Preferably near snow?

Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp

Razie... take a deep breath. Step away from this thread. Make love to your wife. Take the kids to the lake. Have a great meal. Invite friends over for a beer....

(U12 -   maybe Eric Sailor... he's got a better coaching track record than just about anyone in the business.)

Friends- party induced hang-over. I still don't know why I have a kayak in my pool right now - but anyways, more sober and relaxed now, It dawns on me that it wasn't as funny as I thought it was, at the time...

Enough skiing this summer... More friends at pool party tonight and getting a nice canoe tomorrow, to go with the kayak (we figured we can't fit a cooler with enough beers on the thing).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamt

Also, I believe that the actual lateral movement of the CoM is very small when you counter balance. The lower body moves one way and the upper the other.

Exactly. To be in balance the actual CoM should move laterally into the turn just enough to match the resultant force vector. Due to the fact that Gravity is also contributing to that vector, in addition to centripetal forces which are actually rather small in the early parts of a turn; the resultant force vector is actually not very conducive to having the CoM inclinated at first. Generally we will be desiring more edge angles then that. The only way to keep the CoM in balance on that resultant force vector while also developing more aggressive edge angles is to counter balance early. Counter balance is even more important in high-c because when you're upside down Gravity is pulling at an angle relative to slope and centripetal force such that desirable inclination of the CoM will be in less. The steeper it is the more this will be the case that the upper body will need to counter balance so that the lower body can be inclinated a lot to create edge angles without inclinating the CoM out of balance.

Is it necessary for the upper body to actually move uphill? It might be, or it might not. It might particularly feel like it in some cases. Get over it drill can "feel" like that sometimes particularly with a long slow crossover or reach across situation. But personally I think that way of talking about it is an exaggeration made by someone who doesn't generally believe in early counter balancing development. I think most times neither the CoM, nor the upper body, nor the hips actually move uphill. But to counter balance you definitely have to make movements away from downhill. Moving away from downhill while you are moving downhill does not mean you will actually move uphill. But you are slowing down the downhill progrrss a bit, basically restraining the CoM from falling out of balance down the hill.

If you want to be in balance, counter balance at the top of the turn is incredibly important. It will not neccessarily be huge amounts of angulation initially. Depends on many factors but the slower you go, the smaller the centripetal force, the steeper the run, the more you need.

This is a tangent a bit from the thread topic but I will just say that when your focus is on flexing and relaxing your joints to move inside, it's way easier to counter balance then if you are pushing and extending on the outside leg to move inside.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamt

Ok, so what visual cues do you use to determine if a skier has counter balance or too much/little hip angulation?

Let's not confuse counter balancing with hip angulation.  Counter balancing is only one aspect of hip angulation.  A skier who is in balance over their outside ski can lighten or lift the inside ski.    YM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamt

Ok, so what visual cues do you use to determine if a skier has counter balance or too much/little hip angulation?

counter balance and angulation is the same thing...
Quote:
Originally Posted by yogaman

Let's not confuse counter balancing with hip angulation.  Counter balancing is only one aspect of hip angulation.  A skier who is in balance over their outside ski can lighten or lift the inside ski.    YM

Its not that simple/complicated. In p**s you dont have angulation.
I think the "too much" refers to the DIRT being inappropriate and thus balance is compromised. We make educated guesses but in the end, analysis and experience do not take all the guess work out of a turn.

Ted's step onto the new outside ski, and also the counterbalancing over the outside ski mentioned in the last few posts, to turn down hill are both "negative moves".  Let your kharma run over your dogma; there is no need to religiously stick to the dogman of no negative moves.

But, I would recommend that you get the standard base line approach of linking pure carved clean quickly transitioned well-balanced turns down the fall line down pat before you start stepping from old big toe edge to new little toe edge and pushing youself down the hill with your uphill ski to gain a fraction of a second here and there.  Especially the pushing downhill part (a positive move btw), even Ted ends up getting a little too far downhill and messing up the next turn on occasion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost

the counterbalancing over the outside ski mentioned in the last few posts, to turn down hill are both "negative movesthere is no need to religiously stick to the dogman of no negative moves.

.

How do you define negative moves?  YM

Quote:
Originally Posted by yogaman

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost

the counterbalancing over the outside ski mentioned in the last few posts, to turn down hill are both "negative movesthere is no need to religiously stick to the dogman of no negative moves.

.

How do you define negative moves?  YM

I don't.  Some here define it as a move in the opposite direction to the direction that they wish to go or turn.  The topic has come up in the past when discussing shifting weight to the left ski in order to weight it more in a gliding wedge. (or heaven forbid a snowplow).

If you haven't been playing along for the last forty years, the snowplow was replaced at some point when I wasn't looking.  Because it stranded many people with a dependance on edging skills to turn them instead of developing good pivoting skills.   That, and because it seems many people taught snowplow turns as a braking movement with an inherent intent to stop going in a direction, instead of an intention to start going in another direction, and taught the snowplow itself as a braking maneuver.  I'm guessing these would have been level 1 instructors who apparently had not mastered the hockey stop yet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tdk6

counter balance and angulation is the same thing...

That's what I thought as well, byt YM seems to define it as a state of being in balance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by yogaman

Let's not confuse counter balancing with hip angulation.  Counter balancing is only one aspect of hip angulation.  A skier who is in balance over their outside ski can lighten or lift the inside ski.    YM

I searched and this is how the man himself defines it "Counterbalancing is side--to.side tilting of the upper body at the waist or belt line"

Anyway, the point was that if you angulate too much too early you will stop the CoM's inclination into the turn and be stuck at lower edge angles. You are also stopping the angulation itself, because if you angulate even more you will be out of balance and start the the CoM's movement into the next turn. You cannot finish the turn.

Quote:
Originally Posted by borntoski683

This is a tangent a bit from the thread topic but I will just say that when your focus is on flexing and relaxing your joints to move inside, it's way easier to counter balance then if you are pushing and extending on the outside leg to move inside.

Tangent yes, but it ties into the discussion of whether you can engage before the fall line when it is steep.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamt

That's what I thought as well, byt YM seems to define it as a state of being in balance.
I searched and this is how the man himself defines it "Counterbalancing is side--to.side tilting of the upper body at the waist or belt line"

Anyway, the point was that if you angulate too much too early you will stop the CoM's inclination into the turn and be stuck at lower edge angles. You are also stopping the angulation itself, because if you angulate even more you will be out of balance and start the the CoM's movement into the next turn. You cannot finish the turn.

Thanks for the quote. Its the same thing but I have no problem with eather one of them. I agree that in sertain cases angulation at the top of the turn would bock your edging capability so to speak but its not an absolute by any means. High performans ski racing is not the only thing out there. Maintaining a solid erect upper body posture with levelled shoulders while working hard with your legs flexing and extending out to the sides as well as up and down is still what great skiing skills are all about.

BTW, should tipping and angulation be considered separate movements? Is tipping ANY action of tipping the skis on edge or a sertain kind of movement?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamt

Tangent yes, but it ties into the discussion of whether you can engage before the fall line when it is steep.

In austria they want you up-extending on steeps. To me this sounds like they dont want you to engage before the fall line in such terrain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost

I don't.  Some here define it as a move in the opposite direction to the direction that they wish to go or turn.  The topic has come up in the past when discussing shifting weight to the left ski in order to weight it more in a gliding wedge. (or heaven forbid a snowplow).
If you haven't been playing along for the last forty years, the snowplow was replaced at some point when I wasn't looking.  Because it stranded many people with a dependance on edging skills to turn them instead of developing good pivoting skills.   That, and because it seems many people taught snowplow turns as a braking movement with an inherent intent to stop going in a direction, instead of an intention to start going in another direction, and taught the snowplow itself as a braking maneuver.  I'm guessing these would have been level 1 instructors who apparently had not mastered the hockey stop yet.

Hahaa... yes, in order to hit a tennisball you have to backswing. I dont consider that a negative movement at all even thou you move the racket in the wrong direction. In fact how you backswing has all to do with how well you hit the ball. Same in skiing. You act ore react with balancing movements and that has nothing to do with where you are going or which way the slope is tilted. The faster or slower you go the more this is true .
tdk6, are you referring to a turn similar to a pedal jump turn, when you say that in Austria they want you to up extend on steeps?

So...we're making a turn on the right foot and our balance is predominantly over the right foot.  As we begin a turn in the other direction, that is turning on the left foot which at this point in the turn is the up hill foot there is a weight transfer to that foot with the balance centered over that foot.  Now, if we are counter balanced over the outside foot my question is DOES THE CENTER OF MASS MOVE UPHILL AT THE TIME OF THE WEIGHT TRASNFER AND COUNTER BALANCING OR DOES THE COM CONTINUE DOWN THE MOUNTAIN AS THE UPPER AND LOWER BODY SHIFT THERE RELATIVE POSITIONS  (cross over/ cross under)   TO THE COM?   DOES MOVING THE UPPER BODY  (counter balancing)   OVER THE NEW OUTSIDE (up hill) FOOT   ACTUALLY DISPLACE THE COM (up hill) FROM IT'S  DESCENT DOWN THE FALL LINE?   YM

Quote:
Originally Posted by yogaman

So...we're making a turn on the right foot and our balance is predominantly over the right foot.  As we begin a turn in the other direction, that is turning on the left foot which at this point in the turn is the up hill foot there is a weight transfer to that foot with the balance centered over that foot.  Now, if we are counter balanced over the outside foot my question is DOES THE CENTER OF MASS MOVE UPHILL AT THE TIME OF THE WEIGHT TRASNFER AND COUNTER BALANCING OR DOES THE COM CONTINUE DOWN THE MOUNTAIN AS THE UPPER AND LOWER BODY SHIFT THERE RELATIVE POSITIONS  (cross over/ cross under)   TO THE COM?   DOES MOVING THE UPPER BODY  (counter balancing)   OVER THE NEW OUTSIDE (up hill) FOOT   ACTUALLY DISPLACE THE COM (up hill) FROM IT'S  DESCENT DOWN THE FALL LINE?   YM

Not sure if this was a response to my post, but consider that in general the weight transfer can be well before the edge change, or way after. In the former case the weight transfers in a pure ILE could  move the CoM uphill, but in a pure OLR,  the answer would be no.

In the latter edge change case an outside push extension could move the CoM uphill but a weighted release would not.

It has been stated above ( twice) that counteracting and angulation are the same thing. They are NOT.The angultion comes from the feet (and up) and the counteracting comes from the waist.
It has also been said above that the Austrians tend to over-extend on steeps and that they don't want to engage before the fall line.Is there a video somewhere of an Austrian free skier or a WC skier that supports this statement?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tdk6

counter balance and angulation is the same thing...

Not necessarily. My definition of counter balancing is to make movements of any kind which counter balance against other movements to the inside, so that the CoM remains in balance. This could be hip angulation sure but it can also be other things. Even moving an arm can effect counter balancing. The act of counter balancing is not a pose, it is a balancing operation. Conversely I have seen people angulate like crazy at the hip and be horribly out of balance at the same time. Perhaps they are trying to keep their shoulders level for some reason. Those are not balancing operations and the results can be severely different. Counter balancing means achieve lateral balance, ideally over the outside ski, with movements that contribute to that, while making other movements that contribute to tipping the skis on edge.

Some people will say that hip angulation is an effective area of the body to focus on counter balancing movements and I don't disagree, but if the goal of hip angulation is anything other then to counter balance, then it easily becomes something different and even can detract from balancing efforts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bogatyr

It has been stated above ( twice) that counteracting and angulation are the same thing. They are NOT.The angultion comes from the feet (and up) and the counteracting comes from the waist.

I guess you mean counterbalance. As movements I cannot see that hip angulation and counterbalance are that different, again, "Counterbalancing is side-to-side tilting of the upper body at the waist or belt line" sounds pretty much like hip angulation to me. Now the "belief system" has a certain idea of what the DIRT of that movement should be, but that is another question IMO.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamt

I guess you mean counterbalance. As movements I cannot see that hip angulation and counterbalance are that different, again, "Counterbalancing is side-to-side tilting of the upper body at the waist or belt line" sounds pretty much like hip angulation to me. Now the "belief system" has a certain idea of what the DIRT of that movement should be, but that is another question IMO.
Teoretically the two movements can be isolated and that is why I said they were not the same movement.In real life however they only have meaning if they work together in harmony otherwise we are out of balance.

Why is it counter balance? Seems to me that its just movements to maintain and enhance pressure on the outside ski nothing counter about it.

fom

Quote:
Originally Posted by fatoldman

Why is it counter balance? Seems to me that its just movements to maintain and enhance pressure on the outside ski nothing counter about it.

fom
It is a counter because it conters the forces that want to bring you out of balance while you increase the edge angles.
That CB term was coined to refer unambiguously to a specific, precisely executed form of hip angulation. And similarly for CA. If you want to understand their names and functions, no one is going to explain them to you on EpicSki (correctly, that is.) You have to look elsewhere for the details of these unmentionables. To really grok them, you'd need to spend time on snow with the _______ of skiing or one of his acolytes.

Why not stop using his terminology and use more conventional ISIA / PSIA / CSIA or USSA / CSCF style terms? They are probably more widely understood both here and by your SS clinicians.
Many people out there create angulation by dropping the hip inside. This is particularly true when I hear them talking about keeping the torso upright or level shoulders, as tdk hinted at earlier and many peers I know think about it this way.

Dropping the hip inside to create angulation does not result in the same outcome. Completely the opposite actually, regardless of the angulated appearance. I don't care what two or three different terms you want to use but it's not the same thing

and by the way, the words "counter balance" are not trademarked, regardless of the fact that you know who uses this language to refer to very specific movements.  I have nothing against that, but those words can also be used in a completely generic sense to describe an intended outcome of making movements in a contrary direction to other movements so that balance is retained.  Someone walking a tightrope can use the same words to describe moving something on the left side to counter other things moving on the right side, so that balance is retained.  This is completely generic english language, there is no trademark there.  That system in question does use this generic language to refer to a specific limited set of movements, and that's fine, but that is not necessarily how I use it, I use it in the more generic sense...though their limited set of movements does get the job done, very very well.

alternatively, using the simple word "angulation" does not necessarily describe the desired outcome at all, which is to achieve balance.  As I described in the previous post, the word angulation can be used to describe other things, which are not all good.  Its a wholly inadquate term.  Talking about counter balance is far more useful, and I refuse to allow some splinter group declare ownership of this totally generic english language as a label that nobody else is allowed to use.  Its very effective language and I applaud them for using it, but it can refer to a broader set of movements then their system normally allows.

The truth of the matter is IN all the years  (52) I have been skiing, around coaching and racing and instruction, I have never once heard the term "counter balance" in reference to skiing. NEVER!

Well maybe you know who deserves credit for bringing this language to the surface because it does make absolute sense, even if nobody was using it before.  Nonetheless the word angulation describes nothing but a pose, and can mean anything from good movements to bad movements.  It has a place also, but just to be clear, it does not, on its own, describe what to do, why to do it, or how to do it...its wholly inadequate except for where people have learned how to to it properly and can refer to that word as a reference word for something that has been well learned and described through other means.  it is the act of counter balancing, anyone who says otherwise is being ignorant for the sake of disputing harb, which is stupid.

Anyway, those people avoiding this language are really foolish to ignore it..the language makes sense.  My only point is that it is not trademarked and regardless of that fact that HH and others may use it to refer to very specific movements they have engineered, it can also refer to other things which accomplish the same outcome of providing balance while tipping the skis, and more importantly it clarifies the the role and purpose of angulation in a way that the word "angulation" itself does not.

Edited by borntoski683 - 7/19/15 at 2:51pm
So ghost I have a ski book from 1947 that talks about braking and gliding wedges and they point out that if you are plowing snow it is the former and if you spread butter it is the later. They strongly discourage the plowing where snow builds up under the skis. This should explain the change in terms. Glide verses braking.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Return Home
Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching