or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Another Wedge thread - Page 2

post #31 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by marznc View Post
 


Not an instructor and long past beginner lessons . . . I'm guessing that DTP is Direct To Parallel and WFP must include Wedge and Parallel but what does the F stand for?

 

Probably a typo. Should be WTP.

post #32 of 56

Wedge First Progression ?

post #33 of 56

Ghost - might be. Because there are no guarantees the student will ever make it past the wedge ;)

post #34 of 56

WTP is a myth.

post #35 of 56

Yes Ghost a wedge first progression was exactly what I meant with the WFP abbreviation, sorry for any confusion. I was in between work duties and used acronyms in spite of not liking them very much.

post #36 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by skiatansky View Post
 

 

What percentage of your students do you take on the DTP progression?​

Interesting question and to be honest within the context of the skiers relevant to this thread, every new skier I work with is exposed to it to some extent.  Same goes for an introduction to wedging though. I let them decide which works better rather than espouse a personal preference based on politics, or allegiance to a particular organization. But I am unusual because I am fully certified in three different ski organizations, so my managers give me a lot of latitude when it comes to designing a customized lesson plan with my students. To be fair here, each organization has their own unique viewpoint and each have commissioned multiple university level studies to back up their opinions. Although in the end no one organization can legitimately lay claim to exclusive knowledge and universal acceptance of their theories and methods. So while we might see evolutionary adaptations due to ski design changes, in the end the skis still need to turn left and right on whatever snow surface we choose to ski. Beyond that we still use the same body we did on our last pair of skis, the snow is still the same snow we skied back then, and the forces we encounter are still the same forces we encountered back then. So all this talk about ancient progressions verses modern ones is a bit silly because it assumes more has changed than actually has. I am not saying that to bust your chops though, I just feel that premise needs to be openly discussed. If you could expand on what you feel has changed and to what degree it has changed, I am sure many here would be willing to listen to what you have to say. Maybe not in this wedge thread though, Epic brought up the subject and I feel we owe it to him to keep this discussion relevant to his original premise.

post #37 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by justanotherskipro View Post
 
But I am unusual because I am fully certified in three different ski organizations, so my managers give me a lot of latitude when it comes to designing a customized lesson plan with my students. To be fair here, each organization has their own unique viewpoint and each have commissioned multiple university level studies to back up their opinions.

 

Fully certified as in the highest level possible for 3 ski organizations?

post #38 of 56

I did some switch wedge turns the other day at Breck.  In full disclosure, this was not my first time skiing backwards (got my FS I two seasons ago), but I don't spend a ton of time skiing switch.  

 

I found that I was mostly using foot to foot and upper body rotation (like many of our student).  I might be wise, but I am not an owl when it comes to neck mobility, so I think the upper body rotation came from looking over my outside shoulder in an effort to see where I was going, but (like many) I found that the upper body rotation did "work"

post #39 of 56
Skiatansky, I can certainly send you my ski resume but the greater point was through a combination of experience and education my lesson planning is different from that of our new hires who we ask to follow our scripted progressions until they have more experience. There is nothing unusual about that though, most ski schools operate along those same lines and the certification pathway is about gaining the experience that will make it easier for the ski school managers to trust their coaches to be more creative while still operating within the parameters they set for the entire school. I hope that explains why I do not think in terms of percentages as much as in the appropriateness of any and all of the activities I use during a lesson. Meagan and Katy wrote about this in the 2001 Alpine and Core Concepts Manuals where they coined the analogy of crossing a stream using a non linear "Stepping Stones" approach rather than a straight line path directly across a stream. In any case I only mentioned this to demonstrate the idea that I think about customization of a lesson plan far more than most of our newer coaches and how I rarely if ever consider percentages of DTP or WFP since all of my students are exposed to both to some extent. Nor do I set a progression as an agenda, how I proceed in piecing together a lesson plan really does depends on the choices a student makes throughout the entire lesson and we revisit those choices multiple times during the day (DTP, WFP, or a hybrid of both). Which in my opinion renders the question of percentages rather moot. My advice is always to follow your schools preferred methods and to stay open to the idea that multiple learning pathways exist even inside those parameters. Getting hung up on the value of Wedges, Wedge Christies, and just about any other maneuver just seems to miss the point that we need to be the experts who can use all of our tools equally well, our customers deserve that and in many cases demand it.

Besides Epic started this thread to discuss the merits of active experimentation and varied skill blends within the framework of wedges and switch wedges. I have added a set of movement descriptors that allows us to understand and encourage gliding wedges verses braking wedges. I have also mentioned the idea that there are common elements that exist in all ski maneuvers. It is through acquainting ourselves with these commonalities that we can design effective learning segments that build on each other and eventually allow us as instructors and students to leave the rigid linear progression idea behind. I would like to close by mentioning Maslow's and Blooms pyramids are perfect examples of how we can construct a great lesson plan and they also describes how we grow as teachers. Lateral learning activities is a term for this exploration at any particular level, BTW. Hopefully we can get back to that discussion of experimenting with wedges now.
Edited by justanotherskipro - 12/20/15 at 12:19pm
post #40 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by justanotherskipro View Post

Skiatansky, I can certainly send you my ski resume but the greater point was through a combination of experience and education my lesson planning is different from that of our new hires who we ask to follow our scripted progressions until they have more experience.

 

You said you are fully certified in THREE ski organizations which means the highest level of cert in each one. What are they?

post #41 of 56
Everyone here knows that as I have shared that multiple times. Why not visit my profile instead of try to sidetrack this thread.
post #42 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by justanotherskipro View Post

Everyone here knows that as I have shared that multiple times. Why not visit my profile instead of try to sidetrack this thread.

 

Its not part of your profile that I can find.

post #43 of 56
Really you are going to disrupt this thread again over information I have shared many many times before. I have no secrets here, NSP3, PSIA3, USSA200. Staff trainer for KSRS. Satisfied? Now it is your turn my friend, your profile is conspicuously empty of any information about you, care to share your pedegree before we stop interrupting this thread?
post #44 of 56
So, people can rip on instructors and the demo team and I can't defend them? Maybe you should be deleting the antagonistic posts instead of someone defending against them. Or, maybe I should just go back to skiing instead of listening to 20 different opinions on angles and 20 different opinions on bootfitting. This is like slow skiers that love to say that speed hides flaws. Who cares?
post #45 of 56
There's a difference between attempting to defend the team and successfully defending them.

Attempt away! Perhaps you could start by rationalizing why they should keep a team member who can't skate her skis across the flats. (They are the nation's supposed best). After you're warmed up, explain why it's good that they got totally owned by instructors from other countries in all of the last few Interskis. And for your encore proceed to defend their frequent, misguided use of the pronoun I in clinics -- I want to see _______.
post #46 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharpedges View Post

There's a difference between attempting to defend the team and successfully defending them.

Attempt away! Perhaps you could start by rationalizing why they should keep a team member who can't skate her skis across the flats. (They are the nation's supposed best). After you're warmed up, explain why it's good that they got totally owned by instructors from other countries in all of the last few Interskis. And for your encore proceed to defend their frequent, misguided use of the pronoun I in clinics -- I want to see _______.

All good points, I suppose, and a much more constructive way to say it than the post that raised my passion to an unconstructive level. But, i know for a fact that some days im on "it" and other days...not so much.
post #47 of 56
I've never heard of NSP3. I was heavily involved with NSP for many years. I am still a member and maintain my OEC.
post #48 of 56
Basic(1), senior(2), certified(3)...tpj
post #49 of 56
Which patrol do you work with?
post #50 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkiSchoolPros View Post
 

I did some switch wedge turns the other day at Breck.  In full disclosure, this was not my first time skiing backwards (got my FS I two seasons ago), but I don't spend a ton of time skiing switch.  

 

I found that I was mostly using foot to foot and upper body rotation (like many of our student).  I might be wise, but I am not an owl when it comes to neck mobility, so I think the upper body rotation came from looking over my outside shoulder in an effort to see where I was going, but (like many) I found that the upper body rotation did "work"

what is FS?   YM

post #51 of 56
Freestyle I believe ...?
post #52 of 56
Anyway back to the subject, Wedge, wedge entry, matching and moving from opposing edge usage to corresponding edge usage is a process. The inconvenient truth here is wedge progressions exists for several reasons. Some students find it more palatable due to their fear of sliding out of control down the hill. Perhaps it is a directive from the SSD, or SAM based on their volume, or limited amount of appropriate terrain. I know when we are busy we do get asked to use narrower corridors for all of our learning activities and that sometimes leads to less garland / traverse / fan activities. It also may be due to pressure to move a class to harder terrain to accommodate another class that is needing the space currently being used by the first group. Or the class itself may demand to move to steeper terrain out of boredom. Whatever the reason, having that option certainly is better than not having that option. So what are some of the benefits of a WFP?

First and perhaps foremost is the RoM issue. Beginners are less adept at moving through a wide range of motion accurately. Gross motor errors are significantly more prevalent at this stage of their development. Just like when we learned to walk. So a wide and stable platform accommodates these errors with less risk of falling.

Second would be added friction from the skidding skis. While we try to coach slow line fast, too much speed too early can be too much for some folks. Especially if the slope is a bit too steep and you cannot take up a lot of width. The larger steering angles and oppositional edges limit their speed by introducing more resistance (drag).

Third would be practice blending skills and the experimenting Epic mentioned. Way back in the day we stressed a rotary first approach but that gave way to an edge first approach. What we created was a bunch of edge locked skiers who kept colliding with things and each other because they were parking and riding. Returning to a more middle of the road approach was a decision many SSDs made.

Fourth would be traditions, yes it is almost silly to hang onto an idea for this reason but those folks signing my checks over the past forty years often exercise their authority through setting agendas about what they want to see out on their hill. Bottom line here is if they pay you they certainly have a big say in what they want you to do. Can't fight Rome...

So while I am sure many here will try to argue each of those points, I can tell you I have heard both sides here at Epic and in Trainer training in four different schools. (Loveland, CB, Aspen, Keystone if you must know Skiatansky / TPJ) In the end I do as I am asked with the new hires because that is what the School has set as the agenda for that day and they are the customer paying for the clinic. It's really no different than cert 1&2 training and mentoring. We can approach our presentations to the students a variety of ways but the agenda includes a particular set of activities and information that must be covered with the hope that limited lesson plan helps prepare them for their cert test.
post #53 of 56
I actually brought a wedge into my teaching for the first time in years today to help an 11 year old student ski one of her first real black runs down a cruddy bump run today. It took away the fear of committing down hill, helped keep the skis from running away and brought her confidence. The angle of the slope forced the match and after a few turns was beginning to link them up parrallel. I tried DTP first, however.
...for what it's worth...
post #54 of 56
Interesting means to a end. Glad it worked.
post #55 of 56

Not a big fan of wedges myself, but agree that it is a useful tool in the box for any skiier, especially when slowing down towards the lift lines!

 

Sometimes when I'm having trouble after a long layoff and getting back into skiing, I'll do a few wedge christies at the start of the day just as a low-risk reminder on what it feels like to do a skidded/pivoted turn entry and also getting over the outside ski. Granted you could do all this parallel skiing, but the emhpasis is on "low-risk!" I find that once I'm parallel, the temptation is too great to immediately start carving and laying my edges down - I don't really have the patience to do slow skidded parallel skiing (probably because my legs and feet are set for carving but I'm forced to stand straight to lay my skis flat) but for some reason I don't mind doing wedge christies for a few turns.

 

But as someone who learned skiing through wedge christies in the 80s, my biggest gripes are that it doesn't punish you if you are backseat driving (took me a long time to get over this one) and it teaches you to turn based on "pressure" and "pivoting" and really leaves out any dynamic balancing or feet tipping. My biggest gripe, and I'm still struggling with this, is the huge emphasis wedges placed on your outside leg for steering, and completely disregards the role the inside leg should play in turning (in fact, you do the exact opposite as you are loading the BTE of your inside ski).

 

So. hard. to. break. old. habits.

post #56 of 56
Skiing has changed over the years and equipment changes have played a significant role is those changes. Same can be said for inbounds trail maintenence. Sidestepping and boot packing a run to knock the air out of the snowpack is pretty much a thing of the past. So is slipping an entire run to smooth out the snow surface.
All of that adds up to a different world and how a gliding wedge is performed now days is directly dependent on where and on what equipment we perform the maneuver.
Gone are the requirements of big upper body moves and big foot to foot weight shifts to create enough edge purchase. What remains are the subtle, passive weight shifts due to centrifugal forces. What also remains is the opposing edge requirement and partial edge engagement. Sadly most over do their movements and the result is a hitch in their giddyup. What is overlooked is at the base level a first timer cannot accurately move through a wide range of motion. Their movements resemble a toddler and like a toddler they struggle with equalibrium.
Which has led to debates about why do all the flatwork activities to promote mobility just to end up in a wedge where mobility is severely compromised. The answer is some folks simply are not mentally ready to use all that mobility as they slide down a hill. They need a little time to get comfortable with the sensation of gliding across the snow and using subtle movements to control their line and speed. Others embrace that gliding sensation and quickly move to more parallel turns. There is no one learning pathway that accomodates both of these student types, so the wedge lives on as a useful option for some.
Interestingly enough we as trainers realize the new hires need a limited script to follow until they reach about a mid cert 2 teaching level. It is why so many instructors at these lower cert levels ask repeatedly for a set progression they can plug and play. In that way we perpetuate the rote regurgitation models PSIA claims to not endorse but most ski schools use. The fact that so few instructors go on to become full certs means many never get to the point that their administrators openly encourage them to be as creative as a full cert instructor. To me that additional study allows an instructor to see the connections between activities. Nor does it end there, advanced educator accreditations are all about researching the commonality of our fundamental movements.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching