or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

width of stance - Page 3

post #61 of 74
Yoga, wider is more stable but the trade off is less agility. Notice absent from that is any mention of subjectives like "better".
Those sorts of labels demonstrate a rigid either / or mindset. Functional stances are continuously variable because the terrain we are negotiating is so variable and we keep changing direction as we make our way down that slope. That doesn't mean a theoretical best stance doesn't exist but it is a moment to moment thing and it changes from moment to moment.

The adoption of a single stance width has been discussed many times here and it has led to all sorts of misguided advice. Look at the montages I posted. World class skiers who know a thing or two about what works "best" showing a wide variety of functional stances. None are one footed though. Why aren't they using one footed stances? It's not because they cannot perform one footed turns or maintain ultra narrow, or ultra wide stances in their turns.

They know the one size fits all thinking produces rigid ineffective performance.
Edited by justanotherskipro - 3/12/16 at 5:36am
post #62 of 74

I sometimes feel like I ski best when I'm on a pitch that I know well, the conditions are good and I'm trying to go as hard as I can and stay in control. That probably means I'm doing it all wrong and with no style but it certainly feels good.

 

I don't have the video (next year) but I would guess those runs involve a certain amount of two footed skiing. In my case that may be due to the fact that using just one of my skinny legs at a time doesn't get me down the mountain. Perhaps even world class athletes run out of leg strength when they're trying to shave a couple of 10ths off their time... hence the wider two footed stance.

 

Here's another thought, has anyone gone to the trouble of actually attaching a sensor array to a skier and his equipment? Just how much is that inside ski bending on a particular turn? I'm sure there's a world of data to obsess over. Some of it might mean something useful.

post #63 of 74
A lot of studies have been published over the years. Usually out of universities in ski country. Austria, France, Vermont, Montana, Japan, all have active programs where that level of study happens. By comparison Epicski.com is not where those studies are published and information here is not that detailed. Every so often one of us memtions one of those sources but in general most gag on that level of information.
USSA, CSIA, PSIA, and all the national ski accociations are a better source for finding those articles.
post #64 of 74
Fuller, wc skiers don't have a wide two footed stance. In the apex of the turn, at those high g forces, all or almost all of the weight is balanced over the outside ski.
post #65 of 74
post #66 of 74
Yes, slyder, that's a good picture, narrow stance.
post #67 of 74

Is it narrow or functional.

post #68 of 74
Both
post #69 of 74
Would you say she has some weight on the inside board?
post #70 of 74
Yeah,1 percent.
post #71 of 74
It's slalom.
Anyway..
We're really talking about a max difference of what, 3 inches? The whole issue seems a bit overblown. Ironically, people so concerned go way too wide in places it's not good. Like in moguls.

But other places, like the ocean, wide is the way to go. At least for now.

Ski boots and poles. Not Photoshopped.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog View Post

Chuck Patterson with Starr Surf Skis:

Photo by Mike Lopaka Jones, Azhiaziam.com                                                                  source: http://www.starrsurfskis.com/



                               http://www.starrsurfskis.com/
post #72 of 74
Honestly, the hand on the snow extends the width like a blocking pole plant would but the focus on the legs ignores the hand on the snow. Leading to an inaccurate conclusion about foot to foot weight, stance width, and what are functional stances. Include the hand, talk about why it is on the snow and what it contributes to her lateral balancing efforts.
Edited by justanotherskipro - 3/14/16 at 6:27am
post #73 of 74

Vertical + lateral seperation = stance width = the area we call the BoS = everything between our contact points with the snow. Exactly what percentage of weight bearing happens at each point of contact needs quantification but it is never a constant. Leading to the question about the net effect that point of contact has on our overall stance and balance, or outside ski grip. All the talk about 100% weight bearing assumes skiers cannot create enough edge grip without that much weight being placed on the outside ski. That just isn't true in most situations,
Edited by justanotherskipro - 3/14/16 at 6:48am
post #74 of 74
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by justanotherskipro View Post

Yoga, wider is more stable but the trade off is less agility. Notice absent from that is any mention of subjectives like "better".
Those sorts of labels demonstrate a rigid either / or mindset. Functional stances are continuously variable because the terrain we are negotiating is so variable and we keep changing direction as we make our way down that slope. That doesn't mean a theoretical best stance doesn't exist but it is a moment to moment thing and it changes from moment to moment.

The adoption of a single stance width has been discussed many times here and it has led to all sorts of misguided advice. Look at the montages I posted. World class skiers who know a thing or two about what works "best" showing a wide variety of functional stances. None are one footed though. Why aren't they using one footed stances? It's not because they cannot perform one footed turns or maintain ultra narrow, or ultra wide stances in their turns.

They know the one size fits all thinking produces rigid ineffective performance.
 Sorry for the slow response but have been skiing Austria past week.    The only time I coach stance width is when the skier is unable to accomplish a specific task, for example, garlands balanced on the LTE or BTE, because the stance width is too wide, otherwise I let the stance fall where it may.  As I have mentioned before, boot set up, probably contributes more to stance width than most under stand.     If I do coach stance width in specific conditions such as powder and bumps it us generally for a narrower stance.  YM  
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching