or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › PSIA Certification Process - Fair? Rigged? What's the real story?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

PSIA Certification Process - Fair? Rigged? What's the real story? - Page 9  

post #241 of 268

Guys this is becoming a bit personal, ad hominum if I may say so.  

post #242 of 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkiMangoJazz View Post
 

Guys this is becoming a bit personal, ad hominum if I may say so.  

 

I was going to say ridiculous, but I suppose that's a nicer way of putting it. 

post #243 of 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pacmantwoskis View Post

This is encouraging and discouraging to hear.

... because the organization not nearly as vertically integrated as SMJ incorrectly alludes to and you appear to believe. Do you really think that in the example above ideas from other organizations aren't passed along? And could I PM you the name of a friend and mentor who teaches in your part of the world?
post #244 of 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by oisin View Post
 


Well for one thing you seem to accept that PSIA is immune to change or to interaction with others around the world. That is anything but the case in my opinion. You are aware of Interski I assume, are you aware that the PSIA demo team has been providing coaching assistance to the US Ski Team? You say that the PSIA teaching model is a flawed model with flawed checkpoints but have been unable to offer any credible proof of that except to reveal your own ignorance of ski technique.

So again, what is the origin of your presumed expertise in these matters?


Even more to the point, the PSIA National Academy, which going on right now at Breckenridge, includes not only current and former members of the PSIA demo team, but also guests from the Canadian, Czech, Australian, New Zealand, and Swiss demo teams.  How is that being insular?  Jonathan Ballou, a current US demo team member and head of Rocky Mountain's Alpine Committee, is also an examiner in New Zealand.  He teaches in New Zealand, with a bunch of NZSIA and CSIA folk (including current and former demo team members from those countries).  Robin Barnes and Michael Rogan, both long-time PSIA demo team members, both are in management of Portillo, and have extensive experience with international staff there.  Aspen has more members of national demo teams on its staff than any other resort in the world, and these folk influence one another.  This cross-border exchange has found its way into the PSIA technical manual.

 

Perhaps your real problem is that he who must not be named is not embraced by PSIA.  That being said, that individual did have a relationship with the Aspen ski school and some of his concepts have found their way into our thinking.  And Mr. Ballou is our head of training...

 

BTW, you seem to imply that dynamic skiing is recovery.  Perhaps you should look at the tryouts video for the Rocky Mountain demo team nominees.  What sets apart the demo team members is exactly that -- their ability to ski at the edge, blow up, and recover.

 

Mike

post #245 of 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pacmantwoski


That is excellent to hear, YM!

You mention that you are given lessons appropriate for your experience. Could you elaborate on that?

I have  a special interest in high performance skiing (viz. big angles and good traction on hard snow).  When my supervisors have a student that needs that sort of attention, I often get the call.   I am always  left completely alone to teach and coach how I see fit at all skier levels.  I am also well thought of by most of my colleagues as someone who knows a  little about what's important RE:  ski technique.     YM

post #246 of 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by oisin View Post
 

. My point was that not only does it allow a skier to ski and balance comfortably on flat skis


Actually balancing comfortably on flat skis  as it relates to width of stance is a function of boot set up.  25 years ago I was associated with a program where we had a pair of skis with demo bindings which had 3 degree cant shims under the bindings.  We used these skis for testing athletes RE alignment.  Besides that, the skis were an opportunity for coaches to explore the performance  ramifications of, and the  appearance of making changes in alignment.  This experience was inspired directly by Warren Witherall.   Adding cant (thick side inside)  will naturally move the feet closer together and softening the alignment (thick side outside will naturally move the feet apart.)   If you experiment on yourself, you will find that when you manipulate the canting you will naturally respond by using a stance width that is comfortable.    That's why some skiers cannot widen or narrow their stance regardless how many folks tell them they should.  It's the boots.  YM

post #247 of 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkiMangoJazz View Post

Guys this is becoming a bit personal, ad hominum if I may say so.  

Not personal, but when you preclude the posibilities of learning within a particular organization and apply your singular experience as the norm for an entire organization, 2 or 3 of us are simply saying that while your experience is unfortunate, it isnt universal. That's all. I'd happily ski with everone posting here. I'm certain we'd have fun and learn from each other.smile.gif
post #248 of 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by oisin View Post
 


These are some pretty tall statements from someone who is not an instructor and who has demonstrated his ignorance by his remarks.

What exactly is the origin of your presumed expertise?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by oisin View PostYou say that the PSIA teaching model is a flawed model with flawed checkpoints but have been unable to offer any credible proof of that except to reveal your own ignorance of ski technique.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post


Not personal,

 

 

 

Ignorance is a personal attack isn't it?

post #249 of 268

If you've mentioned this already then sorry, but what experience have you had taking lessons? And, I guess I'm asking both lessons taken ever, and lessons taken since you reached the level that you feel you need more than PSIA instruction can offer? There are frequent recommendations for good instructors given here. Have you ever tried one of those? Have you actually given it a go with a high level PSIA instructor or have you only, as someone just said, peeked over the fence?

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pacmantwoskis View Post

Is the organization immune to requests for change and criticism from would-be-but-no-thank-you-until-you-are-offering-something-better customers?

I may not be a known entity, but I would be a paying customer. There are many would-be paying customers(with lots of cash) that are currently lesson?-not-a-chance-types. I'm not suggesting some unknown random Joe-schmoes be brought in. The coaches I have suggested are well-known around the world, and yes, some are members of an organization based in the United States, and others are members of other national ski organizations not based in the United States.

Yes, I would eventually like to get into instruction, but I can never in good conscience intentionally teach from a flawed model with flawed checkpoints. I would be doing my students a disservice just as if I lied by telling a music student that the Phrygian mode is a series of whole steps
post #250 of 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkiMangoJazz View Post







Ignorance is a personal attack isn't it?

Im not following .... Can you clarify?
post #251 of 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkiMangoJazz View Post
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ignorance is a personal attack isn't it?

Is it? I'm not calling the person ignorant just questioning his expertise upon a subject for which he has issued strong, even dismissive opinions. So far I am not seeing a level of knowledge about the subject that justifies his conclusions, hence the request to provide more information as to the source of his conclusions.

post #252 of 268

Well you were calling him ignorant.  Twice.  whatever.

post #253 of 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkiMangoJazz View Post
 

Well you were calling him ignorant.  Twice.  whatever.

No, ignorance of a particular topic does not imply a person is ignorant. I am sure a person is a great deal more than his knowledge of one thing. I am ignorant of Mandarin. I couldn't read or speak Chinese if my life depended on it. Would you conclude then that I am ignorant generally?

In this case the person has been highly critical of something he or she appears to know little about hence my criticism and my question: "what is the source of your presumed expertise?"

In other words enlighten me, persuade me? That is a discussion not a personal attack.

post #254 of 268
Just curious / under the new Epicski is the skier who cannot be named and the teaching system that cannot be mentioned still off limits?

It appears most of the Epic PSIA gurus who forced the ban initially have moved on and the Epic camps are dead thus there are no competition issues remaining.
post #255 of 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by oisin View Post

No, ignorance of a particular topic does not imply a person is ignorant. I am sure a person is a great deal more than his knowledge of one thing. I am ignorant of Mandarin. I couldn't read or speak Chinese if my life depended on it. Would you conclude then that I am ignorant generally?
In this case the person has been highly critical of something he or she appears to know little about hence my criticism and my question: "what is the source of your presumed expertise?"
In other words enlighten me, dissuade me? That is a discussion not a personal attack.
If you cannot fathom how hip-to-snow with little horizontal separation without falling over is possible at the speeds many of us ski, then I would suggest that perhaps it is you who has some research and wood-shedding (on snow drilling) to do. I also have been getting the feeling that English is not your native language, so I have been keeping quiet when it seems that your posts and understanding of other's post have been lost in translation.
post #256 of 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by yogaman View Post
 


Actually balancing comfortably on flat skis  as it relates to width of stance is a function of boot set up.  25 years ago I was associated with a program where we had a pair of skis with demo bindings which had 3 degree cant shims under the bindings.  We used these skis for testing athletes RE alignment.  Besides that, the skis were an opportunity for coaches to explore the performance  ramifications of, and the  appearance of making changes in alignment.  This experience was inspired directly by Warren Witherall.   Adding cant (thick side inside)  will naturally move the feet closer together and softening the alignment (thick side outside will naturally move the feet apart.)   If you experiment on yourself, you will find that when you manipulate the canting you will naturally respond by using a stance width that is comfortable.    That's why some skiers cannot widen or narrow their stance regardless how many folks tell them they should.  It's the boots.  YM

Or the legs and the feet. Alignment is based upon an assessment of an individual's personal configuration and it can be done by cants under the bindings as well as by alterations to the boots..

post #257 of 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by hrstrat57 View Post

Just curious / under the new Epicski is the skier who cannot be named and the teaching system that cannot be mentioned still off limits?

It appears most of the Epic PSIA gurus who forced the ban initially have moved on and the Epic camps are dead thus there are no competition issues remaining.

mod note: ban is still in place and that's not how it went down

post #258 of 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkiMangoJazz View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by oisin View Post
 


These are some pretty tall statements from someone who is not an instructor and who has demonstrated his ignorance by his remarks.

What exactly is the origin of your presumed expertise?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by oisin View PostYou say that the PSIA teaching model is a flawed model with flawed checkpoints but have been unable to offer any credible proof of that except to reveal your own ignorance of ski technique.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post


Not personal,

 

 

 

Ignorance is a personal attack isn't it?


Ignorance is not an attack. It is a proper word. Stupid is a personal attack. Ignorant/Ignorance refers to a lock of personal knowledge regarding some subject/s.

post #259 of 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pacmantwoskis View Post


If you cannot fathom how hip-to-snow with little horizontal separation without falling over is possible at the speeds many of us ski, then I would suggest that perhaps it is you who has some research and wood-shedding (on snow drilling) to do. I also have been getting the feeling that English is not your native language, so I have been keeping quiet when it seems that your posts and understanding of other's post have been lost in translation.

Its a pretty simple thing to "fathom". I'm sure many could ski that way and not fall over but it isn't what is normally described as good skiing. Outside ski dominance is generally regarded as a component of good skiing. Tell me then how then you can achieve significant inclination while retaining outside dominance (or even keep that ski on the snow) without separating the feet. Perhaps you are confusing what is meant by stance width with the  distance between the legs in which case your confusion is explained. That is not what is generally meant by stance width though. I suggest you read Ron LeMaster on the subject of stance width. He is regarded by many as an authority on skiing http://http://www.ronlemaster.com/presentations/WhistlerBlackcomb-1-2004.pdf. See "Width of Stance" under "Effects of Inclination on Stance" for clarification.

 

Ok so are we on the same page now?:)

 

I'm still interested in the source of your expertise that leads you to dismiss PSIA and it's teaching system. Have you taught? Are you knowledgeable about the teaching system? Have you some experience with the organization?

 

Forgive me if I've seemed harsh but I don't see where you are coming from.

post #260 of 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by oisin View Post

Its a pretty simple thing to "fathom". I'm sure many could ski that way and not fall over but it isn't what is normally described as good skiing. Outside ski dominance is generally regarded as a component of good skiing. Tell me then how then you can achieve significant inclination while retaining outside dominance (or even keep that ski on the snow) without separating the feet. Perhaps you are confusing what is meant by stance width with the  distance between the legs in which case your confusion is explained. That is not what is generally meant by stance width though. I suggest you read Ron LeMaster on the subject of stance width. He is regarded by many as an authority on skiing [URL=http://http//www.ronlemaster.com/presentations/WhistlerBlackcomb-1-2004.pdf]http://http://www.ronlemaster.com/presentations/WhistlerBlackcomb-1-2004.pdf[/URL]. See "Width of Stance" under "Effects of Inclination on Stance" for clarification.

Ok so are we on the same page now?smile.gif

I'm still interested in the source of your expertise that leads you to dismiss PSIA and it's teaching system. Have you taught? Are you knowledgeable about the teaching system? Have you some experience with the organization?

Forgive me if I've seemed harsh but I don't see where you are coming from.

No, we are not on the same page.
I never said anything about not separating the feet. The feet must separate to create vertical separation. How many times must I repeat: little to no horizontal separation, if the edge of my inside ski is touching my lower leg just below my knee, there is no horizontal separation yet the edge angles can be huge.

http://www.modernskiracing.com/Stance.php
If you scroll down the page linked, you will find two pictures of what you, based on what you are telling me, clearly must believe are not good skiing. A few things to note from the page: "track width is not stance width"(which seems to be causing you some confusion), the green line is horizontal separation, and the yellow line is vertical separation.

Yes, I have taught. I have had to undo the bad instruction given to friends who paid for "professionals" to teach them. I have taught never-ever friends and family to prevent them from learning the nonsense that other friends were not so lucky to avoid.

Shall I clean off and reset the chessboard yet again for you?
post #261 of 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pacmantwoskis View Post


No, we are not on the same page.
I never said anything about not separating the feet. The feet must separate to create vertical separation. How many times must I repeat: little to no horizontal separation, if the edge of my inside ski is touching my lower leg just below my knee, there is no horizontal separation yet the edge angles can be huge.

http://www.modernskiracing.com/Stance.php
If you scroll down the page linked, you will find two pictures of what you, based on what you are telling me, clearly must believe are not good skiing. A few things to note from the page: "track width is not stance width"(which seems to be causing you some confusion), the green line is horizontal separation, and the yellow line is vertical separation.

Yes, I have taught. I have had to undo the bad instruction given to friends who paid for "professionals" to teach them. I have taught never-ever friends and family to prevent them from learning the nonsense that other friends were not so lucky to avoid.

Shall I clean off and reset the chessboard yet again for you?

So you've taught a few friends and family and you are qualified to condemn PSIA, the Teaching System and PSIA demos?

 

Several of us have been discussing stance width and you have been referring to "horizontal separation" which is not necessarily horizontal apparently and a matter of how far apart the legs are. The implication is that your concern is with functionality of stance so perhaps you can understand why I thought you were referring to stance width  I get it but I don't understand your fascination with skiing with your legs together or why you think it is important to good skiing. You have crticized PSIA demos because you seem to feel the demonstrator's legs were too far apart. You have advocated learning to ski with the legs together. What reasons do you have for this?

 

What must you think of this guy?

Since we are discussing skiing technique, I am still awaiting your explanation of  "The problem you mention of tripping over the inside foot doesn't occur if one uses certain movements to initiate a turn.

What certain movements are you referring to?
 
Back on the subject of your condemnation of PSIA though, what experience do you have with the organization? I understand you have been rejected by your ski school but what does this have to do with PSIA?
 
No need to reset your chess board. We are not playing chess.
post #262 of 268
I think this thread has run its course. Lot's of talking around things. Pac, do the HH thing. Clearly you need a foil... as does HH. FWIW, like yourself, I've corrected poorly taught lessons... in more than one organization. Very few things in life are perfectly vertically integrated...or are perfect at all.
Edited by markojp - 4/14/16 at 8:43pm
post #263 of 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by oisin View Post

So you've taught a few friends and family and you are qualified to condemn PSIA, the Teaching System and PSIA demos?

Several of us have been discussing stance width and you have been referring to "horizontal separation" which is not necessarily horizontal apparently and a matter of how far apart the legs are. The implication is that your concern is with functionality of stance so perhaps you can understand why I thought you were referring to stance width  I get it but I don't understand your fascination with skiing with your legs together or why you think it is important to good skiing. You have crticized PSIA demos because you seem to feel the demonstrator's legs were too far apart. You have advocated learning to ski with the legs together. What reasons do you have for this?

What must you think of this guy?


Since we are discussing skiing technique, I am still awaiting your explanation of  "The problem you mention of tripping over the inside foot doesn't occur if one uses certain movements to initiate a turn.
What certain movements are you referring to?
 
Back on the subject of your condemnation of PSIA though, what experience do you have with the organization? I understand you have been rejected by your ski school but what does this have to do with PSIA?
 
No need to reset your chess board. We are not playing chess.

Which movements of the foot do you think he means? Let's call this thread what it is now... The organization that cannot be named vs PSIA... damned shame really. Haven't been involved in a ski org that I haven't learned something from.
post #264 of 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post




Which movements of the foot do you think he means? Let's call this thread what it is now... The organization that cannot be named vs PSIA... damned shame really. Haven't been involved in a ski org that I haven't learned something from.

Yes but I thought he could explain the movements in an objective fashion. I would enjoy a thoughtful discussion by knowledgeable people concerning the relative merits of PSIA and its teaching system and the other outfit but these always seems to degenerate into a mud slinging contest that fails to bring any new light to the subject and merely establishes bias. I imagine that there are insights to be gained. Its never been clear to me though that the other guy's system has any appreciable difference beyond the kind of hype and competitive self promotion one might expect of what seems to be  largely a self interested for-profit venture. On the other hand that guy seems to understand how to fit a ski teaching system into a business context, something which PSIA might learn from. 

post #265 of 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by H2OnSnow View Post
 

If you've mentioned this already then sorry, but what experience have you had taking lessons? And, I guess I'm asking both lessons taken ever, and lessons taken since you reached the level that you feel you need more than PSIA instruction can offer? There are frequent recommendations for good instructors given here. Have you ever tried one of those? Have you actually given it a go with a high level PSIA instructor or have you only, as someone just said, peeked over the fence?

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pacmantwoskis View Post

Is the organization immune to requests for change and criticism from would-be-but-no-thank-you-until-you-are-offering-something-better customers?

I may not be a known entity, but I would be a paying customer. There are many would-be paying customers(with lots of cash) that are currently lesson?-not-a-chance-types. I'm not suggesting some unknown random Joe-schmoes be brought in. The coaches I have suggested are well-known around the world, and yes, some are members of an organization based in the United States, and others are members of other national ski organizations not based in the United States.

Yes, I would eventually like to get into instruction, but I can never in good conscience intentionally teach from a flawed model with flawed checkpoints. I would be doing my students a disservice just as if I lied by telling a music student that the Phrygian mode is a series of whole steps


Hey @Pacmantwoskis, how about this? There are definitely bad instructors out there. Have you ever tried to work with a good PSIA instructor?

post #266 of 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by oisin View Post
 

Think of a good boot as a kind of cast that attempts to immobilize the foot in this way.

 

This used to be the thinking 20 years ago. Not the case today.

All great skiers have the pressure on the inside of the outside foot when they grip, and the boot must allow enough RoM to do that.

post #267 of 268

mod note: sorry guys - we fell for the same old ruse again. This thread should not be about letting someone who has never taught a real ski lesson rag about everything that is wrong about PSIA (there is another forum that is more appropriate for that). This thread is about the certification process and we've strayed from that topic far enough. Since I've been active in this thread I will wait for another mod to take the appropriate action. We're up to 9 pages and that is more than enough in my book.

post #268 of 268

Mod note: Thread locked.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching
This thread is locked  
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › PSIA Certification Process - Fair? Rigged? What's the real story?