Originally Posted by Pierre
I use to revel in these kinds of threads, now I find them confusing and am not sure the posters really know what they are trying to describe. If you cannot explain it to an eight year old you don't really understand it. Especially the definitions. I have been on this forum 18 years and I can tell you that nothing has changed in the back and forth bantering concerning definitions. Everybody is right and everybody is wrong.
I have changed considerably over the years and now prefer to focus on outcomes rather than definitions and pathways. If you want to shorten a turn the most important thing is not rotary, edging or pressure, its forming the intent to ski a shorter turn. Forming the intent, processing the slope information before you and picking the line for your tighter turn may seem so intuitively obvious that it need not be said but my experience suggests that this step is sorely lacking in a majority of skiers and takes a fair amount of commitment to learn. You will be surprised at how quickly you blend appropriate movement to accomplish the intent.
Focusing on movements, tipping, twisting, leveraging, short leg/long leg is all okay but expect you learning curve to be much longer as you go through reiterations of screwing up your skiing. Better to take before and after videos and see what the outcomes really are.
I agree with your frustration but, at the same time, feel there are not a lot of circumvention opportunities with which to, at least, clarify one's own understandings. Me? I prefer to use sound fundamental logic with which to sharpen my teeth. That said, focussing on outcomes "only" does not sound very helpful if the outcome isn't as expected. To correct it, focus on the pathway becomes paramount. If the outcome is as expected, it shouldn't require much focus at all and, eventually, none. I do realize that these factors are not in reflection of the point you are making in reference to this thread which is a valid one indeed. When varying definitions and usages of terms become an issue, don't use the term and instead, use your own definition. Yes, it means more writing and is why many of my explanations do not take these types of shortcuts thus leaving less room for the rampant terminological based misinterpretations inherent on online forums. Here a common tool for debate is the remanipulation of the interpretive process. When this tool becomes less available to the usual suspects and leaving them very little foot to stand on, they jerk for balance in the self - fueled winds of frustration.
Tree fitter, with all due respect, I have been reading this thread as it has offered up quite a few good options of describing what it is you seem to be pondering. Yet, the same questions are being asked up and down the thread as if something is not sinking in and I am sensing a lack of understanding due to, in part, a lack of an abundance of structure with which to drive the thought process through any theoretic standard of conceptual organization. Either that or you are asking leading questions to which you feel you already have the answer and, thus, prodding a discussion of discovery with the hidden intent of theory validation.
If I read you correctly, through all the noise of the thread, through your questions you are suggesting a theory. That theory is that "rotary pressure" from rotating the femurs during high edge angle is providing force that directly and effectively drives the shovel laterally into the hill resulting in more ski bend thus tightening the turn. From the looks of it, it seems we all believe that in a high angle carved turn, the only option for steering is simple tipping and fore/aft pressure management. As usual, all movement patterns and inputs are of a progressive bell curve-like nature. Higher edge angle = more locked from disengagement - Lower edge angle = less locked from disengagement. In light of that, I also believe the only way to tip the ski is through a mix of full body inclination, knee/hip angulation and slight ankle tweak. "rotary pressure" and, as far as I am aware, has not ever been formerly included with this list of inputs that result in ski bend. While I am sure this contention has risen before, there could be a number of reasons why "rotary pressure" or "laterally twisting the shovel into the hill" has not yet made the list. I think one way to answer this is to simply say that is not how to turn a ski. "Essentially", the only two movements required to turn a contemporary ski, from the "sole" perspective of the foot, (no pun intended) is tipping and fore/aft management both of which, under the weight of the skier, are physically easy yet technical demanding movements that harnesses the power of the ski to turn. If you really want to drive that shovel and bend the ski - hips forward, tip it way over and remain balanced on its center throughout its curved path. Attempting to drift a high angled edge (of an advanced turn) is only going to produce a system wide failure as determined by the zero proximity of your butt to the ground.
Even if the muscles used to rotate the femur forcefully were strong enough (psi) to make a difference, that lateral twisting pressure of the ski into the hill, as I understand skiing, would be a waste of movement, effort and focus as well as a possible input for tail wash. Where I believe the inception of yours and other past threads regarding the same contention has been mislead is that the combination of the femur rotating to follow the ski's direction along with knee angulation which, to some, presents as "driving the knee inwards" both movements of which mimic the "appearance" as if the femoral rotation is a driving force of a fully carved turn. It is not. A slight weight forward + tip = bend. That's it. No rotary induced lateral pressure. Now, when skidding the ski (at the lower edge angles preceding and following the high angled edge lock ), this is where we have a "functional" rotation of the femur that both initiates and controls the rotary force that fuels the twisting motion of the ski. As it stands, during high angle edge lock, the “rotary pressure” movement is a non-functional result of rotary separation.