or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › Skill development vs Technique mastery
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Skill development vs Technique mastery - Page 4

post #91 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogulmuncher View Post
 

 

As pointed out several times in this thread, those of us who work with programs that run 20 or more days through the season have a great luxury in how we can plan and execute development progressions.

 

But I do a good handful of one-off rec lessons too, at various levels, and I find I can still apply the same principles to good effect.

 

I'm not trying to take a short-cut and just teach a familiar lesson over & over, but I find that the progressions that I use in a competitive program can still work with GP.

One of the simple adaptations that I'll add is to temper expectations of performance.

Equally important, I choose terrain very carefully:  I'll often pick more forgiving terrain to get a better result, which creates enjoyment and confidence.

Finally, it's rare to really change something in a one or two hour lesson, so I'm going to do my best to find other measures of success and encouragement.

 

This isn't following a Decision Training approach, so results might be short lived.

However, if the lesson finishes safely, and the student had fun, I've greatly improved the chances for the student to come back again to really start learning...:)

Some good  points made MM.  In regards to beginners, IMO this level of skier offers the biggest opportunity for change.  Beginners are being introduced to a volatile movement environment that requires a huge change it their dynamic balance abilities. This is why the "B" in BERP is the encompassing circle.  To that point my experience is that too many instructors do not spend enough time developing this critical skill.  Because of management imposed time limits or a "check the progression box" mentality.  

 

There are soooooo many great exercises (bag of tricks) that go unused during this initial phase of ski instruction.  The result is that the student is continually impacted by a weak foundation. 

 

BTW I would be in favor of changing the "B" in BERP to "A" for dynamic Alignment.....but then we would lose a "catchy" acronym.

post #92 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkiMangoJazz View Post
 

 

Perfect!

 

I have this theory that there aren't different learning types, that we all learn kinesthetically (by feeling.)

 

The different types (kinesthetic, visual, etc.) to me are different "knowledge acquisition" types.

 

We get the info different ways, but we all "learn" the same way - by doing it and feeling it.

You are so right SMJ.   

 

So let's take a look at the reality (and this is just food for thought)

 

Many untrained skiers will develop techniques by focusing on the wrong feelings.

 

 - Beginners will instinctively straighten up to achieve balance (ending up in the back seat)  versus making vertical angles forward into their boots.

 - They will defensively align to the pull of gravity down the hill versus the need to offensively align to build the centripetal force of circular travel.

 - They will defensively incline (lean) up the hill to protect themselves against the feeling (fear) of falling

 - In short radius turns they will feel like they have to twist their upper body to affect ski rotation.

 

Just the beginning of a long list.....

 

So what are the right feelings?   That is what teaching skiing is all about. 

post #93 of 99
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogulmuncher View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by razie View Post
 

 

Interestingly though, the way we officially develop "skiing skills" is quite different from training other athletes in other sports. I've seen the intensity they put into training the basic movements of other sports "the right way"... how to hold the palm in the water, how the elbow needs to move , how to hold and move the racquet or the bat... how to throw, jump, land, spin...

 

 

Think back on the discussions about "closed skill" vs "open skill" sports from your NCCP modules...

 

Swimming & gymnastics for example are very "closed skill" so the highest proficiency will be achieved by many, many repetitions and subtle refinements.

 

Skiing is the most "open skill" sport I can think of, to the point that every run, and even every turn can be different. 

Mastery of skills is just one part of mastery of the sport:  what is also necessary is the tactical adaptation to a constantly changing environment.

 

This is where DT comes in:  tools like variable training and random training create a training environment which gets a lot closer to the race day environment, which is the goal for our athletes.

In some ways the DT model fits so well with skiing because elements of DT are practically there by default.

Thumbs Up

 

Totally, that's a big part of it. Variable training applies not only to tactics but also to skill development, by executing the same thing in many different conditions and experiencing all the ranges etc.

 

And developing the knowledge can be done in different ways, DT would have it less by spelling it out and more by discovery and questioning, certainly etc... but knowledge must still be developed, otherwise we can't teach the next level. If there is no understanding of biomechanics and movements, relating them to how the skis work and the outcomes etc, then the athlete or skier can't think through why can't I engage the skis at the top of the turn in this snow or in this gate combination? If the athlete's IQ is over 150, he/she could probably understand all of biomechanics just by thinking about them once, but normally that's knowledge that they must accumulate in time. If they accumulate just skill, then they can't think and will not self-coach.

 

In fact, I think that this is one of the best ways we could make the best of the one hour: transfer some bit of knowledge that would best help the skier in his/her situation, as in both knowledge (i.e. technique/movements or address misunderstandings of or relationships between them etc) and define success in getting a handle on how to apply it and given them some tools to self-coach after that (some drills, some cues etc). That follows the observation/intervention model,assuming the level is low (for GP).

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mogulmuncher View Post

 

Equally important, I choose terrain very carefully:  I'll often pick more forgiving terrain to get a better result, which creates enjoyment and confidence.

Finally, it's rare to really change something in a one or two hour lesson, so I'm going to do my best to find other measures of success and encouragement.

 

This isn't following a Decision Training approach, so results might be short lived.

 

 

I don't see DT as a rigid system. It should be applied skillfully. There's still a lot of room for repetition and seeking perfection and mastery. And starting with an easier environment is a great choice when following the IACRCv model. In fact, a must, for I and A... the point of DT is to get them to think and engage the cognitive part more and the way we do that at the low end I and A is totally different than doing it at the high end: R and Cv.

 

For those south of us that don't know the IACRCv skill acquisition model - here's a reasonable summary

 https://www.thesnowpros.org/Portals/0/Images/Publications,%20Videos%20&%20Resouces/Web_Extras/WE_F11_Interski_Canada_Herrin_LR.pdf

 

cheers

 

p.s. thanks for making me think through these again. 

 

:beercheer:

post #94 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by razie View Post
 

I don't see DT as a rigid system. It should be applied skillfully. There's still a lot of room for repetition and seeking perfection and mastery. And starting with an easier environment is a great choice when following the IACRCv model. In fact, a must, for I and A... the point of DT is to get them to think and engage the cognitive part more and the way we do that at the low end I and A is totally different than doing it at the high end: R and Cv.

 

Exactly right -- it's a great system with great tools, but it doesn't mean we no longer need "traditional" block training.

 

I think your overlay of DT to the IACRCv model is spot on.

post #95 of 99

DT? Sorry, I don't see what diphenyltrichloroethane has to do with ski instruction?  Or did you mean District of Temiskaming?

post #96 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by JESINSTR View Post
....

Some good  points made MM.  In regards to beginners, IMO this level of skier offers the biggest opportunity for change.  Beginners are being introduced to a volatile movement environment that requires a huge change it their dynamic balance abilities. This is why the "B" in BERP is the encompassing circle.  To that point my experience is that too many instructors do not spend enough time developing this critical skill.  Because of management imposed time limits or a "check the progression box" mentality.  

 

There are soooooo many great exercises (bag of tricks) that go unused during this initial phase of ski instruction.  The result is that the student is continually impacted by a weak foundation. 

 

BTW I would be in favor of changing the "B" in BERP to "A" for dynamic Alignment.....but then we would lose a "catchy" acronym.

 

Instructors reading this thread (me) might benefit from you posting a list of these great exercises.  

How about a quick list?  

post #97 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiquidFeet View Post
 

 

Instructors reading this thread (me) might benefit from you posting a list of these great exercises.  

How about a quick list?  

Knowing you thru your posts LF, I am sure our bags of tricks are similar :).

 

But for the record, the exercises I focus on are all about flexion and extension with extension up and forward into the tongues of their boots being the most important.  It is pretty easy for students to learn to flex into the tongues but many unflex vertically as they normally do in street shoes and quickly end up in the back seat.

 

So I have a mini progression with the students holding their polls horizontally out in front and on very gentle terrain I talk each one through a slow and forward rise.  I continue to up the tempo until I feel they are starting to ingrain the pattern.  Then variations can include single ski implementation.   I take this progression into the straight wedge as well. 

 

I shy away from hopping because that is a pretty violent activity for most and IMO they get very little benefit from that. 

 

To build core stability and maintain that forward emphasis I have them (without poles) move their hands to different positions as they are rising.  For an adult male there can be up to 45 pound of mass in their arms and they need to understand how hand position can really affect their alignment/balance. 

 

No brain surgery here just more of a  focus on what (IMO) is a major component in building a dynamic platform.

post #98 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiquidFeet View Post
 

Ushuaia?

 

Referring to the last interski, I assume, though I wasn't sure who in particular was being cut up by the comment.

post #99 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
 

DT? Sorry, I don't see what diphenyltrichloroethane has to do with ski instruction?  Or did you mean District of Temiskaming?


Heh...sorry for the unexpanded acronym...

 

Could actually be Temiskaming for me, although I haven't lived there for...some years :)

 

DT in this context is Decision Training:  an athlete development model created by Dr. Joan Vickers, National Coaching Institute in Calgary.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › Skill development vs Technique mastery