or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Epic Instructor videos - Page 2

post #31 of 58

Speaking strictly as a moderator, several posts from this thread have been split off into a separate thread.

post #32 of 58
Thanks for the positive comments!

My perspective on video is that I use it to promote myself to prospective clients. Most people taking lessons or guiding don't know much about qualifications, so a good video speaks to them more. I also make edits for clients of their footage, so displaying that skill seems to help as well.

For those who don't take video, how do you promote yourself?
post #33 of 58
There are many PSIA videos available on-line to see how something is done.
post #34 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim. View Post

Thanks for the positive comments!

My perspective on video is that I use it to promote myself to prospective clients. Most people taking lessons or guiding don't know much about qualifications, so a good video speaks to them more. I also make edits for clients of their footage, so displaying that skill seems to help as well.

For those who don't take video, how do you promote yourself?

Hallucinogens ... candy, sometimes butterflies, rose petals and aromatic candles.

post #35 of 58

You don't seem to look for videos that prove how well we ski, but videos you can learn from, but of us... where we can say: "here, I was doing this and that"...  there are tons of videos of Reilly and Heluva &co that you can learn from...

 

Not going to post myself this time, but arm-length, i.e. of one I coach: I think this particular video would be good for you to analyze:

 

 

He's struggling with the release and tipping and others because he's not used to ski narrow and insists on playing with big angles at low speed, but you should pay attention to the upper/lower body separation. His turns clearly start by tipping the skis on edge with the lower body. The upper body just complements that.

 

Same here - very different stance and circumstances, but watch the separation of movements:

 

 

 

cheers

post #36 of 58

Being able to see how someone skis helps puts into perspective the type of instructor they are. It's not that they need to demonstrate the techniques perfectly, but it does help to get an idea of their "style". Written advice often needs visual context to know if it would benefit your individual goals. In a way it is an audition, not for proof of expertise, but for compatibility. Putting yourself "out there" on film also adds a level of personability that is often missing on an internet forum. This is why credentials alone don't tell the whole story. Personally, I don't like JF Beauliue's style teaching, but I do like Josh Foster. Both great skiers and instructors, but I feel more compatible with the way Josh presents the material and the way he skis.

 

I competed in martial arts for years and took many of my rank testings at tournaments, so everyone knew exactly what the range of my skills was. This helped give me credibility in later years when it came to coaching and judging. I think it's important to be transparent, otherwise you are just a talking head.

post #37 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrGolfAnalogy View Post
 

Being able to see how someone skis helps puts into perspective the type of instructor they are. It's not that they need to demonstrate the techniques perfectly, but it does help to get an idea of their "style". Written advice often needs visual context to know if it would benefit your individual goals. In a way it is an audition, not for proof of expertise, but for compatibility. Putting yourself "out there" on film also adds a level of personability that is often missing on an internet forum. This is why credentials alone don't tell the whole story. Personally, I don't like JF Beauliue's style teaching, but I do like Josh Foster. Both great skiers and instructors, but I feel more compatible with the way Josh presents the material and the way he skis.

 

I competed in martial arts for years and took many of my rank testings at tournaments, so everyone knew exactly what the range of my skills was. This helped give me credibility in later years when it came to coaching and judging. I think it's important to be transparent, otherwise you are just a talking head.

 

This is where I believe you are wrong. Sounds sensical on the surface but will not hold up to an in-depth scrutiny. Specific demonstration aside, a learner is not necessarily going to need to incorporate how an instructor or coach regularly skis into what the coach needs to convey to the student based on how the student is skiing. Any pro's formal technique may not be at all representative of where a learner is, where they are coming from, where they need to go, what needs to be discussed, drilled, hypothesized and built upon. Again, good demo videos do not hurt anyones technical explanations or branding for sure. It is just that, opposite of what conceptual opposition has said here, someone who is not knowledgeable about receiving instruction in general may be easily fooled into thinking that ski competency equals ski teaching competency. We see that often: "You're in luck. My buddy rips the bumps and I got him to give you a lesson". The fact that most all racers and students have not seen their coach or instructor ski before their acquisition is the most unprosecutable contention that it is as insignificant for online MA's. 

post #38 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich666 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrGolfAnalogy View Post
 

Being able to see how someone skis helps puts into perspective the type of instructor they are. It's not that they need to demonstrate the techniques perfectly, but it does help to get an idea of their "style". Written advice often needs visual context to know if it would benefit your individual goals. In a way it is an audition, not for proof of expertise, but for compatibility. Putting yourself "out there" on film also adds a level of personability that is often missing on an internet forum. This is why credentials alone don't tell the whole story. Personally, I don't like JF Beauliue's style teaching, but I do like Josh Foster. Both great skiers and instructors, but I feel more compatible with the way Josh presents the material and the way he skis.

 

I competed in martial arts for years and took many of my rank testings at tournaments, so everyone knew exactly what the range of my skills was. This helped give me credibility in later years when it came to coaching and judging. I think it's important to be transparent, otherwise you are just a talking head.

 

This is where I believe you are wrong. Sounds sensical on the surface but will not hold up to an in-depth scrutiny. Specific demonstration aside, a learner is not necessarily going to need to incorporate how an instructor or coach regularly skis into what the coach needs to convey to the student based on how the student is skiing. Any pro's formal technique may not be at all representative of where a learner is, where they are coming from, where they need to go, what needs to be discussed, drilled, hypothesized and built upon. Again, good demo videos do not hurt anyones technical explanations or branding for sure. It is just that, opposite of what conceptual opposition has said here, someone who is not knowledgeable about receiving instruction in general may be easily fooled into thinking that ski competency equals ski teaching competency. We see that often: "You're in luck. My buddy rips the bumps and I got him to give you a lesson". The fact that most all racers and students have not seen their coach or instructor ski before their acquisition is the most unprosecutable contention that it is as insignificant for online MA's. 

Well... not quite.

 

There is a reason we pass skiing standards to certify as instructors and coaches. The higher the level, usually the higher the skiing quality. That's to make sure that we 1) understand and 2) can demo.

 

I agree with this kind of ask though. I mean seriously, in real life, if you go to take lessons on carving black runs, and the instructor assigned to you can barely pull a carve on a green, would you stay to listen to anything he/she'd have to say to you, or do you go straight back to the SSD, furiously asking for your moneys back?

 

There are obviously exceptions, say age, extremism of the task etc... but it is at the latitude of the student to accept the coach, considering whatever he wants to consider.

 

Now, however... this iz the internetz... so real life doesn't apply as much as in... real life: here be dragons. I don't mean like real-life "game of thrones" dragons, but you know...

 

:devil: 

post #39 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by razie View Post
 

Well... not quite.

 

There is a reason we pass skiing standards to certify as instructors and coaches. The higher the level, usually the higher the skiing quality. That's to make sure that we 1) understand and 2) can demo.

 

I agree with this kind of ask though. I mean seriously, in real life, if you go to take lessons on carving black runs, and the instructor assigned to you can barely pull a carve on a green, would you stay to listen to anything he/she'd have to say to you, or do you go straight back to the SSD, furiously asking for your moneys back?

 

There are obviously exceptions, say age, extremism of the task etc... but it is at the latitude of the student to accept the coach, considering whatever he wants to consider.

 

Now, however... this iz the internetz... so real life doesn't apply as much as in... real life: here be dragons. I don't mean like real-life "game of thrones" dragons, but you know...

 

:devil: 

 

Razie, your switching contexts. Credentials/standards is not what I am responding to. Obviously what you say (in your collateral rebuttal) makes sense. MGA is suggesting that seeing an instructors skiing "style" before choosing them is a good option to have. And I am countering that with: while that may be an option around choosing a mentor or anything similar, typically choosing ski instructors at ski areas do not include a performance demo of any kind. It doesn't happen, ever, for a number of reasons, one of which is that it is not necessary. That is exactly what credentials are for. While credentials alone may not be the "whole story", it may be the whole story 90% of ski school customers get before instruction starts. If a non-"one and done" student gets to know a number of instructors, they can choose their favorite. You know ... the hot blonde with the orange pants. :)

post #40 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich666 View Post
 

 

Razie, your switching contexts. Credentials/standards is not what I am responding to. Obviously what you say (in your collateral rebuttal) makes sense. MGA is suggesting that seeing an instructors skiing "style" before choosing them is a good option to have. And I am countering that with: while that may be an option around choosing a mentor or anything similar, typically choosing ski instructors at ski areas do not include a performance demo of any kind. It doesn't happen, ever, for a number of reasons, one of which is that it is not necessary. That is exactly what credentials are for. While credentials alone may not be the "whole story", it may be the whole story 90% of ski school customers get before instruction starts. If a non-"one and done" student gets to know a number of instructors, they can choose their favorite. You know ... the hot blonde with the orange pants. :)

It's not taking the lesson that's the issue, Rich, it's taking the lesson to heart.  During the lesson you can see the instructor demonstrating his principles.  If it's awesome, then you might put years of effort into working on the instructor's methods.  If the instructor can't ski it that well, and if you are dubious about the approach, you might seek another opinion.

post #41 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrGolfAnalogy View Post

Being able to see how someone skis helps puts into perspective the type of instructor they are. It's not that they need to demonstrate the techniques perfectly, but it does help to get an idea of their "style". Written advice often needs visual context to know if it would benefit your individual goals. In a way it is an audition, not for proof of expertise, but for compatibility. Putting yourself "out there" on film also adds a level of personability that is often missing on an internet forum. This is why credentials alone don't tell the whole story. Personally, I don't like JF Beauliue's style teaching, but I do like Josh Foster. Both great skiers and instructors, but I feel more compatible with the way Josh presents the material and the way he skis.

I competed in martial arts for years and took many of my rank testings at tournaments, so everyone knew exactly what the range of my skills was. This helped give me credibility in later years when it came to coaching and judging. I think it's important to be transparent, otherwise you are just a talking head.

So do you buy private lessons from John? In most schools that option is reserved for private lessons and would make sense in your argument.
post #42 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich666 View Post

instructors, they can choose their favorite. You know ... the hot blonde with the orange pants. :)

hey hey hey.... My orange pants are my favorites... ;) 

post #43 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by razie View Post
 

hey hey hey.... My orange pants are my favorites... ;) 

 

Goodness ... that was you? I am mortified. I apologize. What is it that your are keeping in both your front chest pockets and rear pants pockets? Lunch?

post #44 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Engineer View Post
 

It's not taking the lesson that's the issue, Rich, it's taking the lesson to heart.  During the lesson you can see the instructor demonstrating his principles.  If it's awesome, then you might put years of effort into working on the instructor's methods.  If the instructor can't ski it that well, and if you are dubious about the approach, you might seek another opinion.

 

TE:  It is time for you to step up and teach.  You dabble here to give back to others.  You probably also do it ad hoc on the snow for free.  A ski school is just a mandatory ski club.  Pretty fun.  You know most of my best friends don't share my vocation, we share the same avocations.  A number of them are engineers.  (I don't hold that against them.)  Sign up.

post #45 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrGolfAnalogy View Post
 

Being able to see how someone skis helps puts into perspective the type of instructor they are. It's not that they need to demonstrate the techniques perfectly, but it does help to get an idea of their "style". Written advice often needs visual context to know if it would benefit your individual goals. In a way it is an audition, not for proof of expertise, but for compatibility. Putting yourself "out there" on film also adds a level of personability that is often missing on an internet forum. This is why credentials alone don't tell the whole story. Personally, I don't like JF Beauliue's style teaching, but I do like Josh Foster. Both great skiers and instructors, but I feel more compatible with the way Josh presents the material and the way he skis.

 

I competed in martial arts for years and took many of my rank testings at tournaments, so everyone knew exactly what the range of my skills was. This helped give me credibility in later years when it came to coaching and judging. I think it's important to be transparent, otherwise you are just a talking head.

 

So I guess the question I need to ask is, what "style" are you looking for? Are you looking to see my skiing style, or my teaching style? Those would be two different things. A video of my teaching style would show how I am imparting knowledge to my class. Getting a good idea of my teaching style would probably require the video to be a couple hours long, since my style involves demoing, analyzing, drilling, repeating and reinforcing over the course of the entire lesson. 

 

However, if you want an idea of my skiing style, you will probably only need a minute or two of video of me skiing different types of terrain in different conditions. Then again, you're going to find yourself seriously misguided if you think picking me for my skiing style is going to have any impact on how I ski during a lesson. My personal ski style is for my free time. You won't see it during a lesson. That's because my personal style is filled with compensations and technique variations that I've found work for me. Due to my own strengths, weaknesses, body geometry, or even just personal preference. But in lessons, you're not paying me to see technique I've tailored to myself. You're paying to see sound foundational skills demonstrated. So when I am teaching a lesson, I am skiing to a standard. Want to know what standard I can ski to? The color of the badge on my uniform jacket is a good first indicator. (silver, at the moment)

post #46 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by freeski919 View Post

So I guess the question I need to ask is, what "style" are you looking for? Are you looking to see my skiing style, or my teaching style? Those would be two different things. A video of my teaching style would show how I am imparting knowledge to my class. Getting a good idea of my teaching style would probably require the video to be a couple hours long, since my style involves demoing, analyzing, drilling, repeating and reinforcing over the course of the entire lesson.

The most important criteria when picking a coach for me is personality. I learn best in a relaxed easy going atmosphere. Those who can leave their ego at home and bring a sense of humor are top of my list.

Next would be teaching style, which ties closely into personality. Over the years I've discovered I learn best in a more informal atmosphere. I would prefer to ski with the instructor and receive tips rather than a specific lesson plan with drills.

Last of all would be the instructors skiing style or ability level. Although demonstrating is important in skiing, I am aware that it's more important that the instructor can teach me what to do, over being able to do it himself. Great coaches are not always great practitioners.

In reality I can't expect to get all this from a video, but it can help to see the tone of a lesson. At the least you can exclude instructors your clearly won't match with. I don't personally know either Josh Foster or JF, but based off their edits I would choose Josh as an instructor. You can see that he is easy going, soft spoken and humble. His humor seeps through into his lessons. He also has a relaxed yet dynamic style of skiing I would be happy to immitate. JF on the other hand is much more technical and direct. I think this reflects in his skiing as well which seems more aggressive than Josh. That may suit some, but it's not for me. I think it's also pertinent that the skiing and teaching style of both these instructors is a reflection of their personalities.
post #47 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by freeski919 View Post


My personal ski style is for my free time. You won't see it during a lesson. That's because my personal style is filled with compensations and technique variations that I've found work for me. Due to my own strengths, weaknesses, body geometry, or even just personal preference. But in lessons, you're not paying me to see technique I've tailored to myself. You're paying to see sound foundational skills demonstrated.

I am a great believer that everyone has their own personal style when it comes to sports, and as coach and students we need to identify those individual tendencies to bring out the best in an athlete. The problems occur when personal style conflicts with an institutionalized teaching method. Fundamentals are important, but at some point you have to tailor lessons to suit the individual, even if that means adapting techniques.

I dont just want see and learn fundamentals from you. I want you to "fill my style with compensations and technique variations based my own strengths, weaknesses and body geometry." That would be a lesson I would take. Realistically trying to make me ski with precise PSIA technique would be futile and probably detrimental to my advancement, but adapting that technique to suit me as an individual would be much more productive. Is that a realistic expectation?
post #48 of 58

Not related to the comments and theories above but the term "style" and all its permutations of its usage as it related to skiing are completely meaningless and void. Unlike with many arts, with skiing, form IS function. Which means that all motor patterns we pursue and achieve are for the sole purpose of the technical mastery of applied forces. This technical mastery then becomes the ideal form of aesthetic mastery as one in the same. The term “style” would suggest to many that all or a portion of these motor patterns were chosen for one or more different reasons. If that’s the case … good luck with that and see you in the liftline where any legitimate style is likely the point. The term style is also used as a simple and basic term that connotes differences between the final product of one’s technique to another’s but not in a manner that is simply “chosen” by the skier nor, if chosen, not for any fashionable reasons the the word “style” connotes to many others. In this light, a “stylish” skier is simply a reference to a skier’s choices in ski garb. I see how there may be many (not necessarily MGA) who wish to include these extra “style associated” options of technique that the term “style” means to them which creates a “leeway” between good technique and one that is hampered with “style” and how that flexibility can be harnessed to keep the ego from being choked by an insane clown simply doing his job.

post #49 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrGolfAnalogy View Post

I am a great believer that everyone has their own personal style when it comes to sports, and as coach and students we need to identify those individual tendencies to bring out the best in an athlete. The problems occur when personal style conflicts with an institutionalized teaching method. Fundamentals are important, but at some point you have to tailor lessons to suit the individual, even if that means adapting techniques.

I dont just want see and learn fundamentals from you. I want you to "fill my style with compensations and technique variations based my own strengths, weaknesses and body geometry." That would be a lesson I would take. Realistically trying to make me ski with precise PSIA technique would be futile and probably detrimental to my advancement, but adapting that technique to suit me as an individual would be much more productive. Is that a realistic expectation?

That's interesting.

 

It is essentially the main stated reason that organizations like CSCF have moved away from prescribing technique for instance... the brief technical manual emphasizes more like "checkpoints" such as "carving the outside ski" and "impulse" and "use of all joints" but does not really prescribe a specific technique or "main" progression.

 

I think PSIA as well, if you look at the BERP "skills" model... and so on, I don't think you're in danger of being, at least at the system level, coerced into this or that way to ski.

 

I mean certainly the results are nothing like putting people through a cookie cutter!

 

I don't know if I would call what you're looking for here, "style" though. Style is generally a matter of choice, but what you imply here is really just "individuality".

 

While measuring results is much easier in a racing setting, adapting teaching and progressions to one's current state is largely a matter of your goals and the experience and quality of the coach. Especially as you start looking at compensating for something. You can compensate for being tall or having wide pelvis etc, but will you compensate for ability? I think that's one thing at least some coaches are guilty of: compensate for ability with technique... and instead of perfecting technique for a future, will get you skidding and sliding and wedging your way down, to increase your success today, i.e. go for instant gratifications as opposed to putting in the effort... but that's also very much the result of the skier's goals: do I want to get my money's worth of fun in this vacation and just ski the heck out of it or am I working on improving my skiing? Or many other permutations...

 

So, to clarify... slightly adapting technique to body build and physical/mental ability is normal and should be expected. Teaching different technique based on current skiing ability may not be... what you're looking for.


Edited by razie - 10/14/16 at 8:35am
post #50 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by razie View Post
 

That's interesting.

 

It is essentially the main stated reason that organizations like CSCF have moved away from prescribing technique for instance... the brief technical manual emphasizes more like "checkpoints" such as "carving the outside ski" and "impulse" and "use of all joints" but does not really prescribe a specific technique or "main" progression.

 

I think PSIA as well, if you look at the BERP "skills" model... and so on, I don't think you're in danger of being, at least at the system level, coerced into this or that way to ski.

 

I mean certainly the results are nothing like putting people through a cookie cutter!

 

I don't know if I would call what you're looking for here, "style" though. Style is generally a matter of choice, but what you imply here is really just "individuality".

 

While measuring results is much easier in a racing setting, adapting teaching and progressions to one's current state is largely a matter of your goals and the experience and quality of the coach. Especially as you start looking at compensating for something. You can compensate for being tall or having wide pelvis etc, but will you compensate for ability? I think that's one thing at least some coaches are guilty of: compensate for ability with technique... and instead of perfecting technique for a future, will get you skidding and sliding and wedging your way down, to increase your success today, i.e. go for instant gratifications as opposed to putting in the effort...

 

So, to clarify... slightly adapting technique to body build and physical/mental ability is normal and should be expected. Massively adapting technique to current skiing ability may not be... what you're looking for.

 

Well stated Razie. All fundamental and foundational movements and aspects on the skill pyramid of ski technique are chiseled in stone like the ten commandments such as if "God" wrote the book on physics. The lesser foundational but more refine movements in the middle of the pyramid tend to be more associated with the adaptation of individual body mechanics of body measurements, muscle strength and RoM . Finally the most refined, subtle and almost visually undetectable movement patterns of the pyramid that are typically more seen/detected at the ski to snow interaction are at the top. It is at this level of skill refinement, where things are not seen but rather felt and where the conversation between race coach or high end private instructor and client must rely on a more developed verbal rapport.  

 

Edited for auto correct and an extra word (or two)


Edited by Rich666 - 10/14/16 at 10:25am
post #51 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrGolfAnalogy View Post

I am a great believer that everyone has their own personal style when it comes to sports, and as coach and students we need to identify those individual tendencies to bring out the best in an athlete. The problems occur when personal style conflicts with an institutionalized teaching method. Fundamentals are important, but at some point you have to tailor lessons to suit the individual, even if that means adapting techniques.

I dont just want see and learn fundamentals from you. I want you to "fill my style with compensations and technique variations based my own strengths, weaknesses and body geometry." That would be a lesson I would take. Realistically trying to make me ski with precise PSIA technique would be futile and probably detrimental to my advancement, but adapting that technique to suit me as an individual would be much more productive. Is that a realistic expectation?

Well, it's certainly my goal as an instructor to adapt things to you as best as possible. However, skiing with my own personal style during a lesson isn't going to help you do that. I'm going to ski in a more "standard" style to give you a neutral platform from which to grow. If anything, I'm going to suggest and demonstrate compensations that will work for you, even if they make my own skiing less effective.
post #52 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrGolfAnalogy View Post

I dont just want see and learn fundamentals from you. I want you to "fill my style with compensations and technique variations based my own strengths, weaknesses and body geometry." That would be a lesson I would take. Realistically trying to make me ski with precise PSIA technique would be futile and probably detrimental to my advancement, but adapting that technique to suit me as an individual would be much more productive. Is that a realistic expectation?

 

When I'm teaching I try and pick and chose what part of the CSIA prescribed technique to teach, and what part to toss away, based on what the student wants to do. And for a lot of new instructors it can be hard to wrap your heads around the whole "you must ski like the *SIA says you should" thing, which is there for the benefit of the instructor passing and demonstrating their abilities at a standard. The average guest doesn't care about the 5 competencies of skiing, or BERP, and trying to shoehorn everyone into the same mould isn't what they're taking lessons for, and the average guest might not strive to have bullet proof intermediate parallel skid turns. I usually strive to make skiers more "efficient" and that's my main selling point I use to get people to buy into my instruction for technique improvement, compensating for as you said, your strengths and weaknesses. A technique for slamming moguls for someone with rock hard knees will kill someone with catastrophic knee injuries, and nobody want's to do that to a student!

 

 

 

Also while we're on the topic of teaching styles and skiing styles (or lack thereof) I'd be the first to admit that my skiing ability is much more impressive than my teaching ability. If someone was to select my advice based on my skiing, they'd be sorely disappointed!

post #53 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingFish View Post

 

Also while we're on the topic of teaching styles and skiing styles (or lack thereof) I'd be the first to admit that my skiing ability is much more impressive than my teaching ability. If someone was to select my advice based on my skiing, they'd be sorely disappointed!

 

Bragging about his awesome skiing and being totally honest about his teaching....

post #54 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by tdk6 View Post

Bragging about his awesome skiing and being totally honest about his teaching....

I didn't say I was any good at the skiing either wink.gif
post #55 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrGolfAnalogy View Post


I am a great believer that everyone has their own personal style when it comes to sports, and as coach and students we need to identify those individual tendencies to bring out the best in an athlete. The problems occur when personal style conflicts with an institutionalized teaching method. Fundamentals are important, but at some point you have to tailor lessons to suit the individual, even if that means adapting techniques.

I dont just want see and learn fundamentals from you. I want you to "fill my style with compensations and technique variations based my own strengths, weaknesses and body geometry." That would be a lesson I would take. Realistically trying to make me ski with precise PSIA technique would be futile and probably detrimental to my advancement, but adapting that technique to suit me as an individual would be much more productive. Is that a realistic expectation?

 

That's an interesting comment. Here are a few "styles" I see on the hill:

  • The z-turn
  • The tail-push (sometimes the same as the z-turn)
  • The waist-steer (twisting hips into the hill)
  • The Lito (leaning over with minimal angulation, often accompanied with a stepping of the inside ski at the top of the turn)
  • The wedeln (no edge performance but lots of twisting of the feet)

 

All of those styles indicate a deficit in either understanding or application of skill. When skiers demonstrate these types of "styles", as an instructor I hope they recognize that what they call style is actually holding them back from expert skiing.  

 

Another approach to "style" could manifest as visual differences based on body shape, tactical choices, and intent. For example, I observe the following style differences in these skiers in these videos:  

 

It's also the case that the best skiers can adapt their style based on the terrain and task at hand. Certainly all the level 4s can do so.

 

My question: In those cases where the "style" is rooted in a deficit, why not work to improve it? 

post #56 of 58

Great thanks to the thoughtful replies. I have to be honest and admit a renewed enthusiasm for my previously somewhat jaded opinion of "institutional" coaching.

 

Is it just coincidence that @razie @Metaphor_ @FlyingFish all show a great versatility in their approach to instruction, or do I just need to move to Canada? :)

post #57 of 58

So I've been out of town for a few days, so I finally picked up my mail, and got the latest copy of the CSIA magazine. Interesting article where they interviewed John Gillies the CSIA's Eastern Manager of Educational Development, and one of his students to see what their thought processes were during a typical private lesson. And in it, there's this gem:

 

Technique is a tool, not an objective.

 

Interestingly appropriate to this discussion eh?

 

 

Also this little bit about how John "loves to teach the public because they are 'less complicated than instructors'"

 

 

Another good point!

post #58 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metaphor_ View Post
 

 

That's an interesting comment. Here are a few "styles" I see on the hill:

  • The z-turn
  • The tail-push (sometimes the same as the z-turn)
  • The waist-steer (twisting hips into the hill)
  • The Lito (leaning over with minimal angulation, often accompanied with a stepping of the inside ski at the top of the turn)
  • The wedeln (no edge performance but lots of twisting of the feet)

 

All of those styles indicate a deficit in either understanding or application of skill. When skiers demonstrate these types of "styles", as an instructor I hope they recognize that what they call style is actually holding them back from expert skiing.  

 

Another approach to "style" could manifest as visual differences based on body shape, tactical choices, and intent. For example, I observe the following style differences in these skiers in these videos:  

 

It's also the case that the best skiers can adapt their style based on the terrain and task at hand. Certainly all the level 4s can do so.

 

My question: In those cases where the "style" is rooted in a deficit, why not work to improve it? 

 

Overlooking my held opinion that the term "style" is too semantically jaded to use in any technical context whatsoever ... I like the organization above. Well articulated and, IMO, on point.

 

An answer to your question may be that, in terms of your use of the word "rooted" you are then obviously speaking about the ski fundamentals that are base skills in the pyramid skills concept. Mid-pyramid skills and movement patterns that are founded up and over our baseline of athletic movement, where "style" is suggested to be seen and facilitated, are functionally dependent on the integrity of the alignment and balance that the base of the pyramid is providing. So, asking an intermediate to back up as far as would be indicated by a full technical diagnosis and prognosis in what may be considered as difficult as my GF asking me to ski less this year so we can focus on our relationship, our careers, future and security, maybe a puppy, a Subaru Forester ... a mortgage, retirement, maybe a small place in Florida.  Yup. She's history.


Edited by Rich666 - 10/15/16 at 8:00pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching