New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Common Standards in MA

post #1 of 19
Thread Starter 
When someone posts a video of their skiing and asks for MA, is there a common standard that is being used to help them improve, or does each Instructor base their advice on what they perceive good skiing to be?

There seem to be some commonalities, but there is also a lot of variance in the advice given.
post #2 of 19
No common standard. While there would be some benefits to a common approach, it would result in some pretty boring mas compared to the diversity of opinions we currently get. I've used a variety of methods over the years. My current focus is to let my subconscious pick out the most important symptoms good and needs improvement and then work from there.
post #3 of 19
Good skiing is good skiing, there will be slight variations in style and technique but basics are the same. You just have to figure out which works for you (which could very well change in time).
post #4 of 19

One standard I use is that a good MA has very little to do with how "good" a skier is but rather what it is going to take for that skier to get to the next level. Often times a request for an MA is validation seeking in disguise. The internet is an unhealthy place to seek validation in almost any form. In a manner of speaking in which skiing is a sport of ongoing development, a consistently developing intermediate skier is a better skier than one who is advanced due to talent but going nowhere with development. In the teaching and coaching environment, active potential easily trumps inactive plateau at any level. Whenever a person may feel they have no more to learn, whether true, their journey has ended in a manner in which their passion will often follow.

post #5 of 19

A few traits always stand out.  Hips behind the heels is one.  Rotation of the upper body in the direction of the turn is another.  Stance too wide.  Too much weight on the inside foot.  Lots of arm movement.  Inclination of the body.  Z turns instead of S turns.

 

As alluded to above, it is always best to concentrate on the single most important movement the skier needs to get right to progress.  Then move on to the next most important movement, etc.  One thing at a time.

post #6 of 19

I believe that the Rusty is correct that there is no defined or even a reasonably encapsulated standard for movement analysis. Like instructing and coaching itself, an MA is a very intellectually and philosophically broad based developmental discipline from a number of unaligned sources from which one must have quite a solid and time-tested foundation of understanding in order to to weave in and out of effective technical discussions from person to person, team to team, org to org and country to country. However, let’s give the sport of skiing some time to evolve. We were burning witches at the stake only 300 years ago and, apparently, the human race has not evolved very far since.

 

To answer the OP directly, here are a list of different matrix, filters, tools and goals to possibly utilize for an MA from a number of technical standpoints and developmental philosophies. Whether these, any other modalities or something more casual, the best MA is the one that can meet the subject/client/athlete where THEY are in both their head and in their skiing.

 

- Competency with fundamental skills: Fore/aft pressure distribution, rotary/separation, inclination/angulation, flexion/extension and edging/tipping

 

- Identifying obvious flawed movements, patterns and correction through a developmental application of these five fundamentals

 

- Adhering to the concept of kinetic path of movement that emanates from the feet/ankles

 

- Identify typical visual and physical cues for motor pattern flaws, correction, repetition and ingraining

 

- Describe flawed motor patterns and corrections through the DIRT lens

 

- Identify drills and their correct form cues that connect a fundamental skill challenge directly to a weaknesses

 

- Identify tactical errors and unfacilitated opportunities

 

- Utilize the turn phases to describe location, order and timing of all movement factors

 

- Some reliance on what an individual can identify as the most widely used terminology from leaders in the fields of coaching and instruction

 

- Track analysis for identification of turn shape/size, pressure distribution, track width & width consistency, weighted release/transition/re-engagement and, ultimately, cleanliness.

 

- A bunch of other stuff I know nothing about, much of which can often be an interesting read to find here

post #7 of 19
Yes there are standards, standards that cert test candidates must use if they want to pass their tests. Research the division near you for more information.
post #8 of 19
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by justanotherskipro View Post

Yes there are standards, standards that cert test candidates must use if they want to pass their tests. Research the division near you for more information.

OK.

 

So, if I posted a video request for MA as an intermediate, with no specific affiliation to a ski organization, you would break down my turns and make recommendations based off the PSIA examination standards? Not suggesting this is good or bad, just asking.

post #9 of 19
Or USSA coaches standards, or whatever other association standards I (or others) received training from. There in lies the confusion for some. Consider the background of the coach offering the advice. Do their analysis skills and understanding of the applied mechanics, kinesiology and physics match their their place in their school?
Here many less quailified are quick to offer advice based on their limited training. Others offer advice based only on personal experience. In the end the extent of training and experience a coach or person offering advice has is their lens. Good or bad.
Edited by justanotherskipro - 2/18/17 at 7:00am
post #10 of 19

I don't think the PSIA standards for instructor cert exams, which is more about teaching than skiing, is as nearly as relevant to skier movement analysis as their skier class level determinations for which an MA would be used to designate.

 

Level 1 First Time Skier, learn to stop
Level 2 Learn to turn in both directions using a wedge
Level 3 Explore the mountain using wedge turns
Level 4 Learn to match skis and skid turns
Level 5 Comfortably match skis and skid turns on advanced green terrain
Level 6 Ski open parallel turns on blue terrain
Level 7 Links turns on black terrain, working on technique in various snow conditions and carving blue terrain.
Level 8 Make parallel turns on black terrain and moguls with ease. Exploring extremes.
Level 9 Make dynamic parallel turns and ski double black diamonds

post #11 of 19
Then you don't understand the ongoing process of error correction / prescribing change. Splits are only the start of figuring out a lesson plan. Six level 5s could have six different issues that need six different prescriptions. An hour later they might have different issues based on their progress.
The ability to assess issues and changes over time is the key to successful coaching. Something very difficult to do on line based on a single snapshot, or video.
post #12 of 19

The standards for MA, on the hill or video, would be to relate the performance back to the agreed technical guidelines of the organization and then identify gaps, plan for improvements and communicate them back - either directly or through discovery or something.

 

Both organizations that I'm in - have continuously evolving technical guidelines and dictionary. I have been through 3 versions of one and 2 of the other, quite radically different, so that doesn't bode well for consistency.

 

Not saying is good or bad. But, having said the above, on an internet forum, where there's more organizational diversity and feedbackers that may or may not even be current in any organization, it would be impossible to have anything resembling a common standard.

post #13 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by razie View Post

Both organizations that I'm in - have continuously evolving technical guidelines and dictionary. I have been through 3 versions of one and 2 of the other, quite radically different, so that doesn't bode well for consistency.

That sounds like a recipe for chaos if one year's understanding of skiing is "radically" different than the previous year's. And it summons to mind the phrase the blind leading the blind.
post #14 of 19

I think something that will influence,  change, or have a major  effect on the evolution of ski technique, ski instruction and  ski standards is the fact that we have so much access to  ski instruction and ski performance video on the web.   It's easier than ever to google ski instruction and come up with all sorts of examples and opinions about how to ski.   I think this transparency is good for all.   Rather than being exposed to say  only one line of thinking or one particular brand of skiing, today we have almost unlimited exposure to  various  schools of thought.    We can search different national teaching organizations and choose a style  or technical approach that  we like or  wish emulate.    YM 

post #15 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharpedges View Post




That sounds like a recipe for chaos if one year's understanding of skiing is "radically" different than the previous year's. And it summons to mind the phrase the blind leading the blind.


Unless you believe like I do, that the fundamentals of great skiing are not much different today than 40 years ago.  What has changed is the finesse.  YM 

post #16 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharpedges View Post

That sounds like a recipe for chaos if one year's understanding of skiing is "radically" different than the previous year's. And it summons to mind the phrase the blind leading the blind.

yeah - we can hope they won't keep changing radically every year - maybe it was just a more turbulent period, but on the other hand, can't fault them too much for realizing the current methods are not optimal and trying to evolve...

 

also, it's not that the interpretation of the fundamentals change that much, to YM's point, their individual signatures are still ... uhh... visible, but the wording and the teaching focus changed a fair bit... but the words one would have used to describe and MA changed significantly over the past few years.


Edited by razie - 2/18/17 at 7:29pm
post #17 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by justanotherskipro View Post

Then you don't understand the ongoing process of error correction / prescribing change. Splits are only the start of figuring out a lesson plan. Six level 5s could have six different issues that need six different prescriptions. An hour later they might have different issues based on their progress.
The ability to assess issues and changes over time is the key to successful coaching. Something very difficult to do on line based on a single snapshot, or video.

 

I am sorry Jasp, it's been a long time since I have taught and I don't understand some of your instructor "speak". Can you describe your version of a movement analysis in a level of detail similar to post #6 so that someone like me, a non-pro, could understand?

post #18 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrGolfAnalogy View Post

When someone posts a video of their skiing and asks for MA, is there a common standard that is being used to help them improve, or does each Instructor base their advice on what they perceive good skiing to be?

There seem to be some commonalities, but there is also a lot of variance in the advice given.

I look first for the four fundamentals I have in my signature below (and a few others).

Then I try to figure out what the root cause is and what to do about it. If you are working with the skier on the hill you can try various things until you get the desired effect, so it's not strange that internet advice has some variations. Then off course different people have a different mental picture of what a good turn looks like. Some people always look for deep flexion, some always look for body angles, etc etc.

post #19 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrGolfAnalogy View Post

When someone posts a video of their skiing and asks for MA, is there a common standard that is being used to help them improve, or does each Instructor base their advice on what they perceive good skiing to be?

There seem to be some commonalities, but there is also a lot of variance in the advice given.


Our clinics of late have started with this:  What is the desired ski performance?  Based on that, one might suggest things to remove (ie excessive rotary), things to add (angulation added to inclination). Those are just some examples but i do think you have to start with skier intent <------> ski performance.

 

A suspicion on the "lot of variance" observation: there are often many pieces that could use improving, not just one.  And each of those (assuming they are accurate) might benefit from different drills or suggestions.  It would be the rare exception that one and only one area could be improved.  Because skiing is continuous balance in motion (vs discrete pieces), its easy to see how being somewhat off in one part of the turn could impact what happens in the next part of the turn. If you consider the perspective of improvement vs "correction" then its also easier to allow for many different things to improve and different ways to improve them.

 

Typically, *I* would start MA at the feet and also typically work on the bottom of the turn and make improvements back up the turn parts (ie bottom, back to shaping back to initiation).

But others may have different roads to improvement.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching