or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › Skiing Styles and Instruction
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Skiing Styles and Instruction - Page 5

post #121 of 336
John: You contradict yourself. You state the turn is a "reality" and then you state, "in my opinion". You are entitled to your opinions regarding turns and so are others. It is not about whether the turns are right or wrong or a reality or make-believe. Go out and ski and have a good time. Be open to what others have to offer and then choose what you like and reject what you don't. It is amazing what can happen when you drop your pre-conceived notions.
post #122 of 336
Thread Starter 

Money and time

Quote:
Originally Posted by skier31
Be open to what others have to offer and then choose what you like and reject what you don't.
I could do that, I suppose. But what if this shopping cart approach to ski instruction leaves me with 10% that's applicable and 90% that's fundementally different and not applicable. I wouldn't know that till after the fact.

Bob Barnes often says that HH and he teach similar stuff, yet, Bob Barnes seems to contradict the three references I posted earlier. So, it looks like it's different stuff. This EWS turn is the bread and butter ski turn that many people recommend. It's hard for me to ignore that and just spend the money and time. I'd rather go where 90% would be applicable and 10% not.

Till this particullar fundemental difference is defined to me as semantics or structural, I can not make a sound purchasing choice. Thus my original question - what style of instruction is taught at ETU.

I have long observed over the past year that this EWS turn seems to be a focal point of disagreement or mis-understanding. The fact that most people don't actually dispute the interpetation of EWS on this board does not mean people are not actively in disagreement. It's just most don't bother wasting the time here to find out if it's really a structural or semantical disagreement.

Since it's central to the PMTS concept of skiing as well as other authors it is quite important to me before I would spend dollars at a bear instructional event.
post #123 of 336
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mason
I know that PMTS concepts are not in vogue here, so I made an assumption that left a key thing out of the description. Once the lower ski/old downhill ski starts tipping for the new turn, the LTE of the upper ski (what PMTS's would call the new stance ski) is being handled passively. You just concentrate on cranking over the inside/downhill ski and the uphill ski/new stance ski will switch edges from LTE to BTE. By allowing this to happen passivily it will happen when and because the CM of the body is into the new turn position rather than any type of pivoting or stemming. I tried to describe that earlier. You would not be on both LTE's at all as the LTE of the upper ski would already be gone by the time your downhill ski is just flat, and certainly by the time the inside ski has completed tipping to it's LTE side.

Hope that helps.
What you have descrbed does not differ appreciably from how I would describe the mechanics of a turn. I have a little difference in some minor semantics involving active vs passive, and it happening "because the CM is in a new turn position".

You mention rr track turns. I like to think of the genesis of every turn starting by what I do below my ankles. It isn't passive and I don't create any edge angles passively with my CM moving inside a turn. I tip my feet. As a turn developes I keep tipping my feet. It is a continuom of movement. As a turn becomes more dynamic greater edge angle are created with my knees and legs. Now here comes a part that may well re-ignite a smoldering fire in anyone who follows PMTS. What I do with my legs is a rotary MOVEMENT. My femur is rotating in my pelvis. That DOES NOT mean I'm attempting to rotate my skis, although if we ever actually performed the mythical perfect carved turn, the skis would be in fact ROTATING. I'm trying to progressively as well as continuously tip BOTH skis, not just the stance ski as well as bend the outside ski via extension.

Oh Lord Jesus how did I get sucked into this.

As I once heard Bob say.....how the heck does anyone think their CM moves inside a turn. Hint.....it's via what we do with our feet and legs.

As far as your query about "style of turn" I don't have a clue as to what you mean. Ice skating and diving get style points. I have never heard anyone apply the term to skiing prior to your mention.

What in the good lord's name does HH do to these people.

By the way, the percentage that was mysteriously reincarnated with your first appearance a year ago was 97%. Does every PMTS participant get that branded on their ass at the first lesson?
post #124 of 336
Thread Starter 

continuing

In other words, my bread and butter turn, I would gather from BB's comments would be a focus of coaching efforts to not turn that way since the EWS turn is full of negative movements in his opinion. You do see why this would be a bit of a problem for me.
post #125 of 336
John,

Remember this: PMTS is a teaching system. Nothing more, nothing less. We use primary movements in our skiing. Most of us use some form of primary movements in our everyday skiing. I am not advocating any particular way of skiing. I skid, I steer, I do all of the things that Harald says are not primary or carving. But at the end of the day, I am at the bottom of the hill. I use the primary movements that Harald advocates, because it is easier on my old body.

I got over being a Harb activist about 2 years ago, after the first ESA. I was skiing as well as many of the other coaches (I was an assistant). But one thing that i noticed; we all had fun. We all had a different approach to our personal skiing and our approach to teaching was different than PMTS. But the outcome was the same. The students all had good moves. One woman asked me what Weems meant when he described a certain movement. I explain in a PMTS term and she got it right away. The object is to ski with good movements. Teaching is to have the student ski with good movements. It makes no difference whether it is PSIA or PMTS. It is the outcome.

rh
post #126 of 336
Thread Starter 

ok - so there isn't a great difference IYO

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusty Guy
What you have descrbed does not differ appreciably from how I would describe the mechanics of a turn. I have a little difference in some minor semantics involving active vs passive, and it happening "because the CM is in a new turn position".
By style of turn, there are all sorts of styles of turn. There are also different ways of describing turns.

You are walking a fine line when you say rotation happens (of course) or when you have to make rotation happen or fall.

The angle of the body with the skis when it is not vertical creates tipping. You can of course, tip more or less than that with articulation of the foot. But the primary tipping simply comes from body alignment in my "style" of turn as far as the stance leg is concerned. This also seems to be a difference that may be just interpetation or actual.

That need to activily tip the weighted outside foot is a big difference of approaches to ski instruction. In railroad turns, for sure, your going to be actively tipping to achieve any carving action. In faster turns, the inclination of the body is enough, modulated with the inside ski. There is not an active focus of tipping on that outside foot. That approach would be a difference in style of instruction, but not always a difference in actual skiing.
post #127 of 336
Quote:
Originally Posted by skier31
John: You contradict yourself. You state the turn is a "reality" and then you state, "in my opinion". You are entitled to your opinions regarding turns and so are others. It is not about whether the turns are right or wrong or a reality or make-believe. Go out and ski and have a good time. Be open to what others have to offer and then choose what you like and reject what you don't. It is amazing what can happen when you drop your pre-conceived notions.
Amen....well said. What is with this idea of attempting to catagorize turns as having a particular style or to define teaching modalities.

There are only four things we can do to a ski....tip them, turn them, push on them or pull on them.
post #128 of 336
Thread Starter 

Yes - this is true

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick H
John,
I got over being a Harb activist about 2 years ago, after the first ESA. I was skiing as well as many of the other coaches (I was an assistant). But one thing that i noticed; we all had fun. We all had a different approach to our personal skiing and our approach to teaching was different than PMTS. But the outcome was the same. The students all had good moves. One woman asked me what Weems meant when he described a certain movement. I explain in a PMTS term and she got it right away. The object is to ski with good movements. Teaching is to have the student ski with good movements. It makes no difference whether it is PSIA or PMTS. It is the outcome.

rh
I certainly agree with this. There was a good 90 percent shopping cart match with what I learned in PMTS with what was presented at the two PSIA ran race camps I attended. This is why I have been concerned with the EWS turn since that, of course, can be done wrong and in a negative way, yet I never saw the correct way ever described on this board. The oppisite has been true and yet this is a common and prevalent skiing move by top skiers.

Rusty is saying it's a semantical difference. All good skiing movements exist because they are effective and efficient movements. How they are cued and taught for a particullar student can vary. I would just be concerned if this style of turn as I have described it was taught "against" because that makes no sense to me.
post #129 of 336
Thread Starter 

too limiting

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusty Guy

There are only four things we can do to a ski....tip them, turn them, push on them or pull on them.
I've seen people go upside down and use them as helicoper blades
post #130 of 336
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mason
In other words, my bread and butter turn, I would gather from BB's comments would be a focus of coaching efforts to not turn that way since the EWS turn is full of negative movements in his opinion. You do see why this would be a bit of a problem for me.
John,

Nobody is saying your turn is wrong! Further, if you were to attend an Epic event or ski with any of these coaches, I suspect that you will never hear anyone express that your skiing or your turns are wrong. It's just not a right or wrong issue.

There is more than one turn. Some turns are more efficient than others. Some turns are more appropriate than others in a given circumstance. I think it would make sense to learn as many as possible, as no one turn will serve you well in all circumstances.

You have cited several published references that you use. Likewise, you have conversed openly with some of the top pro's in the field here on EpicSki. What gives the published texts more validity than the masters that have submitted their text here? If you're truly interested in finding the answers to these differences, then I'm sure you realize that it is quite easy for you to gain access to the coaches you are conversing with now, on snow - as you've already listed nearly 3 weeks that you are planning to ski in their back yard.
post #131 of 336
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mason
By style of turn, there are all sorts of styles of turn. There are also different ways of describing turns.

You are walking a fine line when you say rotation happens (of course) or when you have to make rotation happen or fall.

The angle of the body with the skis when it is not vertical creates tipping. You can of course, tip more or less than that with articulation of the foot. But the primary tipping simply comes from body alignment in my "style" of turn as far as the stance leg is concerned. This also seems to be a difference that may be just interpetation or actual.

That need to activily tip the weighted outside foot is a big difference of approaches to ski instruction. In railroad turns, for sure, your going to be actively tipping to achieve any carving action. In faster turns, the inclination of the body is enough, modulated with the inside ski. There is not an active focus of tipping on that outside foot. That approach would be a difference in style of instruction, but not always a difference in actual skiing.
Where or when did I ever say "you have to make rotation happen or fall?"

John what amazes me most about you is the fact that for a guy who says on the one hand he is a brand new skier you sure have a tendency to be pretty doggone emphatic with your assertions.

In a way it's admirable that in the name of PMTS you'll come out and challenge a guy like Bob who has been teaching skiing for over twenty years.

I also have to add I am amazed that after the short time you have been skiing you would take on teaching relatives.

I'd love to see what all this new found wisdom translates into in terms of your skiing. Your buddy HH once talked about paper gurus in one of his tirades. I hope he hasn't created the very thing he laments.
post #132 of 336
Thread Starter 

Why the written sources?

Quote:
Originally Posted by cgeib
You have cited several published references that you use. Likewise, you have conversed openly with some of the top pro's in the field here on EpicSki. What gives the published texts more validity than the masters that have submitted their text here? If you're truly interested in finding the answers to these differences, then I'm sure you realize that it is quite easy for you to gain access to the coaches you are conversing with now, on snow - as you've already listed nearly 3 weeks that you are planning to ski in their back yard.
The written sources were simply to move the discussion away from Bob Barnes first grader to physicsman comment which if true would mean my question doesn't warrant or require an answer. Yet, his many comments over the years appear to contradict these authors - not just what I was saying.

The 2nd reason was that some here clearly were confused about this turn and movement pattern. They were not getting information positive about it on this forum, in fact the history was negative comments of this turn.

By providing the references people can look up and read the material and see how this turn works and play with it themselves.
post #133 of 336
Thread Starter 

Rusty - moving back to ad hom mode

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusty Guy
Where or when did I ever say "you have to make rotation happen or fall?"
You didn't say that. I said that. People that rely on rotation in turns in the mode of rotation that is not simply reacting to the turning skis, often have to make rotation happen to keep from falling.

Many that don't have an EWS turn in their pocket will do this type of active rotation. If they did not they would fall.
post #134 of 336
Thread Starter 

I'm not challenging Bob

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusty Guy
In a way it's admirable that in the name of PMTS you'll come out and challenge a guy like Bob who has been teaching skiing for over twenty years.
Gosh, you've really got something up your craw when PMTS is mentioned.

My question was specific.

The EWS turn style taught by 3 major authors and instructors of which one of which happens to be HH/PMTS, has been actively maligned on this board over the years.

I'm not trying to challenge Bob. I'm just trying to understand why his prior writtings try to exclude this type of turn.

If my exploring this contradiction is a challenge it was not my intent.
post #135 of 336
Back somewhere about page one I was going to chime in on this. Right now I'm glad I didn't. John is obviously nearly as pigheaded as I am so I will tell you all right now, give it up. He's convinced that he has found the holy grail of ski turns and nothing we say will change that. Prehapse, if we were on snow we could make some progress but here in cyber space there is no chance.

John,

If you are ever in SLC for a week you have a free pass to DV waiting for you. All you have to do is ski with me for a while.

yd
post #136 of 336
Thread Starter 

awesome!

I'll be in DV in March

Look - this obviously isn't the be all end all only turn someone can make. It does happen to be the core movement taught by in the book Ski the Whole Mountain by Eric and Rob DesLauriers. Eric is a bear coach of course.

They obviously feel this style of turn has very wide application.

That's why I have not understood the historical treatment on this board of this style turn calling it a negative movement and a step up the hill.

The rather passive turn described in it's place (the perfect turn) is an alternative of course, but hardly the perfect turn. The EWS turn is much closer to that ideal. (In my very inexperienced opinion)
post #137 of 336
John,

Explain to me your understanding of BB's use of the term negative as in negative movement.

I don't have anything up my craw about PMTS. This is merely round #2 of some guy who thinks he has, as Yd puts it, found the holy grail, making arguments when he simply doesn't have the requisit knowledge to talk about competing organizations.

First we uncovered your misunderstanding about levels 1-8

Then we dealt with PSIA's centerline

We worked on your assumptions about the wedge being "taught" as part of a progression.

A wide variety of folks have tried to explain to you the role of PSIA in the life of a ski instructor, what the organization does, etc.

Attacks?. Who is attacking who? When you don't like what I say you accuse me of somehow resorting tobelow the belt tactics. Yes, I do not understand what would prompt someone with a year or so of skiing to think they can teach the sport. Yes, I do not understand what would prompt a guy with a couple of lessons under his belt to go to a race camp. In a word it is presumptuous.

The level of your understanding is admirable. Your misunderstandings are considerable as well.

You speak of attacks. What or who has filled you with your ideas about;

PSIA
the wedge
rotary movements
"traditional" ski teaching

Remember, many of us hear are a bit jaded because we have been down this path once before with the first version of the 97% wonder.
Yes, quite frankly, it gets a tad old.
post #138 of 336
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusty Guy
...Oh Lord Jesus how did I get sucked into this...
Once this thread starts to approach the 378 messages of the infamous "Get off those edges" thread of this summer, you will have my permission to make the above statement. Until then, all I can say is, "you ain't seen nuttin', buddy..."


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Barnes/Colorado
...Nevertheless, you apparently see this as a debate. (I can see Physicsman rolling his eyes!)...


Tom / PM
post #139 of 336
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhysicsMan
Once this thread starts to approach the 378 messages of the infamous "Get off those edges" thread of this summer, you will have my permission to make the above statement. Until then, all I can say is, "you ain't seen nuttin', buddy..."
You are sooooooo right.

This reminds me of the Russian from your neck of the woods!
post #140 of 336
Thread Starter 

Sure - no problem

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusty Guy
John,

Explain to me your understanding of BB's use of the term negative as in negative movement.
A negative movement is a movement in skiing that is against the movement of the turn. In the case of the discussion of the early weight shift, if this was indeed a step up the hill, the natural flow of the CM down the hill would be disturbed in an unnatural way and slow the CM down. In an extreme case a skier misusing this could actually stop the CM down the hill movement. This would be a negative movement. In efficient skiing negative movements by definition are not the best way to go down the hill as you are expending energy against the turn direction or CM movement.

For instance, kicking the hills out to create the new angle for a turn rather than riding the skis till the new angle is achieved would be a negative movement. You could do it. In fact you may want to do it and have to do it for a certain situation.

Hopping into the air and then pivoting the skis would be a negative movement. But once again this would be totally fine in certain situations.

In otherwords, a negative movement is negative in the context and as compared to a normal flowing set of linked turns down the mountain. It is a study in an efficient use of energy to go down the mountain.

In this context, if you do not prepare for the release and tipping of the downhill ski as you come out of a turn, by replacing that pressure on the uphill ski and holding on the LTE as the pressure is released from the downhill ski, then the body will vertically fall in response to the 2 legged lack of support. This negative movement would ultimately have to be undone as there is a limit to how far downhill you go.

So, in my use of the term I'm referring to motions of the CM or the skis that alter needlessly the direction or movement of the turn or CM.
post #141 of 336
Thread Starter 

Actually I really enjoyed that thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhysicsMan
Once this thread starts to approach the 378 messages of the infamous "Get off those edges" thread of this summer, you will have my permission to make the above statement. Until then, all I can say is, "you ain't seen nuttin', buddy..."
Clearly the title was provocative, but the truism that there is an optimum angle for the ski to match pressure and it's at the base of the ski was right on. Ron LeMasters book discusses this at length in the Skier's Edge. People can over edge and actually lose true grip.
post #142 of 336
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mason
A negative movement is a movement in skiing that is against the movement of the turn. In the case of the discussion of the early weight shift, if this was indeed a step up the hill, the natural flow of the CM down the hill would be disturbed in an unnatural way and slow the CM down. In an extreme case a skier misusing this could actually stop the CM down the hill movement. This would be a negative movement. In efficient skiing negative movements by definition are not the best way to go down the hill as you are expending energy against the turn direction or CM movement.

For instance, kicking the hills out to create the new angle for a turn rather than riding the skis till the new angle is achieved would be a negative movement. You could do it. In fact you may want to do it and have to do it for a certain situation.

Hopping into the air and then pivoting the skis would be a negative movement. But once again this would be totally fine in certain situations.

In otherwords, a negative movement is negative in the context and as compared to a normal flowing set of linked turns down the mountain. It is a study in an efficient use of energy to go down the mountain.
Great description

Again, you are to certainly be commended for the breadth of your understanding of some complex issues.

the last paragraph lost me so I simply deleted it

So here is one last stab. IF one moves their weight uphill it is a negative movement. I THINK in many instances what you describe is, in fact, merely "pressuring" the new outside ski which can certainly be done via extension at the outset of any new turn. "Weight" never has to move uphill.

I'll describe chapter II of my pickup truck tale. The poor soul in the back who is trying to stay on his feet while exiting. Think about his "weight".

I want to interject here Bob B does not agree with what I'm about to say!

The guy in the truck FEELS like his weight is going to the left during the right hand exit. We also see him going to the right. That is reality. IF he didn't maintain a blend of concentric and eccentric contraction with the muscles of his left leg he would go left. I don't want to rehash any centripetal/centrifugal discussions. We'll save those for next July.

In fact his weight, his CM is going to the right.
post #143 of 336
Thread Starter 

yep - no "weight" moves uphill

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusty Guy
Great description
So here is one last stab. IF one moves their weight uphill it is a negative movement. I THINK in many instances what you describe is, in fact, merely "pressuring" the new outside ski which can certainly be done via extension at the outset of any new turn. "Weight" never has to move uphill.
yes - I think your use of weight is interchangable with my use of the term CM or center of mass. Changing pressure from the downhill ski early to the uphill ski to effect the nature and style of the turn at transition, (such as allowing for greater tipping action of the downhill ski then if they were flat to the hill at the fall line exact center point) does not move or change the CM. One legs pressure is exchanged for the other. As long as it's a functional stance, this does not change the nature of the turn.

Do the stepping drill on a black slope in a set of slalom gate turns and you can be on either edge and any point of the turn without any effect on the primary direction of the CM or the turn.

So, changing pressure (better term than early weight shift - thanks Rusty) can be an effective option for changing the nature of the turn.

I like that much better than Lito's "early weight shift" description that obviously can really confuse people.

Thanks!
post #144 of 336
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mason
Clearly the title was provocative, but the truism that there is an optimum angle for the ski to match pressure and it's at the base of the ski was right on. Ron LeMasters book discusses this at length in the Skier's Edge. People can over edge and actually lose true grip.
"...the truism that there is an optimum angle for the ski to match pressure and it's at the base of the ski was right on..."

The above statement was not:

a) The main problem with that exchange.

b) Anything even close to an obvious truism. (In fact, I don't even know what your phrase "to match pressure" means, or, for that matter, what the entire rest of your sentence means.

c) The main subject of discussion of the thread (despite it's title).

d) What (IMHO) daSlider had in mind when he titled that old thread.

I have absolutely no intention of re-opening that discussion, especially when, IMHO, it would likely veer, yet again, into wonderfully and infinitely arguable semantic minutiae.

:

Tom / PM
post #145 of 336
Thread Starter 

whatever

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhysicsMan
[iI have absolutely no intention of re-opening that discussion, especially when, IMHO, it would likely veer, yet again, into wonderfully and infinitely arguable semantic minutiae.

:

Tom / PM
Pressure - you must balance forces. This is done with the base of the ski. The "edges" just help slice into the slope so the base can do it's job.

Dasliders title was correct and simple and obvious.

The idea that you always get better grip as the angles increase if false. Many other factors come into play.

the majority of the thread was all over the place

But your right - your point was this thread has a long way to go to catch up with that one.

Sorry to make you :
post #146 of 336
>... Pressure - you must balance forces. This is done with the base of the ski. The "edges" just help slice into the slope so the base can do it's job. ...

This is nonsense. Don't you remember that I showed mathematically that both the sides and bases of skis experience perpendicular (aka, "normal") forces from the snow. In some situations, the sides of the ski actually experience more force from the snow than the base. In other situations, the base takes more of the load. The side load is rarely zero. This might happen if the edging angle suddenly becomes less than the critical angle and the ski is about to fall off of the little shelf in the snow that it had previously made.

If you re-read the old thread to it's completion, you will see that after I presented a detailed analysis and related graphs which showed the forces on the sides and the bases in various situations, even daSlider himself conceeded this point.

Of course, like other posters one might encounter on the Internet, daSlider never actually admitted that he was wrong, he just stopped making silly pronouncements about this particular area but kept the thread active by moving on to other topics.
---------

>... Dasliders title was correct and simple and obvious ...

When it's pretty clear that not everyone will agree with you on some point, don't you think your comment(s) would sound more realistic and moderate if you would instead phrase them like this:

"IMHO, Daslider's title was correct and simple and obvious."
---------

>... The idea that you always get better grip as the angles increase if false. Many other factors come into play ... the majority of the thread was all over the place ...this thread has a long way to go to catch up with that one....

All absolutely true statements. In fact, I'll go you one further - statements that use the word, "always", are almost always wrong.

See, we occasionally agree.

Tom / PM
post #147 of 336
Thread Starter 

I'll go back and read that

Thanks for the info. I didn't follow the whole thread. I'll link to your posts and see. I popped in now and then.

When your tipped in a turn at maximum lean, you would have a downward component on the edge and an outward one on the base. Gut feeling, especially in a pow turn, is if there was force on the edge - sideways, the ski would move that way - which it doesn't. It appears initially obvious to me that you are supported by the base and not the edge.

I'll go back and study it.

I should clarify - everything I put down here is my opinion. It's always modifyable by a good logical argument. So even if I don't say it's my opinion, its my current opinion and observation. There is so much interpetation of terms that can be mis-communicated I'm totally of the opinion that good ski movements are found in all sources of information. Each person has their own emphasis.

The whole reason I focused on this turn was I had never seen it described in a positive way, even though it is widely taught. The reasons presented against it were not logical, unless the turn was improperly done or demonstrated.

(IMO)
post #148 of 336
Thread Starter 

Yes - Physicsman you are correct!

http://www.fototime.com/7C933367D58D733/orig.jpg

If only I had the correct understandings of how the edges provide support in 34 inches of fluff, this would not have happened to me!

(so far my one and only skiing in powder day) (never did see that day after that somersault)
post #149 of 336
John - You know what, after seeing that photo, even *I* can't get worked up about the % loading on the base of the ski and such things. The $1,000,000 smile on your face says it all: YOU'RE HAVING FUN !!!! (and that's what it's all about.)

That's a great photo!

Cheers,

Tom / PM
post #150 of 336
Yes. Nice photo. Looks like the EWS (Eat White Stuff) turn. I know that one too.
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 › Skiing Styles and Instruction