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 10

post #271 of 336

Toenail clippings.... (part 1 of 3)

So, let me get this straight, Snowdog. You're now questioning pure physics and mathematics, purely on the basis that they support a point I've made with which you think you disagree???

My, you really are a "special case," aren't you?

************************************************** ***************
READER WARNING and DISCLAIMER: For those who have already concluded that Snowdog is nothing more than a poser and a troll, please do not bother reading on--there's nothing here that you don't already know. If you aren't so convinced, I urge you to continue before you accept any of Snowdog's notions. There is very little information about skiing in this post, so please skip it if that's what you're looking for. The point of this post is simply to cast appropriate doubt on Snowdog's facts, and his methods of "arguing" them. It will necessarily get personal, so for those who don't like that, STOP HERE, but do not read any of Snowdog's posts either! Please DO be sure to read my honest "olive branch" post that follows this message (which will, unfortunately, require two or three posts, due to EpicSki size constraints).
************************************************** ****************

John Mason is a novice skier with obvious passion for learning. He's an avid reader, and a prolific, questioning writer. He has been given some good advice, and some highly questionable advice, but he is learning. He is learning both more and more accurate information, as well as better understanding of how each specific piece of information fits into the big picture of "good skiing." The more he learns, the more he realizes there is yet to understand--something all great students discover. He uses his real name (presumably), and is not afraid to reveal his experience, or lack thereof. I commend his efforts!

You, on the other hand, who hides behind a pseudonym, have convinced yourself that you know something, and that you have knowledge worth teaching others. You very well might, but your posts belie your understanding with nearly every word. (I was originally going to say that you have repeatedly demonstrated that you have the reading comprehension of a rutabaga, and that I have toenail clippings that understand more about skiing than you do, but I changed my mind and decided against that. It's probably off-topic, and I was concerned about possibly offending rutabagas, so I pulled those comments.) You seem to think that you can manipulate a discussion by just making up whatever you want, attributing ridiculous statements to people that don't even resemble what they actually said, and changing your own story whenever it suits you. You can't even get the straw man argument right, because you follow your fictitious fabrications with such faulty and meandering logic that whatever point you are trying to make gets lost in a sea of hyperbole, ad hominem attacks, grammatical travesties, appeals to authority, leaps of faulty reasoning, misunderstanding and misrepresentation of well-established principles of physics and biomechanics, and spelling errors. Because you seem to believe that you just instinctively, immediately, and completely understand "John's Turn," I once thought you must be a PMTS instructor, but your overall confusion suggests that that would be most unfair to PMTS and Harald Harb, who actually does understand a few things. At this point, I'm not even convinced you can SPELL PMTS without a dictionary.

You are very difficult to discuss this stuff with, Snowdog, not because I disagree with some clear point you've made--I would relish that discussion--but because you are so wrong on so many points at so many levels that it's hard to begin. I'm hard pressed to find even a single sentence you've written that does not suffer from some major fault. And unlike you, I will back this claim up. Let's take a look at just one small sample--one short, but representative post, word by word (if anyone wants to look at another after this, just name it):

(Message exceeds EpicSki single post size limits--continued next post....)
post #272 of 336

Toenail clippings (part 2 of 3)

************************************************** **********************************************
Analysis of Snowdog's post #246, point by point, line by line (Snowdog's words in italics):
************************************************** **********************************************

"Tom, no offence [sic], but your [sic] missing the big picture in this discussion."
You're off to a great start here, sport! I'm sure Tom takes no fences, "o" or otherwise, but I wonder what his "missing" is.... I'm not usually one to criticize the occasional typographic spelling or punctuation error, but when posts are rife with them, it's hard not to make some conclusions about the poster, at least subconsciously. Education? Intelligence? Respect for your readers? Do you even take YOURSELF seriously?

"John Masson [sic] introduced the concept of a turn transition technique that is not widely understood...."
A pretty bold statement--where do you get your information that it is "not widely understood?" How do you know what others across the land understand? Where's your evidence to support such a claim? Keep in mind that the fact that some others may appear to harbor a different understanding than you is certainly not evidence that it is THEY who suffer the misunderstanding! And it would appear that John Mason, after a bit of discussion and clarification, was comfortable that others did understand him. It sounds like someone told you that something "is not widely understood," and you believed him. Well, I doubt many others are convinced by that unsupported statement coming from you.

"...but povides [sic] some great benefits..."
No argument there--John's turn does have its uses, and it's fun and worthwhile, as I and others have well-documented (see my posts #157 and 158, entitled "John's Turn...a good one!"). For some unexplained reason, you continue to suggest that there IS disagreement on this point, and much of your "argument" seems based on this clearly false premise. John himself agreed that my description was at least pretty close to his understanding (see post #160). So he must not understand it either, I guess, even though it's "his turn," and he was the one who started this thread.

"...(See the exchange between Steve and I [sic] in which we discuss this Steve use and impression of this technique, and also notice how Bob is just out in left field on it)."
"This Steve use"?? Left field? I stand completely by my brief analysis of Steve's initial tentative attempt to describe something he felt (Steve's post #224, my reply #225). He said he "applied pressure" to the uphill ski as he was releasing the downhill ski, which is not sufficiently descriptive to determine whether he was sensing an active or a passive weight transfer--especially at higher speeds, the difference in timing is split-second. He clarified in his next post (#227), AFTER my reply, that he believes it was a "conscious pressuring," but I am still not convinced he's necessarily describing an active move--could be, though.

Steve also said that "the uphill ski did not carve under this pressure," which means it was clearly FLAT, or at least below "critical edge angle" (the "release point")--hence my suggestion that his turn most resembles the "inside-flat" move we have discussed, not the "inside-outside" move. And Steve said that his turn felt like my description--"it did generate some of that 'falling' that Bob was describing...."

"Notice how Bob is just out in left field..."? Hmm...anyone? Any flaws in my reasoning? You'd better substantiate that claim, Snowdog. Show me where exactly I'm "in left field"--which specific points you disagree with, and why.

For what it's worth, Steve, it would be great to see some video, or at least stills, of your turn. We'll be able to play with it on snow soon!

"Bob misunderstood the technique John was describing..."
It's possible--keyboards and verbal description certainly have their limits--but John himself agreed that we were getting pretty close: "Yes--you're describing the turn pretty accurately," he said (John's post #160).

"Bob misunderstood the technique...as an uphill CM negative movement and launched into his common condemnation."
First, I believe I coined the term "negative movement," so don't suggest that I don't understand that! Second, I certainly have NOT stated, anywhere, that a weight transfer necessarily causes an uphill movement of the CM. It can, and it OFTEN does (would have to actually see John skiing to see how he's applying it--his understanding appears accurate, from my perspective). I have many times explained and demonstrated exactly how a weight transfer can and does affect the CM. Can you say, "Reading comprehension," ruta...'er, Snowdog?

Furthermore, I have NEVER "condemned" negative movements anyway! I have gone to great lengths to explain their uses and misuses, their causes, and their effects. There is ample documentation here at EpicSki and elsewhere that I do not express blanket "condemnation" of ANY movements, negative or otherwise. Your repeated misportrayals to the contrary are "straw man" at its most insidious worst! Or is this just that old reading comprehension thing too? ["Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."--"Hanlon's Razor"]

"I believe he now understands his misconception but continues to use these hair splitting, word game rationals in an attempt to hold onto his rejection of the virtues of Johns turn and continue to promote his 'perfect turn' mantra."
While I have no doubt that I harbor more than a few misconceptions, and I enjoy having them exposed, you have certainly not demonstrated any misconception on this point, on my part, at least. So your belief is in error. "Word game rationals [sic]"? You'd better explain that one, Snowdog. "Rejection of...Johns [sic] turn"? Re-read (try), my "John's Turn...a good one" post--or at least the title of it! Do statements like "John, I share your taste for this turn! It is one of my favorite turns too" (post #158) mean absolutely nothing to you, Snowdog? They certainly refute any suggestion that I "reject" John's turn! Another straw man fabrication with no basis in fact....

And "perfect turn mantra"? I have occasionally suggested various "mantra's" to help precipitate particular techniques and movements (not in this thread), but I surely don't know where you get the notion of a "perfect turn mantra" here! Indeed, I have repeatedly stated that the (so-called) "Perfect Turn" is only one technique of many, a reference, more than a goal, that it is certainly NOT the only kind of turn skiers should focus on, that expert skiing is not about ANY type of turn--it's about SKILLS and APPLICATION matched to specific TACTICS and INTENTS. I have said this over and over, in this and in many other threads. If anything could be construed as my "mantra" about skiing, it is this notion that NO turn is "the way to ski"--quite contrary to your suggestion. Over and over and over and.... (Oh yeah--it must be that reading comprehension thing once again. Perhaps I should say it LOUDER, or maybe s--l--o--w--e--r....)

"The points I have responded to (like the car comparison, and the "do nothing" concept) I've done so very strongly because either their foundation is so flawed they lead the reader to bogus conclusions, or the validity they do hold is questionable at best and only in limited situations."
You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but if you expect to sway any other thinking person, you need to provide some substantiation for statements like this. By the way, what the H--- is "the do nothing concept"? I'll answer that--it's yet another straw man fabricated to completely misrepresent a point I've made, so you can conveniently disparage it. Well, the idea is yours and yours alone--refute yourself all you want, but they have padded rooms for problems like that!

Herewith, I'll use a little of your type of "logic" to support my counterclaim: No, the foundation is not flawed, and my points do not lead the reader to bogus conclusions (if they actually read them, and have at least 8th grade reading skills). Yours do. So there!

Convinced? I didn't think so.

(continued next post...)
post #273 of 336

Toenail clippings (part 3 of 3)

"Take the car case. A minor edge angle, at very low speeds, is just not the typical ski turn."
Really? Tell that to the thousands and thousands of novice skiers out there. It most certainly IS typical! Perhaps the best example, whether you approve of it or not, is the basic early wedge turner, who can navigate the bunny slope just fine with his naturally open stance, simply steering his skis where he wants to go. In fact, to succeed, he must first get over the common natural tendency to "lean in" to his turns, that you advocate, and instead allow the pressure and balance to move naturally toward the outside ski.

I won't suggest--and never have suggested--that you should not, or don't need to, incline into MOST turns for balance. In fact, I have explicitly and repeatedly stated otherwise. If you want living color substantiation of this fact, just look at ANY of the "Perfect Turn" illustrations. As PhysicsMan has pointed out, there is really no need to rebut a statement I haven't made, so I won't bother going on. But I will remind you that this car analogy was one of three points I made, each of which absolutely, positively refuted your claim that "to start a new turn you must move the CM accross [sic] the body." You may not like the car analogy, but it is in fact scientifically valid and applicable, and most importantly, it served its intended purpose of disproving your statement, whether you like it or not!

"And even here, with the forces generated by the new small radius skis, it takes very little speed or edge to generate forces adaquate to tip the vector enough to demand a movement of the CM out of the neutral plane to achieve efficient balance. I know you know that Tom."
No argument there, and yes, I'm sure Tom does know that. Congratulations, Snowdog--two complete sentences with no egregious errors! Although, by your tone, it seems you expect that I would disagree, or would like to suggest to others that I or Tom have disagreed. Wrong again, Straw, 'er, Snowsog (oops, that was a typo, but I kinda' like it!).

"Can you just angulate at the knee and keep the CM at neutral while turn in these slow/low situations. Perhaps, but you are not in true balance, and the shear force of the force vector acting on your knees (as it shoots out of the CM and down somewhere to the snow outside of the outside foot) is challenging the integrity of the ligaments. That is dangerous advice if taken literally."
Yeah--there sure is a lot of force in these "slow/low" situations, isn't there? Oh, the humanity! Those poor little wedge turners gliding happily on the bunny slope--someone really should warn them!

What is "true balance"? If the skier hasn't fallen over, he/she is in balance, by at least one valid definition. Indeed, until the inside ski becomes truly "weightless" (no pressure), the PMTS guys would say that the skier is too far INSIDE. How do you reconcile that with your contention that he/she should have moved further inside? Of course, if that force vector actually, as you describe, passes through a point outside of the outside foot, then the skier is, in fact, falling down, and that "force vector" won't last long anyway!

Regarding knee angles--the effect you describe is no different or more or less dangerous WHENEVER you have knee angles--whether you are balanced on two feet or one, inclined "inside" or between your skis. And once again, who said that you should NOT move the CM inside at all, anyway? I've only stated that you don't necessarily always have to, especially as a turn-initiating movement--not that you can't or shouldn't ever do it. I'm amazed to have to repeat this basic thought for you, but I will reiterate that, while such a move is OFTEN a mistake--and I have previously explained why--it is certainly not ALWAYS a mistake.

"That is why I objected so strongly, I've heard this tip and turn and leave the CM alone mantra many times before and I always react strongly to it because it promotes dangerous ski technique. It surprises me that Bob would promote such an idea, and attempt to downplay the importance of lateral CM movement.
Well, now that your ideas have been thoroughly debunked, I assume that you will change your reaction in the future. (What am I thinking? Actually, I suspect that no fact, and no argument, will ever sway you from your unfortunate misconceptions. I'd love to have you prove me wrong, though, in this regard or any other!)

Since I have not, in fact, "downplayed the importance of CM movement," as even a cursory glance at my "perfect turn" illustrations will confirm, I need not rebut this silly and inexplicable misstatement.

"To what goal? Just to win a debate?"
What "debate," Snowdog? You flatter yourself if you think your brand of sophistry constitutes any sort of "debate." I'm just trying to correct your deplorable misrepresentation of what are really some pretty basic skiing concepts, before anyone actually tries to apply your sophomoric ideas.

"As a thinking and neutral party, Tom, I would expect you to understand the legitamacy of my position and quest."
I'm certain that he does!

"More later,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"
Yes, and that next post ("The Premice [sic] of the debate," #248) is a REAL doozy. I only wish I had time to do that one justice!

But there is really no point. Again, virtually every sentence, in every post you've made, has serious problems, just as this post did. You are so off-base in your arguments, so inaccurate in your portrayal of my points, and so terribly confused in your portrayal of fundamental concepts, that I would consider your posts to be total write-offs. I don't expect anyone really got anything useful regarding skiing from this message, anyway, and I apologize for having to write it.

The point is simply to show how far off you really are, and how truly flawed is your reasoning, so as to eliminate the need for any further point-by-point replies like this one. I can assure you--there will not be any more! That's not to say that I won't discuss any real, valid points that you or anyone else brings up. But there is certainly no need for any further indulgences of your keyboard diarrhea, as far as I'm concerned.

I'm Bob Barnes, and I approve this message!

************************************************** ******
“Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.” —Aldous Huxley
post #274 of 336

An Olive Branch, and a very honest plea....

Snowdog, as my previous posts indicate, I'm pretty frustrated and disappointed with this discussion, so far. But I truly enjoy an actual good "debate," in which both sides take care to try to understand the other's perspective, and carefully frame their arguments to support their own. Despite my contention that you have not YET demonstrated any of the real understanding that you profess to possess, of something unique, profound, and superior, I really do get the impression that you have some experience, and some knowledge to share, and I would like to respect it, and learn from it. If you would be willing to take my critiques of your posting style to heart, and make a real effort to present your ideas objectively, and to respect that I and many others do, in fact, have a fair amount of experience in these matters, I will gladly extend an olive branch to you, put the past where it belongs, and engage you in a discussion from which I am sure we can both gain.

I do not like the flippant and somewhat indignant tone that permeates my last reply to you, and I am not proud of it. I would prefer not to feel the need to write to you in that style again.

What do you say?

Best regards,
Bob Barnes
post #275 of 336
Thread Starter 

Bob, you don't have to know who he is

If you know who he is then you might find a way to ignore what he says. You have been very quick to use that method with me.

Snowdawg, whomever you are, you are a wise man, or female.

The funny thing is, when you do find out that he is not a PMTS brainwashed individual, or a new skier that is an avid learner, you will be left with where I left this.


We are either talking past each other, or you may not actually understand this style of turn. I'll assume the first and give the benefit of the doubt.

On the snow is the only way to know.

Regards and hope to ski with you someday.
post #276 of 336
I hope to ski with you too, John. And you are right--it makes no difference who someone is. Truth and facts do not depend on the credentials of the person presenting them. But when people are willing to reveal themeselves, by using their real name, or some other way, they tend to take more responsibility for the content of their posts. And, when someone attempts to support their contention simply by suggesting that they "know more," or have more experience, than someone else, it's a pretty lame argument in the first place, but it would certainly help to know where that boast is coming from.

In the end, regardless of who is doing the speaking, the only thing that really matters, and the only thing we can really go by, are the words and actions themselves. And those are ALL my posts refer to.

Best regards,
Bob Barnes
post #277 of 336
Thread Starter 

ditto that

Originally Posted by Bob Barnes/Colorado
But when people are willing to reveal themeselves, by using their real name, or some other way, they tend to take more responsibility for the content of their posts.
Just look at the unnamed rude posts on realskiers for the extremes people that hide can go to disrupt a forum.

Snowdog has a long way to go to match that.
post #278 of 336
I'm not snowdog and I love my manhatten....Ott

Would someone please approve this message?
post #279 of 336
Originally Posted by Ott Gangl
I'm not snowdog and I love my manhatten....Ott

Would someone please approve this message?
post #280 of 336
Originally Posted by John Mason
If you know who he is then you might find a way to ignore what he says. You have been very quick to use that method with me.

Snowdawg, whomever you are, you are a wise man, or female.
B_ _ _sh _ t!

on two counts.

Show one instance where knowing your identity has caused Bob to ignore what you have said. He may have disagreed, however, as has so often been the case in the past you tend to jump to conclusions.

Do I have to get out the big font again?
post #281 of 336

You just wrote at Realskiers;

"The CM discussion was brought in because of two false premises that were posted on epic.

1. That your CM never should be inside your inside ski. (can we say wide stance)
2. That your own body momentum is enough to get your CM to cross over the skis, that no release is required or tipping prior to the fall line transition.

Because of those statements (and thankfully many over there rejected 1, but most still think 2 is true), I have been replaying my own turns and enjoying how a proper release initiated before the fall line transition, takes care of the grossly improper physics postulated in number 2 above."


In the past I have said you were a bright guy. I'm either wrong or

post #282 of 336
Thread Starter 

Simple Rusty

He still believes that we are not talking past each other. He believes he understands the turn I'm describing.

He does not consider me a credible source and believes he understands what I'm describing.

At the same time he also writes off what snowdog is saying and wants to know snowdogs background to make such statements.

Like I said, no one will prove anything to anyone in forum land regarding the negative or positive aspects of this turn no one is talking about.

Of course, you think you know what I was talking about and so does Bob. I'm totally fine with that.

I'm still where I was. I look forward to skiing with anyone. But to discuss this historically contentious turn in this venue rather then sharing movement patterns on the slope is pointless.

Go share a relaxing drink with Ott and why keep going with this thread?
post #283 of 336
Well, Bob, congratulations, You just posted, and now lay claim to, the biggest hissy fit in the Epicski archives.

Somewhere in that 3 pages of emotional venting you said something about enjoying being challenged, or proved wrong, or some such sentiment. Oh yah, anyone can see that you just revel in it. Man, I've never seen anyone rage so over being challenged. If you were a 4 year old you'd be sent to your room for such an outburst. While I strongly challenged some of your technical beliefs, and questioned your level of knowlege on a particular turn transition, I never stooped to such a level of personal attack as you did in that parade of posts. It was pathetic Bob.

And after that you want to extend an olive branch? Right! Can't think of anyone I'd rather buddy, buddy up with. I'll of course address you civily in future discussions, and wont allow the style of engagement you've displayed here to degrade my own, but don't expect to be extended my respect. Whatever level of that I harbored prior to this has been diminished.

It will take me awhile to work through your 4 posts, my reading comprehension is rather poor you know, but once I delete all your personal insults and emotional shreikings, this rutabaga will be happy to engage your toenails in a discussion on what little may remain of worthy technical merit.
post #284 of 336

I'm serious....why did you write those two points at realskiers. No one said, suggested or inferred that here. If you simply say you made a mistake I'll understand. It's that sort of thing that is annoying.
post #285 of 336
Originally Posted by SnowDog
While I strongly challenged some of your technical beliefs, and questioned your level of knowlege on a particular turn transition, I never stooped to such a level of personal attack as you did in that parade of posts.
I'll bet I just might be able to make a case that;

1. You went a tad further than "strongly challenged"
2. You stooped a heck of a lot lower
post #286 of 336
Guys -

After remembering how embroiled I became this past summer in a similarly emotional and frustrating thread, I've decided not to touch this one with the proverbial 10 foot pole.

Hopefully, see ya'll in other, much more enjoyable discussions elsewhere on Epic, or maybe even on the snow.

The best of luck,

Tom / PM
post #287 of 336
Thread Starter 

Sure Rusty - not a problem

Sure Rusty:

Bob said:

In linked ski turns, the skier's CM comes out of the last turn moving in a diagonal path across the skis, relative to the skis. That is, it is already moving into the new turn, and unless you need to disrupt that motion, you don't need to do anything.

And you said:

And your own words that snowdog described as lateral neutral where you see no need for the CM to be over the skis to create the tipping.

Of course your premise is true in a railroad turn, but why do that in an actual turn.

The energizer bunny thread just keeps going and going and going.

(there are bigger fonts you know)
post #288 of 336
Thread Starter 

I think I started this thread

I think I started this thread so I just want to say, it's been fun, crazy, emotional.

I have no way to end this thread. It's degraded to who insulted who the most and thus is less than useful.

And who cares! See people Monday I hope - forget this forum stuff - the real skiing is almost here!

So keep on posting whomever/whatever. I am moving on.

To recap - what styles of coaching are taught at the ETU:

different strokes for different coaches

Can you pick your coach


Can people get religious about their ski ideas


Is a forum the best place to share ideas about movement patterns:

not at all

And with those 4 nuggets of knowledge I have gleaned I declare my part of this thread I started done.

See you all on some other thread.

The rest of you, have a blast, go for the record. It's getting closer now. I think it's less than 100 posts away!
post #289 of 336
Well done then John. You introduced a great topic that got people thinking, and reexploring the validity of some standardized beliefs. Ya done good kid.
post #290 of 336

some opinions, thoughts and a plea!

it has to be said... wonder why no women have replied to this thread? c'mon guys you have turned this into a pissing match in the extreme... you have regurgitated the same information for 10 pages!

it's clear - some of you disagree. you know what? who cares! I think that talking about skiing is infinitely less fun than doing it. those of you expressing views here know who the "talkers" and who the "skiers" are... right?

furthermore - a reply to John Mason: the start of this thread was you asking a question about coaching/instructional styles of the coaches at ETU and if it would be valuable for you. to date there has been very little relevant discussion.

I am amused at how you "decided" Stu Campbell wasn't the right coach for you. I skied with Stu last year at the ETU. He is a GOD. his coaching style is to offer ideas to improve your ski style. unlike many here - if you chose not to accept his ideas it doesn't bother him.

I have skimmed through this 10 page monster thread and have thought of a few analogies. as with any physical activity/sport there are folks who do it instinctively and those who rely on theory.

I have only been skiing for 6 seasons myself - and I am always humbled by this fact. I wish I had learned to ski as a kid – most excellent skiers I know have been skiing for a lifetime.

I am a sailor - so, I will compare skiing to sailing...

I learned to sail at age 8 and raced in college. as an adult I have done both recreational sailing and racing. pros will always comment that instinctive sailors are far and away the better sailors - we learned as kids and couldn't be bothered with the "science" of it all - we just got really good at FEELING what was fast (in sailing a fast boat is often a well-sailed boat).

I volunteered one summer at the boatclub in my city. I'd often be out with people who would ask me very specific questions about technique and tactics. "What's the best way to trim the sail if the wind is blowing at 10 knots and you're on a beam reach?" I'd say - I can't answer that question. why couldn't I answer it? to answer it would be to assume that the conditions were static. on any given day, in any boat, on any body of water there are SOO many variables - you just have to know good techniques and tactics - how and when to utilize them.

this thread makes me think of all the times someone was mad at me because I said I couldn't answer their sailing question. skiing is the same... conditions vary and change from run to run. and, our skiing adapts, right? John Mason – a piece of advice: build a BIG toolbox of ski tools and learn when and how to use them ALL.

the lessons of my sailing years have served me well in skiing:
- there is no such thing as too much practice
- many talk a good game, few ski one

I propose we table this discussion until it can be resumed on-hill... I wanna see all you guys put your money where your mouth is! LOL

post #291 of 336
Originally Posted by klkaye
it has to be said... wonder why no women have replied to this thread? c'mon guys you have turned this into a pissing match in the extreme... you have regurgitated the same information for 10 pages!
We did - I was on page 1 from memory - he ignored me.... a disabled skier, female, middle aged, learnt to ski in middle age, who takes up to 70 private lessons a season did not suit his purpose for arguing with..... Or he disliked my ideas on lessons

Bonni, Nolo, ant all weighed in around page 4.... again they seem to get ignored....

I think it is like stags - they need to clash antlers to prove they are "boys" or "better boys" or some crap....
post #292 of 336
I have skimmed through this 10 page monster thread
God bless ya for at least trying Kiersten.

I don't now how anyone looking to learn could now read through this thread and make hide nor hair out of any of it. It's so overloaded with emotion, and misaligned debate, that it's hard to wade through it all to find the occasional tidbit of value. Sad part is those tidbits are in there, and they're good tidbits, but very few non-technicians will be able to find and extract them.
post #293 of 336
Originally Posted by klkaye
skiing is the same... conditions vary and change from run to run. and, our skiing adapts, right? John Mason – a piece of advice: build a BIG toolbox of ski tools and learn when and how to use them ALL.

the lessons of my sailing years have served me well in skiing:
- there is no such thing as too much practice
- many talk a good game, few ski one
I sort of said that in the posts he ignored... something along the lines of
a) Good skiers all look like good skiers
b) Good teachers all have stuff to teach
c) Wanna be a good skier be more adaptable....
d) To do c) be a sponge - suck it all up - learn it all....

but then again... what would I know.....
post #294 of 336
That's right on Disski. Versatility is key.

John is a new skier, only a year and a half on snow. As much as he has picked up so far, he still has tools to aquire for his box (it's only to be expected), just as Kiersten suggested he do.

One of the problems that occured in this thread though was that one of the tools John does have in his box is a very good tool, but when he tried to describe it and how it's used his description was never thoroughly understood. As such the tool John attempted to share was rejected on falce premice and remains out of the tool box of those craftsmen who did so.

post #295 of 336
Actually I think it sort of started like this... nothing to do with transitions really....

Originally Posted by John Mason
I'm a new skier greatly enjoying the sport and I'd enjoy some feedback on instruction and the style of skiing these differences engender.

... Also, interesting, is that I have been instructed by the some of the very best from two systems of instruction that often people describe as competing.

With BigE's post of the Canadian instructor resource site I am struck that instruction styles and philosophies can really affect the end product. That end product being how people actually look at the top of these skiing progressions.

...All three of these approaches get people down the mountain.

1st - Canadian system
2nd - High Level PSIA.
3rd - High Level PMTS.
I see a far more difference between the end result of the Canadian style and the top PSIA and PMTS folks. (that up-unweighting and being flexed rather than extended at the highest g-force part of the turn would be a real bummer. I love the rebound you get as you go from peak extension to greatest flexion right at transition. Why would I want to jump up at that point and spoil all the fun?)

The bigger difference between the systems is the steps to get to the end. Of course, that's a big difference.

So if I went to an ETU camp, what type of skiing is taught? Obviously we got some of the best skiing minds out there. (Weems? - I don't think you go to the Eastern one.)
and I suggested there was more to the world than the north american continent....
post #296 of 336
Originally Posted by John Mason
In looking at the ETU signup PDF I noted the ratio of ski days to instruction. Anyway, my ratio is about 1 out of every 4 days. I've had 19 days instruction out of 75 days of skiing. I started skiing March 2003. ......I hadn't really thought much about it, but looking at the ETU signup form, I see I have far more than the normal amount of instruction compared to the length of time I have been skiing. )
Hmmm hadn't really noticed this bit before.....

John if you have had far more than normal what do I rate?
I have skied about 99 lessons to every 100 days of skiing....
post #297 of 336
I've been watching and reading this thread for a while and while it has been emotionally charged at times, there has still been plenty of good discusion points for someone like myself who is here solely for learning purposes. Having said that, in addition to watching this discussion play out here, I've been watching similar discussions play out over at RealSkiers as well. Below I've pasted an excerpt from one the posts ( by SkierSynergy) I read over there late last night because I think it certainly relates to our discussions here and because it sums up how I feel about COM cause and effect:

I know that several people on this forum also post on Epic (I haven’t posted there, but I follow some of the discussions). There is a lot of discussion there about center of mass (CM) movement: is it necessary?, how much is optimum?, categories of turns based on CM movement patterns (cross-over vs. cross under, etc.), etc., etc. Some of that discussion also crosses over onto this forum.

I would like to share my experience about this issue and offer some references. However, let me start with a very direct statement.

I would recommend that you stop worrying about CM movement. In PMTS CM movement is an effect that is not directly controlled by the skier. The things that are directly controlled by the skier are the primary movements: lateral foot movements, the movements used for pulling the feet back, and leg flexion/extension. CM movement is not a primary movement. And that is why almost nothing is said about it directly in any of Harald’s books. In the PMTS instructors manual there is more reference to CM movement however, they are still just mentions as a part of other discussions and I think that every word in the manual will just reinforce what I am about to say.

Forget about CM movement. It is the primary movements that affect how the CM moves. Proper primary movements will result in proper CM movements.
Further, in terms of instructions, if someone asks me to move my CM more or not to move it so much, I really don’t know what that means. My immediate response is going to be: “How? With what movements? On the level of kinesiology, what do you mean? What am I supposed to do with my body to make it happen?”

Forget trying to control CM. Concentrate on the primary movements.
What do you guys think of SkierSynergy's thought? Again, I liked this post.
post #298 of 336

back to reality

Originally Posted by SnowDog
John does have in his box is a very good tool, but when he tried to describe it and how it's used his description was never thoroughly understood. As such the tool John attempted to share was rejected on falce premice and remains out of the tool box of those craftsmen who did so.

From what I have read - I think that John has *some knowldege or technical understanding of tools*. That is QUITE different from owning a tool and placing in into one's toolbox.

Learning requires two distinct phases:
- acquire the knowledge (this much John has done)
- process the information (this is the phases where you pratice something until you have mastered the skill and fully understand the concept)

John's credibility in this thread is weak because there is no evidence that he has completed the second phase. Rather, I have the impression that he is merely quoting others.

At the same time, Bob Barnes will automatically carry some of my respect and trust as I know what an accomplished skier and instructor he is and I know many who speak *VERY* highly of him.

Snowdog, or is it Snow God???... you have done what is so popular in this forum: taken a piece of my post and distorted my message.

Furthermore, I have to consider: is John Mason real - or a pseudonym to do the handiwork of another on this site? Hmmm.

less talk, more do!
post #299 of 336
Originally Posted by klkaye
Furthermore, I have to consider: is John Mason real - or a pseudonym to do the handiwork of another on this site? Hmmm.

less talk, more do!
No....I think he's the real thing.
post #300 of 336
Chiming in.

I've seen Bob ski. I know Bob. Bob is an accomplished writer. Bob has credibility.

Snowdog could be my grandma in cognito for all we know.

I want video of Snowdog skiing posted here so that we can see these things he's going on about. It would be nice to see John Mason ski also.

If these two clowns are going to have a pissing contest with Bob, let the proof be in the pudding. Film your turns this year so there's no doubt what they look like. Any idiot with a decent digital camera can put themselves on this site. If you can't figure it out, dchan will be happy to help you.

This is why intermediates get turned off of these threads. Not so much Bob....who I thought was beyond patient as long as humanly possible.........but because of the attitude of some other players, and the confusion they create. No one is left unharrassed by them.

Jeff and I buying Ott many manhattan's at 7 Springs.

Over and out.
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