(No worries, Bonni! We may well have crossed the impasse and returned to a spirit of productivity. I guess we'll find out...)
Snowdog--thanks for finally addressing some of the actual points I've made. This is exactly what I've asked for, and what is needed to make this a productive discussion.
I won't argue with you about whether something is or is not "widely understood," because first, neither of us really knows what any other specific person does or not understand, and second, it really doesn't make any difference, does it? It's a vague generalization that is really irrelevent to the discussion. I do think it's offensive and unfair to "people" to suggest that most of them misunderstand something, whether it is true or not. Don't you agree?
And I think it is even sillier, and perhaps the root of much of the wasted energy that this thread has generated, that we are arguing about who does or does not understand what JOHN means! Only John would really know that, and even that would entail his own assumption that he understands US! I will say one thing with conviction, though: I'll bet that, if we were to watch John ski, we would BOTH understand a great deal about what he's doing, and we would probably also be able to accurately infer what he is TRYING to do. And we would both be able to help him achieve it, no doubt with different focuses and approaches. I think we're both pretty familiar with this whole family of movement patterns--I know that you did some racing back in the Stenmark/Mahre days, and some coaching, and much of my familiarity comes from skiing and coaching with Phil and Steve Mahre for nearly fifteen years. I am sure we are both qualified to discuss these moves.
I suggest that we are wasting a lot of energy assuming that either of us really knows what John means. I've tried to understand, and John has stated that he thinks I've come pretty close, but I don't doubt that there are still some differences, and I may well still be misinterpreting him, as you suggest.
I could argue that you have grossly misinterpreted him as well. For example, you specifically disagree with my assertion that "[John's Turns] involve a distinct step (weight transfer) to the uphill edge of the uphill ski before the old turn is finished, causing the uphill ski to continue to carve the end of the turn," with the following rebuttal:
"John's turns do not involve a distinct weight transfer to the uphill ski and a continuation of the turn on the uphill edge of that ski. For that to occure (the turn to continue carving on the outside edge of the uphill ski) there must be a transfer of balance to the outside edge of that uphill ski. That doesn't happen in John's turn."
I submit that my assertion that John's turns involve a distinct weight transfer to the uphill ski is pretty well supported by John's own words. To wit:
|from John's post #95:
"As you remove pressure and flatten then tip your downhill ski the uphill ski at this transition, is weighted and carving on it's LTE."
from John's post #100:
"In the SP turn... you do this active weight shift to the uphill ski... to ensure a carving line on the LTE of the uphill ski is in place..."
from John's post #105:
"If you actively shift your weight to your uphill ski that may or may not have pressure on it already, you are going to increase the pressure as much as you can. This will engage fully the little toe edge of that ski.... the fact that the uphill ski is locked in a carve will help propell or "flick" your CM down the hill."
In any case, I suggest that we stop trying to argue for or against our own interpretations of "John's Turn" and let his words speak for themselves. We can certainly discuss the merits and demerits of any technique with respect to any given tactic, intent, or situation, whether or not it is the turn John intends. John--and everyone else--can determine the relevence of the discussion to their own needs. A great discussion of this issue, and the various possible weight transfers and steps, took place in the thread that CGeib has just bumped back to the top, "Inside Leg Extension Technique,"
presided over by the venerable FastMan (a friend of yours, I presume? I'm reminded of the movie "Twins"....)
Finally, I suggest that the fact that we may be discussing two different turns, or even two nuances of the same basic move, does not necessarily suggest a misunderstanding on the part of either of us.