New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Am I the only one ... - Page 2

post #31 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre
Si I think that you are at a point in you're understanding of skiing that all instructors pass on their way to full certification. Many instructors never reach the level of understanding that you have reached and just spew the normal retoric. .......
Quote:
Originally Posted by Si
In my opinion tipping/edging is by far and away the most important component given modern ski design. However, the question remains in regards to how much a skier provides input to try and pivot the ski at the same time as they are edging (even at high edge angles).
I'm not going to get into the real issue here, for whatever reason (just be thankful ), however, I will say, along Pierre's point, that what impresses me the most is that you have gotten to a point in your understanding of skiing that you understand enough to formulate your own opinions and ideas that have real merit, and can warrant a discussion at this level. The next level to get to, is the understanding that none of this stuff is set in concrete, and is open to various interpretations. Understanding the many ways this stuff can be interpreted is a challenge, no doubt.

Good on ya, mate!
post #32 of 54
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre
Si balance indeed begins at the feet but I look at it more like cgieb mentioned. Dyanmic stance/balance is largely a function of the skiers intentions. Without the good stance/balance you cannot tip you're skis as you mention. Tipping/edging is part of maintaining good dynamic balance.
Pierre, we can continue to go round and round with this. There is no way to ski with intent without the confidence that you have the movements to take you where the intent leads.

I am afraid we're into a chicken or egg discussion here.
post #33 of 54

Precision needed

You need to differentiate betweek rotary forces and rotary movements. You can't just throw the word out and expect people to make sense of it. Bob's book does a fine job of differentiating between the two. I won't rehash it here.

The best words of advice I've ever been given about writing are
"write not to be understood. Write so that you can not possibly be misunderstood."
When more of us heed these words of advice we will all be better off.

Bob
post #34 of 54
Thread Starter 
Bob, well there you go, I have no idea if by rotary forces you mean at an anatomical joint or as applied to the ski. Same with rotary movement. And since you gave no context I have no way to even try and figure it out.
post #35 of 54
Si,

I think the INTENT here is "read Bob Barnes' book". LOL. In this task you may be affected by monetary or time consumption forces.


kiersten
post #36 of 54
Might we consider that "steering" would be a possible "resulting outcome" and not the primary "causing input" of direction change/control on skis?

Turning Bob's steering wheel is a causing input that causes a chain of mechanical effects that result in the car being "steered" to change direction as a caused outcome.

We can change and control direction on skis using an variety of causes that are usually some blend of the E/P/R inputs to change direction with our skis being steered, or guided, in the direction we choose as the outcome. I'd suggest that most students familiar with driving a car, or even a bike, might relate to learning to do something (choose your favorite blend here) that will result in their steering their skis to control the direction they choose to go. I think we need to find a balance between the use of terms we commonly understand for our own communication clarity and the need to be willing to let go of jargon and find words that are meaningful to our students and promote their learning experience. And might that include ourselves in this forum?

Maybe too often here we see semantical nitpicking that suggests over prioritization on hard definitions in leu of a softer and more accommodating awareness of the underlying concept that is being expressed.

If we become slaves to the dogma of our jargon will not both our communication and our ability to help our students ultimately suffer?
post #37 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Si
...I have no idea if by rotary forces you mean at an anatomical joint or as applied to the ski...
After the huge thread I got embroiled in a couple of summers ago about the exact definitions (and I mean *really* exact) of angle of inclination, degree of angulation, angle of bank, and a few other related quantities, I've been diligently trying not to get sucked into another "definitions" thread.

However, I've got to come down fully on Si's side with respect to the general concern he expresses above.

I am a stickler for detail when it comes to precise definitions. As someone who has put together models and analysis of multi-jointed structures, it is clear to me that in discussions of skiing, rarely if ever is the above distinction recognized. Even less frequently is it stated which of the two possibilities someone has in mind during a discussion of ski technique.

In scientific/engineering terms, what it comes down to is torques and forces around different axes, and how these relate to each other.

Just as in the inclination/angulation thread, I feel that the common usage of terms for torques and angular movements are dreadfully qualitative and poorly understood by most recreational skiers and instructors. The difference between a qualitative definition and a quantitative definition is that the former clearly could not be used to define/construct a humanoid robot whose legs moved in the precise way the designer might be trying to specify, whereas with a quantitative definition, one could do so.

HOWEVER, since the old angulation/inclination definitions thread, I've learned a lesson. For 95% of all skiing or ski instruction, exact mechanical definitions doesn't make an iota of difference. For example, if you are trying to show a student the difference between a twisting motion of the ski (in the plane of the snow) and rotation of the femur in the hip (and it's possible effect on edging), you just demo the two possibilities. For the first, you stand up tall with straight legs, and for the second, you drop your butt towards a chair-sit position and rotate your leg in the hip socket. If you try to make such distinctions verbally each and every time you talk about "rotary", you will sound overly verbose and pedantic, and simply turn many people off.

The problem is that for the remaining 5% of the cases, for example, on Epic, as well as at high levels of instruction / coaching, such distinctions between related/similar movements occasionally becomes of paramount importance. Hopefully, most occurrences will be accompanied by text or other context which will clue you in, but in too many cases, shortcut wording will be used to keep the discussion from dragging, and then nitpickers like Si and I are left scratching our heads until we figure out exactly what the speaker intended.

As I see it, at it's most fundamental level, this issue of precise definitions on Epic arises because discussions here fluctuate from a typical, on-the-snow level of precision to practically the level of a scientific journal article in biomechanics, and the precision of usage of these terms varies accordingly, often, even within one thread. Geeks are only happy at one end of the spectrum, normal people only at the other end.

Just my $0.02,

Tom / PM
post #38 of 54
bah,

si,you have wandered into an abyss of ignorance here.THESE GUYS CANT SKI WORTH A CRAP,AND THEY HAVE TO MAKE UP PHRASES AND THE LIKE TO DESCRIBE THE STUPID MOVEMENTS THEY ARE TRYING TO FOOL YOU INTO BELIEVING MAKE YOU A BETTER SKIIER.ROTATE THIS SUPPINE THAT,AND THE BEST OF ALL "STEER USING YOUR FEET"(AS IF YOUR FEET CAN MOVE AT ALL IN SKI BOOTS)...WTF IS THIS ROCKET SCIENCE?I DONT SEE ANY OF THESE HOMOS WINNING ANY RACES USING SUCH CRAPOLA METHODS.LET ME GIVE YOU THE BEST ADVICE THERE IS FOR ANY SKIIER.

ARC EM OR PARK EM!

YOU SPEND 100 DAYS ON THE SNOW AND YOULL IMPROVE,NO MATTER HOW CRAPPY YOU ARE.THE SAD EXCUSES FOR SKI INSTRUCTORS IN HERE ARE MOSTLY WANNA BES,THEY GO OUT TO THE RACE COURSE AND WATCH,CAUSE THEY KNOW IF THEY TRY TO RUN GATES,ALL THAT CRAP PSIA TECHNIQUE WILL GO RIGHT OUT THE WINDOW.ITS ONLY GOOD FOR LITTLE KIDS AND FAT PEOPLE,IF THATS YOU THEN TAKE ALOT OF PSIA LESSONS,THEY WILL KISS YOUR ASS AND TELL YOU ANYTHING JUST SO YOU WILL TAKE MORE LESSONS AND GIVE THEM A GOOD TIP.HAHAHA!WAKE UP!TELL YOUR FRIENDS!PSIA IS A JOKE AND A GYP BOTH!WHAT A WASTE OF TIME AND POTENTIALLY GOOD SKIIERS...
:
post #39 of 54
Big Cheese, why do you have to be insulting in your posts, why can't you just take part in a discussion, and if you disagree, do so in a civil manner as you must when working as a race coach coordinator in your area. I do not think that your co-workers would take talk like the one you use in this forum from you.

.....Ott
post #40 of 54
You got that right, old cheese wiz. You go right on and keep telling it like it is. You, yourself, are your own best argument--and mine. You tell 'em!

Bob
post #41 of 54
i could laugh off psia as just another bunch of money grubbing anal retentive ostientatious *******s,if i wasnt so passionate about the sport(and life).they and groups like them who try to standardize a sport really ruin the true beauty of a sport.the true beauty of a sport like skiing is its totally personal,and defies explanation,as far as some wanna bes can explain it anyway.you ask hermann or bode and they ll tell you,its not about what anyone else thinks,its about what THEY think.they will often totally ignore a coaches advice,thats why THEY are the ones up there winning medals,not the coaches.coaches,while good sometimes,and at certain levels of a skiers progress totally necessary ,are sometimes a limiter for the next level of performance technique,espescially at the world class level.while coaches are dissecting small generally insignificant body movements,racers are perfecting GOING FAST AND BEING IN CONTROL.atttributes which to me anyway are far more appealing and desirable than a pretty stance that looks good theoretically,but wont stand the tests of speed and crap conditions.watch racers on tv,then see if the skiiers you are talking to ski like that.some poster was all teary eyed about some herman maier pic where hes tail steering and the skiis are all de cambered.Duh.thats nothing.its amazing to a psia level wtf ever instructor,because he cant let his body get into the proper position to be able to generate the g force you need on the tails to do that kind of RIPPING!

psia instructors just dont ski very well at all im my experience,compared to the best racers on the hill.why would that be?
post #42 of 54

Its and it's

Big Cheese:

It's is a contraction for it is or it has.

Its is a possessive pronoun meaning, more or less, of it or belonging to it.

And there is absolutely, positively, no such word as its'.

A simple test
If you can replace it[']s in your sentence with it is or it has, then your word is it's; otherwise, your word is its.

Another test
Its is the neuter version of his and her. Try plugging her into your sentence where you think its belongs. (It's better to use her for reasons I may explain someday.) If the sentence still works grammatically (if not logically) then your word is indeed its.

Examples
It's been good to know you. Contraction: it has
It's a bird! It's a plane! Contraction: it is

The Big Cheese is known for its inability to ski. Possessive pronoun: its inability = Big Cheese's inability to ski or write.

New sentences require capital letters.
post #43 of 54
your point is?

hi mr psia wanna be,my invite to publicly race any and all is open to you also.im 44 yrs old,in so so shape,and i will totally humiliate you.let me know if/when you are man enough to show up for a match race.
post #44 of 54
Anybody got a good billygoat?

yd
post #45 of 54
btw,my choices to use or not use captial letters to begin a sentence,or not use apostrophes or anything like that in my postings isnt an error,thats how I(notice the cap I) type.
its a choice that makes me different than you.just like me using real skis like my atomic 10.26(193cm),elan gsx hyperform(187gm)dynastar speed course 64(184cm) and you using noodles that have ski bindings on them makes me and you different type skiiers.know your role sonny,i ski with alot of the top skiiers on the east coast and they respect me,so shhhhhhhhhhhhhh....
post #46 of 54

Where else can you find such clarity and insight??

Did the pouter forum go down again?
post #47 of 54
Vegas has a line on this guy now, 3 to 2 that this goes 100 posts in less than 2 hours without ever making sense.

The line is void if the topic gets closed. However there is a seperate line out there that is currently 1 to 1 that actually happens.
post #48 of 54
Cheese,

You in the east? Killington, Dec 13-17. There will be a couple of PSIA types there that I'm sure will be willing to take you up on that offer. I'd even put money down that there will be some female PSIA types that you couldn't come close to. You don't seem like the type who would take kindly to getting whooped by a girl.
post #49 of 54
i ski on my home course to defend my technique,i ski best on ice.thats what we have alot of,thats what i tune for.come here,if you dare.we have nastar weekly on the weekends at noon,and im sure you know there are some of the top east coast skiers here,we dont really need to go to killington for anything.ive raced some vermont skiers,most were just so-so.the best ones were uber good,but they werent in any way shape or form trained by psia,they were just great athletes who could ski hella whack.just a note,female skiers can be just as good,if not better than men,i ski occaisionally with an awesomely powerful female skiier, (ex world cupper) who totally owns me all day,but guess what?she giggles @ psia ers usually....lol!
she was trained in europe and they really understand skiing.go to europe and take that psia stuff there and see what they say...hehe
post #50 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by big_cheese
i ski on my home course to defend my technique,i ski best on ice.thats what we have alot of,thats what i tune for.come here,if you dare.
"i ski on my home course to defend my technique" Huh?? I guess that means you're a-scairt to run some gates at K-Mart against some PSIA push-carts. God knows, there's no ice at Killington :

Daring people to ski Sugar Mountain? Isn't that like daring Tiger Woods to play mini-golf?

Man, Sugar Mtn, NC. You must get in some hella serious training days each year! Bob B and those guys will never be able to catch up to your level, with all those days you get on the snow.

Too bad dchan shut down that other thread. That was da-bomb.

edit: I almost forgot. In answer to your topic title question.... Yes, I think you are. At least here, you probably are. There were others like you, but they have all been assimilated.
post #51 of 54
Sigh. At the risk of rising to the bait of a rather obvious trolling, or tossing more fuel on a budding flame war, a couple of observations on the instructor/racer comments, prefaced by my usual caveats about where I'm coming from:

1. I'm a racer, not an instructor. (And, as a racer, I'm a student, not a master. I plan to be faster this year, and faster still next year, and still faster the year after that, despite the whole over-45 physical glide path thing.)

2. Other than knowing what the initials stand for, I don't really know a lot about PSIA, and I don't even remember what PMTS stands for. (Sorry, guys and gals--I just kind of glaze over when these threads go off into discussions of relative merits of dueling pedagogies. I'm more interested in knee angulation and hand position.)

That said, some PSIA instructors absolutely, totally rip. And their analysis of what makes high level skiing work, even at the World Cup level, is amazing. There's an instructor in my racing club (I'm almost certain he's PSIA, and he's head of the instructors at a local resort) who managed to beat all the top level skiers in a GS race late last year, despite giving up a full second and a half by (here I'll leap very briefly into all caps, for _momentary_ emphasis) NOT WEARING A RACING SUIT. (He didn't have one. We've really got to dig up one on eBay for that guy....) I had disagreed with him about some basic points of what I thought makes one fast in a course. Turns out, he was right.

Some of the people I've learned the most from have been fellow racers generous with their time and advice, on the chairlift and the hill. But I have never taken a lesson from an instructor that I didn't learn from, and my investments in lessons have always provided some of the best return on any skiing dollar. (Certainly better than the fluoro overlay, even in speed events.)

And (heretical as this may seem) there actually are all-mountain techniques that are different (and part of a broader universe of knowledge) than just making good turns and picking a fast line in a GS or slalom course, what we racers know about. My brother (a club racer like me) and I are thinking of taking the DesLauriers "all mountain" 2-day clinic at Sugar Bowl this year, and I'll bet we learn a ton and have a blast.

Those who've seen my posts here know my bent, including a belief that some techniques taught to recreational skiers and intermittently advocated here (the balance on the whole foot vs. active forward boot cuff pressure early and until late in the turn) may be different from what racers employ. I have found, though, that (1) there is a wealth of knowledge here; (2) there is a remarkable joyously engaged passion, curiousity and attention to detail (physics, anatomy, terminology, how we learn and communicate) that characterizes true afficionados; (3) there is, given (2) a generally very civil dialogue, despite the fact that this forum is a meeting place of different firmly held opinions about something the posters care about passionately.

But to make this forum work, be useful, and--frankly--be an interesting and fun place to visit, we all have to try to contribute more light than heat.
post #52 of 54
why would i fly up to killington to own the same unskilled skiers whose students come down here and get tattooed by our junior skiiers(who i train)every year?read up,lees mcrae college has been a top junior ski race school on the east coast for years.beech mountain and sugar mountain both have produced some of the TOP racers on the east coast for years,as well as several junior olympians(and we are lucky if we get 100+ hill days a year here,so that says alot about the RACE training thats available here).if you dont know that,or if you think im making this all up then feel free to BRING YOUR @SS HERE!ITS SUCH A SMALL SLOPE YOURE BOUND TO BE ABLE TO BE THE BIG KAHUNA RITE??lmao.come and get your sad @sses dusted,make sure you wear those saloman crossmax devil speed skis!haha!
post #53 of 54
No you are not the only one. It's ALL gobledy-goop to me, C turns, Bannana turns, Rotary boots, PSIA, etc. It's all worse than Greak to me.

However, this particular forum seems to be a form for ski instructors, and I have never been, am not now, nor do i have any ambition to ever become a "certified ski instructor". I suppose that having a "certification" of some sort aids one's career if you have chosen "ski instructor" as a career. I also suppose that ski instructors use this form to improve their abilities, and have to have use some sort of language to prove to certifying bodies that they know what they are talking about. I know nothing about the "industry".

I just look at this form in the hope that I might learn something. I've been skiing for over 30 years and will never stop learning. Though experience is the best teacher, I will still try to learn from ALL sources. I have found that if someone thinks differently from me, that he or she has a reason for thinking that way and I am not satisfied until I understand his or her thinking as well as my own. Many of the disagreements in how and why skiers do what they do are just the result of different experience with different types of snow, different progressions through different techniques, etc. Often if you understand both points of view well enough you see that there is no need for conflict. I do find a lot of the explanations on this site pretty useless for me (I'm new here and haven't learned the jargon), but admit they could be useful for somebody else. Maybe telling someone to put forward pressure on the boot cuff helps them apply some force to the front of the ski, I would just say "force the front of your ski into the snow." Maybe the design of rotary boots makes it more natural for someone to skid the tails of their skis when they flex forwards, but give me any boot and any ski, and I can adapt to it and put the forces and torques where I want to, though it is a lot easier with some equipment than others, and the amount of force/torque I can transmit to any particular part of the skis will vary with the equipment. For me just tell me what to make the ski do or where to direct the force\pressure at the ski/snow interface to achieve what desired effect. To me a skier's motion depends only on the applied forces. Just explain it in simple Newtonian Mechanics, and I will understand. Newton's first three laws are sufficient.
post #54 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by big_cheese
,THEY WILL KISS YOUR ASS AND TELL YOU ANYTHING
What if I don't have an ass, or a donkey?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching