A little more infoWhat was missed in my post was that many of the people I'm "listening" to are both PSIA high level certs and examiners and also PMTS folks.
I'm not an instructor. I was just lamenting that these folks with dual experience always stay off this subject in this venue. Too bad.
Sounds like the PMTS lesson on one ski where the person kept falling was not a good teacher. Good and bad teachers I'm sure exist in all systems. PMTS or any DTP system works two footed as well. Both PMTS and PSIA follow, or are supposed to follow a student centered approach. One ski drills are considered intermedate in PMTS and often are only useful after alignment issues are addressed. For some people proper alignment is not possible. For those one footed drills may not help them. In my own case at this camp, I've been working to address fore to aft balance. Some very specific one footed drills have helped me greatly in this regard. (and none were in any of the manuals)
But, I'll just climb back into my box. Most of what I've read here as assumed understandings of PMTS have little to do with my own experience or in the materials of that system. PMTS is a closed box to most posters here. This is because usually the discussions and assumptions are not factual. Those people are in another box.
Most of what I've read here just confirm that there are some fundemental differences.
The post about the active use of the outside foot is a foreign concept to me. The stress in PMTS is on the inside foot, balance, counterbalance, and counter. The outside foot is passive. In the V1 movement analysis videos at the camp I'm at these outside stemming movements that some have as left overs are clear as a bell. I think many that have gone from wedge to parallel, really have not achieved parallel skiing especially when the transition of the turns are studied. The left overs of the wedge progression are alive and well even in accomplished "parallel" skiers.
My coach tomorrow is Arcmeister. Perhaps he can break me out of my box.
Mike - it was nice to meet you. I've had a great camp with more than a few "breakthrus". I'm certainly the most junior skier at this camp (most are working ski instructors from around the country with decades under their belts including national demo team members, examiners, PISA III certs ect.). These people all have direct experience in both systems. It's an interesting perspective. I'm not sure who is aptly described as in the box. When people have done both systems for years there is no box. When people have done one or the other there can be a box. The best people to ask about wedge for beginners or no wedge for beginners are people that have done and are expert at both approaches. I'm surrounded by people in that category this week. I may be in a box. They are not in a box.
I shall blather on a tad more. Ron LeMasters makes his boulder presentation and the take on that on this forum was racers use active leg steering to bring their skis under their body. On that same evening the coach at the camp I'm at made a presentation to the US ski team on biomechanics. I guess I'm really limiting my perspective hanging out with all these boxed up minds.
So the question is, perhaps, what is parallel skiing. If the consensus here is that teaching the wedge as a progression tool is not building a bad foundation, and that going to parallel is easy for folks, thus no harm no foul, then I would submit the definition of parallel skiing may not be the same.
Pseudo parallel is easy to get to from a wedge background. But lots of these parallel skiers are still doing a late release, stemming their turns, diverging their tips. None of these actions represent parallel skiing.
The other argument that always comes up is that wedges happen. So why not embrace that and teach a wedge progression?
In other words, lets just make that true parallel skiing that much farther down the pike for the aspireing skier.
What is really sick about this whole discussion is that everyone agrees parallel skiing is the goal. At least the student want's to ski parallel and it's their goal. Thus, objective trials of the two approachs could be done (and have been done). If a wedge based teaching system achieves parallel skiing more efficiently in terms of time and money for the student, then great. If a dtp method is more efficient then great.
Why not set up some simple measurements comparing a school doing a wedge based progression that is of the proper type (gliding wedge not big toe grape wedge) to a school that has a DTP approach.
While your at it, follow up with the students with a sampling survey and see what the retention rates are.
Be scientific about it, not opinion based, and see what the results are. If one way is strongly superior to the other in terms of retention and results then adopt it nationally.
Multiple schools are out there that teach various DTP approaches, not just PMTS. Most teach a wedge based progression. Pick some schools, set up the measurements, and get cracking. Then the original posters question can actually be answered instead of all this silly political bickering.
DTP approaches are obviously still the minority approach out there. But, if a scientifically conducted study concludes retention is improved with DTP, then there is financial incentive for the resorts to get behind and adopt a DTP approach.
I'll now go climb back into my box while I spend my day tomorrow being coached by a PSIA examiner. (and diski, about 1/3 my training has been PSIA but at the level these camps were at it was the same stuff as PMTS. No leg steering, no knees pointing in, early release, parallel shins, no or little lead on the inside leg, turn by tipping, etc. Good skiing is good skiing whatever the source has been my experience so far.)