Specifically RicB, I'm refering to the CM location needed to establish a solid foot to ground connection, how different body types can affect their personal CM locations, and how that may influence the type of angulation required to achieve that necessary CM position for a solid connection.
I'm assuming that your theory considers that different turns and different skis produce different turn forces which can demand widely varying CM locations to generate the connection your describing, that this will require widely varying types of angulation to achieve that connection, from pure knee, to pure body inclination, and that these variences can influence the pelvic alignment with the ground.
If so, then, so too does the location of ones CM as dictated by his/her body shape (top heavy raises the CM, bottom heavy lowers CM) influence the type of anglulation needed for a solid connection, and thereby also somewhat influences the orientation of the pelvis.
I very much like your theory. I think a level bucket should indeed be sought, as long as it's within the biomechanical parameters of efficiency. I'd like to hear more of your thoughts. Specifically on the following:
|The question then becomes is it easier to move everything from an external
perspective first to find a new substantial foot in skiing, or is it less effort to redirect the energy to a new substantial foot internaly with the structure. To me this is where subtle pelvic movements become so efficient and powerfull. To me this is the ultimate connection. The body serving the feet and skis in the most efficient way. Thoughts Rick?
The way I see this RicB is that bottom line is; whatever movements we employ have to move the CM to it's required location to be effective in establishing the CM to gound link that you seek. Many movements will achieve that. There's only one CM location that will create this link for any particular magnitude of turning force, but there's not only one body position that will produce that particular CM location. Many will fill the bill. The one we use should be the one that provides the strongest stance for the least movement, and also provides the best stance from which to transition from turn to turn.
I understand your theory to introduce an element of pelvic rotation into that mix of movements. That rotation of the pelvis away from the directional orientation of the femurs will allow for a wider range of leveling potential than what the limited range of motion offered through pure lateral hip flexion provides. If this interpretation is correct, then yes, I do agree. But I also feel that the turn forces will dictate where the CM must ultimately be placed, and this will be the determinant in what movement possibilities we have at our disposal.
The bigger the turn forces the closer the edge angle will align with the angle of the resultant force vector. The closer the alignment of those angles, the less room for lateral articulation at the pelvis, and I would think then the less potential for bucket leveling. These bucket leveling limitations would intensify as edge angles increased and the CM location requirement continued to move inside, which will tip the pelvis even more.
Does any of this jive with your thinking RicB?FASTMAN