New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rainbows in PSIA video

post #1 of 20
Thread Starter 
Did anyone else out there have the reaction I had when viewing the PSIA Alpine instruction video? "Hey, these guys, who are damn good skiers, are exhibiting fairly pronounced up-and-down rainbows in shortswing turns on moderate blue stuff. What's up with that?" I'm prepping for L2, and everyone from my home area trainer (L3) on up have said to deemphasize the vertical motion, since up-unweighting to laterally displace the skis is not needed to start the turn with contemporary skis, and furthermore, the potential energy generated when the CM comes back down to earth is likely to produced unwanted edge setting (my personal bugaboo).

These dev team guys look like a million bucks, and I would love to ski like them. But I just want to pin down what PSIA is looking for as I prepare for the L2 exam next season.

Am I all wet on this? Is the video just out of date? Appreciate any thoughts on this.
Joe
post #2 of 20
I haven't seen the video but watch carefully.

1. Is the body rising to unweight the skis? In other words, is there a pronounced "up" move the that then pulls the weight off the skis?

2. Are the skis passing under the skier and because of that, a little bit more room is needed so the skier's upper body naturally rises a little as the result of the skis crossing under? In order words, no skier could flex enough for the skis to pass under so a little bit of rise occurs?

3. Are the skiers bombing down snow that is so thick heavy and cruddy that they must use some amount of forced unweighting the break the skis out?

My guess is the answer to 1 is a definite no.

My guess is the answer to 2 is yes. Being a L2 studier myself I wondered the same thing you do as I see even the best skiers heads rise a teeny bit as the skis cross under. The important thing is that is not an unweight, it's the skis driving the body up a teeny bit.

If you are watching the many years old PSIA-E VHS video (the one with the inaudible soundtrack), for the segment on L3, the answer is yes. It very hard conditions, sometimes some amount of unweight may be needed.

- -Clueless L1 (Please rip my analysis to shreads so that I may learn and one day pass L2.)
post #3 of 20
Havent seen the video.

However, Im still tortured by the up and down movement on every nationla ski school federation learning program and seminar over here were I live. Ive been skiing since I was 4y and Im 42 now. In Austria I got rid of the up and down movement in the late 70's because Austrian race skiing coaches instructed me so. But it has survived all these years even though we now have carwing skiis and TV is showing WC racing with minimal up and down movemet on a daily basis. Shure the heads will go up and down a bit now and then but this is not because we need to unweight. Hell, these guys are close to death and trying to survie as we sit at home drinking beer.
post #4 of 20
JoeB, I am curious about two things. How old is the tape and did the tape say that you were viewing a short swing turn. A short swing turn has a pronounced up and down but a PSIA short round modern turn has much less up and down. I can't see anyone asking for a short swing demo these days.
post #5 of 20
Pierre, whats wrong with a short swing demo? Why does it have to have up and down moovement?
post #6 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by tdk6
Pierre, whats wrong with a short swing demo? Why does it have to have up and down moovement?
The short swing is an older turn that was used with long straight skis. When done right they are fairly round but have a pronounced up motion.
post #7 of 20
Back in the good old days there were 3 sorts of short swings: basic short turn, short turn on steep and wedeln. Depending on your style of skiing these could all be done with a pronounced up and down motin but also without.

Take a look at this video from a Norweigan ski school:
http://www.trysil.com/IPX/?action=Ar...rticles;page=1

When they are dooing short swing turns I can see an up down motion but other than that it looks way too static. No upper/lower body separation.
post #8 of 20
We got into this with Harald at Tyrol. The video clearly showed the "rainbow" effect.
Harald's explianation was that there was no "up motion". It is necessary when extremely angulated with the hip close to the snow to rise to at least the height of the shins while crossing. When Harald demonstrated crossing without up motion he said "that's one way to do it", which, to me, meant that there are other ways that aren't necessarily "wrong".
In the new ski magazine there's a "tip" from Mike Rogan that shows an up and forward move. I think you have to be versitile and do it the way the examiner asks. There's no one "right" way.(I thought that was the drift of Stepping Stones anyway)
post #9 of 20
During a clinic, they introduced that concept of skiing as if you were under a ceiling that was a foot shorter than your actual height.

This will limit the vertical motion during any radius turn.

I view it a as a model and way to improve, as opposed to something that can be actually done.

But then again, there is always some %#!*, who can!
post #10 of 20
I would say that a functional range of motion in the ankles, knees, and hips should always be present to some degree. In a classic shortswing the core is moving in pretty straight line with the feet staying more underneath the body, so the movement would not be to the side, it would be more vertical. This is not wrong, just a different application of funtional motion and movement.

If you ski steeps and tight technical terrain, the shortswing is not dead, it is very usefull. Later, RicB.
post #11 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by RicB
If you ski steeps and tight technical terrain, the shortswing is not dead, it is very usefull. Later, RicB.
Its dead in the context of JoeB's question on certification.
post #12 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre
Its dead in the context of JoeB's question on certification.
Not in this division. Even though the focus is on "modern skiing" the short swing is still a required task NRM. Any turn where the feet are kept under the body will have some vertical motion if there is a functional range of motion. It would be my guess that that is why he saw some "rainbow" in the film. Later, Ricb.
post #13 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by RicB
....Any turn where the feet are kept under the body will have some vertical motion if there is a functional range of motion. ....
I dissagree with above statement. You dont automaticly have an up and down head movement when doing wedeln (short swings) for example. But you could if you wanted. Look at mogul skiing. The master Janne Lahtela said himself in a clinic that the head is not supposed to move up and down at all. There is no need and in this case shurely no time for un-nesessary up and down motions.
post #14 of 20
Ott would be the ultimate authority but wedeln was all rotarty with itty bitty pole touches/plants.
post #15 of 20
In good competitive mogul skiing you have a big range of motion that is hopefully following the terrain. this can allow the head to stay level, so to speak, and then it may not. The real point is what are the legs and lower joints doing? The head is a good reference, but only shows how quick the movement is occuring. Whether long in the middle of the turn or long ni the transition, long can be very effectice and efficient skiing at any point depending on the intended type of turn. In our division, training at any level, you should idealy have both, or rather be able to blend long into any turn, at any time in the turn.

We were just talking about this in an early morning clinic just yesterday. We were using Nick Herrins (Dteam from big sky) skiing as an example. To some it seemed like the antithesis to modern skiing from a descriptive standpoint, but yet was very fluid, effective and yes, still "Modern skiing" Later, RicB.
post #16 of 20
Yuki - Really!? Interesting....

Rick - good post. I agree.
post #17 of 20
Thread Starter 

Rainbows

I guess I complicated my question by using the term "shortswing." I only meant that, because the dev team guys were shown making short, fall-line turns, it was very easy to discern their vertical movement, which seems to occur at transition.

By the way, the video is the VHS that is currently-available out of the PSIA catalog, featuring an intro to correct form, technique and execution under varying terrain. That is why I am so interested in the very apparent up-and-down movement.

Learn2turn, I appreciate your analysis. However, I am inclined to think that the vertical motion may actually be what we used to call down-unweighting--enough leg and ankle flexion to produce a subtle lightening of the skis, sufficient to accomplish a small amount of lateral displacement for turn cross-under. Does this amount to the same thing you meant by saying that the rise is the "skis driving the body up a teeny bit" on cross under.

RicB, it sounds as though you are saying that some up-and-down is acceptable by PSIA in shortswing skiing? Do I have you correct on that? Also, do you agree or disagree with my point above, referencing Learn2turn, that the apparent up-and-down is actually down-and-up, the product of down-unweighting for cross-under at transition?

I have read (and thought I understood) guidance in other posts on this site that edge setting can be mitigated by collapsing the old outside leg at the bottom of the turn, which reduces pressure on the outside ski just enough to ensure smoothness in edge change. Thoughts on that, anyone?

Thanks, all, for the posts.

JoeB
post #18 of 20
Havent seen the video but Im almost positive that its a typical up-and-down motion. It is not nesessary by any skiing standards but it doesent really surprise me if PSIA team guys ski like that.

I dont buy the theory that the up-down motion would be a result of cross-under at transition. Maybe if the snow was deep or heavy the guys would have needed some pumping going in order to make skis turn.

Yes, by collapsing the old outside leg you produce an down-unweighting motion. But today you should have the pressure on both skis insted of just on the outside one. I used to ski a lot like that before but I have changed style a bit. Still on old video clips I can see that to become inside ski lift. Skiing looks great even today but if style is magnified this small techincal flaw can be detected. Actually you dont have to lift it, just unweight it.
post #19 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeB
RicB, it sounds as though you are saying that some up-and-down is acceptable by PSIA in shortswing skiing? Do I have you correct on that? Also, do you agree or disagree with my point above, referencing Learn2turn, that the apparent up-and-down is actually down-and-up, the product of down-unweighting for cross-under at transition?

I have read (and thought I understood) guidance in other posts on this site that edge setting can be mitigated by collapsing the old outside leg at the bottom of the turn, which reduces pressure on the outside ski just enough to ensure smoothness in edge change. Thoughts on that, anyone?

Thanks, all, for the posts.

JoeB
What I'm saying is that a functional range of motion is always acceptable, and that if you are making a turn where the feet are kept more under the butt then the funtcional motion will be vertical. I too feel it is up and then down for a classic shortswing and not a retraction or down up.

Where we get long in a turn is a result of the type of turn we are doing and the mechanics required, and not a rule like long only in the middle of the turn. Sure the term "modern skiing" loosely means "long in the middle of the turn", but that doesn't mean we don't use other turns which require that our range of motion comes at different times in the turn, and that these other types of turns aren't appropriate any more. Make sense? Later, RicB.
post #20 of 20
Thread Starter 

Thanks.

Ricb, thanks.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching