To the extent that PMTS is a teaching system, one can either use that system, use the PSIA system or make up their own system. Is Perfect Turn a teaching system? To some extent, there are pieces of each system that are incompatible (e.g. a system that says you never teach wedge turns to beginners is incompatible with a system that says you MAY teach wedge turns).
|having a good time learning bad ways to ski
Thanks John. This is a good example of why some people have shied away from PMTS. It is this kind of rhetoric that turns people away from a system that could possibly be beneficial. The implication that PSIA's new focus on Guest Service has caused PSIA to allow their skiing model to become out of date (or bad) is wrong. HH has publicly stated some very derogative comments about "traditional" ski instruction. I think these statements were very effective marketing ploys. But I've considered many of the statements to be misleading with respect to "current" PSIA teaching and materials and personally offensive with respect to the teaching that I do. Is it that hard to understand that some people refuse to do business with those that insult them? As I've seen the rhetoric level ratchet down and seen that there is some meat behind the marketing, I've become more willing to attend a PMTS event. But I'm still a firm believer in extolling your own virtues without besmirching your competition.
PSIA's latest focus on movements is called "visual cues to effective and ineffective skiing". So the debate here is "primary" movements versus "effective" movements. Here again there is the potential for incompatiblities. PSIA says rotary movements can be effective. It is my understanding that PMTS disagrees. However, the consensus of those on the forum seems to be that there are more similarities than differences between the movement "systems". How can PSIA be teaching "bad skiing" if the movements are so similar. Hmmm - must be those rotary and wedge things?
I applaud those who pick and choose from a wide menu. I'm interested in people who say they have the "best" solution AND say why. Unfortunately those people lose credibility when they say everybody else sucks.
|HH refuted this in a recent post saying that what one learns with PSIA is totally incompatible with PMTS and to succeed with PMTS one MUST cast everything learned aside.
Ott - From the quotes you subsequently posted, I think you've put words in HH's mouth. There may only be a subtle difference between "I don't use any PSIA" and "PSIA is totally incompatible", but it is a difference that I respect per my above comments. And I've experienced individual people with such fundamental problems that the "forget everything you know" teaching approach can be effective. So a single case of this does not define an entire philosophy.
"Completely effective instructor" is an interesting choice of words. One would think that HH's marketing approach would focus on "more effective instructors". What is effective anyway? My earlier comments about rookie instructors come into play. If a lesson starts and ends on time, there are no injuries, everyone has fun and everyone achieves their objectives, then is the instructor "completely effective"? Aside from exceeding objectives, what else is there? HH is apparently arguing that a simplified teaching system is more beneficial than a complex one. Per my earlier comments there are pros and cons for both approaches. Which makes Weems' approach a natural response. Any teaching system that uses buckets of diamonds is bound to succeed! (sorry Weems).