but of course this isn't true
Originally Posted by skier31
John Mason tries to color his posts with various qualfiiers such as "in my opinion, in my view, in my own skiing and then he turns around and says stuff like, I would never want to ski like the PSIA people I see. I have read countless posts both here and on realskiers by John trying to convince everyone else that PMTS is the only way to learn to ski and everyone else is just fooling themselves. Who cares? John will deny this until the cows come home but if you read between the qualifiers in his posts, this is the meaning.
Arc is PSIA and he skis great. The PSIA NW Tech Team skis great. The former director of the Park City ski school skis great.
I'm really not about the labels but about the functional differences of applying different movements to skiing. I often wondered what defines what I don't like in some approaches to the skiing technique and I recently found some super examples that are posted as good, but to me look bad. So it's different strokes for different folks.
Bob's new site with his excellent diagrams make it clear to me what defines some of these differences in a clear objective way. With these diagrams the differences between what I personally like and define as skiing I'm striving to do, and what I don't like are clear. It comes down to the way and approach to how to handle the transition of the skis.
I wish snowdog was still around to see those graphics. He would then understand why he went in circles with Bob back in the day.
But others may like what they see there (the posts there confirm this) and have no problem with those skiing movements as outlined in the diagrams with matching examples in the video clips.
I think the only difference is many still don't see any objective difference even though it's night and day.
I go back to what John Clendenon told me who is not officially PMTS anymore, yet still has lots of common ideas, that to accomplish similtaneous edge change there are sequential motions involved. The turn John teaches for his bread and butter turn (happens to be what Eski teaches too) does not exist in any diagram on Bob's new site. That's 2 examples of an actual object ski movement pattern difference to what is still usually taught and practiced that have nothing to do with PMTS. Yet its an actual difference.
I think it might be most helpful (except maybe BB views his drawings as proprietary) to do that style drawing illustrating the types of turns that Eski, John Clendenon, and HH are teaching and that Lito used to teach. The use of pressure, steering, and tipping are all quite different in objective ways.
Take a look at Bob's new web site and look at his diagrams for open parallel and dynamic parallal and see if they define the way you ski. If it does, then you may not have ever skied a single turn like those 3(4) instructors teach.
As i recently posted over at realskiers, there are no movements in PMTS that are unique to PMTS. There never have been. Are they common movements in skiing or in most instuction? No, not from what I've seen. But they are not unique. Herman Maier could be a poster child for what PMTS teaches as a weighted release. This movement pattern is for anyone that wants to do it. It's certainly not proprietary. What's nice about PMTS is that it offers tools and resources in a logical fashion to actually learn a turn like that. (not that I'll ever be able to approach that level)
So, yes, of course I'm denying that. I've never thought it. (And about 1/3 of my instruction has been from non-pmts sources too. Most of it very compatible with PMTS. Just not much any of it was compatible in any way with what I see on Bob's new site.)
It is an interesting thought. What if any portion of PMTS is protected by copyright or by a trade secret? Since the movements are not proprietary they can't be protected. Are the descriptions used in some of the materials proprietary? Good question. I know that some authors that have liberally used PMTS material just had to give a source credit and then they copied with abandon. Eski is an example of this. The back of their book is the PMTS instructor manual drill guide verbatim. I doubt they had to pay HH for any of that.
Certainly the movement patterns now being taught by pierre, eski, John Clendenon, HH and anyone else - the patterns that are not illustrated in Bob's new web site, are going to be influencing more of the instruction community as people discover that way of skiing. Thats a great thing! The sad thing is if PSIA want's to go that direction yet somehow feels it can't because of HH's and their perceived feud. If it's a superior movement pattern or way to make the skis transition, then teach it. No biggie. No ones going to get sued. (or the suit wouldn't get anywhere) HH can't sue the racing community and that's where all his knowledge ultimatly came from anyway. He just came up with effective ways to teach these movement patterns in the earliest stages of skiing.