New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Before/After Video - Page 2

post #31 of 52
Thread Starter 
Please don't bite your finger, Rusty. Tell us what you see.
post #32 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by nolo
Everybody please wish Liz well: she blew her ACL late in the season and goes under the knife next week.
danged bad luck, Liz. sorry to hear it. but for a tough gal like you who loves spinning class instruction, your ACL repair should be almost no hassle at all. best wishes for speedy, strong recovery. lots of us have had ACL repair and continued skiing.
post #33 of 52
Nice post nolo. For future video shoots it would help to have the camera operator in shooting at the same angle for before and after. It would also help if the skier did similar turns on the same terrain for before and after shots. I like what I see in the after shots much more proactive than reactive. It does look like (in the after) she is initiating turns with an up motion instead of a diagonal move
post #34 of 52
Thread Starter 
We didn't film with a product such as this in mind, Lucky, but your suggestions would be well taken the next time. The After isn't presented as Done, but as a comparison to Before.
post #35 of 52
Nolo,



Here's what I see:
Angulation - Yeah!
Tall upper body - Woo hoo!
Space between the feet - nice
Skis at approximately the same edge angle - sweet!
Hands in front - go get em tiger
Here's what I want to see:
See above - you can ALWAYS find positive things to say about someone's skiing.
Deep breath. Hold it. Now exhale. There - that's relaxed. Now remember that there are good things in the next few pics too. It's just that Nolo said not to bite my fingers.


Here's what I see:
Body mass more towards the heel line than the toe line
Right arm/shoulder pulled back behind the heel
Here's what I want to see:
Body mass equally in between the heel and toe lines
Elbows at or in front of the hips


Here's what I see:
Collapsed at the waist
Here's what I want to see:
A taller stance


Here's what I see:
Turn initiated with an up move (compare stance to previous pic)
Pole plant has pulled hand and shoulder back
Here's what I want to see:
Turn initiated with forward hip movement, upper body stays level
Pole touch instead of plant - keep hands in front



Here's what I see:
Legs locked together
Pole touch with a forward stab

Here's what I want to see:
Space between the legs
Pole swing through the turn with a wrist flick. The elbow should pull the hips into the new turn



O God - I'm so sorry Liz but I have to do this. A young girl goes to the Doctor asking for a pill so she won't get pregnant. The doctor gives her an aspirin. The girl asks "How will this keep me from getting pregnant?" The Doctor replies "Hold it in between your knees!"

Here's what I see:
Knees locked together.
Upper body leaning down the hill
Uneven edge angles - outside ski on uphill edge, inside ski on downhill edge

Here's what I want to see:
Space between the feet and all the way
Hips to the inside of the turn
Simultaneous edge change

Normally this last pic would have me screaming ALIGNMENT, but there are two mitigating factors. First, this is the way she used to be aligned and it's probably still a "natural"/comfortable/familiar position. Second, she worked hard to get into this position. This is after she had the real nice angulation. She's initiated the next turn with an up move, but her weight is too far back (note there is no way to see this from the camera angle). This is just before she lifts her inside ski. I think that she is trying to roll the inside ski onto the new edge, but it's not working because the hips are too far back. This is proven in the next pic.


Here's what I see:
Inside ski tip lifted. Tip higher than tail.
Here's what I want to see:
Inside ski tip pressured on the snow.
Just for grins I want to see if I can get my tip this high off the snow without busting my ass.

Note: I usually would include a "Here is how we're going to do it." However since I'm missing a lot of information about Liz's learning style/personality and her season is over, there is no point. Where she goes next depends a lot on her recovery. Although a priority would be working on getting the weight centered, introducing hip movement into the turn initiation process might facilitate centering the weight.
post #36 of 52
Thread Starter 
Rusty, While I have no quarrel with your observations, I think you may have missed the point of this Before/After video. Many of the errors you remark on are slight misses of the mark in making new movements (such as collapsing at the waist, which is what we were telling her to do to break that backboard she had previously).

What do you think of the improvements she made from the morning of Day 1 to after lunch on Day 3?
post #37 of 52
Nolo,

I thought I covered that with an earlier post, showing the old and new angles and with the additional comments on the first photo. Plus the other posts pretty much said it. Yup - nice improvement.
post #38 of 52
Thread Starter 
Thanks, Rusty. I want Liz to be proud of her advances and I'd hate it if all the improvement that lies ahead of her might make it appear that she had achieved little or nothing, when I think she made fundamental changes that will open up a world of terrain to her and her potential as a skier.
post #39 of 52
Nolo,

I'd like to add that we've got a lot of pros on our staff that would die happy to have 150 degree angulation on that kind of terrain. There's a huge difference between high 150's, >160 and where the after angulation is at. I think one of the biggest differences is that the skier is changing from defense to offense.
post #40 of 52
Just came upon this thread.... The Rusty, you are mistaken in your interpretation. The term UNDERCANTED refers to someone who when skis are flat on snow is knock kneed/A framed. I planed material from the outside edges of her boots so that she engages her inside edges sooner, consiquently moving her knees outward to a more skeletally aligned position.

I will take some credit for her lateral changes and better edging abilities however: the fore/aft and other improvements you see are resultant from great coaching!

Cause and effect, Rusty....be careful not to make assumptions about edge angles by looking at knee angulation because someone who is undercanted will look like the have higher edge angles when they actually do not and visa versa for overcanted skiers. You must look at the ski, it's track, and total body position, and understand what the symptoms are for over and undercanting.
post #41 of 52
Bud,

I'm so confused. I said undercanted people tend to ride their outside edges. You say they need knock knee to get skis flat. If I stand on the outside edges of my feet and then bring my knees closer together, my feet flatten. Aren't we saying the same thing? I thought I always made comments about edge angles by looking at the skis, but I'll be more careful in the future.

So thanks for the correction. It's really nice having an alignment expert on this forum. I need the help. The main reason I'm here is to get better. That definition of undercanted is a nice one. My only hands on exposure to canting was watching some of the examiners play with duct tape over their bindings. They'd put little pieces of tape on the inside piece of their AFD to cant themselves (WARNING: this was a long time ago and these experiments included appropriate cautions about not messing with your AFDs, the very temporary nature of the experiment, knowing what you're doing etc. etc.). Raising the inside of the binding is "almost" the same as lowering the outside of the boot?

Quote:
I planed material from the outside edges of her boots so that she engages her inside edges sooner,
How does this work? Wouldn't she engage her inside ski sooner and her outside ski later? Or is this what you meant?

So now that we've got the additional info, let's go back and review this before pic:

Here's where I saw her riding her outside edges. But in this case, her knees are spread apart. If her natural stance for flat skis is knees together, then it makes sense that knees apart causes outside edges.


And now this after pic:


I observed knock kneed, but skis on outside edges. I guessed wrongly:
Quote:
First, this is the way she used to be aligned and it's probably still a "natural"/comfortable/familiar position.
But this was not too far off. The knock knee is the position that Liz would have used before in order to get her skis flat on snow. But now, becase the outsides of her boots were planed down, she is on her outside edges instead of flat skis. It's hard to tell from the before sequence, but it looks like Liz's natural before stance was legs tight together from the hips to the feet. Would this help to minimize problems cause by undercanting. Does the new alignment force her legs apart from the knees to the feet? Liz still spends a lot of time with her legs locked together in the after segment, but she spends more time with her feet apart than before.

I tried to downplay the above (after) pic as an example of out of alignment because of the before and after positions and I noted the weight in the back seat. I said
Quote:
I think that she is trying to roll the inside ski onto the new edge, but it's not working because the hips are too far back.
, but now I'm also going to add that the inside ski on new edge was not working because of weight too far back AND knock knees. The really cool part is that, with my new understanding, this pic shows CORRECT alignment. What a cool alternate way to visually check alignment!

Now back to the $64K question:
Does undercanting hinder proper angulation?

I was hoping someone would answer this because I don't know. But I think I've found a smoking gun in Liz's case. Here at home I did a little test of lateral hip movement with my feet locked together versus apart. Lateral hip movement is restricted when the feet are locked together. With your feet locked together, you can't roll your ankles or move your hips much to get inclination. Banking is the only thing left. I was a little worried about this analysis when I checked the angulated turn and saw this:

But if you look carefully at where Liz was at before she got into the angulated position:

the dark color between her legs provides some evidence that she had her feet apart before she got angulated, then closed her feet together later in the turn. It's kind of funny because after she puts her feet together, they skid apart and she goes right into the next turn with her feet apart and it works beautifully.

But even if under cantedness hurts angulation is true for Liz, I don't think it proves the general case. If one was skiing old fashioned racing style with the inside ski unweighted, it would seem that being too much on the inside edge of your outside ski would make you appear to be more angulated, but otherwise would make little difference.

When you have some weight on your inside ski and it is less edged than it should be due to undercanting, you're going to have to skid the inside ski more to keep the skis parallel. My guess is that if the inside ski skid is achieved by foot rotation, it would be easy for inside hip rotation to accompany that. It's been my observation that good angulation includes a leading inside hip and that banking happens when the hip is more rotated to the inside. But this thinking is way too complicated. But there are other ways to adjust. There must be a simpler answer.

I tend to think of banking versus angulation as different positions from the knees up. These differences would be unaffected by different relationships between the feet and the knees. This would give me the answer that, at best, cantedness would have an indirect effect on angulation. Note that I don't like this answer either. In the absence of debate, I'm documenting my own conflicts.

Bud, would my approach to measuring hip angulation reduce the impact of cantedness impacting the measurement? Because I draw my lower body line from between the feet to between the hips, any alignment problems that bow the knees in or out ought not to matter, right? Looking back at the first before and after pics I did, it seems that the harder it is to draw the lower body line, the more likely it is that there is an alignment problem.

Note to DC: It would be real cool to have before and after views (including a few seconds of both head on and from the side views) where alignment was the only change. If we separated out the video from the what was done it would serve as a nice quiz for pros. For the head on shots it would be nice to show a straight run with a normal stance, a straight run with a "cowboy" stance (feet ouside the hips) and a straight run knock kneed.

Bud, do you have any more suggestions for before and after shots?
post #42 of 52
rusty,

HEY HEY! LOOK REAL CLOSE AND YOU CAN SEE SASSQUATCH IN THE WOODS TOO!

sorry! couldn't resist...

I must say I am very impressed with your computer skills and your abilities to inset video shots and overlay lines and so on. I have trouble just quoting somebody.

Sorry if we are getting into semantics but your descriptions that talk about "skiing on outside edges being undercanted" is confusing to me because in reality people who are undercanted DO NOT ski on their outside edges. I would challenge anyone to ski down the falline in a straight run on their outside edges for more than a few yards. In reality what happens to an undercanted skier is they demonstrate an "A" frame in the lower legs to achieve a flat ski or an inside edge.

If I have to justify your $64k question whether "Does undercanting hinder proper angulation", I have to ask you what is your concept of proper angulation Rusty? Because an undercanted skier can make all kinds of anglulations but how effective are those angles and how stressful on their knees is it to get the SKI edge angles needed?

In your first photo of your last post you stated that you see her riding her outside edge. I don't see it??...
post #43 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by therusty
I observed knock kneed, but skis on outside edges. I guessed wrongly:
But this was not too far off. The knock knee is the position that Liz would have used before in order to get her skis flat on snow. But now, becase the outsides of her boots were planed down, she is on her outside edges instead of flat skis. It's hard to tell from the before sequence, but it looks like Liz's natural before stance was legs tight together from the hips to the feet. Would this help to minimize problems cause by undercanting. Does the new alignment force her legs apart from the knees to the feet? Liz still spends a lot of time with her legs locked together in the after segment, but she spends more time with her feet apart than before.

I tried to downplay the above (after) pic as an example of out of alignment because of the before and after positions and I noted the weight in the back seat. I said , but now I'm also going to add that the inside ski on new edge was not working because of weight too far back AND knock knees. The really cool part is that, with my new understanding, this pic shows CORRECT alignment. What a cool alternate way to visually check alignment!

tp://www.therusty.com/images/liz_after_b.jpg[/img]
the dark color between her legs provides some evidence that she had her feet apart before she got angulated, then closed her feet together later in the turn. It's kind of funny because after she puts her feet together, they skid apart and she goes right into the next turn with her feet apart and it works beautifully.

But even if under cantedness hurts angulation is true for Liz, I don't think it proves the general case. If one was skiing old fashioned racing style with the inside ski unweighted, it would seem that being too much on the inside edge of your outside ski would make you appear to be more angulated, but otherwise would make little difference.

When you have some weight on your inside ski and it is less edged than it should be due to undercanting, you're going to have to skid the inside ski more to keep the skis parallel. My guess is that if the inside ski skid is achieved by foot rotation, it would be easy for inside hip rotation to accompany that. It's been my observation that good angulation includes a leading inside hip and that banking happens when the hip is more rotated to the inside. But this thinking is way too complicated. But there are other ways to adjust. There must be a simpler answer.

I tend to think of banking versus angulation as different positions from the knees up. These differences would be unaffected by different relationships between the feet and the knees. This would give me the answer that, at best, cantedness would have an indirect effect on angulation. Note that I don't like this answer either. In the absence of debate, I'm documenting my own conflicts.

Bud, would my approach to measuring hip angulation reduce the impact of cantedness impacting the measurement? Because I draw my lower body line from between the feet to between the hips, any alignment problems that bow the knees in or out ought not to matter, right? Looking back at the first before and after pics I did, it seems that the harder it is to draw the lower body line, the more likely it is that there is an alignment problem.

Note to DC: It would be real cool to have before and after views (including a few seconds of both head on and from the side views) where alignment was the only change. If we separated out the video from the what was done it would serve as a nice quiz for pros. For the head on shots it would be nice to show a straight run with a normal stance, a straight run with a "cowboy" stance (feet ouside the hips) and a straight run knock kneed.

Bud, do you have any more suggestions for before and after shots?


What in tarnation are you talking about????? I don't even know where to start? I believe you are a bit misguided as to the relationship of hip angulation, your measurements, and it's relationship to alignment issues.

Unfortunately I do not have the abilities to import diagrams or photos to illustrate to you the facts, so I will just say for now :
post #44 of 52
Bud,

Thanks for at least reading my post. Can we start with "do I have a correct understanding of undercanting"?
post #45 of 52
Bud,

BTW - If you want to have the ability to generate and import diagrams into your posts, I can show you how to do it for free.
post #46 of 52
therusty,

Sounds good, PM me sometime.

I want to publicly apolgize to "RustyGuy" who I mistakenly took for "therusty"!
post #47 of 52
Ya know, I think I'll check what's happening on the instruction board more often!: Maybe I'll learn something...


Yes, Bud did work on my boots, and I thought I could feel an immediate difference in how quickly I could initiate the turn, tho I don't know if I was able to detect a change in ANGULATION from the boot work. If there was a change, tho I don't think its as dramatic as some here have said, could it possibly have been a combination of boot work AND more awareness from coaching and practicing drills?

Anyway, thanks for all the well wishes etc, season's over for me, but I'll be back and better for all this next year.
post #48 of 52
Hi Liz,
Don't let "therusty"'s disertation confuse or dilute what you feel or believe. The simplistic concept of boot alignment "laterally" is = "to have the center of your knee mass over the center of your boot when your skis are flat" so when you angulate or inclinate at all your skis move to an edge. Should your knees be pointed toward each other or knock kneed when your skis are flat, then you are already angulated yet your skis are not on an edge! To move farther inward will move the ski to an edge however puts undo stress on the knee joint and does not allow for parallel shins because the outside ski is under edged while the inside ski is over edged and you are "A" framed. Now that we took material off the outside edges of your boots you stand corrected! Your bones are stacked, your skis are flat, impedaments to progress have been eliminated.
post #49 of 52
Sheskis,

Thank you for allowing us to "pick apart" your case. We do these things partly to help others and partly to help us get better. To the latter extent, the more technical discussions are worse than useless to most people. Especially when the different levels of technical knowledge introduces conflicts. Bud knows his stuff far more than I do. Trust him.

Although the video clips give us an extremely small sample to work with, the difference between the 163 degree angle of the before pic and the 150 degree angle of the after pic is very significant. This difference is comparable to what I've seen many instructors take 2-3 whole seasons to do in order to pass level 2 certification. You should have been able to feel the difference in the turns. The new turns should have felt smoother, more powerful and rounder.

I also believe that it was the combination of the alignment and the coaching that got you there. I seek out the detailed contribution of the alignment piece of this because I believe that it will facilitate better coaching. At first I could not see any link between the alignment and angulation. Now I think I have a theory (i.e. that the old alignment promoted a feet together style that prevented effective angulation), but I'll feel a lot better when I can get on the same page as Bud.
post #50 of 52
Thread Starter 
Let's hear it for Liz for allowing her skiing to be put under the epicscope. It would be neat if more people would. I have permission from people in my group at ESA to use their before/after videos, and I'll get those up by-and-by. I can attest, having posted a few of my videos, that the feedback is worthwhile, even if you have to work a bit to sort it out (because I'll be honest, some advice is just bad).
post #51 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by nolo
I can attest, having posted a few of my videos, that the feedback is worthwhile, even if you have to work a bit to sort it out (because I'll be honest, some advice is just bad).
Do you think anyone would be offended if we started using and to distinguish the good from the bad?
post #52 of 52
Thread Starter 
Generally someone knowledgable steps up and politely redirects the conversation.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching