or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

# Waisteering Revisited - Page 16

Ric,
The whole plane thing is easily misunderstood. Especially when you consider you still have to define the axis of rotation for the motion in that plane. Assuming it is alway the CG/CM (because the three planes that have been defined have that point in common) would be wrong. Using inclination and tipping the skis on edge requires the skis to be the axis of rotation, Rotating the body around a vertical axis lateral to the CG/CM (close to the hip socket), or moving the CG/CM forward by closing the ankles makes the ankles the axis of rotation. For example, When we start to talk about Sagittal plane being lateral to the medial plane and then talking about rotating in that plane, when actually it was the transverse plane...
... a simpler way to say that is, to rotate the body around a vertical axis that passes close to (or through) the hip socket.
A movement of the limbs (especially extension of the new outside leg) to propel the CG/CM has been accepted as the primary way the torso moves downhill. Especially in a cross over transition maneuver. What if the propelling force was gravity and we stopped resisting it's downhill pull long enough to redirect the CG/CM? Would the result be a smaller upward displacement of the Torso and the feet moving out from under the torso and onto an effective edge faster? After watching the Hip angulated skiers use flexing to minimize the upwards dispacement, I am wondering how combining it with a little WS would change the effect.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by justanotherskipro Ric, ... a simpler way to say that is, to rotate the body around a vertical axis that passes close to (or through) the hip socket.
But what if the axis is really not close to the hip socket? Rotation action is happening at the inside hip if the outside hip is being driven forward. This doesn't mean the line of gravity or axis of whole body rotation running from the outside shoulder, through the CoM, down to the inside foot carrying the load passes directly through the hip. May not even mean that it comes close. that is the problem wiht using stick and staight line analysis, with the body and it's soft tissue and bone structure.

So if the axis of ratation is happening in a different place then the actual action of the joints responsible, and the muscles driving this action have to be identified and recognized.

To say that the coM/cog aligns directly through the inside hip or even close could be very misleading. To say that the load is carried through the inside hip would be correct. Our body carries it's load rarely by a straight line from top to bottom, the pelvis and all the associated muscles, transfers this load to the hip.

Maybe more accurate would be to say that the bias is to the inside of the base of support, directing it to the inside foot. Our feet do define the lateral boundaries of the base of support. Don't mean to beat this thing to death, but I see no way that actual LoG/Com can align directly through the hip. Directly to the inside foot, Yes. Do you see this distinction? Later, RicB.

Quote:
 Don't mean to beat this thing to death -RicB
Okay, you guys are going to start getting demerits! You are going to put our audience to sleep

Just teasin', Rick and I are working in the background, not to worry,,,,,
1) then define where it is. We are talking about rotary movement, there is an axis of rotation. In fact there are three primary ones. Not to mention all of the ones involved in the joints. All simultaneously moving to create the desired body position.
2) I did not say the CG/CM aligned with anything, I said we are turning around a pivot point that was not the CG/CM. The combined rotation about three axes simultaneously makes it difficult to keep the discussion limited to just lateral bias or planes of movement.
3) We can move outside the base of support (although not for long) which is what a more aggressive "down the hill" projection of the CG/CM does. If our feet do not catch up we would face plant. So to maintain a relatively upright stance we whip the feet forward, which coincidentally accelerates them through the turn. The waist steering allows this to happen easier than using a more traditional hip angulation transition.

BTW, I have been teaching this maneuver for two years now and quite honestly it never devolved into a debate of physics, newtons laws or math. We are talking about a simple skiing maneuver and IMO the over analysis of it has created four hundred too many posts.
Gary describes it differently than we do here in Aspen but at least half of our 1400 staff members are using some form of this and have been for quite some time. I am not surprized Gary has happened upon the same observations that the 30+ current or past d-teamers, several past national race coaches (from everywhere), past Europa and World cup coaches and skiers, PSIA ED staffers, examiners and all level of trainers, have seen while watching Bode. With over a hundred and twenty of these highly refined and experienced trainers here they picked up on this a while ago. Which is why I stated a loooong time ago that WS is not new.

### Okay, let's get focused, bonus Essay - 25 MMB's up for grabs -

25 Bonus Points Possible

Give your best most succinct description of a Cross-over, of a Cross-Through and a active Cross-under. Write your statements using both HA and WS and concentrate on from the release to the re-engagement of the skis.

Remember, Noob's points are doubled. We must have 4 Racers post and at least 1 Noob for points to be awarded (PM each other to get this going).

If you use graphics or pictures pick up another 5 Bonus points so 30 available (60 for Noob's). I highly recommend those in the lead participate if even one Noob comes in (and that is a condition of this bonus round).

The terms refer to the seperate paths the skis and the body take down the hill and the way we transition from one turn to the other (one set of corresponding edges to the other).
1) Crossing over: body moving up and over the skis, which are the anchor.
2) Crossing through: body moving across the skis, legs flexing/extending to allow either feet/body or neither to be the anchor.
3) Cross under: feet moving laterally beneath the body, which is the anchor.

IMO the difference between HA and WS is the hip location (lower using HA), countering movements (can be more using HA), and where the steering comes from (more leg steering in HA). In short WS is more inclined, squarer to the skis (although not always), and more inward weight biased.
OOPS! I added an additional post to this monster! Sorry, I will sit out for a while...JASP (no E.R. Please)

### We are moving on ;-D

Quote:
 Originally Posted by justanotherskipro OOPS! I added an additional post to this monster! Sorry, I will sit out for a while...JASP (no E.R. Please)
No, DUDE, its cool, we are moving it along again

Just follow my cues, we'll all end up at the right place!

### Aspen's doing it,,,,

Quote:
 Originally Posted by justanotherskipro 1) then define where it is. We are talking about rotary movement, there is an axis of rotation. In fact there are three primary ones. Not to mention all of the ones involved in the joints. All simultaneously moving to create the desired body position. 2) I did not say the CG/CM aligned with anything, I said we are turning around a pivot point that was not the CG/CM. The combined rotation about three axes simultaneously makes it difficult to keep the discussion limited to just lateral bias or planes of movement. 3) We can move outside the base of support (although not for long) which is what a more aggressive "down the hill" projection of the CG/CM does. If our feet do not catch up we would face plant. So to maintain a relatively upright stance we whip the feet forward, which coincidentally accelerates them through the turn. The waist steering allows this to happen easier than using a more traditional hip angulation transition. BTW, I have been teaching this maneuver for two years now and quite honestly it never devolved into a debate of physics, newtons laws or math. We are talking about a simple skiing maneuver and IMO the over analysis of it has created four hundred too many posts. Gary describes it differently than we do here in Aspen but at least half of our 1400 staff members are using some form of this and have been for quite some time. I am not surprized Gary has happened upon the same observations that the 30+ current or past d-teamers, several past national race coaches (from everywhere), past Europa and World cup coaches and skiers, PSIA ED staffers, examiners and all level of trainers, have seen while watching Bode. With over a hundred and twenty of these highly refined and experienced trainers here they picked up on this a while ago. Which is why I stated a loooong time ago that WS is not new.
Yeah but somebody had to break it down and be able to teach it to the level 1 recreational racer. That IS what we have done and for something that is so widely accepted I can't tell you the grief we've had for introducing it. Also, I am not truly convinced that a whole lot of folks truly understand what "Waist Skills" are. Its simple but many have a very difficult time grasping it or even defining it, which is what is about to happen.

I do appreciate your posts, perspective and enthusiasm! I did have my "Mr. Green Grin" up on the previous post! I'm not serious about taking points away

Let's keep it moving, things are going on behind the scenes that will tie it all together here shortly.

What I'd really like from you, Jasper, is a PSIA description of what all your instructors and coaches are doing, teaching or talking about. I'd like to see if it does indeed dovetail or if there is another perspective on the current trends in WC technique.

MH

### A simple demonstration of Cross-body alignment/bias

I'm going to be posting more pictures in the Ultimate T'chi Thread but here is a simple demonstration of how we perform what has been called in this thread "cross-body alingment".

What I am doing is standing relaxed, feet about 45 degree angle about an 1" between my heels. I will take all the weight (weight distribution) off of my right foot and hover it about 1" above the ground. I will then move it out about 18" and then stand with equal weight on both feet. Notice that I am not leaning or that my hips do not loss their parallel relationship to the ground.

Cross-body Alignment, right foot bias

Try this at home, its easy (kinda of), definitly do it in front of a mirror.
I have to tell you guys, trying to follow this thread when you are on dial-up is just hopeless. Sounds interesting though.
My apologies to JustAnotherSkiPro for saddling him with the JASPER nickname.

That was my doing folks. I thought,,,, oh well,,,, doesn't matter what I thought. JustAnotherSkiPro doesn't care for it, and he's made a few requests in his posts for us to drop the "ER". Consider it done.

Friends, allow me to introduce you to JASP.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Rick My apologies to JustAnotherSkiPro for saddling him with the JASPER nickname. That was my doing folks. I thought,,,, oh well,,,, doesn't matter what I thought. JustAnotherSkiPro doesn't care for it, and he's made a few request in his posts for us to drop the "ER". Consider it done. Friends, allow me to introduce you JASP.
Oh, hey JASP, my apologies as well, I didn't pick up on that. Thanks Rick for setting the record straight. I will fix that on the MVR Race next time I update it.

I've already corrected it in the MVR Standings.

Here are links to the next two assingments.

The Transition, HA and WS

Bias exercise
Jaspr, I don't think you can specificly define where the axis is running through the pelvic area. We can dial in on which foot is primary, but if we move the balance point in between the feet and who can say exactly where it is. If we're feeling balanced we have it dialed in with respect to the actions and forces happening in the moment.

This is why I think it is misleading to say that everything alignments directly through the hip. I agree the load can be distributed through the hip, it has to, as the leg is the only connection to the ground. Enough on that.

Cross over: Skis and feet are the anchor with the body moving in relationship to the skis (anchor).

Cross under: Just the opposite. The upperbody and it mass serve as the anchor with the skis and lower body moving in relationship to the upperbody.

Cross through: Okay, we move across our skis in every turn we make. Cross through is really all the huge middle ground of the blending of the previous two we do in the majority of our skiing.

HA: Outside ski bias, seperation between upper and lower body takes place in the hips, with the inside hip swinging forward to the outside of the turn, with the upper body moving away from the direction of ski travel, to face more down the hill, while rotating around the outside hip.

WS: Inside ski bias, with little to no upper and lower body seperation. The total body more inclined that angulated as above. Outside hip is swinging forward in the direction of turn, rotating around the inside hip. Upper body travels with the ski direction.

Later, RicB.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Gary Dranow I'm going to be posting more pictures in the Ultimate T'chi Thread but here is a simple demonstration of how we perform what has been called in this thread "cross-body alingment". What I am doing is standing relaxed, feet about 45 degree angle about an 1" between my heels. I will take all the weight (weight distribution) off of my right foot and hover it about 1" above the ground. I will then move it out about 18" and then stand with equal weight on both feet. Notice that I am not leaning or that my hips do not loss their parallel relationship to the ground.Cross-body Alignment, right foot bias Try this at home, its easy (kinda of), definitly do it in front of a mirror.

I see the tension in your "waist" that is required to provide the stability and leverage to acomplish this showing up in your left arm, and in particular your left hand. Even in your left shoulder. There are some slight adjustments being made. I don't imagine that someone not schooled in tai chi would se this very easily. Tai chi doesn't defy physics.

We have practiced the opening for many accumulated hours over the last four years. It is interesting how such a simple move can teach so much. Maybe we will do some form work together some day. Later, RicB.
Ric,
Cross under describes the feet/skis "crossing under the body." Cross over describes the body "crossing over the feet/skis", Cross through is Gary's term but by a process of elimination it is everything that cannot be classified as cross over/under movements.

This points out what happens when we abbreviate terms, we see this a lot with the old BREP acronym. They are all terms describing movements, Balancing movements, Rotating movements, Etc... Taking that editing one step further it became Balance, Rotation, ETC. The same can be said about the newer terms. Tipping movements, turning movements, flexing/extending movements. They are morphing into Tip, turn, flex/extend. While including the whole term adds words, it also forces us to edit the rest of our presentation. Which IMO is the part that needs the most editing.
BTW I agree with you that the whole alignment issue can be misleading because most people assume that it remains constant throughout a turn. The variable nature of the snow surface and our constantly changing position relative to that surface make that idea impossible. A pivot point on the other hand is just that. Plant your pole and turn around it. The pivot point is the pole, even though our alignment is not through the pivot point.
I see in my haste this morning I called them the same acidently. I'l go back and edit. I don't disagree either the other issues either.

The whole issue of cross under/over, is more or less obsolete I think. They describe the outside extreme at each end of the spectrum, and as such they tend to confuse the issue, so I try to not use the terms, even in discussions in clinics. Not sure what is considered "proper" in psia or in race coaching. In our div. the terms are going out of favor. Seems to be the view of visiting Dteam too.

There have been many discussions on these two here on epicski. Later, RicB.

P.S. I'm good a droping words and reversing letters and names to thoughts ect. sorry to add confusion to an already confused thread.
I still see them used to identify what is is moving around what. For that to happen using the complete term usually is enough to explain the idea. I agree with your observation that their usage is changing. The trend toward using both through the transition will probably drive the need for a term like Gary's "Cross Through".

### WS and the inside Knee

First I want to weigh in on the X-(over, through, under) discussion. I believe each is its own "skill" and needs to be addressed individually in any discussion about turn transition/initiation. JMHO.

Here's something for you guys to chew on. Stand propped against a wall. Do both a WS and HA move.

Let me know what the think the affect of each is on inside knee flexion (or angulation, rolling the inside knee out).

Again I don't disagree. They are useful for identifying movement patterns and outcomes from a certain point of reference. However, because of the history of these terms, you have many who see nothing but either one or the other. Identifying the common movements in both, the timing differences between them, and the relationship of these to the skis behavior seems to make more sense to me.

Anyway, how many turns do we make where it is stricktly one or the other serving as 100% of the anchor? This is where I see the problem arises. Using only two terms we seem to get only the two turns, and not all the variations we need between the two extremes.

Gary, I'll have to try this exercise later. Later, RicB.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by RicB Anyway, how many turns do we make where it is stricktly one or the other serving as 100% of the anchor? This is where I see the problem arises. Using only two terms we seem to get only the two turns, and not all the variations we need between the two extremes.
I think RicB brings up a very important issue here, skiing is a very individual thing just like sitting, standing, walking, running, tennis or golf. As a fundamental property we need balance but for individuals with excellent balance, technique or physical strength can in some cases be of lesser importance. In a sequense of turns we need indeed lots of different variations of different techniques in order to perform efficiently.
So if you intend to do a cross over move and your feet move away from the torso, it is no longer a cross over move? Sounds pretty rigid guys. The intent did not change, the skier was trying to move their body over and across the skis. If the skis skid and the feet move, big deal.

### Modified Graphics

Conventional HA Turn Vs. Waist Steering

Waist Steering at ski

Tommy took another whack at these graphics. Hopefully they tell the story a bit better. The second is how waist steering acts on the ski.

Will be updated on our site today.

I've been looking at the graphic depiction of both of these for several weeks. The turning depiction is inaccurate for both conceptions of turning. The torque depiction I haven't figured out yet. But it looks like I don't want to. Anyway keep up the work on this, it should get better with each iteration.

Sir Turnalot

### Until Winter

Are you bored? Good question. We all must be with 400 plus posts on something none of us really understand

Until Winter
I dont really understand the graphics.... (BTW what is HA)

I have been bogging my mind with this theory that it is possible to ski without any uphill(inside) ski lead. IMHO the more you lean towards the slope the more ahead the inside ski will become since your outside leg is streached and your inside leg is bent, untill your inside knee angle becomes less than 90deg. From there on your knee will actually move backwards and therefore in theory lessen the inside ski lead (your inside foot knee is tucked all the way into your armpit).

In the first pickture the top graph represents a reasonable skiing stance where both skis are eaqually long and bent approx. correctly. In the lower graph skis are placed unnaturally in regards to position and bending curve.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by justanotherskipro So if you intend to do a cross over move and your feet move away from the torso, it is no longer a cross over move? Sounds pretty rigid guys. The intent did not change, the skier was trying to move their body over and across the skis. If the skis skid and the feet move, big deal.
Jaspr, what if you are simply making a turn, no thought of crossunder/over, and your feet are moving away from your torso, while your torso is moving away from your feet, both at the same time, but to varying degrees depending on what you intend to do with the turn. the turn developes from the need of the moment and not because of a clasification of two types of turns. Various mixtures of this happen in a majority of our turns doesn't it? Turns where both our core/upperbody and our feet are both being displaced, and the harmony and integration of these gets the job done based on need and/or intent.

I'm not sure why you see this as rigid. To me what is rigid is trying to classify all our turns into one of two categories, when it seems to me that there are many variations of the two references happening together, simultaneously in the same turn all the time in our skiing. IMHO of course. Later, RicB.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Gary Dranow Conventional HA Turn Vs. Waist SteeringWaist Steering at ski Tommy took another whack at these graphics. Hopefully they tell the story a bit better. The second is how waist steering acts on the ski. Will be updated on our site today. Any comments?