New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

My Coffee Break with Weems - Page 2

post #31 of 59
I've noticed this when teaching novices and lower intermediates: they want fairly clearly deleanated "rules" about skiing. They often complain that different instructors tell them different things, which one is "right"?

Some of them grumble and reckon there should be a set "system" that everyone has to stick to. Which is interesting. Maybe Mr Harb is onto something with his marketing.
post #32 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusty Guy
Just as feedback Si, in the event you object to something I say there is no need to be obtuse.

If you don't care for my comments P.M. me or address me openly or in the public forum.

I'm a big boy.

For years you have been waving the PMTS banner. The archives here are replete with the arguments you had with a man Harb has repeatedly referred to as a "paper guru". It is certainly nice of you to have such kind comments about Weems. Would you care for me to post what Harald had to say about Weems and his skiing?

In addition, would you care for me to cut and post the top ten pot shots by your favorite ski instructor at Realskiers?

They won't be particularly hard to find. How about just a few of his diatribes? Then we can allow the court of public opinion to weigh in about general decorum and or petty comments.
Rusty, I replied to the PM you sent me. Let me just state here that I do not condone anyone's bashing. There certainly is a continuum between bashing and constructive criticism and I'm not suggesting that all criticism fits at one end of this spectrum. However, your comment says to me that one bad turn (pun intended I guess) deserves another. I don't agree. Retribution like that only leads to digression from the topic and flaming.

I apologize for this digression.
post #33 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by ant
I've noticed this when teaching novices and lower intermediates: they want fairly clearly deleanated "rules" about skiing. They often complain that different instructors tell them different things, which one is "right"?

Some of them grumble and reckon there should be a set "system" that everyone has to stick to. Which is interesting. Maybe Mr Harb is onto something with his marketing.
It's more than that.

Learning is best in small chunks. If you don't show students the whole picture, or if you get students to think that a very small subset of the picture is all that really matters, they will not be overwhelmed/intimidated by the topic, and more easily learn what you teach them.

But they will learn ONLY what you teach them.

There are those that want to learn ONLY about that subset, but I'd not put beginners into that pile. The problem is that later on, if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
post #34 of 59
Si,

It is the same old same old. If you review this thread, I think you will see a fairly even handed criticism by Rick that is in line with the topic. John Mason then raised the "bashing" red flag and rebuked Rick. Rick in turn recalled discussion about rotary that occured over a fairly long time frame last year.

Harald has been pretty emphatic about his position.

I read the discussion here to be about learning. Rick was attempting to juxtapose what he feels is a fairly narrow focus with folks now seemingly embracing a wider focus.

HH has made his position fairly clear about rotary or steering. I attempted to point out two things. The first was what I observed as a full cert ski instructor watching a trailer of Jeremy Bloom skiing steep terrain. The second was to post photos of WC skiing montages. Halald has recently derided photographic evidence. I stated emphatically that I have no race experience. I do however see what appears to me in the montages to be active/athletic rotation by WC skiers.

The comments about wedge christie turns stem (no pun intended) from me approaching Harald and Diana last fall at Loveland and asking them if they would "enjoy busting out a few wedge christie turns with a half dozen PSIA members". The joke was made in a light hearted manner to lighten obvious tension as the two "groups" stood fifty yards apart on a hill at Loveland.

It has become somewhat of an inside joke that is now outside.

It seems from my perspective that everyone needs to take their medicine from the same spoon. Harald has a long history of being critical. I don't think Rick's comments warranted the "B" word from Mr. Mason. I think in the context of the thread they were spot on.
post #35 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lisamarie
When skiers start to improve, they need to widen their scope of learning. Instead, many choose to make it more narrow by focusing on only one aspect of the sport. The result is burnout or collapse.
Lisa,

I have had a similar experience in the past couple of years that also has a nexus to equipment and how we practice.

I spent TOO much time on short slalom skis on groomed terrain working on carving/short turns. Why? The probable truth was I knew my bump skiing sucked.

To make it analagous to another sport. I never practiced my chipping and instead hit full shots on the driving range all day. Why? When I played mini tour golf my short game was horrendous. Why practice/ingrain bad habits.

The golfer Ben Hogan had a great expression that may well be his famed "secret". that was the subject of much mystery and the subject of a Life magazine cover storey in the fifties. When asked about practice and playing golf at a high level he said "you have to dig it out of the dirt". What I believe he meant by that is it takes constant hours of practice in order to succeed.

Last year I decided it was time to try and make a change. To learn what was wrong with my bump skiing and see if I could improve. Did I succeed? A bit. What did I do? To a large degree I dug it out of the moguls. I ditched the short carvers and just skiied bumps all the time.

The funny thing is now my carving/short turns suck.:
post #36 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusty Guy

To make it analagous to another sport. I never practiced my chipping and instead hit full shots on the driving range all day. Why? When I played mini tour golf my short game was horrendous. Why practice/ingrain bad habits.

The golfer Ben Hogan had a great expression that may well be his famed "secret". that was the subject of much mystery and the subject of a Life magazine cover storey in the fifties. When asked about practice and playing golf at a high level he said "you have to dig it out of the dirt". What I believe he meant by that is it takes constant hours of practice in order to succeed.
It is interesting how many golfers felt the "secret" was mechanical-and maybe it really was and Ben took it to his grave with him. Some felt it was a cupped left wrist at the top-his former caddie maintains it was keeping his right knee at a constant flex throught the back swing then through impact. Whatever.

Personally I believe we all have our own "secret" based on morphology, fitness, wants and desires.

But as Rusty alludes we have to dig it out with practice-correct practice predicated on a strong mechnical understanding of cause and effect. (One of the things Hogan always did was practice shots into the wind-because it exacerbated any spin put on the ball.) We can choose among a variety of styles or preferences-what ever toots our horn. One is neither right nor wrong, as unfortunately, so many seem to want to postulate.

One of the interesting things that Ben Hogan understood is that the flight of a golf ball is predicated on immutable laws of physics. If, for a righter hander, the ball curves to the right the toe of the club HAS to be behind the heel at impact-PERIOD-imparting a clockwise spin. What cause the clubface to be in that position is the subject of endless discussions of principals (things that influence clubface position) and preferences (choice I make to cause that influence). What is interesting is that in golf 5 simple laws of physics tell me as instructor what had to happen to the ball for a particular shot to occur. From there I have a base to begin working backwards to develop a correction.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could simply define (and agree on) the immutable physics of a ski turn then let the principals and preferences evolve to a reasonable discussion.

And for any struggling goofers out there-as Rusty intimates-the scoring game of golf is 100 yards and in. Over 60% 0f your practice should be those shots fromm 100 yards and in. Drive for show and putt for dough-eh Rusty!!!
post #37 of 59
i've yet to hit it out of bounds skiing, i've yet to make a triple bogey, i've never broken a ski pole over my knee.

golf is a good walk spoiled.
post #38 of 59
But, if you have a horrendous slice in your skiing, you probably get IMMEDIATE physical feedback.
post #39 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lisamarie
While much was said, one thought has stuck with me. To paraphrase the great guru:

When skiers start to improve, they need to widen their scope of learning. Instead, many choose to make it more narrow by focusing on only one aspect of the sport. The result is burnout or collapse.

These words rang true. In my case, the result was injury. Why do we do this? How can we train ourselves to view our learning wholistically, in a way that encompasses the beauty of the sport in its entirety? Is it possible to enjoy the ride without having to frantically reach for the ring on the carousel with each turn? Discuss.
I think it's beneficial and logical to think of skiing as an endless flow of movements. Some of the movements are repeated and symmetrical. When the movements are repeated and symmetrical this is a particular type of technique. When the movements are not repeated and symmetrical, this is blended technique. In blended technique the sequential movements change from turn to turn or even at various points in the turn.



Learning to do this is a matter of learning various techniques and then putting ones self in terrain situations that require changing the techniques from turn to turn or within a turn. Before you know it, the blended technique is something you can repeat and its usage is something you can anticipate for a given situation. In this case a skier has created new technique for himself or herself.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick
Weems delivered some very wise words to you, LM.

So much learning in skiing strives to reach high branches on rickety ladders. Foundations and versatility get sacrificed.
Sounds exactly like what happened to LM. To get new technique one can use different terrain, but not too extreme. To ski the new and difficult terrain without the right technique being developed is risky.

By the way, is HH saying that his way is the correct way, or is he simply saying that someone is not skiing his way correctly? Certainly one must concede that there are multiple types of technique that are appropriate for specific purposes and in some cases even for the same purpose.

Turnalot
post #40 of 59
I wanted to see what people had to say about (WEEMS) and his upcomming book.
A feel good thread.

Why does this have to be another PMTS - PISA pissing match?
To the general population (Me)? this is getting very old

The WEEMS stuff is the first thing that has got me interested in (Formal Ski Instruction) EVER. The man has done some work, lets give his due!!

EDIT: OK its back on track, thanks
post #41 of 59
Thread Starter 
My deepest gratitude goes out to my knights in shining armour who rescued my thread from becoming yet another PMTS vs PSIA diatrobe!

Sir Turnalot, I did address the "rickety ladder" issue earlier on, but it is easy to see how that reply got lost.

Quote:
In my case, the "ladder" was a strong, stable foundation. However, for some reason, I felt a compelling need to climb to the very top of it, stand on tippie toes, and reach for branches that were nowhere near the ladder's range. When that didn't work, I tried it in high heel shoes. Eventually, I fell over and collapsed.

In essence, I went from being an overly-cautious person, to a person who more or less threw caution to the wind.

There is not a teaching system in the world that could fix this. Nor is it a question of having a "better" instructor, whatever that means. I still believe that I had the best instructor possibile for what I needed. I was inspired to do things that I never thought were possible. However, in doing so, I got caught up in the adrenaline addiction that in the past, I never quite understood.

Interesting thing about this adrenaline stuff. It's twofold: There's the rush you get from skiing a challenging run, and there's adrenaline rush to your ego about accomplishing it. Todd Murchison used to say that a skiers learning becomes stifled when they get caught up in their ego. I really understand this now. Skiing from the ego is an extremely narrow focus. When you get caught up in it, you need to relearn how you learn.
I think that there is a certain point where skiers get more addicted to the ego gratification than the sport itself. I reiterate, there is not much an instructor can do about that. Heck, my regular teacher was quick to realize that I was not practicing enough on easy terrain throughout the week. This may be a gender thing, but a guy might have challenged him and said "I don't want to ski that gaper stuff!" But as a coy female, I would just smille sweetly, nod my head and then go do whatever the heck I wanted to!:

So once again, it's not about teaching systems: it's more about changing a participant's learning focus so that they embrace the sport wholistically.

Off Topic: Who knows the name of the film I am alluding to in my thread title?
post #42 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by onyxjl
Do you feel that a wider focus can be a hinderance to the developing skier at all?

I ask this from the perspective that as a student, I think it is beneficial to focus on learning the basic mechanics of a carved turn very well before moving on to experiment with more subtle techniques. In my opinion this will provide a strong foundation from which to explore the other areas. If I don't have that foundation, too much experimentation can muddy the waters a bit on what is really generating improvements.

As I understand from most modern teaching, it appears that once you have this basis down, skiing the rest of the mountain is adaptation. After the inside ski thread, I purchased "Ski the Whole Mountain" and Eric and Rob seem to be saying this same thing. Harald Harb seems to be saying this in his books. Instructors on this forum seem to be saying that in their posts. Everywhere you see it. If the basics of your skiing on the groomed green trails aren't as good as they can be, they aren't going to get any better off the groomed.

I understand that learning as much as you can will give you the widest base of support, but do you feel that students would be better served with a directed, narrower focus until a certain point? If so, what point?

In this sense, I have found the relatively narrow focus of the PMTS learning progression to be rather helpful. The steps to get from here to there are fairly explicitly laid out and have worked for me.

Although, reflecting on this idea, perhaps you aren't just talking about the power portion of the diamond. Probably you are referring just as much to the other 3 corners which are needed to progress. In this case, I think I hear you loud and clear.
I think you do hear it clearly. And the answer to your first question is, absolutely. Too wide a focus, too early, can be detrimental, because it can lead to chaos within the learner--who already has a pretty full plate.

This refers to my beliefs about holding polarity: specifically,
clarity<---->flexibility. The technical progressional systems are mostly about clarity. If one focuses too much on them, they narrow the scope and breadth of the sport and develop rigidity and dogma. Too much focus on flexibility (the wider focus) creates chaos and confusion.

Harb's and Lito's and many other systems are excellent at clarity, giving the students a predictable, repeatable set of movement patterns that work every time. The arguments go on and on about which is best, or most accurate, or most like WC, or most repsonsive to student needs. But they're all pretty damn good and help people with the tech focus as a grounded platform.

My concern is that people tend to get overwhelmed with that, and their focus becomes so narrow that it becomes rigid and un-adapatable. On the other hand I think that these tech sequences come to life when they are informed and supported by all the other corners.

I'm learning to ride my motorcycle. The more I learn the more I realize I know very little. I do know that, in the corners, I would like to slow down prior to the corner, then accelerate smoothly through to the end, and that I have to countersteer, and bank, and push the outside knee against the bike, and load the inside foot peg, and transfer the weight to the front wheel by off throttle, or by braking, to dive into the turn, then maintenance throttle to hold the angle and widen the contact patch of the rear tire while shifting weight off the front, then accelerate smoothly to load the back wheel to stand up out of the corner, and if I had entered to fast, maybe trail braking with either the front or back brake would be a good idea, not to mention smooth downshifting with a blip of the throttle while re-engaging the clutch, and, oh yes, hanging the inside knee out a little to help the weight stay to the inside, and...and...and... all this in about 4 seconds!

I'm sure that Harb, being an excellent rider has a very simple and quick progression for this.

However, even so, that is a lot of stuff, and guess what...I don't feel overwhelmed by it because I am shifting constantly from techno-terror to reminding myself of Purpose (staying upright and alive, working the line, developing good traffic strategy, having some fun), and Touch (feeling the road irregularities through the wheels, being relaxed and loose, looking to the end of the turn, working on timing and smooth brake/throttle work), and Will (staying focused, staying alert, riding in all weather, staying centered, commitment to the connection between me and the bike)--all that stuff keeps from getting locked up anywhere, and keeps every ride fascinating and worthwhile and so far, safe.

For me, the diamond provides the clarity without rigidity. The material within each resource provides the flexibility to match my efforts to what's really happening out there. Also I use it as the doorway to grasp the incredible richness of all sports without being overwhelmed by it.

It's fine for a beginner who is motivated to focus for quite some time on tech material--unless, of course, it doesn't work for them. Then you try something else!
post #43 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by ant
I've noticed this when teaching novices and lower intermediates: they want fairly clearly deleanated "rules" about skiing. They often complain that different instructors tell them different things, which one is "right"?

Some of them grumble and reckon there should be a set "system" that everyone has to stick to. Which is interesting. Maybe Mr Harb is onto something with his marketing.
Ant, these are great comments. And yes, Harb and Lito and others follow a great tradition with the set system and they market them very well. One of the ways of marketing is by differentiation: I am the anti PSIA. I am the anti Harb. I am the anti Weems. And so on.

And my marketing may easily fail because I refuse to be drawn in to the techno wars. (But the worst that could happen to me is that I could end up as a ski instructor in Aspen/Snowmass. Too bad!!! )

However, I believe that the diamond leaves room for, and advocates the use of, any system in that it is designed to help pros and learners alike integrate apparently opposing ideas and rules. (I'll bet, from your posts, that you are very good at this.) This, in turn, keeps them open to new information and feedback. I also believe that our guests deserve such a wide access to alternatives, because I think that sports are rich enough to offer them.
post #44 of 59
WEEMS:
You understand Counter steering, A very good foundation. How many ride for years and never understand the basic dynamic of how to turn and hold or change direction?
post #45 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTT
WEEMS:
You understand Counter steering, I very good foundation. How many ride for years and never understand the basic dynamic of how to turn and hold or change direction?
Getting just a bit of the understanding of countersteering was the first time I really felt I had control of the arc. What a relief, and what a lot of fun.
post #46 of 59
I learned countersteering by trail riding on my bike--oops big branch on the ground, and adapted something like it on skis, something to play with and pass some time of 1000+ on snow each season.

RW
post #47 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by weems
It's fine for a beginner who is motivated to focus for quite some time on tech material--unless, of course, it doesn't work for them. Then you try something else!
I think you have nailed it right on the head here.

Acrmeister's instruction combined with the Lito and HH's books provided me with what I felt was a solid learning progression to take care of the power portion of the diamond. In many ways this opened me up to exploring the rest of the diamond because I felt like I didn't have to keep examining technique over and over. Without this, I don't think I would have ever been able to mentally put it down.

Sure enough, after I would let go of obsessing on a particular movement and focus on touch or will I had the real "breakthrough" where you begin to take ownership of a movement or terrain. Often times nearly immediate improvement when I finally captured the real reason I was struggling with something. My best days on skis have come from focusing on the purpose of having fun.

As a positive advertisment for the diamond, I have been thinking about it learning something entirely different from skiing. Foosball. My office recently put in a foosball table in the breakroom about a month and a half ago. Up to that point I had played maybe two or three times in my life. I would find that every now and again after work I would kill some time just practicing shots and passes (the power portion) or pinning and catching (touch). During games I would focus on playing in a controlled fashion (purpose) and staying focused on the ball at all times (will). As a result I am now considered one of the best players at the office, although personally I know I still have a long way to go to be really good.

Ben Hogan didn't take his secrets to the grave. He published them all with phenomenally good drawings in his 5 Lessons book. That book and a video camera (or reflection off a sliding glass door in my case) can do amazing things for your game if you follow it diligently and accurately.
post #48 of 59
[quote=onyxjl]I think you have nailed it right on the head here.

QUOTE]

And you, in your long discription leading to foosball, have also nailed it perfectly. Thanks for understanding!
post #49 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick
Skiers leave these programs with an image of only one turn, one transition, one balance platform, as "correct", and thus their destiny is somewhat set. Skiers really don't comprehend how much going back to the blues and expanding their skill base can help them on the blacks.
Heeeeeyyyyy :

some of us are well aware of this... we are mad enough to keep taking lessons too....
post #50 of 59
Quote:
Off Topic: Who knows the name of the film I am alluding to in my thread title?
Would that be My Dinner with André?

Quote:
Some of them grumble and reckon there should be a set "system" that everyone has to stick to.
This topic reminds me a bit of an epiphany that I had was I was learning how to sail. I was taking lessons at a comfy, ramshackle club, and one of the experienced members had taken me out for a practice run.

Although I had read and pored over the technical manuals, and taken a ton of notes during the in-class sessions trying to learn the "rules", it wasn't helping me one bit on the water. But this member cleared so much up for me with one small exercise. There was a clear passage, so he had me sail with my eyes closed, and then I slowly let the mainsail out, and then in, and felt what was happening. Then I slowly changed the direction pointing into, and then out of, the wind -- and felt what was happening. That for me was the day I learned to sail.

When I can, I try and pull something out in this spirit from a ski lesson: what experience can I reproduce for myself? What effect does it have, and in what conditions? How does that feel?

(Don't worry. I don't ski with my eyes closed. )
post #51 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by delta888

Although I had read and pored over the technical manuals, and taken a ton of notes during the in-class sessions trying to learn the "rules", it wasn't helping me one bit on the water. But this member cleared so much up for me with one small exercise. There was a clear passage, so he had me sail with my eyes closed, and then I slowly let the mainsail out, and then in, and felt what was happening. Then I slowly changed the direction pointing into, and then out of, the wind -- and felt what was happening. That for me was the day I learned to sail.

When I can, I try and pull something out in this spirit from a ski lesson: what experience can I reproduce for myself? What effect does it have, and in what conditions? How does that feel?

(Don't worry. I don't ski with my eyes closed. )
This is the absolute center of what I am intending to convey with the Sports Diamond. You made a leverageable shift from Power to Touch, and it jazzed up the whole process. You "learned to sail" at that moment. Had you stayed mired in the technique, the technique never would have worked for you.

Outstanding experience, and we all have them all the time. My hope is that we can bring conscious competence to the search.
post #52 of 59
Delta888,

Quote:
Although I had read and pored over the technical manuals, and taken a ton of notes during the in-class sessions trying to learn the "rules", it wasn't helping me one bit on the water. But this member cleared so much up for me with one small exercise. There was a clear passage, so he had me sail with my eyes closed, and then I slowly let the mainsail out, and then in, and felt what was happening. Then I slowly changed the direction pointing into, and then out of, the wind -- and felt what was happening. That for me was the day I learned to sail.

When I can, I try and pull something out in this spirit from a ski lesson: what experience can I reproduce for myself? What effect does it have, and in what conditions? How does that feel?

(Don't worry. I don't ski with my eyes closed. )
It has been shown that people who are feelers as their primary learning type, learn very quickally when it comes to motion sports compared to the other 3 learnning types.
I started to ski with my eyes closed (on totally uncrowded slopes) to become more of a feeler. I got to the point where I could ski a double black with a pace skiier in front of me (totally in control). I now often ski backwards with my eyes closed while teaching novist lessons so I have a better understanding of what it is like for the students first time on that slope (it also offers a nice distraction for the student in the class who might be anxious).
I use the experiential learning model in my teaching and the learner must be a feeler to have the concrete experience, which is the first step in the model. I have found it is quite easy to get the individuls in the class to become feelers (and not by having them skiing with their eyes closed either), so they can cycle through stages of the model. The results are quite dramic over trying to position their body, spewing technical BS ,just giving them a demo, or trying to describe what it feels like to me.
The other 3 learning types are also used in the E. Learning Model in the other 3 stages of the model.
The Experiental Learning Model is one of many instructional tools I use while teaching skiing.
RW
post #53 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lisamarie View Post

It was a cloudy afternoon in Frisco Colorado, but the continuous light October snowfall was as good as sunshine. Weems walked into Abbey's Coffee Shop, and the room brightened. Enroute from Denver, he was kind enough to allow me to interview him for an article about his new e-book.

While much was said, one thought has stuck with me. To paraphrase the great guru:

When skiers start to improve, they need to widen their scope of learning. Instead, many choose to make it more narrow by focusing on only one aspect of the sport. The result is burnout or collapse.

These words rang true. In my case, the result was injury. Why do we do this? How can we train ourselves to view our learning wholistically, in a way that encompasses the beauty of the sport in its entirety? Is it possible to enjoy the ride without having to frantically reach for the ring on the carousel with each turn? Discuss.
I stumbled upon this and thought to myself - Weems, as always, is brilliant.....
Love this quote:
When skiers start to improve, they need to widen their scope of learning. Instead, many choose to make it more narrow by focusing on only one aspect of the sport. The result is burnout or collapse.
post #54 of 59
Thread Starter 
How in heaven's name did you dig this up?

It's a nice memory, though. Thanks!
post #55 of 59
 LM, thank you for sharing!
post #56 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trekchick View Post



I stumbled upon this and thought to myself - Weems, as always, is brilliant.....
Love this quote:
When skiers start to improve, they need to widen their scope of learning. Instead, many choose to make it more narrow by focusing on only one aspect of the sport. The result is burnout or collapse.


 

A corollary thought for you as your season with that silly white ball approaches, take time to get away from mechanics, just hit the ball from tee to cup and enjoy the journey. Focus a little on mechanics but don't obsess and let playful learning be your path to improvement.

(Think Tiger was in a Zen like mood Sunday?)
post #57 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusty Guy View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Si
Just as feedback - I personally find the HarbPMTS bashing to reflect mostly on the poster. I find nothing wrong with disagreeing (even quite strongly) with anothers ideas or approaches. I also understand people reacting to personalities and communication styles. I am continually surprised, however, at the petty comments thrown out about Harb and PMTS by people who otherwise seem knowledgable, professional, and well experienced. To me it suggests an insecurity that I find hard to understand. This is really communication style I am talking about here, not content.

On another point I have had personal interaction with both Weems and Harb about their systems. In the latter case I have had the opportunity to watch Harb work with a variety of people. In a nutshell I would say that Weems has some of the best overall perceptions about skiing of anyone I've ever encounterd. On the other side, Harb is the most capable person I've seen in terms of helping skiers to develop the fundamental basis they need to further develop proficiency in their skiing.
Just as feedback Si, in the event you object to something I say there is no need to be obtuse.

If you don't care for my comments P.M. me or address me openly or in the public forum.

I'm a big boy.

For years you have been waving the PMTS banner. The archives here are replete with the arguments you had with a man Harb has repeatedly referred to as a "paper guru". It is certainly nice of you to have such kind comments about Weems. Would you care for me to post what Harald had to say about Weems and his skiing?

In addition, would you care for me to cut and post the top ten pot shots by your favorite ski instructor at Realskiers?

They won't be particularly hard to find. How about just a few of his diatribes? Then we can allow the court of public opinion to weigh in about general decorum and or petty comments.


As someone who has been skiing for the last 25 years, but only been working on style (and a desire to be a instructor) I say yes to all of the above.  The library just called me to say that HH's book is now available for me to pick up, and many of the PSIA documents I have been reading specifically praise weems for the dedication he has.  So *YES*, please elaborate.
post #58 of 59
Use the search function.
post #59 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikewil View Post




A corollary thought for you as your season with that silly white ball approaches, take time to get away from mechanics, just hit the ball from tee to cup and enjoy the journey. Focus a little on mechanics but don't obsess and let playful learning be your path to improvement.

(Think Tiger was in a Zen like mood Sunday?)

Mike, I was thinking along those lines.
Much of what I've learned from Weems on the slopes has translated to many activities and aspects of life in general.
Weems is not just a character, but a man of character.........not to mention an incredible ski coach.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching