Peceptions on the effectiveness of PMTS

So much learning in skiing strives to reach high branches on rickety ladders. Foundations and versatility get sacrificed

This is exactly why Harald came up with his system.

Actually, Si, I don't give a crap if you agree with me or not, and I'm not going to waste my time speaking to people who have no interest in hearing. And that goes across the board on this forum.

If you're happy with the specific elements of Harb's technical philosophy that I object to, then, by all means, don't listen to me. After all, I'm just some ignorant old race coach who thinks the use of rotary skills has a place in skiing. Even more outlandish, I think it's a pervasively used tactic on the World Cup.

I mean, come on, what kind of idiot must I be to not understand that upper level skiing requires the total elimination of all rotary generated direction changes. Why would you even consider what a dummy such as that has to say, much less use it as the basis for a new thread?

It must by now be obvious to you that I'm just a poser who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. Best you just discard what I have to say. Just walk away. Don't give it another thought. Versatility and broad technical foundations? They're just fools gold!!

Do I think Harb's system has any merits? Perhaps, but who cares, I'm just a know nothing idiot. Remember?

I listen to Rick, actually I have found him to be one of the brightest and most accurate technical racing specialists I've come across (Obviously). I'd listen to Rick over just about anyone up here or anywhere else. Not that I know anything What the hell is PMS anyway?

Q? Why do they call it PMS?

A! Because Mad Coach Disease was already taken!

Regardless of how PMTS was founded, and the reasons it was founded for, I do not think that it has held true to its ideals. Many of the PMTS crowd, instructors and followers, are very one minded. I have debated with a few of them right here over the years, and watched many debates. True that it is a generalization, but a lot of its members are quick to put down other systems regardless of well proven facts to the contrary of their arguement. The way I look at PMTS, is what happens when you take a good things too far... kind of like any religious extremists.

The biggest turn-off that I think I ever had from the PMTS system, was when Harold presented himself to this board through AC or dchan (I cannot remember), and lightly bashed all opposing opinions at EpicSki. I then proceeded to the PMTS forums and witnessed some less than professional or technical discussions about skiing and other methods of teaching. Seeing something like that as a young, moderately talented skier, is a major turn-off from a method of teaching and skiing.

It seems to me to be like skiing with blinders on, ignoring what the rest of the ski industry is doing and teaching. I can go as far to say that if PSIA came up with the most revolutionary idea to hit skiing technique and instruction in the last 40 year (hypothetical) and this insight was going to change ski instruction and skiing for the better, I think that PMTS would discredit the idea based on the sole fact that it was developed by the PSIA, regardless of its possible superiority. Some may argue the contrary, but the way PSIA develops its techniques and teachings allows for many different techniques to be taught; as to develop a strong repitoire of different skills.

Later

GREG

Consider for a moment that many differences of opinions are frequently based more on misunderstanding of the other's position than knowledge of one's own.

i.e. My knowledge of what I know does not negate what you know that I do not, and that works both ways.

Unfortunatly a lot of what is bantered about as knowledge of what PMTS is, or is not, has misunderstanding, or a conflicting belief system, as it's basis, not actual working knowledge of PMTS or experience employing it in leasons.

If we first look for commonalties, vs. declaring differences, there is more learning potential available to all.

There is far more understanding and learning available from an “agree to disagree” relationship than from one of exchanged barbarisms extended so far beyond reason that they are self defeating to ones position.

Consider that there is most likely some added value aspect to be gleaned from any "system". But only if we have enough genuine thirst for knowledge and learning desire to actually delve into a system and learn about it and really understanding it’s foundations.

I chose to dive into PMTS and see what was really IN there. I learned some great stuff, and have a quite comfortable understanding of the basis and value of PMTS concepts. Importantly I know when and where and how to use them with students to provide them the greatest benifit from employing PMTS concepts.

So I'd invite anyone who desires to express a (knowledgable) opinion about PMTS, or any system to actually go and learn about what it is, before extolling opinions on what it is not. Take a PMTS lesson, or clinic. What's the worst case scenario? You learn something that breaks an old belief system, or improves your skiing, or expands your options for helping your students learn?

When I coach athletes, I sometimes have to explain something 3 times in 3 different fashions to find a level of understanding that allows improvement. As Arc stated, it's whether we are interested in true learning or bashing someone or some system of learning. I credit Harold Harb and PMTS in large part with passing my Level 3. Things that were presented made more sense than many of the things I had been previously taught. Does that diminish everything I had ever been taught? I did not see it that way and Harold never told me it did.

The constant stereotyping by a few posters of PMTS and it's users being mindnumbed robots typically have a limited knowledge of what is actually taught in PMTS. They interpret it through interaction with supposed advocates and something Harold Harb once said. Just because one methodology challenges the premises of another does not mean that they have no respect for anything that that person knows or has to say.

Rick, I'm assuming by your statement that "versatily and broad technical foundations are just foolsgold" (I know you were being facesious) that you feel that PMTS does not provide that. How about this, maybe neither ATS or PMTS alone provide that?Maybe the person who seeks knowledge from people rather than affiliations is truly the most knowledgeable.

It gets to be a truly ridiculous argument when disagreeing with another is interpreted as they have no respect for you or your knowledge and either they are stupid or you are. Not a lot of learning takes place at that point and it becomes personal. I'm sure everyone has something to offer around here regardless of where they come from.

How about lowering the testosterone, throwing out the egos and resumes, and discussing the issues based on substance. I don't think anyone wants to sound like John Kerry: "Do YOU know who I------ am?" Yeah you lost.

I get a big grin on my face when I see the stretch-panters bickering amongst themselves on such silly grounds.

Its my ignorant and uninformed opinion that all forms of "professional" ski instruction in the US emphasize the structure and theology more than the product and the versatility thereof.

Where do I get this opinion? Experience skiing with/learning from the stretchpanters. Lots of these people are simply incapable of realizing there is more than one way to do things. Take away their almighty book of ideology, and they lack the common sense foundations to make reasonable judgements about other ideas and techniques.

All pro stretchpanters should be ashamed of that and work to correct it rather than just politicking their Right Way over the other's Wrong Way. I see an awful lot of that going on in all pro-stretchpant camps on these forums.

Well Mike, in my opinion this is because the argument is political rather than academic in nature. Money and pride are involved far more than rational thought.

I look forward to another season of pointless arguments about ideas that only exist in concept.

You should try college, skiingman, if you enjoy such sport.

Calling pros "stretchpanters" is perhaps not the most ingratiating characterization with which to prop open a door.

As I apply L'Hopital's rule to yet another example problem, I can assure you I've taken your advice, but that my courses are rather technical in nature and don't provide enough of this type of sport. Its human nature, and its fun to watch.

The stretchpant joke reference comes from an old joke that was likely formed in retaliation to just the attitude I'm talking about. I'm sorry if you find it offensive.

L'Hopital's rule? Educate us!

I'm just poking fun...I know you're attending university.

But seriously now, what are these "ideas that exist only in concept" that you had in mind?

I should have written L^Hopital's rule.

Its stated that if the limits as x approaches c of two functions f and g goes to either 0 or infinity in both cases, the limit as x approaches c of f(x) over g(x) is equal to the same limit of the derivative of f(x) over the derivative of g(x). Knowing this can prove valuable in attempting to determine if a particular improper integral will be convergent or divergent, that is if it will have a finite result we will calculate or a result that is infinite in nature.

http://www.ies.co.jp/math/java/calc/lopi/rule.html

This "improper" integral stuff is rather fascinating, but kind of abstract in nature. For instance, the integral from 1 to infinity of 1/x is infinite, but the integral of 1/x^2 is finite and equals 1. The denominator of the latter function approaches infinity so much faster that the integral of all of its values is equal to 1 rather than the infinite result of the first function. Thats a pretty big difference!


It often comes down to the opposing groups disagreeing over a mental construct of terms and images that has the same result as the opposing groups completely different construct.

Usually the sticking points have little or nothing to do with the end result or intended goal of the construct.

Common topics that often seem to display this kind of ideological headbanging are bootfitting, stance alignment, "steering" as discussed above, unweighting of the skis, etc.

perhaps he just doesn't have anything in his britches that would cause fabric to stretch.

ooohh....good one...

I see, L'Hopital's rule has nothing to do with this thread, but everything to do with your course of study. I'm suitably impressed because I never studied calculus for fear of failure. Your helmet is big!

I am a frequent poster at the realskier (HH) forum and like Arcmeister, I am going to go even further into what PMTS has to offer than I have until now, just as I have have gleaned perls from the Austrian and French and taken what suits me and my present capabilities as an old man.

First of all when I was teaching I never told a student where the things I was teaching originated. Why would you atribute certain moves to PSIA, PMTS, etc. The student doesn't care, he wants to learn to ski (better).

My participation in realskier is more to try to shut up the bashing of all skiers not PMTS, not to dispute the technical aspects. If that was accomplished we could all co-exist in harmony and learn the good things everyone has to offer.

....Ott

Rick
I took a clinic with Harald last year. We "old race coachs" have no issue with anything Harald says. There wan't anything that didn't fit into my base of experience once I took the trouble to ask him to explain himself.
Harald has different definitions of terms than we are familiar with. Also he, at times, describes things as he wants you to feel them rather than as they actually are. Does that sound familiar? Haven't we all done that?
Granted the ego thing can get annoying but he does have a lot to offer. Anyone who sees a conflict doesn't "get it".

Ott has the right angle.

I poke my nose in here now and then, and stuff like this makes me glad that I don't come here more often. It's a tangle of ideas, and no one cares to simplify it for the STUDENT, which is what you all have forgotten what it's like, evidently.

Kids don't want or need to hear Mom and Dad fight about how to raise them.

Over and out........yet again.

Bonni, I always have felt that one of the advantages of this site was the transparency between the pro and recreational sides of skiing. Letting down the shield, as it were.

For me, the worst case scenario was spending time, money and effort to find out that the product offered was nothing more than repackaged stuff I already knew
AND
that the money I spent would go towards supporting continued bashing of an organization that I am proud member of and continued bashing of my own professional work.

When I was first introduced to PMTS, all I saw was hype and insults hurled toward "traditional instruction". When I saw HH's online discussions where he responded to criticism of his methods with "you don't understand what I'm saying, buy my book", I asked myself if he can't communicate effectively online, what makes me think he can communicate any better via a book? When I had seen enough "real meat" behind PMTS to see that it did have something to offer and I saw that HH was toning down the rhetoric, I ordered a book. I've read the book and decided there was enough to order the video. Maybe after that, I'll sign up for a clinic. But the thought of paying $1000+ (total expenses) and spending a week listening to some guy tell us how great he is and how much we suck until we do exactly what he tells us to do was my idea of a worst case scenario.

I don't believe that to be the case, but I'm still using the proverbial 10 foot pole to touch this stuff. I'm encouraged to discover that the "Secret Potion" (my quotes) Phantom Move is something that I've taught for years. I was absolutely floored by the amount of "wedge progression" stuff in HH's book (hmm kind of conflicts a little with the 'wedge ruins skiers' rhetoric?). I'm encouraged that the one person I know who has completed PMTS certification continues to get a few request privates every year specifically because of the certification. I'm a little discouraged that this person tells me that the "PMTS lessons" are not very different because "it's all just skiing".

If you are a person who demands some expectation of value before spending time and money on a product or service, I encourage you to use free sources of information about what PMTS is before signing up for a clinic. Because HH has incorporated "tease" into his marketing strategy (which is a red flag to me), it's not easy to see all of the details of what his products and services offer. This has lead some people to simply respond to rhetoric with rhetoric. But he's published enough on his web sites and there has been enough "meaty" contributions on Epic to get a decent glimpse of what PMTS is about. You just have to wade through a lot of crap. Hmmm, maybe if you have more money than time, just taking a clinic is worthwhile?

Whew... a mature, non-emotional response that instills a confidence in your knowledge AND professionalism.

Come on "Fastman", you can do better.

I think both Rick and TheRusty have each made an expert's evaluation of Harb and PMTS. I know two WC level coaches who have concluded similarly. They also point out that Harb is quite insistent that his system is the only one. This is a turn off. Skiing is filled with a lot of talented teachers and coaches who are not PMTS guys. We don't see PMTS touted at the WC level because advanced skiing is more than the Phantom Move.

From my POV as a non-coach, the one factor that enables PMTS to be effective is that it helps the struggling intermediate align him/herself kinetically by lifting and tipping the inside foot while keeping the ankles in the frontal plane. This aligns and centers the body, which improves skiing for a lot of people. But there is a lot more to skiing than this move. The real laboratory for skiing is racing, and race coaches know best.

"If we insist on being as sure as is conceivable...we must be content to creep along the ground, and can never soar."
- John Henry Cardinal Newman

Si,

Per Weem's diamond approach, I feel I know enough about HH and PMTS to say that I could get my money's worth out of a clinic. At this stage in my life, other options are higher on the perceived value list. But I am going along the road where the perceived value of this is increasing over time.

The "secret potion" comment comes from my reaction to Harb's marketing and reading his book. This is the move that frees the intermediate from his/her bonds and opens up expert skiing. I can certainly understand how this is downplayed in the "Teaching System" relative to all the other things that need to occur in order for teaching and skiing to be effective. Nonetheless, try asking 100 people to name one thing about PMTS. From what I now know about the Phantom Move, HH could have chosen to be much more forthright about it in his early online discussions. Instead of "you don't understand it, buy my book", he could have said "it involves tipping the inside ski and early weight transfer combined with a focus on improved balance to develop a smooth and powerful carved parallel turn". Spending 3 years trying to understand what the phantom move really was without supporting HH is why I call it a "secret". Now there is an online lesson that at least shows the move for free. The secret potion comment is probably not fair relative to what is currently being promoted online, but if you took the phantom move out of "Anyone can be an Expert Skier", there would be a big hole in the book.


BTW - Nightcat,

I have not made an expert evaluation of PMTS. I have simply been extremely cautious about approaching it due to the early rhetoric. I've only scratched the surface. I've seen things pro and con, but I've not seen enough to pass judgment on the system. I've only seen enough to say it's neither pass nor fail at this point.

phantom move

this skiing move isn't HH's or PMTS's as nor does it define PMTS

The whole theme last year at the 4 PMTS camps I went to had moved beyond that (the phantom move) to refining secondary movements that support early carving at the top of the turn complimenting the actions of the 'phantom move' and moving the g-forces from the last 1/3 of the turn to the sides of the turns.

These concepts are not unique to PMTS at all. These concepts that we were being taught are not in his current teaching materials or DVD's. You get a different experience in the camps than the books and dvd's because this level of instruction does not lend itself to self teaching like the more foundational books and videos are presenting. (though his next book/dvd will address more of this material)

What I learned from non-pmts sources like John Clendenon and the 2 PSIA race camps I attended were very complimentary to what I've learned in PMTS. So when people say PMTS is just marketing, if they are teaching the same movement patterns and use of balance to ski, I can see where they are coming from.

Actual differences between what is taught in PMTS and other systems totally depends on the instructor. The PSIA III I met last year was into wide stance (i'm talking shoulder width or wider here), balance staying between the skis, and knee pointing to control edging. Most here would say that wasn't a good 'foundation' to teach someone. But, at the 2 race camps run by totally PSIA instructors were all about developing use of dynamic balance to ski, just like I've learned in PMTS.

I think what boils some people is their perception that HH says or thinks PMTS is the only way to ski. I have not heard him say this or write this even one time. In fact he has specifically written the oposite many times. I have heard him say, on the other hand, that ski instruction in this country is in pretty bad shape. The 2 statements are not the same, even though many seem to not understand the difference.

So what makes PMTS unique? Maybe nothing, maybe everything. If it was just the Phantom Move it's certainly not unique. If it's the whole system which includes alignment-boot-fitting, certification, camps, exact and consistent terminology, dry land training and equipment, then as a whole package of tools to improve ones skiing it's more unique.

As a consumer myself I do see differences in approaches on the slopes and being taught and described here that would actually undo what I've learned. I reduce these differences not to politics or beliefs but ski movement patterns of how to ski. I would be cautious spending money with some approaches. But I've been very happy with John Clendenon's stuff, HH's stuff, the Atomic Race camp stuff and found them very compatible. It's hard ahead of time to sink money in a camp and then end up with an instructor that is playing a different tune. It's naive to think this can not and does not happen.

One of the promises of PSIA and it's level classifcations and cert tests is to McDonaldize instruction. You can go to a different resort and pick up a lesson that is compatible with what you had at a different resort. The only problem for me is what I see in those cert tests is vastly different than what I've been taught by all of these different instruction sources in specific demostratable and objective ways. But as the one poster noted, PMTS approaches helped him pass his lvl III. I don't doubt that. You can do a PMTS type movement pattern and create a turn that most people won't realize how you did that. (watch Clendenon do a bump run - are you seeing active rotary, or a sudden shift in fore/aft balance to fore at the same moment of releasing the downhill leg while tipping it and falling off your uphill skis LTE around the bump. These actions combine to create a lot of immediate rotary but in a very balanced fashion. Clendenon rails against active rotary as the bane of expert skiing just like HH does.)

Just to reiterate what Si said, the camps are different than the books and the dvd's.

>>>It's hard ahead of time to sink money in a camp and then end up with an instructor that is playing a different tune.<<<

John, why are you so against learning something different? The more 'different' ways you know how to ski, the more choices you have as any situation arrises.

....Ott

Fantastic post, Arc.

I'll add to it: as one who observed Arc's class at ESA last year off-and-on, I will say that he got some tremendous results. Furthermore, I learned a lot by listening and asking questions of him over the course of the ESA. Thanks, Arc... you rock!