Peceptions on the effectiveness of PMTS - Page 4

About HH: I have suggested to him that he not talk or write about his disdain for anything not PMTS and hire a public relations person who has some talent of putting words diplomatically, a suggestion he nixed right away because he is telling how it is and he doesn't mince words.

It is unfortunate that his (and some others) rederick is taking the focus away from the PMTS technical learning. I have wondered if that was on purpose or not. For an outsider who hasn't taken a camp from HH and who is trying to find out about PMTS technique there are basically three answers: "You don't understand what it is we do", "Buy the books and videos and try to understand", and "You have to attend a camp and we will show you".

I got into it with HH about the cattle drive of 1000 mostly uninterested kids who come out with their schools for social reasons, just because their friends do and it gets them away from their parents and advisors who mostly don't ski and play cards in the waiting rooms until their kids are done.

He said he's done that and been there and when I asked him why he isn't at Boston Mills/Brandywine doing it he sidetracked again.

So I go to their forum because I'm still interested, mainly because John Mason and others professed that because of their physique or other problems they could not learn in the ATS schools and PMTS is less strenuous on the bones and muscles. So at my age anything that makes skiing easier, as shaped skis have done, piques my interest.

....Ott

I understand your question and got it from the start.

If you want a discussion to that effect, grow a pair and start one. I'm sure others will join in.

Yikes!

Another reason to stay out of these religious discussions. I'm neutral here, just trying to decipher the question posed by MilesB with my observation.

I don't doubt the veracity of the quote.

I'll just read from now on:

well Miles those bits should be easy to prove or disprove if HH in fact wrote them.....
Lets see Diana ski against Rick in a race (flashbacks to taichiskiing thread arrggghh)

Should be easy to see if she really CAN beat him.... (although of course he is not really a PSIA instructor)

Miles, since you asked about commenting on the value in HH quoted post, all I could find is the following:

>>>Go ahead use leg steering, leg rotary we don’t care. You will ski like you write, poorly. We saw first hand from the video of one of your lead Demo Team members what rotary does to skiers. You like it, you use it.<<<

All esle was dribble about 'How great I am, how stupid you are".

Leg steering and rotary were the only referece to skiing technique in this whole post.

....Ott

I'll bring the topic back on topic. Here is my personal experience with HH.

I taught at Elk Mountain PA for 4 years partttime - '68-'74 or so and Sugar Bowl in 1995/6. Just failed the 1-level Eastern certification twice - by a 1/4 point or so. Am an engineer and think about what causes what. I did not ski much for 25 years until I moved to Tahoe in 2001.

Needless to say I had an Austrian hop - the edge change was on a strong up movement. A 5 day clinic at Alpine with a level 3 PSIA - all top instructors, did not make any changes. I skied better, buit not really.

I was looking to ski smoother and better. After the clinic, I borrowed HH's 2nd book from the library and started to play with the early release onto the uphill ski and the rotation of the lower foot to initiate the turn. WOW - in 2 hours of playing my skiing smoothed out and my turns were crisper.

I attended the instructor clinic at Copper last fall after moving to Utah in 2004 and got PMTS in greater detail and beyond the book. I have shown a few people the moves and their rotation stopped and the turns were crisper - in an hour or so. While HH focuses on beginning skiers, I think this is a great transition for the intermediate or above skier.

I have skied with 3 people involved with Clendenon's soft edge and like it in combination with HH's hard edge.

If you are skiing Deer Valley mid-week, let me know and I will take a run or more with you. I have been tempted to teach again and get certified by PMTS, and am very busy with my business the rest of the time.

Colin

Here is a response from Harald regarding
my skiing:

You have locked dead-end movements into your skiing. You are not even aware of them, if and when you want more out of your skiing and you get a good instructor, you will begin to realize the time and energy you wasted. If you are satisfied with the way you are skiing that’s great, but there is much more to the upside in your skiing then you have any idea about.

Some people are not into skiing at a higher level and are satisfied to just curse the gentle slopes, which is just fine; I have no problem with the level. But you wasted three years getting to where you are. Most of the PMTS beginners get that far in one week. I am not criticizing you, only making you aware that there is much more to skiing than what you learned. And that the other way is opposite to the movements you learned.

I can comment on skiers, even if I have not seen them ski, based on the system they learned. I have taught thousands of skiers undoing their movements learned from traditional systems over the years and they all were restricted by the system’s inefficiency. If you are truly a product of the wedge progression then you have an order of movement in your skiing that will always restrict you from becoming an expert skier. Not that that is your goal.

I’m only saying that you are working harder then you need to regardless of the level or slope you are skiing. This is not subtle; I can see it from miles away it’s like a flashing light. I converted a whole ski school from these movements back in the nineties; they didn’t realize their own inefficiencies. It’s similar to driving the same car for years that you think is just great until you get into the newer version and find out how much better it really drives. Look I’m not trying to sell you lessons, I don’t need to, if you have a motivation to get better, I’m only trying to save you frustration in long haul.

Harald has not seen me ski so I really don't understand how he can
make these comments. I think they speak for themselves.

(Thanks skier31)

(Thanks Ott)


Bob - yep, almost absolutely "precisely the way". Before I started teaching, my experience with upper level lessons left me wondering what the point was. There is one difference between HH and traditional schools that has a very big impact on my personal ability to have faith that MAY have wider application to the ski industry. Traditional schools do not wave a red flag in my face before I even walk in the door.

Let's look at the ascribed to HH quote literally: if you've learned to ski using a wedge, you can not be an expert skier. Hmm - well gee HH how did you learn to ski? Clearly there are a lot of expert skiers who learned via the wedge. So let's not take the quote literally. We have seen other quotes from HH that define the term "expert skier" a lot higher than most mortals would. It's also easy (for me) to see from the context that what HH really means is that the wedge introduces movements that must be unlearned for efficient parallel skiing to occur. Ignoring whether or not you agree with this, my point is about effective communication.

Although telling someone they "can't" do something can sometimes motivate them to achieve, more often it is a self fulfilling prophecy. Further, when you "say what you mean" you often do not say it in such a way that makes it easy for the listener to "hear what you mean". Finally, when someone speaks to elicit an emotional response (whether intentional or not), they are usually seeking to generate response actions based on emotions instead of logic. These kinds of communication issues wave a red flag in my face that says "stop, let's look at this a little more closely before you bite into it". When someone asks me to buy a car because there is cute cuddly puppy in the commercial, my first response is "ok what's wrong with the car?". Nonetheless we know that the puppy is going to sell a lot of cars.

Traditional ski schools don't post stuff on internet bulletin boards. So let's compare apples to apples.

This is a quote from a traditional ski school. It's a 100% positive message. On a 0-100 scale of emotion it rates about a 5. On a 0-100 scale of debatability, I'd give it a 10 because there are a very few people that can't be taken to the next level (e.g. I doubt this school could take a demo team member to the demo team coach level).


That's from the front page of Harb's online lesson. Note the negatives "rather than learning obscure skills and discardable maneuvers" and "or you'll receive some version of the snowplow progression". Note the use of absolutes: "only complete", "all movements", "must ask .. or you'll receive". These up the debatability factor. What is a complete alternative system? Are other national ski teaching systems a complete alternative? Don't PSIA Direct To Parallel lessons conflict with the last claim. I'll rate the PMTS message 80% positive, 50 on the emotional scale and 30 on the debatability scale. There are a lot of reasons why this is a more effective marketing message than the ski school one. But a logical consumer (as opposed to an emotional one) will see the negatives and the absolutes and the debatability issue and ask the question "why must this approach be used?".

I believe that HH's style is highly attractive and effective to a certain niche of the market. I believe that PMTS could easily double its share of the market if HH would hire a professional communicator to "clean up" his messages while still telling like it is. I believe that traditional ski school marketing messages could generate faith in upper level students with more "emotional" content.

Ott - keep after HH on this message. If he wants PMTS to grow (and it does need to grow to survive), he needs to understand that he CAN communicate more effectively without "mincing" (To moderate or restrain (words) for the sake of politeness and decorum words and that professional help is the most effective means for this. If people can use coaches to ski better, why can't he use a coach to run his business better?

What is the significance of this?

I've considered teaching skiing. I enjoy teaching. I contacted a couple of the concession ski schools here in Washington and attended the training clinics of one. They are PSIA and proud of it. We were encouraged to join PSIA and go up the ladder to the highest levels. During the training they gave us proposed new instructors, we were required to learn and demonstrate some moves I felt were just silly. These were for beginning skiers, and I felt like a robot in the artifical positions they required. No one said a word about balance, just to keep the feet shoulder width apart, the arms held artifically curved out at the sides, and my head way up...although that didn't align with my bifocals, and the body in nearly rigid postures.

During free skiing for the school's technical directors, one complemented me highly on my skiing which is largely self-taught from Lito's and HH's books and videos. The other two tried to correct my skiing according to their pre-defined form. Although I was always in balance, my feet were'nt far enough apart. Although I was turning with balance, smoothness, and ease over any of the terrain that day, I wasn't using enough knee steering.

I was accepted for employment as an instructor last year but not hired due to the lack of snow and lack of students.

I decided this year that I didn't want to teach anyone to ski in that fashion. I'll take a PMTS clinic this year from HH and his helpers and see what that's really about. The one thing I know for sure is that I prefer skiing the HH & Lito way vs. the way I was shown in that instructors clinic and the way I see PSIA instructors with their private clients on the hill when I'm skiing (I'm an eavesdropper).


Ken

Well, MilesB, who determines if the statements are true or false? I'm just another recreational skier trying to improve so it's sure not me. However ....
I've had the opportunity to spend some time skiing with Ric Reiter, Bob Barnes, Weems Westfeldt, Joan Rostad, Eric DesLauriers, Roger Kane, Rob Sogard ...and a few others that don't come to mind at this instant. They all were pretty damn good skiers as far as I'm concerned. As you know, a few in there are fairly well versed in PMTS. My bet is if I'd have grabbed any Joe skier on the slope and asked them to identify which skiers were X type and which where Y type, they couldn't have made a distinction. Good skiing is good skiing, and I think HH's statement above is bunk.

I was in one of those coaches groups and participating when the referenced videos were taken. Both coaches accurately demoed the objective they were working on with their groups. It is really very simple: Intent dictates technique.

I've also seen the "indepth" essay posted about these turns. My recollection was I thought a little reaching was done (I also seem to recall it was revised, but I don't believe I've seen the revision.) Irregardless, nobody makes every turn perfectly. As far as "pitful and terrible", give me a break, most skiers "with even a small amount of good experience" would be delighted to ski so well as these guys ...and I doubt they'd be able to pick out a flaw (much less a huge one) while observing them ski.

IMO HH is over the top here.

This has not been my experience. I have always received sound understanding and explanations from the "PSIA" coaches I've worked with - maybe I've been lucky.

This statement makes it clear that "PSIA" skiers must be mediocre, yet it isn't to difficult to find some really good "PSIA" skiers.

I don't know the A-Z of PMTS or PSIA, but I can sure say that I'm put off by HH's demeanor in his posts and it leaves me with little interest to discover what it's about. I just have to wonder how well thought out the program is, when the "creator" makes such broadbased generalizations that I cannot see being supported ...what leaps then has he made in his system.

I haven't written PMTS off. If I stumble upon a coach that conveys it in a sane matter in regards to my skiing, then I'll certainly listen and look for what I can make use of. But certainly not from someone that can deduce a person is an idiot or determine someones skiing sucks over the internet without a clue who the person is or what their skiing is like. Nor from veteran of two years that claims to have found the answer. I think Ott's correct, hire a PR firm to do the talking.

arcmeister-I think hes talking about skiing

Boy what a pseudo-intellectual attempt that was. How you can turn snow crystals, trees and mountain vistas into that drivel amazes me - KISS! Do you enjoy a good turn or does it have to be perfect?

skiingman
The posts before that referenced Diana's racing abilitys. That is her FIS profile and world rank.

Its very impressive for someone of that vintage, certainly nothing to be scoffed at or belittled. I get it.

Daddy always told me "don't do sports that have judges" The timer doesn't lie.

Like I said at the beginning... I have never been impressed by Haralds comments. Skiing is not black and white like a lot of people want to make it. Skills are skills. I don't particularly care what someone brands these skills. As far as HH's skiing is concerned... well I guess thats another topic, but I don't he should be throwing stones.
Later
GREG

It is a strange way to get started in a forum but, besides the great post by Arcmeister who insists a good skier is also a serious student of the sport and keep an open mind, most of the thread is becoming a collection of he saids and finger pointing.

In my opinion, those who have not studied HH's books have little to say. Otherwise, I could come here and start talking about the future of biotechnology or 1400 French poetry of which I know nothing. Those who have not taken HH's camps should also avoid getting carried away and making unsubstantiated inferences about those camps or what is taught in them. The argument that goes like "I know a guy, who has an uncle whose cousin's son once took a lesson/camp with HH" is extremely weak and no intelligent individual will fall for it.

HH does may not alwasy come out as the most skilled PR for his PMTS (although, as a rule, I would beg to differ) but I can understand him. Plus, we all have good and bad days. I have my own business and it is rough out there. You do not go very far just by being a "nice person" and kissing everybody's ars. Sometimes it takes some tough love. What matters to me is whether or not his system delivers. And something it must achieve or he would not have a certain number of affectionate clientele. That is unless, of course, you tell me that all his clients are plain idiot which I don' think as to take his lessons and camps takes money and society does not reward too well being idiot.

Finally, I would add that it is easy for many to criticize him, dissecting something he published, wrote or said. But, he had the courage to put his stuff down for everyone to see. Where are your books, your videos, your websites? Where are your publishers?
A couple of seasons ago, when most of us were writing about, let's face it, nothing relevant in some forums here and there, HH was thinking of carvers and those ain't bad tools to have. If there are so many brilliant skiing minds in this forum why did not they come out with a similar idea for all of us to benefit? In my mind, HH has done a lot for the sport and, even if from time to time he snaps, that does not diminish what he has done.

There are some who claim that HH's ideas are not original or that PSIA used to teach that a long time ago. Then, as in any serious discussion that is meant to go somewhere, I would ask you to show me where.

P.S.
In my case, it was a PSIA instructor in CO who directed me to HH's book back in 1999. So, even those who claim that PSIA never teaches anything good are wrong! Just kidding.

I was trying to stay out of the thread...oh, well.

To me there is one HUGE difference between PSIA and PMTS. That is, with PMTS, there is a cult of personality. Is there any one person that, were they to slide off the edge of the world, that loss would profoundly affect the very future of PSIA? To answer my own question, probably not. However, can the same thing be said about PMTS?

For any system of teaching in any field (except, perhaps, religion) to have any relevance, the person MUST be removed, or the system will fall.

>>>I have my own business and it is rough out there. You do not go very far just by being a "nice person" and kissing everybody's ars. Sometimes it takes some tough love. What matters to me is whether or not his system delivers.<<<

My argument with HH is not 'if his system delivers', it does. My argument is weather it is the ONLY one that delivers. What about the Egans and Deslauriers, the Mahres and the Epicski ESA, etc.etc.

You proclaim that you have a business. Do you also proclaim tha your competitors don't know how to do their job and you are the only one who can do it right?

As you can see, the way he insults folks with his writing, tough love, as you put it, does not attract new customers unless they want to revel in this 'I'm superior to you' mentality. To me, PMTS would be very attractive if it could leave Harald Harb totally out of it, or at least have him never mention the competition.

As for books, there have been many dozens of instructional books written over the years with new ideas put forward and I have a bookshelf full of them (Including HH) and no other one of them abuses the other authors or their ideas verbally.

....Ott

So, our thoughts don't matter because we have not published?

Have you?

I have both of HH's videos. When I play them frame by frame like I do my athlete's race tapes I see ROTARY : and WEDGE : turn entries in the slow speed demos. Harald told me what he says isn't necessarily what's really going on. (an old technique used by many good coaches) It's very obvious that's what he's doing when he demos "lifting and tipping" from a standstill in the first video.

Harald's definition of "rotary" is, "anything that twists the ski out of it's direction of travel". Those were his words after I pressed him for a definition for about 15 minutes. That's a much different definition than PSIA has.

When PMTS is used for a "never-ever" they often end up making figure 11s and falling to stop. Most of the instructors I have talked to don't use it until they student can control speed. It does work very well for getting intermediates up a notch or two. By providing different challenges and areas of focus it can be a good addition to the "bag of tricks" of the upperlevel skier/instructor.

Actually, Weems just wrote a brilliant book that will be the centerpiece of ESA at Snowbird: http://www.edgechange.com/epicski/

Bob Barnes wrote The Complete Enclyclopedia of Skiing. Eric and Rob DesLauriers wrote Ski the Whole Mountain. Stu Campbell and Mike Rogan publish regularly in SKI Magazine, and Stu has written a slew of books on skiing, gardening, composting, building a solar home, etc. (your basic Renaissance Man). I have published some 30 articles (~ I've lost count) in TPS and one training manual for PSIA and numerous division pieces.

It's true, no one has invented hardware here, but TGR users co-designed the Bro ski, which I think is an even bigger accomplishment (anyone who's chaired a committee might agree).

Perhaps learning about other systems and representatives' contributions is also imperative for Mr. T's credibility as a critic.

Further, to complain that this thread has regressed into "my dad's stronger than your dad" is disingenuous: that's what it's all about, right? A few years ago we tried to stage an official showdown between several "name" programs, including PSIA and PMTS. We called it Quest for the Best. The concept actually had quite a lot of support from the ski industry, but we failed to pull down the sponsor bucks to finance it. I think only something like that would put threads like this to rest, but probably not for the reasons you would think.

As a retired PMTS certified instructor, I have been reading this thread with interest. I have not commented until now, because it is the same rhetoric that has been going on since I joined Epic in 2001, or whenever. Most who comment have not a clue what PMTS is about. SLATZ and Arcmeister know and understand it probably better than I.

Joan hit it right on that Quest for the Best would have put these threads to rest because it would have shown wich teaching method works best for the majority of students. And I think that it would have resulted in a lot of melding of teaching styles into a comprehensive teaching protocol. It is too bad it did not occur.

Rick H

The difference between me and several of you is that you criticise the person. I criticise the critics. I did not criticise Bob Barnes or the Des Lauriers brothers or Stu Campbell or Spyder Man. I am just making a point that here there are too many critics and very few doers.

Some mentioned Bob Barnes, Stu Campbell (I guess you are talking about his columns on Ski or Skiing, sorry I stopped buying that magazine for they think to teach technique in 2 pages and 5 or 6 pics.) and the Des Lauriers brothers. Let them criticise. They wrote books, they have private camps, they went through the pain to put down their ideas and present them in a cohesive and coherent way. Should someone keep silent until he or she has achieved something? Your decision. Somebody accused a John Mason to think he skis better than he actually does. Well, that goes around: someone here thinks they know more than they actually do about skiing but, despite all this knowledge, nobody publishes them.

I am criticising all these self-professed leading authorities not the way they ski. I ski with everybody. I do not believe in patches or pins of any kind. Sometimes I ski well and sometimes I ski like shit. And do not fear about me, I am a reader and not a writer. I am mostly a passive member of forums. But there are those times when enough is enough and I am about to explode if I don't let my dissent be known. That's why my friends gave me the nick "Mr. T" and not just because I am a natural "mid-fat" individual.

Eeek! This does not sound right. How often is often? 2, 4, 6 out of 10? I thought the whole point of learn by parallel approaches was speed control through turning out of the fall line. Although I have not taught a lot of non-wedge beginner lessons, I've never had one such student go "11" on me. Once they get the feedback from a carving ski it's hard to get them to go straight.

therusty

A lot of the success of any direct to parallel method is tied to the beginner terrain that you have to work with. A little too steep and you are likely to see your student dissappearing down the hill in the 11 that SLATZ is talking about. I've never taught a direct to parallel lesson because I don't feel that I can do it safely given the terrain I have to work with. On the other hand because of what I teach (release of the outside ski, allowing the new outside ski to move you where you want to go, use of the new inside foot to shape the turn, etc.), I frequently have the pleasure of seeing my neverever students making parallel turns on our beginner hill within a couple runs of leaving the magic carpet area and going to the lifts.

yd

yd,

I agree with you completely. Terrain is the most critical issue in teaching PMTS to beginners. At Sol Vista, where I formerly taught, we started them on a slope that rose about 3 feet in about 40 feet. After getting the students to do stepping turns and they could control their speed, we took them up on the beginner hill, 200 feet wide and a rise of about 50 feet in 300 feet. So it was pretty gentle. We did not put the students in the fall line. We did stepping garlands to the end of the slope and taught the bullfighter turn to change direction. As we got more garlands, I would increase the steepness, so that it was a step down, glide and three steps up to stop. When the students were getting to the fall line and stepping up, I would ask if they could step the other way. Almost always they would be able to do it.

Most ski areas that I have visited do not have suitable terrain for direct parallel. It is unfortunate that this is the case. PMTS works for beginners on the correct terrain; incorrect terrain, and as SLATZ says, it is "11".

Rick H

Publishing your own material gives you another perspective on others published material. For one, it helps you to realize how hard it is to "get things right". I've personally found that the quality of my own writing rises just above "plain stinko" at about the third total rewrite. This helps to give one pause to ensure that their comments are more focused on the significant points.

One of the major hindrances to the effectiveness of PMTS is that HH has antagonized a large portion of his prospective customer base (PSIA members). This has been very effective at attracting those who are not happy with PSIA. It is unfortunate that HH's tone has prompted disparaging remarks in reply. Alas, that is the nature of the beast.

For those of us who have published little or none, dissecting published works is a good start down the road towards eventually publishing our own work. Some of us may not have the time, skill or creativity to publish something, but that should not prevent contributions to a debate. On the receiving side of tough love, it helps to have a thick skin.

We've gotten off topic with respect to rickety ladders, but there have been some interesting new tidbits discussed with respect to the wider topic of PMTS effectiveness. Personally, I have no trouble believing the testimonials that Harb presents as evidence of his system's effectiveness. I think that there is a legitimate case that the "PMTS ladder" rests on a strong foundation of the possibilities introduced by shaped skis, the emphasis on balance and alignment and the focus on edge release to start a parallel turn (can PMTS experts confirm that last one was ok?). Does PMTS teach a hockey stop? Would the lack of a hockey stop make the PMTS ladder rickety? Compared to the GLM ladder, I think not, but the point is debatable.

How do you score a teaching system's effectiveness? New skier retention rates ought to be measureable, but how do you factor in individual teacher, resort experience and makeup of the student population factors? It's hard to get an agreement on what is required to be an expert skier. Using racing times seems pretty objective, but also pretty one dimensional. Using a customer satisfaction index would involve some expensive sampling. Volume levels and growth levels would be statistically insignificant due to the difference in sizes. I fear that efforts to compare and contrast PMTS suffer from an inherent apples vs oranges dilemna.

I don't teach lessons at Tyrol because all my time is devoted to the race team. Tyrol is a PMTS school and I talk to a lot of the instructors about it. Only the hard core desciples say it works from square one. The rest feel that some stopping and speed control is necessary. Tyrol is a "compact" area. We have two flat short beginner areas. After that speed control is a must. Other comments from experienced instructors is that it is a "limited movement pool".

I was going to mention that Joubert, in Teach Yourself to Ski (1970), started by finding out if the student could do a hockey stop. If they could they skipped the wedge exercises and went direct to parallel.
Scott Wilson, a coach who helped me a lot years ago, had a complete progression that involved gliding on flat skis and hockey stops when the speed got scary. He demanded a total "braquage" hockey stop because he didn't want any bad turning habits in the first phase. Eventually we would "glide" from the top of the "Mile" all the way to Timberline without a hockey stop. Hockey stopping would be a good beginning for PMTS. It's something all skiers use at times. There would be no "unlearning" necessary.