or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Marmot_mb on 8800s - Page 2

post #31 of 67
Marmot, I would definitely take SSH's advice and have a good bootfitter get you fit, aligned, and balanced in your boots. This is/should going to be the first step regardless of who or what instruction path you follow.

Just to be clear RadRab, I too am a supporter of PMTS as well, but you did jump right down SSH's throat for attacking PMTS where he wasn't. I don't believe that he has an agenda against PMTS so much as a preference for camps like the ESA. That's his decision and right to readily promote it. Just as it is your right to promote Harb Ski Systems.

I agree completely with his assesment that he should get his boots looked at and then find a competent high level instructor to work one-on-one with. This is going to be the best course to take. SSH made no reference as to whether that instructor should be PSIA structured or not.

In addition, Marmot, I would second RadRab's recommendation on getting the Anyone Can Be an Expert Skier series as well as Ski the Whole Mountain along with personal lessons. They can help to refresh what you learn and get you thinking about new concepts. I also agree with his recomendation to look for a PMTS instructor based on my success with it, but I am not yet ready or willing to claim that a high-quality PSIA Level 3 cert isn't going to be able to help you just as much. I'll make up my mind on that after I attend the ESA and get some first-hand experience this winter.

Both sides of the PMTS debate are constantly going ad-hominem and strawman in their arguments. Let us not make the same mistakes and further the misconceptions and angst.
post #32 of 67
I'll look forward to our time together at the ESA, onyxjl! Who knows... you may even get one of the coaches at the ESA with PMTS training. I know that the group for which I was videographer last year practiced at least one of the PMTS progression's exercises.

The coaches that I have met at the high end of skiing are among the most open to options and possibilities of any folks I've met. They are always experimenting, looking for new ways of communicating and coaching. That's one of the things that I really appreciate about them. No doctrine, just a focus on functional learning.
post #33 of 67
I'm really looking forward to meeting you and the rest of the bears at the ESA as well! The commitment to learning and exploration is a big drawing factor for me to come to the ESA. While I have focused a lot on PMTS, I do like to poke my head up and see the rest of the world now and again.

RadRab, I hope you don't construe my post as an attack on you either. I know you are sincere in your desire to help skiers improve and feel PMTS is the best route. I posted to point out that it is easy to see an anti-PMTS agenda even when it does not exist simply because of past events and rhetoric on both sides. Hopefully the fact that I also have had success with and support the PMTS system will convey the fact that not everyone who disagrees is immediately agenda driven.

After all, this isn't about ssh, radrab, or me, its all about helping Marmot become a better skier on his new Legend 8800s (of which I am jealous ).
post #34 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by RadRab
Bs"D
Thank you for your honest recap... I simply interpreted you to be avoiding the obvious technique issues with a certain unfounded negative slant or selfish aggenda in order to negate the effect of my sincere and wise PMTS suggestions to Marmot. I am very happy to stand corrected on this.
onyxjl, as you can see I already made this acknowledgment.
But, I think it was good to hear from you also. Seconding my suggestions to Marmot can only help him - which, as we all agree, was the point here. As an eclectic taster of different mehtods, your opinion is certainly unbiased.
However, just because someone has decided on the superiority of one system over another without further need to explore, does not make him less unbiased. He made his choice objectively, but has made a choice. Why continue to complicate the path if you have already taken a direction. Twists and turns in the road will not get you further in any one direction.
Skip the analogies and their potential inaccuracies, what I want to suggest to you is just the following:
It is difficult enough to follow one system, taking advantage of all it has to offer. [This is assuming that it is worthy of being followed, and even if we assume that there can be more than one way to best do a certain physical act. There may be a different best for different people, but I don't think there are too many examples of this (perhaps bumps would be such an example - where PMTS is somewhat different than John Clendenin's TAM style, for example, which also works very well. Powder would be the only other area that I could see a equal validity to different styles, and here is not the place to elaborate).] But, you may just confuse yourself with trying to take from here and there and wind up with much less.
To go a step further, and to say it bluntly, there is much that is absolutely contradictory between PMTS and all other TTS systems. Obviously, you are free to choose which you think is superior, but you can't really mix and match, it isn't a match. So, for your own good, I would suggest you try to choose sometime in the near future. And, if there are places where they teach a mix, why wouldn't you prefer to go to the source of either one? Not to mention if you are going hoping to get - "hey, maybe you'll even get" - a PMTS instructor, then why not just go to PMTS, to avoid the hit or miss, and for the whole, non-confused ball of race-day wax?
If, on the other hand, you are still in the searching stage, and have not made up your mind yet, then it may still be better to sample each independently from its source, rather than any given one expressed by an instructor less than expert in it. In my opinion, this would be the smarter process.
If my logic has failed to convince, then I would strongly advise you to at least be extremely vigilant in keeping the huge differnces straight in your head (and feet), so as to assisit in a good conclusion. I repeat, the differnces are mostly mutually exclusive and it is better to choose one - whichever one (well, that is not exactly honest, because having made my choice, I believe that any amount of the right/better one can only help, and it is the inferior/less good one that should be discarded completely).
Either way, I wish you luck. And, I reiterate my agreement with you that the main thing is for us all to get along and have fun. I am positive that regardless of which system we choose we share more than we differ in the big picture, and are all having fun.
My warm regards to all of you fellow snow/mountain sliders, have a great winter.
post #35 of 67
RadRab,

I can certainly acknowledge the truth to your post. Learning to ski can be hard enough without having to sort out conflicting ideas, especially for a skier without mastery over either technique and thus a foundation to compare too.

Personally, I have yet to experience this supposed conflict in the teaching and reading I have done from instructors on this forum and PMTS. A lot of the commonly cited examples are disagreements about skiing that have absolutely no relevance to what I have thus far tried to learn. I have yet to experience many of the common complaints about the PSIA teaching system from a lot of PMTS supporters.

No one has ever told me to not ski on the outside ski, no one has told me not to lead turns by tipping the inside foot, no one has told me to ski in anything other than a functional stance, and no one has advocated to me twisting anything as a primary means of turning. Not to say its not out there, I just haven't had personal experience with it. Then again, I don't have a lot of experience with ski instructors. Many of the concepts that get argued about as being differences are subtle enhancements to high level skiing, which by the time a skier gets advanced enough to reasonably apply them, he/she should be advanced enough to know if it is or is not working.

To your point though, one of the reasons I second your recommendation for PMTS though is the clarity and consistency of the message. Struggling through the task of finding a good instructor in the PSIA is one of the most complained about facets of the organization. It's not that they don't exist, after all Harald Harb was once a PSIA man, its just that they can be tough to find. Personally, I feel the message that "A PSIA Level 3 Cert is gauranteed not to be the worst on the mountain." is seriously short-sighted and definitely the wrong idea. A PSIA Level 3 should be at the top of ladder, not somewhere above the bottom. PMTS promises you this because the amount of instructors is small and handpicked.
post #36 of 67
Bs"D
Sounds to me like you have more than enough to make the best decision.
post #37 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by RadRab
It is difficult enough to follow one system, taking advantage of all it has to offer. [This is assuming that it is worthy of being followed, and even if we assume that there can be more than one way to best do a certain physical act. There may be a different best for different people, but I don't think there are too many examples of this (perhaps bumps would be such an example - where PMTS is somewhat different than John Clendenin's TAM style, for example, which also works very well. Powder would be the only other area that I could see a equal validity to different styles, and here is not the place to elaborate).] But, you may just confuse yourself with trying to take from here and there and wind up with much less.
I think that this is a significant statement, but probably not in the way that you intended. Being a student of learning styles and personality temperaments, I recognize this as a bias that is different for different people. Some folks prefer a clear-cut, specific set of tasks. "Just tell me how to do it." Some of these folks like to know the "right" way to do something, and seek to limit the possibilities so that they can find and then stick to what's "right". There are others who are more experimental and "grey" in their thinking. These folks feel that a specific path is bondage, and instead prefer flexibility and experimentation. For these folks, a strict progression is worse than ineffective; it's offensive.

FWIW, I resemble the second of these far more than the first, and prefer analyis and exploration to strict compliance. That's one of the reasons I hang out here and with folks who have a lot of interesting, high-level ideas. People convinced that they are unequivocally right about anything are rarely of interest to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RadRab
To go a step further, and to say it bluntly, there is much that is absolutely contradictory between PMTS and all other TTS systems. Obviously, you are free to choose which you think is superior, but you can't really mix and match, it isn't a match. So, for your own good, I would suggest you try to choose sometime in the near future. And, if there are places where they teach a mix, why wouldn't you prefer to go to the source of either one? Not to mention if you are going hoping to get - "hey, maybe you'll even get" - a PMTS instructor, then why not just go to PMTS, to avoid the hit or miss, and for the whole, non-confused ball of race-day wax?
If, on the other hand, you are still in the searching stage, and have not made up your mind yet, then it may still be better to sample each independently from its source, rather than any given one expressed by an instructor less than expert in it. In my opinion, this would be the smarter process.
If my logic has failed to convince, then I would strongly advise you to at least be extremely vigilant in keeping the huge differnces straight in your head (and feet), so as to assisit in a good conclusion. I repeat, the differnces are mostly mutually exclusive and it is better to choose one - whichever one (well, that is not exactly honest, because having made my choice, I believe that any amount of the right/better one can only help, and it is the inferior/less good one that should be discarded completely).
Either way, I wish you luck.
Interesting. You made an assumption earlier in this thread that I do not own the DVDs or the books, perhaps because I didn't/don't align my thinking with Harald. In my experience exploring the technical aspects of skiing for over 30 years and really focusing on the approaches to teaching skiing for the past couple, I find that the PSIA approach is an amorphous, inclusive structure which, by its nature, includes all of PMTS's drills and techniques. I find that the PMTS approach is designed to be explicit and exclusive, thereby specifically excluding everything that is not included in the system. As a result, due to my temperament, it cannot be all that I study; it is too limited and (IMO) limiting.

But, in an attempt to thwart the objection that I anticipate, I am very clear that this is personal preference. I hope that others may be able to recognize that strict progressions may not be best for everyone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RadRab
And, I reiterate my agreement with you that the main thing is for us all to get along and have fun. I am positive that regardless of which system we choose we share more than we differ in the big picture, and are all having fun.
My warm regards to all of you fellow snow/mountain sliders, have a great winter.
With this, I trust we all agree!
post #38 of 67
Bs"D
For Aceman's and my own sake I will be very brief.

Please consider this the "objection that you anticipate".
Thank you.

Let's let this one end with what we all agree we all agree on.
Cheers.
post #39 of 67
Thanks for the vicarious skiing (no snow here yet ).

I wasn't going to coment on your skiing, but since you asked for it......

First disclaimer: first of all I'm not a ski instructor, so take what I say with a grain of salt.

I notice that you do the pivot-skid mogul skiing pretty well .

I also notice that at times you are a little out of balance and have to catch up to your skis to regain control, and that your arms may be helping in side-to-side like a tight-rope walkers, but aren't really doing what they could be.

I notice also that in snow that is deeper and heavier you tend to skid the tails less; the snow doesn't let you do it so easily. This recalls a thread elsewhere attacking the holy grail of carving. There is nothing wrong with skidding, if that's what you want to do, and it looks like your technique has for years given you what you wanted; it turns you where you want to go and adjusts you speed to the speed you want. There's nothing wrong with that, but if you want to explore a little more, take a look at how you ski when you ski faster and straighter down the mountain, without sticking your heels way out there and skidding the tails. That's the ticket.

Welcome to Ghost's Crazy Canuck Speed Skiing School Just follow these simple teachings and you too can be skiing like a crazy Canuck.

First, ski faster; that's the fundamental foundation.

Now the arms. When you ski faster, there will be a LOT of wind resistance. You will have to punch through the wind, so put your fists (with ski poles attached) out in front of your body to punch a hole for you.

You ski faster to get there first. The first passengers on the bus to get there sit at the front of the bus . Move to the front of your skis, that is move your head stomach and especially hips a little more forward.

Now the skidding. This skidding wastes energy and slows you down! That has got to stop! NO UNNECESSARY SLOWING DOWN! How to stop it? Why is it happening? Just like a car skids when you crank the wheel or floor it, it skids because your asking too much of it. Don't push your feet so far out from your body to make such a tight turn. Bonus, now that your not trying to slow down so much you can just let youself fall into a slight turn, by just leaning inside; don't move your feet out. Don't worry, be patient, the turn will grow as big as you let it (and if you really need to go slower cause there is a speed zone with patrollers about, you can let it grow pretty big, right uphill in fact).

It's all in your head. Think of your edges as cutting the snow. Now make nice beautiful slices with those knives on the snow. if your knife slips, you need to press it further into the snow and not so much sideways.

Disclaimer #2: I'm not responsible if you ski too fast and end up in the meat wagon; you are totally responsible for your own safety.

Disclaimer # 3: I don't have any money, so don't bother sueing me.

Some Good instruction from a top level instructor would do you some good.

BTW, from what I've seen of the PMTS, it seems that PART of it addresses pitfalls that people CAN fall into who have learned from other systems. If the other systems were properly taught, these people shouldn't be in those pits, but there must be a lot of poorly taught skiers, because the pits are full. The vehement detractors of PMTS are probably the people who properly teach the other systems.

The up-down is not what I would concentrate on. It's not needed, and I say do nothing that is of no use, but in and of itself all it really does is make skidding easier, and carving works better if you're weighted on your skis. Stay low to achieve greater speed .
post #40 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost
BTW, from what I've seen of the PMTS, it seems that PART of it addresses pitfalls that people CAN fall into who have learned from other systems. If the other systems were properly taught, these people shouldn't be in those pits, but there must be a lot of poorly taught skiers, because the pits are full. The vehement detractors of PMTS are probably the people who properly teach the other systems.
Ghost, as always, an excellent post. I think that you're pretty much right-on with this. But, I think the pits are full more because:

1) Most people take no lessons
2) The people who do tend to take them only when they are starting, so they get the absolute worst ski "instructors" possible

I'd like to see the best teachers teaching the best investment students. I admit there may be some challenges there, but the quality of some of the instructors I've seen (trying to) teach novices is appalling.
post #41 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by RadRab
Please consider this the "objection that you anticipate".
Thank you.
Now that we're over here, are you willing to expand this?

Do you believe that all people learn best from a strict progression? Or were you objecting to something else that I said?
post #42 of 67
Thread Starter 
Ghosty thanks for the reply. Saw your post earlier today but was too busy to respond, but did think about it.

I closed my eyes and envisioned myself skiing, YUP I do throw my heels out and skid the turn.

I will definately take that point and pay attention to it next time out. less heel out, more knife action and let the ski come around rather than turning it to the direction I want by skidding and then trying to dig in the edge to continue it in that direction.

Crazy Canuk skiing shcool, that was funny. Humour and critisism all rapped into one.
post #43 of 67
Bs”D
ssh,
Yes, I do think that almost all people will learn and perform better with a strict progression (not necessarily in the sense of the exact order in which things are learnt, but in the strict adherence to a unified and coherent system of “rules” themselves).
An example which may have some relevance is the fact that professional dancers and critics agree, that specifically a choreographed dance is more inspirational to perform and watch than even a very talented freelance one. The dancers affirm that the choreographed one is even more “freeing”.
I assume that this is because once the actual moves are a given and have been learned well, the dancer can focus on feeling or emotional content etc., instead of what to actually do next, and there will be no hesitation or interuption in the flow. And, instead of being limiting or constricting, the adherence to the strict order actually frees the true creative and musical energies of the dancer.
Infinitely more so in a case where it is not a question of merely different move combinations of varying levels of interest or beauty (this can also be subjective taste – or what, in skiing, some want to call “style”), but right and wrong moves – or, at least, clearly superior vs. inferior ones - moves that will either enhance your mastery of the task or the opposite (balance, efficiency, effectiveness etc.).
If there is no danger of twisting an ankle, or even falling off the stage, then it may be just a stylistic question (and there are anyway different styles of choreography – this is the “task” of the choreographer or ski technique innovator not the performer, and therefore there is no intrinsic contradiction to the main point, even if we are allowing subjective taste). But, when we are discussing mastery of a body and its objective biomechanics’ interaction with objective external forces, like skiing down a mountain, then “style” is what works, and good style is what works best. What works best has been developing over the years, and at any given time in its understanding, it is clearly determinable.
But, in objection to my advice to stick to one system or opinion of technique (or during the research and choosing stage, to at least research each independently) you are in actuality not suggesting just being open to different styles of dance or different choreographers for your different performances. You are suggesting making up your own new dance by borrowing from different true innovators and mixing the moves together. You are the dancer not the choreographer. You don’t know how to write a dance, you just want to dance. But, even if you do, then write a logical unified one from scratch. You want to mix a tango with a waltz. Not pretty, and you might just fall off the stage. You don’t want to avoid strict progressions; you just want to mix different strict progressions together. That is a detrimental informality. It is just less smart.
In our case it is even more serious. Like I said, many of the moves taught by all other forms of TTS are absolutely contradictory to what PMTS teaches is the best, most efficient, most effective methods. It is not whether you swirl to stage right or jump to stage left. It is more like whether you land on your feet or your head.
Others are actively advocating some or all of the following examples: up-unweighting w/ rotary, steering, and skidding; wide stance; two legged balance and edging etc. These are all things that are considered very negative in PMTS. You are taught not to do them.
How can you incorporate in your eclectic amateur dance both a two legged carve and a one legged carve simultaneously? Even if you suggest that each has its time and place. First of all, PMTS readily acknowledges this, and adequately addresses exceptions to the general rules – including, for example, understanding of when and how and how much the stance should be widened or narrowed in different circumstances.
Now, again, even if you are “on the level” to pick and choose the good non-contradictory stuff from all schools of anyway imperfect human innovators, and rely on your own equal or superior intelligence and abilities (or even just personal unique nature) to form a personal complete system best for you (highly unlikely), almost everybody else is not. Certainly someone like Marmot is not. He is in need of some very strict direction on the general rules. You do not serve him well with your advice.
Now talking about serving, please do not be insulted or disappointed if I do not respond further to any continuation on your part after this post. There is a point where the line has been crossed between skiing serving the human being – including his helping another be served by it – and when he begins to serve it. For me, this is not a professional endeavor, and I have already gone over my line.
post #44 of 67
Marmot,

The closest location for you to get PMTS instruction is probably in Fernie. They have 3 and 5 day camps where your alignment will be corrected and your skiing technique will get a serious makeover, mine did.
http://www.harbskisystems.com.au/can...2_cancamps.htm
post #45 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by RadRab
Yes, I do think that almost all people will learn and perform better with a strict progression (not necessarily in the sense of the exact order in which things are learnt, but in the strict adherence to a unified and coherent system of “rules” themselves).
This is as I suspected, and is the real point of disagreement. I prefer to believe that individuals are well-equiped to make their own choices--and in fact that they must do so in-the-instant while skiing. Intentionally limiting skills and options by either removing or otherwise ignoring techniques that can possibly be used in situations where they are effective seems to me limiting--at least.

It is very interesting to me that you would choose ballet as a metaphor for your conversation comparing PMTS to other teaching styles (I suspect most people here would not even recognize the "TTS" acronym), since both of my daughters dance. It is my experience that there is, even in ballet, a combination of moves and exercises that vary from studio to studio but effectively result in learning that is compatible. Furthermore, there is room in most ballet for personal interpretation, which is also essential to the joy of movement. Similarly in skiing there are multiple paths to successful learning of the skills necessary for effective movement, and multiple ways to learn them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RadRab
In our case it is even more serious. Like I said, many of the moves taught by all other forms of TTS are absolutely contradictory to what PMTS teaches is the best, most efficient, most effective methods. It is not whether you swirl to stage right or jump to stage left. It is more like whether you land on your feet or your head.
Others are actively advocating some or all of the following examples: up-unweighting w/ rotary, steering, and skidding; wide stance; two legged balance and edging etc. These are all things that are considered very negative in PMTS. You are taught not to do them.
How can you incorporate in your eclectic amateur dance both a two legged carve and a one legged carve simultaneously? Even if you suggest that each has its time and place. First of all, PMTS readily acknowledges this, and adequately addresses exceptions to the general rules – including, for example, understanding of when and how and how much the stance should be widened or narrowed in different circumstances.
I have not heard a single PSIA instructor advocate up-unweighting with rotary, steering, and skidding as mechanisms for accomplishing a carved turn. I have seen various skill sets (edging, pressure, and rotary or tip, flex, and turn) used to describe those things which are possible for skiers to do to skis. Furthermore, in my learning about skiing and instruction, it's clear that PSIA focuses on helping skiers to remove the ineffective techniques from skiers' skiing to help them more effectively accomplish their personal objectives, and that there are only very esoteric differences in how the two groups would describe high-level skiing. Of course, advocates (especially of PMTS) would argue that high-level skiing as seen by them is specific, unique, and limited to high-level skills of a very narrowly-defined type.

I certainly ski in a way that will include both one- and two-legged carving in the same run down the mountain. I enjoy the sensation of each type, and recognize that my choice involves both personal enjoyment and tactics. I may even choose to use rotary in my turns for the sheer fun of it. I find that my enjoyment of skiing is not tied to a single type of turn, style of turn, or use of a specific set of techniques in a pre-described way. Rather, skiing for me is a dance with the mountain that I choreograph as I do it. More a "jazz" or "hip-hop" approach to dance than a classical ballet.

Of course, unlike classical ballet, I dance for no one but myself and with no one but myself. And that is a very significant difference.
post #46 of 67
In talking about arts, sports, or other activities done with the human body it is worth noting that some habits (I will not call it body memory) learned in one system can sometimes be very beneficial to the next step for that system, but at the same time be a hindrance to the next step for another system.

I am reminded of a martial artist who shall remain nameless who while competing at a high level of full-contact style of karate with bogu decided to begin learning a Taoist style of Tai Chi. The similarities in the two arts were far greater than the differences, but the learning process was a lot more painful than it would otherwise have been.

Mixing and matching is fine for the learned, but can be very difficult for the learning.
post #47 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost
Mixing and matching is fine for the learned, but can be very difficult for the learning.
Absolutely on target. Speaking as one of the "not learned" I see this as the biggest frailty of SSH's style preference. In my opinion it isn't (or can't) be one that is taught to those that don't have the background knowledge to implement it.
post #48 of 67

Liz Video

Ssh,

Just a thought, but I would either change the written description of the before and after of the Liz video your earlier post directs to, or take it down all together. I hope you are making this analysis based on something that is not contained in that video, or your idea of efficient skiing movements are so far askew from anything I would ever call a success after 3 days with someone at her starting level. I don't know if you wrote the description or not, but if the AFTER is representative of what you would describe as efficient foundational movements, then everything the detractors of TTS or PSIA have said is resoundingly captured in a mere 10 second clip.

First of all, the main difference between the Before and After is INTENT, not skills. All the deficiencies from the Before are evident and even amplified in the After.

The glowing review of the After fails to observe or even contradicts:

*Little to no "tipping" to initiate, the edge change is almost entirely derived from up unweighting followed by rotary.

*An almost entirely skidded turn the result of Rotary push off with tail displacement as the main change of direction. An almost completely big toe to big toe turn, visible from the occasional ski separation.

*Reversed order of movements, flexed in the middle of the turn, extending to finish and release.

*Skiing on mainly the rear half of the skis.

*Z turns rather than C turns.


Positive elements from the Before that were absent in the After:

*Tip engagement and turn shape.

*Parallel leg shafts.


If this short video is an accurate summation of her skiing (I assume it is or why else would it be so hyped), one would beg the question of how much she benefitted from the pick and choose your own approach you advocate at the ESA. Maybe a more uniform progression of base foundational movements to establish efficient movements first is the way to go. Why go to the smorgasboard if you have no taste buds yet?
post #49 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike C
First of all, the main difference between the Before and After is INTENT, not skills.
Then Liz must have had a damn good coach
post #50 of 67
Bs"D
ssh, the last posters have all also responded to your insistence very strongly (actually, MikeC with an excellent general one which goes beyond specifically the mixing and matching issue).
How long will you continue to be stubburn, and how long will you continue to mislead others?
Again, even if it does work for you, it is not what they need.
This is my last post here (if you are sincere, you have heard enough), so don't take my future silence as any kind of agreement to you should you continue.
Again, I wish you a great winter.

To everybody else to whom it may be relevent: Do yourselves a favor, get some PMTS fundemental skiing education - books; DVDS; or on snow. Find out for yourself. After you do, you will be joining the others posting happy affirmations of your skiing revolutionized. Good luck.
post #51 of 67
I have not had too many lessons so I have no axe to grind on teaching systems but I just hate this "one true way" stuff (in skiing and any other aspect of life)
post #52 of 67
Must be a quiet day over at RealSkiers, for so many to be over here hawking their system. If people want to indulge in proclamations over the one true school at http://realskiers.com/pmtsforum, please do, but if you want to troll for content here you might want to do a courtesy check --there could be swine here who haven't the necessary enlightenment to recognize your pearls.

Funny thing about the Austrians. They love to heliski and enjoy the perks that CMH offers their guests. They form their own groups of other Austrians and like more than anything to make "combs" -- they ski in a chevron formation, each skier matching the tracks of the next guy, so the result is a line of symmetrical S's vertically arranged like the teeth of a wiggly comb. Over and over again, with unvarying regularity, they mark up virgin slopes with their combs. The rest of us mottley mutts are too individualistic and self-involved to bother with anything more regimented than a section of Powder-8s. That alone explains for me why some people are attracted to the discipline of PMTS and some are attracted to the freedom of PSIA's Stepping Stones.
post #53 of 67
Nolo,

Are there any movements that are essential and absolutely required for expert skiing?

Do any of these movements disappear depending on turn shape, terrain, etc.?

Is real versatility attainable without these foundations?
post #54 of 67
Nolo,
My apologies. I fear I may have had something to do with this barrage. I journeyed over the their site recently to ask some questions about the technical specifics of their product, and the philosophy behind it. They perceived my motives as aggressive and dropped back into a defensive formation. Harald again became the Harald we all know and love, and eventually banned me from the site and deleted all my posts. I think they're still stuck in high gear us against the world fight mode over that exchange.

Guys, if your thrilled with PMTS and it's working for you that's terrific. Go forth and prosper.
post #55 of 67
Thread Starter 
I think there are many ways to ski. Perhaps not all of them are correct, but they do allow one to ski and have fun.

Full on "ski proper" holding a specific form regardless. This is great for racers, very serious ski heads and the like. Granted it likely produces the most consistent and highest level of skiing but it is regimental and difficult for most to enjoy and accomplish.

Then there is taking key elements and incorporating their aspects into some of your skiing and getting the most out of the key points to increase your enjoyment and further your skill at the same time.

I personally do want to improve my skiing however at the same time I want to get the most enjoyment out of my time on hill. I use some of my day to work on things I know I am lacking in (after this barrage I think I need pro help, I think I have been working on useless things, thanks to all for the input) and the rest of the day I just let loose, enjoy the terrain and make turns that feel good.

I think the latter is the majority of people out there, the recreational skiers. they want fun and instruction to increase their fun factor. Skiing is hard and some instruction is needed to take the hard out and put the fun in.

In a perfect world I would say pick one method and stay with it. But reality is many people go to many resorts and get a different instructor each time. Each of those instructors takes a different approach and likely teaches different things in different ways each time. Given this I think a very "key element" approach is probably the best.

Perhaps a block system that is universal. IE I've completed blocks A-D I would like to try E even though I haven't mastered D. Customers choice it's their money. Smart customers will pick up themselves which blocks give them trouble and take a lesson on that block.

Instructors can ascertain which block a student needs to work on and make reccomendations.

Likely the battle between both methods will never end. Both have their merrits. The key point is fun, thats the whole reason people ski. I have the most fun when I just go, forget all the tech crap and just go down the hill how it feels best or accomplishes that piste the way I wanted. May not be perfect but I enjoyed it. But yet I still care and want to improve and always take note of the things I screwed up.
post #56 of 67
Mike, you should come to Bridger some time and I'll give you the locals tour. I reckon by the time we're done we'll have explored all the essentials and even a few of those requirements of expert skiing that we kinda pull out of nowhere. Ask Arc.
post #57 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssh
mb, just keep your elbows naturally at your sides and ahead of your backbone. That'll fix it 100%.

And get an alignment done...
I reckon just get him to ski a few runs with his hands firmly planted on his knee caps... very hard to wave them around when they are down there (exaggerated position for this drill but it WORKS I tell you)....

I can verify that this greatly reduces arm waving behaviour (well actually my instructors can)
post #58 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssh
I'll look forward to our time together at the ESA, onyxjl! Who knows... you may even get one of the coaches at the ESA with PMTS training. I know that the group for which I was videographer last year practiced at least one of the PMTS progression's exercises.

.
Well I'd better not get one because I still cannot stand on 1 leg & Diana says I can't ski if I can't stand on 1 leg!!
post #59 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssh
Some folks prefer a clear-cut, specific set of tasks. "Just tell me how to do it." Some of these folks like to know the "right" way to do something, and seek to limit the possibilities so that they can find and then stick to what's "right". There are others who are more experimental and "grey" in their thinking. These folks feel that a specific path is bondage, and instead prefer flexibility and experimentation. For these folks, a strict progression is worse than ineffective; it's offensive.
& then there are those for whom the strict progression simply does not WORK!!!!
post #60 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marmot mb
.

In a perfect world I would say pick one method and stay with it. But reality is many people go to many resorts and get a different instructor each time. Each of those instructors takes a different approach and likely teaches different things in different ways each time. Given this I think a very "key element" approach is probably the best.

Perhaps a block system that is universal. IE I've completed blocks A-D I would like to try E even though I haven't mastered D. Customers choice it's their money. Smart customers will pick up themselves which blocks give them trouble and take a lesson on that block.

Instructors can ascertain which block a student needs to work on and make reccomendations.

.
We do this all the time - I have a bunch of regular instructors all of whom teach in multiple countries & hence systems.... So we work on the building blocks to good skiing.... sometimes I learn one part better with one instructor - so the others leave me that bit to learn there if we cannot get it going in their lessons....

However I'd like to warn you - there only a few basic skill areas... but you get a block A at base level & then need more block A at the next level etc etc etc.... I see it as a spiral ramp you build.... there are pillars of basic skills .... but to get to the next level you keep needing to go back over (past) the same skill set you learnt earlier.....

Or in simple terms as one of my instructors told me a few years ago

"when you have good stance and balance on a black run you are ready to start to learn to really ski"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching