or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

DH vs. Telemark - Page 3

post #61 of 76
OT: Dillon Dam Beer is probably my favorite local brewer.

I like them all ...especially the Sweet Georges Brown.
post #62 of 76
I have to second the notion that good tele skiers *can* keep up w/ Alpiners. I'll leave someone else to judge my own freeheeling caliber, but I regularly ski with tele skiers that not only keep up w/ Alpiners, but blast by them. Futhermore, when needed, modern gear allows a good tele skier to lay down arcs just as carved and clean as any Alpiner. Think about how much of an advantage tele skiers have in thigh strength and endurance when executing a p-turn with weight squarely over the ball of the foot that allows for burn free skiing. The caveat here is that you have to have a strong Alpine background to understand ball centered weight distribution, something many freeheelers lack.

Powdr
post #63 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by mudfoot
I think the biggest irony is that alpiners have focused on the one ski carve for so long that they generally find it harder to trust the totally different feel of tele turn more than someone who has never skied.
you are so right. i learned to ski 5 years ago at red mountain. i went directly to telemark. last year i tried to learn alpine and couldn't get it right!! so i'm stuck on telis for the rest of my life -sweet-. has anybody mentioned 1 foot of pow on telis = 2 ft of pow on alpine? or 3 ft if you genuflect low enough...
post #64 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by telejorge
you are so right. i learned to ski 5 years ago at red mountain. i went directly to telemark. last year i tried to learn alpine and couldn't get it right!! so i'm stuck on telis for the rest of my life -sweet-. has anybody mentioned 1 foot of pow on telis = 2 ft of pow on alpine? or 3 ft if you genuflect low enough...
You don't need special equipment to make parallel turns and a more equal weight distribution is a key element of modern parallel turns. The alpine skiers that mudfoot says "...have focused on the one ski carve for so long..." haven't taken a lesson or read any instructional material for a long time.

The idea that a non skier can learn telemark faster thasn an accomplished alpine skier seems quite absurd to me. The same goes for a telemarker learning parallel turns. You can do it.

I alluded to the idea that telemarkers get more face shots in powder in the "how deep do you like your powder?" thread but its worth mentioning here. Welcome to Epicski, Jorge, practice those p-turns!
post #65 of 76
Thread Starter 

End of the line.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Powdr
I have to second the notion that good tele skiers *can* keep up w/ Alpiners. .

Powdr
That isn't the point. The same skier, skilled at both disciplines, will optain higher speeds with Alpine. He will also do it with less demands on his energy supplies and muscle conditioning. You're arguing a point that isn't in dispute. Futhermore, when it comes to learning turns, experience would be the best teacher. If you have a lot of experience on cross country equipment and alpine, learning the telemark turn is not hard at all. I have no idea as to what it would be like learning tele after never skiing cross country and only skiing downhill. However, if you look at the history of ski instruction and the ideals that the instructors were striving for, you see that parallel skiing with the skiis closest together was the goal in the 60's. Basically once the heels became fixed with step-in bindings, the instructors were concentrating on taking tele skiers into the Alpine age by bringing the skiis together. The clamp down heel made the sport more broadly appealing because the new style i.e. Alpine was easier for beginners. In the 80's, the attitude changed as most skiers had no tele experience. It became understould that the >>Monoski<< ideal wasn't the best one for Alpine skiing. Keeping a distance between skiis was encouraged as it gave the skier better balance. Then the >>Carved<< turn took precedence over the >>Parallel<< Turn. With a new buzz word, the manufacturers developed new equipment. Now you see the shaped ski which enables the skier to carve his turns easier. The monoski was an off-shoot of the parallel turn ideal where skiers were keeping their knees as close together as possible. The shaped ski arrived as an off-shoot of the carved turn. However, a skilled skier who has mastered the long straight ski can carve his turns just as easily with the old ski as the new. Unfortunately, though, he will loose his straight ski skill when he adapts to the shaped ski just as the old cable binding tele skier would find it hard to return to that style once he had learned how to use the step-in binding with plastic boots. The transition, i.e. using the fasteners installed on the sides of the skiis to clamp the cable and heel down could only be mastered by the most athletic skiers, especially since they were still using 7 foot skiis as a rule. However, the new equipment and techniques for using it always has trended to being easier on the skier. The clamp-down heel made it easier to ski the hardpack that ski slopes developed after the mechanized lifts came on the scene. That, in itself, backs my claim.
post #66 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATskier
Finally, there's no reason to read the messages that have been added to this thread in the past two days. With a half dozen offensive members filling it up with nonsense, there certainly are much better things to read.
Thanks, but l'll decide myself what I should and should not read. We've got an Administration too keen on censorship already.
post #67 of 76
thanx for the welcome, telerod15. i am still trying to perfect my alpine turns just in case teli turns just won't cut it somewhere. the funny thing is because i never learned alpine first i keep finding myself skiing everything doing telis (very quick way to get good at it)
Quote:
Originally Posted by telerod15
The idea that a non skier can learn telemark faster thasn an accomplished alpine skier seems quite absurd to me
yes, that comparison maybe a stretch. however not to disagree, but, supossedly, i am proof of it. If I may use myself as an example: two seasons after i first ever slapped skis on (i am not trying to brag) i was skiing with with very accomplished skiers everything they ski both on and offpiste (yes, they do have to wait for me the odd time). they have tried teliing, but because alpine is seemingly easier, and because that is the discipline they come from, everytime there is crappy terrain/snow they tend to do alpine turns. therefore, without the discipline to turn always teli you'll take longer to get truly good at it. a non-skier trying to learn teli has no choice but do telis (if teli is indeed what they are trying to learn). you are rite though, if the alpiner had his/her mind set they'd learn quicker, however eventually he/she would not be necessarily better than the neophite. my conclusion is that i believe it is all in one's head. i think the reason many alpiners could't/won't try teli is because it can be very frustrating: when there is an awesome powder day ahead not many people want to try something different, and suffer for a day, week, or however long it takes to get the hang of it. again, i can be proof the argument works the other way around too. i find it very frustrating trying alpine turns on powder days long enough to get decent at it when i can be ripping it all the way doing telis.

PS: it is a beautiful sunny day up here in the rossland range, but i am not skiing because friday was opening at red and my quads are still hurting bad...still, it was so much fun i don't regret it.
post #68 of 76
An alpine skier already has the skills he needs to make telemark turns and you have the skills to make parallel turns. He needs to apply the skills to telemark and practice the telemark turn or he won't learn telemark. You should pracrtice parallel, a good skier should be able to do both turns and also wedge, stem, hop turn, etc.

The fact that you never used fixed heel bindings shouldn't inhibit your development as a skier. Going straight to telemark is the fast track to good skiing. Time spent on fixed heel bindings is time wasted, but someone who has developed advanced skiing skills on fixed heel gear will learn telemark faster than someone you has only done XC skiing, everything else being equal, in my opinion.
post #69 of 76
I have been on the telemark skis both Saturday and Sunday and I cannot tell any difference between the speed I ski on alpine or telemark. I should point out that in either case I cannot hit my speed limit at the local bunny bump.

I am really pleased with my alpine turns on tele this year. I am rock solid and getting big angles with the ski on high edge. I am not able to get my alpine skis on any higher edge than my tele skis.

I am on Rossi T3's with HH bindings and Crispi CRX boots.
post #70 of 76
[quote=telerod15] The idea that a non skier can learn telemark faster than an accomplished alpine skier seems quite absurd to me.

I never said that a non-skier can learn to telemark faster than an alpine skier, just that the alpiner has a harder time trusting the different balance point of the tele turn. You can almost tell the tele skiers that crossed over from alpine by the way they ski with much more (or all) their weight on the front ski. For the ex-alpiner it works and feels familiar to be carving on that one ski, but it is not a real telemark turn. I know from my experience that learning to shift your weight to that spot between you skis for the tele turn feels very uncomfortable after a lifetime of carving alpine turns. Obviously, feeling comfortable on alpine skis is a much better place from which to approach learning to tele, but is also has some drawbacks.
post #71 of 76
I gotcha. I'm outside ski dominant too. I learned telemark before alpiners were talking about weight on the inside ski (except in powder and bumps). A telemark skier can use what he learns about weight distribution to enhance his alpine skiing (carved parallel turns with active, weighted inside ski; both skis carving). The cross over of skills is great. I felt smug when alpiners started talking about using the little toe edge, I learned that from day one of telemark instruction a year or two before I heard it in PSIA alpine clinics.

An experienced xc skier might learn learn tele as quickly as an alpiner. He would be going to stiffer, more supportive gear, while alpiner is losing his support.

Ii doesn't matter what you did before, I've met good skiers like jorge who only telemarked and learned quickly, but there are a lot of skiing skills that cross over. Alpine and telemark are more the same than different these days. I'm not a xc skier but I think they also can already have most of the skills for telemark.
post #72 of 76
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Powdr
Thanks, but l'll decide myself what I should and should not read. We've got an Administration too keen on censorship already.
I find the arrogance behind that statement rather amusing. I was stating my position on the thread only. However, right away you thought of yourself and found it necessary to give your opinion. Well you can have the last word again. Go ahead and post away. Nevertheless, if you find anyone reading this thread anymore, it certainly won't be me. I won't even peek to see the funny response you put up.
post #73 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre
I have been on the telemark skis both Saturday and Sunday and I cannot tell any difference between the speed I ski on alpine or telemark. I should point out that in either case I cannot hit my speed limit at the local bunny bump.

I am really pleased with my alpine turns on tele this year. I am rock solid and getting big angles with the ski on high edge. I am not able to get my alpine skis on any higher edge than my tele skis.

I am on Rossi T3's with HH bindings and Crispi CRX boots.
Sweet! That's why I don't use alpine gear. I'm not saying my parallel turns are that great but fixing the heel won't make my turns any better at this point. I did both for years, now I do both on one pair of skis. Theres a few things I did on alpine that I can't do or am afraid to try, but my best turns parallel or otherwise, groomed or powder, steep or flat have been on free heel bindings.
post #74 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATskier
That isn't the point. The same skier, skilled at both disciplines, will optain higher speeds with Alpine. He will also do it with less demands on his energy supplies and muscle conditioning. You're arguing a point that isn't in dispute. Futhermore, when it comes to learning turns, experience would be the best teacher. If you have a lot of experience on cross country equipment and alpine, learning the telemark turn is not hard at all. I have no idea as to what it would be like learning tele after never skiing cross country and only skiing downhill. However, if you look at the history of ski instruction and the ideals that the instructors were striving for, you see that parallel skiing with the skiis closest together was the goal in the 60's. Basically once the heels became fixed with step-in bindings, the instructors were concentrating on taking tele skiers into the Alpine age by bringing the skiis together. The clamp down heel made the sport more broadly appealing because the new style i.e. Alpine was easier for beginners. In the 80's, the attitude changed as most skiers had no tele experience. It became understould that the >>Monoski<< ideal wasn't the best one for Alpine skiing. Keeping a distance between skiis was encouraged as it gave the skier better balance. Then the >>Carved<< turn took precedence over the >>Parallel<< Turn. With a new buzz word, the manufacturers developed new equipment. Now you see the shaped ski which enables the skier to carve his turns easier. The monoski was an off-shoot of the parallel turn ideal where skiers were keeping their knees as close together as possible. The shaped ski arrived as an off-shoot of the carved turn. However, a skilled skier who has mastered the long straight ski can carve his turns just as easily with the old ski as the new. Unfortunately, though, he will loose his straight ski skill when he adapts to the shaped ski just as the old cable binding tele skier would find it hard to return to that style once he had learned how to use the step-in binding with plastic boots. The transition, i.e. using the fasteners installed on the sides of the skiis to clamp the cable and heel down could only be mastered by the most athletic skiers, especially since they were still using 7 foot skiis as a rule. However, the new equipment and techniques for using it always has trended to being easier on the skier. The clamp-down heel made it easier to ski the hardpack that ski slopes developed after the mechanized lifts came on the scene. That, in itself, backs my claim.
What a bunch of utterly incomprehensible garage. Now I know you are completely full of it. Next time at least take the time to do some basic research to back your claims.
post #75 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Powdr
What a bunch of utterly incomprehensible garage. Now I know you are completely full of it. Next time at least take the time to do some basic research to back your claims.
Knowledge only clutters the mind.
post #76 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATskier
That isn't the point. The same skier, skilled at both disciplines, will optain higher speeds with Alpine. He will also do it with less demands on his energy supplies and muscle conditioning. You're arguing a point that isn't in dispute.
In my case I will certainly go with this statement providing you mean alpine turns on alpine skis as compared to a telemark turns on telemark gear. I don't know as I will endorse this statement as it relates to an alpine turns on telemark gear against an alpine turns on alpine gear. I hesitate only for the reason that all is out the window if the telemark skis are the slightest bit sticky on the snow. Now that can be work.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home