or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › Interesting Ron Le Master Comment
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Interesting Ron Le Master Comment

post #1 of 13
Thread Starter 
Last week at Keystone, Ron le Master presented amovement analysis session. He was keen on stressing that instructors should show flexibility in their choice of styles for thier student's skiing, and he expressed concern that instructors often taught a style that may not be natural to a particular student's body type.

His other concern was about the majority of the female members of the PSIA Demo team, since most of them have more athletic "male" type bodies. Since these women present a role model for how instructors should teach, he believes that instructors are only getting one style that suits a certain female body type, yet may not be suitable for a woman who is a bit more "curvaceaous."

I had an interesting experience today. I met up with Klaye and CGeib at Copper, who were nice enough to slow down their pace and ski with me. At first, I was in the "oh no I don't want to ski with such advanced skiers mode." Then, I found that by following klaye's tracks, I lost some of my fear of both speed and pitch.

Perhaps Le Master is on to something!
post #2 of 13
I bet those Demo team ladies were thrilled to hear they have "male" type bodies. :

What the hell does that mean? Fit? Strong? Athletic is now a characteristic that suggests maleness? Please! When I see female WC racers in their speed suits I sure don't see anything that looks male.

To the subject, watch what's happening from the knees down and it will tell much about the appropriateness of what's going on from the knees up.
post #3 of 13
He is definitely onto it. I have knock knees and low range of ankle flexibility. I blend skills far differently than someone with straight legs and noodle ankles.

For instance; With poor ankle flex, more than my fair share of center of mass, and too much sht in my pockets I am not going to get my inside foot way far back under my inside hip with tons of boot flex in high edge carves. Instead I am going to show more tip lead and more rotation of the upper body over the outside ski tip. I am also going to show less inclination and more angulation in order to get the same edge as a skinny little runt with tons of ankle flex. Let's face it. I am not going to get my inside hip a few inches off the snow without being on the inside ski or in the back seat.

If you knock me for it without understanding it I am going to think of you as a totally uninformed schmuck.
post #4 of 13
Was he talking about different skiing styles to match athletic vs not quite so muscular body types or was he talking about styles that were reflective of aggressive vs softer "attitudes". I've met many women who were perfectly comfortable with low edge angles and slow speeds and had no desire to move their skiing up to the next level if it involved working harder or going faster. I would not call that a skiing style per se. I think the spark plugs like Dianne Roffe and the Fry sisters have body types that reflect their attitudes more than skiing styles that reflect their body types.

Do we teach different skiing techniques for tall or short, obese or skinny people?
post #5 of 13
He was referring to the demo team women having narrower hips, less mass in that area, and less Q-angle than is perhaps common in female skiers.
post #6 of 13
That's pretty-much what I was thinking, Mike. And he has an excellent point. Many journeyman instructors though have learned the differences through experience, teaching, and probably don't watch the D-Team people all that much.

Did LeMaster expand on his points? How do traditionally-shaped women differ and how can the differences be addressed?
post #7 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike_m
He was referring to the demo team women having narrower hips, less mass in that area, and less Q-angle than is perhaps common in female skiers.


That makes sense. Most of the high level women I've skied with, both d-teamers and eastern examiners, have narrow hips. Me too, actually. The movements might be the same but the picture is slightly different both presented to the student and analyzed by the instructor. It can be compensated for.

I've always thought it was funny that most of them are short. At 5'9", I tower over most. The good thing is that my student's can really see my movements because I have long legs. The bad news is that it’s really obvious when I'm doing something that I'm not supposed to do.
post #8 of 13
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ant
That's pretty-much what I was thinking, Mike. And he has an excellent point. Many journeyman instructors though have learned the differences through experience, teaching, and probably don't watch the D-Team people all that much.

Did LeMaster expand on his points? How do traditionally-shaped women differ and how can the differences be addressed?
I wish he had expanded on that a bit more. However, his main point was a distinction between style and technique. We all know that there are certain movements that constitute good technique, and perhaps we agree on them, at least 98% of the time.

Yet Le Master feels that some instructors try to teach a conformity of style that may not be appropriate for the student's particular body type.
post #9 of 13
I'm happy to see I wasn't the "BUTT" of any jokes here.

This is the standard Q angles discussion, I think. I am 5'2" and have wide hips. I am sure the combination of my hip joint angles and the shortness of my legs plays a role in the way I "look" when I ski.

I think this is a cause and result conversation ... I will consider that it's possible that my build means I do something slightly differently, but the result should be the same.

In my skiing, no one ever taught me differently because of my build. In my skiing I know the proper result and then I play around with "how" to achieve it.

Does the "how" have to be the same for everyone?

kiersten
post #10 of 13
Skiing is about balance. Balance while turning is achieved by putting the skis on edge, then keeping the center of mass in proper position to direct the point of balance to the feet.

How the skis are put on edge, and where the CM needs to be positioned will depend somewhat on ones body structure and where their CM resides within their body, so of course all skiing will not look cookie cutter. Good instructors know this, they've always known it, and they don't try to force singular looks.

It's why I said to focus from the knees down; what's happening down there will provide an instructor with a good idea of the effectiveness of each students unique approach.
post #11 of 13
I think that's true. Balance is different for every person, cos every person finds their balance.

That said, when I was a fairly upper level athlete, it occured to me that women with wide hips and short legs had NO CHANCE. They were shaped for breeding, not strength or speed.

This assumption was never challenged! and it hasn't been, then or since.
post #12 of 13
Thanks Ant ... anyone else want to join me in the "NO CHANCE" club? LOL
post #13 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by ant
I think that's true. Balance is different for every person, cos every person finds their balance.

That said, when I was a fairly upper level athlete, it occured to me that women with wide hips and short legs had NO CHANCE. They were shaped for breeding, not strength or speed.

This assumption was never challenged! and it hasn't been, then or since.

oi stop talking about me! :
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › Interesting Ron Le Master Comment