or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

moguls and PMTS - Page 11

post #301 of 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max_501
Interesting analysis of PTMS. Would you please let us know what your exposure to PMTS is?
3d party observation, amusement at the Harb Carvers, and having used some of the concepts in teaching my kid.
post #302 of 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTKook
3d party observation, amusement at the Harb Carvers, and having used some of the concepts in teaching my kid.
So its safe to say that I have a bit more experience with PMTS (5 years of study, including 6 days of private coaching from HH and 2 days from Jay), I also own the Harb Carvers which seem to amuse you for some reason. I respectfully disagree with your analysis. I and many of the other PMTSers I've skied with can ski all of the terrain you pointed out in your prior post.

The most important concept is that many (if not most) of the PMTS students I know strive for the highest levels of skiing. In your prior post you say...

Quote:
his target audience imo will be perfectly happy if they learn to ski 6 inches of fresh over groomed and small bumps
I find it fascinating whenever I see this type of post from a non PMTS student. How would you possibly know what the target audience is? How would you know how the target audience would like to ski?
post #303 of 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max_501
So its safe to say that I have a bit more experience with PMTS (5 years of study, inclulding 6 days of private coaching from HH and 2 days from Jay), I also own the Harb Carvers which seem to amuse you for some reason. I respectfully disagree with your analysis. I and many of the other PMTSers I've skied with can ski all of the terrain you pointed out in your prior post.

The most important concept is that many (if not most) of the PMTS students I know strive for the highest levels of skiing. In your prior post you say...



I find it fascinating whenever I see this type of post from a non PMTS student. How would you possibly know what the target audience is? How would you know how the target audience would like to ski?
Yes you clearly have much more direct experience, and have spent a lot of $$ too. And some of your other posts, including viewing waist-high bumps as big, rather show that you've had a groomed-snow emphasis. It sounds like you're having fun though, and if it works for you, great.
post #304 of 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTKook
Yes you clearly have much more direct experience, and have spent a lot of $$ too. And some of your other posts, including viewing waist-high bumps as big, rather show that you've had a groomed-snow emphasis. It sounds like you're having fun though, and if it works for you, great.
Funny, the last thing I have is a groomed snow bias. But whatever...there's no way I can convince you differently so go ahead and assume what you want about PMTS.
post #305 of 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max_501
Funny, the last thing I have is a groomed snow bias. But whatever...there's no way I can convince you differently so go ahead and assume what you want about PMTS.
Well, maybe think about if you've in fact been getting on terrain defining the off-piste focus that you have. Like, if you're into bumping, there are defining bump runs and bump areas...
post #306 of 326
or out of resort boundaries even....
post #307 of 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTKook
...Bob Barnes ... Re: offensive vs. defensive, I think you're being groomed-snow, carving-centric, though. "Braking" by skidding while carving groomers frequently is defensive.....
Hey guys,

Yeah, Bob, I, too, was thinking what CTKook says here. This idea that skidding is “defensive” rather than “offensive” comes from a system developed on groomed snow. I’d like to suggest that it’s of little use in bumps.

Sometimes World Cup mogul skiers skid. Sometimes they don't skid. And that goes for men and women. But skidding isn't the “defensiveness,” or the compromise, or the impurity that it is commonly understood to be on the groomed trail. It's just not as important in the moguls. And the whole turn isn't as important in the moguls.

On the groomed trail, the turn is nearly the only means of gaining purchase on the snow. In the moguls, one gains purchase on the snow, in part, yes, with the turn, but one gains purchase on the snow through absorption and extension, too (as you know).


I think one piece you're missing, Bob, is that absorption and extension are so important in the moguls -- such an important, powerful means of control -- that the turn (and a bit of skidding) become far less important in bumps.

And absorption and extension don't merely make the turn more effective. In the moguls, even flat skis headed straight down the fall line can gain purchase on the snow with good A&E. As I say in the book, it’s like walking down stairs; you don’t put your sneakers “on edge” to control your speed as you descend stairs! You just step on each step. Well, bumps face upward, like stairs, and when you absorb them properly, it’s like stepping on a stair; it controls your descent. The mogul skier's turn might be a little skidded or it might not. (Depends on a bunch of different things.) Don’t even worry about whether or not the bit of skidding that may or may not occur in a well executed mogul run is defensive or offensive. The key is in the A&E!

-Dan DiPiro

P.S. If forced to talk about being on "offense" in the moguls, I'd first talk about body posture: staying out of the back seat, constantly driving those hips down the hill. That's definitely an "offense" that matters in moguls.
post #308 of 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by therusty
The title does not come close to conveying what I intended, but the it does work as a shorthand for the topic. There are two basic things I wanted to explore here:
  • the true extent to which PMTS promotes carving in the bumps
  • what is really meant by the instruction to get the skis flat and let them float with respect to carving or skidding
There are 2 quotes from ACBAES#2 that shed some light on this topic:
1) "This is as close as you can get to carving in the bumps"
2) "...I still let the side cut take me around the turn, demonstrating carving in the bumps". This greatly helps to clarify the semantics of "carving in the bumps". Clearly PMTS bump technique is not 100% carving.

With respect to "float", HH says "As I flatten my skis, I let them float out from under my hips." Another quote reads "Notice for an instant after the release, the skiers let their skis float ahead of their bodies." Float may or may not be skidding, but it certainly does not sound like carving. Watching the DVD demonstrations, it looks very much like a PSIA skidded parallel turn. The skidding is not bad, car wreck type skidding, but there is no carving like ski tracking going on.

It's kind of funny that you can look at these two issues as either proof that PMTS and Dan's approach are very different or proof that they have some similarities. Dan's approach makes no mention of using sidecut to assist turns and in fact promotes the use of mogul skis with less side cut. Yet, he acknowledges the use of the ski edge in mogul skiing and refers to the use of the term "partial carving" within the mogul skiing community. Dan's book notes that "even top mogul competitors will sometime skid a bit in the middle of a turn". Is this the same or the opposite of PMTS float? Or is the advice to turn the skis in mid air between edge sets the same or opposite of PMTS float. Can we find similarities and differences BOTH at the same time?
Forum fights aside, I think it is worth making the distinction between having a ski move sideways while flat and keeping the edges completely disengaged (easier with 1 degree base bevel than with a flat ski), and an other technique that is moving a ski sideways with an edge partially engaged and providing a sideways force on the ski that resists the motion. Should we call the first "float" and the latter skid? (or should we call the first one flat-boarding )
post #309 of 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DiPiro
Hey guys,

Yeah, Bob, I, too, was thinking what CTKook says here. This idea that skidding is “defensive” rather than “offensive” comes from a system developed on groomed snow. I’d like to suggest that it’s of little use in bumps.

Sometimes World Cup mogul skiers skid. Sometimes they don't skid. And that goes for men and women. But skidding isn't the “defensiveness,” or the compromise, or the impurity that it is commonly understood to be on the groomed trail. It's just not as important in the moguls. And the whole turn isn't as important in the moguls.

On the groomed trail, the turn is nearly the only means of gaining purchase on the snow. In the moguls, one gains purchase on the snow, in part, yes, with the turn, but one gains purchase on the snow through absorption and extension, too (as you know).


I think one piece you're missing, Bob, is that absorption and extension are so important in the moguls -- such an important, powerful means of control -- that the turn (and a bit of skidding) become far less important in bumps.

And absorption and extension don't merely make the turn more effective. In the moguls, even flat skis headed straight down the fall line can gain purchase on the snow with good A&E. As I say in the book, it’s like walking down stairs; you don’t put your sneakers “on edge” to control your speed as you descend stairs! You just step on each step. Well, bumps face upward, like stairs, and when you absorb them properly, it’s like stepping on a stair; it controls your descent. The mogul skier's turn might be a little skidded or it might not. (Depends on a bunch of different things.) Don’t even worry about whether or not the bit of skidding that may or may not occur in a well executed mogul run is defensive or offensive. The key is in the A&E!

-Dan DiPiro

P.S. If forced to talk about being on "offense" in the moguls, I'd first talk about body posture: staying out of the back seat, constantly driving those hips down the hill. That's definitely an "offense" that matters in
moguls.
IMHO, two jewels fall into the crown with that post.

1. Going straight down the fall line with the "brakes" on is only defensive if you are trying to stop, not if your are trying to go. It's like driving down the hill steering while having the parking brake on. It does govern your speed, so is "defensive" in a way, but it's not defensive like like stepping on the brake pedal in response to a situation. It's a frame of mind thing. I never put the intent of going straight down (quickly) the hill together with the idea of using "brakes". I was never a big fan of mogul competitions, so I never knew they skied this way. It just never occured to me. I always thought trying to stop was "cheating", hence my opinion that I sucked in moguls. It's actually pretty easy to brake at slow to moderate speeds without stopping in bumps.



2. Using the "brakes" is optional. You don't only get (upward) force from the edge scraping along the snow at an angle, you can get it directly from the bases that are flat to the snow on the up-facing side of the bump, though in big steep close icy bumps this can devolve into slamming them.

Also with regards to point number 1. It is not only possible to go straight down as opposed to traversing at an angle, it is much easier to go straight down with Dan's technique. You need to have gravity pulling you along as you skid, (or float for that matter) otherwise you will stop. What could be easier than sidesliping down a hill?
post #310 of 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost
Should we call the first "float" and the latter skid? (or should we call the first one flat-boarding )
I'm ok with that, but after watching the DVD, I'm not so sure that the skis are moving sideways so much as the body is moving relative to the skis, while the skis are flat. But whatever we call it, it's different from Dan's approach.
post #311 of 326
I haven't seen the dvd. I would say the skis are floating if they are flat to the snow and the edges aren't providing any sideways force. If the skis are moving relative to the snow, maybe they are floating, if not they could be hovering: .
post #312 of 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost
...Using the "brakes" is optional. You don't only get (upward) force from the edge scraping along the snow at an angle, you can get it directly from the bases that are flat to the snow on the up-facing side of the bump, though in big steep close icy bumps this can devolve into slamming them....
Yes, Ghost! Nicely done!

Right, ice makes the ol' slide-and-slam more likely. But bumpers with rapid, active, well-timed absorption and extension can smooth out even quite icy bumps. (Good A&E solves a lot of problems in moguls.)

And when the bumps get really icy, we don't need to ski them.

-Dan DiPiro
post #313 of 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DiPiro
And when the bumps get really icy, we don't need to ski them.
Heh...good advice there.

Dan's bumps to staircase analogy is excellent. A pro bumper showed me how he could go straight down slowly and then speed it up as he increased the speed of A&E...in this case the A&E was controlling his speed as there wasn't much in the way of turns thrown in. It was one of those things that I didn't really believe until I had seen it.
post #314 of 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max_501
Heh...good advice there.

Dan's bumps to staircase analogy is excellent. A pro bumper showed me how he could go straight down slowly and then speed it up as he increased the speed of A&E...in this case the A&E was controlling his speed as there wasn't much in the way of turns thrown in. It was one of those things that I didn't really believe until I had seen it.
Max, cool that you had the opportunity to see a pro bumper demonstrate A&E! And I'd add that...

1. You don't need to be a pro bumper to learn to use A&E effectively, and...

2. A&E is effective in mellow mogul fields and at slow, comfortable speeds.

-Dan DiPiro
post #315 of 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTKook
Well, maybe think about if you've in fact been getting on terrain defining the off-piste focus that you have. Like, if you're into bumping, there are defining bump runs and bump areas...
Well everyone has a different definition. For example I've skied the Face and Gunbarrel at Heavenly lots of times. Some folks think those are fairly challenging bump runs (especially when they are big and icy) but I'm sure others don't think so. But to me that doesn't even matter. I ski most offpiste terrain (I'll readily admit that I'm not a fan of jumping off of a big cornice into a chute) equally. I don't have a favorite. I like it all.

I'm rarely on the groomed runs during the bulk of the season. Most of the time its skiing crud and trying to find a little powder stash here and there in the trees...or maybe hiking to see if there is a line someone missed. I'm skiing offpiste...far away from the crowds that are on the groomed stuff. What's interesting is that I can ski all of that using PMTS even though you and others here on Epic keep implying that it doesn't work for high level skiing.

PMTS teaches you how to ski. Learn how to ski and take it anywhere you please. That's PMTS.
post #316 of 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DiPiro
Max, cool that you had the opportunity to see a pro bumper demonstrate A&E! And I'd add that...

1. You don't need to be a pro bumper to learn to use A&E effectively, and...

2. A&E is effective in mellow mogul fields and at slow, comfortable speeds.

-Dan DiPiro
I took a private 2 hour lesson from the pro. It was neato. And I agree with what you said as I've seen them in action.

But, I still think it takes a fairly healthy athletic person to pull off a true zipperline on a steep run using deep aborption. Those deep knee bends can be tough on knees.
post #317 of 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by disski
or out of resort boundaries even....
That really depends on where you are skiing. There are resorts where getting out of bounds and then getting hurt can cost you big bucks if they come and rescue you.
post #318 of 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTKook
...amusement at the Harb Carvers...
BTW, if you like to carve and want to keep your skills sharp on dryland the Harb Carvers are great. I've got a pair and I love them. They really dial in the technique too, no cheating with carvers.

Falling sucks though.
post #319 of 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max_501
BTW, if you like to carve and want to keep your skills sharp on dryland the Harb Carvers are great. I've got a pair and I love them. They really dial in the technique too, no cheating with carvers.

Falling sucks though.
Max,

First, I'd love to have brews sometime, you sound like you reallly enjoy skiing and are passionate about it.

If I got flowed some carvers, which just isn't gonna happen, they look like a lot of fun. If you like them for regular crosstraining, all the better, but: they're only training edge transitions in way much more related to skiing than regular inline; they don't have a shovel or tail and a host of other things. And unless you're willing to fall on transition in ski boots, they're pretty exclusively limited to flat pavement, i.e. the equivalent of groomers. They do look like they could be a lot of fun on high-speed runs through flood-control ditches, though. My amusement at them is related to the high price relative to what I view the crosstraining "premium" over inline being: virtually nil. After a summer on regular inlines or MTBing you'll feel like a kook your first couple runs on skis, then get it back, pretty much the same as after a summer spent on carvers if you already know how to edge your skis.

But, in terms of a "branding" execrise, they make a lot of sense. Harb-branded inline could command a very slight markup over other inlines, but the carvers are in their own way are a unique idea.

Since you sound like you ski rather than ride exclusively, consider inlining on transition this summer in addition to the Harb Carver stuff. Dropping in on a 5 foot mini is actually harder than the "Daily Drop," so it's great cross-training. Or you can use quads, while they don't edge in the way inlines or carvers do some people believe that overall they're more similar to skiing. Or dirtjump or take a bmx cruiser for a spin.

Peace and good snow,
post #320 of 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTKook
Dropping in on a 5 foot mini is actually harder than the "Daily Drop," so it's great cross-training. Or you can use quads, while they don't edge in the way inlines or carvers do some people believe that overall they're more similar to skiing.
Heh...can someone put this into old man lingo for me?
post #321 of 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DiPiro
Yes, Ghost! Nicely done!

Right, ice makes the ol' slide-and-slam more likely. But bumpers with rapid, active, well-timed absorption and extension can smooth out even quite icy bumps. (Good A&E solves a lot of problems in moguls.)

And when the bumps get really icy, we don't need to ski them.

-Dan DiPiro
You mean that if I were to go visit the moguls at some other time than the last hour of the day whent the high-speed runs get too crowded, after they had melted and refroze and been polished for a few hours they might not be so icy?

Can you tell I'm stuck out East?
post #322 of 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max_501
Heh...can someone put this into old man lingo for me?
The 5 foot mini drop refers to a BMX cross terrain park feature.

The daily drop I have no idea, but this is interesting nonetheless:

http://www.fishwrapper.us/dailydrop.html
post #323 of 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTKook
I think one reason many straightline back to the lift isn't because they find the terrain boring, but because they're not willing to pay dues doing something not immediately rewarding.
Another reason for the straightline back to the lift is that your quite satisfied with your turns, but are in a hurry to get back to that part of the hill that is relatively steep and has some bumps on it. When I was last at Talisman (http://www.talisman.ca/trail_map.asp.htm ), the top of the hill, sinkhole, was where I wanted to ski. For some strange reason there was a lot of snow there that nobody was skiing in right under the lift:, and right beside that was a mildly steep portion with a few very small but longish "bail-out" bumps where you could actually get up to a reasonable speed. Unfortunately the pitch did not last to the bottom, so every good rip down sinkhole or Dad's run also involved a long slow ski to the lift.
post #324 of 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DiPiro
But bumpers with rapid, active, well-timed absorption and extension can smooth out even quite icy bumps. (Good A&E solves a lot of problems in moguls.)
A&E is a state of mind…..

Maybe I’m distorting the message but I look at my turns to setup my A&E. The turn part gets my skis at the desire position on the frontside of the bump for the absorption and eventually the area where I want to drive down for the extension. Where you make the A&E adds another dimension for speed control as well as how you want to ski the troughs down the zipperline. You can ride the bumps at the bottom or higher within the zipperline. There is a “slow line”, its using more of the up-down side of this 3D terrain. Its something you have to experience to get a sense for speed control.

An example, take a look at the videos for the 2002 Olympics (within this post), the SLC course has a bump formation that is less uniform than others I’ve seen. More importantly, notice each competitor varies where they position themselves on the frontside; they did their absorption sometimes higher or lower on the bumps, using the turns to position themselves for the up coming bumps. How much A&E they use controls their speed.
post #325 of 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DiPiro
...In the moguls, even flat skis headed straight down the fall line can gain purchase on the snow with good A&E...
In terms of doing this in mellow bumps, you can play around with pressuring the shovel into the bumps and absorbing fully (which has the most braking effect), extending with no absorption to get air, and sitting back on the tails and watching the skis shoot ahead. In terms of whether any of these are offensive or defensive I thnk you'd have to know the context to say.
post #326 of 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTKook
In terms of doing this in mellow bumps, you can play around with pressuring the shovel into the bumps and absorbing fully (which has the most braking effect), extending with no absorption to get air, and sitting back on the tails and watching the skis shoot ahead. In terms of whether any of these are offensive or defensive I thnk you'd have to know the context to say.
I’ll bite.....

I would say staying on the backseat and letting the ski shoot out from under tends to comes from a passive absorption, just flexing (ankle, knee & hip) to maintain the center of mass.

An active absorption would be pulling your legs up. Dan adds driving the hips forward during the extension to maintaining body posture. Chuck Martin advocates during the absorption, pulling in the feet to keep it stacked under the hip and shoulder, calling this "foot containment". Regardless of how, the important point is actively getting the feet in proper position.

I’ve let my skis jet out (placing the ski more forward than the hips) to make adjustments on where I want to drive down the extension. If I do it too many times in consecutive order, I end up falling on my @ss or I have to bail out from the line to get my feet under my hips. As mentioned, extension with no absorption gets you air. With lesser absorption, it is still downward progress with less braking (versus the fully absorb case). In addition, it would keep the feet and hip in position, hence no sacrifice to line control. Likewise with using less extension, less braking by not driving it down as fast. If the criteria was line control as in the carving case and if the zipperline was the intent, then jetting or staying in the backseat too long would be consider defensive since it sacrifices line control.

That’s my take on this definition from the carving world. Still it doesn’t feel right, maybe the analogies doesn’t translates well to the bump world. Perhaps golf analogies would be better.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching