or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

moguls and PMTS - Page 3

post #61 of 326
Even if it does not make me a comp/mogul skier, but gives me more options, I'll happy to explore... Just ordered the book..

PSIA fortunatly has been making changes (It's not your old PSIA) but it takes a long time to turn a huge ship around. One thing about HH and PMTS is that because the organization is relativly small, it's easier to control content and quality. Once an organization gets to be so large and has to "work with" so many smaller organizations things get slowed down and unfortunatly dumbed down as well. As long as there are instructors willing think outside the box (PSIA Box) and incorporate what they learn there will be good instructors. PSIA will be one standard but as almost all the better and more open minded instructors I've had the pleasure of working with, keep telling me.. getting the gold pin just launches our journey into learning more.

DC
post #62 of 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnH
Dan,

One thing that I think needs to be pointed out, is that I think it's PSIA's intention that when we teach recreational bump skiing to typical students, we teach recreational bump skiing and not competitive zipperline skiing unless the student specifically asks for it. While I think we are all in agreement that A&E is a huge component of bump skiing, I think that in competitive bumps, it becomes even moreso, and turning becomes less important than in recreational bumps. In recreational bump skiing, we use turn shape for speed control. In competitive bump skiing, there is little-to-no speed control... just enough to be able to keep the skis in contact with the snow and survive. When more speed control is needed in a competition, such as approaching a jump, skidding and wedges are usually what is used.

My 40 year old back with a bulging disk is not about to zipperline bumps. I did it for about 4-5 bumps this past weekend out of necessity, and let me tell ya, I felt it, and it wasn't pleasant.

When I watch bump competitions, I immediately notice how the skier's CM never deviates from a direct path down the fall line. As teachers of recreational skiers, we wouldn't advocate that unless there is a compelling reason.

So I think that you are correct that bump skiing is about A&E, and you are also correct that PSIA focuses more on turns than you do as a competitive coach, but I think that it's by design due to differing goals, and I also don't think that it's as ignored as you think it is.

JohnH,
Thanks for that well-thought-out comment. I have to provide you with a bit more information, though, and ask you to look at this again.

This season is only my first as a coach of mogul competitors. For years, I taught mogul skiing for the Cannon Mtn ski school (Franconia, NH), and taught regular, recreational skiers of all ages and both genders to ski the moguls with the same techniques used by competitive mogul skiers.

Mogul techniques -- the techniques used by competitive mogul skiers -- are vital to any and all good mogul skiing. These techniques work both at 5 miles-per-hour and at 25 miles-per-hour, on both steep terrain and easy terrain, in big bumps and small bumps, rhythmic bumps and irregular bumps.

What you call "recreational mogul skiing" I call "mogul survival." I think there is nothing wrong with teaching mogul survival, so long as it is not billed as mogul skiing. If, however, an advanced skier wants to learn mogul skiing and is taught mogul survival, that skier has been sold short.

I had no trouble teaching these techniques to a broad, general, mainstream, advanced-skier audience at Cannon Mtn. My audience found these teachings useful and exciting, and I never once had any student tell me that he or she was disappointed to learn to ski in the style of the competitive bumper, that he or she had wanted to learn some different type of mogul skiing. My experience proved to me that competitive-style mogul techniques are the very stuff that advanced skiers are asking for when they step up to the ski school desk and say, "I want to learn to ski moguls."

I'm sure there are other, less advanced students out there, though, who just want to be able to survive when they take a wrong turn and find themselves stuck in the bumps. For these folks, "mogul survival" lessons are fine. I'd agree with you there. These students should not be told, however, that what they're learning is a progression toward what competitive mogul skiers do.

I see a greater call for mogul skiing instruction (rather than mogul survival instruction), because there are so many capable, athletic groomed-trail aficionados out there who want to know what to do with the bumps, but just can't figure them out. And I think far more people can learn this stuff than most instructors assume.

I think a lack of mogul skiing information has, over the years, cast a huge stigma and fear over the zipper line, so that most skiers now believe that skiing the zipper line is far harder than it actually is. When you teach the skills gradually on easy, gentle terrain, and teach that straight-ahead, zipper-line-like movement right from the start (it starts with drills on the groomers), you can teach a lot of people to enjoy at least a gentle zipper line through small bumps.

Additional Miscellany:
  • My back is also 40 years old
  • Mogul skiers control their speed with both their turns and their A&E
-Dan DiPiro
post #63 of 326
I just want to reiterate that it is so cool for me to see all of this intelligent thought about mogul skiing and mogul skiing instruction. Thanks, all.

TomB and dchan:
Many thanks for giving my book a try. Let me know what you think.

jhcooley:
Great post. Interesting to hear of your experiences. You say it's your impression that the PSIA and CSIA like to see lots of absorption & extension. This reminds me of a question I've been meaning to ask here.
Do you think the instructing establishment likes what it sees, in general, when it sees a mogul competitor skiing the zipper line?

I have heard a number of stories from excellent mogul competitors who have joined ski schools and had their skiing actually berated by PSIA clinicians and examiners. The stories are all similar in that they involve...
  • a seasoned mogul competitor with a history of winning high scores from mogul competition judges
  • the context of a PSIA clinic or exam
  • fellow clinic attendees or examinees who are unable to ski the moguls with as much control, smoothness or efficiency as the former competitor
  • the mogul competitor's being told that he needs to use different skiing methods in the bumps
  • several of the other clinic attendees or examinees recieving, at the same time, kudos for their skiing.
I've also had similar experiences myself. Could you, jhcooley, or anyone, offer me some insight into why this sort of thing happens? Are you aware that this happens?

-Dan DiPiro
post #64 of 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DiPiro
I have heard a number of stories from excellent mogul competitors who have joined ski schools and had their skiing actually berated by PSIA clinicians and examiners. The stories are all similar in that they involve...
  • a seasoned mogul competitor with a history of winning high scores from mogul competition judges
  • the context of a PSIA clinic or exam
  • fellow clinic attendees or examinees who are unable ski the zipper line with as much control, smoothness and efficiency as the former competitor (in some cases, unable to ski it at all)
  • the mogul competitor's being told that he needs to use different skiing methods in the bumps
  • several of the other clinic attendees or examinees recieving, at the same time, kudos for their skiing.
I wonder if the "context" of the clinic or exam is the question you need to address.

In an exam/clinic, the examiners are looking for specific movement patterns in which comp mogul skiing does not really show well. You have to remember that clinics geared to teaching and exams, are a targeted enviroment. Most of these people will have budding skiers that want to venture into bumps for the first time on their tails. These are students that generally don't have aspirations of becoming HOT bump skiers but just want to feel comfortable (not just survive) in bumps. Many don't want to bang up their knees.

In the few exams and clinics I've taken, when a hot bump skier makes a run, I don't think I've ever heard an examiner or clinic leader say "you shouldn't ski bumps like that" but rather tell them "That's great skiing however I would like to see more of ......" Generally it's for the sake of the exam/clinic and not necessarily because it was bad skiing. If the person skiing like that can't make the adjustment to maybe "use more turnshape instead of braking to control speed" for instance then it shows a lack of one specific skill. Something they are looking for.

As many have mentioned Speed hides flaws in our skiing. It allows us to "cheat" in many cases.

PSIA is not perfect, it's only as good as the people running it and they are people. I'm sure there are some in the organization that have huge EGO's attached as well which might account for some of these instances pointed out above.

JMHO..

DC
post #65 of 326
I also find that in clinics. what one person gets as KUDO's and the next person gets corrections, is often based on where they are for their level of skiing. For instance, in my last exam I kept hearing for myself "You need to move farther across and forward" "more Counter" "watch the hips" which applied to me specifically. Someone else in the group might have had less counter than I but might have been told "Good job on the hips position" Not because it was better than where I was but because it was better than the last run they took. They made an adjustment the clinic leader wanted to see.

The examiner or instructor can't tell everyone "don't listen, this only applys to" (well I guess they could but we would all still listen) everytime but you have to wade through this stuff often.

In Sun Valley, our instructor did this very thing for my wife in the middle of the lesson. On the next chair ride up, I rode with one of the other people in the lesson and they said, "I thought we were supposed to do.... she is telling her not to do...." The context was way off. At where most of the other students were, this exercise/movement might have caused more harm than good to their skiing where as my wife was at a point that she was ready to take this next step..
post #66 of 326
I do agree that PSIA (or CSIA in Canada) folks generally don't look favorably on zipperline bump skiing. It does not surprise me since rarely do we see slow zipperline skiing that will be "gentle" on knees and back.

Yet I have seen bump skiers training and going to great lengths to do pivot slips in a slow controlled motion. It all made sense to me until I tired it and realized that skis must have a more "relaxed" tune in order to pivot slip in all conditions. My skis generally have an aggressive tune and tend to grab in a pivoted skid.

So here is a question: does one have to "relax" the tune somewhat to be able to maintain soft edges and pivot with ease? It seems reasonable to assume that zipperline bump skiing is harder with a 1/3 bevel than with a 2/2 bevel. I would be very curious to know what base/edge bevel is on the straight bumps skis that bumps competitors use.
post #67 of 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomB
So here is a question: does one have to "relax" the tune somewhat to be able to maintain soft edges and pivot with ease? It seems reasonable to assume that zipperline bump skiing is harder with a 1/3 bevel than with a 2/2 bevel. I would be very curious to know what base/edge bevel is on the straight bumps skis that bumps competitors use.
It might make it easier but I think if you really learn to control your edges from hard edging to very light feathering of the edges it should be possible to ski lightly and "pivot with ease"

Just look at how much trouble people (even LIII's) have with the pivot slip task. it's not an easy skill to learn but maybe a skill we should all be honing..
Sideslipping on very light edges should be part of everyone's bag of tricks.

DC
post #68 of 326
dchan,

I agree that pivot slips are hard to do and we all need to work on that skill. Yet I've seen bumps skiers do them on flats with ridiculous ease and incredible speed. I have never seen any LII or LIII do pivot slips quite like that. I am convinced that ski tune is part of the solution.

I wonder what Dan thinks of this?
post #69 of 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DiPiro
The stories are all similar in that they involve...
  • a seasoned mogul competitor with a history of winning high scores from mogul competition judges
  • the context of a PSIA clinic or exam
  • fellow clinic attendees or examinees who are unable to ski the moguls with as much control, smoothness or efficiency as the former competitor
  • the mogul competitor's being told that he needs to use different skiing methods in the bumps
  • several of the other clinic attendees or examinees recieving, at the same time, kudos for their skiing.
I've also had similar experiences myself. Could you, jhcooley, or anyone, offer me some insight into why this sort of thing happens? Are you aware that this happens?
I've had this discussion in clinics several times. Every time I've been told that the answer is "we're looking for the capability to execute a variety of tactics". The predominant viewpoint is that zipperline skiing is primarily using muscle power instead of technique. Let's call it an "opportunity" to change that opinion instead of calling it "wrong". On the other hand, zipperline is not the only way to navigate a mogul field. Being a one trick pony is not the answer either.
post #70 of 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DiPiro
You say it's your impression that the PSIA and CSIA like to see lots of absorption & extension. This reminds me of a question I've been meaning to ask here.
Do you think the instructing establishment likes what it sees, in general, when it sees a mogul competitor skiing the zipper line?
Hmm, my impression is that high level ski instructors I have come across do not neccessarily look down on zipper line mogul competitors as much as they are simply in awe and bewildermant about what is going on in the skiing and have absolutely no way to explain it or answer for it. What they are teaching in PSIA/CSIA is their best guess. I've never heard a PSIA or CSIA instructor bad talk a high level mogul skier, but usually they tend to just get real quiet, nod their head that the mogul skier is really good and avoid making any comments about it because they don't want to look stupid. Occasionally I have heard an instructor mouth off that such-in-such a skier is going to have knee problems someday or something...but my experience is that this is not usually a top level instructor, its a medium level instructor that is on the way up and drinking a lot of PSIA/CSIA koolaid for the moment and hasn't really matured enough to realize that the competitive level bump skiers just come from a different planet. I do not think they they are representitive of the PSIA/CSIA official stance on the matter nor even the attitude of the high level instructors and examiners.

I also think they set the standard lower for bump skiing then everything else, because of all the reasons that have been discussed in this thread.

A story.. when I was trying for my CSIA level 3, I was unable to pass, primarily due to the fact that I was unable or unwilling to ski with my hips behind my heels in typical CSIA manner for groomed run turns. However, my examiner told me that my bump skiing was incredibly good, that I passed the bump component with flying colors and showed great promise in this area (something that usually is the stumbling block for most of the instructors). In fact, by the end of the week he was asking me to demo for the class half the time in the bumps.

But here is the funny part. Not 2 months before that, I would have told you that skiing moguls was my worst skill. I always avoided them like the plague my whole life. I struggled with them, felt terrible, looked terrible, just plain sucked at bumps. But I was scared to death of failing my level 3 based on the bumps, which I had heard was the typical thing. So for one month while I was teaching in Keystone I went every day after work for 90 minutes to the baddest bumps I could find in the resort and did nothing but ski the bumps. I had a few little breakthroughs related to extension, but mostly I had some new 178cm skis(which was short back then).. I got a lot better, but I was still worried about it.

Anyway, the point I'm making, is that after only one month of just practicing bumps on my own I was able to go to my CSIA level 3 and have them tell me that I was way above par in that skill. And indeed, I was in fact much better in the bumps then anyone else in our group, some of whom did pass the level 3.

Main point to all of this is that...I believe the standards for bump skiing in CSIA/PSIA are lower than they are for groomed skiing. They have done this due to lack of understanding about it I believe or perhaps fear that if they learn the "other" way to ski it will screw up their groomed skiing..something like that.
post #71 of 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by dewdman42
A story.. when I was trying for my CSIA level 3, I was unable to pass, primarily due to the fact that I was unable or unwilling to ski with my hips behind my heels in typical CSIA manner for groomed run turns.
Would you mind starting a new thread describing what you are talking about, because that seems very different from what we are teaching in PSIA?
post #72 of 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by therusty
I've had this discussion in clinics several times. Every time I've been told that the answer is "we're looking for the capability to execute a variety of tactics". The predominant viewpoint is that zipperline skiing is primarily using muscle power instead of technique. Let's call it an "opportunity" to change that opinion instead of calling it "wrong". On the other hand, zipperline is not the only way to navigate a mogul field. Being a one trick pony is not the answer either.
In terms of variety of tactics, what are people really saying, though? Even mogul competitors take a variety of lines, some rounder and more difficult, some more direct. At the extreme, the big turn through moguls still takes a great deal of A&E; in fact A&E probably represents more of being able to ski a big turn through bumps than it does for a zipper line.

If different lines in the bumps is not what is meant by variety of tactics, what is?
post #73 of 326
Dchan, TomB, dewdman42,
Thanks for your responses to my question about the ways in which PSIA folks react to mogul skiers and mogul skiing techniques. I’d have to guess that some combination of all of these things is at work out there.

Rusty,
Thanks for mentioning this erroneous idea that mogul skiing is more about “muscle power” than it is about technique. On my blog (www.mogulskiing.blogspot.com), I have a post about three mogul myths, and this is one of those myths… this idea that mogul skiers are just strong, athletic daredevils, but not technically good skiers. (MOGUL MYTH 1)

Good mogul skiing requires good method, good technique, but the techniques are different from groomed-trail techniques. Were there no method, no technique, to mogul skiing, the best mogul skiers in the world wouldn’t all ski so similarly, nor would they all ski with so much control, efficiency, smoothness, grace and speed.

MOGUL MYTH 2
I’d like to point to a second myth that I see cropping up in this thread: this notion that mogul skiing is especially bad for the knees and back. When mogul skiing is done well, it is no more bad for the knees and back than taking a jog on a paved road. It is bad mogul technique that is bad for the knees and back. With proper absorption and extension, and proper upper-body posture, you all but remove the jarring effects of the sport.

I’m 40 and I’ve been skiing bumps for more than 30 years. I’ve had no serious knee or back injuries, and a recent X-Ray of my knees revealed big, healthy spaces between my leg bones (nice, thick, solid layers of cartilage). Alpine racers have just as many knee blow-outs as mogul skiers. I’ve even heard of one orthopedist near my area who says she sees more knee problems in alpine racers than in mogul skiers. She believes mogul skiing actually conditions the knee for greater lateral stability.

This notion that good mogul skiers all end up limping through middle and old age is, you need to understand, a bunch of bologna. The friend with whom I started competing in moguls years ago is 44 today and he’s an excellent windsurfer, water skier and – get this – a masters racer! He won the masters slalom race in December at Killington this season, which speaks not only to the health of his knees and back, but also to the fact that mogul skiers are often good all-around skiers.

Other old bumpers I know are still skiing bumps, and they’re enjoying all sorts of sports; they are active athletic people, as free of injuries as any other active, athletic people I know.

Of course, there are other mogul skiing myths doing harm to the sport, but these are the two I’m seeing here, so I wanted to point them out.

About pivot slips, skis and tuning…
Yes, very shaped skis are not ideal for moguls because they want so badly to hook up and carve. Mogul skis, which have remained strait for the most part, are built for, among other things, quick and easy rotary-powered turns (and then a firm edge-set at the bump, too). Detuning a shaped ski might make it easier to pivot; I don’t mess too much with very shaped skis, though, so I don’t know for sure.

There are all-mountain skis out there that are not extremely shaped and are decent in the bumps. If you want the very best tool for the job, that would be a mogul ski. But I know plenty of good bump skiers who rip it up on shaped skis.

By the way, my book includes a lot of information about the mogul skier’s equipment: skis, poles, bindings, et cetera.

-Dan
post #74 of 326
This has been a great thread. I've been crafting (off and on) a response for a few days now, but it's not on this computer. What is interesting to me is that Dan's approach seems pretty much at odds with PMTS. To me, this is fine and not unexpected, since PMTS doesn't advocate any rotary movements, and many of us all along have said that's pretty much impractical in the bumps. The very quick and dirty opinion is that PMTS is on one end of the spectrum regarding technique and Dan is on the other (although Dan places much more emphasis on the A/E side of things than the turning side of things). I guess my thinking is that PSIA is somewhere in the middle of the "argument", which in my view is where they should be.

http://www.realskiers.com/pmtsforum/...ic.php?t=1032&

Keep chating it up guys, it's been informative. When I get the time I'll post more...

L
post #75 of 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTKook
In terms of variety of tactics, what are people really saying, though? Even mogul competitors take a variety of lines, some rounder and more difficult, some more direct. At the extreme, the big turn through moguls still takes a great deal of A&E; in fact A&E probably represents more of being able to ski a big turn through bumps than it does for a zipper line.

If different lines in the bumps is not what is meant by variety of tactics, what is?
Good point, CTKook. A tight, direct fast line through bumps does actually result in (or from) less (but perhaps more precise) absorption and extension.

A related idea:
In the moguls, don't we all want to maximize control, smoothness and efficiency (less movement and energy expended), while minimizing punishment to the body?

If you say "yes" to this, is it so great a stretch to believe that years and years of competitive mogul skiing have identified and refined the very techniques that allow us to achieve these qualities?

Just as the secrets to good groomed-trail skiing lie in alpine racing, the secrets to good mogul skiing lie in competitive mogul skiing. It's actually a very reasonable, logical idea, but not yet one that the mainstream has embraced.

-Dan
post #76 of 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DiPiro
My apologies, Ricb, but I'm afraid I don't understand all of what you've written. I'm a little slow on the uptake, at times, so please excuse me.

The things I do understand seem to jibe with what I say and write. I particularly don't understand how your concluding metaphor (forest, trees, etc) applies to me or the above discussion.

-Dan DiPiro
I don't have much time to spend here these days and it was a quick note, but the point would be that there are many ways to ski and ski bumps. None wrong or right. My student chose his style depending on equipment, and I think how he felt on a given day. Most of us do the same. Other factors would also be physical abilities, conditions ect. Versatility as I said, not just one way.

We do agree on the primary skills needed to ski bumps efectively, but maybe not on how we choose to apply these skills.

The metaphor seemed to apply because of the energy and time you spent trying to discredit others. Simple as that for me. Later, Ricb.
post #77 of 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lonnie
...What is interesting to me is that Dan's approach seems pretty much at odds with PMTS.
...I guess my thinking is that PSIA is somewhere in the middle of the "argument", which in my view is where they should be....
L
Hi, Lonnie. Thanks for this perspective. I want to ask you something, though.

If it were possible to compare my mogul-skiing instruction success rates with the mogul-skiing instruction success rates of PSIA instructors, and if you were to find that my success rates were significantly higher, would you still believe that the PSIA should remain "somewhere in the middle?"

-Dan
post #78 of 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by RicB
I don't have much time to spend here these days and it was a quick note, but the point would be that there are many ways to ski and ski bumps. None wrong or right. My student chose his style depending on equipment, and I think how he felt on a given day. Most of us do the same. Other factors would also be physical abilities, conditions ect. Versatility as I said, not just one way.

We do agree on the primary skills needed to ski bumps efectively, but maybe not on how we choose to apply these skills.

The metaphor seemed to apply because of the energy and time you spent trying to discredit others. Simple as that for me. Later, Ricb.
Thanks for explaining further, RicB. But I have to respectfully diasagree with you on two counts.

1) I am not investing myself in discrediting others; I'm investing myself in revealing a minor weakness of a teaching system. I even point out that the weakness is a minor one, not central to the PSIA's primary business mission (teaching groomed-trail fundamentals to beginners and intermediates).

In my post that immediately preceeded yours, I wrote:
"Among level-3-cert instructors, I've seen plenty of great skiers who can execute, discuss and teach the techniques used by World Cup alpine racers...."


and


"I don't think level-3 instructors aren't good skiers or athletes...."

Does this really sound like I'm simply discrediting others? I don't think so.


2) I agree that there are many different ways to ski bumps and I don't care if people want to ski bumps backwards with cafeteria trays strapped to their Sorrel-clad feet. Really, I dont care.


If, however, one wants to ski bumps with maximum control, smoothness and efficiency, and with minimal punishment to the body, there are not many different ways to do this. (Let's call this Mogul Myth 3.) The methods for doing this are the methods found among competitive mogul skiers; the people who have been working at this stuff, and trying to figure it out, for about 30 years now.


Again, this is not so outlandish an idea... is it? ...this idea that competitive mogul skiers use the best methods for skiing the moguls?


Best regards,
Dan
post #79 of 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DiPiro
If it were possible to compare my mogul-skiing instruction success rates with the mogul-skiing instruction success rates of PSIA instructors, and if you were to find that my success rates were significantly higher, would you still believe that the PSIA should remain "somewhere in the middle?"
Dan,

I'm speaking strictly from a technical/philosophical/lesson content/ perspective, without regard to actual success. When I finally make a longer post, these comments will make more sense (bare with me....)

L
post #80 of 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTKook
In terms of variety of tactics, what are people really saying, though? Even mogul competitors take a variety of lines, some rounder and more difficult, some more direct. At the extreme, the big turn through moguls still takes a great deal of A&E; in fact A&E probably represents more of being able to ski a big turn through bumps than it does for a zipper line.

If different lines in the bumps is not what is meant by variety of tactics, what is?
Thanks CTKOOK,

What is easily understood in my mind and in my eyes is hard to type into words here. At the beginning, there is skiing in the ruts, across the ruts or across the tops. Clearly competitive mogul skiers combine all of these techniques because their skis appear to go anywhere and everywhere. Yet it is also clear that is a bad competitive technique to go laterally across a mogul field. Boiled down to its simplest, what PSIA looks for are techniques that involve more lateral movement as additional alternatives to the techniques that competitive mogul skiers use. Look at Chris Fellows' article. There he describes four different types of tactics. If I understand correctly, tactics 1, 2 & 4 cover different tactics than what Dan is espousing (note I suspect that although Chris intended to have tactic 3 cover the competitive mogul style, Dan would argue it does not do it justice).
post #81 of 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by therusty
... Boiled down to its simplest, what PSIA looks for are techniques that involve more lateral movement....
Yes! What you're touching on here, Rusty, is the racing-based nature of the PSIA's skiing model.

Moving the body across the hill (laterally) is a goal that comes from alpine racing. In order to navigate race courses, racers must carry speed, without wasting it, across the hill, around one gate, back across the hill again, around another gate, and so forth.

Groomed-trail aficianados enjoy carving turns (moving back and forth across the hill with speed and efficiency) for a number of reasons, but this lateral movement definitely has its roots in racing.

Mogul skiing, though, is not racing. There are no gates on the mogul field. Indeed, competitive mogul skiing was born in the '60s as a revolt against the confines of gates. Without gates, there is no need to move the body back and forth across the hill. Control can be gained in moguls through other means, means designed for the moguls, not the race course.

The PSIA tries to bring this lateral, racing-based movement into the bumps. But mogul competitors have found a better way (more control, more smoothness, more efficiency, less punishment to the body) to do things.

I want mainstream skiing to know about these better ways. These ways are not so much difficult, as they are different. Once skiers learn about them, skiers will like them and understand the benefits. That's my goal, in a nutshell.

-Dan DiPiro
post #82 of 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DiPiro
this idea that mogul skiers are just strong, athletic daredevils, but not technically good skiers. (MOGUL MYTH 1)

....

MOGUL MYTH 2
I’d like to point to a second myth that I see cropping up in this thread: this notion that mogul skiing is especially bad for the knees and back. When mogul skiing is done well, it is no more bad for the knees and back than taking a jog on a paved road. It is bad mogul technique that is bad for the knees and back. With proper absorption and extension, and proper upper-body posture, you all but remove the jarring effects of the sport.

....

About pivot slips, skis and tuning…
Detuning a shaped ski might make it easier to pivot; I don’t mess too much with very shaped skis, though, so I don’t know for sure.
Dan,

Just when I think we're done, you keep egging me on to keep wearing the devil's advocate hat.

Part of myth #1 comes from the rumor that competitive mogul skiers are animals in the gym doing leg presses of 400-600 pounds to get in shape. Seeing huge clouds of snow flying up while their knees compress up to their chins (ok a little exaggeration there) does little to dispel the myth. While I agree with the myth as you've stated it, I have a hard time believing that strength is not an important aspect of competitive mogul skiing.

Regarding myth#2, it's easy to understand where this comes from. The huge amount of knee movement relative to groomed trail skiing is very obvious. For people who ALREADY have pain in their knees, simply watching that kind of movement can be painful. One thing I learned from water skiing is that the tumbling falls across the surface look horrendous, but aren't bad at all. It's the sudden stops into the water that hurt. This is the secret behind myth #2. When the A&E can be stretched out over time and space, the forces change from damaging to healthy exercise. The problem with myth#2 is that many people need to go through "not doing well" before they can do it well. There is a risk of "wear and tear" damage. I suspect that you will find that this RISK is a major reason behind the approach that PSIA takes and a concern that will need to be overcome in getting PSIA to make changes to how we teach mogul skiing.

With respect to detuning, I am not a fan. I'd much rather accept a slight loss in performance in the bumps than make permanent sacrifices everywhere else on the mountain. If it's that important, get a dedicated pair of bump skis. When I take my 11m radius slalom skis in the bumps, I have to keep my feet about 1 inch further apart than totally locked together in order to avoid tip or tail overlap. This is not a big hit on performance. I simply go 15 mph instead of 20. At one degree of bevel, I don't have any problems doing pivot slips. However, Your Mileage May Vary. Maybe I do a crappy job of tuning?
post #83 of 326
All I have to say is that this is one of the best threads I have ever seen here on epic, that shows an exchange of ideas, challegnes to ones ideas and defenses of ones ideas. It is great to see people who have conviction and security in their abilities as ski instructors discuss without having their ego bruised their ideas and models on proper instruction.

Dan is first class in my book for raising the level of discourse around here. KUDOS for Dan!!! I'm buying the book and would take a clinic from you anyday Dan. Stick around I think you are winning fans.

Ed
post #84 of 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DiPiro
Yes! What you're touching on here, Rusty, is the racing-based nature of the PSIA's skiing model.
Uh, well. I don't race a lot (and I have a broken collarbone to prove that). Personally, I like to go laterally across mogul fields in search of ... whatever (different snow, different lines, stopping to help a fallen comrade, getting out of the way for a break, searching for "wild" life?). I see the lateral movement as beneficial because it's part of the slope - it's just variety, not because it's required because racers want me to. If PSIA had such a racing based nature, we'd be encouraging people to sit back at the end of their turns, then use their ab muscles to get recentered.

I agree that PSIA has adopted competitive alpine racing techniques into their model of what good skiing is. I believe it is more a lack of doing the same for mogul skiing, than an alpine racing bias that has gotten us to where we're at.
post #85 of 326
I just finished Dan's book. The book focues on zipper line skiing in the troughs and contains drills to help you learn pivots and A/E.

The book teaches turning with a rotary pivot. Practice on groomed and then take it to the bumps.

Then the book moves to absorption and extension. The new idea here for some people might be that A/E helps to control speed in addition to absorbing the terrain and keeping your skis on the snow.

After that the book moves to line selection and does a good job of explaining how to deal with uneven lines which you are likely to find in anything but competition groomed bump runs.

I was hoping to find a bunch of photo montages like you see on Ron Lemaster's site and in the PMTS books. Unfortunately the photo's in the book are single grainy black and white pictures. So, there is lots of text and only a few pictures that give a visual of the text.

Bottom line: if you want to learn zipper line bump skiing this book will help and is worth the $15 (which is far less than a lesson).

A series of pictures showing a bump run frame by frame would be a big help. Maybe Dan could put this up on his website.

Now a comment about the general tone of the book. The book contains the idea that the only real mogul skiing is zipperline bump skiing like the pros do. There is the suggestion that racers lack the skills to deal with the bumps as do all other groomed skiers. It feels like the book wants to lump everyone that isn't a zipperline bump skier into the 2D groomed run camp. What about all the skiers that don't ski the zipperline that rip the whole mountain including bumps? The book doesn't consider that these all mountain skier's use A/E all the time in their off piste jaunts because all mountain skiing is 3D terrain. So this quote from page 24 in reference to A/E I find difficult to accept, "There's a whole dimension of movement that's nearly exclusive to mogul skiing...". Watch a good all mountain skier and he's using A/E whenever the terrain dictates. I'd suggest that A/E is a common all moutain skill.

As far as racers not having the A/E skill, I recently watched a race coach shred a bump run with carving moves and A/E. It was very cool to watch and showed that racers that train all mountain know how to use A/E in their bump skiing.
post #86 of 326
Dan, new question for you. Not a challenge by the way, I actually am really looking forward to your book because while I am one of those guys that can ski the whole mountain quite well, the intense zipper line mogul skiing is something I don't do as well as I would like to do..because basicall I have no idea what I'm doing. I've picked up a few intuitive feelings and sometimes get a groove on, but I for one am really looking forward to hearing the details about how the mogul pros do it.

That being said...

Question, in the Olympics we had one american take bronze this year. An asian kid, I can't remember his name. After the first run he commented on camara when asked about why he took the line to the left, that he was one of the few guys out there that can actually "carve" his turns through the bumps and so that is why he was able to take that line, bla bla bla. I sorta went away from that comment thinking that he was the New School bump guy...and that perhaps the other guys were skiing an old school bump style. What say you about this comment from him?
post #87 of 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by therusty
I agree that PSIA has adopted competitive alpine racing techniques into their model of what good skiing is. I believe it is more a lack of doing the same for mogul skiing, than an alpine racing bias that has gotten us to where we're at.
Maybe we can invent a brand new skiing model, where we start beginners on a skiing model based on mogul skiing. We can come up with a cool set of initials, maybe MBST, for mogul based skiing technique, and start a whole new set of ideological wars.

Seriously though, I think Dan has hit upon a crucial issue, in that we have not paid enough attention to competitive moguls skiers in developing our skiing model. As long as we are going there, is there anything we should be picking up from competitive freestylers, besides mogul technique?
post #88 of 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by dewdman42
Question, in the Olympics we had one american take bronze this year. An asian kid, I can't remember his name. After the first run he commented on camara when asked about why he took the line to the left, that he was one of the few guys out there that can actually "carve" his turns through the bumps and so that is why he was able to take that line, bla bla bla. I sorta went away from that comment thinking that he was the New School bump guy...and that perhaps the other guys were skiing an old school bump style. What say you about this comment from him?
I saw that comment too. Dan covers this on Page 17/18. Basically he says that they are still using lots or rotary even if there is effective edge use on the side of the bump and that they use a relaxed definition of 'carve'.
post #89 of 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by FOG
Would you mind starting a new thread describing what you are talking about, because that seems very different from what we are teaching in PSIA?
This question was regarding CSIA and hips behind heels. All I will say at this juncture is that yes, CSIA is teaching several things that are very different from PSIA. I'm not PSIA certified yet, but Im going to take my PSIA I exam this weekend and go for II next year. So I've been paying attention. Also, I was working at Keystone for a while with my CSIA cert, and talking with PSIAers and watching them.

This excellent thread is about bumps, so I will leave it there, by just saying the two approaches between CSIA and PSIA are definitely way different, especially at the lower levels. Some of you would be flabergasted if you went to a CSIA cert clinic. If you are really curious, I would suggest you start a thread posing the question about differences and I will tell you what I think I know, after which I'm sure about 30 angry and offended individuals will reply.

PS - my opinions about the two models are not all pro for one and con for the other. I see things in both camps that are good and bad. For me, the CSIA hips behind hells concept is so bad that I don't want to have anything to do with them anymore, even though they have some other good concepts in there.
post #90 of 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by dewdman42
This question was regarding CSIA and hips behind heels. All I will say at this juncture is that yes, CSIA is teaching several things that are very different from PSIA. I'm not PSIA certified yet, but Im going to take my PSIA I exam this weekend and go for II next year. So I've been paying attention. Also, I was working at Keystone for a while with my CSIA cert, and talking with PSIAers and watching them.

This excellent thread is about bumps, so I will leave it there, by just saying the two approaches between CSIA and PSIA are definitely way different, especially at the lower levels. Some of you would be flabergasted if you went to a CSIA cert clinic. If you are really curious, I would suggest you start a thread posing the question about differences and I will tell you what I think I know, after which I'm sure about 30 angry and offended individuals will reply.
You got it:
http://forums.epicski.com/showthread...283#post461283
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching