post #151 of 191
4/1/06 at 6:47pm
Originally Posted by HeluvaSkier
That said, going too narrow, while it may not effect balance, may hinder what happens in transition.
|A functional stance should be adaptable to allow agility and the ability to user either or both ski's edges effectivly at any time.|
|Versatile/adaptable stance: relates to the functionality of the feet and the desired outcome rather than a specific measured distance of separation.|
|The skier is in balance when they can have a positive, selective effect on any of the skills with either leg at any time.|
Originally Posted by CSOcean10
Also I dont think all instructors have their heads up their butts....a lot of them do from what I understand. As crudmeister witnessed...the guy was skiing an unnaturally tight stance but chances are that he advises his students to ski with a wider stance...all this will do is confuse the students as modeling is generally more powerful than auditory learning. I would like to attend the academy however as I am always looking for new learnign experiences and most of mine as of late are book-based.
Originally Posted by disski
When I do it his way the movements that I need for ski performance are far more natural - ie I do not have to "work" so much for better result... also I never seem to feel "stuck" in a position with it harder to make a movement than I'd like.... (sorry best I can do atm... maybe Heluva can translate some as Rick is gone away)
Originally Posted by dewdman42
whoo hoo. round and round we go...where it stops nobody knows...
So I guess some of the best skiers in the world you don't think are? Such as Ligety and Rocca perhaps? Both ski with narrow stances. Do we really need to hash this out again?
Hey I say the idea of a wide-ass stance is all wrong too. And while we're at it I say these ridiculously short skis are all wrong too. (:-P)