New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

KISS my angulation - Page 6

post #151 of 175
Ok weems,

I finally see your point: not all round turns are slow.
post #152 of 175
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE
Thanks weems.

The issue of "balance between issues" is a different matter than the issue of agreeing what a word means. I will defend your right to be vague as you like as a method to keep options open, and I understand it's intent, even though I may disagree regarding the level to which it can be taken.

Schrodinger's cat might feel different about that.

wrt the Casey Pucket quote, you mean this?



The "feet away from the gate" is a bit of a red-herring. The path of the body is the key. The skier may be able to bend the ski very deeply, and still have the skis very close to break-away gates.

I understand that Puckett is teaching skiers to load the ski and generate more rebound -- an option to which they may not have been exposed.

However, using that tactic effectively depends quite a bit on course set -- rebound is a fast way to get back across the hill. Ted Ligety's Slalom run in the combined this past olympics was an excellent example.

That is not to say that comma shaped turns are obsolete...

Do we agree that these burst mode shots show comma shaped turns?

http://www.ronlemaster.com/images/la...2004-sl-2.html

http://www.ronlemaster.com/images/20...oden-gs-1.html

http://www.ronlemaster.com/images/20...-slc-gs-1.html

It is clear in the last sequence that there is significant time spent in the fall-line. A rounder line would be much slower here....
According to your definition of what is round and what is not, absolutely these are commas. My flexibility allows me to see that according to your mathmatical definition. It actually allows me to work through a lot of conflict and confusion because it requires me to really work on understanding what the hell an antagonist in an argument is really trying to say. And yes, in the last sequence especially, rounder would be slower. And too round is always slow by definition. And I don't like herring.

I think the terminology that Puckett uses with the kids is "flat" and "deep". This sort of sidesteps the "round, rounder, roundest" issue.

I'm gonna call Casey and find out what his thoughts are on distance from the gates. I'll get back to you.

And yeah, one of the biggest problems I see, in terms of cl's complaint about using racer shots to prove a point, is the one you mention about course set. So many of the postions, moves, angles, lines etc. depend on where the next turn is, that one has to be very careful about generalizing.

And who is Schrodinger's cat?

And it's not vagueness I'm looking for. I'm looking for Flexibility to hold balance with Clarity. Vagueness is Flexibility to a fault. It's a negative consequence of too much Flexibility without balancing it with Clarity. (And yes, I often err on that side!) Creativity, independent thinking, and situational adaptability are benefits of Flexibility. Rigidity and stagnation are qualities of excessive Clarity--Clarity to a fault. Mutually agreed upon definitions, predictability, and effective structures are benefits of Clarity.

Thanks, E
post #153 of 175
Schrodinger's cat is a thought experiment of quantum physics.

In a nutshell:

Put a cat in a box, along with a vial of poison gas that is set to release when a geiger counter pointed at a single atom of a radioactive substance that has a half life of 5 minutes decays.

(A radio active element that has half life of 5 minutes means that 1/2 of it will decay in 5 minutes. The geiger counter detects atomic decay...)

Since we have only 1 atom the odds are 50-50 that the atom decays in 5 minutes. When you open the box at exactly 5 minutes, what do you find?

If the atom has decayed, the cat is dead. Otherwise, it is alive.

Quantum physics says that at the five minute mark, the atom is in an indeterminant state. It is both decayed and non-decayed...

Consequently, the cat is both alive and dead at the same time.
post #154 of 175
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE
Schrodinger's cat is a thought experiment of quantum physics.

In a nutshell:

Put a cat in a box, along with a vial of poison gas that is set to release when a geiger counter pointed at a single atom of a radioactive substance that has a half life of 5 minutes decays.

(A radio active element that has half life of 5 minutes means that 1/2 of it will decay in 5 minutes. The geiger counter detects atomic decay...)

Since we have only 1 atom the odds are 50-50 that the atom decays in 5 minutes. When you open the box at exactly 5 minutes, what do you find?

If the atom has decayed, the cat is dead. Otherwise, it is alive.

Quantum physics says that at the five minute mark, the atom is in an indeterminant state. It is both decayed and non-decayed...

Consequently, the cat is both alive and dead at the same time.
Perfect. I have experienced the feeling of this cat many times!
post #155 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE
That is not to say that comma shaped turns are obsolete...

Do we agree that these burst mode shots show comma shaped turns?

http://www.ronlemaster.com/images/la...2004-sl-2.html

http://www.ronlemaster.com/images/20...oden-gs-1.html

http://www.ronlemaster.com/images/20...-slc-gs-1.html

It is clear in the last sequence that there is significant time spent in the fall-line. A rounder line would be much slower here....
What appears apparent to me from those sequences is that the SL turns (Benni Raich) are rounder than the GS turns - possibly because the lack of sidecut restriction on SL skis now allows turns to be made using a "pure" carve. Even so, the radius decreases as the edge angle increases during the turn.

In GS, the radius restriction means that more pivoting is now required than in slalom - a complete reversal over the past 7 years.

In Schlopy's GS turns, he pivots to get the first turn started, appears to lose grip with his outside ski just after the gate, but completes the turn OK. His second turn in this sequence, he seems to "cut off" the line slightly and gets into trouble after the gate.

In Covili's transition, pivoting is clearly visible in frames 7-9. I don't see anywhere how he is particularly "spending time in the fall-line"; in the final 3 frames it may look that way because of the camera angle, but he has his skis tipped over and is arcing them around as much as he can.

Schlopy and Covili seem to use more countering than Benni - hard to tell whether that's a personal thing or a GS vs. SL thing. None of them are making "round" turns in the BigE definition of having the skis totally perpendicular to the fall-line at transition - in fact I can't imagine any race situation where that would occur. BigE, is that just a free-skiing drill?

I'm a bit confused by the word "comma" to describe a turn shape. I can't think of any turn that looks like this: ,
post #156 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by weems
Perfect. I have experienced the feeling of this cat many times!
According to Heisenberg, you do not truly know whether you are alive or dead until someone else observes you!
post #157 of 175
This thread was really going along nicely til Schrodinger and Heisenburg signed on. Nice discussion .
You all closed to a cresendo and like fireworks exploding into differant directions
Weems;I am going to have to re read that last paragraph til it fully sinks in
post #158 of 175
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Bell
According to Heisenberg, you do not truly know whether you are alive or dead until someone else observes you!
How do you know they've observed you and you're dead, if you're dead? Heisenberg had to be drunk.

Thanks for the analysis, Martin. Your eye is better than mine on issues like this.

Garryz, the last paragraph is the key to understanding the idea of holding polarity. Each pole has benefits, and each has negative consequences for overemphasis. Holding polarity is maintaining the tension between opposing, yet interdependent imperatives. It is the necessity for "both/and" thinking which is very important to ongoing, interdependent issues. It is not the same as problem solving, which is "either/or" thinking. This is used when the issues are not interdependent and the dilemma can have an endpoint. How long have we been talking about carving/skidding or countering/square? Like, forever. In good skiing you have BOTH this AND that. Certainly in individual situations, one or the other will have to be chosen to solve a temporary problem. But overall, over time, both are needed to become a complete skier.

And my next cat will be named Schrodinger!
post #159 of 175
Martin

Is it the path of the skis that defines the turn or the path of the CM?
post #160 of 175
And it's not vagueness I'm looking for. I'm looking for Flexibility to hold balance with Clarity. Vagueness is Flexibility to a fault. It's a negative consequence of too much Flexibility without balancing it with Clarity. (And yes, I often err on that side!) Creativity, independent thinking, and situational adaptability are benefits of Flexibility. Rigidity and stagnation are qualities of excessive Clarity--Clarity to a fault. Mutually agreed upon definitions, predictability, and effective structures are benefits of Clarity.

Thanks, E[/quote]hmm. to be flexible is to have to ability to alter yourself to meet changing situations . to have clarity is to have a plan ,a practiced drill and answer but balancing it as another tool and not the rigid path. To blend both allows creativity with structure.Is this close to the meaning to your thought?
post #161 of 175
Thread Starter 
[/quote]hmm. to be flexible is to have to ability to alter yourself to meet changing situations . to have clarity is to have a plan ,a practiced drill and answer but balancing it as another tool and not the rigid path. To blend both allows creativity with structure.Is this close to the meaning to your thought?[/quote]

That's exactly my belief. And this is a methodology for dealing with dilemmas that appear to be either/or, but in fact are both/and resolutions.

This is what the Sports Diamond is all about. I admire BigE's search for clarity. This is an area that I could get some leverage on if I were to spend some time on being more precise. My dynamic pole--my place I tend to default to--is the flexibility side. It has served me well, but I often get caught in exactly what BigE decries: what's the answer? Stop waffling.

This way of thinking will serve you well in your aspirations to teach skiing. It helps you make a better decision on where to proceed in your lesson. This is also what the stepping stones in PSIA are all about--a very clear direction, with an infinite variety of pathways along the journey to suit the needs of each student. But that is another thread.

Maybe we should start one on that issue of the diamond etc. Y'all wanna? I'm a little hesitant because of the self promotional aspects. But if it's interesting to you, I'll go there.
post #162 of 175
Quote:
But if it's interesting to you, I'll go there.
It's interesting to me, I say go there.
post #163 of 175
Yes, lets go there.
post #164 of 175
Weems, seems OK to me; that is, if you can go there without constantly peeping back into the thread to state what "your diamond" states.

Of course, you contribute to quite a few threads that are not your newest book related (unlike another contributor).
post #165 of 175
Thread Starter 
[quote=lennyblake]if you can go there without constantly peeping back into the thread to state what "your diamond" states.
quote]

I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean peeping back into this thread?

Here ya go.
http://forums.epicski.com/showthread...706#post487706
post #166 of 175
I'll fourth the nomination. The mind is driving the train so why not let it lead instead of constant disaster control?I gotta go get in some of my last turns of the year ,catch up with you folks tonite.
Don't fear you are self-promoting ,your aims here are very established, besides you said you gave away many copies already.
post #167 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE
Martin

Is it the path of the skis that defines the turn or the path of the CM?
Very good point - probably the latter. But for coaching purposes it may be more obvious to refer to the former.
post #168 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by weems
How do you know they've observed you and you're dead, if you're dead? Heisenberg had to be drunk.
More to the point, how does an electron "know" it is being observed? I highly recommend Brian Greene for clear and thorough discussion on this paradoxical question - comprehendable by a physics layman such as myself:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/037...lance&n=283155
post #169 of 175
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Bell
More to the point, how does an electron "know" it is being observed? I highly recommend Brian Greene for clear and thorough discussion on this paradoxical question - comprehendable by a physics layman such as myself:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/037...lance&n=283155
That's easy. It just turns on the lights!

Thanks. I'll read this. I love books on physics for laymen. I really liked the Dancing Wu Li Masters of Gary Zukhov. And there was an almost comprensible book on Chaos Theory somewhere.
post #170 of 175
Quote:
I'm a little hesitant because of the self promotional aspects.
If we all benefit from you sharing we all gain something from the experience. I'm just looking out for my own selfish interests.
post #171 of 175
All this talk of clarity, waffling, vagueness... Sounds like quite an adventure!

Before I say this, I realize that some (most) people want an answer to their question when they ask it, so try to keep the face-melters to a minimum.

One of the ways humans LEARN is to delve into a subject, get completely lost, and pick through the puzzle pieces until they have found their way back to the question. (It's how I passed college statistics. I'm not a very linear person.) Sometimes the question can have so many answers, especially when it comes to human beans, it's hard to distinguish which one to use. It's natural to open the toy-box, dump all of them on the floor, look for awhile, and then choose which one to play with for five minutes... Naw I don't like this one... Pick another.

I'm not defending vaguery here, It's just that sometimes "I want the answer and I want it now" can be a little unrealistic. Be patient, keep typing for awhile, and maybe the "answer" will bloom. If it doesn't maybe the question lends itself to too much of a broad-spectrum answer!

As my wife so poignantly states, "I'm just sayin'".
post #172 of 175
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Notorious Spag
All this talk of clarity, waffling, vagueness... Sounds like quite an adventure!

Before I say this, I realize that some (most) people want an answer to their question when they ask it, so try to keep the face-melters to a minimum.

One of the ways humans LEARN is to delve into a subject, get completely lost, and pick through the puzzle pieces until they have found their way back to the question. (It's how I passed college statistics. I'm not a very linear person.) Sometimes the question can have so many answers, especially when it comes to human beans, it's hard to distinguish which one to use. It's natural to open the toy-box, dump all of them on the floor, look for awhile, and then choose which one to play with for five minutes... Naw I don't like this one... Pick another.

I'm not defending vaguery here, It's just that sometimes "I want the answer and I want it now" can be a little unrealistic. Be patient, keep typing for awhile, and maybe the "answer" will bloom. If it doesn't maybe the question lends itself to too much of a broad-spectrum answer!

As my wife so poignantly states, "I'm just sayin'".
Perfect.
post #173 of 175
"Perfect."

I agree, Weems. Great post, Notorious!

post #174 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Notorious Spag
All this talk of clarity, waffling, vagueness... Sounds like quite an adventure!

Before I say this, I realize that some (most) people want an answer to their question when they ask it, so try to keep the face-melters to a minimum.

One of the ways humans LEARN is to delve into a subject, get completely lost, and pick through the puzzle pieces until they have found their way back to the question. (It's how I passed college statistics. I'm not a very linear person.) Sometimes the question can have so many answers, especially when it comes to human beans, it's hard to distinguish which one to use. It's natural to open the toy-box, dump all of them on the floor, look for awhile, and then choose which one to play with for five minutes... Naw I don't like this one... Pick another.

I'm not defending vaguery here, It's just that sometimes "I want the answer and I want it now" can be a little unrealistic. Be patient, keep typing for awhile, and maybe the "answer" will bloom. If it doesn't maybe the question lends itself to too much of a broad-spectrum answer!
As Weems says, "Perfect"!

I gotta ask though, any way to guage how much longer I'll be LOST:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Notorious Spag
As my wife so poignantly states, "I'm just sayin'".
And I thought it was just me
post #175 of 175
It isn't realistic to get instant gratification but to get a piece here and another there and to put some of them together and then a light goes on in your head , That is how i think real learning takes place. Doesn't a good teacher help the learner digest bits then allow him to come to conclusions and learning not through direct information but clues and inferences and examples .while helping them sift through the plausible and the unuseful or not helpful parts
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching