or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

KISS my angulation - Page 3

post #61 of 175
True, and that is why using WC racing to support inconsistencies in recreational skiing isn’t valid. Anyone can support any point of view by misrepresenting WC skiing and even applying it to how a mistake in technique could be viewed as correct skiing. PSIA has tried to do so for years, as Weems is doing here.
post #62 of 175
Thread Starter 
Carv lust,

Racers bank when it's appropriate, angulate when it's appropriate, and work out some combination of the two when it's appropriate to achieve their tactical goals efficiently and effectively. They also skid, scarve, stivot, rotate, hop, and work the front and back of the ski when it's appropriate. But mainly the make round, carved turns with their bodies aligned very efficiently so as to allow the best use of natural and muscular forces to bend the skis and drive the turns, creating both speed and control. This is the great lesson we as recreational skiers can always take from racers, and this is why we can look to them constantly for sound fundamental skiing.

You imply that not angulating is a mistake in technique. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. All I said was that angulating can be overdone like any other movement if it is not connected to an efficient and effective purpose. The amount depends purely on what's needed to make the skis work, and that's the only point I have.

We've seen people bank too much and angulate too much for years, and what my colleagues and I attempt to do is take all these movement patterns and make them functional and versatile. It's been very useful translating material from race coaches, Ski Racing magazine, and books such as How the Racer's Ski, World Cup Ski Technique, the Skier's Edge, and so on to the use of recreational skiers. It's helped them enormously in understanding how to use a tool, which is essentially a vastly detuned racing ski.

If this is an incorrect interpretation of racing techniques applied to recreational skiing, well I guess I'm just gonna have to live with that sin. But I will always do my best to create the smallest gap between what I see in the skiers I admire (racers and others), and the fundamentals I teach students. The success of this has born fruit time and time again by the smiles on their faces and their growing commitment to the sport. This way I can keep challenging myself and them to give up pet peeves in the face of new evidence. Pet peeves such as angulation happens the same way every time!

As for your remarks on what PSIA does, PSIA is not a unified block of opinion. Individuals in PSIA draw from many sources to find the best ways to help people enjoy skiing in all the conditions they encounter. It is not some hall of truth, or creed. It's just a group of instructors working together through many representatives. Some of the instructors have a lot of time on task and know a lot. Others have less.

And if you are so sure about what correct skiing is, you must really love the slopestyle world!
post #63 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by weems
. But mainly the make round, carved turns with their bodies aligned very efficiently so as to allow the best use of natural and muscular forces to bend the skis and drive the turns, creating both speed and control. This is the great lesson we as recreational skiers can always take from racers, and this is why we can look to them constantly for sound fundamental skiing.
Sorry, but I disagree wholeheartedly with this, in general, racers DON'T ski round turns. If I was to take my teaching cues from racing only, the turn shape would certainly not be round.

Here's a few examples:

I was watching a WC race, and the on-air commentary from an ex-WC Canadian Nat'l team member (Brian Stemmle) went something like this:

"She is making all her turns too round. That's not the way she should be skiing. She needs to straighten out and ski at the gate. These round turns are pretty, but far too slow for her to be competitive."

End result was 3 seconds back.

I was also skiing with a Natl team hopeful, and asked what they thought the main difference between the the CSIA (instructors) and CSCF (race coaches). Her response was:

"Turn shape. CSIA turns are very round. Our (CSCF) turns are shaped like a comma. We don't complete our turns like the CSIA folks do."

Two other CSCF coaches said the same thing! -- "CSIA teaches you to ski pretty. CSCF teaches you to ski fast -- you basically have to throw that CSIA stuff out the window to ski fast."

Are these folks all wrong?!
post #64 of 175
Weems you are very clever and polite, but you do not enhance your credibility, convince, or persuade from such a shaky position.

In some ways you are not facing the reality of modern day lesson takers or modern day ski coaching. Racers are not taught to bank, incline or lean by coaches. They are taught to do it correctly and then the racer interprets what is needed for each situation. Are you expecting this from a recreational skier or instructor? Most beginning racers do bank and lean, as they grow through racing, they learn to control leaning and banking.

The coaches are trying to instill proper technique, so leaning is reduced and eliminated. The easiest thing for a racer to do is to lean or incline.

You make it sound like this is some kind of skill, to possibly justify leaning or your student’s lack of proper skiing ability, you invented an excuse. The rational you use is, “Racers lean, so it’s OK”. Hardly a satisfactory way to teach or convey skiing to skiers who want better performance out of there skis.
post #65 of 175
Thread Starter 
My goodness, Big E and Carv Lust. You guys are very tough and very literal.

As for your comments, Big E, correct. If a racer goes too round then it's a slower line. For me, this is a matter of degree. I'm speaking of an arc rather than a drift, or a pivot/skid (which is a change of aim rather than a turn). In this sense a comma and a C both have an arc, and therefore both have that quality that I'm gonna fearlessly call roundness, based loosely on the radius of a turn created by pressure against a side cut.

When you get on and off the arc to make your line faster is highly variable. Again,--and all I want to get across is this message--it's not the same in all situations.

By the way, Casey Puckett--not unknown for his skill at the World Cup level—coaches ability level kids here in Aspen to make more of a round turn in the fall line (with the feet further away from the gate) rather than a comma. Here is the rationale: The "flat" turn (or comma in your parlance) doesn't bend the ski as powerfully as a "deep" turn (or rounder version). Therefore the deep turn would have the effect of a more powerful energy return from the ski, bringing the skier back across the fall line quicker and in such a way that he or she could reduce edge angle and pressure in the finish and therefore have less friction and more speed. There are also lots of racers from Stemmle's era and earlier who are commentating, but have not skied what is perhaps a newer tactic developing out there. (I remember years ago, when the commentators got caught at this: Bob Beattie was saying that he needs to ski a flatter ski, while Ken Read was saying he needed to stay up on the edge. Neither of them blinked at their conflict.)

Now I'm not saying one version is right and the other is wrong, and I’m clearly more of an observer than an expert, but I am saying that this is arguable.

However, we can definitely agree that you are correct that the round turn that instructors and recreational skiers do is very different than that of racers. The former is designed to use the speed to go slower, while the latter is designed to use the speed to go faster.

And, CarvLust, I'm not concerned about my credibility, so please, don't you be. I've got kids! I have no credibility. And I'm certainly not concerned whether you're convinced or persuaded. It's up to you to decide if any, all, or none of my points have merit. But I do not feel that I'm on shaky ground here. Perhaps the ground I’m on is challenging, but these are normal issues in sports involving turns and centrifugal force and balance against a platform. However, I must not have expressed myself well, so I'll try to summarize.
· I believe that most recreational skiers will be just fine if they keep their shoulders level throughout the turn, so that they will be nicely balanced, both to apply edge, and to prepare for accidental or purposeful edge release. This is the KISS version that will take care of most people in most angulation situations.
· Yes, young racers tend to lean in way too much. I will define "too much" as when the axis of the torso tips in the same as or more than the general axis of the legs. Coaches absolutely have a responsibility to correct this. Unless kids (and rec skiers) learn to angulate well, they won't be able to make good choices later.
· In high performance skiing in more GS size turns, one often sees the plane of the shoulders, not level, but rather sloped, (sometimes more, sometimes less) towards the inside of the turn. When this is so much so that the inward lean of the torso is significantly more than the inward lean of the legs, it is inefficient and the skier is not well balanced.
· Some very good skiers angulate too much. I think it is rare that the plane of the shoulders needs to be parallel to the slope of the trail, like we taught in the old days. To do that diminishes the quality of loading that we can apply to the ski in the middle of the turn, because it misaligns the suspension system. One of the the things I will often correct in advanced students is the tendency to "throw" the angulation before they even get into the turn and know how much they will need.
· Most good skiers, whether they tip in more, less or none at initiation, level the shoulders from the fall line out.
· How much the axis of the torso can or should tip inward, and how to do that, relative to the inward tip of the legs, at the initiation is indeed a skill, because we're always running a fine line between pressure, timing, tip, and balance in every turn. And, it's not always the same for every turn. This is the art, the touch, the finesse. This is a skill that is not beyond the grasp of some of the very good skiers I've skied with, and it is really thrilling when they get the perfect alignment throughout their body from skis on up and the ski just zings for them.
· My own skiing improved significantly since I stopped overangulating the initiation (about ten years ago), and so has that of instructors and students I've worked with and observed. Now you may not think much of my skiing, and that's fair enough. There's a guy over there on realskiers who thinks I can hardly ski at all. But I believe, and coaches whom I trust tell me, that my skiing is better than it used to be.
· Lastly, the rationale of using the racer performance to help justify an idea is time-tested and true. It's enormously illustrative. It's good because racers have great fundamentals, and when they want to ski slowly with precision, they are the best in the world. The latest version of this by the way is the tendency to use this movement of letting the skis drift to the edge in the initiation to justify teaching other types of drifty movement patterns in addition to carving. I think it's excellent, because it gives me movements that approximate what I aspire to be, and it always demonstrates the versatility I'd like my students to have.

Is this long enough for anyone? Before you hop on this guys, do me the favor of reading it carefully. It took a long time to write it.
post #66 of 175
Weems, racing comparisons are only excellent when the comparisons apply and benefit skiers. When you misrepresent what racers are trying to do and you analyze movements frame by frame literally, you get yourself into trouble.

That’s why I have difficulty understanding how your generalizations have merit. Don’t worry, your credibility is not in question, from your posts one grasps your abilities to conjure up and invent techniques of your own liking, rather than actions of racer intent.

Slatz, referred to the same subject of intent in movement in an other thread, intent and I agree with Slatz on this one, is more important then the result, as results are often misread and that’s what I think you are getting caught up in.

Why does everyone without a racing background, and out of touch with racers, want to analyze racers when the coaches who work with them everyday have difficulty analyzing racers? I think it has to do with a need for proving oneself to others. The aura of WC technique easily captures the neophyte’s imagination and makes the writer an instant authority in someone’s eyes, at least.
post #67 of 175
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by carv_lust
Weems, racing comparisons are only excellent when the comparisons apply and benefit skiers. When you misrepresent what racers are trying to do and you analyze movements frame by frame literally, you get yourself into trouble.

That’s why I have difficulty understanding how your generalizations have merit. Don’t worry, your credibility is not in question, from your posts one grasps your abilities to conjure up and invent techniques of your own liking, rather than actions of racer intent.

Slatz, referred to the same subject of intent in movement in an other thread, intent and I agree with Slatz on this one, is more important then the result, as results are often misread and that’s what I think you are getting caught up in.

Why does everyone without a racing background, and out of touch with racers, want to analyze racers when the coaches who work with them everyday have difficulty analyzing racers? I think it has to do with a need for proving oneself to others. The aura of WC technique easily captures the neophyte’s imagination and makes the writer an instant authority in someone’s eyes, at least.
Fair enough, CL, and I'm sorry you don't believe that my ideas don't have merit. That's certainly your choice to do so.

However, in this case, since I have taught, operated ski schools, and trained ski instructors for forty seasons, I believe the comparisons apply, and I know they benefit skiers as I use them.

And I agree with you that many people do misrepresent racing.

However, it is not accurate that I don't have a racing background. You asked me about my credentials as a coach. I said I didn't have any. That does not mean I don't have experience. I raced for about 10 years as a junior, both here and in high school in Switzerland. (I was very slow.) I have had coaching in my skiing and in racing from various great ski racers and coaches. I've been in clinics with Steve Mahre, Loris Werner, Andy Mills, Bill Shaw, Otto Tschudi, Stephen Hienzch, Tyler Palmer, Terry Palmer, Doug Woodcock, Alain Veith, Mark Tache, and many others. I achieved my level 1 coaches certificate in New Zealand (with Lester Keller). And most importantly, and more recently, I have watched and listened extensively to the coaching of Casey Puckett when one of my kids was racing under his tutelage. I am also in fairly frequent contact personally with Ron LeMaster, who was kind enough to supply photos for my book. I have also hired and fired coaches and listened at length to their disagreements.

Furthermore, a lot of the coaches I've seen work with racers every day can be pretty lame. I've seen movement analysis by coaches that are just appallingly shallow and useless. I've seen others along side race courses calling up information to the top that is not only undecipherable but often inaccurate. (Of course, I've seen others who are magnificent.)

I will not claim to be right, nor that I've interpreted everything I've seen or heard correctly. I have been wrong about much in my life and career. Sometimes I seemed right but was proved wrong later, and sometimes the reverse. However, your presumption that I'm out of touch with racing, a neophyte, and an instant authority is a bit off the mark. And I certainly will lay a claim to being open minded.

But I agree with you about intent.

And I promise all the participants of epicski that this is the absolute last time I will ever play the ancient teacher card on this forum.

Time for me to slip away from this thread with apologies to Bonni and another promise that I won't get suckered into this kind of stuff again!:
Even though it's been fun.
post #68 of 175
i want to share my disgust with carv lust in blowing up a thread meant for civil discussion at a simple level, why do people have to have their petty arguement and ruin this for the ones who really enjoyed it. you are being so selfish to make some vague point and push a much respected teacher from this thread. on behalf of Bonni and others who were thrilled to have taken part in these , until now ,civil and intelligent discussions. Does it please you to have blown this up .? I am very upset such blatent disrespect can ruin this for, for one Bonni, for two; me and many others. I want to thank Weems for his thoughtful responses and i am very sad this has come to pass.
post #69 of 175
Thread Starter 
Whoa. Hang on. I appreciate your concern, GarryZ. But both Carv Lust and I were guilty of letting our egos get involved. (me at least in terms of worrying so much about my own creds!) And then we got down to goin' back and forth. I don't feel that anyone was uncivil though. Testy, maybe, but that's not the same as flaming.

And my dropping out of this is more about getting back to simple in the next one, while not beating this horse to death. I won't get suckered into defense of a position like that in a thread like this.

However, having said that, I appreciated the challenge offered by CL and Big E as they made me think a lot about the issue. And for sure, I have no fear of being called wrong. It goes with the territory of stating your opinion.

We've just all got to learn how to switch threads and start new ones when it is appropriate.

But thanks for your support. It feels good to be trusted.
post #70 of 175
thanks Weems , you guys did seem to tear into each other and i was disappointed with the outcome. I don't like it when good people get tired of the negativity. Skiing isn't an arguement it is what we love and wish to share with others. .We can disagree and still be civil.
i look forward to your input inthe future and the possibility of meeting you in the future. Yeah i skied some goofy snow last weekend too and i sucked but i love it so and iam gonna go suck some more this weekend and enjoy every minute of it.
post #71 of 175
Thread Starter 
Good on ya, Garry. You know people have been jawing about their technical disagreements since before I was born. I remember the tech wars between Winter Park and Arapahoe--one liked reverse shoulder and the other advocated Arlberg. We all get riled up about our opinions and passions. But yeah, civil is good. It is always disappointing for me to feel antagonism. Some people thrive on it and call it a lively debate. I'm a little less comfortable with that, but I more or less know how to do it.

Where is Liberty Lake? I might be driving my motorcycle out to Seattle in a month. I'm lookin' at a route across the north part--along rt 20. We might meet sooner than you think.
post #72 of 175
Well, it was fun while it lasted. I have no interest in reading carv lust's ripping on Weems, since it was Weems who helped skyrocket my skiing into another dimension 3 years ago in Utah when he 'coached' me out of a wedge and into another phase of skiing. Now he's having to defend himself and his credentials, without anything resembling a resume from carv lust.

I highly respect Weems and his simplicity for teaching is exactly what I need. It's at this level that we are talking: not racing level.....Intermediate level.

Start a racing thread if you want to talk racing, please.

This is why I never contribute to the instruction threads. Each time, some wiseacre who knows it all rips into someone who is fairly well established and respected for their skills and achievements, and it ruins the fun.

The name of this thread is KISS........KEEP IT SIMPLE, STUPID. Can't we do that without the pissing match?: :
post #73 of 175
it is on I90 west of coeur d'alene and before spokane. keep a goin and you go over the columbia river and on to Seattle. I see alot of MC folks taking this trip . very scenic
post #74 of 175
Thread Starter 
yep, Bonni. We'll do that (and I'm just as guilty of getting techy here).

What we've learned is that next time, we can start another thread on the material. It can be done very neat and fast. This has been a good exercise for us so we can keep the simpler threads useful.

And it's totally fair for people to argue against my point of view. Everybody has a right to be wrong!
post #75 of 175
I’m sorry; I didn’t know I was intruding on a mutual admiration society. I relate to substance and go by merit of discussion and intellectual content, when this becomes a religion and we have a new messiah, I bow out, that’s over my head.

If you can’t take logical, straight forward, discussion and exchanges, you’ll be more inclined to watch and follow Sesame Street. Weems has been a gentleman and a trooper, rising to the challenge. I think he enjoys being challenged.

I respect Weems for his candor and he makes good points. I don’t think he has tremendous racing expertise, so I state simply, Weems you are better placed serving skiers who want PSIA, from a PSIA guru, rather then trying to be a ski racing analyst.

When did someone expressing opinions on Epic become wrong? I guess, if you confront the wrong guy, it could be taken as insulting!!!!
post #76 of 175
carv_lust, your comments about weems earlier in this thread actually were inappropriate from the perspective of the Terms of EpicSki. I have let them stand here at this time because they have been responded to, and removing them would not serve the continuity of this thread.

That said, future attacks on credibility such as those in this thread will be moderated. For you to attack someone who is known and clearly identified from a position of anonymity is inappropriate at best.

Expressing opinions about technique is appropriate. Expressing opinions about individuals, in general, is not.
post #77 of 175
I am sorry that you feel my sincere, honest, to the point evaluation of an individual's abilities as a ski racing commentator rates deleting, when on this very forum I have read volumes of blatant, outright character assassination by your bullies on this so called cleansed forum. I did not assassinate anyone's character, I made analogies, and they were not derogatory. They were not directed toward anyone in particular, the statement was a generalization, I think you miss undertood or miss read it.

As I stated in my deleted post, I guess on this forum at least, it depends on who you confront. So much for equal, freedom of speech, Ssh you are playing the “Lord of the Rings” role.

Go ahead, I expect to be banned for expressing my opinions about your bias in restricting rights, you look aside when others abuse their privileges. Let me know when you apply equal and fair rights of freedom of speech, to non-gurus on this forum. Go ahead delete this, “You can’t handle the truth!”
post #78 of 175
“You can’t handle the truth!”[/quote]Jack Nicholson, A Few Good Men
post #79 of 175
Right on Garry, very few. The thread max posted, I was asking about has been banished to the back threads. It makes total sense, travel, yes max did travel to Colorado to ski with HH. Good selection.
post #80 of 175
i read that. he had a really cool opportunity.great for him to get such up close and personal coaching and equiptment help from such an admired coach
post #81 of 175
Again, I've been dissed in the instruction threads. Terms like "mutual admiration society", "messiah", etc. are just polite slams.

Having had the opportunity to work on my skiing with Weems for 4 days and having him here to discuss things on my terms (non techy) is part of the reason ESA is such a good thing. Your coaching doesn't end. You can still talk to your coach.

I don't know carv lust from Adam. I don't want to research his credentials by reading every post of his. Nothing is in his profile. Yet here he is, picking on one comment till it drives the real discussion into the ground. Now it's devolved into an issue of freedom of speech......Puhleeze!!! It's unnecessary to the discussion at hand. Get over it.

I'm no longer willing to keep trying to participate in the instruction threads when this kind of crap is going on. I know Weems to be sincere, I respect him, and he's trying to bring the discussion back on track, which is admirable.

Start another thread, please.
post #82 of 175
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by carv_lust
I’m sorry; I didn’t know I was intruding on a mutual admiration society. I relate to substance and go by merit of discussion and intellectual content, when this becomes a religion and we have a new messiah, I bow out, that’s over my head.

If you can’t take logical, straight forward, discussion and exchanges, you’ll be more inclined to watch and follow Sesame Street. Weems has been a gentleman and a trooper, rising to the challenge. I think he enjoys being challenged.

I respect Weems for his candor and he makes good points. I don’t think he has tremendous racing expertise, so I state simply, Weems you are better placed serving skiers who want PSIA, from a PSIA guru, rather then trying to be a ski racing analyst.

When did someone expressing opinions on Epic become wrong? I guess, if you confront the wrong guy, it could be taken as insulting!!!!
I don't mind being confronted or disagreed with, CL. And I despise guruism. It goes against my grain as a ski teacher, because in my work the student is the hero. However, it was unfair of us to kidnap Bonni's thread and make it a discussion about psia or my credentials (or yours?). And I also really prefer it when it's a real discussion rather than a credibility contest.

The next time you feel the need, invite me to a new thread and we can bounce around on that. Like right now: make the jump to a new thread called Weems doesn't race!
post #83 of 175
Sorry, Weems, and everyone reading. I get testy too......sometimes!

Carry on.
post #84 of 175
I took the time to read it. There is much in that post that I disagree with. We won't even bother addressing the straw man argument.

An earlier post:

Quote:
Originally Posted by weems
But mainly the make round, carved turns with their bodies aligned very efficiently so as to allow the best use of natural and muscular forces to bend the skis and drive the turns, creating both speed and control. This is the great lesson we as recreational skiers can always take from racers, and this is why we can look to them constantly for sound fundamental skiing.
Racers make round turns.

This post:

Quote:
Originally Posted by weems
In this sense a comma and a C both have an arc, and therefore both have that quality that I'm gonna fearlessly call roundness, based loosely on the radius of a turn created by pressure against a side cut.
Comma turns are round turns.:

Quote:
Originally Posted by weems
However, we can definitely agree that you are correct that the round turn that instructors and recreational skiers do is very different than that of racers.
Racer turns are not the same as recreational turns.

Well, which is it? The post has one leg firmly planted on they are the same since comma turns are round, and another leg planted firmly stating that they aren't the same.
post #85 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by carv_lust

As I stated in my deleted post, I guess on this forum at least, it depends on who you confront. So much for equal, freedom of speech, Ssh you are playing the “Lord of the Rings” role.

Go ahead, I expect to be banned for expressing my opinions about your bias in restricting rights, you look aside when others abuse their privileges. Let me know when you apply equal and fair rights of freedom of speech, to non-gurus on this forum. Go ahead delete this, “You can’t handle the truth!”
yeah......i hate it when that happens. if you really want freedom of speech hop the berlin wall and head over to fakeskiers. you can say anything you want there as long as you bring pleasure to the gnome in the speed suit.
post #86 of 175
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE
I took the time to read it. There is much in that post that I disagree with. We won't even bother addressing the straw man argument.


Comma turns are round turns.:


Racer turns are not the same as recreational turns.

Well, which is it? The post has one leg firmly planted on they are the same since comma turns are round, and another leg planted firmly stating that they aren't the same.
I think it's a matter of degree. I'm willing to give up the term round if it will contribute to the idea of understanding degrees of arc, and that arcs are desirable outcomes for both.


And yes, I have legs firmly planted in both points of view, as you say. I don't see them as mutually exclusive. This is a process I use called "holding polarity". You can read about it in my book! www.edgechange.com

I believe that race turns and rec turns have both similar and different elements. My students learn about their differences so they realize the parts that are not useful to emulate. They also learn about the similarities in order to use them to their benefit. Is this so wrong! Sob!:

What straw man argument? Clarify for me so I can correct myself. And I'm okay about us disagreeing. It won't be my first time!
post #87 of 175
I'm jumping on this thread late, and I haven't read all the posts. I'm not a good racer, but I free ski with one (My wife went to the USSA nationals 3 years in a row in college and didn't race her final year). She's one of the best skiers I know. Ask Bob P., Nolo or Dchan. They've skied with her.....

Anyway, as a "starting point" of discussion, I think there are two main differences between ski racing and free skiing. 1). In racing, you are not the master of where you make your turns (duh!). Therefore a lot of your turn shape is dictated by the placement of the gates, balanced by the need to go fast. As a result, round turns aren't always going to be the answer for a racer. Sometimes, but not always. 2). As Mr. Weems said, and I agree with, that there are similar movements (I think they are essentially the same) made between recreational skiers and racers. However, due to speed in the course, what IS different is the intensity of the movements made by the racers, which is generally greater than those made by rec. skiers. This is especially true when it comes to pressure control and edging movements, as the forces that build upon the skier are directly related to the speed of the skier. If you can make the moves at high speed, you can most likely make them at low speed, but not vice versa.

L
post #88 of 175
Thread Starter 
This is great, Lonnie. Can I recopy this post over onto the sequel, "weems doesn't race"? We're trying to separate to continue this conversation over there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lonnie
I'm jumping on this thread late, and I haven't read all the posts. I'm not a good racer, but I free ski with one (My wife went to the USSA nationals 3 years in a row in college and didn't race her final year). She's one of the best skiers I know. Ask Bob P., Nolo or Dchan. They've skied with her.....

Anyway, as a "starting point" of discussion, I think there are two main differences between ski racing and free skiing. 1). In racing, you are not the master of where you make your turns (duh!). Therefore a lot of your turn shape is dictated by the placement of the gates, balanced by the need to go fast. As a result, round turns aren't always going to be the answer for a racer. Sometimes, but not always. 2). As Mr. Weems said, and I agree with, that there are similar movements made between recreational skiers and racers. However, due to speed in the course, the intensity of the movements made by the racers is generally greater than those made by rec. skiers. This is especially true when it comes to pressure control and edging movements, as the forces that build upon the skier are directly related to the speed of the skier. If you can make the moves at high speed, you can most likely make them at low speed, but not vice versa.

L
post #89 of 175
Absolutely. I wasn't sure where to post is myself. Hang on and I'll do it.....

EDIT: DONE!

L
post #90 of 175
The straw man was built when it was implied that Brian Stemmle, being a commentator, was in some way equivalent to other commentators. The other commentators were shown to be buffoons, thereby discrediting Stemmle.

The other commentators are the straw man.

FWIW: Stemmle was very good, in that he actually compared the 'round turns' to those of the skiers that finished on the podium. His comparisons were bang on. This was in a race this year.

"Holding polarity" sounds a lot like "fence sitting" to me.

If I were to offer conflicting definitions to my students, they'd at best walk away only confused, at worst they'd be confused, think I'm being evasive to hide my incompetence.

I've had experience with teachers like that, and heard comments afterwards like this: Student A: "He contradicted himself! Which statement is right?" Student B: "I don't think even he knows."

That can't be a good thing.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching