or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

PMTS Camp at Hood - Page 2

post #31 of 254
Max,

Quote:
I don't see a lifted tail in this picture.
Ok, but it looks to me like there is a lot of space under the tail.

Quote:
There is no intentional leg rotation used. I don't think the knee is dropped in but who knows. I was just trying to survive the course while going as fast as I could.

I;ll buy that.

RW
post #32 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssh
The real questions in my mind are those movements that must be done (v. allowed) ...
Sounds like we are moving along a lot of the same paths with this. Particulary what I have found extremely interesting of late is the parallel idea of motor learning skiflex is discussing in the the other thread.

It's something that hit me like a hammer this summer when I decided to try and take up golf. With the golf swing being a movement you can analyze the hell out of, much like a ski turn, it is so easy to get the brain caught up trying to manipulate the movements. What ski flex would call eccentric movements I believe.

However, since the golf swing happens so fast from the moment of downsing initiation the brain is largely incapable of beneficially aiding its progress. If you want to highlight this point, just ask someone if they inhale or exhale on the downswing and watch them be incapable of making contact as they try and interrupt the motion long enough to figure it out. The best results come from establishing key positions and a simple intent which allows the body to connect the dots by itself. It appears that this is trying to maximize the centric movements.

To relate this back to the topic, it seems the common ground is trying to find the smallest set of inputs that allows the result to happen via the centric path. Allow the brain to setup the parameters, but let the body perform the motion unhindered or spend forever trying to polish and coordinate the inevitable timing disaster of trying to constrain the movement.

PMTS has one very clear input. Active tipping of the inside foot while keeping it back. The second is flexing to/through release. Counter is considered a polishing secondary movement I believe. The idea being that doing the first two allows the body, gravity, and technology to maximize their contribution.
post #33 of 254
Interesting, onyxjl, since my focus is certainly tipping the inside foot, as well. At times, I release by flexing, other times through other means. I enjoy playing with the options available to me by a skills focus. But, although it seems that the approaches are different, I wonder if we arrive at the same place through different means. Or if there is something more.
post #34 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssh
But, although it seems that the approaches are different, I wonder if we arrive at the same place through different means.
It would seem to me that if we are using two different approaches and getting back to the same outcome that we are really just dancing around the real cause which happens to be activated by both approaches.

Another point that is brought up often is that the approach one thinks they are taking and how the body is implementing that can often be two different things. Video review makes that fairly obvious.

The PMTS take on flexing to release appears to be that it is the real source of a good release and other methods are just trying to approximate the effects of that movement. Clearly, not everyone agrees.

I do think one of the key strengths of PMTS, as illustrated by Max's camp report, is the message is straight-forward and simple. Focus on doing these few things as well as you can do them and your skiing will improve. I think Max's earlier statement which Rusty Guy quoted is a fairly common sentiment amongst PMTS students.
post #35 of 254
onyxjl, I think there is a lot of wisdom wrapped in your post. And some of it is at the crux of the various debates over this topic that we've seen here over the years.

If two approaches get to the same objective, then one could argue that they are equal in stature to the reaching of that objective. There are arguments around efficacy that can be made for one to be "better" than the other, but those debates are often along the lines of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. What is worse is when one argues that the other is "bad" or "wrong" because it's "different". Especially in approach. Often in skiing, this has seemed to me to be the case, and generates a lot of heat with very little light.

I disagree that video always clarifies what people are doing versus what they think they are doing. For example, you may think you are gently lifting and tipping your inside foot and I may think that I am simply tipping mine while allowing my hips to move across my skis. On video we may look virtually identical. Two different cues, similar results. Even if we look vastly difference, uncovered the cause of that difference can be much more challenging than many realize. My current example of this is Bob Barnes showing me how the movement of my hand/arm early in a turn impacted what the skis were doing at the end of that turn. Others would have tried to adjust my feet/legs to fix the effect.

I find a doctrinal statement about a single "real source of a good release" to be anathema. There is an implication that there is only one way (or one "best" way) to release a ski in a turn. Given my experience (36 seasons), I find this to not match what happens on-snow. That is why elite skiers use cross-over, cross-under (flex to release, as I understand it), and various other combinations as conditions, terrain, and tactical restrictions (like gates) indicate.

It is very nice to be able to hand much of the analysis and cue development to a third party as Max's comment does. However, for those of us who find the pursuit of knowledge stimulating and who also desire to understand so that we can communicate with others (as an example, those here who spend their time and energy guiding others to better skiing), the limited information that this grants leaves great lack. It, combined with "this is the right way" kinds of statements, leave no room for alternatives and growth for those who have a different perspective. They also can seem to be excuses for leaving questions unanswered that are posed by comments that seem to not align. (Note: I am not saying that they are excuses. Only that they seem that way to those pursuing more information.)

Such comments are an appeal to authority that is not recognized by all as being authoritative, and thus doesn't help further the discussion.

I think this is further complicated by the fact that what people are asked to do, what they think they are doing, and what they are actually doing are often all different. This is why ski instructors exaggerate movements. This is also why I started the perception thread last fall.

The effect may be perceived to be good, but that doesn't mean that it is, that the approach works for everyone, or that the explanation and the actual action are the same. This is why there are so many questions around these ideas.

If one answer was obviously correct, don't you think that most reasonable people would recognize it and move on?
post #36 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLATZ
There IS more than one way to skin a cat

Ultimatly, in my mind, there is no "debate". Good skiing is good skiing no matter what model you choose to use. Harald's model most closely resembles top racers but that's where he got his ideas in the first place. Not everyone likes the same artwork.
I asked Max for a PM on this camp because I thought he'd just avoid the controvery on this board. Instead we got all this good discussion. Max deserves some sort of award.

I'm glad to see there is some movement away from absolutes. I remember reading about someone skiing some breakable crud with Ingemar Stenmark. He dealt with it with a powerful heel push. I was blown away that the man who practically invented carving used a heel push.

Many these elements that are discussed argued about here are good tools in the right time and place. Harold echews up motion, rotary motion, weight on the uphill ski, and wide stances. I can find example of World Cup races being won with all those tools, but at the same time, one has to admit if you can do it Harold's way the result can be one wicked carve.

Bode Miller won a Wold Cup GS by two seconds once and said he carved all the left turns and skiidded all the right turns. The carved turns generated speed, the skidded ones shortened the line.

Learn all the tools and you've got one heck of a skier!
post #37 of 254
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by newfydog
I asked Max for a PM on this camp because I thought he'd just avoid the controvery on this board. Instead we got all this good discussion. Max deserves some sort of award.
Glad to be of service...You can buy me a beer the next time I see you!

Quote:
Originally Posted by newfydog
Harold echews up motion, rotary motion, weight on the uphill ski, and wide stances.
Just a point of clarification here. In the earlier stages of PMTS weight is kept mainly on the outside ski. But as you progress you learn to carry as much weight as needed on either ski at any time.
post #38 of 254
Ssh, I really don't have anything to add to the majority of your last post as I think it has really captured the essence of the discussion very well. I would like to take two quotes from your last post and examine their interaction though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ssh
If one answer was obviously correct, don't you think that most reasonable people would recognize it and move on?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssh
I think this is further complicated by the fact that what people are asked to do, what they think they are doing, and what they are actually doing are often all different.
If we keep the word obvious in the first post, then yes I agree. However, I don't think we are dealing with obvious answers and the second quote is the reason why.

Good movements take lots and lots repetition before it becomes something the body is coordinated with. I could tell you that actively tipping your inside foot will improve your skiing. However, as you are learning this movement your results won't necessarily reflect that immediately. I know I've launched myself head first into the snow by following instruction to incorporate a down and across movement in transition.

It's a difficult cycle. You are given advice that is supposed to help, the results don't reflect that, so you search for more advice. Since many people never invest the effort to own the movements and fully integrate them, they never realize the benefit. You can get better results with a less efficient but coordinated movement than you can with an efficient but uncoordinated one even though the prior may be ultimately limiting your development.
post #39 of 254
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by onyxjl
You can get better results with a less efficient but coordinated movement than you can with an efficient but uncoordinated one even though the prior may be ultimately limiting your development.
That's an interesting take on things. Can you have an efficient but uncoordinated movement? It would seem that to be efficient it would have to be coordinated as well. I'm probably over analyzing it.
post #40 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max_501
Just a point of clarification here. In the earlier stages of PMTS weight is kept mainly on the outside ski. But as you progress you learn to carry as much weight as needed on either ski at any time.
why not teach students that from the outset?
post #41 of 254
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusty Guy
why not teach students that from the outset?
I"m a student not a teacher. I just wanted to clarify a previous comment that is a common misconception.
post #42 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusty Guy
why not teach students that from the outset?
Several possible reasons come to mind (I have nothing to do with PMTS):

* First and foremost, perhaps the guy who came up with the teaching method thinks that's the best way to do it. You (or I) might not like it, but he's perfectly within his rights to decide he feels that's the best progression and that's how he wants to teach it.

* Perhaps Harald feels it's the better way to get the student to the end result. Personally and intuitively, I think it's easier to move gradually in drills from a position that's primarily balanced on the outside ski to one balanced on both skis rather than vice versa.

* The more pressure there is on a given ski, the easier it is to bend that ski into a carve. If one ultimate goal of PMTS is to help the student experience and understand carving, then it seems to me that starting from a pressured outside ski may get the student there faster.

Just some theories.

Absolutely great thread, Max. Props to you AND to those who often line up on the other side of the "fence". This has been a really, really good discussion.
post #43 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusty Guy
why not teach students that from the outset?
I believe the reason is to free up focus on the inside foot to just tipping. You stand on the stance foot and tip the free foot. It's much harder to tip a foot you are standing on. It's a simple doctrine and easy to practice.

Once the student gains mastery over the individual movements they begin to work on integrating and interchanging them as needed.
post #44 of 254
Some of the kids at my school have those little plastic toy skateboards, about 3 inches long that they play with. I wonder if little toy plastic skis would help people understand carving.
post #45 of 254
He didn't tell you because he knew it would upset you and he didn't he didn't want you to be upset. It's the same reason he didn't tell you about that...er um. Never mind...
post #46 of 254
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost
He didn't tell you because he knew it would upset you and he didn't he didn't want you to be upset. It's the same reason he didn't tell you about that...er um. Never mind...
OK, I'm guessing there is a joke here but I'm missing it. Do tell please!
post #47 of 254
Holy crossed posts Batman! That posts belongs in the why Yuki's kid didn't tell him about the ski bag and jacket damage. I don't know how it got here:
post #48 of 254
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost
Holy crossed posts Batman! That posts belongs in the why Yuki's kid didn't tell him about the ski bag and jacket damage. I don't know how it got here:
lol, you should have seen me scratching my head trying to figure out what the punch line was...
post #49 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssh
If one answer was obviously correct, don't you think that most reasonable people would recognize it and move on?
Not really. People (including instructors ) operate from a basis of models, perceptions, and indoctrinations that may not allow the reconition of a "best" answer. I'm not arguing that there is a "best" answer, only that if there is one not everyone is going to recognize it, even if they are "reasonable."
post #50 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by onyxjl
You can get better results with a less efficient but coordinated movement than you can with an efficient but uncoordinated one even though the prior may be ultimately limiting your development.
This is a very interesting statement. I am not sure what you mean by the word "coordinated" in it, since it could mean any of a number of things in this context. Could you clarify your intent, please?

Again, I think that this opens up a new and potentially fascinating line of inquiry. But, we'll have to understand our terms first. While you're at it, let's make sure that "efficient" and "movement" and "development" are defined, as well? What do you mean by those things in this statement?
post #51 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Si
Not really. People (including instructors ) operate from a basis of models, perceptions, and indoctrinations that may not allow the reconition of a "best" answer. I'm not arguing that there is a "best" answer, only that if there is one not everyone is going to recognize it, even if they are "reasonable."
I very specifically and purposely did not say "Everyone." There are some who are so bought in to a particular paradigm that they won't see truth if it ran across their skis. However, I do not believe that the vast majority of committed skiers (or even ski teachers) fit that mold. In fact, all of the high-level skiers and ski teachers that I have met gladly change and grow as they learn new approaches and concepts.

So, I'll say it again: if one answer is obviously correct, don't you think most reasonable people would recognize it and move on?

To not do so is to say that there is something so all-encompassing about a paradigm that truth cannot get through or to say that there is sufficient disingenuity within a class of people that they have no interest in truth that forces a change.

I find neither the case within the context of this conversation.
post #52 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Si
If you include joint rotation in your definition of "rotary movements" I under stand your comment in the last paragraph but it's an obvious point that I haven't seen anyone argue. However, if you are talking about actively rotating or steering the skis (applying a twisting torque to the ski in the plane of the ski), as Max has defined steering, then I don't understand your point of view. Given that you were responding to Max I would hope you could use the same definition he used.
Si,

This I think is the biggest problem with the term and use of rotary/steering/etc. Everyone has a different idea of what it means.

Rotary movements happen around many planes. Defining what plane you are talking about will make a huge difference in the outcome of a discussion.

The whole process and question asking along with my thinking was to clarify what Max was defining as steering and so we are clear on what we define as steering or rotary movements
post #53 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssh
Could you clarify your intent, please?

Again, I think that this opens up a new and potentially fascinating line of inquiry. But, we'll have to understand our terms first. While you're at it, let's make sure that "efficient" and "movement" and "development" are defined, as well? What do you mean by those things in this statement?
I can give it a try.

Efficiency is accomplishing an intent through the least amount of effort. Movements are actions used to satisfy an intent. Development is the process of improvement by which one reaches their goal.

To give a recent example, I played a round of golf with a friend and his father. The friend has a very efficient swing with few compensating movements. It closely matches an ideal golf swing. The father has many compensating movements in his swing and would be considered inefficient.

The father golfs every week and as a result has a good polishing on the compensating movements. He executes his swing consistently and makes regular contact with the ball. However, because he is not using movements which best utilize the kinetic chain, the accuracy and distance he gets on the shots is average.

The friend, from lack of recent play, does not always execute his swing correctly. However, because he is using more efficient movements, when he executes correctly he gets good distance and accuracy on his shots.

Both of them shot nearly identical scores on that day. From past history I know that my friend, if he were to play regularly and regain his swing execution, will drop his score quickly. The father, on the other hand, has been playing with the same score for years.

The father, if he were to try and eliminate the blocking movements in his swing and replace them with more efficient movements, will likely see his score worsen in the short run. He will not have integrated the new movements into his swing and will not execute them accurately. After this period though it is likely that his score would improve.

So while in the long run the father would be better off to integrate the new movement pattern, it would be a bad idea to do this right before a betting match since his existing swing will score better despite its lower maximum potential.
post #54 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssh
I very specifically and purposely did not say "Everyone." There are some who are so bought in to a particular paradigm that they won't see truth if it ran across their skis. However, I do not believe that the vast majority of committed skiers (or even ski teachers) fit that mold. In fact, all of the high-level skiers and ski teachers that I have met gladly change and grow as they learn new approaches and concepts.

So, I'll say it again: if one answer is obviously correct, don't you think most reasonable people would recognize it and move on?

To not do so is to say that there is something so all-encompassing about a paradigm that truth cannot get through or to say that there is sufficient disingenuity within a class of people that they have no interest in truth that forces a change.

I find neither the case within the context of this conversation.

No. Don't you remeber the conversations we had over on Paragon? There are many reasons why the truth fails to be recognized Steve. You know that of course. Some reasons are innocent and some not so innocent. This particular subject seems to always elicit too much posturing, viewpoints, and too much subjective truths.

For me at this point, to deny any validity to PMTS is to deny whole body movement. Now, I in no way mean that this is the only way to elicit effective whole body movement in skiing, but I think it is one way.

I still miss that learning enviroment we had at paragon to this day. Later, ricB.
post #55 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssh
I very specifically and purposely did not say "Everyone." There are some who are so bought in to a particular paradigm that they won't see truth if it ran across their skis. However, I do not believe that the vast majority of committed skiers (or even ski teachers) fit that mold. In fact, all of the high-level skiers and ski teachers that I have met gladly change and grow as they learn new approaches and concepts.

So, I'll say it again: if one answer is obviously correct, don't you think most reasonable people would recognize it and move on?

To not do so is to say that there is something so all-encompassing about a paradigm that truth cannot get through or to say that there is sufficient disingenuity within a class of people that they have no interest in truth that forces a change.

I find neither the case within the context of this conversation.

Steve,

"Everyone" was not the point of my comment. Replace it with most and I still stand by what I said. There are many people here at epic who come off at being quite reasonable (but not everyone ). However, that doesn't mean they don't carry a strong bias in terms of their ideas, perceptions, and interpretations of ski movements. Based on what I read in the Instructional Forum, I think that the model (or even something as simple as a definition of terms) under which people operate often keeps many of them from recognizing some obvious things.

I remember you describing your perception that steering (applying a rotary torque to the ski in the plane of the ski) doesn't necessarily have to pivot a ski but rather can be used to dig the tip in and bend it to help tighten a turn. It was an enlightening comment to me as first I had doubt whether the effect of that would be functional at all; second I wondered that even if there was a functional effect, would it be more efficient in tightening a turn than just working to increase the tipping angle?; and finally I wondered if my skiing experience just didn't allow me to experience and understand the effect you described. Whatever the "truth" is, it's clear that our perceptions of some of the effects of ski movements are different and that what I might consider to be obvious truth you might not, and vice versa.
post #56 of 254
Excellent point onyxjl, and I agree. We see this constantly in sports, or any activity for that matter. Kinda of the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" thinking. Most of us have alot invested in how we do things, and stepping back our performance, for future improvement down the road is something not every wants to do. This is a big eye opener for most rookie instructors, even those with great skiing skills. I know it was for me.

There some who approach everything they do with a desire to travel towards refinement, and some activities are premeised on this. Tai chi chaun is one such activity, and skiing can be one, but does not require it. I don't play golf, but I would guess that it parallels skiing in this respect.

Thsi can be kinda of a dilema for instructors when it comes to our students and how much to encourage/demand. The ole push/pull question. the last couple of years, I have found myself using the word personal disapline more and more in the context of change and practice. Later, RicB.
post #57 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by dchan
Si,

This I think is the biggest problem with the term and use of rotary/steering/etc. Everyone has a different idea of what it means.

Rotary movements happen around many planes. Defining what plane you are talking about will make a huge difference in the outcome of a discussion.

The whole process and question asking along with my thinking was to clarify what Max was defining as steering and so we are clear on what we define as steering or rotary movements
David,

I think that Max's definition of steering early on in his response to Bob Barnes was pretty clear:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Max 501
My definition of steering is any active rotary movement to the inside of the turn that causes the skis to rotate in the direction of the turn. I suppose its possible to steer the skis from the feet, knees, hips, or upper body. In PMTS the skis turn as a function of the primary movements none of which are active rotation.
I think that comments about joint rotation just confuses things as they may or may not lead to a rotary torque being applied to the ski in the plane of the ski (which I believe is what most people here are referring to with the use of the term steering).
post #58 of 254
Simpler yet, we may adopt "steering is any torque applied in the plane of the ski that causes the ski to rotate or pivot in the plane of the ski" , and leave rotary out of the question. I think the key misunderstanding for a lot of people is the "causes the ski to rotate". The argument on one side seems to be against steering, and rotary comes into the fight because it is so good at causing steering.

I would not be surprised if the non-instructing skiers do not know what steering is. I myself, before encountering this forum thought of my own skiing as "steering" when I was tipping the ski on edge. I likened turning my skis on edge to turning the steering wheel in a car. To me this steering was preferable to "muscling" the ski around using what everybody else on this forum called steering.
post #59 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost
I would not be surprised if the non-instructing skiers do not know what steering is. I myself, before encountering this forum thought of my own skiing as "steering" when I was tipping the ski on edge. I likened turning my skis on edge to turning the steering wheel in a car. To me this steering was preferable to "muscling" the ski around using what everybody else on this forum called steering.
You and me both, Ghost.

When I first heard the term "steering" applied to a ski turn, I assumed it to be any action or motion at all that might alter the direction or radius of a turn. To ME, that could mean raising/dropping the hip to change the angles, flexing/extending the ankles, knees, or hips to change the pressure, OR rotating the femur(s) into/out from the hill, OR displacing the tip or tail to intentionally introduce a skid.

To me, all of those would be "steering" the skis and I couldn't figure out what the h*ll was wrong with that. I couldn't figure out how anybody COULD alter the course of a carving pair of skis WITHOUT "steering".

I've gradually come to believe (someone please correct me if I've still got it wrong) that the PMTS definition of "steering" is much more specific than my own. The explanation of "rotary" as moving the ski sideways in the plane of the ski makes more sense to me. Given that, I can see where if you equate "steering" with that specific definition of "rotary", then steering movements could be a bad thing if you're trying to teach good skiing.

Whew.
post #60 of 254
Thread Starter 
I waited until I jumped on my carvers to comment on the following.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dchan
The inside ski must travel through a shorter radius turn.
Why is this? I'm trying to picture it but I must be missing something.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dchan
In order to turn your body actively to any place in your turn you have to apply some rotary input. It might not be an active "steer/rotate" of the femurs in the hip socket that would cause the skis to skid but in order to control where the upper body is you will need to apply some sort of "steering".
As I've defined steering earlier in the thread there isn't any steering used. Of course there is counter rotation which is a well known PMTS secondary movement. It moves the upper body in the opposite direction of the turn so those forces don't have a steering effect on the skis during the turn.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching