New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What's the diff? - Page 3

post #61 of 74
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RicB View Post
If the pressure doesn't move towards the heel then the ankle would have to be extending or plantar flexing.
IMO, it will move towards the heel very shortly after.
post #62 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick View Post
Imagine: a group of adults who are enthusiastic about devoting themselves to the goal of becoming great skiers,,, joining a team of similarly minded people who for the entire season come out a couple/few days a week to train with a top notch coach and develop a skill/foundation base that's known, possessed and understood by very few others in the sport.

I picture it structured like a race team, only designed for adults who will develop the same broad based set of foundation skills racers learn, and use them not to win races, but to ski the entire mountain in a whole new way, with utter confidence and competence.
We have a loose version of this at Bachelor with a bunch of us skiing whenever we can. We lack a real coach but a few of the guys are masters racers and a couple of us are ski techie dweebs so there is plenty of discussion on technique. Definitely makes for fun days on the hill.
post #63 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max_501 View Post
We have a loose version of this at Bachelor with a bunch of us skiing whenever we can. We lack a real coach but a few of the guys are masters racers and a couple of us are ski techie dweebs so there is plenty of discussion on technique. Definitely makes for fun days on the hill.
Sounds good, Max. Now, just imagine if that same group had HH there coaching them every single time they met. Just gives ya goose bumps to think about, don't it?
post #64 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by hemingway View Post
Rick:
I am not sure of your "confirmed suspicions" preceding your barrage of leading questions.
Sarcasm becomes none of us.
I need not spend any time sharing ideas on this excellent forum to inure of sarcasm.

Hem
Leading questions? Sarcasm? You're way out in left field, Hem.

The suspicions thing was totally unrelated to this technical topic (thus my dismissal of the subject), and the questions I posed were totally sincere and presented in the interest of technical discussion. Wasn't out to trap you, just looking for clarification of what you were saying.

Still,,, your aggressive, defensive, avoidance response to detailed questioning is telling to me.
post #65 of 74
Difference in racer vs. recreational turns?

Racers, general skiers, instructors, mogul competitors all execute a wide variety of turn types, shapes, speeds and radii. Sure, each class of skier narrows their focus based on their own Intent (and their own current understanding of technique) but in my view there is no ever-present ‘difference’ other than Intent.

I see it as rather pointless to specify that one class of skier activity is always and universally skied with … more skidded, or more carved, or more round, or more squashed rhombo-hexagonal-dodecahedron, or more whatever… turns. Intent in the moment drives the precise turn technique we employ for a given condition and task du jour. Every nook and subdivision throughout the skiing realm brings about a continuing development of optimized techniques suited to that niche. Talking about 'differences' is just talking about optimizations.

---
Hem… (Late to the thread & just catching up on things. )

Can a ‘Top’ free-skiing instructor ‘fall apart’ in a rutted, arrhythmic course? Sure. Can a ‘Top’ ski racer ‘fall apart’ in bumps or powder or crud? Sure. Can a ‘Top’ mogul competitor ‘fall apart’ … during a major bumps competition doing what they always do day in, day out? Sure.

Seems a silly question to ask unless one desires to aggrandize a particular class of skier against all others. Anyone can ‘fall apart’, anywhere, any time.

Still, highly capable skiers tend not to fall apart regardless what conditions, terrain or task you put them to. Perhaps a good question for the Deb Armstrong podcast would be to get her take on her transition from Pro Racer to Ski Instructor. Seems I read something from her along those lines long ago. Well worth a regurgitation. Intent drives what we choose to learn but when we change intent.... not a big deal to learn new things to match our new intent. Just takes an effort.

Maximizing a particular Intent will drive development of a particular skill set. Put a person on a mountain with nothing but bumps and you’ll eventually get a highly skilled bump skier. On never ending Ice, a great Ice skier. Powder? Same deal.

Do Swimmers and Skiers have very different skill sets? Why sure. Golly. (although… consider Really Deep Powder Skiers… they might need a snorkel at times) But skiing down a race course vs. skiing down that same hill without gates? Not that much of a difference in core skill sets. Certainly some skill optimization to ski it faster (the Racer's task intent). But what of a fast skier who doesn't race on the same hill?

Analogies are great, but does a Kickboxer Class have exclusive ownership of lethal skill? What of the high-kicking Chorus Girl who knows self-defense? I see no exclusionary principle to class ownership of any particular skill. And certainly not in skiing.

The sidewalls of a race-rut are pretty fun to ride along. Kinda challenging to cross them at odd angles though. I found that ‘running the ruts’ way easier than trying to hold an edge without them. Almost effortless. And fast! Just a lot of G-force to tolerate.

Knowing when to ski a rut (or not to) is no different than knowing when to ski the troughs or tops in a bump field. Or when to ski the powder with bounding turns or consistent depth - or to ski the underlying firm layer.

Knowing when to choose a particular tactic (or not) *is not* an exclusionary ‘skill’ to ski racing. The ability to make effective tactical choices (in any endeavor) is just a matter of experiential exploration of that endeavor. Tactical competence will develop to whatever degree we seek. Comparing ski-racers vs. recreational skiers is not comparing ‘skier types’ - it’s just comparing skier Intents. And intent breeds those very optimizations we so love to debate on Epic.

---
On the Innate Skills thing, I disagree wholly that anyone is ‘born’ to anything. Any person… at any time; from any class; at any age; from any past occupation… can easily excel at any new undertaking - and far exceed the expectations of anyone who believes them incapable or ill-suited to that new undertaking. I know this undeniably.

Great ski instructors, great skiers, great racers, great ‘people’ are never born to it - they develop into greatness in their own way, and through their own efforts. They may do so quickly, or over a great length of time. They may excel with mentoring and training - or they may excel only when left alone to evolve on their own. Greatness in anything does not require ‘many long years’ or superlative external assistance - it only requires dedication and determination. It requires strictly internal resources.

.ma

PS: I politely second the request for more detail on the 'dynamic-knee-drive' movement pattern. Lots of good ideas show up on these forums but we need to understand exactly what they entail to evaluate them.

Hem, can you provide some detail on the mechanical and/or biomechanical specifics? Enough to actually execute the move?
post #66 of 74
Two scenarios: big, outside ski dominant turn through bumps, and variable, funky crud. Racer or strong ex-racer and high-level instructor who's never raced ski both on midfats with some metal in them, say Line Propet 90s. Odds are the racer rips the bumps and makes it look easy, whereas the isntructor hangs on and makes it look scary. Racer tries to bull through the crud, gets physically more tired and maybe tossed a few times. Instructor is lighter on his or her feet, doesn't look as powerful but doesn't get as tired, get knocked off balance as much and probably falls less.

What their femurs are up to in the meanwhile I have no idea and am not really sure I want to know.
post #67 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick View Post
Leading questions? Sarcasm? You're way out in left field, Hem.

Still,,, your aggressive, defensive, avoidance response to detailed questioning is telling to me.
"Telling"?

Please show me where I have posted any aggressive, defensive avoidance to detailed questioning, and further explain what this trait which you describe is "telling".

I will not sit idly by while you post vague accusations.

Did I insult you in some other post?

I am baffled both by your statements and your intention.

Evenings I am reviewing papers while occasionally reading this website, and can only respond to so many questions; I can also spot a loaded, pointed question.

Perhaps I should devote all of my evening time to reviewing student work so as not to incite any more subtle vitriol from your corner.

I, for one, have had no designs on your status here on Epicksi, Rick.

Until you bring forth exactly (and with proof) what it is that you are accusing me of doing, I will not encumber epicski with another sentence.

Thank You
Hem
post #68 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by hemingway View Post
Please show me where I have posted any aggressive, defensive avoidance to detailed questioning, and further explain what this trait which you describe is "telling".

I will not sit idly by while you post vague accusations.

Did I insult you in some other post?

I am baffled both by your statements and your intention.

Thank You
Hem
Hem, aggressive, defensive, avoidance because you chose to blow off (avoidance) my well meaning questions by way of a public statement accusing me of sarcasm and ulterior intent in "leading questions" (defensive, aggressive).

You're only baffled by my statements because of your misguided interpretation of my intentions. My intentions were sincere, and I spent a bit of time on that post presenting you with questions that I felt could help you further explain the technique you were presenting. They were the type of questions I would have appreciated if I were attempting to introduce a new idea, for they would have provided me the opportunity to offer further detail, thereby connecting with a broader audience.

And no, you never insulted me in prior posts. I've always enjoyed your past posting, and if you remember have even complimented them. But your post in this thread was a different story. Your personally accusatory response to my sincere post was a surprise and not appreciated.
post #69 of 74
Rick:

Please.
I deal with young people of various degrees of angst, daily.
Many of them also attempt to "turn the tables" when confronted about unfounded accusation.

This statement, coming as it did, on the heels of your "confirmed suspicions":

"Still,,, your aggressive, defensive, avoidance response to detailed questioning is telling to me"

Is blatantly accusatory.

"Telling" to you, how?

I would appreciate the courtesy of a direct and comprehensive answer.

I fail to see where I have been anything less than forthright and congenial in my participation on Epicski.

Should any member view my participation differently, please advise.

Thank You
Hem
post #70 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by hemingway View Post
Rick:


This statement, coming as it did, on the heels of your "confirmed suspicions":

"Still,,, your aggressive, defensive, avoidance response to detailed questioning is telling to me"

Is blatantly accusatory.

"Telling" to you, how?

I would appreciate the courtesy of a direct and comprehensive answer.
Thank You
Hem
Why certainly, Hem, my pleasure. You've been exceedingly courteous to me in this thread, and deserve to have that courtesy reciprocated. :

My experience has been that people who receive in-depth questions about a subject they're discussing, and have a firm grasp of, are more than happy to address those questions. Those who are just blowing smoke avoid such questions like the plague, and use many creative strategies to facilitate that avoidance. Your manner of dealing with my questions caused me to wonder if the reason you blew them off was that perhaps you fall into category 2 on this topic.

Your welcome,
RICK
post #71 of 74
Had my first experience going down a Masters Super G course and noticed all the skiers on the top steep icy part of the course did a skidded rotational turn into the first few gates and progressed to carving on the gentler softer part of the course. So I am guessing here that on a Super G race course attempting to carve on on icey steep slopes is not something that is risked by most (Masters) racers. As the others did not risk carving at the top I did not attempt it either.
post #72 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cassina View Post
Had my first experience going down a Masters Super G course and noticed all the skiers on the top steep icy part of the course did a skidded rotational turn into the first few gates and progressed to carving on the gentler softer part of the course. So I am guessing here that on a Super G race course attempting to carve on on icey steep slopes is not something that is risked by most (Masters) racers. As the others did not risk carving at the top I did not attempt it either.
Maybe they thought they were going fast enough without carving those turns. Not having the time to stand around and wait for my turn, I've never raced, but IMHO you need to make as much speed as you can right off the bat and carry it. Of course, if that much speed puts you off the course, you have to go slower, and scrubbing a corner will do that for you. Did you get any training runs on it to determine if you could have gone faster on those turns without risking too much?
post #73 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
Maybe they thought they were going fast enough without carving those turns. Not having the time to stand around and wait for my turn, I've never raced, but IMHO you need to make as much speed as you can right off the bat and carry it. Of course, if that much speed puts you off the course, you have to go slower, and scrubbing a corner will do that for you. Did you get any training runs on it to determine if you could have gone faster on those turns without risking too much?
The runs I had were training runs for Masters Ski Racing and were not timed. I had 3 runs and wish I had more but there were about 60 other compeditors as well. I made it down 2 out of the 3 runs with my fall being due to binding setting as the guy that picked me up said I looked good prior to falling. My bindings were set at 8 and I was advised to go to 10 next time.
Like you I find the long wait and cooling feet does have a negative affect on rhytham and find that skiing days are too valuable to waist standing
in line. I did not enter the Masters Race due to the high cost involved plus the fact if I had crashed on all 3 runs it would not have done my confidence any good when entering the actual race. But now having some confidence built up I may enter next year finances permitting.
post #74 of 74
Quote:
Had my first experience going down a Masters Super G course and noticed all the skiers on the top steep icy part of the course did a skidded rotational turn into the first few gates and progressed to carving on the gentler softer part of the course. So I am guessing here that on a Super G race course attempting to carve on on icey steep slopes is not something that is risked by most (Masters) racers. As the others did not risk carving at the top I did not attempt it either.
Without seeing these guys ski, I'm guessing either three things:
a) Too steep a pitch for them to handle carving
b) They weren't really rotational turn
c) Not enough speed to put the ski on edge right away

A) is simple: sometimes a Super-G is tricky and will be very turny and technical while being very lax in others. If that section was especially hard, it may have been better for them to take it easy and stay in the course or they just were not able to make the turns without the aid of rotational movement.

B) Sometimes, the Super-G turn (as the Dowhill one) will "look" to have a lot of rotation due to the "park and ride" that these turns need. Very often, in Super-G, a racer will put the ski on edge and be patient: turning too much means a higher slower line whereas taking your time maximizes time in the fall line.

C) Speed skis are stiff beast. Even in a pitch, they might be a chore to bend. Ever noticed that many top racers will pivot the first turn and then only start to carve? Very often, fast directional change is better than waiting for the ski "to come alive" on edge.

I could also be completly wrong, since speed isn't and wasn't my speciality.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching