The Ultimate Carving System - Page 7

What causes the inside ski to make a different shape than the outside ski would, with the same 'edging'?

And a key difference between PMTS technique and World Cup technique,,, apparently.

Outside of PMTS, most professional skiers consider what you describe above a rotary technique. It's the same thing these guys are doing, creating a body torque to cause the skis/legs/feet to twist under the body upon release. Commonly known as anticipation.

(Credit; Ron Lemaster)

http://ronlemaster.com/images/latest-images/slides/cochran-bc-2004-sl-1.html

http://ronlemaster.com/images/2005-2006/slides/ligety-bc-2005-sl-1a-flat.html

http://ronlemaster.com/images/2005-2006/slides/rocca-bc-2005-sl-1c.html

Max, most of the rest of the professional ski world call an "air turn" a pivot. This is what I've known for a long time. PMTS does this stuff, they just conjure up new words for it so he (HH) can say they're doing something unique.

Max, you say your purpose here is to discover what the true differences are between PSIA and PMTS. If you look with sincere and open eyes you'll discover that a good portion of the technical differences are nothing more than terminology.

Rick, you know that I have respect for your opinions as a race coach and ski pro. And I understand that in some cases there is simply a terminology difference. However, there is a rather large difference between teaching pivot slips and what PMTS teaches. I've watched for days as HH and Diana removed rotary from students skiing and I watched these students become more stable and graceful in their skiing.

Thanks, Max.

And no doubt, when someone first learns how to put a ski on edge and exploit it's innate mechanical capability to turn, as opposed to just muscling their turns, the contrast between their old skiing and new can be quite striking.

And I also agree, HH's teaching methodology is unique. As we've discussed before, I see his as a fast track approach to upper level skiing. No wasting time on wedges, and get em carving and creating angles as quick as possible. And he's created an interesting and innovative instructional progression to implement his program.

Really,,, I do see elements of value in the PMTS instructional program. But I've also seen many other fantastic programs that continue to pump out fantastic world class skiers and racers, so my comparison evaluation standards are quite high.

You're already familiar with my reservations about the fast track approach, Max, I'll take a quality broad technical base program any day. But to that I will add; I'd also take a fast track program run by someone who behind all the marketing double talk nonsense clearly understands what the model of true expert skiing looks like and the fundamentals behind it, over any type of program, broad or fast, being administered by someone who doesn't have a clue.

Rick, how many of these other programs are available for John Doe skier at their local bookstore? I ask that in all sincerity.

Yes you are all correct. Yet the technique does remain limited, if one is doggedly determined to claim there is no rotary, or just passive rotary.

ant, HH does suggest using the 10.7m radius skis for a reason

HH suggests a slalom sidecut for folks LEARNING PMTS. At the higher levels that suggestion doesn't apply because the skier has learned how to reduce the radius via bending the ski. But I'll be the first to admit I dislike skis with a 20m or greater radius. Too much work for my local hill.

None, Max. A book could never be as all encompassing as these programs. But I hear what you're saying. Something for the rest of the market that doesn't have the time/money/inclination for what I'm talking about.

Now if that book had a few more volumes, a broader skill base,,,,,,,,,

I have no problems whatsoever in suggesting that balance movements should be coordinated with foot movements. I do have some reservations that ALL movements should be driven by foot movements.

Max,in the real skiers thread where HH discussed your montage, I note that he just stopped short of suggesting that your CM should have precedded the turning effort ( more inside the turn ) while you were extending. Since it was not inside, the extension was a push of the feet into position, which left the body behind.

If I may be so bold, there was insufficient float occurring during the flexion, and the montage showed that you flexed, but the inertia of the CM did not carry accross the turn to require the extension for continued snow contact. In other words, the inertia of the CM appears to be the primary motive force which leads the new turn. That would make it appear that the principles of PMTS would be stood on their head.

Naturally, this is not so, as the movement of the CM is a result of the flexion that initiated the transition..... so if you can still wrap your skiing in the PMTS terminology and focus on the primary movement of flexion to generate the secondary movement of the float of the CM downhill.

What that can do is replace the awareness of the movement of the CM with the activity of release. I believe that shift of focus to be deliberately misleading. But that's just me... I think of the movements supporting my intent, not the movement patterns driving my skiing.....

So... what if the race coaches for the national teams were specifically coaching pivot turn entry into their kids? Would that change anything in this conversation?

Why would it? This ground has been covered. That is simply a result of tipping when flexed and the unwinding of counter acting movements.

Don't you have a pod cast to edit?

I have no idea how the heck you got that from anything HH posted on that montage. In fact he finished with,

Could these two things have anything to do with each other?

Just how does flexing create edging?

what a good idea... someone should write one of those heh?

Before I answer that let me ask you if the statement makes more sense in its original context which is as part of a release.

Flex to release is fine.

And can you think of any reason this might help to create edge angles? (this is such a good question I put it over on the PMTS forums).

Max, this is what I asked you.

Do they? I would think the turn shapes would look nearly the same.

I've never really gotten into those conversations about inside ski/outside ski tracks, but they seem to be assuming that both skis are tracking around the same center. I wonder if the inside ski and outside ski are tracking around two circles with the same radius but different centers? Doesn't this have to be true because your legs aren't connected to the same spot at your hips? This was probably covered though and I missed it.

onyxjl, I guess one of us is confused!

Can you explain the point of your first statement? For instance, if you apply all your edging with the inside ski and no edging with the outside ski, then you are standing on and making that turn on your inside ski, right? That being the case, how does that ski make a different turn shape than if you had stood on the outside ski and applied the same edging?

this is the photo that pmts has trouble explaining


used with permission from www.ronlemaster.com

He went on the wrong side of the panel, right?

pmts may or may not be able to justify but I can. I hope this will answer a few questions and give rise to more. If you reply please give me a private MSG so I will know. I am a new member and not sure what happens next. Thanks, Bolter
"Slip in" Technique
In an interview, Bode Miller talks about a choice of two techniques he calls upon, depending on the requirements of the turn. First, the "Arcing Technique" and second, what he calls the "slide in" technique. He incorrectly uses the term slide; what he means to say is slip.
The "Slip in" technique steepens the angle of entry into the arc by pivoting the skis during the PREPARATION phase. The skis are not parallel to the Direction of Travel (DOT) and are allowed to drift laterally until reaching the rise line. This is a dynamicside slip with the DOT going across the hill. At the rise line the body movements of ENERGY engage the edges causing deflection, a change of direction and a return to a sliding base of support on arcing skis.
The body movements of TRANSITION leading to a "Slip in" turn have unique characteristics. The Upper Body (UB) faces down the Inside Corridor during REDIRECTION, anticipating the upcoming turn. At no time during TRANSITION does the UB square up parallel to the DOT. The UB and the Lower Body (LB)are in a twisted relationship throughout TRANSITION and a neutral stance is never realized. This is Anticipation. Anticipation Release and leg rotation aims or pivots the skis during PREPARATION. The skis side slip to the rise line. Deflection begins through the body movements of ENERGY (fulcrum mechanics of braquage). The skis are energized and track on rails. The return to clean arcs is difficult to manage. Forces build through increasing amounts of deflection. To "Slip in" to the rise line and "arc out" of the exit is the measure of success.

I don't get it, Rusty? ssh basically posed the same thing a few posts ago. This concept was addressed earlier in this thread. I'm beginning to think you guys are just slow

Obviously, Bode set things up correctly

Do you really consider that image to be an example of a turn showing top notch technique?

I know what the flex does for edge angles and I'll answer it later. I was just curious if you could think of any reason it might help or even hinder edge angles. Or perhaps it doesn't influence edge angles at all?

This Photo montage illustrates the "Slip in" Technique required to maintain "line" when confronting compressed space dictated by a challenging course-set on steep terrain. This technique is one of the permutations of arc to arc skiing. Give me some feedback. Thanks, Bolter

Looks like he did it pretty good to me, Max!

How do think he could have improved execution of that maneuver?