The Ultimate Carving System - Page 8

The usual progression of summer threads now looks to be complete! We can't have summer without a PSIA PMTS battle...

I see what you mean now. I wasn't trying to imply the skier is standing on the inside ski which on second though you probably have to be if the outside is completely flat.

Really what I was going after was that one can vary turn shape by releasing the tension on the outside/stance foot that holds the ski on edge while keeping the inside foot engaged. The inside and outside ski would then be at different edge angles, kinda like a reverse A-frame effect. The tipped inside ski produces a turning force and the less engaged outside ski will introduce a drift.

Intentionally putting the outside ski at less edge angle than the inside ski is a little weird since one is usually trying to match angles. I don't really know the hows/whys of what produces what effect, I just know this is something I've used to smear out a turn when I don't want to be committed to a totally carved line.

I know what it is. I was curious if Rusty felt this was an example of top notch technique.

So the reply I gave to Rusty @ 2:13 today regarding Ron's photos of Bode were of no use to you? Bolter

No the purpose is to argue PMTS teaching style and try to find ways it contrasts with PSIA's.
Most of the differances are in terminology despite all the claims of large fundamental differances.
Marketing is promoted by 'new visions ' that are basically older ideas being repackaged and put forth as new and innovative.

Correct. But you probably didn't know that during the season I spend alot of time with racers (weekends with juniors and at least one day a week with masters).

you didn't just ask that question did you?

Shortest possible answer: Yes.

Longer: One of the reason that Bode has been so successful on the circuit is his ability to mix in slipping and arcing as appropriate. Anyone who doesn't recognize the vital importance of this mix (requiring a strong rotary skillset, by the way) is missing the mark.

max i think it is equally important to note that HH when presented with photo evedence denied rotary movements exist on the WC level.

from the tone of your query it sounds as though you are following the party line.

Please don't bait me or patronize me.

I'm still waiting for you to read the answer to the question on realskiers so you can regurgitate it here. Sorry max, but at this point I think you realy are clueless -- afterall, you are just following instructions.

There is no battle. It's just Max barking and saying ridiculous things to get Epic riled up.

So max, do you find Epic-baiting entertaining? Or will you have to post on realskiers to find out?

Weak.

I guess you think Max is not disengenuous? Have you actually read this thread?

Also lame.

If you don't want to participate in the discussion anymore, stop posting in the thread.

Oh, and by the way...

Are you sure you want to throw around the word disengenuous [sic] so casually?

Is that what this was? :

You've got me all wrong. I posted the question in a thread I started on the PMTS forum (about testing PMTS knowledge) because it was a great question and one that I spent quite a bit of time working on with HH this year. I was hoping that the other PMTS students would see it and think about it before HH got to it but he was on early today and answered it quickly.

I'm sorry if you feel I was patronizing you in any way. Perhaps I should have sent you a PM. The quest is to discover the differences between PMTS and other systems. I asked the question to see if you could think of a way that flexing helped get edge angles. I only asked it because I enjoy thinking about things before I get the answer, like solving a puzzle. In this case I figured you'd think something like, "Now why in the world would this PMTS bozo think flexing could help with edge angles?" and then maybe ponder it a bit and come to some common understanding. But, I was wrong as usual.

Through the magic of multi-tab browsing, I've been watching this discussion develop on both forums (in between mowing the lawn, etc). One thing seems clear: there's something like a "cultural" or "language" gap here. It's not like often suggested it's just "different words" or "marketing packaging": there's a truely different conception of what's going on and why in a ski turn. I'm not a technician, so I can't explain what it is: but even at my lowly level of understanding, the fact there is a difference is obvious.

(Aside: now, before you say, "Well, dumbass, you said it yourself; you're not a technician, what would you know?" To that I say, "If you don't believe a student can tell the difference between one thing and another, even without the full technical background, why bother trying to teach at all?")

One thing I can say, HH's analysis benefits from the fact he has been on both sides of the street. It is clear that not all of the non-PMTS proponents have; therefore they argue from ignorance of the other side and their ability to compare and contrast is suspect.

I'm also not so enamoured by the business of bringing up "special cases" to "prove the rule". The montage of, I guess it must be Bode, doing one of his linked-recovery runs is hardly the poster boy for recreational skiing. Do you really go out there and tell students: "Just go for it like Bode". Is that what we want to see on every slope? Where's the part where you label it "professional skiier on closed course: do not attempt"?

You know, instead of hitting Max with the ad hominum attacks, you could just lift a finger and click over to realskiers where HH is explaining all in massive, detailed posts (I guess I'm guilty of the ad hominum here, too (sorry) ).

At least hit the books so you know what you're talking about before trying to make your non-PMTS case. All I've seen so far is misconceptions.

OK, Iowa-Ohio is about to start; and since I hail from Hawkeye country, don't expect a response anytime soon .

I am sympathetic to the impression that you are being baited, as it wouldn't be the first time. Pulling the kool-aid card on him isn't warranted though and puts a chilling effect on any type of intelligent discourse on PMTS. That's already hard enough to come by.

I probably should have just said that instead.

So why then avoid answering? Why push it back to me?

Why discover the differences at this late date? Have you not already decided?

There are a couple of ways that I see flexing at release helping with angles. As HH said over on the PMTS site when you flex to release you start your CM moving across the skis. By staying flexed in the float you allow the CM to move across at its natural rate (no changes in the path caused by an up move). If you keep your inside leg flexed while you gradually extend your outside leg you end up with your inside leg well out of the way allowing your hips to drop far into the turn. This is an area I have a problem with. My inside legs starts aggressively flexed at the release but as I move into the turn and lengthen my outside leg I get lazy and allow my inside leg to lengthen as well (not as much as the outside but enough to block me from getting the big angles we see in HH, Diana, and Jay).

If you don't maintain the flexing of the inside leg you aren't going to get big angles. So I see flex as a very important component to angles.

Thank you Max.

FYI, HH's description is equivalent to the descriptions of transition that I've previously made, but I focus more on the path of the CM.

IMO, HH's categorization of extension as push by PSIA may be a bit over the top, but I can't say for sure. I can certainly say that with respect to the CSIA he's dead wrong. The CSIA advocates a clean release of the CM so that it will freely travel into the next turn, and it has done so for years. Focussing on freely means it's not pushed, and there can be no "up".

The description that you've provided mentions the CM. HH does not -- he does say the body moves downhill, but to what end it is not entirely clear. He focusses on the need to immediately counterbalance as the CM has crossed the skis.

[ HH rarely mentions the CM, and I think that is because he believes that is not where your focus ought to be. In other threads he mentions that you should "feel a pull", and suggests that the "pull" of inertia in the turn is minor in nature, so you can't really deal with it. That is just not so -- it is far from minor.]

Max, it is the early edge engagement as a result of counterbalance and extension that is key. Flexion does not in and of itself create the edges -- it allows the CM to move downhill so that the secondary movements can assist in the creation of the edging. [ In fact, I do teach this. But I do not label the activity of counterbalance -- the student discovers this "odd" position as helpful to balance. ]

Be careful not to rely on the secondary movements to create the edges for you. I suspect that your goal of counterbalancing early is being implemented by inclination -- simple banking -- which is why the inside leg gets involved. Which at this point in the turn you are trying to make would indicate that your ability to balance on a set of edges needs work.

I believe a key difference is in the focus on the path of the CM as opposed to making and timing movements. For me, movements support my intent -- which is to move my CM, and therefore, I should be keenly aware of it. Under PMTS, movements of the CM/upper body are considered secondary, are they not?

Anyway that is how I see it.

Edit: If as a result of your flex, the body is not travelling freely downhill, you may also have problems with inclination and/or pushing the legs onto the arc of the turn. Balance may not be the only problem, or it may not be the problem at all. The "float" is aptly named -- your upper body should "float" freely downhill.

In PMTS counter balancing has a very specific definition. Upper body perpendicular to the slope therefore you can't implent CB by banking. Plus I'm not a banker, I'm a software guy.

Oh please, bsather, do try to enlighten we the dumb and befuddled as to what is so the blatantly obvious and strikingly different between what's going on when a PMTS person carves a dynamic high angle turn, and what's going on when a highly skilled PSIA person carves that type of turn, that even a non-technician can clearly see it.

Or,, if you mean the turns are the same, but the belief of the principles behind the turn are like night and day, I'd love to hear what those concept differences are. Come on,,, even a non-technician should be able to make an explanation attempt at something that is so obvious.

Listen up, Max. You're about to get the answer you've been seeking for so long.

I think that the notion of banking versus countering (not counter rotation, just upper body counter/separation) is one of the biggest noticable differences between PSIA/CSIA and PMTS/Racing. All 4 groups teach it, and how to use it... but the latter two focus on it while the first two use it as needed. Interestingly if you take into consideration a slalom turn (as I was discussing before) the lack of counter for such a turn is detrimental to its proper execution and completion. However, the difference/need becomes less apparent when speeds are higher and turns are longer (speed events and GS in certain circumstances). what I just mentioned is very easy to see in the skiing that each group is doing. Something to think about...
Later
GREG

But you will bank if you push on the new inside leg to try to push the body to an upright position.

Why the heck would anyone push on the inside ski? In PMTS its light or lifted. No pushing.

This is suggestive of weighting the inside ski -- lightening sounds compromised to me.

Inclination is not that far off.

BTW: CSIA does not think inclination is bad -- it's used and taught as part of the basic parallel turn. (And no it does not have to be unlearned.) At www.youcanski.com Gregory Gershman, speaks of it's importance to GS racing. FYI, he's a former Austrian mens team coach, Canadian womens team head coach, Russian head coach with 17 years of WC coaching experience.

This is a good observation, Greg. You point out that counter can be used for two different purposes. One, to enhance lateral balancing capabilities, and two, to facilitate pivot entry turns.

PMTS strongly advocates counter for balancing purposes (counter balancing in Harbspeak). Now I see from a Max statement that they also promote it as a means of performing pivot entry turns (passive rotation air turns in Harbspeak).

I find it amusing that they now advocate the use of counter to facilitate a type of turn entry that HH swore a year ago was not an element of expert skiing.

HH has acknowledged this type of passive rotary for years (he even mentions it in his books). What HH teaches and what is typically talked about as a pivot are totally different beasts. And I find it hard to believe you don't know that.

Uh...I give up. Whatever. Ok, I shouldn't say that. But get this straight. PMTS teaches a light inside foot. I ski with a light inside foot (lifted in many times). Its the way we do it. You can easily keep the foot on the snow with very little weight on it. Pulling the leg up actually takes some effort and thats where being lazy or forgetting about it comes into play. It has zero to do with putting weight on it.