The Ultimate Carving System - Page 4

...but remember, you have to be on Metrons!

Not true, Ant! Skiers are encouraged to attend also

Then perhaps you aren't hanging out with the right race coaches. In early season training, a great deal of what we do is drills in progression. Some are carbon copies of the PMTS playbook (actually it's the other way around), some are somewhat opposed (stance width drills). All over the mountain, in all kinds of conditions and on all kinds of terrain. We use them to reconnect with a basic skill set and to develop new habits which are reinforced throughout the season. Any coach who doesn't do this is selling their athletes short.

Chuckle! Naughty!

I didn't say the drills weren't similar. I said the coaching wasn't the same. There's a big difference between drilling and coaching. I also didn't say the coaching was bad but rather that I didn't think it was the same level that you'd get with HH.

Heluva, your assertion on judging the quality of PMTS by the skiers it produces is both right on the money and a little bit of a Red Herring.

On one hand, I think one should by all means examine skiers who have learned via PMTS and see the quality of their skiing, but you should perform this examination with an understanding of the background, intent, and time invested of the skier. If you don't like what you see compared to other teaching methods then don't spend your time with it.

It is unlikely to me that one should expect PMTS students who by and large are recreational skiers who have taken to instruction only recently to ski any where near as good as a former World Cup racer. Personally, I feel my skiing but more importantly my understanding of skiing has improved considerably over my few seasons of instruction, but compared to a real racer I'm barely even doing the same sport.

I agree with Max that the clarity and simplicity of PMTS is one of its greatest selling points. I feel it does a good job of identifying, explaining, and providing practice material for skills that rapidly improve ones skiing. That said I'd still be Z-turning my way down blue runs had I never sought out a real instructor and I thought I knew how to ski then because I had a Lito book. There is really no substitute for that.

Lito book ? onyxjl . Please explain I am not familiar with this.

onyxjl, that's exactly right, but holds as true for every approach. The challenge is that it's impossible to do a real scientific comparison of the methods without using the scientific method, and I don't think anyone ever will. So, you have comparisons of people who were skiing at some level, tripped across some approach to learning to ski better, took it up, got better, and claim that the method is the best possible. Who can argue with an anecdote?

To what do you attribute my skiing, for example, for better or worse? Largely self taught from the age of 10, raced in high-school for a couple of years. Read a lot. Carved on straight skis. Almost quit skiing. Took up teaching, took some PSIA clinics, went to a couple of ESAs, picked up a mentor or two or so, got a lot better. Still suck according to some.

So, to what do I attribute my improvement? An open mind. Willingness to try things. Being wrong. Being OK with not knowing everything. Taking on coaching. Trying stuff. Seeing what happens. Learning.

PSIA? Sure. I've learned a lot from the materials and the clinics. Absolutely. PMTS? Not really. I didn't find the information, drills, or techniques revolutionary or especially useful for my skiing. Others' mileage may vary. The mentoring of individual coaches of exceptional skills? Absolutely! Rusty Guy was the first. nolo. Vail Snow Pro. Uncle Louie. A number of PSIA-RM examiners. Bud Heishman. Tsavo. Rick. Weems. Heather and Joe Q at Copper. StuC. Nick Herrin. Little Bear. cgeib. Bob Barnes/Colorado. Mike Rogan. Deb Armstong. Peers like Mike_m and bong. And I'm sure I'm leaving some off.

There are many exceptional ski educators out there. And, yeah, there are some that really aren't worth what they're paid. Just like any profession, frankly. But, don't judge a profession on the worst and don't compare the lazy to the exceptional. Compare the exceptional. You'll find far more in common than you're likely to realize.

I said it before... ask Deb some questions. She's an amazing person, tremendous teacher, and obviously an exceptionally skilled skier.

I attribute my improvement and your improvement to exactly the same thing, passion for the sport. That I think is the catalyst. Instructors and sources can show you the way, but you still need to walk the path. That takes desire and determination.

I put the PMTS vs * argument to bed personally a long, long time ago because of this. I've realized that while not everyone was saying the same words, many of the concepts that have helped me the most are repeated in many places. I was going to put together a thread with the principles of PMTS, but citing EpicSki posts by PSIA instructors to explain them along side the information from PMTS instructors. It would not be a hard thing to do. Hopefully, that would be enlightening to the few posters a year that show up and say you won't find anything like that outside of PMTS.

Breakthrough on the New Skis by Lito-Tejada Flores. I still think its a great book and easy to read.

Well said. This would be an excellent community service, onyxjl, and I would personally support it.

So you're saying that all PMTS coaching is at the same level as Harald Harb? I doubt that's what you mean. I've always considered Harald a highly talented, if sometimes beligerent and dogmatic, coach. I've also had and worked with several coaches at or above his level. I am by no means his equal or superior in any way- but I know art when I see it.

An effective coach doesn't just rely on drills to convey his message. They are a tool to achieve the desired effect, nothing more. A successful progression of drills leads to improvement without a lot of talking and explaining- but you still need to provide verbal feedback.

Again, perhaps you aren't hanging out with the right race coaches.

Hi, RadRab, good to hear from you again. Yes, I remember you over at HH's forum last year, and I remember you speaking up on my behalf during my brief visit. Thanks, again for that.

Yes, my time there was short but eventful, and it ended during a discussion with Harald on whether WC skiers ever use a pivot at the top of their turns; him emphatically denying they do, and calling me an idiot for suggesting it,,, and me matter-of-factly stating that they do it pervasively. My final post was the one in which I provided a link to Harald making short turns with clear pivot entries, and complimented him on how well he was executing them.




Rad, my background is racing; a long personal involvement in competition, followed by now going on 30 years of coaching, so I really have no dog in the PSIA vs PMTS fight. It nice, because it allows me to stand back and evaluate both sides of the conflict from a perspective unencumbered with professional affiliation bias.

Last year I skied with many PSIA pros, and I can assure you that there's a lot of carving, arc to arc skiing, and efficient transitioning going on in the PSIA ranks these days. I'm not saying it's across the board. PSIA is a large organization and the need to fill positions with talent from limited local pools requires employing a diversified level of skill. But at the top of the talent pool there seems to be a large group of folks who understand the technical principles involved in extracting the most from the new equipment.

As evidence you needn't look any further than here at Epicski. The discussions are frequently about carving, arc to arc carving, edge angle modification and principles of balance, employing external force driven transitions, cross-unders, cross-throughs, proper application of counter. I challenge you to find a thread here that advocates either steered turns, transitional up moves, or steered entries as the default techniques of upper level skiing. Don't bother looking, you won't find them. The pros who post here have a good grasp of what current, efficient, upper level technique is. They have for quite awhile now by my witness, and as many of them are influential within PSIA, you know that their wisdom has spread through the ranks.

The 3 primary HH contentions about the current state of PSIA which I posted are archaic and absurd. You'd have to go back to about 1996 for them to hold any water. Since then equipment has changed the definition of efficient technique, and the learning curve within PSIA has been to my observation rapid and steep. HH's condemnations are nothing more than a business motivated critique of a past that no longer exists. Just read the technical discussions here. If you can't see that HH's 3 major talking points about PSIA just don't jive with the technical themes being consistently promoted on this forum, then I suggest you might want to step back and reflect on the state of your own biases.

I've got the Lito tape , I think its called the New Skis or something, and there are a couple of sections where HH is skiing. The tape is now probably 8 years old or so(HH skiing on the yellow Elan SCX , that he shows on the back of his first book). Anyway when you watch the HH sequences it sure looks to me like he is using an up move in his turn transitions. Great powerful fluid turns for sure. Granted this is pretty dated now, and HH may have modified his technique.

Maybe I was not clear enough. I was taught the exercise of lifting the inside ski tail and tilting the tip on the snow as a turn initiating exercise before shaped skis were invented. From the context in which I was given this exercise, it is safe to assume that the exercise was not invented on the spot (i.e. it was widely known).

When the Elan SCXs first arrived at my mountain, we were given a clinic by an Elan rep on how to teach for the new skis. It would not have been a big leap to go from the information presented in that clinic to a lift and title exercise. I would bet that many instructors did this spontaneously. I certainly got a chuckle when I discovered that the Phantom Turn closely resembled a teaching exercise I'd been using for years.

Whether HH "invented" something, adapted something new out of something old or is just relabelling something old makes no difference. Whatever it is, it's very similar to something that's been around a long time. What HH did invent is the phrase "Phantom Turn". He deserves credit for this. To the extent that the Phantom Turn has specifically been used to improve skiers turns, he deserves credit for that too.

The question is what is 'average'? As a skier taking lessons at a resort what are you likely to find? I've only been skiing seriously since 2002 and I've seen instructors at resorts teaching the skills that you mentioned. I don't know if its the norm or not. Obviously there are instructors on Epic that have adopted modern technique. But the PSIA has thousands of members. On average what are they teaching?

Questions for Epic instructors that work at resorts:

1) What is the ski school director having you teach?

2) Is there any active steering taught? If so for what purpose?

3) What release(s) are you teaching your students?

4) What is the progression for newbies?

it is interesting to first note that the SSD at Winter Park is a former PSIA demo team member and when he arrived at HH was the Director of Training.

i've often marvelled at the fact that HH seems to espouse he is the font of all knowledge. i suppose that while he was at WP none of his knowledge was passed along to anyone else and it remained under wraps. in addition i'm certain he did not gain anything from anyone employed at the ski school.

no exchange of teaching or ideas:

now to the matter at hand

1) our SSD does not dictate what i teach. he manages the ski school and in so doing a component of that involves training. he has trainers who train and supervisors who supervise. as a level III cert he understands a professional organization has determined or certified that i have some level of competency.

2) active steering is taught. HH has told you active steering is bad, evil, etc. i'm not going to bang my head against a wall on that topic.

3) a ski can only be released by decreasing edge angle. that can be accomplished via a myriad of ways. some students relate well to inversion/eversion, some to lateral movements of the knee, some to abduction of the femur, some to movements of their c.o.m.

4) i have had very few "original thoughts". i found it interesting that ssh, in another thread, mentioned a long list of folks from whom he has learned, garnered information, been influenced. my list is equally long. i try to listen , to watch, to learn. bob barnes has been a big influence.....both of them, many psia educators, fellow instructors, folks here, and even and perhaps foremost i've learned from my students.

the one original expression that i have coined and which i believe very firmly is; "there is nothing progressive about a progression"

so.....here is where i think the fatal flaw lies in following the teachings of one person. go back to what i said about HH's tenure at WP. was the exchange of information non-existant? did he teach others while he was there? did he learn anything from those around him?

had i closed my mind and said there is only one way i suggest i would have been a fool.

And it could be argued that they'll be doing it even more pervasively in 07/08, in GS at least: http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?t=41327

I'll over simplify everything by asking in any sport has it ever been Black or White regarding how one is supposed to make a series of movements. Somebody said earlier they liked PMTS because it provided a very specific set of directions and there was only one way to do it. If you were doing something else, it was incorrect. We all learn differently and this type of "dogma" isn't going to be preferred by everybody but be exactly what another skier is searching for.

I'm still golfing (poorly most of the time) and I have thought on occassion that maybe golf would be easier to learn and progress further,if you were only able to hit the ball well doing it one way. That's not the case observed at any PGA Tour event at the driving range. I think in skiing the same thing may apply. The ski has to be tipped and pressured to create turning forces. I subscribe to the fact there are many methods that can be used to cause this to happen. Certainly certain base fundamentals have to be in place and there in lies the differences in opinions.

But if you take the best of PSIA and the best of PMTS and have them ski side by side I think we end up splitting hairs. I saw the PMTS breakdown of the ESA skiing last year and when you looked at it frame by frame they were able to make their points. But when you viewed the real skiing being done it was very flowing and dynamic. The product in its entirety (unedited) looked awful good. Another golf analogy, you can take two different swings and disect backswing , downswing, weight shift etc, but both can produce great results.
I subscribe to the fact there are many ways to"skin a cat".

????

Link?

Is this where Radrabs criticism of Weems is coming from?

Caveat - I have not been formally trained in PMTS, but I did find a copy of Anyone Can Be an Expert Skier in the bedstand of a Holiday Inn Express last night. I most likely am getting some of the translations wrong.

1) What is the ski school director having you teach?
Uh, .... skiing? We are a PSIA member school. Our training program is modeled on PSIA methodology.

2) Is there any active steering taught? If so for what purpose?
There is no active steering taught. Active steering is PMTS terminology. We do teach rotary movement skills to assist the control of the shape of the turn. We do believe that the ability to skid the skis on purpose is an important skill to have. This would correspond to the PMTS active steering concept. We also teach rotation of the femur within the hip socket. PMTS does not call this active steering because it happens automatically as a byproduct of tipping.

3) What release(s) are you teaching your students?
We don't teach "releases" per se because this also is PMTS teaching methodology. We teach edge control movements. These movements typically are associated with what we call a cross over release, but can also be used for what we call a cross under release. PMTS full, two footed and weighted releases can be accomplished via the edge control movements that we teach.

4) What is the progression for newbies?
We are encouraged to teach a direct to parallel progression when conditions allow it. Otherwise we teach a wedge based progression.

I asked the questions in an honest attempt to learn what resort ski schools are teaching. What technique are you guys teaching today? Sounds like steering is still a big part of turning from your post (I'm not saying its right or wrong just that it is taught).

Interesting...I've heard racers and race coaches talk about releases and how to release.

Ive seen "releases" discussed here. Perhaps a HH term that has been adopted by mainstream instructors?

therusty, thanks for answering my question and giving credit where credit is due. I also found your answers to Max's five questions interesting and informative.

puhleaze

Perhaps not then...

I think Rusty's point is that this is another term that HH didn't invent. I certainly remember hearing it from NSCD clinicians at Winter Park in the early 90's.

Sure, I got that. I asked a question and got an answer. Thanks, it's all good.

HH's "only one way to do it right" thing is clever marketing. I bet we've all heard the plaintive guest cry that every instructor tells them something different, which way is the "right" way? Many people don't want to know that there's a myriad of different ways, skiing being an athletic sport.

I've only worked for ski schools (here and there) that have instructors from many different countries, so there's no set way of teaching, no prescribed method. The only exception to this was my first ski school in Vermont which espoused Perfect Turn; however they strongly encouraged instructors to bring to the table any other methods they'd experienced as learners or teachers, so long as they didn't directly contravene the central tenents of the method. It was pretty open, in practise.

Maybe we're all wrong, and what the bulk of the vacationing public in the US wants is something like Arthur Murray dancing schools: here's the way to do it, and if you do it this way, it's the right way.

Brilliant. A great analogy.

What is certainly true is that some people want that. Some people just want to know they are doing the "right thing" and can't handle that there is no "right."