or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

How far apart? - Page 2

post #31 of 38
Thread Starter 
Ant, nice summary.
post #32 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by skiingman View Post
I don't think you an XEc are on the same page necessarily, but why isn't it generally acceptable for stance width to vary on a whim?

I am concerned there may be a terminology issue here.
I think that it is generally acceptable. Just among the real skiing nerds we want to be sure that there is not assymetrical turns happening or that varying stance width is really an indicator of a larger problem.

If the variation is intended by the skier, and they can back up what they are doing relevant to a specific snow condition, movement pattern, or ski design, then that's all good. I am certainly not going to nit-pick that much, unless they are trying to ski to a specific standard that is.


-nerd
post #33 of 38
Thinking about it some more skiingman is dead on. I think I was mis-interpreting the active increasing of my edge angles to shorten the turn radius since that does increase the distance between my feet but not the actual width (if I said that right...I do get it now).

I read through that ski tracks link and whoo boy....to a layman such as myself it was :

Thanks again for the insight fellas and I hope I didn't drift the thread too much off topic.
post #34 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidude72 View Post
Definatley agree with the "yours" people...and the neutral stance people...loved the pee analogy...I'll use that one! As for women, the concept is the same, BUT on women (not all, but many) especially those who have larger hips...their femurs tend to angle "in"...hence a neutral stance for them will actually be less then thier hip width.
Very true! The Q angle the some people (especially women) have makes a real difference. For some, the femurs naturally form a V shape below the hips, with the knees much closer together than the hips, but the tib/fib going straight down from there. In this physiology, the natural width is more difficult to find, and closer to the natural knee width.
post #35 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidude72 View Post
That is really an interesting point....hip width is really pelvis width...some people..men and women...have a fair bit of "extra padding" that may distort the "hip width" rule abit.
This is where the "how they hang" comes in. If someone picked you up by the armpits, where would your feet be? That's where they should be.
post #36 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssh View Post
This is where the "how they hang" comes in. If someone picked you up by the armpits, where would your feet be? That's where they should be.

You've been (sub-conciously) reading my posts again (see #5 above), haven't you?
post #37 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by veeeight View Post
You've been (sub-conciously) reading my posts again (see #5 above), haven't you?
Quite consciously, actually. I just didn't want to go look up the post number. So there!
post #38 of 38
The BEST advice I ever read about skiing was this: The most enfeebling position in skiing is a wide stance.

When I made an effort to keep my skis very close together, my control was greatly increased, so too the balance.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching