New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

One-legged skiing - Page 2

post #31 of 52
Kudos to the person who said that the best place to learn about HH's one ski dominant approach to skiing bumps is to ask the question at his site. Then we are free to discuss bump technique without all the pink polka dotted elephants clotting the dialogue.
post #32 of 52
That is correct. And then he won't be trying to fluff a steer.
post #33 of 52
The suggestion that Harald has a misundertanding of skiing movements is just so silly. Give it a rest already. An ex-World Cup Racer, ex-Demo Team member, and long time coach. Oh yeah, forgot to mention master boot fitter and alignment specialist.
post #34 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by loba222 View Post
I would like to try bump this season. Harald advocates one-legged (the other free leg close to the stance leg) skiing even on bump. I read so many threads here and most people were talking about a close 2-feet skiing with 50-50 pressure (or 60-40). Since I am so used to the one-legged skiing, it would be difficult for me to re-adjust to 50-50 or even 60-40 2-legged skiing.

Currently with about 80-20 (or 90-10) pressure, can I still apply the skidding technique to check speed in bump? Or should I re-adjust to 50-50 2-legged skiing?

Thanks
Just to get back to the original question, you should be able to adjust from 90/10 to 50/50 or even from 100/0 to 0/100, in every turn at any time. One-leg skiing is fine on the groomed, but if you need to start every turn by lifting-and-lightening, you will struggle in the bumps and in any other difficult conditions as well. If you think you need to make any particular kind of turn every time, you will struggle in bumps. Optimal weight distribution is never a fixed thing, and the best skiers have enough lateral balance skills to let their weight go where it needs to go without thinking about it.
The keys to bump skiing are good balance, good pressure management skills, and the ability to see different lines through the bumps.

BK
post #35 of 52
Quote:
The suggestion that Harald has a misundertanding of skiing movements is just so silly.
Hmm, well, OK then, Max--we've learned something about you.

Now, unless anyone would like to refute or discuss any of the actual points I brought up, I believe I've made my point! At least, regarding rotary and some of the misinformation out there.

Loba222--I think your original question has been addressed--do these thoughts make sense? Skiing bumps well requires a lot of athletic movement and adaptability, and you don't want to restrict yourself to any one technical option.

If you really haven't skied bumps much, I strongly encourage you to sign up for a mogul lesson at a good ski school. You will not only learn some good general focuses and tactics for bumps, but your instructor will also be able to look specifically at your skiing and give you the personal focuses that will help you progress quickly.

Where are you on the east coast? If you can make it, why don't you join us at Stowe in December for the EpicSki Academy (see link in my signature line)? While there probably won't be a lot of great bumps that early in the season, it's a great way to get your technique and understanding sorted out and dialed in in general. If you tell your coach that your particular goal this season is to improve in bumps, he or she will make sure that what you learn is especially relevant to that goal, even if there aren't any bumps to ski. (And really, while some might argue with this point, I'll tell you that good bump skiing involves all the same skills and even very similar tactics to good smooth snow skiing, adapted, of course, to the corrugated terrain of moguls. Improving in bumps will make you a better groomed snow skier, and vice-versa.)

Good luck. Keep us posted with your progress, and with any other questions.

Best regards,
Bob Barnes
post #36 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max_501 View Post
The suggestion that Harald has a misundertanding of skiing movements is just so silly. Give it a rest already. An ex-World Cup Racer, ex-Demo Team member, and long time coach. Oh yeah, forgot to mention master boot fitter and alignment specialist.
Well, for perspective, remember that DiPiro also basically gets told he doesn't know some of the basics of bump skiing, such as speed control, too. So sort of the yin and the yang of bumping approaches come in for it. Amusingly, a zipperline is a fail on the level III cert exam tasks unless rounder turns are also displayed; I think it's fair that your average PMTS line through bumps would also be rounder and emphasize carving much more than sliding, just as is true of the PSIA standards. Aside from the interpersonal and organizational history on both sides, we're probably not talking too much difference as far as approach to bumps. Maybe PSIA examiners on average would look for a wider stance even in bumps? Dunno, some of the posts here suggest that, but in realtiy I bet on the hill the people who post a lot here and have strong opinions on bumps also have a pretty narrow stance in bumps, whatever they say in this forum.

FWIW Max, your posts on here have gotten much more articulate about PMTS over the time I've been following the forum. Sounds like you're skiing a lot, in varied terrain, with good skiers, and feel you're consistently getting better, so good for you, that's actually really rare, hopefully you'll continue to do the same this year.
post #37 of 52
Thread Starter 

Many thanks

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Barnes/Colorado View Post
Hmm, well, OK then, Max--we've learned something about you.

Now, unless anyone would like to refute or discuss any of the actual points I brought up, I believe I've made my point! At least, regarding rotary and some of the misinformation out there.

Loba222--I think your original question has been addressed--do these thoughts make sense? Skiing bumps well requires a lot of athletic movement and adaptability, and you don't want to restrict yourself to any one technical option.

If you really haven't skied bumps much, I strongly encourage you to sign up for a mogul lesson at a good ski school. You will not only learn some good general focuses and tactics for bumps, but your instructor will also be able to look specifically at your skiing and give you the personal focuses that will help you progress quickly.

Where are you on the east coast? If you can make it, why don't you join us at Stowe in December for the EpicSki Academy (see link in my signature line)? While there probably won't be a lot of great bumps that early in the season, it's a great way to get your technique and understanding sorted out and dialed in in general. If you tell your coach that your particular goal this season is to improve in bumps, he or she will make sure that what you learn is especially relevant to that goal, even if there aren't any bumps to ski. (And really, while some might argue with this point, I'll tell you that good bump skiing involves all the same skills and even very similar tactics to good smooth snow skiing, adapted, of course, to the corrugated terrain of moguls. Improving in bumps will make you a better groomed snow skier, and vice-versa.)

Good luck. Keep us posted with your progress, and with any other questions.

Best regards,
Bob Barnes

I am surprised that my question has created such a heated debate. I agreed with you, Bob. HH is a great skier and skiing coach too. That is no question about it. Otherwise, there is no way I can ski the double-black diamond (by the way I am in Toronto, Ontario) in Mont Tremblant, Quebec simply following his outside ski-dominant technique. His approach is simple and easy to pick up for a newbie like myself (I started only 2 years ago from scratch). However, I did try to use this approach once last season on bump, of course without success. That is why I started looking for other approaches to tackle bump. Of course I am not an expert in PMTS, but I personally do feel the shortcomings of this approach in bump.

I read all the threads and gained a lot valuable experience from you guys. Will let you guys know how it goes.

Thanks.
post #38 of 52
You are most welcome, Loba222. I look forward to hearing how it goes.

Best regards,
Bob
post #39 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by borntoski683 View Post
He's trying to come up with a system that will enable skiers to think about a few simple steps and acheive impressive carve performance. To a certain degree I do think he has acheived that. I personally think that true high level all mountain skiing has to go beyond that and blend back skills which HH has marked as verboten, and that's where PMTS falls short in my view.

But I totally get where he's coming from in terms of trying to cure the world of the stem.
I might note that in my own case (undoubtedly due to my own incompetence) "lift and tip" induced an abrupt pressure transfer and obvious step (stem) rather than a smooth, parallel progressive roll from uphill to downhill edges. While "lift and tip" certainly has applications and should be in the toolbox, it is not the ultimate skill.

As for bumps (to get back on topic), you've gotten some good advice. Foot-to-foot pressure is neither constant nor dictated by skiing philosophy. It's dictated by intent (which controls DIRT and which may change instantaneously) and physics. Having it become automatic and unconscious is ideal, but it takes an enormous amount of bump skiing to achieve that. I still think about it, at least some, and it shows in my bump skiing, unfortunately.

Expansion of the skill set (rather than doing things one way, and one way only) leads to much greater versatility and a whole lot more fun.
post #40 of 52

Buelller, Bueller, .... Anyone? ..... Class?

(Sorry Loba for the continued thread hijack - but Bob asked for it!)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Barnes/Colorado View Post
Now, unless anyone would like to refute or discuss any of the actual points I brought up, I believe I've made my point! At least, regarding rotary and some of the misinformation out there.
What am I, chopped liver?
Quote:
Originally Posted by therusty
His comments on rotary have had the unique effect of painting him to be the village idiot when you read the condensed version, but are a perfectly debateable position to take after you've weeded through the crap (i.e. what PSIA calls rotary movements are an essential part of high end skiing, but that these movements are an automatic byproduct of other intentional movements and that intentional twisting of the feet is a common cause of terminal intermediates).
The root cause of the problem is that HH is teaching high performance skiing (i.e. carving) and calling that Expert Skiing. PSIA teaches a skills based approach to expert skiing (no caps). It appears that HH believes that you don't need to teach twisting of the feet along the same lines as PSIA does not believe you need to teach wedge turns in a Direct To Parallel progression. This is because these moves happen spontaneously. PSIA believes that teaching a slight amount of skidding can be a useful alternative teaching progression. HH does not. PSIA believes that teaching pure carving from day one is possible. HH believes this is the only way one should teach. Does this mean he does not understand biomechanics? I would argue that this demonstrates holes in his understanding of educational theory and practice.

The one huge gaping hole in PMTS theory that I've found is bump skiing. I've yet to see a claim that any competitive mogul skiers are using PMTS technique. HH's claim that competitive mogul technique is too tough on the body is unsupported by evidence, with one exception. It's too tough on his body (I read that in his book or on realskiers somewhere - I think it's a hip problem? This stance is also highly questionable since he justifies so much of his approach on competitive alpine skiing.

Despite my gaping hole argument, I have seen some decent bump skiing in the PMTS videos. I do believe that "just do the phantom move" teaching approach can work as a bump teaching method for some people in some conditions. I have seen some PMTS bump demos that don't use pole plant caused upper body rotation wrenching the lower body around. I have seen some video with some upper body wrenching accompanying some lower body carving. While I have not seen any total upper body hacking demonstrated, I have seen a "bobble" (loss of control) or two in demo clips. Nonetheless, the bottom line here is that LOBA is not the first person coming to Epic who has had problems applying PMTS to learning bumps. Of course, PSIA has trained a lot of skiers who have a lot of trouble applying their skills to bump skiing, but this is a horse of a different color.

One of the subtle things about PMTS that surprised me is the stance width thing. On my first exposure to PMTS I was shocked to see that a wide stance is bad and a narrow stance is good. Sure enough, HH does teach a narrow stance to facilitate tipping. But, after you wade deeper in, there's little tip that the stance widens a bit after you've learned the move. It looks to me like HH teaches (and skis) functional stance width just like PSIA.

This was and remains the most annoying part of PMTS to me. HH puts out these rediculous statements and then when you call him on them, his response is "get my book, watch my video, come to my camp and it will be clear". Well, duh, I'm not going to do that if it does not make sense up front. Except, because of all the praise from people like Max, I eventually did anyway. Sure enough, this stuff is now fairly clear to me. It's clear enough to not call it "enormous lack of understanding". As other's have said, you don't have to agree with all of it to use some of it.
post #41 of 52

wouldn't it be great if....

Wouldn't it be great to arrange a discussion with video, etc. (moderated by jim lehrer?) with bb and hh at the head table?
post #42 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by loba222 View Post
......(I started only 2 years ago from scratch). However, I did try to use this approach once last season on bump, of course without success. That is why I started looking for other approaches to tackle bump. Of course I am not an expert in PMTS, but I personally do feel the shortcomings of this approach in bump.............
No offense, but it's likely that no matter what you tried in the bumps at this point, you would still have little success.
post #43 of 52
Hi (the)Rusty--You bring up some points worth discussing, but I am not willing to participate in a hijacking, particularly to discuss PMTS. If you'd like to further discuss any of the relevant technical points (relevant to Loba222's question) here, I'm all for it!

If you'd like to discuss any of your other points, let's start new threads. For what it's worth, I think that HH himself would be the first one to protest that you're wrong about him teaching only pure carving. It's one of his many inconsistencies. . . .

One good topic worth discussing, not entirely unrelated to this thread about "one-legged skiing," is jhcooley's observation that for him, "'lift and tip' induced an abrupt pressure transfer and obvious step (stem) rather than a smooth, parallel progressive roll from uphill to downhill edges." This is exactly what tends to happen, jh, as I have described before--see "Lifting is Learning (but what is it teaching?)." It's not just you. It's more than ironic that, in his obsession to avoid the wedge, Harb inadvertently introduces the very stem and tail push that is the antithesis of the smooth, linked, offensive turns he insists are his sole domain. That's all I'll say about it here, but I'm happy to discuss this further in another thread, if you'd like.

Best regards,
Bob
post #44 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Barnes/Colorado View Post
Hi (the)Rusty--You bring up some points worth discussing, but I am not willing to participate in a hijacking, particularly to discuss PMTS. If you'd like to further discuss any of the relevant technical points (relevant to Loba222's question) here, I'm all for it!

If you'd like to discuss any of your other points, let's start new threads. For what it's worth, I think that HH himself would be the first one to protest that you're wrong about him teaching only pure carving. It's one of his many inconsistencies. . . .

One good topic worth discussing, not entirely unrelated to this thread about "one-legged skiing," is jhcooley's observation that for him, "'lift and tip' induced an abrupt pressure transfer and obvious step (stem) rather than a smooth, parallel progressive roll from uphill to downhill edges." This is exactly what tends to happen, jh, as I have described before--see "Lifting is Learning (but what is it teaching?)." It's not just you. It's more than ironic that, in his obsession to avoid the wedge, Harb inadvertently introduces the very stem and tail push that is the antithesis of the smooth, linked, offensive turns he insists are his sole domain. That's all I'll say about it here, but I'm happy to discuss this further in another thread, if you'd like.

Best regards,
Bob
The thread got hijacked a long time ago. Very convenient to object to a hijacking at this point.

You seem to be reading Harb as promoting a physically active weight transfer complete with a push onto the new outside ski. Yeah, that could induce a skid, which is why it's pretty much the opposite of what he advocates, which I'd crudely summarize as: "stand on the ski and ride the arc." While that simple premise, which works pretty well at core with modern deep-sidecut skis IF they have enough torsional stiffness, does as Rusty note get distorted at higher levels of performance -- witness modern GS -- that doesn't mean that the basic premise doesn't have a point. And I don't know that modern GS has much application to everyday skiing for that matter.

I'm not a PMTS guy by any means, it doesn't mean the guy's an idiot.

I completely disagree with the approach of just going out without a plan and letting your body "find" the right way to ski, too, but it doesn't mean you don't have points, too.
post #45 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by borntoski683 View Post
If, your approach is to pivot your skiis on the top of the bump and then skid sideways down to the next bump and do a hard edge set on the top of the next bump when you slam into it, well that is quite obviously a terrible extreme of bad bump skiing
I will be the first to admit that I suck at bumps, but perhaps that lets me relate, because the example given above is exactly what many descriptions of bump skiing a-la-pivot APPEAR to advocate. Missing from the above is the force throughout the turn, the strong extension. You are letting your skis skid, not arc, but your are still digging those edges in HARD to control your speed.

I can also appreciate a little of what you must be feeling as a PMTS skier, not because I'm a PMTS skier; I only discovered PMTS through the net when I tuned into this forum, but because of the way I learned to ski. I learned to ski in the dim and distant past using very long very stiff very heavy skis. I was also very light. Pivoting these monsters was not something I was good at, nor was it something I did much of. I was all about riding the edge of the skis. At first I did let the snow pivot my skis for me, but I quickly progressed to the point where I had enough momentum to simply bend the ski into the curve shape I wanted and then slice my way along on the curved edge. When I finally got around to skiing bumps, I found that I used the same movements, but added a drifting component to my turns to apply braking edges to control speed WHEN NEEDED.

The trouble is that a good carver can ski most bumps without needing to do much else. Maybe some people are fortunate enough to have bump runs discussed on these forums like Mary Jane, and Gun Barrel next door. For others, difficult bumps are hard to find. I can remember maybe two icy mogul runs at Tremblant (I haven't been back since one of their employees was mean to me), SOMETIMES a run or two at Blue Mountain, and a couple at Mt. Washington BC (wonderful folk there) I would call hard. I skied them without wiping out, but by the bottom my legs were on fire, my body really got jerked around and I was completely out of breath. I also had to resort to skidding my carves on the icy ones at Tremblant. Actually a fun game of mine is to see how fast I can get going in bumps before I have to bail (brake or ski out of them).

Whenever I tried the alternate technique for bumps, what I did was the pivot and slam:. No wonder my way seemed better.

Fast forward to a few years ago. I decided to get hooked up with some short turning shaped skis, and demoed a lot of 'em. The only bumps I could find I could race through with Rossi 9S Oversize. Does that mean I'm a good bump skier or that carving bumps is the best way. NO! It means that I couldn't find any good bumps. There was not enough snow for them to grow really big.

I have recently (last two years) been reading a lot. The difference between the pivot and slam and the work your edges on the way down with an ACTIVE extension is subtle, but important. I'm now convinced that the skidding will work better in difficult bumps, though I haven't come across any yet. I am also convinced that pivoting has its place.
post #46 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTKook View Post
And I don't know that modern GS has much application to everyday skiing for that matter.
This is an interesting statement. I feel exactly the opposite: that my GS racing experience is much closer to everyday skiing than my SL racing. Now, I'm no elite racer, but I'm either missing something significant or we're discussing something different. Care to expand?
post #47 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTKook View Post
The thread got hijacked a long time ago. Very convenient to object to a hijacking at this point.
No, actually, it didn't. But, if we want to focus on a topic, then it's worth its own thread.
post #48 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssh View Post
This is an interesting statement. I feel exactly the opposite: that my GS racing experience is much closer to everyday skiing than my SL racing. Now, I'm no elite racer, but I'm either missing something significant or we're discussing something different. Care to expand?
You really think you replicate the forces and line from GS racing when you freeski inbounds? Forces and line are the two significant things I believe you're not taking into account. A lot different from just cruising (or carving nicely) on GS radius skis.
post #49 of 52
Things to be learned and adopted from modern GS racing technique:

- efficient transition techniques

- the fact that a variety of turn transitions are used and represent efficiency based on situational need.

- clean carve initiation techniques.

- proper release techniques.

- excellent demonstrations of ILE

- exquisite edge control through the body of the turn

- turn shape management

- proper lateral (ski to ski) pressure distribution patterns.

- movement and energy efficiency

- ideal fore/aft balance models

- the importance of a wide skill base, and technical versatility


These things can all be found in WC GS racing, and can be aspired to in recreational skiing.



post #50 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Barnes/Colorado View Post
Hi (the)Rusty--You bring up some points worth discussing, but I am not willing to participate in a hijacking, particularly to discuss PMTS. If you'd like to further discuss any of the relevant technical points (relevant to Loba222's question) here, I'm all for it!
Thanks Bob,

Sorry I forgot the smiley on the chopped liver remark. I had to go work for the resort today!? (selling, not skiing) I tried carefully to not hijack the original thread in my first remark, but I knew it was not going to last. Sigh.

I feel like I'm in high school debate class and I just assigned to debate for the innocence of the CEOs for Enron, Adelphia, Tyco and Worldcom. Personally, I'd rather be debating on the other team. But especially because of the ascrebic way that HH presents his case, I'm overly sensitive to being 100% accurate in my critical observations of PMTS and HH. Because he does not do so for us, I especially want to give him the benefit of the doubt with respect to passing judgment. Because he's so good about inventing his own semantics, it's easy to argue a different topic than the points he's trying to make.

Now is not the time to debate the details of the points that I raised. I merely noted them so that there would be some possibility that the man understands at least some basic skiing principles. I too have some basic problems with his opinions on rotary. The waiststeering threads and the movement analysis of Rocca provided what I believe were some incontrovertible proof that HH was just flat out wrong on some counts. But just because he might be wrong here or there does not mean he can't contribute to the sport. You've raised some good issues for further examination. Hopefully there's an end of the road where there's a list of PMTS vs PSIA differences that neutral observers could agree to. In order to get there, we need to invest time in properly decoding PMTS speak because Harald put's so much effort into having PMTS semantics make PSIA look bad.

But as long as there are happy PMTS customers that are skiing well, I'm happy to let little dogs bark without denigrating their canineness or yapping back at them. If HH can ski and he can teach, it's only professional courtesy to say he at least understands a little about the basics of skiing. Given the number of times I've been wrong, I'm not going to throw any stones. If some people want to come here and proclaim him to be "the greatest ever", well, most people here are smart enough to see through those comments. Especially when some people come here with problems learning to ski bumps the PMTS way. So let's get back to helping them in the meantime?
post #51 of 52
therusty, I agree with you about HH.

Ghost, regarding skidding vs carving in the bumps. Don't think so black and white about it. At one extreme you have a pure round arc. At another extreme you have Z-shaped skidded turns. In between those two extremes are many different levels of more or less skidding or "carving". The USSA defines a carve as not NOT being a pure arc. The USSA is not the end word on everything but it is still interesting that they reached the conclusion that "carving" involves something more complex than simply saying "no skidding". No skidding = arcing (according to USSA).

That being said, the closer your turns are to an arc, the rounder they will be. At some totally subjective point...you can declare that your turns are round enough and preserving enough energy to be called "carved", even though they contain some amount of skidding. This has been termed by different people as brushing, feathering, etc.. Same difference. its skidding. its not arcing.

Arcing in the bumps is ludicrous. Carving in the bumps...with some skidding blended in...is COMPLETELY doable AND GOOD. Pure skidding down the back of the bump and slamming into the next one..regardless of how much you are trying to control your sideslip...that is bad bump skiing.

Good bump skiing strives for round turns using carving techniques.. There will be skidding components...or brushing..whatever you want to call it.

If you use pivot, you will induce some skidding and that skidding will help slow you down also..through the entire round turn shape you are making. Note however, that if you are doing a good job of brush carving your turns, you won't need very much pivot. just a little bit of power assisted steering here as needed. You will need to use more pivot if your skis become airborne down the backside of the bump and/or if you are otherwise not doing an effective job of initiating a brushed carve turn down the backside of the bump. In that case you will out of survival, HAVE to pivot your skis drastically in survival mode and skid/sideslip into the next bump sideways (ouch).

When I'm in the zone in the bumps it feels like the speed of my skiis are pretty constant going down through the bumps..not fast-slow-fast-slow-fast-slow...but rather just making these nice linked round turns where I am carving as much as I can make happen and timing the end of my turns on the top of bumps, extending my legs down the backside in order to initiate the next turn and begin brush "carving" as early as possible.

That is good bump skiing...not skid-slam-skid-slam
post #52 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick View Post
Things to be learned and adopted from modern GS racing technique:

- efficient transition techniques

- the fact that a variety of turn transitions are used and represent efficiency based on situational need.

- clean carve initiation techniques.

- proper release techniques.

- excellent demonstrations of ILE

- exquisite edge control through the body of the turn

- turn shape management

- proper lateral (ski to ski) pressure distribution patterns.

- movement and energy efficiency

- ideal fore/aft balance models

- the importance of a wide skill base, and technical versatility


These things can all be found in WC GS racing, and can be aspired to in recreational skiing.



That's an interesting list, Rick, which I really don't disagree with on whole. But while you typed a lot to make it you didn't explain how people replicate the forces and line from GS racing in their inbounds freeskiing. SSH was either genuinely curious or trying to peck at one throwaway statement from my post where I said that Harb's basic premise 1) had validity, and 2) gets distorted at higher levels of performance, and used GS racing as an example. To zero in on GS racing, the whole pivot/shoot deal with GS, not to mention other aspects of their technique, are outgrowths of the way GS courses are set and the speeds at which they're travelling. Most racers don't freeski like they're in a GS racecourse -- and when they do even the skiteam kids get lectures or their tickets pulled -- much less Joe 40 days a year, so it fairly is characterized as a specialized arena of high-level performance. "Aspire" to what you want to aspire to, I aspire to hitting driver off the fairway just like Greg Norman but it doesn't make it a reasonable thing for me to do.

Let's bring it back to Harb. Harb jumps through hoops to say pivots don't happen in his skiing and are not part of the PMTS approach. I don't really think pivots are the devil, but frankly I do agree that if you start people with a pivot as their standard mode of turn initiation that they'll never learn a full carve unless they learn to ditch the pivot and use early edge engagement to actually let the sidecut perform. And what you see on the slopes bears this out. Simplicity of message is actually a virtue in terms of teaching, and focusing the majority of skiers who are still developing on making clean turn transtions that fully engage the edges high in the turn makes a lot of sense. And it works quite well when you do it, which is why I said Harb's premise does have validity.

To say that he's teaching something that prevents carving and leads to stemmed skids, which was what originally led to my post with the statement concerning GS, is just plain silly.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching