or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Fill this out if you said you fall once every 10 ski days or less frequently
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Fill this out if you said you fall once every 10 ski days or less frequently

post #1 of 11
Thread Starter 
Enough people have participated in the previous survey about falling that it may be possible to find out something about them statistically speaking.

The median of the distribution in the previous poll is about 1 fall in 5 ski days, so I'm going to ask people to split themselves up into two categories: (a) those that said they fall once in 10, 20, 50, or 100 ski days; and (b) those that said they fall once in 2 days or more frequently. To try to get a good separation these two groups, I'm going to ask that people on border of these two groups (ie, that checked the box, "one fall every 5 days") not to participate in either of the two follow up surveys.

Because of the limited capabilities of "polls" using the EpicSki software, I have to post separate polls for the frequent and infrequent fallers, and ask that people be on the honor system and only participate in one of these two follow-up polls.

One final point: Given the never ending discussion of what is a true expert, what separates an expert from an advanced skier, etc., I'm going to try to define the top end of skiers arbitrarily and pragmatically:

"true expert" - in the top few percent of all skiers in the world.

"recreational expert" - in the top few percent of all skiers out on your mountain on a busy day.

"advanced" - in the top 10% of all skiers out on your mountain on a busy day.

Have fun & thanks for your participation. This should be interesting.

Tom / PM

============================================
IMPORTANT

CONTINUE ONLY IF YOU ARE IN THE INFREQUENT FALLER CATEGORY

If you put yourself in the frequent faller category in the previous poll (as defined above), don't fill out this form - please use the survey for frequent fallers .
============================================

PS - I inadvertently set up these two polls such that it will be impossible for people in one category to view the poll results for the other category without voting in it, and I can't seem to change this option after the fact. Please restrain yourself and don't cast a dummy vote just to view the results - it will mess up the count. I'll post the results in a day or two, after the voting tapers off.

[ April 18, 2003, 10:37 AM: Message edited by: PhysicsMan ]
post #2 of 11
Thread Starter 
^bummp^
post #3 of 11
Thread Starter 
^bummp^
post #4 of 11
Bump yourself.
Since it's Good Friday in other bits of the world (we had it yesterday) they are all most likely busily eating Fish.
You'll get them all on Saturday (which is today here), before they all disappear again on Sunday, busily eating Easter Eggs.

I think I mucked up your demographics...38, skiied 37 years, female short and heavy!
post #5 of 11
PM, you should have defined what you meant
by
Short, Medium, Tall
and by
Light, Medium, Heavy
Instead, you should have indicated height ranges and weights...
like you did with age.
JFYI
175cmx80Kg....
post #6 of 11
Thread Starter 
Matteo - Good thought, however, I was not interested in absolute weights or heights, but in these quantities relative to other people of the same age and gender, ie, do light-weight, tall, male 50 year olds tend to fall less than heavy-weight, tall, male 50 year olds.

The reason I decided not to be rigorous and simply let people define their own category boundaries for these questions was because I anticipated both M & F participants, as well as people of widely varying ages. Since females weigh less than men on average, and people tend to put on weight as they get older, that would have required a very large number of specific definitions of the wt and ht categories for each gender and age range.

If this had been a "real" survey, using "real" survey software, I could have easily set up the required large number of specific category boundaries, but this was impossible to do with the SW available. Hence, I had to rely on some simple, common-sense definitions.

Believe it or not, some thought actually went into this - I wasn't just being lazy.

Tom / PM
post #7 of 11
Thread Starter 
At this point, the two surveys combined have around 75 participants (compared to the 105 people that have taken the "parent" survey). Since participation in Epic is usually slow over the weekend, particularly, one that is a holiday for some people, I'm going to let things keep going until Sunday night, at which point I will tabulate the results of both surveys and post them.

Tom / PM
post #8 of 11
Quote:
Originally posted by PhysicsMan:

"true expert" - in the top few percent of all skiers in the world.

"recreational expert" - in the top few percent of all skiers out on your mountain on a busy day.
<Quibble> Um, I don't think this dinstinction makes sense -- assuming for the sake of argument that skier skill level is well-distributed throughout resorts, this is saying the same thing. And at some mountains, say Alta, the "recreational expert" would actually be (far) superior to the "true expert". Or are you thinking that "true experts" spend much more of their time in helicopters and out-of-bounds?</Quibble>
post #9 of 11
Thread Starter 
Lodro - The assumption you make in the first line of your message overly simplifies the situation, and is why you suggested that my two definitions might be equivalent.

Unfortunately, I don't think your assumption is true. I would contend that the various skills necessary to be considered a "true expert" are not at all well distributed amongst resorts.

Lets suppose that one person is a very experienced and talented skier, say, on the racing & training staff of one particular resort in the east. After a season or so of observation of other skiers at his mountain, this person might quite reasonably conclude that he is one of the the best skiers at that mountain, clearly, an expert in that universe of skiers.

However, the first few times this person heads out to Alta and encounters 5' of powder, finds himself in the PNW and encounters Cascade conrete, goes up to Alaska and starts skiing big avi prone backcountry mountains, etc. he might be among the least qualified in these situations, and equally clearly, is not an expert in this larger universe of skiers. This person clearly is not well rounded and clearly not among the best skiers in the world.

Similarly, your hypothetical BC, chutes and pow expert from Alta may be among the best at his home mountain and similar resorts. He might have superbly developed skills for speed control and staying in a narrow corridor, but may not have raced a day in his life. So, if he came back east to some dinky, icy resort that had a good racing program, he could easily place in the back of the pack, and no one would consider him an expert in this (new) situation.

This is precisely why I defined a "true" expert as being one of the best among all skiers in the world. No matter where, or under what conditions such a person is skiing, they always are one of the best.

Tom / PM

[ April 20, 2003, 09:09 AM: Message edited by: PhysicsMan ]
post #10 of 11
In my resorts I'm at the top 3% , in Alta I don't think so

How do I answer the poll
post #11 of 11
Thread Starter 
EV -

You would seem to fit the "Rec-expert" category perfectly: You are in top few % at home, but not in the top few % of all skiers (ie, skiers at all other mountains).

The way you described yourself, I don't see any problem in classifying you according to the description I suggested. Am I missing something?

Tom / PM

[ April 21, 2003, 03:21 PM: Message edited by: PhysicsMan ]
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Fill this out if you said you fall once every 10 ski days or less frequently