or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Americans! - Page 4

post #91 of 110
ah but you see the PSIA leaves themselves a way out. They have not defined what "functional" means. That is left completely to interpretation by an examiner. So someone could say that the artificial wide stance is to promote this or that thing and therefore functional...and they won't necessarily be wrong that the wide stance is in fact promoting that particular thing. But then the question becomes..is that particular thing desirable in dynamic skiing, etc.. None of these things are addressed by the PSIA's concept document. Everything in there has a way out so that it can be justified depending on the mood of an examiner or the changing attitudes from year to year, depending on who you talk to.

I agree with BigE though, in my book of ski concepts, the artificial wide stance as demonstrated in these v1 demos is dysfunctional and if I were the examiner my bias would be to fail every one of those d-teamers, based on this documented set of concepts.

Glad to hear Crystal is finally about to open, next weekend I can go make some turns.
post #92 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE View Post
Suppose I'd like to learn to vary it? That quote says nothing useful. It says "functional" as in "not dysfunctional"? Like not artificially narrow OR wide stance. Fine, let's say it does.

Since the skiing in the videos are obviously being forced into some sort of model, then one must look and see if that model satisfies the rules put forth.

Is the stance width functional? Not a chance. In some instances, the stances are so wide that the skiers are actually catching the edges of their inside skis.

Sorry but you cannot break your own rules and then continue to say it's still good.
As I understand this quote is says that stands should allow your legs and your body function their best and not to hinder your skiing by intentionally making it too wide or too narrow. Basically it says: do whatever you want with your stands width and be able to adapt it to different ski conditions. PSIA instructor (or examiner) will not (should not) tell you that you stand too wide or too narrow if you stands is functional for the conditions, meaning you can apply enough edges and not to be on inside edge.

At the same time I agree that stands on some(not all of cource) of those videos looks forced and too wide. They are too slow to download so I can not see them all but I do not think there is a problem with stance on first video (Dave Lion, relatively wide) or 04-Christine V. dynamic turns black terrain but there is a big problem with forced wide stance on Powder skiing video.

Which one of those videos is the worse example of forced wide stance?
post #93 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE View Post
Suppose I'd like to learn to vary it? That quote says nothing useful.
Oh, forgot to tell you how to learn to vary your stance and find functional one Try to make it wider and narrower in different conditions and see what works. Why overcomplicate?
I'm sure you can teach me how to ski so I'm not really teaching your here, just my opinion - do not make things too complicated. Quote says that stands should be functional - keep it wide or narrow if you like. What is wrong with that?
post #94 of 110
I posted the PSIA Team Training notes from the 2005-06 season because I thought they were rather good. The paper was clearly a set of "what" statements and not "how" explanations. It would be fair to evaluate it as a set of "what is good skiing" statements, but not for what it does not set out to be.

Too vague? "The positive, early engagement of the skis’ tips should draw the skier into the turn, arcing into the turn’s apex." That's simple and elegant, not vague.

Oh, well. To each her own. I never have as much fun skiing in a clinic as with one of the d-team members--I don't care who, it's always a first-rate learning and completely humbling yet inspirational experience. I love what's happening in my division and am very impressed with the output in terms of candidates certified at each level in my area's snow school--it's tough but fair and accurate. I love the Team Training notes from 2005-06. I'm not crazy about the videos posted here, but there they are, in complete contradiction to my experience, so pffftt! So they had a bad day.
post #95 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by borntoski683 View Post
ah but you see the PSIA leaves themselves a way out. They have not defined what "functional" means. That is left completely to interpretation by an examiner.
I think PSIA does not define stance width on purpose. You can not say for example that on ice you should always ski with wider stance, on bumps and powder it should be narrow, etc. This is generally true but there may be exseptions, religios wars, whaterver.
Examiner will (should) see if your stance is functional or not. If it is too wide and you are catching an edge it is not functional. If it is too narrow and you can not carve clean it is not functional as well. However if you ski in very wide or very narrow stanse and look smooth and fluid you will be not penalized for the stanse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by borntoski683 View Post
So someone could say that the artificial wide stance is to promote this or that thing and therefore functional...and they won't necessarily be wrong that the wide stance is in fact promoting that particular thing. But then the question becomes..is that particular thing desirable in dynamic skiing, etc.. None of these things are addressed by the PSIA's concept document. Everything in there has a way out so that it can be justified depending on the mood of an examiner or the changing attitudes from year to year, depending on who you talk to.
Wide stance can promote certain things and very appropriate for some skiing, I think we all agree. Does it apply to everyone and every type of skiing - I do not think so and probably not many people will disagree here either. Is wider stance desireable for dynamic skiing - depends on terrain and speed, sometimes yes sometimes not. So as I understand the problem here is that those guys demo too wide stance for the conditions - I tend to agree here and I do not know why they do it.

What do you mean "everything there has a way out"? I think I already explained what I believe concept says about stance and I think concepts have appropriate description. How would you describe desired stance if you were writing a document similar to the concepts?

What is the worse forced wide stance example from those videos?
post #96 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by StevensMan View Post
Examiner will (should) see if your stance is functional or not. If it is too wide and you are catching an edge it is not functional. If it is too narrow and you can not carve clean it is not functional as well.
So you're saying that you can go as wide as you want unless you catch an edge then its too wide? That's the only indicator of whether a stance is too wide? You're saying you can't carve with a narrow stance? Wrong again. What about the fact that an artificially wide stance makes it way harder to stand on the outside ski and move the CM across from side to side?

Quote:
Wide stance can promote certain things and very appropriate for some skiing,
I'm listening. what times?

Quote:
Does it apply to everyone and every type of skiing - I do not think so and probably not many people will disagree here either. Is wider stance desireable for dynamic skiing - depends on terrain and speed, sometimes yes sometimes not.


There are very few situations that recreational skiers find themselves in where a super wide stance would make any sense. There are a few situations in racing that warrant it, but note that it is an athletic move. It does not make their skiing easier, it makes their skiing more difficult but course times faster.

Quote:
So as I understand the problem here is that those guys demo too wide stance for the conditions - I tend to agree here and I do not know why they do it.
They do it because PSIA told them too and there is not a clear enough standard. They probably also watched stupid videos like this and figured they had to ski that way to pass their exam.

Quote:
What do you mean "everything there has a way out"?
Meaning they have provided a way out of any criticism. They left the concepts vague, so there is no way to gauge whether their members are adhering to anything meaningful. There is almost always a way to justify whatever latest theory someone has as to why its "functional".

Quote:
I think I already explained what I believe concept says about stance and I think concepts have appropriate description. How would you describe desired stance if you were writing a document similar to the concepts?
As I have said in other threads, the word "stance" is one of the most misleading words in ski teaching. Saying a stance should be functional is fine, but it needs to be backed up with other information that explains the things that would encourage a comfortable stance. Hip width is probably better, but the whole vertical separation issue at the fallline seems to throw many people for a curve. Frankly I don't think people should be thinking so much about how far apart their feet are, they should just stand in a comfortable position and think about other things. As soon as they start trying to force their feet into a so called stance is when problems arise.

Quote:
What is the worse forced wide stance example from those videos?
Its been a while since I watched them and can't now at work, but I remember them all being too wide.
post #97 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by borntoski683 View Post
[snip]

Its been a while since I watched them and can't now at work, but I remember them all being too wide.
edit for appropriate sentiment: They're not all too wide, Christine V. for instance I'd say was quite functional with stance width.
post #98 of 110
I'll take your word for it.
post #99 of 110
Borntoski,

A lot of questions, sorry, can not answer all, do not think y answers here makes any difference.
I think wider stance is generally more appropriate for faster skiing on hard snow. It is also more appropriate if if one is trying to learn two footed skiing instead of one ski turns.
What I'm saying about stance - go as wide or as narrow as you feel comfortable. If you go too narrow you may have trouble to create high edge angles, your inside ski will get in the way. If you go to wide you may get too much weight on inside ski and may not be able to have matching ski angles. Also, it is generally more difficult to carve clean in narrow stance and difficult to ski bumps and powder in wide stance. There may be exception for every rule of course.

Also, at those videos I do not see super wide stance anywhere. Please point to any specific video if you disagree.
post #100 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by StevensMan View Post
If you go too narrow you may have trouble to create high edge angles, your inside ski will get in the way.
This is only true if you are unable to bend your legs.
post #101 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by onyxjl View Post
This is only true if you are unable to bend your legs.
Is this narrow or wide stance? http://www.ronlemaster.com/images/20...005-sl-1c.html

If you say it is narrow keep in mind, it is shoulder narrow. If you call it wide how can you make it narrower in last frame?
Also, do you think those angles could be achieved if his skis were 6 inches apart?

This also applies to recreational skiers. Not to the same degree but concept is the same: you need to keep your skis somewhat apart to create good angles. Or you bend you legs to make your stands wider.
post #102 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by StevensMan View Post
Is this narrow or wide stance? http://www.ronlemaster.com/images/20...005-sl-1c.html

If you say it is narrow keep in mind, it is shoulder narrow. If you call it wide how can you make it narrower in last frame?
Also, do you think those angles could be achieved if his skis were 6 inches apart?

This also applies to recreational skiers. Not to the same degree but concept is the same: you need to keep your skis somewhat apart to create good angles. Or you bend you legs to make your stands wider.
Way more than shoulder narrow, look at www.youtube.com/watch?v=quraAyYBGXw or other youtube footage to see it over the course of a run. Vertical versus horizontal separation. And it does apply much the same to recreational skiers for firm snow in particular. I will still say I saw some good skiing in the Central clips, but looking at youtube WC video footage you'll see very different technique, all the way down to occasionally picking up the inside ski for the "one-footed" skiing that gets derided here.
post #103 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by StevensMan View Post
If you say it is narrow keep in mind, it is shoulder narrow.
Your definition of shoulder narrow must be quite a bit different than what comes to mind for me when someone has theirs skis shoulder width apart.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StevensMan View Post
Also, do you think those angles could be achieved if his skis were 6 inches apart?
Through the transition and shortly there after thats about how wide it looks that they are. The distance between the skis increases because he bends his inside leg. The distance between his legs stay fairly consistent and there is very little seperation of the legs.
post #104 of 110
StevensMan,

His skis are 6 inches apart or less in one frame. I would say his width is definitely less than shoulder width. Perhaps hip width. Most people would consider this a pretty narrow stance and completely functional for what he is doing.
post #105 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by borntoski683 View Post
StevensMan,

His skis are 6 inches apart or less in one frame. I would say his width is definitely less than shoulder width. Perhaps hip width. Most people would consider this a pretty narrow stance and completely functional for what he is doing.
I think they are more then 6 inches apart on all frames (including one where I can not see it clearly). I'm talking about distance between skis at bindings measured in horizontal plane. Please keep in mind, those skis have approximately 4 1/4 inch tips, to mee it looks like there are at least 8+ inches everywhere. I believe his stance is somewhere between shoulder and hip width which is considered average to narrow in modern racing. Not that it matters much, it is compltely functional for him.

Again, I repeat my question: on those videos you are bashing so much please point to one where stanse is consistently much wider then Rocca's.
I did not watch them all but I could not find one. It does not mean that all of them show very good stance, some are wider then should be for their type of skiing and terrain, IMO.
post #106 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by onyxjl View Post
Through the transition and shortly there after thats about how wide it looks that they are. The distance between the skis increases because he bends his inside leg. The distance between his legs stay fairly consistent and there is very little seperation of the legs.
Sorry, I look at this montage and see completely different thing: the distance between his skis is pretty much the same thought the transition and the turn and distance between his leg changes, on frame 1 there is only couple of inches between his right knee and left boot, frame 2 and 3 legs are much wider apart and on frame for his left knee touches his left boot, while his skis are about 12 inches apart.

How come we looking at the same picture and came to so different conclusions? How can you say there is very little separation of the legs when there is clearly visible big separation on frame 2 and 3?
post #107 of 110
Check the video, it will make it clear.
post #108 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by StevensMan View Post
I think they are more then 6 inches apart on all frames (including one where I can not see it clearly). I'm talking about distance between skis at bindings measured in horizontal plane. Please keep in mind, those skis have approximately 4 1/4 inch tips, to mee it looks like there are at least 8+ inches everywhere. I believe his stance is somewhere between shoulder and hip width which is considered average to narrow in modern racing. Not that it matters much, it is compltely functional for him.

Again, I repeat my question: on those videos you are bashing so much please point to one where stanse is consistently much wider then Rocca's.
I did not watch them all but I could not find one. It does not mean that all of them show very good stance, some are wider then should be for their type of skiing and terrain, IMO.
WHY would you want to measure the distance between the skies? It's about the distances between the legs. The distance between the skies vary with edge-angle; so there is no real point in measuring this.

For instance that photo's of rocca. Last frame has very high edge angle, yet his left knee almost touches his right leg! That's not what I call shoulder width (rather some inches of seperation)

Interesting though. I clicked the youtube link, which linked to this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sTbR...related&search=
She does have a wide stance quite often.

(That being said, I think that more than 7 inches of seperation between the legs should be outlawed.

P.S. only looked ver quickly to the video, and I am no good at the art of MA so I just might have missed something.
post #109 of 110
Thought I was linking to Rocca, oh well. Relative to her hips Schild is still generally not that wide with her stance, though I agree she is wider than Rocca.
post #110 of 110

When the dust settles

Pride in our organization is the issue here. I mean divisional, regional and National pride. Am I proud of my staff of instructors at my area? Yes. Is that feeling for them based on their shared PSIA affiliation? Somewhat, but it's essence is founded in who they are and what they do. An individuals ascribed creditability means nothing compared to their daily performance in front of my eyes. What they do is what matters. My end or year evaluations are based on their performance that year. That is what I use as the basis for praise, criticism and pay scale.
All comments in this thread have either bashed the skiing, praised it, excused it, justified it or used it as a springboard for other related/unrelated topics. When all this dust kicked up by each of us settles, ask yourself: Am I proud of that skiing? The answer is yes or no. Lets take a pole. Nolo, you go first.
OK, that is not fair, I'll go first. Answer= NO
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching