EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › Offensive vs. Defensive turns
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Offensive vs. Defensive turns - Page 2

post #31 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by icanseeformiles(andmiles) View Post
yes, defensive turns are "defensible" when you'll die if you don't use one.
LOL , I think this the first post in this thread nails it! That makes all the turns in a DH race defensive .
post #32 of 57
It is interesting to read all the interpretations of offensive / defensive.

Perhaps the most offensive turn is no turn at all. Land Speed record skiers and nordic jumpers tucking the hill would be a good example of this. (Seeking acceleration) The rest of us choose a line that includes going with gravity (accelerating) and resisting it (decelerating). Speed control through turn shape, if you will. So an aggressive line could require braking yet be entirely offensive. As long as our movements match the terrain with the intent of getting from point "A" to point "B" as fast as possible, we are skiing offensively.
Fearfully resisting gravity by blocking against the skis, or choosing a line, maneuver, (movement) that is inappropriately conservative for the situation (terrain or conditions), our skiing would not meet that criteria. In other words it would not be offensive skiing by the definition that we are not seeking maximum acceleration and speed. Does that mean we are skiing defensively? Absolutely! In the real world most of us fit into the second catagory more often than we fit into the first. Which is why I feel it is a bit of a trick question.
post #33 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick View Post
Guys, consider the big pivot entry turn.

Sometimes you execute that pivot because you really need/desire to make a sharp and sudden change of direction. A very deliberate and offensive action. At other times a skier does it for no other reason than being deathly afraid of the falline. A purely fear motivated action. Same exact movement pattern, but completely polar motives. Both have a big tail displacement, both would be considered a prime example of a Bob Barnes negative move, but the first skier is doing it with a very offensive intention of getting "there" the only way it's possible.

Want to see what I'm talking about? Check out this Ron LeMaster montage. (first; try to guess which one it will be)

http://ronlemaster.com/images/2003-2004/slides/bode-pc-gs-1.html

You're not going to see a bigger up hill (negative move) tail toss than that, yet would you call this defensive skiing? You'd be foolish to, because this is an example of the most tactically aggressive/offensive approaches to course negotiation to be found on the World Cup.

I think when it comes right down to it, offensive/defensive is very much a state of mind.

**************

PS; If you think, "UH-OH, Rick is disagreeing with Bob", think again. If you read his article closely you will see that he very much agrees with what I've said here, and admits that sometimes a negative move is part of his perfect turn. So,,, if you want to hold steadfast to the concept that the presence of a negagive move is an immediate indicator of defensive skiing, you are on the opposite side of the fence from both Bob and I.
That doesn't look like a negative movement to me. It appears that his CM still moves inside even if he is displacing his skis up the hill. I'd say a negative move would be if he stood on the downhill ski and moved his CM up as he displaced the uphill ski.
post #34 of 57
I distinguish a weight shift from a cm movement.

If you pick up your left leg, your right leg will have more weight on it than your left leg, and you will be tipping into the turn.

If I wish to go left I push the Earth to the right. If I wish to ski to the left I must apply a force to the hill with my ski to the right. I have found it best to apply this force with the inside edge of my right ski. I push the earth; the earth pushes me. There is a balance to be found in how much to "weight" the front of the ski verses the rear so that the ski turns quicker without washing out the tail.

At very low speeds it is not possible to get enough force on that edge without a "negative" cm move, at least a "passive" negative cm move. At all other speeds it is. I would not consider this "negative" move defensive. At more than walking speeds, inertia takes care of providing enough force on the edge without the aid of gravity and a cm move.
post #35 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssh View Post
I don't think a slip is defensive. I think a heel thrust is. So, slowing movements are not necessarily defensive.

Defensive movements are those body movements that are not in the general direction the skis are taking.

Of course, virtually all of my turns are offensive, but I think that's a different definition of the word. Something about making your eyes bleed?
I generally think that any movement which is meant to slow you or the skis down, which does not use the terrain to make that change of speed is a defensive movement. Doesn't mean bad; this is not a good/bad discussion, just defensive vs. offensive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
Just my opinion:
Defensive turns involve some sort of braking action and an intent to prevent the skis from going somewhere, like combining a brakecheck with a turn away from the fall line.

Offensive turns involve an intent to make the skis go somewhere, and may well involve pushing on the bte of the new outside ski in an attempt to get the shovel to bight harder with no slipping and get into that turn faster and harder.

If your skiing along at warp 9 and see a rock dead ahead, you should make an offensive turn towards the ice or snow beside the rock, not a defensive turn away from the rock.
wouldn't the true offensive movement in this case be a jump over the rock in question?

Quote:
Originally Posted by justanotherskipro View Post
Bud,
Cooperating with gravity verse resisting gravity. Tenative verses confident. Deliberate verses unintentional. All of these happen in a turn.
So IMO it is sort of a trick question.
Yes, but can't a turn up the hill or onto a terrain feature that's not combined with a defensive move be offensive?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TomB View Post
Well if are are going to get anal about it, any move that fights gravity or momentum is defensive. Of course, that would make most of our skiing defensive.
What I think is, if you are defining not fighting gravity as always going downhill, then I disagree. A move up the hill can also be offensive as it uses gravity (since you are travelling away from the pull of gravity, you will slow down), as long as you don't make defensive movements to make it happen.
post #36 of 57
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by justanotherskipro View Post
Bud,
Cooperating with gravity verse resisting gravity. Tenative verses confident. Deliberate verses unintentional. All of these happen in a turn.
So IMO it is sort of a trick question.
I like this analogy and one of your later posts too! how do you put multiple quotes in one reply?

b
post #37 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud heishman View Post
I like this analogy and one of your later posts too! how do you put multiple quotes in one reply?

b
use the button just to the right of the quote button. Hit it in as many posts as you want to quote. For the last quote you want to use, use the quote button. (Don't want to use the last post as a quote, but the "multi-quotes" you've highlighted are too far back? hit quote for the last post, then delete that last one from your comments.)
post #38 of 57
Thread Starter 
It looks like the many posts here boil down to a concensous that offensive vs. defensive is a psychological state of mind followed closely by manifestations in our skiing that demonstrate this state of mind.

When we learn to ski, I think the first thing we all want to know is "where are the brakes on these things?" and consiquently develop movement patterns in our turns that reinforce these defensive movements. This is all good and granted we need these movements in our repitoire to ski.

I pose this question: Should instructors reinforce these movements or are we better served to focus on the elusive offensive movements that go with gravity in order to nurture this more elusive attitude? and in the end develop better turn transitions?
post #39 of 57
Thread Starter 
thanks Icansee! I learn somethin ever day!
post #40 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud heishman View Post
It looks like the many posts here boil down to a concensous that offensive vs. defensive is a psychological state of mind followed closely by manifestations in our skiing that demonstrate this state of mind.

When we learn to ski, I think the first thing we all want to know is "where are the brakes on these things?" and consiquently develop movement patterns in our turns that reinforce these defensive movements. This is all good and granted we need these movements in our repitoire to ski.

I pose this question: Should instructors reinforce these movements or are we better served to focus on the elusive offensive movements that go with gravity in order to nurture this more elusive attitude? and in the end develop better turn transitions?
I would offer that both need to happen if we are to experience the "release and catch" maneuver, you described so well in another thread.
post #41 of 57
Thread Starter 
Interesting?...hadn't thought of it in the context of the "release and catch" senerio.

What constutes "catch"? Is it the moment we feel our edges load and the tip turning in? or is it when we begin to feel decceleration?

Let's compare a ski turn to the feeling of bungee jumping. When standing on the take off we tip forward releasing ourselves to the pull of gravity, then the feeling of free falling, then the bungee slack is taken up and we begin to feel a connection and then progressive decceleration. From ooooh to aaaaaaah!

The offensive part is letting go, taking the step, commiting to the fall.

Is the decceleration "defensive" ? I don't know? If our skis are turning well and our direction of travel is a nice arc, are we just riding the wave or are we being defensive?

I still feel that unless we are displacing the skis across the direction we are traveling more than neccessary we are not being defensive. If the intent is to slow down then we are, if we are trying to ride the wave to a point where we want to drop in again, maybe we are just skiing efficiently?
post #42 of 57
I think the first thing we need to understand is that we need to be both offenseve and defensive when we ski. Skills and gutts should go hand in hand. With improved skills we ski more dearing and less defensive "state of mind" is required.
post #43 of 57
Bud in my mind the catch is all about managing acceleration / deceleration. Speed control by it's very nature includes braking. Yes we turn to avoid obstacles but mainly it is for speed control. So like TDK I think both happen during a turn. As we progress to upper levels less and less time is spent actively scrubbing speed but our line can also be "defensive", at least IMO.
post #44 of 57
Conditions and traffic.

When I am on a clear trail (blue or black, it doesn't matter), my full commitment (upper body and CM), is down the fall line; the speed and turn shape are of no consequence = offensive skiing.

Same trail, and there is traffic or terrain variation .... a little kid or some rocks from the grooming; once I start "checking and hesitation" = defensive skiing.

How many times have you been teaching a person who is in that difficult change of "comfort zone" when transitioning from blue to black and it's all hesitation ... that too is defensive skiing.
post #45 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by epic View Post
That doesn't look like a negative movement to me. It appears that his CM still moves inside even if he is displacing his skis up the hill. I'd say a negative move would be if he stood on the downhill ski and moved his CM up as he displaced the uphill ski.
Epic, it's not up to us to interpret the meaning of "negative move", it's already been done by the person who created the term. I used it according to his definition. Read for yourself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Barnes
But there are exceptions (naturally--it was getting too simple). Like a car again, we can only turn so tight. If you HAVE to turn a car more tightly than it's tightest turning circle, the only way to do it is to move the BACK end OUT. And the only way to do that, besides putting it in reverse, is to lift the back end and move it sideways, or lift the whole car and pivot it. Not easy. Not usually desirable. A negative movement. But if you HAVE to do it, if you can't follow "your" line without it....

So it is with skiing, even in the perfect turn. To make a very quick, sharp direction change, we DO have to pivot the skis sometimes. Pivot quickly, then engage the edges to grip. To do that, unweighting helps. The very tight turns that racers sometimes make, especially in slalom, often involve unweighting. It may be subtle, often just a result of "rebound" as the skier releases the pressures of the last turn and the skis and legs spring back. But those who argue "never unweight" and/or "never twist the skis" in a turn, forsake the option of truly tight direction changes.
post #46 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick View Post
Well if that's the case, Bud, it'a all a moot point, because I'm certainly not going to do what would be necessary to ascertain for sure if my student is making a defensive turn or not! :
you could employ a certain mr hopoate(??sp) who was a rugby player in australia who got suspended for an "interesting" move on his opponents....
post #47 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by disski View Post
you could employ a certain
\

It's funny when you scan something quickly and read it wrong. I thought you said I could employ a curtain. :
post #48 of 57
well you could do that too
post #49 of 57
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick View Post
That's a good question, Bud. One could argue that anytime you execute a turn that could be carved, but is not, you are inserting an optional speed control mechanism, thus making said turn defensive.
exactly, some braking=some defensiveness. Not neccessarily bad but not optimum.

Quote:
Originally Posted by borntoski683 View Post
I think you should not define braking as defensive necessarily. Let's first define what the word "defensive" means and "offensive", then we can determine where braking fits into those concepts in certain situations.

In some other threads we got into a discussion about whether someone should stand on the new outside ski (wedge turn) or release the old outside ski. One was termed by some as offensive (the release), and the other as defensive. I don't think braking necessarily had anything to do with it since wedge skiers are pretty much trying to brake the whole time. It had more to do with the sensation of letting the CM fall into the next turn pro actively by releasing its support in the downhill ski vs a more so called "defensive" approach where the skier stands on the new outside ski.
You are right there is a bit of a difference. Maybe the terms "less efficient" and "more efficient" would be more appropriate? Efficiency seems to draw a clearer picture of the goal in wedge turns as well as parallel turns. Anything that detracts from efficiency such as braking movements or movements away from the optimum path or our cg. could be defined under "less efficient" mechanics?

Quote:
Originally Posted by justanotherskipro View Post
Bud,
Cooperating with gravity verse resisting gravity. Tenative verses confident. Deliberate verses unintentional. All of these happen in a turn.
So IMO it is sort of a trick question.
I think the long post quote in this thread from bob barnes describes the whole enchilada very well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by icanseeformiles(andmiles) View Post
I generally think that any movement which is meant to slow you or the skis down, which does not use the terrain to make that change of speed is a defensive movement. Doesn't mean bad; this is not a good/bad discussion, just defensive vs. offensive.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tdk6 View Post
I think the first thing we need to understand is that we need to be both offenseve and defensive when we ski. Skills and gutts should go hand in hand. With improved skills we ski more dearing and less defensive "state of mind" is required.
I think this is the first statement we can agree on TD!
post #50 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick View Post
Epic, it's not up to us to interpret the meaning of "negative move", it's already been done by the person who created the term. I used it according to his definition. Read for yourself.
Maybe Bob will post on this thread. I don't think he'd consider that turn to have a negative component by his own definition. I think parts can move outside as long as the skier is moving inside.
post #51 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by epic View Post
Maybe Bob will post on this thread. I don't think he'd consider that turn to have a negative component by his own definition. I think parts can move outside as long as the skier is moving inside.
Did you even bother to read his quote that I took the time to find, hand pick and provide for you? It's right there in that quote, in black and white, couldn't be anymore crystal clear.

Look,,, I'll provide two more quotes from his article that confirm the same damn thing,,, but after this I'm through and will conclude you're just being stubborn and don't WANT to see.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Barnes
Now there are several possible ways to turn our skis (besides just letting them turn). We can jerk them both around by turning the upper body, or some part of it, first, in a "one-two" action--the classic technique known as "rotation." We can twist the upper and lower body quickly in opposite directions--known as "counter-rotation." We can jam a pole into the snow and crank our whole body and skis around by pushing on it--the ubiquitous "blocking pole plant." But all these techniques cause the tails to twist out, throwing the skis into a skid. They all involve negative movements. There must be a better way!
AND

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Barnes
Any movements that push or twist the TAILS of the skis OUT of the turn are negative movements, and are therefore incompatible with the "perfect turn."
Damn, this gets frustrating sometimes. :
post #52 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick View Post
Did you even bother to read his quote that I took the time to find, hand pick and provide for you? It's right there in that quote, in black and white, couldn't be anymore crystal clear.

Look,,, I'll provide two more quotes from his article that confirm the same damn thing,,, but after this I'm through and will conclude you're just being stubborn and don't WANT to see.



AND



Damn, this gets frustrating sometimes. :
Yes it sure does and yes I read the quotes. I still don't think Bob would call that turn negative. I know I wouldn't. Would you?
post #53 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by epic View Post
I still don't think Bob would call that turn negative. I know I wouldn't. Would you?
First, the term is negative move,,, not negative turn. It's an important distinction. In his article Bob clearly states his position that negative moves do not necessarily indicate a defensive turn,,, that sometimes negative moves are a necessity in offensive, "go there" skiing. His position supports the main point I was trying to make in my original post. So here we are, with you trying to argue with both of us (Bob and me) by agreeing with us that Bode is not making a defensive turn.

Doesn't that seem kind of silly? :
post #54 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud heishman View Post
It looks like the many posts here boil down to a concensous that offensive vs. defensive is a psychological state of mind followed closely by manifestations in our skiing that demonstrate this state of mind.
There is alot of good material in this thread but your thought here captures it best IMHO Bud. If we just look at SL training and terrain. Coaches prefer rolling intermediate terrain rather than steep black terrain. The reason a coach offers will be a cryptic version of this thread. They don't want the kids skiing defensively. Even more important early in the season when putting the pattern in. The funny thing about it is if the kids are training on easier terrain and attacking getting good acceleration turn to turn when you take them to the race irregardless of the terrain they go after it. A good example of this defensive/offensive issue just using SL training/racing example. Back in early eighties, low snow year in 81. We had the kids training in a very steep upper bowl all season as that was where the only snow was. I took one of the leading SL kids in NW down to Vail for an Elbert Series race. The course there was typical rolling with a mixture of terrain and he was "way out" on a clean run. This was a kid that normally would have been "way in" easily top 10 in that field. Constant training on steep terrain had caused a subtle adaptation to a more defensive way of skiing SL. Not something real noticeable without the aid of the clock and video to really see the minute scrubbing, the subtle harshness turn by turn. Defensive vs Offensive - Funny thing is the kid knew it but was still caught in it due to circumstances beyond his control. Now days we would take the kid to Gladbeck for a week to iron it out but that sort of thing wasn't feasible in 1981

- Fossil
post #55 of 57
Hi Bud et. al.

First off I think one of the reasons people have trouble answering the original question that you posed is because we tend to assign value judgements to words ...

offensive skiing = good
defensive skiing = bad

One of my skiing mentors told me that a complete toolbox includes all moves -- both "offensive" and "defensive" ones.

IMHO ... it all hinges upon breaking movements as a means of speed control. A turn may have speed control inherent to it, but if it's only an expression of turn radius or line -- then it's not a physical breaking movement.

kiersten
post #56 of 57
Thread Starter 
FF,
good point, in fact some of the flatter smaller hills in our country have produce US team racers, probably for the same reason, they learn to glide and conserve speed.

klkaye,
I agree with you. This is the reason I prompted the question. I think there are many different views and understandings of what these terms mean.

Using Bob Barnes "perfect turn" goals, I believe that any variation from a perfect turn has degrees of "less efficient" to it. Some may define this as "negative movements" some measure it by the psychological state of mind or intent? It is interesting to me to here others thoughts so that I may expand my understanding of the whole thing!

b
post #57 of 57
After reading through this thread and the wedge thread it has become clear to me that paramount in what makes a movement "defensive" as opposed to offensive is how that move was first evaluated and used by the skier/instructor using the term, or in some cases how it is first used by the majority of the instructor's students.

Take for example putting a ski on edge in a wedge position and angulating. If you first used this as a means to correct your direction to make it follow the fall line or trail you will see this as an offensive "go there" move. If you first used this as a means of turning out of the fall line you will see it as a defensive move.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › Offensive vs. Defensive turns