or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Stance width

post #1 of 158
Thread Starter 
Is this what everyone is up in arms about? Is this considered narrow?

HH demonstrating counterbalance with a narrow stance:

http://www.realskiers.com/pmtsforum/...asc&star t=10
post #2 of 158
The thing that I found confusing about PMTS and narrow stance was resolved when I saw HH demonstrating the narrow stance on purpose as a means to make the release easier, followed by a wider stance when he was "just skiing" on the same pitch. His "wider" stance would still be considered narrow by some, but is within the "functional stance width" range that I've been getting from many examiners and D teamers over the last few years.

The pics in HH's signature are a little confusing because the legs of HH and the racer look like they are close together but both skiers feet and knees are wide apart. IMHO this is where the "controversy" over the PSIA advice for shaped skis to get your feet wider apart comes from. As you get on higher edge angles, it helps to get your feet wider apart. As these pics show, that does not mean going cowboy.

As for the dryland pics, the feet look like they are a shade on the narrow side, but I'm guessing it's a bit of an illusion because you can not see the waist centered over the feet. It's close enough to most efficient in my book given that he is in artificial pose. Unless one is trying to finish one's turns carving uphill, coming across the fall line is where you want the skis to be flatter. I don't know how one can do a static pose of a skier position at this point in the turn without external support of the upper body.

If you go down to the bottom of the first page in the thread to the (what's the acronym?) multiple frames in a single pic, the third image shows the "tall stance" that I'd expect to see in the middle image of the top of the thread, but can't be demonstrated as a still without external support. Although the feet in this image look like they are close together, one can clearly see the white space from the knees to the boots and sufficient separation between the knees and the feet to sustain high edge angles in the following image.

I'm sure there will be other opinions, but I don't consider this worth getting my panties in a bunch.
post #3 of 158
You have to be a bit careful when discussing this subject, because there are two different ways of defining "stance width".
Physicsman contributed a great thread about this back in the summer, where he coined the terms "daylight leg separation" and "on-snow track separation".
There are some diagrams illustrating those terms in that thread:
http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?t=42263
post #4 of 158
HH stance width in the dryland picks is open/narrow. I would call it open stance since closed would be "skiboots" together and narrow because its not wide. However, this applies only when skier stands upright perpendicular to the ground. Like physicsman so well explained when leaning over to the side daylight between leggs gradually dissapear.
post #5 of 158
An alternative view to Harb's are these two good links, with detailed photo analysis, that discuss stance width, wide legs making an A-frame, and moving your CM into the turn and the transition in the context of making a complete modern WC turn:

http://youcanski.com/en/coaching/incline-to-win.htm

http://youcanski.com/en/coaching/parallel_shins.htm
post #6 of 158
Gosh I don't know what this says about me, but HH's stance in that sequence looks to be very functional to me, especially considering his body type and size. For me it is whatever feels right that doesn't interfere with body mechanics and functional movement. Certainly not one size fits all. Later, RicB.
post #7 of 158
Thread Starter 
Is the PSIA advocating a wider stance? I know that the CSIA is not.
post #8 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE View Post
Is the PSIA advocating a wider stance? I know that the CSIA is not.
PSIA advocates a functional stance width dependent on personal body geometry. To my knowledge anyway. Later, Ricb.
post #9 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by RicB View Post
PSIA advocates a functional stance width dependent on personal body geometry. To my knowledge anyway. Later, Ricb.
This was a battle I had with a DCL and and Examiner for years before PSIA adopted the "functional" standpoint.

The way that I describe proper stance width to people is how wide are your feet apart when you walk? That will always be functional allowing the feet to be more or less together depending on situation.

If you think about functional width this way I find it much less confusing. If you have someone standing still with their feet comfortably apart and balanced on both feet. Now angle the standing surface. Most people will spread their feet apart to stand stable on both feet. To me, that is the definition of functional stance width. Afterall, what is a turn, it is an infinate number of static moments blended together so quickly that it appears to be fluid motion (think of cartoon flipbooks and the fact that most filming is done with 29 frames per second). To me, functional stance width is nothing more than the body being able to balance on both feet as equally as possible (given the circumstances).

BTW, I do not think the pictures in HH's thread demonstrate a narrow stance at all. He is relatively thin, which is helpful because it is much easier to "picture" the femur hip joint and how his skeletal system is built to allow him to place equal weight on both feet.
post #10 of 158
I discussed this topic over the summer in great depth. Essentially understanding stance revolves around two factors - vertical and horizontal separation. Track width is merely a resultant of those two components, therefore it is insufficient to describe a turn merely by the width of the tracks - or to instruct skiing based ont he width of the tracks.
Later
GREG
post #11 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeluvaSkier View Post
I discussed this topic over the summer in great depth. Essentially understanding stance revolves around two factors - vertical and horizontal separation. Track width is merely a resultant of those two components, therefore it is insufficient to describe a turn merely by the width of the tracks - or to instruct skiing based on the width of the tracks.
Later
GREG
Well put Greg.

The issue for developing skiers that is affected by stance width is the development of lateral balancing skills. Beg-int skiers, without correct instructional guidance, tend toward favoring the stability of a much wider than functional stance. However stable, this results in their skiing by standing/balancing more 'on top' of their skis with their CM only inside the outside foot vs. learning to release the CM to move inside of both feet and to stand/balance against both skis. This leads to defensive outside foot to outside foot movement habits, rather than learning to positively release the CM to flow across both feet in the transition to the inside of the next turn. When they get to the point of wanting to use higher edge angles their approach its to crank up the outside ski further, a-framing at knees or hips, with the inside ski much flatter, as an in-rigger to provide the stability crutch their skiing has become dependant upon. : Once the a-frame/triangle stance habits are ingrained, it takes a strong commitment and a knowledgeable instructor to guide these skiers to transitioning to a functional stance width supporting the development of the lateral balancing skills needed to progress to higher levels.

In contrast, taking lessons that promote learning new inside foot releasing movements from the beginning, and that encourage the development of lateral balancing skills supported by a strong balance and stance 'against' the outside ski enable the actively tipping (and lighter) inside foot/leg to align with the outside in a functionally narrower stance. This opens the doorway to the lateral flowing of the CM from the inside of one turn to the next that is characterized by expert skiers. The more skilled one is in using each foot in an optimum relationship with the other, the narrower a functional stance may 'appear' to be. Additionally those skills will easily allow the stance width to be adapted to suit any terrain or snow conditions.
post #12 of 158
Does PSIA ever suggest a leggs glued together stance? RicB and Manus are mentioning a functional stance consept but does PSIA ever find a very close stance functional?

How far back do we have to go in PSIA history to find the close stance the holy grail of parallel skiing?
post #13 of 158
Those are interesting pictures. I'd just find it a lot easier to take him seriously if he didn't have to constantly bash PSIA. Without anyone bringing it up he talks about how wrong PSIA is 3 or 4 times in the first page of that thread.
post #14 of 158
Funny, I just looked at the pictures. I swear, honest!

40 years ago when I learned to ski, skis close together were the Holy Grail. Maybe around 25 years ago I started getting grief for my skis being too close together. It's been a long time. Yet today it's still appropriate to have your feet closer together in powder and the bumps.
post #15 of 158

stance

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE View Post
Is this what everyone is up in arms about? Is this considered narrow?

HH demonstrating counterbalance with a narrow stance:

http://www.realskiers.com/pmtsforum/...asc&star t=10
The stance width looks fine to me. But why is the counterbalanced (CB)stance necessary? I have looked all over the PMTS threads and it appears that the (CB) is set up prior to deflection. This is off topic so could someone who knows point me in the right direction. Thanks, Bolter
post #16 of 158
Thread Starter 
Isn't that how you engage the edges in preparation phase? ( just exaggerated?)
post #17 of 158

References to definition and uses of counter balance in PMTS

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolter View Post
The stance width looks fine to me. But why is the counterbalanced (CB)stance necessary? I have looked all over the PMTS threads and it appears that the (CB) is set up prior to deflection. This is off topic so could someone who knows point me in the right direction. Thanks, Bolter

Here are a few snippets of my comments from this thread on secondary movements related to general concept of counter movements:

http://www.realskiers.com/pmtsforum/...=662&highlight=
(this thread has been archived over to the classic threads section)

The use of counter is traditionally pretty vague/ambiguous in general use. In addition, it is often used in a way that is incompatible with a PMTS model. Therefore, Harald has been pushing for the use of the terms "counter balance" and "counter acting."

These two terms (secondary movements) are quite specific in PMTS. They fall under the overall category of counter movements and they combine to create the Upper Body part of Lower/Upper body coordination.

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

PMTS breaks the big notion of "counter" down into the two component parts as specific movements. This is much better for understanding the contribution of these movements to various effects and problems. It also means that instructions can be very specific and tangible.

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

Counter balance is the muscular effort of crunching of the shoulders sideways, down towards the skis. The direction is opposite to, or against, the tipping of the skis. This is why John describes it as putting the body in a “C”

************************
Counter acting is the turning of the hips and upper body to the outside of the turn. First, this counters any rotation of the upper body in the direction of the turn. Second it allows the stance leg to straighten out more easily when the skier is in high angles thereby avoiding steering in the upper leg and making the leg more structurally strong. Lastly, it provides greater "counter balancing effect" than using counter balancing alone. By adding counter acting, the upper body can stay upright more easily because the skier can recruit the muscles in front of the stomach and bend forward at the waist (forward in relation to the direction of the hips) rather than just isolating a lateral muscles and bending involved in counter balancing alone.

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

Harald believes that counter balancing is more important when gravity is more in play and counter acting is more important when the skier is balancing against the forces of the turn. In my experience, counter balancing alone takes more effort. It’s like doing an oblique crunch every turn while skiing. You can move your body back into balance over your skis more easily by simply turning your hips to the outside of the turn and bending a little at the waist.

I believe that counter balance and counter movement are hierarchical. That is, counter balance is most effective and easiest to use and control early in the turn and at slower speeds. However, as the forces of the turn increase and the tipping angles get higher, it gets harder to increase the counter balancing effort to level that is needed. Also, in practical terms most people just have an upper limit (either in strength or flexibility) for how much they can counter balance. So as the turn progresses and the angles/forces get higher, it becomes easier to add in counter movement.


****************end of quote snippets ***************


Hope the quoted thread points you in a helpful direction.
post #18 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkierSynergy View Post
Counter acting is the turning of the hips and upper body to the outside of the turn. ........... You can move your body back into balance over your skis more easily by simply turning your hips to the outside of the turn and bending a little at the waist.
Im a little confused here, are you suggesting we should move our hipps towards the outside of the turn? That is called hip rotation and that is not good stuff. You should move your hipps into the turn, away from the centrifugal pull. Or???

We had a healthy argument over weight transfer in an other thread resently. There counter and every move towards the outside of the turn was generally thaught as being defensive moves. Im a true believer in active weight shift and leaning towards the outside of the turn with my upper body. Hipps stay inside. Thats where angulation is born. Any comment SkierSynergy?
post #19 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by tdk6 View Post
Im a little confused here, are you suggesting we should move our hipps towards the outside of the turn? That is called hip rotation and that is not good stuff. You should move your hipps into the turn, away from the centrifugal pull. Or???

We had a healthy argument over weight transfer in an other thread resently. There counter and every move towards the outside of the turn was generally thaught as being defensive moves. Im a true believer in active weight shift and leaning towards the outside of the turn with my upper body. Hipps stay inside. Thats where angulation is born. Any comment SkierSynergy?
He's talking about what we refer to as simply counter. At least that's how I understand what he said. The pelvis rotating towards the outside of the turn around the outside stance leg, the gate swining open through the turn. Totally different from angulation or their counter balance. I would think that you would agree with this in principle TDK.
post #20 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkierSynergy View Post
The use of counter is traditionally pretty vague/ambiguous in general use.
Not taught well unfortunately perhaps, but the purpose is very well understood by most everyone in the race community and some outside the race community. It is not unique only to PMTS, though HH does prefer to emphasize certain movements and demonize certain others, the concept and purpose of these two things is well understood outside PMTS.

Quote:
In addition, it is often used in a way that is incompatible with a PMTS model. Therefore, Harald has been pushing for the use of the terms "counter balance" and "counter acting."

These two terms (secondary movements) are quite specific in PMTS. They fall under the overall category of counter movements and they combine to create the Upper Body part of Lower/Upper body coordination.

PMTS breaks the big notion of "counter" down into the two component parts as specific movements. This is much better for understanding the contribution of these movements to various effects and problems. It also means that instructions can be very specific and tangible.
This is not strictly accurate. Firstly, the two PMTS concepts are exactly the same as what everyone else has been teaching and learning in terms of concept and purpose:

PMTS "counter balance" = everyone else "angulation"

PMTS "counter acting" = everyone else "countering"

The only subtle differences are about how these concepts are applied, the subtle timing nuances, etc.. HH may feel his wording somehow conveys some subtle nuances that guide skiers to perform these in a way he feels is superior. Perhaps so, perhaps not. but definitely they are not unique concepts. Sorry, I mean no offense or conflict towards HH when I point this out. Just want to keep the facts straight.

Quote:
Counter balance is the muscular effort of crunching of the shoulders sideways, down towards the skis. The direction is opposite to, or against, the tipping of the skis. This is why John describes it as putting the body in a “C”
Otherwise known in the 30's and 40's as the "comma" position and in modern times as angulation.

Quote:
Counter acting is the turning of the hips and upper body to the outside of the turn. First, this counters any rotation of the upper body in the direction of the turn. Second it allows the stance leg to straighten out more easily when the skier is in high angles thereby avoiding steering in the upper leg and making the leg more structurally strong. Lastly, it provides greater "counter balancing effect" than using counter balancing alone. By adding counter acting, the upper body can stay upright more easily because the skier can recruit the muscles in front of the stomach and bend forward at the waist (forward in relation to the direction of the hips) rather than just isolating a lateral muscles and bending involved in counter balancing alone.
Not a bad description. This is the same functional description as what the rest of the world calls "countering". A few subtle points, countering also allows the outside ankle to evert more than without countering. HH also understands this concept well, though he prefers that this is driven from the feet up instead of waist down (ie, ankle eversion stimulates countering).

It is true what you say about how countering lines up your large muscle groups so that you can use your core muscles and quads to not only bend forward at the waist in order to angulate out over your outside ski, but also it allows a lot better support against the G forces then if you are facing sideways to it.

Many people may not agree with your assessment that countering prevents leg steering from happening. I certainly do not think that is a primary objective of countering, though it may have an impact on the result that way.

PMTS in general does not want to fess up to the fact that when you counter-act, you are essentially rotating your outside femur in the hip socket. it is true however, that there is only so far you can rotate your femur before its pretty maxed out...and then you wouldn't be able to rotate it any further. However, in my view that would probably be excessive amounts of counter-action to reach that point. In fact that would start to be more of an anticipation type scenario with strong unwinding tendencies after that. Most people using countering (or counter-acting according to HH) still have more room to rotate their femurs and nothing about the body biomechanically that I can think of would prevent you from doing that, simply by being countered.

Preventing the outside leg from rotating is more a factor of contracting certain muscles to hold tension in your outside half. Just having that leg extended also diminishes the rotational capabilities.

HH talks about a counter-acting train-coupler concept which is the locking down that perhaps you mean...and in my view that is really talking more about locking down the everted ankle into a strong edged position... I wouldn't say it is at all designed to eliminate or control rotational movements at all though by the time you are in that locked down, leg extended, high G position..you probably aren't going to be able to rotate anything because the sidewalls of your skis will be pointing down into the snow as much as anything. Eliminating leg rotation should be the furthest thing from your mind if you have been successful enough to get to this point of success.

By the way, the train coupler concept is also not unique to PMTS under various names, but it is true that there are MANY people that have never heard about it, including myself until recently.

Quote:
Harald believes that counter balancing is more important when gravity is more in play and counter acting is more important when the skier is balancing against the forces of the turn.
Really? can you point us at some threads by him that say such? That would not be my view of these two concepts, neither in or out of PMTS.

The two concepts have different purposes and are definitely related. but its not really that one is more about gravity and the other is more about G forces or that one handles one part of the turn better than the other for the same goal. They are separate concepts with different purposes, but they are used together and often confused by many. One reason I do not like the PMTS lingo on this is because it does make it confusing to the casual reader to understand the difference between counter-acting and counter-balancing. To the rest of us, this is countering and angulation.
post #21 of 158

PM to BigE gone public

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE View Post
Isn't that how you engage the edges in preparation phase? ( just exaggerated?)
Yes it is exaggerated to the point of being dysfunctional. IMO the PREPARATION Stance is the stance of the Traverse with the exception that in arc2arc the Traverse/Preparation stance is upside down (UDT). BTW, I do wonder how he got that term. To promote the upper body tipping out over the new outside ski (or old outside ski for that matter) is counter productive. This BIG move makes it very difficult (if not impossible) to apply/resist forces in the direction of travel or anywhere else for that matter. The active/passive weight shift thread brought up many of the problems of using the upper body as a counterbalance mechanism.
In addition there is no gait shown to develop inside half lead, proper foot loading, etc. PREPARATION Stance is ready for angulation, deflection and the external forces that are a result. In every photo of him skiing nowhere does he show a posture that remotely resembles what is shown in his exercise. That alone is problematic for me.
Perpendicularity and a stacked stance in all of its vagueness is much better to strive for than the tipping counterbalancing demo'ed in that exercise.
post #22 of 158

Does not look natural or like any skiing I know

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkierSynergy View Post
Counter balance is the muscular effort of crunching of the shoulders sideways, down towards the skis. The direction is opposite to, or against, the tipping of the skis. This is why John describes it as putting the body in a “C”

************************
Counter acting is the turning of the hips and upper body to the outside of the turn. First, this counters any rotation of the upper body in the direction of the turn. Second it allows the stance leg to straighten out more easily when the skier is in high angles thereby avoiding steering in the upper leg and making the leg more structurally strong. Lastly, it provides greater "counter balancing effect" than using counter balancing alone. By adding counter acting, the upper body can stay upright more easily because the skier can recruit the muscles in front of the stomach and bend forward at the waist (forward in relation to the direction of the hips) rather than just isolating a lateral muscles and bending involved in counter balancing alone.


I believe that counter balance and counter movement are hierarchical. That is, counter balance is most effective and easiest to use and control early in the turn and at slower speeds. However, as the forces of the turn increase and the tipping angles get higher, it gets harder to increase the counter balancing effort to level that is needed. Also, in practical terms most people just have an upper limit (either in strength or flexibility) for how much they can counter balance. So as the turn progresses and the angles/forces get higher, it becomes easier to add in counter movement.

Hope the quoted thread points you in a helpful direction.
That is helpful and thank you.
The implied sequence of movements to cause deflection (relative to counter) is counter balance then counter act. If so, do the skis begin deflection while counter balancing then counter acting movements kick in (if needed) to put more edge angle and tighten the radius? If that is right then the exercise HH is showing fits in to place as far as a progression would go. However the perpendicularity of the CM to the skis top sheets is destroyed and the excessive knee angles are inappropriate in arc2arc skiing (as illustrated in this exercise).
post #23 of 158

Counter action

Quote:
Originally Posted by RicB View Post
He's talking about what we refer to as simply counter. At least that's how I understand what he said. The pelvis rotating towards the outside of the turn around the outside stance leg, the gate swining open through the turn. Totally different from angulation or their counter balance. I would think that you would agree with this in principle TDK.
Yes, you understand me correctly. A simple instruction for a little bit of counter action would be: Point your belly button (or Zipper line on your jacket, etc.) toward the tip of your stance ski.

However, within PMTS, this is only one movement that is involved in "countering." The other is counter balance.

Within PMTS the concept of "angulation" is treated as just as vague, varied, and ambiguous as "counter." Different people talk about different origins and purposes for "angulation" (eg knee, hip, body, etc.) But that is another issue.

It is just an attemp to be systematic, clear and consistent within the system of PMTS. Counter balance and counter action are the consituent movements that combine to create the more general sense of "counter." In an attempt to avoid vagueness and ambiguity, PMTS-ers almost always discuss the more distinct issues of counter balance and counter action. They can be done independently or combined. It is just that PMTS, we find it more precise to analyze each contituent's effects, uses, problems.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tdk6 View Post
I'm a little confused here, are you suggesting we should move our hipps towards the outside of the turn?
No. RicB had me correct. However, I should also mention that these movements are secondary and will not, in themselves, assure effective movement of the hips into the turn though they can either facillitate or limit the effects of good primary movements.

The Harb Carver in this recent thread had counter action, but still didn't settle the hips and move them effectively into the turn.

http://www.realskiers.com/pmtsforum/...fe9af c34457e
*****
Quote:
Originally Posted by borntoski683 View Post
. . . understood by most everyone in the race community and some outside the race community. It is not unique only to PMTS
Agreed. Though not by everyone in the teaching or skiing community.

Quote:
Originally Posted by borntoski683 View Post
. . . the two PMTS concepts are exactly the same as what everyone else has been teaching and learning in terms of concept and purpose.
Here I would disagree. Another snippet from the original thread for an example:

***********************
Second, the notions of counter in other systems of skiing are very different in purpose than the equivalent concepts in PMTS. Often counter is seen as a tension that one creates as the turn develops. It is a form of anticipation that is released at transition, so that it aids steering (or redirection) into the next turn. This keeps both the upper body and the lower body going in the direction of the turn and is therby supposedly more efficient. [I think this is exaclty what is described in the most recent PSIA technical manual]

I have over-heard regional instructors events in which the directions are explicitly to keep the eyes and upper body facing down the hill, allow the skis to “ski” into a counter against the upper body and then release the skis and allow them to unwind into the direction the skier is looking. All of this is, at the least, very different than PMTS . Personally, I would say more strongly that it is the opposite of PMTS.

In PMTS counter balance and counter acting area set of movements in reaction to tipping. They are done to maintain balance, structural integrity, and maximum pressure in the face of edge angles. Their function is to make higher edge angles possible and easier. Secondarily, they counter natural tendencies to steer, rotate, and flail.

Instead of facing in the direction of the new turn as you transition and steer your legs where you are looking. PMTS advocates changing edges without changing direction and then counter balance and counter acting in the OPPPOSITE direction of your turn. That is the recipe for the highest edge angle as early as possible. Go upside down to the slope with both the lower and upper body.

While learning these movements in the release you might hear to look up the hill away from the intended direction of the turn. However, later in the learning process, PMTS instructors tend to drop this way of talking and avoid references in relation to a direction down or up the hill -- this just leads to confusion. In PMTS these movements are done only in relation to the tipping of the feet, irregardless of where they are pointing and they have nothing to direction on the slope.

So, I would argue that the concepts of counter balance and counter acting are more specific and often quite different in purpose than other more common notions of “counter.” As such they deserve to be distinguished from them and that is the reason for the special terminology

****** end snippet*******

For particular users, some of these may be semantic differences, for others it may be more. Because I will be gone for a while, just let my posts answer the question originally asked about what counter balance is and where on RealSkiers one can find more information about it. Have fun out skiing.
post #24 of 158
There is much confusion and misinformation here, but those that know what countering means do not confuse it with anticipation. The true meaning of countering outside of PMTS is the same as what PMTS advocates for counter-acting.

That is not to say there are not hordes of PSIA skiers thinking that when they ski into anticipation, they are countering. It was stated recently by ssh that "counter" is the ambiguous PSIA term that refers to somethign which might be anticipation or might be counter-ing. And according to Steve, counter-ing is the term used to define what PMTS calls counter-acting.

Though I agree with you, many people are missing that boat or misunderstanding the differences.
post #25 of 158
If you're looking to achieve high edge angles early in the turn, then you will naturally develop an inside ski lead, and therefore a countered body position to match that, quite early in the turn. (This was mentioned in the Bode Miller / Phil McNichol video on another thread recently, where they talked about "advancing the inside hip as you start the turn".)

The question is, does this contradict the PSIA position on countering, quoted below by Nolo? (from the "let's talk about PSIA" thread)

"How does the "villainization of counter" relate to this statement from the PSIA 2005-06 Team Training notes (aforementioned in a related thread):
Quote:
· Ski into and out of counter rather than making a strong counter movement. "

Some might say it does: "ski into counter" suggests a more gradual application of counter.
However, strictly speaking, the PSIA statement gives no definition of how quickly you could "ski into counter", but merely implies that it should happen as a result of other movements e.g. early high edge angles.

To know exactly what was meant by the statement, you would probably have to speak to its author. I wonder if anyone from the PSIA Demo Team participates in this forum...?
post #26 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Bell View Post
If you're looking to achieve high edge angles early in the turn, then you will naturally develop an inside ski lead, and therefore a countered body position to match that, quite early in the turn. (This was mentioned in the Bode Miller / Phil McNichol video on another thread recently, where they talked about "advancing the inside hip as you start the turn".)

The question is, does this contradict the PSIA position on countering, quoted below by Nolo? (from the "let's talk about PSIA" thread)

"How does the "villainization of counter" relate to this statement from the PSIA 2005-06 Team Training notes (aforementioned in a related thread):
Quote:
· Ski into and out of counter rather than making a strong counter movement. "

Some might say it does: "ski into counter" suggests a more gradual application of counter.
However, strictly speaking, the PSIA statement gives no definition of how quickly you could "ski into counter", but merely implies that it should happen as a result of other movements e.g. early high edge angles.

To know exactly what was meant by the statement, you would probably have to speak to its author. I wonder if anyone from the PSIA Demo Team participates in this forum...?
Good point Martin. For myself I always took skiing into counter to mean that we simply used the appropriate amount for the moment, rather than anticipating an amount of counter we would need later on in the turn and applying that before we needed it. So in this light too much counter is as ineffective as not enough to me. I wonder what Nick would have to say on this? I might send him an email.
post #27 of 158

Same old stuff from a suprising source

Quote:
Originally Posted by RicB View Post
Good point Martin. For myself I always took skiing into counter to mean that we simply used the appropriate amount for the moment, rather than anticipating an amount of counter we would need later on in the turn and applying that before we needed it. So in this light too much counter is as ineffective as not enough to me. I wonder what Nick would have to say on this? I might send him an email.
RickB, you are fueling the fire. "appropriate amount for the moment" and "anticipating the amount of counter"
Anticipation and counter are two separate things, there are entirely different movement pools that support either a skidded turn (anticipation) or an arc (counter/inside half lead). You use leg rotation to realize anticipation (end of turn) and Stride mechanics to find counter (top of arc) Do you agree with this?
You may be able to understand how to incorporate the concept of PSIA blending these two into your own skiing (more power to YA) but many (including myself) can not or are unwilling to do so. Bolter
post #28 of 158
This is a quote from a note accompanying the Austrian Ski Federation's material on technqiue provided to Greg Gurshman @ Youcanski.com:

Editor's Note: In the above images, at first glance one may get an impression that both racers appear to exhibit a significant "tip lead" (the inside ski is significantly ahead of the outside ski), especially in phases 2 and 3. We would like to emphasize that athletes DO NOT intentionally push the inside ski forward or counter-rotate the pelvis to achieve this ski alignment. Instead, tip lead develops naturally, due to extremely high edge angles developed by these top racers. Such extreme edge angles require rather large lateral separation between inside and outside feet, which in turn causes longtitudinal separation of the skis (as a result of a simple anatomical fact that human knee articulates forward. Grasshoppers, for example, would exhibit a negative tip lead). Note, that as soon as the egde angle is reduced (phase 4-1), tip lead disappears, because racer's pelvis stays "square" to the skis throughout the turn (i.e. an imaginary line drawn trough hip sockets is always perpendicular to the longtitudional axis of skis).

What looks like "counter-rotation" in the first Raich's photo, during the transition phase, is, in fact, an anticipatory projection of the upper body into the new turn, which happens ABOVE the pelvic girdle, in the abdominal area. This type of movement is most often seen in slalom (in steep, tight sections), seldom in GS, and virtually non-existent in superG and downhill.

The link is: http://youcanski.com/en/coaching/austrian_coaching.htm
post #29 of 158
Bolter: Yes it (counter balance) is exaggerated to the point of being dysfunctional. IMO the PREPARATION Stance is the stance of the Traverse with the exception that in arc2arc the Traverse/Preparation stance is upside down (UDT). BTW, I do wonder how he got that term. To promote the upper body tipping out over the new outside ski (or old outside ski for that matter) is counter productive. This BIG move makes it very difficult (if not impossible) to apply/resist forces in the direction of travel or anywhere else for that matter.

On the other hand, if you ski at non-race speeds (i.e. recreational type of skiing) you won't easily get that "upside down" position without a healthy measure of counter balance. I am quite certain that as speeds increase, even PMTSers would tone down the CB and use a more optimally stacked position.

BTW, I read your arc2arc post and it made perfect sense to me. One could argue on semantics and minor points, but from a less technical observer (like myself) arc2arc and PMTS have a lot in common.
post #30 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolter View Post
RickB, you are fueling the fire. "appropriate amount for the moment" and "anticipating the amount of counter"
Anticipation and counter are two separate things, there are entirely different movement pools that support either a skidded turn (anticipation) or an arc (counter/inside half lead). You use leg rotation to realize anticipation (end of turn) and Stride mechanics to find counter (top of arc) Do you agree with this?
You may be able to understand how to incorporate the concept of PSIA blending these two into your own skiing (more power to YA) but many (including myself) can not or are unwilling to do so. Bolter
What fire? Rotation is rotation. It is an anotomical fact. Find? We find nothing other than what we are looking for, but, we do have outcomes of what we do, whether we recognize them or not. Gosh Bolter, I'm using anticipating as meaning wishfull thinking, or thinking into the future. Anticipating where we think we will need to be in the future.

Appropriate for the moment to me, simply means paying attention or being alive in the moment. Why make more of it than it deserves? Is anticipation always a movement pool, or can it be a mind set or hurried intention? Jumping the gun so to speak. Really! You can't tell me that in your BMX or whatever it is that you do that you are not alive in the moment, responding and adjustng to the whatever it is you feel in the present? What does psia "really" have to do with this?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching