Originally Posted by Lonnie
Well if they get there does it matter? What's you solution? 1 size fits all? That's crap. Everyone is different and therefore I would argure that it's better to have a system that could taylor a plan to an individual as opposed to "This is the (my) way and you shall do this or else!!!"
BigE just say it. You like PMTS better. Fine. The reality is it's way more limited than PSIA as it's run by one dictator. That's horror.
Why is it that all these drills and exercises (eg. pivot slips, leapers, RR tracks, dynamic parallel...) can be standardized by the PSIA/CSIA, performance measures can even be set in stone and everyone accepts it?
But as soon as I mention a technique for teaching carving should exist, sensible people throw reason out the window and rush to proclaim that I am boosting PMTS. Worse yet, teaching carving means restricting all ski teaching to PMTS. Why is that?
Do I prefer the way PMTS teaches carving? Well, it's better than nothing
There are many many good ideas in PMTS, and some with which I disagree quite strongly. Same for PSIA arcTech and gait mechanics (I don't have a firm opinion on waist steering -- need snow).
Personally, the way I think about carving ( in no particular order) is a blend of arcTech, pure gait mechanics, PMTS, some Epic curiosities, PSIA notions, and thoughts from Greg Gurshman (www.youcanski.com
), Inline speed skating and ice skating, all described in CSIA's terms, and some new one's where appropriate. ( Waist steering concepts have likely been included already, along with the inline speed, but I don't completely "get it" yet. )
Do you think I'd rather teach a simple arc-to-arc progression endorsed by the CSIA?
You bet I would!
Is that too much to ask?