or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Arc vs. carve - Page 6

post #151 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolter View Post
Regardless of what Lonnie says a % of the general public and instructors want to learn to arc and to race Nastar. Aside from tactics they are the same skills. RicB thinks that a less experienced instructor should not be allowed to teach arc2arc even if he can ski it. I call... BULL. PSIA has enjoyed a lock on skidded turns for a long time. Now that arc2arc has become a reality and other systems have been working on it for awhile, now is the time to get on the ball and make a statement. I feel that mistakes from the past have made PSIA gun shy. Put the thing in print. The wait and see time should be over.
Ellen Post Foster made a stab at it and went nowhere. It was a start. What the heck I bet it would be a real money maker just in sales to the membership no matter how good it was. Just like that high end D Team DVD, that has yet to be made. Bolter
BTW, thanks BTS you saved me some time responding.
Well let's see Bolter, you are the author of ArcTech, and you are the head of a ski school. You must have a fine progression in place for your staff (including boot stance evaluation I assume), so you must have your first and second year instructors successfully teaching arc to arc skiing to all those students asking for arc to arc lessons. You must have students coming from all over to get what they cannot get anywhere else. You should be proud. So why are you so concerned with what psia is doing, just market yourself, write a book, reach the masses. Share you successefull methods with the rest of world.
post #152 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolter View Post
Exactly my point, that is not a PSIA system/product he is self marketing. PSIA is his other job. I wrote my text in 2000, PMTS was when? MSR and on and on. Where is PSIA? NOWHERE! WTF, Get it? Bolter
But Bolter, if that's the case then WHY is a2a advertised on PSIA's website? (Isn't that maketing?) Why does Jeb list PSIA as an affiliate? Do you really think he switches hats when he does a2a stuff? "I'm sorry, none of the stuff we are about to learn now is PSIA or ATS...."

Just because arc2arc skiing isn't PSIA primary MARKETING thrust, doesn't mean A2A skiing is not covered by the umbrella of ATS. That's all I'm saying. No matter how much you kick and scream about it, that fact doesn't change....

L
post #153 of 192
RicB,
It looks like you against many here. I would point out that all this pissing contest stuff is really counter to teaching. Teaching is about learning for everyone involved.
Perhaps the idea of moving past progressions and onto targeted lesson plans is what is being misunderstood. The whole idea was to get away from the self promotion and pontification. We are on the hill selling a service and the buyer is looking for more than a canned progression. An instructor who cannot develop the appropriate lesson plan because they shut out alternate methodology is indeed limited. I would ask those who are promoting their method by denegrating others to step back for a minute and see what the public sees. "His way sucks" marketing does not in any way promote or sell a product. It says it cannot stand up to comparison on it's own merits. Those who believe it works have been watching too many negative political adds. I for one refuse to buy from people or organizations that market themselves that way.
post #154 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lonnie View Post
But Bolter, if that's the case then WHY is a2a advertised on PSIA's website? (Isn't that maketing?) Why does Jeb list PSIA as an affiliate? Do you really think he switches hats when he does a2a stuff? "I'm sorry, none of the stuff we are about to learn now is PSIA or ATS...."

Just because arc2arc skiing isn't PSIA primary MARKETING thrust, doesn't mean A2A skiing is not covered by the umbrella of ATS. That's all I'm saying. No matter how much you kick and scream about it, that fact doesn't change....

L
Am I to understand that PSIA has a progression/method/route for learning how to ski using arcing and that it is called "arc2arc"?
Where can I get a look at this arc2arc stuff?
post #155 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
Am I to understand that PSIA has a progression/method/route for learning how to ski using arcing and that it is called "arc2arc"?
Where can I get a look at this arc2arc stuff?
No, Jeb Boyd does. PSIA just mentions it on their page.

http://www.psia.org/01/teams/JebBoyd.asp
post #156 of 192

Botler bolts

Quote:
Originally Posted by RicB View Post
Well let's see Bolter, you are the author of ArcTech, and you are the head of a ski school. You must have a fine progression in place for your staff (including boot stance evaluation I assume), so you must have your first and second year instructors successfully teaching arc to arc skiing to all those students asking for arc to arc lessons. You must have students coming from all over to get what they cannot get anywhere else. You should be proud. So why are you so concerned with what psia is doing, just market yourself, write a book, reach the masses. Share you successefull methods with the rest of world.
You are proving that sarcasm is the weakest form of argument. I will ignore the condescending tone of your post which is distasteful and casts a shadow on you. Not thumbs up at all.
You know that most of my time and the assignments given to my staff are beginner lessons. I run a SS not a Mt Hood race camp. We are one of those small ski areas that produce good racers, avid skiers, huge Tele (locals) and lots of new skiers that we rarely see again (another problem, new thread). Two of my best race/arc instructors are WVU students that grew up at the area and are second and third year instructors. BTW, they have zero interest in PSIA cert, go figure.

The reality is, of all our upper level private/group lessons half come from our Nastar/video arena. These folks want to ski and race on clean arcs.
Instructor training is 3/4 ATS beginner and customer Christy. The rest is high end personal ski improvement ala ATS (bump,trees, crud) and arcing/ race training. Cert Prep is another matter.
I am deeply concerned what PSIA is doing and my personal development has nothing to do with it At all. I am a SS director that sees the value of the organization but I still have kept perspective. I want the organization to improve and stay on top of the evolving sport. Which IMO and many others, it has not.
I am proud of my staff and of my efforts to help the area (which really needs it). For the first time since I began posting here I have the feeling I am wasting my time, that stinks. I give up on this thread I will see you all elsewhere. BY, Bolter
post #157 of 192
Thread Starter 
Is it possible you're taking RicB's note the wrong way, Bolter? The way I read it, his tone is not sarcastic but ironic. Big difference.
post #158 of 192
Bolter,

As an instructor at a Big western resort (one you'd recognize), my perspective as what the skiing public wants is totally different than yours. 100% of our staff is PSIA certified. Close to 1/2 of our instructors are LIII. Close to 10% of our staff are examiners or DCL. We've also got a former demo team member on staff. As for lesson demographics, For adults, about 1/2 are 6+ level skiers looking for high end experienecs both on and off trail. About 1/4 are levels 1 and 2 and the other 1/4 area levels 3,4,5. I'm willing to bet that over 1/2 the lessons that go out in a day are privates. Again, I can only think of 1 instructor on our staff that has been requested for a racing/arcing lesson. But then again we're know as one of the softest resorts on the planet.

As you said, it's all about perspective. From MY perspective, there is not the need for what you are saying. By that's just my limited view of the world, and that doesn't make it so. IMHO, the best thing about PSIA is that it listens to it's members. If the need is there is will respond. It might be slowly, but it will respond. If Arc to arc type skiing is where you think it's at, start talking to the leadership staff of PSIA-E. It will get bumped up the chain. It will happen.
post #159 of 192
Lonnie, there is nothing wrong with that statement, and I agree completely. There are a lot of recreational skiers that are not interested in the kinds of speed involved in arcing, nor should they be doing it. I would feel irresponsible teaching some of them to arc. Nothing wrong with that statement at all. All we're saying is that PSIA does not have a program for teaching it, which you readily admit is not a motivation for them, and perhaps there are SOME skiers which might benefit from it.

It gets back to my original comments about 100 posts ago on this thread about how there is a whole wide range of high level non-arcing, yet still carving skiing which can be utilized off-piste, in the bumps, on the steeps, etc.

Some of us are just going to have to agree to disagree about whether or not the rotational blended approach will get you there or whether learning how to arc correctly will get you closer to that unreachable pure carve on the extreme conditions mentioned above. I happen to think both/all skills are useful, valuable, should be taught and most definitely should be understood by PSIA instructors.
post #160 of 192
I'm trying to understand the source of this disagreement, but I'm failing to see it. BTS, PSIA doesn't have a "program" for teaching any particular style of skiing. That's specifically not the philosophy of the PSIA. You may think that a clear and unequivocal system of drills and movements is the best way to teach skiing of arc-to-arc or any particular type of skiing technique. If so, your approach is accommodated within the PSIA model, but the PSIA will not proscribe that approach (or any other). Instead, it will give you as an instructor/coach a broad range of tools from which to choose as you teach a skier what they want to learn. You are left to decide how you'd like to do that.

The certification process is designed to judge your ability to do this "on the fly" with a given student and their individual goals.

There are many programs out there that fit within the PSIA structure but are more rigid in their approach and outline for what to do when. However, again, you will not find that in the generic PSIA approach for a couple of reasons... first, it's not clear that any one approach will work across all resorts and their customers (for instance, note the difference between Lonnie's experience and Bolter's) and second, such an approach has historically not addressed the needs and wants of the guests.
post #161 of 192
Yes Steve. I realize this is a long thread, but please read it all if you want some context.
post #162 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by borntoski683 View Post
Yes Steve. I realize this is a long thread, but please read it all if you want some context.
Well... ummm... I thought I had!
post #163 of 192
I don't understand your point then. Nobody is saying otherwise. You are essentially agreeing with me. but you phrased it like you don't agree with me. We say, PSIA doesn't teach arc to arc. You say they don't either and gave a reason why. Ok. We all agree then! .
post #164 of 192
Thread Starter 
Arc to arc training is something that might be offered at a divisional general education event. When the shapes first came on the scene, our division invited all the major manufacturers to bring demos to a training clinic on the new technologies. Those who attended returned to their ski schools qualified to teach this hot topic called the Shape Ski Clinic. This is an example of how PSIA training can enhance an instructor's value in the workplace and consequently his/her earning power.

I continue to feel that criticism of PSIA is coming from people with little experience with the organization and or knowledge of how it works. I am off to a PSIA clinic at Big Sky today, where I will have my pick of three D-Team members for my annual education update. Cost is $60 for the day's tuition. I challenge you guys to criticize that value proposition.
post #165 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by justanotherskipro View Post
RicB,
It looks like you against many here. I would point out that all this pissing contest stuff is really counter to teaching. Teaching is about learning for everyone involved.
Perhaps the idea of moving past progressions and onto targeted lesson plans is what is being misunderstood. The whole idea was to get away from the self promotion and pontification. We are on the hill selling a service and the buyer is looking for more than a canned progression. An instructor who cannot develop the appropriate lesson plan because they shut out alternate methodology is indeed limited. I would ask those who are promoting their method by denegrating others to step back for a minute and see what the public sees. "His way sucks" marketing does not in any way promote or sell a product. It says it cannot stand up to comparison on it's own merits. Those who believe it works have been watching too many negative political adds. I for one refuse to buy from people or organizations that market themselves that way.
You are right Jasp. Just like there are no short cuts to high level skiing there are no short cuts to high level instructing. For all psia's faults and slowness and rigidity, the skills concept is rock solid as is psia's teaching model. I have my head (and body) deep in division training right now and I'm also done with this thread.
post #166 of 192
The point being made is simply that there is no progression. There are progressions throught the wedge. They've been debated here MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE!!!! It's as if that's all there is to teach. It is precisely because the PSIA endorses it, and teaches it to their instructors that there are enough people out there that do it and have actually formed an opinon.

Why not include arc to arc?

Many have stated that "it's just skills". Well it's not. It's about organizing the skills: timing and coordination. It's about teaching them in a sequence that shows results.

The point that any decent instructor ought to be able to teach it many different ways is a good point. However, to suggest that most instructors can come up with a good way to do it, is not right. What the PSIA has over a single instructor is a tremendous depth of experience. The PSIA should be more aware of what works and what does not -- they should know how to acheive the results.

I think that a progression developed by the PSIA would form a very good baseline for individual instructors to more quickly come up to speed and teach arc to arc effectively.

My money in on the PSIA "brain trust" to come up with biomechanically sound "stepping stones to arcing" way, rather than leave it up to the cleverness and ability of each instructor. It is by far preferred.

Now if you are all that clever and smart, you can improve upon it. But at least you have a baseline with which your clients may have had some previous experience. You can help them "get it" as opposed to fight with someone else's way of teaching it....

I truly am at a loss to understand why it's so hard to understand this. You do it with pivot slips and "open parallel" what's the big deal about adding another technique to the toolbox?
post #167 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE View Post
The point being made is simply that there is no progression.
Well BigE,

I would say the reason there aren't any "progressions" for this stuff is because "progressions" or any linear type teaching model (we will work on skill A then skill b, then skill c etc.) is an outdated concept. Yes they work at the lower levels, basically generally at those levels, we are doing things like learning to side step, put the skis on, etc. It's very command style oriented, simply because we need to build up a very basic skill set. This stuff is the same for everyone. But once folks start moving on their skis, everyone has their own unique set of challenges for the instructor to work on. An instructor that simply has a A to B to C to D to E progression will do well with people who's challenges fall into that framework. But if not, the instructor is stuck. Quite often early in the lesson, I'll find my self with a game plan as to what we need to work on, but as I introduce new things, new unexpected challenges arise. So do I stick to my original plan? Of course not. If need be I should be able to do B to D to H to Q to A. The more advanced the students, the more likely they are to bring their own unique set of challenges to the lesson. It's a fact of life.
post #168 of 192
The differences between students is where your experience fits in. The burden of teaching someone to ski arc to arc should not be placed entirely on the individual.

When I'm talking about a "progression" in my own mind, I am thinking steps towards completing it. These steps can be worked on through many different drills. That too is where the instructor's experience works.

The "progression" provides the basic framework within which you teach. It is not a robotic adherence to final forms that don't fit all.
post #169 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE View Post
When I'm talking about a "progression" in my own mind, I am thinking steps towards completing it. These steps can be worked on through many different drills. That too is where the instructor's experience works.
Well then if that's the case, then the exact framework of which you speak already exists within ATS and PSIA. (Which is what we've been saying all along.) It might not be formalized, but if somebody comes to me or any other ski teacher that has experience working with a wide variety of students, they should be able to put together a lesson plan that will achieve those goals.
post #170 of 192
But what is missing is that formalization that has happened at the wedge to parallel teaching level. That's what I think I should be provided by the PSIA!
post #171 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE View Post
The point being made is simply that there is no progression. There are progressions throught the wedge.
This is where the disconnect occurs. There isn't a progression through the wedge, either. There are a collection of ideas, concepts, drills, and exercises that provide possible components of a progression developed by a particular instructor for the needs of a particular student or class. But, there is no "progression to wedge" or "progression to parallel" or "progression to arc-to-arc". That is not the intent of the training that PSIA offers.

Some instructors (perhaps like Arcmeister, Jeb Boyd, Bolter and others) have developed more linear and specific approaches to arriving at a technique. These are consistent with the PSIA model, but are not part of it for the above reason.
post #172 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssh View Post
This is where the disconnect occurs. There isn't a progression through the wedge, either. There are a collection of ideas, concepts, drills, and exercises that provide possible components of a progression developed by a particular instructor for the needs of a particular student or class. But, there is no "progression to wedge" or "progression to parallel" or "progression to arc-to-arc". That is not the intent of the training that PSIA offers.
Absolutely. Dead on point. Nailed it.

Look in any PSIA material. Nowhere does it give a formalized path from never ever skiing to the wedge. That's because there are too many students, too many instructors, and too many resorts and too many different situations that arise. No one progression could possibly cover it all.
post #173 of 192
BigE, just forget it. They don't get it and don't want to evolve. Everyone please have fun.
post #174 of 192
I'm with you BTS. See ya in another thread!
post #175 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by borntoski683 View Post
BigE, just forget it. They don't get it and don't want to evolve. Everyone please have fun.
The fascinating thing about this passive/aggressive dismissive comment is that it is equally true from the two perspectives. Believe it or not, I know what you are seeking and what you think that PSIA should offer. However, that is not their current ski teaching philosophy or mission. They see that rather as something that their members are welcome to do (and some have done). I am not "taking sides" but attempting to communicate the "why" behind what happens and what doesn't. In order for what you seek to occur, the PSIA would need to change what it is and what it does.

Funny thing is that it used to be much closer to what some here seek, and defined progressions for learning to ski. It abandoned those as a result of both better understanding of teaching theory and a recognition of the broad differences for the various member instructors based on guest and resort variables (terrain available, guest goals, etc.).
post #176 of 192
Well comments made by myself or others did not start out to criticize stepping tones or to advocate "progression" or create a bloody debate about it. We simply tried to point out that PSIA does not currently have a well defined way to teach good arc-to-arc skiing.
post #177 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lonnie View Post
Well then if that's the case, then the exact framework of which you speak already exists within ATS and PSIA. (Which is what we've been saying all along.) It might not be formalized, but if somebody comes to me or any other ski teacher that has experience working with a wide variety of students, they should be able to put together a lesson plan that will achieve those goals.
Yeah right, the 4 basic skills is the "framework".

IT HAS TO BE FORMALIZED OR IT DOES NOT EXIST.

If you think for a moment, that the classification of skier levels 1-6 and the drills used to teach students in each level do not define some sort of progression, then I simply have to ask: Is the Koolaid cold enough for ya?
post #178 of 192
Just from reading these threads, it seems to me that PSIA provides some idea to instructors and others of how to go about teaching someone to go from never having been on skis to doing a giding wedge and then to skiing parallel skidded pivoted turn, but they do not have THE SAME for teaching someone to do parallel arced turns.

What's so hard about mentioning a few drills like arcing a turn uphill to a stop with parallel skis on a green? Could it be they don't want people racing about at high speeds (without skidding) on their edges?
post #179 of 192
BigE and BTS,

Let me ask you guys this. When was the last time you took a lesson from a PSIA level III pro? Have you walked into a ski school lately and asked for a carving lesson? Why or why not? Do you really know what's being taught for skiers at your level?

L
post #180 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
Just from reading these threads, it seems to me that PSIA provides some idea to instructors and others of how to go about teaching someone to go from never having been on skis to doing a giding wedge and then to skiing parallel skidded pivoted turn, but they do not have THE SAME for teaching someone to do parallel arced turns.
Yes, they certainly do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
What's so hard about mentioning a few drills like arcing a turn uphill to a stop with parallel skis on a green?
Nothing. In fact, that's a required demonstration to pass PSIA Level I (yes, level I) in the Rocky Mountain division, which means its expected to be a demonstration for lower-level skiers as well as those of higher skills. I use it a fair amount when teaching arcing, even to higher-level skiers.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching