or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Arc vs. carve - Page 4

post #91 of 192
Thread Starter 
What's wrong with the picture is the value judgment that carving or its pseudonym du jour is "better" than anything else we can do on skis. That's the grand misconception about advanced skiing, in my opinion. Versatility should be the hallmark of good skiing--not making angels dance on the head of a pin.
post #92 of 192
Except consider one factor Nolo. Generally speaking, you have more control or sense of control of your skis when they are traveling forward then when they are skidding sideways. So the closer you can get to this ideal..its not just about a sense of superiority..its also about better control and an increased fun factor as well as G's are increased, and preserved energy turn to turn.
post #93 of 192
I value the distinction between arced and steered turns and prefer to arc when possible and involve carving as much as possible in my steered turns not because it is better in any sense. I just like to use the sidecut of the ski to make turns. I do not think it requires a great deal of skill for a skier of my size to decamber a shaped ski and allow it to travel in an arc.

In powder I like to use the curve that results in standing on the middle of a shaped ski in soft snow. This is a kind of soft carving, I can't really skid in powder but I actual try to use rotary and it feels like I am steering the skis through a turn although it is necessary to allow the ski to follow the shovel to a large degree. On hard pack I primarily use steered turns because I don't like to go fast. Yes, I use braking skid. I use it as sparingly as I dare, but I'm kinda chicken.

So you can't really say I define a carve in the traditional way (tail follows tip exactly, or vice versa if carving switch) because I am an elitist or because I want to feel superior to others.
post #94 of 192
Thread Starter 
BTS, I try to judge the value of a technique vis a vis the conditions/terrain in which it is used; whatever works best in a given situation. So, by that measure, the good skier is one who can apply technique at will, selecting/blending as necessary from the movement pool at his or her disposal to achieve the desired outcome.
post #95 of 192
I agree with you nolo.

Which is why having the movements of carving is also so very necessary.

The emphasis on carving is not because it is a "superior" technique. It is because it is now possible to teach this skill without needing a football field turn or extreme speeds to bend the skis. What was solely in the grasp of a few is now available to almost everyone -- so everyone wants to learn it.

Every instructor ought to be able to teach it -- and not just sometime way into the skiers future when their "toolbox" has been filled with the other stuff.
post #96 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by nolo View Post
BTS, I try to judge the value of a technique vis a vis the conditions/terrain in which it is used; whatever works best in a given situation. So, by that measure, the good skier is one who can apply technique at will, selecting/blending as necessary from the movement pool at his or her disposal to achieve the desired outcome.
We all know I'm a bit slow (in the head and on the course) but this, interestingly, is what the racer who wins possess. The guy or gal with the greater number of arrows in their quiver wins (having that last arrow to shoot). In other words , makes sense to me (one of those rare moments).
post #97 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolter View Post
He is absolutely right (by definition) in the frame work of the spectrum (Pivot is a component) of skidding to carving, the skidded Christy will never evolve into the pure carve. IMO he did not know what to make of it and had little use for pure carve in the student centered system of ATM.
Carving and ATM. DTP be damed!
From its inception the ATS (ATM) of PSIA is rooted in three principles: A student- centered holistic teaching Methodology, The skills concept of Mechanics and the most revealing, if not at first obvious . . .Slipping skis as the innate base of support, see: ATM page 11 for illustration.
Slipping skis are at an angle to the Direction Of Travel (DOT). Sliding skis are parallel to the DOT. Both slipping skis and sliding skis leave distinct signature tracks in the snow. Slipping scrubs a pattern across the DOT. Sliding presses a track parallel to the DOT. rotary.
My bolding.

This is a fundamental concern -- how can the ATS teach sliding ski technique if the teaching is rooted in slipping ski technique?
post #98 of 192
Thread Starter 
BigE, the American/PSIA way of teaching is to build a large pool of movements from which to select to achieve the desired outcome. Decision-making is a big part of what we teach, not One Way to Ski. It seems to fit our eclectic melting pot of a nation well.
post #99 of 192
You are arguing against something that I am not proposing.
post #100 of 192
Seems more like an attempt to answer your question than to argue.

I'll have to read Bolter's arc-to-arc article because he is teaching sliding as a primary focus instead of slipping. Hopefully slipping is still part of the program, sometimes you need to throw on the brakes in a hockey stop, like if someone "cuts you off". Sideslipping can be a useful skill too in certain situations.
post #101 of 192
How did "One way to ski" pop up?

The quote that I picked states very strongly that the road to a slidding ski (aka carving) is not part of the slipping (aka pivotting) road map.

If that is indeed true, then the incescapable conclusion that if learning to ski is the primary focus, then the standard teaching methodologies are flawed.

Our primary focus up here is the "vibrant mountain experience". Which means safe. Which means speed control skills that are designed to limit top end speed. Like slipping instead of sliding.
post #102 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by nolo View Post
What's wrong with the picture is the value judgment that carving or its pseudonym du jour is "better" than anything else we can do on skis. That's the grand misconception about advanced skiing, in my opinion. Versatility should be the hallmark of good skiing--not making angels dance on the head of a pin.
You're trying to beat a horse in an empty corral. No one here made such a judgment,,, no one here spoke against versatility. We all understand this,,, it's a pretty 101 concept. No need trying to pose it as insightful. Thanks for trying to contribute though.
post #103 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by nolo View Post
BigE, the American/PSIA way of teaching
There's more to 'AMERICAN" ski teaching than PSIA. Much more.
post #104 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE View Post
My bolding.

This is a fundamental concern -- how can the ATS teach sliding ski technique if the teaching is rooted in slipping ski technique?
Which is why we focus on skills, movements and the blending of those skills into a variety of techniques. It ain't rocket science and it certainly is not a teach only one or the other situation. Any concerns that the psia skill set does not grow versatile skiers able to carve or skid at will is simply unfounded, or misunderstood.

On my mountain, the only people that are really interested in carving are instructors and racers. Most skiers at Bridger think of carving as only the quickest way to cruise the groomer back to the lift to get back to the steeps, bumps, and powder.

If you think of a pivot as being a 1 and a pure carve being a 10, we teach the movements and skills for the skier to use their skills to achieve versatility throughout the whole spectrum, from 1 to 10.
post #105 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick View Post
There's more to 'AMERICAN" ski teaching than PSIA. Much more.
Let's hope so,,,,,and there is nothing in psia that requires a teacher to adhere to a specific technique or methodology as long as it remains true to the fundamentals of the sport. One should look more to the ski school for the quality of teaching.

In this environment of freeride and wide planks and their butter turns, carving is lost on many I'm sorry to say. Sometimes it is like pulling teeth to get my advanced program students seriously engaged in carving. It really isn't a problem of the teaching methodology but what the students are interested in and skiing on.

This isn't to say that everyone out there is doing it right or that problems don't exist. I haven't seen a perfect system yet.
post #106 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE View Post
My bolding.

This is a fundamental concern -- how can the ATS teach sliding ski technique if the teaching is rooted in slipping ski technique?
Ah, I think you are hinting that they are not mutually exclusive skill sets.

Edit: Went back and read RicB who covered this, can't delete.
post #107 of 192

Good question

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE View Post
My bolding.

This is a fundamental concern -- how can the ATS teach sliding ski technique if the teaching is rooted in slipping ski technique?
As of post #105 this question (IMO) has not been answered. To my knowledge PSIA has no arcing progression. Why not? I think the reason is there is a perception that it is not needed and that it already exists within the system. I for one can not decipher the code to arcing within the ATS methodology. PSIA is very reluctant to reinvent itself in any way shape or form. This problem is discussed at length in the PSIA thread.
IMO PSIA is happy with one progression line, biased on the need for speed control at all levels of development. That is OK, but why not have a sanctioned arc progression? Again, I know people will insist that "It's in there." That is not enough.
I just thought of another reason. Introducing an arcing progression will force a re-wright/rethink of flawed existing material that was conjured up to cover both arc and shaped turns as a single methodology/mechanics progression. Bolter
post #108 of 192

They both stand on their own and support each other

Quote:
Originally Posted by telerod15 View Post
Ah, I think you are hinting that they are not mutually exclusive skill sets.

Edit: Went back and read RicB who covered this, can't delete.
The skill sets are not mutually exclusive. It is just that a delineated progression for shaping turns is well spelled out in ATS, it is the foundation of it. The skill set and the progression built on those skills to ski/teach arc2arc is not laid out for the line instructor to sink his teeth into. The masses just don't get it as things are currently. Bolter
post #109 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolter View Post
I just thought of another reason. Introducing an arcing progression will force a re-wright/rethink of existing material that was conjured up to cover both arc and shaped turns as a single methodology/mechanics progression. Bolter
That's why there is PMTS, USSA Fundamentals #1 and #2 DVD's and quadrennial program and yes, Arc Tech and MSRT's DTC (Direct to Carve) Progression (Waist Steering Level 1). It may not be directly built into the PSIA system but its definitely out there elsewhere if folks want to pursue it, IMHO. So which one is PSIA going to embrace and license for added value rather than do that re-write

PSIA, contact Gary Dranow or Rick Schnellmann, we're ready to negotiate
post #110 of 192

Put 'em up!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Dranow View Post
That's why there is PMTS, USSA Fundamentals #1 and #2 DVD's and quadrennial program and yes, Arc Tech and MSRT's DTC (Direct to Carve) Progression (Waist Steering Level 1). It may not be directly built into the PSIA system but its definitely out there elsewhere if folks want to pursue it, IMHO. So which one is PSIA going to embrace and license for added value rather than do that re-write
I'll fight Ya for it! JK
If that product came from a collaboration of epicski contributors it would make me super proud!! And... would not be a surprise. Bolter
post #111 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolter View Post
I'll fight Ya for it! JK
If that product came from a collaboration of epicski contributors it would make me super proud!! And... would not be a surprise. Bolter
Dude, I'd get that (c) up on your stuff real quick like. If we get the call first we'll let you know
post #112 of 192
IMHO, its debateable whether PSIA should add true arc-to-arc skiing to their program. Just imagine if guzzillions of skiers were soaring down the mountain in arcs. I for one am glad that PSIA keeps hoards of skiers performing the status quo in that regard. A motivated skier has plenty of options to go learn racing technique from many different sources. Race clubs, some of the places mentioned above, among others.
post #113 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by borntoski683 View Post
IMHO, its debateable whether PSIA should add true arc-to-arc skiing to their program. Just imagine if guzzillions of skiers were soaring down the mountain in arcs. I for one am glad that PSIA keeps hoards of skiers performing the status quo in that regard. A motivated skier has plenty of options to go learn racing technique from many different sources. Race clubs, some of the places mentioned above, among others.
Brakes? Just give all a gas pedal Then teach 'em to carve switch

Okay, I'm done, sorry
post #114 of 192
Lots of dogs in this hunt chasing the fox. :
post #115 of 192

you know it

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Dranow View Post
Dude, I'd get that (c) up on your stuff real quick like. If we get the call first we'll let you know
Thanks, it is in the copyright office in DC. Bolter
post #116 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolter View Post
As of post #105 this question (IMO) has not been answered. To my knowledge PSIA has no arcing progression. Why not? I think the reason is there is a perception that it is not needed and that it already exists within the system. I for one can not decipher the code to arcing within the ATS methodology. PSIA is very reluctant to reinvent itself in any way shape or form. This problem is discussed at length in the PSIA thread.
IMO PSIA is happy with one progression line, biased on the need for speed control at all levels of development. That is OK, but why not have a sanctioned arc progression? Again, I know people will insist that "It's in there." That is not enough.
I just thought of another reason. Introducing an arcing progression will force a re-wright/rethink of flawed existing material that was conjured up to cover both arc and shaped turns as a single methodology/mechanics progression. Bolter
There is no answer to the question because there is no progression to the arc.

Leaving this to the instructor is not a valid approach. It's much more than an edging skill -- you are not going to get there just from RR tracks. You just have to figure it out for yourself I guess.
post #117 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE View Post
There is no answer to the question because there is no progression to the arc.
The question is also a straw-man. That seems to be the point Nolo is making I think.
post #118 of 192
Progressions to an arc definitely DO exist. They just aren't being taught by PSIA. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "straw_man", can you please explain? Excuse my ignorance.
post #119 of 192
Horse Hockey Gang. First, psia doesn't teach the public, individual instructors and ski schools do. Second no one progression is ever used for all students. Students come into a lesson with varying skills and expectations. How an instructor deals with and delivers on these variables is just that variable. I gotta tell you, me thinks you guys are jousting at windmills. People are making all sorts of assumptions and judgments. Jeez.

Just for the record arcing ain't a progression it's called skill blending.
post #120 of 192
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Saying that PSIA teaches steering and skidded based ski technique which they use as the foundation for "arc to arc carving" is a misrepresentation of the statement PSIA teaches steering skills to increase the amount of options available to a skier.

The question is a rhetorical springboard, which you can see followed immediately into the assertion that PSIA contains no laid out progression for arc-to-arc skiing because they are rooted in steering based techniques.

Has anyone stated that the steering based progression is supposed to result in linked clean carves? Is it true that PSIA contains no progression to arc-to-arc skiing? RicB seems to be agreeing that steering and arc-to-arc are all parts of the PSIA program.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching