HH's Book - Page 8

Whew BigE!

That's a pretty comprehensive condemnation of rotary that is almost totally consistent with Harald's teachings. He's gone on record that any teaching of rotary is not only premature but uncalled for altogether. This canard has been discussed and debunked ad nauseum.

So now the premise is put forward that PSIA (or traditional ski instruction) teaches rotary as the primary skill. Sorry to burst your bubble gentlemen, but PSIA teaches that balance is the primary skill (same as PMTS BTW). PSIA also teaches that one possible beginner progression is a Direct to Parallel approach. In this progression, edging has more prominence than rotary. Now it is true that beginners who learn via a wedge progression will use more rotary than edging to make turns. The primary intent of the wedge based progression is to develop balance skills and the low edge angle of a narrow wedge means that you don't get as much of the turning power of the sidecut working for you like you do in a direct to parallel type progression. That's just simple physics. Focusing on whether one skill is used more or less than another skill also ignores the fact that the focus of the lesson, no matter which progression is used, is a BLEND of the skills.

I don't see the correlation between premature instruction of rotary skills and terminal intermediates because I don't accept the premise of premature instruction of rotary skills. I don't beat my dog (I don't have one). I don't cheat on my wife (I'm not married). I don't teach pivot slips to beginners or terminal intermediates.

How many terminal intermediates are still taking lessons and skiing more than 5-10 days per season?

BTW - it's nice to have you back Volklskier1. PSIA does teach steering with the feet in wedge turns (as opposed to steering with the shoulders). But in a wedge turn you only need a tiny amount and, as noted before, pressure, edging and balance are ALSO taught in a wedge turn. In a wedge turn, all movements are slight because BALANCE is the key focus.

I'm curious, how do you decide that tipping has reached its limits?

So, when you pressure the front of your boots on a flat ski, you're primarily lightening the tail of the ski?

I didn't say primarily (that's your word not mine). But if you pressure the tips you decrease pressure on the tails as I'm sure you know. Why are we even debating it?

I think it's an interesting approach, that's all. I focus on being able to add pressure to the tip (to help it get more purchase in the snow to shorten the arc of the front of the ski). This is an essential part of high-level skiing (early edge engagement, especially at the tip). It was a revelation to me to see that rotary becomes pressure at higher edge angles. Experimenting with it (not taking the concept at face value, but playing with it on-snow) showed me that it is a viable option for certain desired outcomes, and that it doesn't noticeably reduce purchase of the tail's edge.

It's cool. It's fun. I like it. It expanded my skiing tools. All good things. I wanted to share it.

Not the only thing, by any stretch, but interesting, fun, and useful.

Boot out!

Steve, this is probably a repeat of past discussions we have had but I hope its worth it. You have been one who talks about perceptions varying from reality. Is it possible that this is the case with your perceptions of applying a rotary torque (in the plane of the ski) to the ski at high edge angles? I ask this because:

1) I don't experience the perceptions of effective rotary at high edge angle you describe (first to admit that it could well be just a lack of skills on my part).

2) When I play with static tipping positions here in my office or at home I perceive the rotary force I can create at my feet to be quite weak. Furthermore, my ability to rotate my feet decreases substantially (from weak to extremely weak) as edge angle increases (even though I am well within what I think of the range of edge angle I can create on slope - not near to boot out).

Because of this I still wonder whether what you perceive as application of a rotary torque to the ski in the plane of the ski might not be a misinterpretation of joint rotation in support of tipping (applying a torque around the long axis of the ski) that doesn't really add much if any torque in the plane of the ski.

Also, when you talk about pressuring the tips for early edge engagement are you talking about rotary torque to the ski or increasing forward tip pressure (via a torque perpendicular to an axis perpendicular to the center of the ski)? Either way I guess I have questions. If it's the former, then for early edge engagement it seems to me you're bound to add some pivoting due to the lower edge angle (I'm not saying there's anything wrong with this just that I don't think it's the goal in this discussion). If it's forward pressure then I questions whether the effectiveness of the required change in balance is more (or even equal to) the options for increased tipping provided by a more centered, balanced application of pressure along the ski.

It's certainly possible that my perception is separate from reality, and I plan to continue to experiment with it. I will say that it feels different from increasing edge angles that I typically do and more like the muscle firing that I expect from pivoting (only the skis don't pivot, hopefully obviously).

Keep in mind that I'm not talking about rotary movement, but rather rotary pressure, which is more subtle than movement. I would say that flex seems to have more to do with my ability to generate rotary force than edge angle does (trying here in this office like you did), but again I don't think I need a lot of force to do what I'm talking about here.

If you think about increased tip pressure being a force perpendicular to the snow, how do you generate a force purely in that direction when an edge angle is greater than 0 degrees? Fore/aft pressure is insufficient to do so (and in fact will create a percentage of force along the snow), and the percentage of force applied perpendicular to the snow decreases as edge angle increases unless you add an additional force in the ski's rotational plane. Right?

Do less

This, in fact, is what beginning/intermediate skiers frequently have trouble with. Worse, as we all know, the optimal blend varies with the conditions, terrain, and where one is in the turn, among other things. This makes skilled blending a fairly complex task. Skiers just learning the art tend to apply movements on an all-or-nothing basis, often motivated by preconceptions and perceived hazards rather than by anything the instructor has said.

So, we get a massive steering movement to start the turn, accompanied by lots of body english of various kinds, a blatant stem, and a failure to release the old outside ski, despite the fact that no one has taught the skier any of those things. This wonderful start may be followed by more desperate movements to twist the ski back across the hill as soon as possible to avoid breaking the sound barrier while pointed down the fall line. Once the ski is pointed across the hill, our acolyte skier leans up the hill and employs a high, but uncontrolled, edge angle to hang on to the precipice he is sure he is skiing over.:

This exaggerated, but not outlandish, scenario, suggests that our skier might benefit by learning to do less - less pivot at the start, less edge at the end, all accompanied by a more refined balance more closely resembling just standing around in tennis shoes. (I.e., stand over your feet rather than leaning and pushing and shoving and twisting.)

Too much emphasis on either steering or edging will lead to ineffective movement patterns. We've all seen people who seem to carve OK on the groom, and achieve fairly high edge angles while doing it, but can't handle other conditions, like bumps, because they try to do everything with high edge angles. We've also seen people in an edge-locked traverse scooting across the hill because they have never learned to control edging. Being able to flatten the ski is just as important as being able to put it on edge.

We've also seen people who cannot do low-speed railroad tracks because pivoting is so ingrained. They cannot tip the skis slightly without also pivoting. At a higher level, they cannot achieve a pure arc-to-arc transition when attempting to carve. Again, being able to not pivot is just as important as being able to pivot.

This concept is often lost on the beginning or even intermediate student. Balance and blend are huge.

The movements are very subtle, butterfly! Do less.

Same with me. But my skis are just a bit longer than my feet and therefore offer more leverage. Look up the waist steering threads. I've found that you can get this effect either from "turning" your feet and anchoring in the core or turning with the core and letting it flow through to the feet.

I can feel the pressure more from a sitting position than from standing when I use the feet focus. I can feel the pressure more standing than when sitting when I use the waist steering focus. The waist steering pressure primarily does the inside ski.

I agree with all of this, except the debunking part. I'm not suggesting that the PSIA or CSIA or whatever, focusses on rotation as a PRIMARY movement or skill. Dear me, no!

It comes across that way when direct instruction of rotary movements occurs prior to getting the student well balanced. If the student is lousy at it, they're told to practice it on their own time. The implication is that it's absolutely critical to get a handle on rotation --even before the establishement of balance. And the downward spiral begins.

I'm very happy to hear that you do not teach pivot slips to terminal intermediates. Unfortunately, when multi-week group lessons are involved, they quite often just go through the skills and direct instruction of pivoting/rotation just happens. It's simply part of the meal plan, whether the student is capable of digesting it or not. It's mere happenstance in many cases.

I'll say this again, I am not a follower of HH. My posting history on PMTS topics should make that clear.

I believe in three simple principles: Balance, Movement and Confidence.

It has been said that 90% of all ski lessons should be addressing balance issues only. With that I agree wholeheartedly. I am also a believer that the wedge is abandoned by many skiers far too early in their quest to "look like the rest". This is the best place to learn balance, weight transfer and the very basic movements of rolling the inside ski, timing of flexion/extension etc.....Generally safely and confidently controlling ones balance point.

Movement DOES include rotation, but not at the expense of either balance OR confidence. Consequently, I will wait until the skier is balanced enough for instruction of rotation to be successful. In other words, I'll wait until learning rotation adds to their confidence. IMO, the best way to teach rotation early on is to teach it in such a way that the student is unaware of it (hockey stops, 360's, linked 180's,even pivot entry turns...) When they actually can already do it to service their intent, they you can do further direct instruction to refine it - not earlier....

As far as confidence goes, obviously a confident skier will not freeze up when presented with a reasonable challenge. They will have the ability to move as their situation demands, and they will have the tactical knowledge to support their descent. Instruction of rotary to this skier will have a very positive impact on their skill set.

I am not against teaching rotation - I believe it is important. What I am against is teaching it so early in a skiers development that it adversely impacts either balance or confidence.

And yes, there is only "one way" to ski: In control of balance.

Cool - we're pretty close then. What you said counts as debunking "all rotary is bad" as far as I'm concerned.

I agree that bad instruction can start a downward spiral.

I'll have to take your word on multi week group lessons. It's been years since I taught any. I know that "just going through the skills" is not supposed to happen. Just because I've never taught that way and I've never been taught to teach that way does not mean it's not common. But is this the cause of terminal intermediates?

Oh if were debunking "all rotary is bad", then count me in as a debunker.

Rotary is fine -- it's just a question as to when should you introduce it as a point of focus. HH says never. Well, that's too late. Lesson 1? Too early.

Surely there is a moment in a skiers development that you can point to and say: "Now they are ready to focus on rotation."! Same can be said about edging and pressure control - there is a moment in their development in which they can focus directly on those skills.

I do think teaching rotation too early can be one cause of the terminal intermediate, because they are trying to acquire a new skill without a proper foundation -- therefore, they'll never "get it" -- and they will get stuck at their level.

OTOH, if a solid foundation is present rotary skills should be relatively easliy acquired.

This sounds similar to my experience. The only difference is that I perceive the increased hip rotation as being necessary to keep on increasing edge angle through tipping and have disassociated it from being involved in the application of a torque in the plane of the ski. I am not suggesting my perceptions are right and yours wrong, just that we have different perceptions here.

I have tried to talk about torques applied to the ski. In some situations that will create movement (pivot) and in others just pressure changes (increased pressure at the tip, decreased at the tail). I think we agree it is very dependent upon edge angle. When you say that you don't need much force to do what you're talking about here I question that. Torquing a ski in the plane of the ski at high edge angle and holding it enough to further bend the tip would seem to me to require considerable (whatever that means) force or pressure,

Right, but I'm not sure what the importance of this is. I was responding to your comments about early edge engagement which is in my what of thinking when we are at small edge angles after having just moved through neutral.

Steve, I don't mean to suggest that I am right or your are wrong about this issue, only that perceptions vary. Were this a scientific area of study I think it would be quite easy to objectively measure the truth, as long as we could agree on an example of the situation we are talking about here.

He's in the room!?

I find it interesting that most of the posters agree, balance is the major issue in skiing and teaching skiing.

I have searched, but I find that the only literature on balancing used or useful in skiing are in the books by Harald Harb, who is not posting here, or on Real Skiers. So, we can‘t ask him directly, unless one e-mails which, might, get his response (he must be busy).

What are the ways you (PSIA, independents, coaches etc.) would introduce balance or balancing without copying PMTS or Harb books.

I for one would hate to see Harb become a forum recluse (for us all on any forum). I noted he isn’t posting even on Real Skiers. Has any one seen him lately?

harald......are you drunk?

Why abuse a thoughtful post? I am not an advocate of HH but his thoughts and style makes for good discussion. Let the direct comparisons happen and see how each style deals with specific situations and let the results stand for themselves.
Carve-lust has been combative and at times thoughtful but differant ideas spawn new understandings . Let's not censure any ideas but bring them out into the light and discuss the differances and then decide thier worthiness. Blanket statements by both parties are inaccurate .

Harald,,, if you're really interested, you could start by reading here:
http://modernskiracing.com/balance.php

Or,,, you could also ask Erik Schlopy. You proclaim to be buddies and speak to him on occasion. He learned the foundation balance skills that took him to a World Championship podium as a youngster in my race program many years ago. This was long before I ever heard of you. Long before you ever wrote a book full of things that I and countless other race coaches around the country had been doing for years.

Giving new names to old concepts does not equate to innovation. Many of the things you do in your program are very worthwhile, and I endorse them, but cut the nonsense about being the only guy in the world teaching people to balance and carve arc to arc turns. To anyone with any historic knowledge of the sport and high level coaching you appear either naive, delusional, or a classic snake oil salesman.

No expectations

I expected no less, a legit question directed toward Epic proponents on serious issue. Result as usual, just dribble from the mainstays on this PSIA forum.

Harald,

It's "drivel," not "dribble." You spell it wrong in your posts at your site, too.

Webster's not junkies

Dribble, as in, to drool, performed perfectly, like bed wetting, easily elicited from junkie posters taking up space, in an attempt to make contributions to ineffective ski understanding.

That's enough people. The thread has been mostly civil. Let's not ruin it please.

Cooley:

Excellent post! How true !

congrats to rusty guy and mogul junkie! 2 of a kind.

How does tipping differ from edging?Aren't they the same thing.? Edging is done in degrees and tipping would be the same. Tipping with pressure management would bring an action from the ski to result in a turn . What am I missing here?

Ron LeMaster? Eric & Rob DesLauriers? R. Mark Elling? Rick Schnellman? Warren Witherall? Joubert? All of them emphasize balance. There's nothing new about it, and there are many places to read about it and learn about it.

And, yes, Harald is posting here. As he has for a while.

You're missing the point. None of this is new and good instruction is about how you get it across. And it's not a PMTS vs PSIA thing either. PSIA doesn't teach people so they are somewhat irrelelvant to the discussion of "essentials" which is about teaching people how to ski.Harb has found a way to articulate a method that can be followed. The need for rotary movements is a red herring that is constantly used here. The need to teach the wedge is a red herring. The real issue is why for the last 2 decades including over the last 10 of shaped skis are people being taught in a manner that leaves them with an overexagerrated rotary movement that prevents them from making a round turn let alone a carved one? Blending skills as taught does not work. The emphasis from day one of steering the feet rather than edge and pressure has led to a human fleet of groomers. The blend is way off.

Nothing personal VG but it's you (and many others) who are missing the point. It isn't the wedge that prevents skiers from carving, it's their reluctance to continue in a lesson program to further develop skills to learn to carve later. It's a once a week or weekend hobby for most. Anyone who was started with rotation (leg steering) in their skiing history has the ability to learn to carve. They just need to stay with it and learn NEW skills and not "unlearn" old skills. Knowing how to use ALL skills is why someone like Cannonball and others with loads of training can turn the way they do.

My .02, its the breaking wedge that is a killer and shouldn't be taught in the early stages of skiing. Harb has clearly developed something that is valuable but has it's limitations. I have yet to see what works for the first day skier in his "system". If one of the PMTS supporters here would point out where I could review details on this I would be most grateful. PM me so further arguements don't happen here.

For those of you that support carving everywhere you are clearly limiting some of what you can do and where you can go on the mountain. Anyone who wants to stand their ground on this....fine....show at LG 2.5 or 3 in Colorado (Harald.....you too) and I'll put you on some terrain (at Breck where you all say there is no steep terrain) and we'll all watch you try it. Bring your carving skills and no rotary skills and survive it and you'll sell me. Short of that maybe something easier....stick a video up here of any racer (you all seem to like them so much) who CARVES to a stop past the finish gate. What ya'all think now....rotary in the game?

Forget PMTS, PSIA, CSIA and try ULS (Uncle Louie System). Use all four edges, both bases and your boot, elbow, pole, (sometimes) head to deflect, short, long and medium turns, slips and carves, bounce off the tower pads, parks, rocks (old gear only), positive "go somewhere" moves, negative moves and GO SKIING.

that really stings

well let's give him a big warm psia hug:

behind which curtain?: