or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

HH's Book - Page 10

post #271 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomB View Post

Yet when I look at race video in slo-mo, I see very aggressive pivoting of both legs. I don't know, but it seems that in racing, you don't have the luxury to tip and evert aggressively and wait for the skis to twist.
I agree I dont think PMTS is the fastest way down a race course but remember going down a course is really more of a barely under control fall.
post #272 of 316
Where's Harald? No posts since Xmas Day on Realskiers.

Is it true that he left to start a new website?
post #273 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesdeluxe View Post
Is it true that he left to start a new website?
Where did you hear that JD?
post #274 of 316
I look at race video on Sport1.at, an Austrian site that is free but requires registration. Looking at the Kranjska Gora slalom (and most other races), I see the skiers very light on their skis during the transition between turns, then way over on the edges to let the skis turn them. Sometimes you can see the light inside foot and early edging that PMTS teaches, sometimes both skis are working in unison like the "two footed release" that PMTS teaches. Their transition between turns looks very much like the upsidedown skiing that Harald teaches. I looked at three skiers for this posting, Marlies Schild, the winner, Sarka Zahrobska, 2nd, and Niki Hosp, 7th. I didn't see much if any steering among them, and they skied as I describe above. Of course, being a successful competitor requires inborn athleticism, competitiveness, conditioning, guts, and technique. Who's to say what mix of these attributes produces the most consistent winner?

U.S. subscription video site:
http://www.wcsn.com/products/index.jsp

Austrian site:
http://video.sport1.at/


Ken
post #275 of 316
SSG, it's possible to "see" what you want to in a video (and not "see" things that would contradict you). You'd need to talk to the skier to find out what they were doing.
post #276 of 316
...news just in from Carb_lust...

In his next book, he is going to be looking at a new, unique, very advanced move, the "double angled carve". It is a progression from the standard carve and brushed carve.
Take the outside ski and tip it onto its BTE. Now take the inside ski, and tip it onto it's BTE.
Of course, when others do it, they are using rotation (cause allegedly that's all they ever use, nothing else), and so it is a completely different move...

post #277 of 316
Off topic here but I never really cared what the movement was called or ever thought about it while I was doing it.

I've skied just about everything, everywhere with confidence and conviction. Never had a lesson in my 56 years and I now know why.

It's ludicrous to think that one will become a better skier using one method of learning over the other. I'm sure both have their merits. Argueing over treminology for the same skiing movement doesn't help any of the people who visit here looking to improve their skiing pleasure.

I'd quit skiing if I had to think about terminology describing the move I just made while making a turn. Geez, did I just make a scarve, a rotary, a skid, a speed check, a carve? And, now how did I start that turn? Did I pressure the downhill ski or did I lift my inside ski? OMG,

PMTS, PSIA? Who gives a crap. Why do you guys always have to argue over skiing terminology? Instruction is supposed to be about helping those who want to learn and improve, not turning them off. The past month there's been a steep decline in the kind of help the Tech and Instruction forums can offer. Can you guess why?
post #278 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lars View Post
. Never had a lesson in my 56 years and I now know why.

It's ludicrous to think that one will become a better skier using one method of learning over the other...blah blah blah......
Instruction is supposed to be about helping those who want to learn and improve, not turning them off.
This is classic.How do you know what instruction is supposed to be or anything else on this tpic for that matter. I would love to see you make some turns. Where can I hook up with you to ski?
post #279 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lars View Post
Argueing over treminology for the same skiing movement doesn't help any of the people who visit here looking to improve their skiing pleasure.
The terminology is needed to communicate ideas. When the terminology is different a discussion happens to try to figure out what the different parties are talking about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lars View Post
I'd quit skiing if I had to think about terminology describing the move I just made while making a turn. Geez, did I just make a scarve, a rotary, a skid, a speed check, a carve? And, now how did I start that turn? Did I pressure the downhill ski or did I lift my inside ski?
You must be one of the lucky few that was able to figure out expert skiing movement patterns on your own. Unfortunately, most of us need guidance to get there. That guidance has to come in some form and that form has to have some sort of terminology that the teacher communicates to the student. Then the student takes what they have learned and they do their best to apply it to their skiing. Movement analysis of one sort or another is the only method I know of to make sure that the student is doing the correct movement patterns and is important if the goal of the student is to ski at a higher level.
post #280 of 316

Sometimes it's a necessary evil...

I've been reading posts here for awhile and here's my two cents on this very sensitive topic...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lars View Post
Argueing over treminology for the same skiing movement doesn't help any of the people who visit here looking to improve their skiing pleasure.
I guess arguing is human nature. People like to debate ideas - if done in a civil manner, this should lead to learning and increasing knowledge of the topic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lars View Post
Geez, did I just make a scarve, a rotary, a skid, a speed check, a carve? And, now how did I start that turn? Did I pressure the downhill ski or did I lift my inside ski?
True! The average recreational skier could probably care less about this...BUT for ski instructors or very keen students/skiers, you need to know what you should be doing, and how to do it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lars View Post
Instruction is supposed to be about helping those who want to learn and improve, not turning them off.
Agree with a but ... In order to help skiers improve, instructors need to know and understand how to apply proper ski technique. Again, we must know what is happening with the skier that can use improvement, and we must be able to explain how to improve it. I think this is why these discussions get into such detail. Also, to improve your own skiing, you have to know what you're aiming for as a better way to ski, and you have to know how to get there.
post #281 of 316
IMO the best instructors (again think Lito) take terminology and skiing concepts and "dumb them down" for the student. One cannot do this if one does not have a higher understanding of terminology.

This is a great thread in that it attempts to break down the subtle differences in the lingo as apply to teaching methods.

I have not read harb's new book yet or viewed his new mini video....

...but I will, soon.

Having spent thousands of hours and the better part of the 90's seeking to understand the dynamics of making a ski turn to not only supercharge my own skiing but share my learning with my students and others I encourage participants in this thread to carry on.....

I like it:

...because my journey of learning continues.....I'm out on dogma, I am in on civil discussion.

Please carry on.
post #282 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by volklskier1 View Post
This is classic.How do you know what instruction is supposed to be or anything else on this tpic for that matter. I would love to see you make some turns. Where can I hook up with you to ski?
Patrolled at a Resort for 10 years and always skied with and hung out with the instructors on slow days. Never paid for a lesson but can't say I didn't learn a thing or two all those years.

Just because I never took a lesson doesn't meen that I can't out ski many here. I'll put my skiing up against anyone here. There are a few here at Epic who have skied with me and will vouch for my status on the slopes.

Not that I need that. I'm always willing to ski with anyone who wants to hook up. Just did that with a large group in Colorado last week.

What I'm trying to say in my previous post is that if some of you guys would simplify some of your Tech talk and spend less time trying to compare one teaching method to another, the people who visit here would benefit much more if you put the jargon into layman terms and didn't scare the heck out of the beginners.
post #283 of 316
Quote:
Just because I never took a lesson doesn't meen that I can't out ski many here. I'll put my skiing up against anyone here.
OK, maybe you were born with a greater dose of athleticism than many of us. I'm a natural klutz. What about folks like me? I've had PSIA, CSIA, and PMTS instruction. PMTS made me a better skier, and with quicker improvement, than the other instruction methods and just fumbling around on my own.


Ken
post #284 of 316
It is of interest to note that there are different teaching requirements for dealing with older people. Older folks do better when things have a more complete explanation, and are simply TOLD what to do.

IMO, Skill development through guided discovery is better if you have the time, patience and body awareness and ego for it.

With respect to PMTS, the task teaching better suits the older skier. Is that not the target market? The older skier that is disenchanted with classical instruction techniques?
post #285 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lars View Post
...Just because I never took a lesson doesn't meen that I can't out ski many here. .....
97%?

/waiting to be banned.
//I kid, I kid.
post #286 of 316
Lars,

You may not have take a lesson but you have given them. You have a keen insight into efficient skiing movements. Your years of experience have paid off for me.

ed
post #287 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE View Post
With respect to PMTS, the task teaching better suits the older skier.
Nah...my kids did great with PMTS and still do. Having a specific set of tasks and drills to practice is a good thing regardless of age.
post #288 of 316
Please try again. Your sample size is statistically insignificant, nor are they proven champions.
post #289 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wear The Fox Hat View Post
SSG, it's possible to "see" what you want to in a video (and not "see" things that would contradict you). You'd need to talk to the skier to find out what they were doing.
If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like nail.

If you've been trained in a single technique, then only that technique is visible. What other comments could such a person make?
post #290 of 316
Learning the common terminology of a craft is an important part of learning the craft. Do you want to speak as an intelligent enthusiast of the sport, with other intelligent enthusiasts of the sport, in a manner in which you can understand and be understood as you interact? Or would you rather stumble and struggle in your attempts to discuss and comprehend simple technical concepts?

Activity specific terminology is designed to simplify communication and learning, not complicate it. It provides single terms to describe multi elemental concepts that would require repeated long winded explanations each time referred to if not for the existence of a neat and tidy term.

Instructors/coaches should make terminology education part of their on snow teaching. It's not at all hard to sneak in jargon here and there with students when appropriate, then explain what the term means. This type of terminology education will make future learning much easier for a student. It provides valuable knowledge your students will carry and benefit from for the rest of their years of involvement in the sport.

The same thing should happen here at Epic. You professionals, don't shy away from using terminology/jargon when posting as Lars suggests. Use the terms, but always do so with the idea your reading audience consists of neophyte skiers who need to be educated as to what the terms you're using mean. Throw the terms out there where they apply, followed by a detailed explanation of what the term you just used means. And not just once. Remember, we all don't have total recall of what we read. Not everything will sink in the first time it's heard. Second reminders are always nice.

Seem like a lot of effort to go to? It is. But ask yourself; what is your purpose in posting? Are you coming here to educate? Then do so. Don't just throw around terms as though every reader has the technical knowledge and background you do. If you do that, the time you spend here will be less productive than it could, because your message will be lost to all but those who least need to hear it.

Finally,,, inventing new terms to describe old concepts for which terms already exist serves only the inventor.
post #291 of 316
I said it before, and I'll say it again......

"If it weren't for the terminology, there would be no need for professionals!" (or sales pitches )

Good skiing is good skiing. I don't care who does it. And good teachers use the very best information they can access, regardless of its source. Not every student responds to the same phrases, the same approaches, or the same feelings. A good instructor can reach any student by using a variety of approaches. The student's needs should be the final determining factor of what information should be transferred, and in what fashion/ style/technique.

We have heard several people say how much PMTS has helped them. That's great! But I would guess that somewhere out there are also skiers whom PMTS did not satisfy.
But even Harald himself cannot claim that PSIA taught students have not been successful! Or Canadian, or Austrian, or..... I think you get my meaning!

NO SYSTEM can be everything, to everybody. Is that a disputable fact?

And if anyone thinks the top coaches of today are not using every piece of information they can get, again- regardless of the source, they obviously do not understand the mindset and intelligence of those coaches. They are not exclusively relying on HH's book, nor on LeMaster's observations. Surely both those sources are taken into consideration, but they are not limited to them. Every coach I have ever worked with, or known, uses the knowledge of past coaches handed down, combined with the access that current technology gives them. This includes super slo-mo video for comparative analysis and Hi-speed still and montage capable cameras (ala Larson/Major and LeMaster). They then draw their own conclusions about what, how, when, who, why, etc.....

No system has the right to claim that it is the "true path". There are many paths to the top of the mountain, and just as many ways to ski back down it!
post #292 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick View Post
Learning the common terminology of a craft is an important part of learning the craft. Do you want to speak as an intelligent enthusiast of the sport, with other intelligent enthusiasts of the sport, in a manner in which you can understand and be understood as you interact? Or would you rather stumble and struggle in your attempts to discuss and comprehend simple technical concepts?

Activity specific terminology is designed to simplify communication and learning, not complicate it. It provides single terms to describe multi elemental concepts that would require repeated long winded explanations each time referred to if not for the existence of a neat and tidy term.

Instructors/coaches should make terminology education part of their on snow teaching. It's not at all hard to sneak in jargon here and there with students when appropriate, then explain what the term means. This type of terminology education will make future learning much easier for a student. It provides valuable knowledge your students will carry and benefit from for the rest of their years of involvement in the sport.

The same thing should happen here at Epic. You professionals, don't shy away from using terminology/jargon when posting as Lars suggests. Use the terms, but always do so with the idea your reading audience consists of neophyte skiers who need to be educated as to what the terms you're using mean. Throw the terms out there where they apply, followed by a detailed explanation of what the term you just used means. And not just once. Remember, we all don't have total recall of what we read. Not everything will sink in the first time it's heard. Second reminders are always nice.

Seem like a lot of effort to go to? It is. But ask yourself; what is your purpose in posting? Are you coming here to educate? Then do so. Don't just throw around terms as though every reader has the technical knowledge and background you do. If you do that, the time you spend here will be less productive than it could, because your message will be lost to all but those who least need to hear it.

Finally,,, inventing new terms to describe old concepts for which terms already exist serves only the inventor.
JHC Rick, This is exactly the point I'm trying to make. Separating the Wheat from the chaff of my post and getting it right. Sometimes I don't always say what I mean and my thoughts are lost in my attempt to write it down. You have saved me and hopefully, this forum will listen as it will help those who need the help rather than lose them along the way.
post #293 of 316
Quote:
Good skiing is good skiing. I don't care who does it. And good teachers use the very best information they can access, regardless of its source. Not every student responds to the same phrases, the same approaches, or the same feelings. A good instructor can reach any student by using a variety of approaches. The student's needs should be the final determining factor of what information should be transferred, and in what fashion/ style/technique
.

Quote:
No system has the right to claim that it is the "true path". There are many paths to the top of the mountain, and just as many ways to ski back down it!
Ric

Well said! I couldn't agree more.
post #294 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick View Post
Finally,,, inventing new terms to describe old concepts for which terms already exist serves only the inventor.
I can see better reasons to do it, and I can see reasons not to do it.

When a term gets overloaded, you need to make other terms to clarify the different meanings. But usually, you can describe things just be focussing the term through context.

When you completely switch the terms you use, then you have created a problem.

I've been reading HH's Essentials.

Does it break new ground? Not really. He says that these movements have been around for a long long time. He simply disagrees with the way that people learned about them, and presents a different approach.

Overall, it's very simple and instructive -- once you learn the new words, and if you can handle the negativity in it. I'm persopnally having a very hard time looking past that negativity, so to me, it is a very hard read. Though it is probably unintentional, the descriptions make the technique sound limiting. Perhaps it is the "don't do this/that" style that brings that out. I could do without being told what not to do or where others go wrong. I'll probably re-write entire sections of it using standard terms, for my own study. I'll even keep the terms I like. Who knows what might strike a chord with others.

I'm sure I will read it again, probably several times, since there are some good things in it. I'll certainly use some of the drills but change their descriptions drastically. There are a few I will avoid entirely. eg. leaning up agains the pole. In that regard, it is just like any other book on the subject.

As far as content goes, I like this approach, although I actually believe that teaching active rotary would bring a nice contrast to the passive or non-existent rotation that is being taught. I think people learn better by feeling the extremes of contrasting movements.

I mean, boring is as boring does; although I love steak, I like to have some variety in my meals.

So far, I think that the essentials is a good guide to some pretty basic skiing. Yes the new technology has made this sort of skiing within the grasp of most people. That makes it a guide to basic skiing -- the higher end skiers will have additional tricks/moves up their sleeve that HH himself even admits they use. Like using active rotary and skiing into counter. Are these movements essentials? I believe so, but I don't think they are comprehensive. Funny, at one time they were the holy grail!
post #295 of 316
BTW: pages 142 and 143 alone are worth the price of admission.

There is some excellent stuff here. Overall, the best instructional book I've read. IMO, focussed more on teaching an instructor than a student. Therefore, more valuable.

Buy it.
post #296 of 316
Thread Starter 
Went back to pg. 142-143 last night, you're right, good stuff for sure. There's alot of information to assimilate in the book. Its a well written instruction manual with the reference diagrams and exercises for each section.
post #297 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE View Post
There is some excellent stuff here. Overall, the best instructional book I've read. IMO, focussed more on teaching an instructor than a student. Therefore, more valuable.

Buy it.
I can just about hear the coughing and spluttering sounds here in Oz as many of the Harb detractors read this line when munching on their breakfast cereal.

It's simply a great book complimenting a great series of publications describing a great system.

Anyone Can Be An Expert Skier 1
Anyone Can Be An Expert Skier 2
Essentials of Skiing
PMTS Instructor Manual
post #298 of 316

Good stuff

Rick, Ric (Snowpro), and Big E--good thinking, reasonable ideas. Thanks.

On terminology, since my students really don't care what terms they hang their hats on, it is only critical that we understand each other. It is also helpful that they get some terminology to talk to other skiers with, but that is secondary. Certainly, what system they adhere to is completely last in the hierarchy. We don't talk about systems at all--unless they bring one up. We rarely talk about the diamond, even, unless it is used to help them access a needed place to focus.

What is most important to us is that we develop our dialogue, through questions and discussion, so the students can give a close description of what they are seeking and what they are doing--and know the difference. In this sense, we sometimes use jargon, and sometimes we make up metaphors. It doesn't matter.

We talk about skiing and try to collaboratively develop the language that will translate, for them, into movement patterns that help in the search for effectiveness, efficiency, versatility, and growth--all of which means more than fun.

And we take language from everywhere. The ONE term that I heard first from Harb was the LTE and BTE. I now use that sometimes, if it is relevant and effective. Other times I'll use other terms to describe the same thing.

Language is a tool, but also can be a trap.
post #299 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by weems View Post
On terminology, since my students really don't care what terms they hang their hats on, it is only critical that we understand each other. It is also helpful that they get some terminology to talk to other skiers with, but that is secondary. Certainly, what system they adhere to is completely last in the hierarchy. We don't talk about systems at all--unless they bring one up. We rarely talk about the diamond, even, unless it is used to help them access a needed place to focus.

What is most important to us is that we develop our dialogue, through questions and discussion, so the students can give a close description of what they are seeking and what they are doing--and know the difference. In this sense, we sometimes use jargon, and sometimes we make up metaphors. It doesn't matter.
True, very true.

I can understand the morphing of two types of angulation into the term "counterbalance". It works wonderfully to describe a continuum of movement, as opposed to just Knee angulation here and Hip angulation there. Afterall, when should one change between using these two? Does it now make sense to talk about a "transition" between knee and hip angulation?

Seriously, couterbalance is a decent term that does more than cloud the issue. As you can see by my posts here, I have misunderstood it.

OTOH, it fails to capture how knee angulation alone can be used when clearing the skis from underbody at release. I guess you gain something, you lose something.....
post #300 of 316
To the point of communication -

I've not taken a lot of lessons but I have taken a few from some very qualified instructors who've worked for Weems over the years. One woman, in particular, knew me well enough to be able to create very effective visualizations of what she was trying to get me to do. She was a horsewoman, as am I, and used visualizations from that world applied to the ski drill we were doing. Worked beautifully and has stuck with me for the ten years or so since that lesson.

Industry terms are great and valuable among those in the higher eschelons of the ski world. For those of us who are your students, speak to what we can understand. That is the heart of communicating concepts.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching