New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

HH's Book - Page 11

post #301 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountaingirl1961 View Post
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.
Absolutely! That is why we try to find words to convey the keys to skiing.
post #302 of 316
The purpose of language commonality is to eliminate the need to reinvent the communication wheel every time a student encounters a new instructor/coach, or attempts to discuss/explore ski technique with friends. Instructor creativity comes in helping students come to comprehend the technical concepts the terms of the sport refer to.

Case in point: Epicski. There is much information of value to be found in these threads, but it's much less available to those who don't possess knowledge of the vocabulary of the sport, or have interest in learning from the pros who take great pains here to teach them.

When students understand such common terms as;

inside ski
outside ski
fore balance
aft balance
lateral balance
edge angle
angulation
stance
transition
initiation
apex
falline
rotation
counter rotation
square
carving
arc to arc
steering
pivoting

It makes it so much easier to pursue higher plateaus of expertise.
post #303 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick View Post
It makes it so much easier to pursue higher plateaus of expertise.
Understandibly so. Respectfully, though, keep in mind that those words can serve as barriers, as well.

Perhaps I'm not you guys' target audience - I will freely admit that I'm not a tech-head or a gear wonk. When I read through the instruction threads I can generally parse what you're saying but it's a lot of work and 90-percent of the time I can't really see what you're talking about.

I'm no expert but I am a decent skier and I learn a lot from the lessons I do manage to take. The Aspen instructor of the last lesson I took, just before ESA last year, put me as a high 8/soft 9 and I'm a better skier today. (FWIW I think she was being generous). But when you all use tech-speak to comment on movements and make the suggestions you do in these threads, it creates challenges for those of us who really do want to learn from your insights but who don't use those terms so easily. And I have a hard time learning from instructors who build their lessons or commentary around tech-speak.

Think of the challenges of walking into a conversation in my industry. I can't think of many people who do what I do who wouldn't understand what a 58 is, or an SL250, who wouldn't know what an LD does or a FOH engineer or an electrician or a carpenter (subtle differences of use in my world as opposed to common usage). Even if I explained those terms, you'd probably quickly tune out to an extended conversation centering around them.

Anyway, take it for what it's worth... back to your regularly scheduled conversation.
post #304 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountaingirl1961 View Post
a 58 is, or an SL250, who wouldn't know what an LD does or a FOH engineer or an electrician or a carpenter (subtle differences of use in my world as opposed to common usage).
Front O House is hardly analogous to these terms. Most of which can be deduced with some common sense:

inside ski
outside ski
fore balance
aft balance
lateral balance
edge angle
angulation
stance
transition
initiation
apex
falline
rotation
counter rotation
square
carving
arc to arc
steering
pivoting
post #305 of 316
Just read through Rick's "Out of the zone" thread - wonderful, thoughtful thread, and does explain a lot of the above terms (which I've never had done before). That said, I still can't visualize much of what he's saying - we all learn differently, and I guess I learn by watching and doing more easily than by reading.

Anyway, sorry for derailing.
post #306 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountaingirl1961 View Post
Understandibly so. Respectfully, though, keep in mind that those words can serve as barriers, as well.

Perhaps I'm not you guys' target audience - I will freely admit that I'm not a tech-head or a gear wonk. When I read through the instruction threads I can generally parse what you're saying but it's a lot of work and 90-percent of the time I can't really see what you're talking about.

I'm no expert but I am a decent skier and I learn a lot from the lessons I do manage to take. The Aspen instructor of the last lesson I took, just before ESA last year, put me as a high 8/soft 9 and I'm a better skier today. (FWIW I think she was being generous). But when you all use tech-speak to comment on movements and make the suggestions you do in these threads, it creates challenges for those of us who really do want to learn from your insights but who don't use those terms so easily. And I have a hard time learning from instructors who build their lessons or commentary around tech-speak.

Think of the challenges of walking into a conversation in my industry. I can't think of many people who do what I do who wouldn't understand what a 58 is, or an SL250, who wouldn't know what an LD does or a FOH engineer or an electrician or a carpenter (subtle differences of use in my world as opposed to common usage). Even if I explained those terms, you'd probably quickly tune out to an extended conversation centering around them.

Anyway, take it for what it's worth... back to your regularly scheduled conversation.
I'm guessing that every skier eventually gets to know all the things Rick just gave words to. any one who wants to get better and not "steal their own learning away from themselves" (thanks Joan) should embrace terminology as one way to have conversations about what they are or are not doing. It is not like you are a total stranger to them if you think of yourself as a skier. Why not get to know the names of all those things you are mixing it up with as you ski? Can it be overdone? Sure. Nothing is perfect.

I see this as being much different than someone totally unfamiliar with and having no experience with your line of work dropping in on a conversation of you with your peers.
post #307 of 316
Quote:
when you all use tech-speak to comment on movements and make the suggestions you do in these threads, it creates challenges for those of us who really do want to learn from your insights but who don't use those terms so easily. And I have a hard time learning from instructors who build their lessons or commentary around tech-speak.
I hear you, MG. Do you object globally to professionals using terms of the trade or is your objection to the subtle rudeness of using a term or expression without explaining it--assuming knowledge that you should not be expected to have?

FYI, a really great terminology resource is Bob Barnes's Enyclopedia of Skiing. I believe you can get it from him on CD for a pittance. If you're really seriously wanting to learn more about skiing, pick up an introductory physics textbook, a book on biomechanics, and an anatomy book for your bookshelf too. Then when a term that you're not familiar with comes up in a conversation, you will be able to look it up and interpret its meaning for yourself--and maybe assist others in their understanding.
post #308 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by nolo View Post
I hear you, MG. Do you object globally to professionals using terms of the trade or is your objection to the subtle rudeness of using a term or expression without explaining it--assuming knowledge that you should not be expected to have?
I don't mind even a little bit professionals using terms of the trade - hell, I do it myself in my business, saves a lot of time and misunderstanding (and also helps me identify other pros rather than just wannabes... important, that.)

My comments were based on an earlier post in this thread where the poster stated that he didn't understand what was meant by a particular term, as well as my own experience attempting to understand and learn from the MA threads... who is the target audience for these conversations? If the target audience is other teaching pros then it makes all the sense in the world for you guys to discuss this stuff in-depth and in ways that are meaningful for you. You guys quite obviously learn a lot from each other and that's one of the most valuable elements of Epicski. However, if the target audience is the rest of us great unwashed, then understand that there's a good chance we're just not understanding what you're saying. It's about communication.

Bonni said something similar in the "zone" thread...

Anyway, I just need to take more lessons and hear these terms applied to my own skiing so that I can "feel" the definitions, rather than just reading about them and not quite getting what's being said. I didn't bring this up to make a tizzy, was just trying to make a point re: communication.
post #309 of 316
I wasn't trying to give you a hard time but to understand you better. I think you make a great point: vocabulary should not be made a barrier to understanding the sport.
post #310 of 316
I think, too, that some terms are often understood differently even within the ranks of those "in the industry." For example, recent conversations about "unweighting" on this forum have shown us that high-level CSIA and PSIA instructors use the term differently.

Especially here on a textually-based medium, it's probably more effective when writers explain what they mean using metaphors, analogs, and definitional phrases rather than simply using a term that they think their audience will understand. I try to do this for terms that are not obvious, but I'm sure I don't do it as often as I could.
post #311 of 316
There is an old analogy... As much as I like stawberrys and cream, I don't go fishing with them, I use worms. When teaching, you need to speak in the language and terms that the student understands.
post #312 of 316
Of course, on EpicSki, you're speaking to an audience the majority of which you'll never know is paying attention. And I know of no teachers or coaches who regularly teach a "class" of a few hundred people. So, it helps to be clear. I find that, for me, it helps me really think about what I'm trying to say, too, and no make assumptions about what I think I know or what I think my audience knows.
post #313 of 316
Mountain Girl, I can understand what you're saying, and I agree. Having a barrage of unknown terms tossed at you does nothing to help a student learn. It's why I composed my advice post on terminology usage a while back, and why some here thought it worthy of a sticky. Some instructors use jargon as a crutch, and a mask to their own lack of true technical understanding, much to the disservice of their students.

I'm not speaking of Epic, or a ski lesson, as a place to bombard people with terms they don't understand. That's the very thing I'm campaigning against. I'm speaking about using Epic, and the on-snow lesson environment, as a classroom in which to help students assign proper terms for the technical concepts they're being taught. Terminology education, not jargon assault.

But you're also right about people learning in different manners. Not all can learn from the written word alone, no matter how well written. Many need the visuals, the trials, and the feels to go along with the words. We pros can only do the best we can here with the within the confines the Internet teaching environment imposes. Some students will obviously be able to walk away from here with more than others.
post #314 of 316

Littlebird

Perhaps this is a good time to bring up Leon Littlebird's quote to illustrate what ski instructors sound like.

A state of flux in the angular valving of gravity is achieved by counterroticipational polarity on a reverse lateral base minimizing outward torsional thrust, while anticipating compound peripheral extrusion, and avoiding the counterintuitive occurrence of socassic resonance, while enhancing articulated, forced, dynamic struts with altagyrometric, balance-articulated, solid unobtanium parameter enhancers.


And in Spanish!

Condiciones marcadas por las vicisitudes en la fuga ángulo-valvular de la gravidad se logran por medio de una polaridad contra-oticipacional sobre una base lateral inversa siempre y cuando se minimize el empuje torsional centrífugo al contrarestar la eventual extrusión compuesta periférica y obviar la incidencia contra-intuitiva de resonancia socássica cuando al mismo tiempo se realiza la riostra dinámica, articulada y forzada con dispositivos de perfecionamiento parametral alta-girométricos mas equilibrio-articulados y fabricados a base del no-obtenio en estado bruto
post #315 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by weems View Post
Perhaps this is a good time to bring up Leon Littlebird's quote to illustrate what ski instructors sound like.

A state of flux in the angular valving of gravity is achieved by counterroticipational polarity on a reverse lateral base minimizing outward torsional thrust, while anticipating compound peripheral extrusion, and avoiding the counterintuitive occurrence of socassic resonance, while enhancing articulated, forced, dynamic struts with altagyrometric, balance-articulated, solid unobtanium parameter enhancers.
LOL Weems

In my teaching career I preferred "squish the bug", "stab the bunny", "pull the trigger", "point the headlights down the hill" and other goofy translations of jargon technical mumbo jumbo.....

I left "peddle turns" on the bike path.....:
post #316 of 316
LOL!

An instructor at Loveland a loooooong time ago issued me a "belly button flashlight" to help me keep my upper body square to the fall line. I still pull it out and use it to this day. Much more effective for me than just telling me to keep my upper body square to the fall line.

Thanks, all, for understanding. Rick, I'll look for that sticky - hadn't noticed it before (guess you're all gathering I'm not much of a noticer...)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching