or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

HH's Book - Page 3

post #61 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baja View Post
I think this is a great thread with lots of productive input and ideas. (from all sides of the issue.) Kudos to everyone.
I agree, nice job everyone. And you've raised the bar even further with your great post baja!

Quote:


left < ----------------------------- > right


... left being the "bad" or "unproductive" political direction, and right being the better, progressive political direction. (In his opinion of course.) He would then explain that his personal position on that spectrum was located:


left < ----------------------------- > right ----------------> here.
"If you're not living on the edge you're taking up too much space."



So my conclusion is starting to be that PSIA is a larger set up skills (as it INCLUDES rotary) and thus the two schools can be combined.

By adding PMTS's skill sets to PSIA's you have the best of both worlds it seems. It is clear that the tipping, edging teaching methodolgies are very good, so why not use them while choosing to ALSO add some inside ski pressure and to ALSO add some foot steering.

Best of both worlds.
post #62 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkiMangoJazz View Post
So my conclusion is starting to be that PSIA is a larger set up skills (as it INCLUDES rotary) and thus the two schools can be combined.

By adding PMTS's skill sets to PSIA's you have the best of both worlds it seems. It is clear that the tipping, edging teaching methodolgies are very good, so why not use them while choosing to ALSO add some inside ski pressure and to ALSO add some foot steering.
Because the mechanics are contradictory.

Kind of like adding outside leg relaxation to retraction.
post #63 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE View Post
Because the mechanics are contradictory.

Kind of like adding outside leg relaxation to retraction.
I didn't mean using them at the same time necessarily.
post #64 of 316
Mango, I agree with you that there are holes if you try to stick too closely to one methodology or the other. Yes, PSIA includes a larger set of skills, but the very notion of how and when to combine those skills to get effective turns is the greatest skill of all, and one which changes greatly depending on whether you're trying to do it the PSIA way or the PMTS way. PMTS leave out rotation entirely as a skill. PSIA actually uses rotation is part of the very foundation of their turns. In fact they teach that skill way before they teach tipping. This is not simply a matter of two skills, both being useful, but its a matter of two completely opposing ways to construct an effective ski turn from the foundation up.

i happen to think that PMTS has a much better grasp of how to construct a ski turn from the foundation up, but I also think they have a gaping hole in the area of ski pivoting, when and how to apply it as a skill when it makes sense to. PSIA teaches pivoting as a skill, but unfortunately they use it way too much.

so yes, you kind of do need stuff from all sides, not exclusively one or the other. And it may mean throwing out some of the misconceptions which any one particular system may espouse, if you're smart enough to figure out what those are amongst all the bickering between the participants.

Make no mistake about it though.... constructing a ski turn using rotation and constructing a ski turn using tipping are two completely different ways to ski.
post #65 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkiMangoJazz View Post
By adding PMTS's skill sets to PSIA's you have the best of both worlds it seems. It is clear that the tipping, edging teaching methodolgies are very good, so why not use them while choosing to ALSO add some inside ski pressure and to ALSO add some foot steering.
This is a prime example of how you will NOT get the best of both worlds, you will get the worst of no worlds. How can you possibly ski balanced over your outside ski if you are also trying to add some inside ski pressure and what would be the point of doing that? You have to be more specific. SITUATIONALLY, there may be situations where it makes sense to put some weight on your inside ski....but not as a fundamental, every-turn kind of move.

How can you steer your skis if they are on edge by the way? I'm still trying to figure out the physics that PSIA thinks will work there.
post #66 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by borntoski683 View Post
How can you steer your skis if they are on edge by the way? I'm still trying to figure out the physics that PSIA thinks will work there.
Define "on edge"............. clearly being "on edge" is different from being at critical edge angle. Consequently you still can turn the skis as you slide somewhat sideways downhill. The new skiis makes pivoting them easier, since their built in steering angle makes them want to turn by themselves, which cements this concept.
post #67 of 316
Can you understand the physics of spreading frosting with a butter knife?
The edge is used just enough to get the needed use out of the tool. A ski would react ithe same. Use what you feel is necessary to do what you are trying to accomplish. Not all turns are carves and most likely more are not . You got two skis on . Why not use them both to fit the actions needed for the surface , terrain. or turn shape ? A ski on it's 'critical 'edge, as BigE states ,will turn how the sidecut has intended it to
post #68 of 316
as long as everyone realizes they are tail steering when they do that.
post #69 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarryZ View Post
A ski on it's 'critical 'edge, as BigE states ,will turn how the sidecut has intended it to
Actually it also depends on where the point of pressure is on the ski. If you're over the tail, it'll go pretty straight. Over the shovel and you'll turn tighter.

My comment was intended to show that "edging" as a skill is of fairly minor importance in current instruction. (Excepting certain race-bred or race focussed methods.) The new skis make it even less important, because pivotting has been made easier. Let me ask a simple question:

Is it easier to turn the femurs in the leg sockets or to stand on one ski?

Folks can say all they want that all the necessary skills are taught but just applied with different DIRT (Duration/Intensity/Rate/Timing). But if a turn with ski at critical edge angle is not taught, that DIRT is simply swept under the carpet.

IMO, railroad tracks are not the first steps towards that sort of skiing.

Early weight shift and outside ski dominance is the path. ie. launching turns off the uphill ski. Early weight shift is not something you come up with by playing with DIRT. It is a counter intuitive skill: you have to teach it.
post #70 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE View Post
Actually it also depends on where the point of pressure is on the ski. If you're over the tail, it'll go pretty straight. Over the shovel and you'll turn tighter.
Right. That is not pivoting or steering though. that is about getting the sidecut to make the ski turn, through appropriate fore-aft balance and tipping. Once the ski is on edge, the tip is not going to move in the direction of the turn, it is blocked by the snow. It can accomplish some bit of carving and some bit of tail skidding at that point to steer a turn.

Quote:
My comment was intended to show that "edging" as a skill is of fairly minor importance in current instruction. (Excepting certain race-bred or race focussed methods.) The new skis make it even less important, because pivotting has been made easier.
You confused me there.

Quote:
Let me ask a simple question:

Is it easier to turn the femurs in the leg sockets or to stand on one ski?
Clearly standing is easier. As a matter of fact, while we do have the ability to turn our femurs in our hip sockets, it is relatively speaking a very weak muscle movement. If you go to physical therapy the related muscles would get worked out with exercises involving a rubber band tied to the leg of a chair. We don't actually possess a lot of strength to make this movement. Any attempts to turn your skis with your legs, particularly if the skis are not flat...may easily result in gross body movements to heave yourself around....and that is one reason many bad habits start setting in on that route.

In my view, femur rotational moves should only be to either (A) pivot the skis when they are flat or (B) to pro-actively prevent them from blocking your skis from turning or from blocking other more favorable ski movements. Or (C) in certain situations you simply have to make a sudden tight turn and you are willing to skid the tails.

Quote:
Folks can say all they want that all the necessary skills are taught but just applied with different DIRT (Duration/Intensity/Rate/Timing). But if a turn with ski at critical edge angle is not taught, that DIRT is simply swept under the carpet.


Quote:
IMO, railroad tracks are not the first steps towards that sort of skiing.

Early weight shift and outside ski dominance is the path. ie. launching turns off the uphill ski. Early weight shift is not something you come up with by playing with DIRT. It is a counter intuitive skill: you have to teach it.
Interesting point. The weight transfer is definitely key. I'm not sure how I feel yet about the right order..do you teach them to tip first or do you teach them to transfer weight and the later tip? If you don't teach them to tip first, then how will they be turning their skis? Through tail skidding? That opens a can of worms if you're not careful. But on the other hand, it could be dangerous to teach them RR talks from the start.

IMHO, this paradox about how to get first timers started, on a path that leads to high end skiing, without creating unwanted movements that they will have to unlearn later, and all the while doing it in a way they will be safe on the mountain... We haven't figured it out yet as an industry. Its a paradoxical situation. Maybe waist steering is it.
post #71 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by borntoski683 View Post
Interesting point. The weight transfer is definitely key. I'm not sure how I feel yet about the right order..do you teach them to tip first or do you teach them to transfer weight and the later tip? If you don't teach them to tip first, then how will they be turning their skis?
I like teaching the phantom movement sequence: lift, tip, pull back, which produces a nice turn. If you don't lift first (as a beginner) you won't release the turn.
post #72 of 316
Sorry for the confusion. I edited that section so much all innuendo was lost.
post #73 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE View Post
Because the mechanics are contradictory.

Kind of like adding outside leg relaxation to retraction.
BigE, I don't think this is really true in my opinion. The mechanics are not opposite, they are really a matter of degree of intramusclature recruitment and a matter of reversing the roles between the agonist and antagonist. Something we do all the time in our movements. To relax a leg we simply reduce the amount of recruited fibres so the outside force is greater than the muscle contraction force. These movements are always balanced by the opposing muscle in the pair. In other words, at every joint we have groups of muscle that control movement. they work synergisticly to control movement, and/or stabilize the joint. If we have joint movement it is really very easy to go from relaxing to retracting because it involves the muscles already activated, and only requires a change in the amount of effort in the respective muscles, and not a change in direction. Further, changing the amount of recruited effort changes the role of the respective synergists, but within a given joint action it will always be the same group of synergists making things happen.

Here is some food for thought about tipping (ab/adduction) versus steering (rotation). While it is true that rotation with a straight leg is a weaker movement, as we flex the lower joints we increase the amount strength available from our muscles. Interesting to me is how many of the same muscles used for rotation are also used for ab/adduction. And even more interesting to me is how ab/adduction creates rotation as we deepen our flex in the lower joints. In my mind this is attributed to how the angle of pull changes as the hip flexes. HH even discusses this briefly in his book as he talks about how the knees move as we tip our feet when we have flex in our lower joints.

So the gray area lives in how we choose to think about, and apply these movements in our skiing and not really how the body is moving or what muscles are involved. Really the only thing that may seem contradictory is what we intend to do, so in my book they do blend very effectively together. Whether it is relaxing versus retracting or steering versus tipping. So I say yes, we can fluidly move between relaxing and retracting as we can also move between steering and tipping.

The hips are such awesome joints, as they move in all three planes at once. Because of this we can add or subtract the effort being put out in any of the synergistic muscles involved in the hip actions and in so doing change the outcome on the fly. I don't see these movements as black or white but more on a sliding scale. How else do you get a skidded turn from tipping (Ricks question), or that little pivot entry you see in many of the PMTS demo's.

Personally I don't buy into the idea that we can't learn to control any of our natural joint movements if we apply ourselves.

I'd like to hear some thoughts on this.
post #74 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by RicB View Post
So I say yes, we can fluidly move between relaxing and retracting as we can also move between steering and tipping.
Sure you can move between them, but clearly, you cannot pull the left foot up and relax the left leg at the same time. Those are diametrically opposite actions. That's what I meant. I was not talking about trading agonist and antagonist recruitment and calling it equal.

Similarly, you cannot teach that maintaining edges at critical angle is the outcome you seek and then suggest that is is OK to steer. Steering makes that outcome impossible.

IMO, HH has some terrific ideas. I believe there is no rotary in PMTS; it is not taught as a primary focus. Of course there is rotary in skiing, and the movement patterns offered by HH provide a sufficient amount of rotation -- there is no need to give rotation an independant focus.

IMO, Rotation is the pandora's box of skiing. I'm deeply concerned about the validity of it's direct instruction as a foundation skill.

Of all the skills rotation is the MOST complex and pervasive. It permeates through every move in skiing. Much like spontaneous christies "just happen", so does rotation. It is inevitable and unavoidable.

IMO, the key is to focus people on activities that are designed to ensure that this incredibly powerful skill does not overwhelm the application of the others.
post #75 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE View Post
IMO, HH has some terrific ideas. I believe there is no rotary in PMTS; it is not taught as a primary focus. Of course there is rotary in skiing, and the movement patterns offered by HH provide a sufficient amount of rotation -- there is no need to give rotation an independant focus.
I agree with this statement as far as teaching beginners and intermediates, and also when fine tuning the carving and basic turning capabilities of advanced/expert skiers. However, I do think there is a time and place to focus on developing pivoting skills. Its still a useful skill. But I guess I would prefer to put it on the same level of importance as say, pole plants. To me its more of an ancillary skill to be used situationally, but not part of the fundamental turn mechanics.

Quote:
IMO, Rotation is the pandora's box of skiing. I'm deeply concerned about the validity of it's direct instruction as a foundation skill.
Me too.

Quote:
IMO, the key is to focus people on activities that are designed to ensure that this incredibly powerful skill does not overwhelm the application of the others.
It seems that more often than not this could be the case, particularly with skiers who were taught to ski with a bias towards using rotary skills as the foundation of their turn mechanics.

post #76 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE View Post
Sure you can move between them, but clearly, you cannot pull the left foot up and relax the left leg at the same time. Those are diametrically opposite actions. That's what I meant. I was not talking about trading agonist and antagonist recruitment and calling it equal.

Similarly, you cannot teach that maintaining edges at critical angle is the outcome you seek and then suggest that is is OK to steer. Steering makes that outcome impossible.

IMO, HH has some terrific ideas. I believe there is no rotary in PMTS; it is not taught as a primary focus. Of course there is rotary in skiing, and the movement patterns offered by HH provide a sufficient amount of rotation -- there is no need to give rotation an independant focus.

IMO, Rotation is the pandora's box of skiing. I'm deeply concerned about the validity of it's direct instruction as a foundation skill.

Of all the skills rotation is the MOST complex and pervasive. It permeates through every move in skiing. Much like spontaneous christies "just happen", so does rotation. It is inevitable and unavoidable.

IMO, the key is to focus people on activities that are designed to ensure that this incredibly powerful skill does not overwhelm the application of the others.
Well the joint is making the same movement whether we are retracting or relaxing, that is the point. You may want to call it diametricly opposite, but it is only a variation on the same movement within the same muscles whose only job is to manipulate and control the joints. Understanding this is key to understanding how the body works. IMHO.

Rotation makes one outcome impossible only if is overpowering that outcome. On the other hand it makes other outcomes possible by that ability to overpower when we choose it to. What is really cool to me is to understand that we can choose the outcome based on our intent if we have the skill base.

I believe there is rotary in PMTS, they just choose to dance around this one point and call it passive. In my experience any of the skills can be overdone. I see it all the time. Rotation is not the holy grail, nor is tipping. The holy grail lies in balancing all the movements the body makes to serve our intent. Let our thinking drive the action, and put the movements we want out of our body into our body.

Well BigE I think I finally understand where you stand on this issue and I have to say I disagree. That's fine, just please add in that it is your opinion and not fact. I have no problem with HH's ideas only the idea that his is the only, best way. I wish you all well.

For me, I will continue to teach all three skills for a good sound foundation. I will teach a balance in these skills and versatile application of these skills.
post #77 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by RicB View Post
Well BigE I think I finally understand where you stand on this issue and I have to say I disagree. That's fine, just please add in that it is your opinion and not fact. I have no problem with HH's ideas only the idea that his is the only, best way. I wish you all well.

For me, I will continue to teach all three skills for a good sound foundation. I will teach a balance in these skills and versatile application of these skills.
amen

it is pretty clear in my mind that while exploring the 300 feet of vertical available on the niagra escarpment BigE has never spent a moment teaching skiing.

i too will continue to teach rotary movements, tipping movements and flexion/extension.

oh.........and versatility might not be a bad thing to add as well!
post #78 of 316
well since this thread started out about HH's book, perhaps you can go teach rotation on another thread.
post #79 of 316
For the record, I do teach pivoting. It is part of the CSIA skill set. In fact, the emphasis on teaching this skill has increased this year. The CSCF has defined race courses to emphasize it. It is a better place to learn short turns on our lovely 300 ft than a GS turn.

Most of Ontario is like this, I guess we're somehow not "real instructors"? Totally uncalled for.

Geez you guys, I'm just thinking out loud whether or not there is a better way to teach skiing effectively.
post #80 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE View Post
For the record, I do teach pivoting. It is a very key skill to master and it is part of the CSIA skills. In fact, the emphasis on teaching this skill has increased this year. The CSCF has defined race courses to emphasize it. It is a better place to learn short turns on our lovely 300 ft than a GS turn.
Is this where your concern is growing from, the fact that is being emphasized more of late or is it strictly from HH's input? I'm genuinely curious.
post #81 of 316
Where is there 300 feet of vertical between Toronto and Holiday Valley?

I think it's closer to 175 feet.

Back to the original topic. Is there really enough topic on PMTS that it takes 3 books to understand? Or is much of the previous 2 repeated in book 3?

Just curious. What does Harb's 3rd book have in it that the 2nd doesn't?
post #82 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE View Post
.

IMO, Rotation is the pandora's box of skiing. I'm deeply concerned about the validity of it's direct instruction as a foundation skill.
make statements such as these and i think it fair that it will be questioned. ski a big mountain with steep terrain and i assure you that rotary skills are both "valid" and a part of every skier's "foundation".
post #83 of 316
I'm with you BigE!!
post #84 of 316
It is not because of HH.

At one point, as you might know, I was totally against PMTS. There were some biomechanical concerns I had.

My concern on teaching rotary has peaked with the strong emphasis on teaching rotary skills to racers that are so young they still ski out of the back seat. The "training effect" of a course set that requires copious amounts of rotary could be devastating.

Then I extended that thought to all beginners and the dreaded pivot slip.

IMO, the emphasis must be shifted to simple balance and movement skills; direct focus on rotary might work better only after the students are actually ready. I have also previously implied that the holy grail of skiing is "Balance, Movement and Confidence". Again, IMO, nothing else matters.
post #85 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusty Guy View Post
make statements such as these and i think it fair that it will be questioned. ski a big mountain with steep terrain and i assure you that rotary skills are both "valid" and a part of every skier's "foundation".
I did not say you don't need them. I'm wondering about direct instruction of rotary for all skiers. If it is a necessity for all, then it is a foundation skill.

Certainly an advancing skier looking at the steeps needs it. Certainly and advancing racer needs it. Certainly the mogul skier needs it. But does the novice need this direct instruction so early in their skiing lives?
post #86 of 316
Quote:
the holy grail of skiing is "Balance, Movement and Confidence".
I would have to agree with you here Bige. I spend the majority of my time teaching balance, effective posture, movement and our movements relationship to our skis interaction on the snow(skills). Confidence is mothered by the previous things IMO.

My only observation on your take on course setting is that all course setting is done with some tactical outcome in mind I would think. Certainly one can "justify" every type of course set. At least I would think that would be the case. I'm not a racer though. Certainly can't speak to what is going on in your local.

Let's not throw out the baby with the bath water though.
post #87 of 316
As has always been the case, they are constantly trying to set the courses to be just a little more difficult than what the ski designs are capable of doing with simple pure carving. This forces racers to use skills such as Pivot Enty's and other stuff..which is more difficult to do and can't rely on simple smooth arcing to make the course. Additionally it forces them to think tactically about when and where to use these things and plot their path through the course. They have to make courses like this in order to separate the men from the boys and spread the field a bit.

So yea, racers have to know how to do that and use they will, quite a bit. As far as the ethics of whether they should be doing that with youth racers, that's another discussion.

Anyway, if those racers could make it through the whole course without a single pivot, they absolutely would. it is forced on them as a way to make their job more difficult. It is not the easier or more efficient way to ski. They are being forced to be inefficient to spread the field.

Now back to recreational skiers. Except for occasional situations, why would recreational skiers want to use the inefficient turning mechanism which racers only use when they are forced to? Situationally, ok. As a standard foundational part of the turn? Why? It doesn't make sense.
post #88 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by RicB View Post
I would have to agree with you here Bige. I spend the majority of my time teaching balance, effective posture, movement and our movements relationship to our skis interaction on the snow(skills). Confidence is mothered by the previous things IMO.

My only observation on your take on course setting is that all course setting is done with some tactical outcome in mind I would think. Certainly one can "justify" every type of course set. At least I would think that would be the case. I'm not a racer though. Certainly can't speak to what is going on in your local.

Let's not throw out the baby with the bath water though.
Right! And 90% of every lesson that presents real improvement is structured around balance. Why does the pivoting suck? Poor balance. Why is the pressure control non-existent? Poor balance. Why is the edging weak? you know the answer.....

And much of the time you see these folks holding their poles infront and doing pivot slips. What a BOGUS exercise.

I don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water, I want to wash the kid without anyone knowing it. Choosing drills that have secondary rotary effect.
post #89 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by borntoski683 View Post
PSIA actually uses rotation is part of the very foundation of their turns. In fact they teach that skill way before they teach tipping. This is not simply a matter of two skills, both being useful, but its a matter of two completely opposing ways to construct an effective ski turn from the foundation up.
This is one of the problems with the PSIA: it just ain't cohesive, and this statement makes it completely clear to me. I know that you believe this to be the case, and I know that this is what you've seen. I do not know if you'll believe me when I tell you that this has not been my experience and has not been what I've seen or been taught about teaching skiing by PSIA clinicians and examiners, but that's the case. The focus that I have had from the very beginning in PSIA-RM is tipping (releasing, re-engaging, carved arcs, etc.) as an integral component of skiing skills and a primary foundation for it. If anything, it was more emphasized than any rotary, although the latter was certainly part of the equation, as well.

Given that disparity, it should be clear to all that there is no "PSIA way" or "foundation of their turns." It's just not that consistent! I think that this is one of the results of the PSIA's mission and approach to addressing that mission: it teaches ski instructors how skiers and their equipment interact to produce various outcomes. What the instructors do with it is completely up to them, possibly (but not always!) with direction from their ski school. Needless to say, many of those instructors do not agree about how to do that, and some have better reasons for their way than others do. But, that's what PSIA does. It doesn't do what Harb or any of the other organized progression inventors do and outline a progression or a signature turn. I know that some here want to create that target in order to shoot at it, but you can't do that in integrity; it doesn't exist.
post #90 of 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by borntoski683 View Post
as long as everyone realizes they are tail steering when they do that.
Do I use tail steering when I sideslip? If I drift a turn centered on my skis so that the tips and tails displace the same amount, am I tail steering? This is how I endeavor to drift my turns instead of allowing or making the tails take a wider path than the tips.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching