For this discussion, it's important to understand that "angulation" and "inclination" are not
alternative ways of accomplishing the same thing. Both affect edge angle, and both affect balance. But they are two entirely different things, living in different worlds, done for different reasons, serving different purposes. I've described these differences in my earlier post, but I want to emphasize this point.
We control both, simultaneously, continuously, and independently, in conjunction with each other--not either/or--in the maintenance and control of balance and edge angle. We can angulate without inclining, and we can incline without angulating, and we can do both at the same time.
BigE--I agree that banking often is
an error, resulting from the failure to create sufficient angles or from starting turns with tipping and/or rotational movements of the upper body. These errors more often than not result in falling to the inside ski--both from the outside ski skidding away due to insufficient edge angle and from the lack of the "counterbalancing" effect of the upper body. But the term "banking" is equally commonly used to describe the effective, efficient movements illustrated in some of the photographs in the links above, where edge angles are sufficient and balance is not compromised. Banking does not necessarily entail loss of balance to the inside, especially with sufficient speed. Bicycles and motorcycles (often) bank, with no loss of balance.
I agree with Gurshman's definitons that you quoted:
|"So what is the inclination? In simple terms it is displacement or deviation of the skier’s entire body from its vertical axis in the direction of the center of the future turn..."
He also says this:
"The properly performed inclination is different from "leaning in", often defined as applying too much weight onto the inside ski too early in the turn, and considered by coaches and racers to be a gross technical error."
But "displacement of the entire body from its vertical axis" does not imply that there can be no angulation involved when inclining into a turn. Leaning your body into a turn implies nothing about your body's "shape"--angulated or not. "Inclination" must not be confused with "banking" (which is the special case of inclination without angulation). You can incline without banking. You cannot bank without inclining.
What I think Gurshman means by "leaning in" is the error I described above in which the turn begins by "leaning in" with the upper body. This error does cause the exact problems Gurshman describes. It is the problematic form of "banking." Gurshman's definition would be clearer if he would specify what body parts he means by "leaning in"--which could involve the upper body (I think he means this), but it could just as easily mean the shins.