Bullet Proof Short Turns - PMTS - Video - Page 12

All that being said, Bode, if you truly believed that its only the "skills" that matter..than what's your beef with PMTS? They are achieving these skills also through whatever method that seems to make sense to them as a group. That fits your very definition of what is acceptable.

Task teaching has been part of ATS since long before I became a member, and I've been a member before HH left.
ATS has always developed effective movements, PMTS or not. It's only PMTS that is defined by what it excludes.

BK

For those of you reading at home ATS=American Teaching System. This is the umbrella term for the PSIA recommend method for teaching skiing. The above description is NOT what it is. For just one example, I refer you to the visual cues method of movement analysis that talks about effective and ineffective movements. Now if you'll please excuse me, I'm going to have an effective movement of my own.:

It depends what you mean by a "typical PMTS student". I don't think its a good description of Max, or the people I've met at PMTS blue camps, who are a lot better than the people I see in "advanced" classes of resort ski lessons. It may apply to people who teach themselves from the ACBAES books (it certainly applied to me for a while), but in general it seems to be an unreasonable generalization.

Of course, I'm not a "competent instructor" so your experience may differ, but I was also struck by the relatively high level of performance (at skiing and instructing) of the camp coaches, all of whom seem quite happy with the party line on rotary movements. How would you explain that?

Skills are for analysis. Movements are for performance.

It's bogus to think that anyone really teaches skills. You pick a task/drill and do it. That's teaching a movement. That's what the skier wants to know and do. Think you can "teach" balance? No, you can't teach it, but you can help develop what little skills the student may have. Teaching "stance"? By movement. Teaching edging? By making edging movements. etc. etc.

At the end of the day, the student will walk away with the movements that ellicited the response I wanted to see. They walk away with movements and show those moves to their buddies that ask what they learned.

It is only instructors that distill those movements into skills. Why? So that they can analyse the movements and and address the next series of drills/tasks that the student should recceive in a hopefully cohesive manner.

It is a rare student that takes lessons to improve skill, they take lessons to ski better. Which means move better.

So?

Okay, I think a few of you guys have figured out where I was going with my questions (so you can put down the swords for a minute). Incidentally, my next question was going to be about hip rotation related to pulling the inside foot back at the top of the turn. I am certain that Harald's viewpoint on this would not be an extreme "no it is not allowed/accepted." It is interesting however, to see what a student's viewpoint of the same topic is. Consider what an aggressive pull-back of the free foot early in the turn combined with intentional unwinding would produce... It is certainly a movement that is far from a tail push, but still effectively steers the skis. The interesting part is that such a movement can be employed nearly anywhere in any kind of turn, which I think is one of the roots of PMTS and the reason that many claim to ski the entire mountain without using any rotary in their skiing. In such a case, the complete lack of rotary (following the skis) would put the skier in a much worse-off position - probably requiring a strong up-move with a redirect that was initiated by the feet/legs. Without the free-foot pull-back, you are left with outside leg rotation and heel pushing as your main redirect options. Granted I do not have the understanding of PMTS that some around here seem to (Max and BTS for example), but I can carve a ski reasonably well, and these movements seem to make sense (to me at least). I am thinking that if you combined these movements with an underedged ski you would end up with what keeps being referred to as a brushed carve (or in my own little world - a scarve).

So are these movements similar to a carve? - you bet... when used properly can they induce the skis to be steered? - I would say so... Is this a bad thing - definitely not (I'd say a good thing). The big catch is that the outside ski and leg are not doing the steering, which to a student (less understanding and ownership of the movements than the instructor) will feel like they are not intentionally steering the skis at all (ignoring the scarved tracks that are left behind). At the end of the day what we are discussing is a pretty high level skill, and when felt for the first time - or at least before the movements are 'owned' - might seem like rocket science to the student; especially if that student has relied heavily on active steering, outside leg rotation, and turning the upper body into the hill in the past to bring their skis around.

Later

GREG

Ok, so you say that there are no separating movements at the feet to form a wedge from a straight run in a parallel stance. I will tell you, that will be one tiny wedge. I bet you do open your stance and broaden your base of support when you demo a gliding wedge and more when you open further to brake.

The issue is that the exclusive focus on only certain movemnts prevents or delays the development certain skills. The most fundamental difference is the issue of whether I need to learn skills or practice movements. The ATS theory is that it's all about skills, and the movements are intuitive. Can a PMTS instructor do falling leaf, pivot slips or any other drill that requires rotary? Those are important excercises for developing balance. How do i learn those skills if the only movemenyts I'm allowed to do are the same movements I used when I'm carving?
But the beef with PMTS is that HH markets it by derogatory diatribes about the only recognized professional certification I have in the ski business. That can't be good for me, and it would have been worse had his early attempts to establish a separate certification system not failed.

BK

Exactly!

Thanks for that clarification Rusty, and you're right I was throwing the name ATS out too a little too quickly from Bode's description of it above. Hopefully not everyone under the ATS umbrella agrees with Bode either.

You pick a task and do it. But the task is not neccessarily a movement you would ordinarily do in skiing. the perfect example is outrigger turns. You stand wuth your feet as far apart as possibel, pointed down the beginner hill. You flex one leg as much as possible, and extend the other to the side to get as high an edge as possible. Let it go down the hill and feel the forces build, and switch edges before you hit something. Those movements are completely ineffective in ordinary skiing, but you will learn what a high edge feels like, and how high an adge will hold, jfaster than any other way I know. You haven't learned a movement, you've felt something, and if yu learn to bring that into tour skiing, you've learned a skill.

BK

That really isn't true. There are countless examples on this board of non-PMTS instructors excluding certain movements from "good skiing". Braking wedges, up-stems, down-stems, shoulder throwing, hitting other skiers with your poles and many other time honoured movements that occur in nearly everyone's skiing at some time (okay, maybe not the last one) are excluded from ATS just as much as they are from PMTS.

And PMTS instruction doesn't deny that rotary movements happen in PMTS skiing. It just doesn't teach them. I lack any professional qualifications whatsoever, but in my judgement this is right. I've yet to look at anyone's skiing and say "what that skier needs is to rotate their legs more". Maybe one day I will (and I really do retain an open mind on this), but if deliberate rotary movements are needed at the "advanced levels" I'm so thoroughly unadvanced I cannot see that yet (whereas I know very well that I lack some other movements in my skiing) and I've yet to read a convincing explanation of why its true (not for want of trying I might add).

Rusty?

PMTS "instructors" have excellent balance and high level skiing skills, and probably perform just about any of those rudimentary tasks, even that active rotary is not taught as part of the system the way it is in ATS. In fact many PMTS instructors were previously high level instructors of other systems, so I'm certain they can do it if they felt like it.

There are many ways to develop balance. I am pretty certain you could not send us a video of yourself performing the PMTS BPST drill, which requires much balance, some of it even related to your beloved rotary. There is a challenge for you. So I guess you must be limited too in some way.

Again you are demonstrating an incomplete understanding of PMTS.

Ok, now we're getting down to it. You have an axe to grind. Your real beef is not about PMTS skiing, its about HH the man because you don't like that he criticizes you. Can't help you there mate.

That is not completely accurate. There are couple ski resorts now recognizing and using the PMTS system and one in CO that is even EXCLUSIVELY using it. PMTS will probabyl not ever overtake ATS because ATS has had a strangle hold on the industry for a long time. But its certainly not accurate to say that ATS is the only "recognized" certification system. Not to mention, you must be forgetting all the other countries and their systems.

This student certainly agrees. I went through a phase of generating almost all my short turns this way, combined with the one-footed (OLR) release, and it was pretty effective. Since getting some (PMTS) coaching, I've added more tipping movements. I'm pretty sure that the tipping movements also add torque to the skis, but the interesting thing is that the basic movements of the non-carved turn are the same as the carved turn, only the timing and itensity are different.

My original intent was to ask whether a PMTS instructor could use falling leaf, etc,. as a drill, and still be within the rules of PMTS. Sorry for the confusion. Of course those guys can do those things, they have been recognized as fundamental skills at least since Joubert wrote about them. Can they be taught in PMTS?

I'm limited in many ways, but I why would I limit the ways in which I try to learn things?

Actually, I was completely accurate. PSIA is the only certification I have since i gave up my USSA card. You should read more carefully.
But on your other point, I'm genuinely sorry to hear that PMTS certification may be gaining some limited credibility, but I'm not forgetting other countries where I have taught. My PSIA certification is the only certification I have that is recoginized in foreign countries as well.


BTW which resort is using PMTS certification exclusively?
BK

Speaking of grinding axes. :

Where is it that this stranglehold occurs?

Are there ski schools out there that will only hire PSIA-certified instructors? I'm asking this in complete seriousness because my ski school at Jackson Hole has no such policy.

(I'm perfect evidence of that because I have no PSIA certification.)

I don't think I've ever seen a "rule" that stated, "thou shalt not use pivot slips or falling leaves". Its more that they just aren't interesting drills to use as PMTS instructors have other drills that they have found to be more effective. By the way, my understanding of falling leaf is that it is not really so much of a rotary skill drill. It develops fore-aft and edging control. I can't think of any reason why that would be counter-productive in a PMTS lesson, but its just that they may or may not have developed other drills they feel are more productive. Hey I've never been to a PMTS lesson, for all I know they have some use for falling leave and pivot slips. The fact is, that any stunt you can perform on a ski will improve your overall balance and I don't think HH or anyone in PMTS would argue that there could be some good coming out of any ski maneuver you try to do. But its just that they have bigger fish to fry with other exercises.

One of the drills in book#2 is a drill where you ski with your outside ski lifted in the air. As you may know, standing on the inside ski is a no no in PMTS. However, there are specific balancing skills which are obtained by skiing on the inside ski and not only does PMTS allow it, it ENCOURAGES it for the sake of learning.

Thank god that is the case. Its not so much that you can't get a job without certification. There is an example where you can. I'm sure there are many others. However, the influence of the PSIA hierarchy effects many more levels of power and influence besides "being able to get a job". If Jackson Hole has more of an open minded policy then I am really glad to hear it.

Enough said.

BK

After 330 posts, the casual observer from over the pond ought to be able to form a view on being or not being PMTS/PSIA, were he over there.

Well. Were I a small child with suitable parental support, a PSIA programme where I could ski and copy a decent instructor and ski some more would be perfect. She could do the thinking bit for me and I would learn as any young child learns, by good examples and good experience. I would learn all sorts of rotations and angulations and unweightings without needing a clue as to what any of them were, other than by feel. Perfect.

However, if I were grown up and had already fallen out of that bed described above, I would already have developed too many bad habits (due to incomplete PSIA programmes/influence or none at all), read too many do's and donts, had too many 'helpful' friends' advice. It's then that I could greet HH as the Messiah, this guy skis as i would love to, and so I am promised could I, if only I followed that path of PMTS. It makes a lot of sense to me. It's so direct. It gets rid of many of the problem areas like over rotation, by apparently doing away with rotary altogether, and out goes the plough which was only ever for kids and lots of other inefficient moves (who wants inefficiency?), and the path to expert nivanna seems very direct indeed. And all the while I have that vision of skiing not like my local instructor (who may only be averagely good), but with this truly magical and charismatic HH (if only on the video) who surely is as good as any recreational skier could possibly want to be. I'm in.

But would reading these pages remove any of that gloss? Probably not. Of course there is rotary involved, any fool can see that, but if by pretending there isn't (and here's the clever bit because I can unlearn alot of old big muscle problems and get to good rotary by another smaller muscle route!), I can deal with my adult brain which is now far too keen to rationalise and does need as much 'why' as 'how', and that's all in the books. And by pretending that at least some of my current 'plateau' is not actually my fault, well that's good too. It's Perfect.

Can both be perfect? Perhaps. PMTS could not exist were PSIA not there first. The differences are more nuance that substance which are exaggerated for marketing purposes and give the impression one feeds off the shortcomings of the other. It cannot seriously be the fault of the PSIA that there are enough plateaued skiers out there that in the land of free-enterprise some other such ski-schools will find a niche? Can't they both serve a purpose? Horses for courses with most of this annual 'blather' being the stuff they leave on the road.

If you think I lack an understanding of PMTS, please indicate what incorrect statements I have made which you think demonstrate that.

I've been a serious student of the PMTS theory for well over a year now, participated in many discussions on HH's forum, read all of his books several times, and visited HH in Colorado for boot work as well as had several days worth of conversations with him in the shop and on the hill. I observed about 20 minutes worth of one of his blue level clinics, of which I was impressed. My understanding is not absolute, no of course not I am continuing to learn and refine my understanding as well as my own skiing.

But I have not, I don't think, made any incorrect statements on this forum about PMTS. The comment I made about not receiving formal PMTS instruction relates to the fact that I have no idea whether the PMTS coaches ever use your favorite rotary exercises. I doubt it. The biggest thing I noticed in the 20 minutes or so was that everyone was smiling.

This is the smartest post I've read in this thread. The real secret of learning to ski is to learn how to learn like a child, and never stop learning. That's why it can be continually interesting, even after the lifts are closed for the season. If you need to describe and discuss every movement in excruciating detail, you've missed the point of it all.

BK

Sheesh! Sorry folks, I actually occasionally do some work for my real job that pays the bills. I'm sure I'm missing a lot I could comment on. ATS is skills based, but has a ton of emphasis on movements. I'm not sure where the intuitive movements came from. That is not my understanding of ATS.

Ahem!

You are contradicting yourself here with me. Bolter

PMTS seems to teach balance on the outside ski/edge while providing the body movements to allow that to remain possible in a dynamic turning situation. That balance point may have to shift due to changing surface conditions, but the ideal seems to be to be able to regain that outside ski balance as soon as it is lost.

Later

GREG

I was trying to agree with you! But to elaborate my answer, in any particualar wedge or wedge christie turn, my feet stay about the same distance apart. In wedge turns, the wedge is held constant, but as speed builds and skills develop, some esquential steering develops which causes a wedge christie. The wedge in a wedge christie can be pretty small, as it is with any gliding wedge. of course, the feet need to be pressed quite far apart to form a braking wedge, but that's not what we were talking about.

BK

Intuitive movements develop spontaneously. ATS identifies both effective and ineffective movements, but the emphasis is on learning skills, not practicing movements. Most students 9or instructors for that matter) don't grasp that distinction. Students who focus on learning balance skills learn faster than students who try to imitate movements exclusively. Many of my students enjoy great success, but others are frustrated by my lack of descriptions. The latter group is happier with other instructors, but they rarely progress faster than the former, regardless.

BK

This thread has now surpassed Highway Star's PMTS challenge thread!

Score one for PMTS.