New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Equivalent outcomes?

post #1 of 15
Thread Starter 
How do these movements compare, when applied between release and neutral:

1: Inside ski pull back.
2: Waist steering's secret sauce (Could have the wrong term here, might be shake and bake).
3: Gurshmans recentering pole plant.
4: Swing through of new inside leg (gait mechanics).

Are the outcomes equivalent or do they all have different outcomes?
post #2 of 15
Great thread topic! I have no idea. Looking forward to the responses.
post #3 of 15
1: Inside ski pull back.
Assume you're speaking of the new inside ski. Typically, the opposite is happening. Because the skis are adjusting from old turn counter and inside tip lead, into new turn counter and inside tip lead, the old inside foot is actually moving forward.

2: Waist steering's secret sauce (Could have the wrong term here, might be shake and bake).
The shake is a pivot application of WS. In this transition you're speaking of WS is employed to power item 1 above.

3: Gurshmans recentering pole plant.
Not sure about this one, haven't read him. If it's a blocking mechanism he's advocating with it, it's a different animal (transition type)

4: Swing through of new inside leg (gait mechanics).
Goes hand in hand (or should I say foot in foot) with items 1 and 2.
post #4 of 15
Thread Starter 
Rick,

1 refers to the current inside ski - the one that has the tip lead at the bottom of the turn. Not the highly pressured outside ski. That's the ski that gets pulled back.

3 is not blocking. It's forwards movement of the CM with the pole(s), step one in learning is the double pole plant. However, when a single pole plant is used, rotational recentering also occurs.


I should have added this next item, since it has been spoken about so much on this forum:

5: PSIA lead change

Which methods demand rotation of the pelvis? Oh, sorry, 5 is not a method - it's an outcome.

What should I write down for the PSIA method to create lead change?
post #5 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE View Post
How do these movements compare, when applied between release and neutral:

1: Inside ski pull back.
2: Waist steering's secret sauce (Could have the wrong term here, might be shake and bake).
3: Gurshmans recentering pole plant.
4: Swing through of new inside leg (gait mechanics).

Are the outcomes equivalent or do they all have different outcomes?
BigE, I'm not quite sure what you are asking here. I'll give it a try though. :

1: Maintains effective alignment of the inside half of the body, in particular foot to hip. Not needed if functional inside half tension is maintained throughout the turn. We always need someplace to move from and to. Particularly in the fore aft plane.

2: Key to success in tai chi chaun is the ability to maintain our root and to smoothly flow between and exchange one root for another. Moving from our waist requires that we always maintain our root to help cultivate and ground our energy so that we can get all parts to move in unison to serve our intent. To me skiing is like this, and though I'm no expert on waiststeering, I would say that the intended outcomes from one and two are similar.

3: Have no idea.

4: To me gait mechanics used in skiing simply means a smooth transfer of our root or stance leg from one to the other. This can happen through ILE or through OLR, or anywhere in between. They all require good functional body mechanics and alignment to happen, along with a good reading and understanding of the forces.

5: PSIA lead change? Have no idea what you mean by that.
post #6 of 15
Thread Starter 
Lead change was intended to refer to the amount of tip lead, which vanishes as the lead changes to the other side.

In every case, it seems to me that the goal of all of these movement patterns is for the skis the come to neutral, square and centered under the body.

So, if a pivot is a pivot, is recentering recentering? Are these fundamentally the SAME movement, with only a shift of focus to differentiate them?
post #7 of 15
Well isn't it true BigE, that in all good functional skiing, neutral will exhibit good alignment of each side and side to side also? No matter how momentary it may be.

Digging under the surface of these actions, they all have similar recruitment patterns irregardless of what the intention is, because they all recruit the hip/leg joint for much of this control and movement, even though we might be thinking of different parts of the body moving.
post #8 of 15
Thread Starter 
I don't want to go down the "therefore we should focus on teaching movements" path. Although that is one valid tangent, that is not what I am after here.

To the heart of the matter: we are saying that it is the recruitment patterns (ie. bodily movements and tensions) that define good functional skiing. It is merely a matter of focus on the body parts that differentiates between these "different ways to ski".

Consequently, there is really only one way to ski. Your choice of focus is what allows you to realize good functional skiing. But this focus must result in the same good functional skiing for the choice to be valid.

Is that a decent summary of the state of the world?
post #9 of 15
I think that is a fair summary BigE. Outcomes are there for everyone to see, and I think we sometimes get too hung up on looking for "specific" movements and loose sight of effective outcomes. It is an interesting subject, and a healthy to step back and reevaluate our assessing criteria versus outcome from time to time.
post #10 of 15
Thread Starter 
Agreed.

The problem with using outcomes only though, is that I cannot guarantee that my student has used a good functional tension to generate them.

So , in the end, I must drill movement patterns by demanding the appropriate muscular recruitment (eg. side crunch), and ensure that they "feel" it. One could task teach movements designed for them to feel and adopt the desired recruitment pattern.

Doesn't that lead back to teaching skiing by teaching movement?
post #11 of 15
I agree BigE. I was going to say it if you didn't. I think the point you are trying to make is that there are several different mental focus approaches, that will train a skier to make movements that result in the same desired outcome.

The outcome is the point of the whole thing after all, but we must think about and make some kind of movements to make it happen.

Delving a little deeper, can anyone think of any subtle differences between these proposed movement approaches which may result in subtly different outcomes?
post #12 of 15
I agree guys. I tend to spend most of my focus in teaching in helping my students find and improve their effective/efficient movements, intergrating their movements and finding rate and rhythm in their movements. On the other hand sometimes, asking for specific outcomes will create the environment for a skier to achieve the needed success without focusing on specific movements.

BTS, that's a good question. Subtle differences in the outcome can certainly happen when we have differences in which foot leg or side is the focal point and also when the focal point is close to the snow (the feet) versus higher up from the snow, like the hips (WS).
post #13 of 15
borntoski,

Quote:
Delving a little deeper, can anyone think of any subtle differences between these proposed movement approaches which may result in subtly different outcomes?
Different people need to work on slightly different movements depending on how they move on skis. For someone that is very outside ski oriented, (movement first starts to right when the are transiting to turn left), needs to move more from the new inside ski first. For someone else who tends to lean in the turns and put too much weight on the inside ski, needs to learn to move more over the outside ski. The outcomes are slightly different, but very different movements from each skier's normal movement pattern need to be developed.

The first skier's verbal cue is inside ski to inside ski and the second is outside ski to outside ski.

RW
post #14 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by borntoski683 View Post
Delving a little deeper, can anyone think of any subtle differences between these proposed movement approaches which may result in subtly different outcomes?
You bet. 4 betters 1.

To move a foot forward or back, it needs/wants to be the non-pressured foot. If someone is focusing on pulling the old inside foot back to create the lead change, it can tend to delay their lateral pressure change, cause counter to be created by making the new inside hip/foot the pivot axis, and result in a dropping back of the new outside hip, putting the skier in an aft balance state, as opposed to the more tip of the turn fore pressure producing tactic of driving the new inside hip forward.

2 powers 4


Who teaches 1 anyway?
post #15 of 15
Thread Starter 
HH says that the pull back is to cure the back seat. Then goes on to say:
Quote:
Originally Posted by HH from realskiers
Hip following
The foot pull back move not only helps move your hips over your feet, (better balance, less torque required to turn the skis) but it also adds carving action to the stance ski. The pulled back foot and the tugging from that action, puts an easy, controllable, rotation in the hip, so it can keep up with the ski’s direction change. If slight following doesn’t happen you end up parked and static. Most skiers think the hip follows the skis by a hip rotation. Hip movements are too strong and hard to control, so we don’t recommend them. If you can control movement from the base of the Kinetic Chain, you have a better chance of success.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching