or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

A Tale of Three Turns - Page 11

post #301 of 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wear The Fox Hat View Post
Max, I still find your concept that "1 is active and wrong and 2 is passive and the only way" is confusing. Is that what you are saying?
I'm saying no such thing. I'm saying they are different.

If you doubt it, please point me to the post where I said that there is only one way to ski. And while you're at it please point me to the post where I said that using concept 1 was wrong.
post #302 of 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lonnie View Post
Or I rotate the femur in the hip socket with a kinetic chain moving downwards through the knee and ankle to scribe an arc with the skis on the snow. This rotation helps tip the ski on edge...
But does it move the hip to the inside of the turn?
post #303 of 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max_501 View Post
I disagree. There is a definite difference and I can see it when I watch skiers. I'm not saying one is right or wrong, just that its not the same.
Ah, but I'm not saying that two skiers thinking different things will be skiing the same I'm saying that two skiers can be thinking differently (body focus not intent)and skiing the same.
post #304 of 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max_501 View Post
Ok, lets throw out the words active and passive. Rather lets compare these two:

1) A skier intentionally recruits upper leg and hip muscles to redirect the skis.

2) A skier allows the energy of the previous to turn to redirect the skis.

Are they the same thing?
Ok lets throw out the baby with the bath water.

1) A skier may intentionally redirect using the femur, only you did not feel it, so missed the fact that it happened, but you believe that you do not intentionally redirect because you cannot feel it happen.

2) Yes........all skiing uses the energy of the previous turn. But how did you initiate the very first turn

If your coach or whoever is telling you that you do not use rotary femur steering consciously, then it will happen unconsciously to enable you to turn.

It would seem that your coach is trying to create a system, that eliminates the most fundamental of skiing muscle groups, sorry but that is impossible.

And I might add, holding back anyone trained in that system.
post #305 of 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max_501 View Post
But does it move the hip to the inside of the turn?
No, tipping does. Why can't one do both at the same time?

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnSean View Post
2) Yes........all skiing uses the energy of the previous turn. But how did you initiate the very first turn
Funny, I was going to ask the same thing!
post #306 of 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max_501 View Post
I'm saying no such thing. I'm saying they are different.
OK, for me, using a combination of both 1 & 2 would be the best way to ski - you get the benefits of letting the old turn cause the new one, and you get the control of making the turn with more muscles involved.

For me they may be different, but they do not need to be exclusive.
post #307 of 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by RicB View Post
No they are not Max. But good effective rotary skill movements helps a skier finish her previous turn so that she can allow the skis to redirect from the energy she stored from her previous turn. Remember, rotary skills are not limited to just starting a turn by deliberate pivoting. Good awareness and refinement of rotary movements let her dial it in or dial it out depending on her need and intent. She has a options.

Deb Armstrong wrote a very good article in TPS on this a couple of years ago, shortly after she completed level III.

Neither of our view points change anything happening in good skiing. What happens happens. This is just about how we chose to think about it.
Yes or choose not to realise it happens or how we control it
post #308 of 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wear The Fox Hat View Post
OK, for me, using a combination of both 1 & 2 would be the best way to ski - you get the benefits of letting the old turn cause the new one, and you get the control of making the turn with more muscles involved.

For me they may be different, but they do not need to be exclusive.
Sure, but if you recruit larger muscles (when you don't need to) are you not using more energy needlessly? When you recruit large muscles are there any other negative effects (for example, is balance easier to adjust with big or small muscle movements)?
post #309 of 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnSean View Post
It would seem that your coach is trying to create a system, that eliminates the most fundamental of skiing muscle groups, sorry but that is impossible.
I understand that you believe this to be the case. BTW, I never said that a muscle group was excluded. However, just because a muscle group is used in some way (co-contraction, for example) doesn't mean its the same as an intentional recruitment of that group to redirect the ski.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnSean View Post
And I might add, holding back anyone trained in that system.
People keep saying that PMTS is somehow limited but based on my personal progress as well as the rapid progress of others that I have seen go from never ever skiers to very good all mountain skiers I don't know why that view persists. Probably some misunderstanding of how PMTS works for high level skiing.

My earlier points were to suggest that there really are fundamental differences rather than just wording differences. This debate is an old one and not worth getting into again. Anyone interested in it can get all the detail by searching the archives.
post #310 of 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wear The Fox Hat View Post
OK, for me, using a combination of both 1 & 2 would be the best way to ski - you get the benefits of letting the old turn cause the new one, and you get the control of making the turn with more muscles involved.

For me they may be different, but they do not need to be exclusive.
Fox,

When I teach people, at least for our first experience together, generally that's exactly what I "teach" them. It's really not "teaching" but more like making them aware of what they are doing to move the skis and to make them turn. I like to explore all types of turns, from "pure" rotation turns to "pure" tipping/edging turns. Once they know how to do these things and how they blend, and that they are in control of how much or how little they do each skill, they take off. It's a very powerful thing to watch for most people.

We've had this discussion here before and it's amazing to me, teaching the way I do, how many people do not have a concept of how, not to mention why, their bodies are moving the way they are. For example, when I ask people "How do you make a ski turn?", 90+% of them will tell me that they are "Shifting their weight from ski to ski". Well, that might be what they feel but it's not what they are DOING. I can shift my weight all day long on a flat ski and that ski won't make a ski turn until I tip it and/or rotate it. Now if I tell them to turn it (rotate it out of it's path of travel), they can do that and they can feel that, but honestly if they don't tip it too, it will just redirect and continue it's previous path of travel (sideslipping and/or skidding). We have to do all three things, control pressure, rotate the skis and edge the skis to make them turn at maximum efficiency.

To me, that is the crux of this whole debate. When I am working with folks, and I'm telling them to turn their feet to shape the turn, that is what they are thinking the most about. That is what they THINK they are doing. And they ARE doing that. But they are also edging the skis and balancing on the skis and controlling the pressure forces that build up on the ski as we make the turn. The fact that they aren't THINKING about it at that moment does not mean they aren't doing it. (In fact, I HOPE they get to the point that they aren't thinking about ANY of the movements they are making.) I think the same thing could be said about all of us here. If we are working on trying to make a specific movement, then that's what we think about and that's what we think we are doing. However, that doesn't mean we aren't doing other things at the same time.
post #311 of 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lonnie View Post
Fox,

When I teach people, at least for our first experience together, generally that's exactly what I "teach" them. It's really not "teaching" but more like making them aware of what they are doing to move the skis and to make them turn. I like to explore all types of turns, from "pure" rotation turns to "pure" tipping/edging turns. Once they know how to do these things and how they blend, and that they are in control of how much or how little they do each skill, they take off. It's a very powerful thing to watch for most people.

We've had this discussion here before and it's amazing to me, teaching the way I do, how many people do not have a concept of how, not to mention why, their bodies are moving the way they are. For example, when I ask people "How do you make a ski turn?", 90+% of them will tell me that they are "Shifting their weight from ski to ski". Well, that might be what they feel but it's not what they are DOING. I can shift my weight all day long on a flat ski and that ski won't make a ski turn until I tip it and/or rotate it. Now if I tell them to turn it (rotate it out of it's path of travel), they can do that and they can feel that, but honestly if they don't tip it too, it will just redirect and continue it's previous path of travel (sideslipping and/or skidding). We have to do all three things, control pressure, rotate the skis and edge the skis to make them turn at maximum efficiency.

To me, that is the crux of this whole debate. When I am working with folks, and I'm telling them to turn their feet to shape the turn, that is what they are thinking the most about. That is what they THINK they are doing. And they ARE doing that. But they are also edging the skis and balancing on the skis and controlling the pressure forces that build up on the ski as we make the turn. The fact that they aren't THINKING about it at that moment does not mean they aren't doing it. (In fact, I HOPE they get to the point that they aren't thinking about ANY of the movements they are making.) I think the same thing could be said about all of us here. If we are working on trying to make a specific movement, then that's what we think about and that's what we think we are doing. However, that doesn't mean we aren't doing other things at the same time.
Correct
post #312 of 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max_501 View Post
Sure, but if you recruit larger muscles (when you don't need to) are you not using more energy needlessly? When you recruit large muscles are there any other negative effects (for example, is balance easier to adjust with big or small muscle movements)?
If I can use a golfing example here, it is generally accepted that you should use the larger muscles primarily due to repeatability and control under pressure.

If you are taught to use the smaller muscle groups for any thing that requires a degree of power, then they themselves will tend to tire quickly and you lose control and feel fatigued.

I would be very worried if I was coached into using my ankles to attempt to tip my skis that are locked into a stiff pair of boots, when I have a very powerful pair of thighs that can do the bulk of the work, the bulk of the time. with incredible accuracy.

I let the fine tuning be carried out by the unconscious part of my mind as it is so fast as to be imperceptible.

Sean
post #313 of 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnSean View Post
I would be very worried if I was coached into using my ankles to attempt to tip my skis that are locked into a stiff pair of boots, when I have a very powerful pair of thighs that can do the bulk of the work, the bulk of the time. with incredible accuracy.
I know a bunch of coaches and instructors (and I'll include a few PSIA instructors I know) that teach from the foot up. Actually, I don't think I know anyone that teaches from the thigh down to tip.
post #314 of 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max_501 View Post
I know a bunch of coaches and instructors (and I'll include a few PSIA instructors I know) that teach from the foot up. Actually, I don't think I know anyone that teaches from the thigh down to tip.
Are we talking literally or metaphorically?

Sean
post #315 of 566
Sean,

I'd be more worried about misinterpreting the intent of the instructions. I've yet to see a ski instruction method that does not ask one to use their ankles when skiing. I've also yet to see a method that does not ask larger muscles to do most of the power work and smaller muscles to do the control work.
post #316 of 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnSean View Post
It would seem that your coach is trying to create a system, that eliminates the most fundamental of skiing muscle groups, sorry but that is impossible.

And I might add, holding back anyone trained in that system.
This is just BS! Max is a perfect example of how effective the system is. He posted video here that proves it. In fact it's better skiing than several of the frequent posters in this thread.

This entire thread is a poor attempt to go back and redefine what rotary movements have traditionally meant in the PSIA system. This has been necessitated by the fact that the over emphasis of rotary in teaching students has led to poor skiing and an inability of students to move past a certain plateau. It is a repeat of what happened with the initial incorrect analysis of WC stance width where the backtracking has led us from the ridiculous wide stances to a "functional" stance.

To now also assert that the kinectic chain works more effectively in the opposite direction doesn't make sense especially in terms of the skiing application. Large forces and large angles are not always at play. So doesn't it make sense that you would start with small more finely controllable movements? Even when large forces are in play and larger muscles are used and angles are created, we still fine tune by starting at the snow.

Stand up. Now tip your feet. How are you doing it by using your femur or more accurately your thigh muscles? No you're using your feet, ankles and knees. In fact, if I stand and try to use my muscles in my upper leg to turn the femur, I get my feet twisting. Put that on snow and it's a skid.

If we as instructors know one thing it's that our students can figure how to twist very quickly and easily. They twist their feet, they twist their upper bodies, they would prob twist their heads 360 if they could. Rotary movements represent the biggest set of bad habits we have to break and yet it's how we start them off. We see it over and over. So why are we continuing to try and justify rotary as a valuable skill that needs to be blended? It doesn't make sense. The only reason I can think of is to justify a concept written in a white paper.
post #317 of 566

Snow that doesn't allow rotary - warning - long

This is a good discussion, although it has drifted far from the original focus, which was summed up nicely by Little Bear in, I think, post number 29 or thereabouts. Some other issues regarding stance and the time it took to develop each turn were also discussed, although some of this may have simply been an artifact of a slow, deliberate, exaggerated set of movements.

This discussion of active versus passive rotary brings to mind a certain involuntary, um, "experiment" which I had the dubious pleasure of conducting this season.

We will note that most skiers do impose some active rotary in their skiing, often unconsciously. This may or may not have ever been specifically taught to them, but they do it. It's most obvious on fresh corduroy. Many skiers find it very difficult to lay down pure railroad tracks on the kind of snow that leaves obvious evidence, and it takes them some time to learn to do so.

As one might conclude from the discussion here, which has mostly focused on the beginning of the turn, most skiers find it most difficult to eliminate a slight steer/skid/scarve/whatever at the beginning of the turn. When one is intent upon turning, it seems, it's difficult to remove the urge to steer, however unconscious, and the skis are easy to steer as soon as they release from the previous turn. This is one reason why HH devotes so much training and verbiage to getting rid of it. His philosophy is that pure arc-to-arc turns are the goal, and to get there, most skiers have to put some energy and focus into eliminating an unconscious slightly pivoted turn entry.

Despite my abundance of PSIA training and total lack of PMTS training (hey, I’ve studied the books…), I have, amazingly enough, been taught how to ski arc-to-arc, and I’ve been observed by people with some pretty decent credentials who know what they’re doing. Despite this, I also know that, when skiing bumps, powder, trees, crud, etc., I almost always use a slight pivoted turn entry, and sometimes I enter turns with a substantial pivot. These pivots are imposed by various means. Sometimes I only use a slight foot steer, with appropriate movements of knees, hips, CM, etc. Sometimes I employ a good deal more power, and the large muscles higher up become more active.

Now, given that I can ski without active rotary (but hardly ever actually do it), let’s add some really weird snow.

The area where I ski now is small and often has substantial terrain that gets little traffic. In the spring, it also gets some warm weather, some rain, refreezing, etc. This year, it formed what I’ll call “crushable coral.” Unconsolidated snow, skied on occasionally but not substantially packed, thawed and refrozen. At my weight, with my skis, I found myself skiing an inch or two below the surface with frozen, immoveable material on either side of each ski, so that any kind of pivoting or skidding just wasn’t going to happen. Period. Discovering that you can’t steer in the trees, by the way, can be unnecessarily exciting.

Here’s the thing: This particular snow condition will tell you, immediately and conclusively, whether you are attempting to impose any rotary in any part of your turn.

The resulting carve feels really weird because your skis are running below the surface in snow with a very strange texture, compared to corduroy or powder or even skied up crud. This material had very little “give” to it; the turn depended totally on tipping and decambering the ski. I deliberately chose not to impose rotary via hop turns or any similar mechanism. I wanted a clean turn in the challenging snow.

Eventually, I made it work, more or less.

So, if you think you’re not pivoting, try to find some “crushable coral.” With trees. I’m not saying it will be fun, but it will be challenging and educational.
post #318 of 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by therusty View Post
Sean,

I'd be more worried about misinterpreting the intent of the instructions. I've yet to see a ski instruction method that does not ask one to use their ankles when skiing. I've also yet to see a method that does not ask larger muscles to do most of the power work and smaller muscles to do the control work.
I agree.

Also an imperceptive movement to the eye can feel enormous to the sports person, this occurs in most sports, if you feel that you are steering laterally with the ankle that is fine, so long as you get the desired results.

It also changes with skill level, to correct a fault in one area you sometimes need to exaggerate a movement elsewhere.

It is most important that Instructors explain to some clients why, so that the changes needed to that clients technique do not get turned into, the new for this year skiing gospel.
post #319 of 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wear The Fox Hat View Post
What is your belief?
I believe that teaching active rotation of the skis to beginners and children is necessary as these students need to be kept safe. The rotation in the wedge does this.

I believe that once the wedge is established, we should teach skiing as edging and pressuring movements. The intrinsic rotation present in those movements is sufficient to take skiers right up to advanced/expert levels.

BTW: I am certain this is not a PMTS approved view, and nor do I care. My concerns on teaching rotation are well known, and were arrived at independently and prior to my study of PMTS.

For the record, I don't think PMTS is perfect, but I don't think what I have to teach is any better. IMO, the early emphasis on direct/active rotation makes it worse. Unfortunately PMTS disapproves of the wedge, so I'm not a full-on PMTS fan either.

I believe that skiing is a BALANCE, MOVEMENT and CONFIDENCE, with movements that are supportive of the effort to balance on your edges.

So there.
post #320 of 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by volklskier1 View Post
This is just BS! Max is a perfect example of how effective the system is. He posted video here that proves it. In fact it's better skiing than several of the frequent posters in this thread.

This entire thread is a poor attempt to go back and redefine what rotary movements have traditionally meant in the PSIA system. This has been necessitated by the fact that the over emphasis of rotary in teaching students has led to poor skiing and an inability of students to move past a certain plateau. It is a repeat of what happened with the initial incorrect analysis of WC stance width where the backtracking has led us from the ridiculous wide stances to a "functional" stance.

To now also assert that the kinectic chain works more effectively in the opposite direction doesn't make sense especially in terms of the skiing application. Large forces and large angles are not always at play. So doesn't it make sense that you would start with small more finely controllable movements? Even when large forces are in play and larger muscles are used and angles are created, we still fine tune by starting at the snow.

Stand up. Now tip your feet. How are you doing it by using your femur or more accurately your thigh muscles? No you're using your feet, ankles and knees. In fact, if I stand and try to use my muscles in my upper leg to turn the femur, I get my feet twisting. Put that on snow and it's a skid.

If we as instructors know one thing it's that our students can figure how to twist very quickly and easily. They twist their feet, they twist their upper bodies, they would prob twist their heads 360 if they could. Rotary movements represent the biggest set of bad habits we have to break and yet it's how we start them off. We see it over and over. So why are we continuing to try and justify rotary as a valuable skill that needs to be blended? It doesn't make sense. The only reason I can think of is to justify a concept written in a white paper.
Well said.
post #321 of 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE View Post

I believe that skiing is a BALANCE, MOVEMENT and CONFIDENCE, with movements that are supportive of the effort to balance on your edges.
This is an important point. Let's look at the skills that are unique to skiing and focus our teaching on those. We use rotary movements all the time just walking around. We don't need to be taught them. How often in our day do we balance on the inside of one foot and the outside of the other? How about while we're moving? The answer is never! In other words balance on edges is key and whatever skills and movements you need to do that are what should be taught as unique to skiing.
post #322 of 566
Perhaps more "emphasis" on tipping would be palatable but to eliminate or diminish the importance of rotary movements and/or pressure control movements is where you will continue to get arguments.

We probably use all the skiing skills in everyday life to some degree, however controlling these skills or movements in concert while skiing is not an everyday activity. If it were the same it would be called "walking".

Where, in everyday life do we turn our feet independant of our upper body? Where do we lever forward or back on our shoes? or hop off our heels? etc....

I think your statement is a little oversimplified.
post #323 of 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnSean View Post
If I can use a golfing example here, it is generally accepted that you should use the larger muscles primarily due to repeatability and control under pressure.
Uhhmm, for power use. A huge amount of the "control" in golfing is from wrist control.

Quote:
If you are taught to use the smaller muscle groups for any thing that requires a degree of power, then they themselves will tend to tire quickly and you lose control and feel fatigued.
Are you assuming that the use of large and small muscle groups is mutually exclusive? But anyway, what movements in skiing do you feel require muscle "power" to execute? My experience is that if someone is properly stacked, etc....it does not require all that much power..that's one reason my intermediate friends are so much more wiped out with sore muscles after a day of skiing with me, while I feel like I barely got a workout skiing the same runs as they did or harder. Subconcously, the larger and powerful muscles in the core are used nearly constantly for skiing to maintain balance..hopefully. But those are mostly subconcious. Yes they fire first, as RicB pointed out, but the reason they fire first is because they happen subconciously at a very low level without us having to mentally tell them to do so.

Studies of have shown that if you even think about reaching for a glass of water on a counter, the muscles around your spine are already activated, and all you thought about was reaching with your arm to pickup a glass of water.

Quote:
I would be very worried if I was coached into using my ankles to attempt to tip my skis that are locked into a stiff pair of boots, when I have a very powerful pair of thighs that can do the bulk of the work, the bulk of the time. with incredible accuracy.
Grasshoppa, you have much to learn.

Your thighs are incredibly accurate? WRONG. Your hands and feet are. Your legs are powerful, not accurate.

Your feet are "locked" into your boot? Fix that, its not a good thing.

You can evert your ankle inside the boot in fact, and that will result in your ankle pushing against the sidewall of the boot. This shift of balance will create a kinetic chain, chain reaction which results in body parts up your leg and eventually to your hip all moving in that direction..

Quote:
I let the fine tuning be carried out by the unconscious part of my mind as it is so fast as to be imperceptible.
Its mind boggling to me that you think that way.
post #324 of 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by borntoski683 View Post
Uhhmm, for power use. A huge amount of the "control" in golfing is from wrist control.

I never mentioned the power aspect of the bigger muscles.
The use of the wrist is an unconscious movement hopefully and is also a large contributor to power when used correctly.



Are you assuming that the use of large and small muscle groups is mutually exclusive? But anyway, what movements in skiing do you feel require muscle "power" to execute? My experience is that if someone is properly stacked, etc....it does not require all that much power..that's one reason my intermediate friends are so much more wiped out with sore muscles after a day of skiing with me, while I feel like I barely got a workout skiing the same runs as they did or harder. Subconcously, the larger and powerful muscles in the core are used nearly constantly for skiing to maintain balance..hopefully. But those are mostly subconcious. Yes they fire first, as RicB pointed out, but the reason they fire first is because they happen subconciously at a very low level without us having to mentally tell them to do so.

I do not understand the first part of your paragraph it makes no sense
Muscle power! What aspect of skiing are you referring to.
Your fitness level and power will disguise how much you need. I did not say I in any of this, it is a general statement.
Yes I do this for a living.


Studies of have shown that if you even think about reaching for a glass of water on a counter, the muscles around your spine are already activated, and all you thought about was reaching with your arm to pickup a glass of water.

Yes you answered the above question with this analogy .

So studies have shown that we all use the big muscles first then!!



Grasshoppa, you have much to learn.

Really!!


Your thighs are incredibly accurate? WRONG. Your hands and feet are. Your legs are powerful, not accurate.

Ha Ha

Your feet are "locked" into your boot? Fix that, its not a good thing.

Well they don't come out and as much as I may think I am angling my ankle to tip the ski on edge, the boot is not bending unless I have liquorice boots!!

You can evert your ankle inside the boot in fact, and that will result in your ankle pushing against the sidewall of the boot. This shift of balance will create a kinetic chain, chain reaction which results in body parts up your leg and eventually to your hip all moving in that direction..

Yes I can get a slight amount of ankle movement laterally boot I have noticed my boot stays very stiff.




Its mind boggling to me that you think that way.
Clearly.
post #325 of 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnSean View Post
Your feet are "locked" into your boot? Fix that, its not a good thing.

Well they don't come out and as much as I may think I am angling my ankle to tip the ski on edge, the boot is not bending unless I have liquorice boots!!

You can evert your ankle inside the boot in fact, and that will result in your ankle pushing against the sidewall of the boot. This shift of balance will create a kinetic chain, chain reaction which results in body parts up your leg and eventually to your hip all moving in that direction..

Yes I can get a slight amount of ankle movement laterally boot I have noticed my boot stays very stiff.
If you can't tip your foot side to side in your boot then you are having to use big movements of your knee to balance. That leads to all kinds of problems and actually points up the silliness of this whole use the big muscles train of thought.
post #326 of 566
This thread has been useful, and could be again, but its current state is not healthy. Might we suggest that certain people stop sniping at each other and stick to skiing discussions?

Since I've already demonstrated vast ignorance, and am thus somewhat flame resistant because everyone already knows I'm not too bright, I'll make the following observations, which are driven by personal opinion rather than advanced training in the science of movement:

1. When I do almost anything, both large and small muscles are involved.

2. When I write, my conscious thought, if any, tends to revolve around the smaller muscles in my hand, wrist and lower arm, even though my shoulder and back are also involved.

3. When I swing, say, a splitting maul, my conscious thought tends to be directed toward larger muscles in my upper arms, shoulders and back, even though the small muscles of my wrists and hands also exert a great deal of control which will ultimately affect the angle and point of impact.

4. I can evert my foot inside my boot, even though I ski in custom foamed Dobermans. Of course, when I do that, the boot moves and so does the ski. I feel the side of the cuff pressing harder on the side of my lower leg. Under the right conditions, that subtle move alone is enough to initiate a turn, even without allowing the movement to continue up the kinetic chain.

5. Skiing is much more subtle than most people realize, and rewards small, accurate movements using small muscles.

6. Most people use too much large muscle when they ski, and they use it inaccurately.

7. High performance skiing requires accurate movements controlled by large muscles and precise delivery of power from those muscles. And it requires accurate movements controlled by small muscles.

8. It is possible to both tip the skis and/or induce rotary with small movements by small muscles.

9. It is possible to both tip the skis and/or induce rotary with large movements by large muscles.

10. A blend is always present. The skier chooses the blend, consciously or unconsciously.

FWIW, YMMV, Do Not Fold Spindle or Mutilate, Keep in a Cool Dry Place, Etc.
post #327 of 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhcooley View Post
5. Skiing is much more subtle than most people realize, and rewards small, accurate movements using small muscles.

6. Most people use too much large muscle when they ski, and they use it inaccurately.

7. High performance skiing requires accurate movements controlled by large muscles and precise delivery of power from those muscles. And it requires accurate movements controlled by small muscles.


I found the village.
I took your place.
They didn't know the difference!

JF
post #328 of 566
Yikes! Yeah, not a healthy thread right now. Nice post, jhcooley.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RicB View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgeib View Post
RicB,

Well, I guess my answer would be: my feet! However, I don't know that I have ever consciously set out to rotate my femurs.
I'm not saying you should or shouldn't. My point is that when someone talks about any rotary movement involved in tipping of the feet, resulting hip/leg rotation is probably what is being talked about. Personally I think conscious femur rotation has a role to play at time, and awareness of femur rotation is something I cultivate in myself. In other words I like to know and feel how my body is moving in all parts.


Quote:
Originally Posted by cgeib View Post
By the frontal plane you mean lateral plane, correct? I think I would want to be able to choose to rotate in one, the other, or both of the planes you refer to, with rotating in the lateral plane my choice for arc-to-arc transitions - at least from edge release to edge engagement.

Yes, lateral movements (ab/adduction) happen parallel to the frontal plane. though all joint actions have an axis of rotation, they are categorized by what plane their respective rotation is happening parallel to. The hip/leg joint can move in all three planes simultaneously, circumduction, so you do have all these movements available. This lies at the heart of the whole passive versus active rotation IMO. When straight, the legs can very easily add/abduct without rotation, but when we have leg flex/extension happening at the same time then the femur has to rotate in the hip socket some as we add/abduct the leg laterally, or tip the feet. I personally wouldn't call this compensatory, I think it is more appropriate to call it subordinately supportive.

So in my book we need to know the difference between twisting the feet and tipping the feet, and when and how to apply both effectively. Truth is though, more people come into a lesson knowing how to twist rather than tip. Hence the "resist the twist".


Quote:
Originally Posted by cgeib View Post
My question back would be: If there is no special joint needed, do you feel compensatory movements are then required to complete this lateral tipping without steering (or otherwise rotating the ski parallel to the transverse plane)?

Best,

Chris
Hopefully I shed some light on how I see all this. But really Chris, it doesn't need to be so complicated. Complexity adds nothing unless it is fully understood.
RicB, thanks for the detailed response!

It wasn't my intent to leave you with the impression I am not conscious of femur rotation - I am, it is just not where 'I go' when I want steering. You're right though, probably will be beneficial for me to explore it from that angle.

I didn't really mean to drag you into such complexity, as, I agree, it doesn't need to be. I also agree with your thoughts on knowing how to apply steering or tipping (or a blend) effectively when required. I don't think compensating movements are in order to do so either.

I understand your point about more people showing up twisting than tipping and it is often a similar statement made by the "save the world from rotary" contingent. Well, maybe I understand it! Are these people even trying to make that arc-arc turn? My impression on the slopes is that most are not even trying to make the turns the expert skiers on Epic hold in their minds eye - and, they will never make those turns if they never intend to! Sure, if they're deficient in their ability to tip, you teach them that skill.

Despite all the arguing about the dreaded steering, to me it is more about the skiers intent and ability to apply the appropriate skills to support that intent. How can any skill in skiing be bad, so long as you have the ability to apply it (or not apply it) effectively as the circumstances require?

Best,

Chris
post #329 of 566
Wow.

Came back after a long nap following late-night noodling only to find that [sniffle] yet another interesting thread has Taken the Dark Road right back down into the quagmire. Geeze. Sometimes it just feels like ‘Virtual Vandalism’. Oh well… maybe there’s something useful to be found in all the rubble. Kudos to those trying to keep the darkness at bay.

---
Hmmm. The Ankle Debate looks interesting.

I tend to see Ankles as being quite weak when compared to Hips. Ankles also have a limited range of lateral rotation as compared with Hips. I figure it’s like this…

The 5-degree tipping of a relatively weak ankle (sideways) might be used to laterally move the Pelvis to the side. The overall Mass to be moved is some distance from that Ankle. For instance a 5-degree ankle-tilt would move our Pelvis about 2.8 inches to the side.

Looking closely we see a weak little Ankle trying to lever a very large Mass using a 32 inch long heavy pole (that length of leg between the Ankle and the Pelvis). With so little Leverage for moving that large Mass from so far away the foot and ski are far more likely to rotate (laterally) when muscle is applied - and obviously that’s what happens.

While skiing, any lateral Ankle articulation depends heavily on external forces to help it ‘get the job done’ in tipping the upper body. One way or another Ankle Tilt recruits Gravity and/or CF over time to bring about the intended outcome. Ankle Tipping has no real ‘power’ to move the upper body but does produce small imbalances that take a (relatively) long time to bring about big outcomes. There was an ‘Ankle Power’ thread about this some time ago.

---
As an alternative we can very quickly move our Pelvis those same 2.8 inches to the side with powerful Hip articulation. I see three big advantages to using Hip action as a primary tipping mechanism.

First; Hip movement is quite powerful. It’s easily able to forcibly maintain whatever ‘tipping angle’ we like. This delivers us a huge degree of lateral-angle stability and resistance to ‘disruptive’ impulses. The Ankle would simply ‘give way’ under stress which the Hips endure easily.

Second; The Hip joint needs to articulate 10-degrees to produce the same 2.8 inches of sideways Pelvic movement that the Ankle produces with 5-degrees of articulation. While some would proclaim this to be ‘more efficient’ consider that if the Hip joint moves 2-degrees for every 1-degree of Ankle movement (in accomplishing the same outcome) then the Hip joint has a 2-to-1 advantage in delivering angle-accuracy (suggesting a higher degree of precise body-angle control) and a 2-to-1 advantage in leverage on top of its obviously greater ‘power’.

Third; The Mass that is being moved laterally is much closer to our Hip joints than to our Ankles. This delivers an additional leverage-advantage in moving Pelvic Mass sideways as compared to Ankle joints.

Beginners have much greater control of large muscles than of small muscles. If we didn’t tell them about Ankle use most beginning and intermediate skiers would probably never even know about it - nor care. All Ski-Snobbishness aside, there are advantages to be found in each available mix of segment-tipping joint precedence.

---
On another Tipping/Rotation front… the very act of ‘tipping our foot with our ankle’ (even in attempted isolation) causes the lower leg to ‘rotate’. Try it while watching your shin and calf. The lower-leg rotates whether the leg is straight or is bent at the knee. This observation is neither here nor there. Just interesting. It does suggest that a ski-boot liner that restricts lower-leg rotation may actually interfere with ankle-tipping.

I frequently put athletic tape over the tendon in front of my ankle because it ‘rolls’ side-to-side so much that it gets sore. I’ve often wondered at complaints of hair being worn away by ‘shin bang’. Could this be caused instead by many ankle-tippings which in turn force lower-leg rotations inside a tight boot liner…? I also wonder if adding a small piece of thin, slippery material on that tendon might improve Ankle Tipping ease.

---
Regarding the inescapable presence of torque caused by the tipping of ‘ramped’ feet - I notice that no one chose to respond to the persuasion of my 2x4. Do I need to use a 2x6 on those of you still in denial? ...because a 2x6 would exhibit even more rotation-causing torque making it easier to see.

.ma

PS: In the interest of clarity, Torque is not Rotation.

Still, when Torque is present and not ‘Actively’ countered in some way - Rotation Happens. To counter Externally caused Torque with Internal Torque a human limb generally has to rotate at least a bit to get into position before useful anti-rotational tension can exist. Rotating that limb takes an Active Rotational Effort however scorned, disavowed or denied such effort may be.
post #330 of 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelA View Post
Wow.

Came back after a long nap following late-night noodling only to find that [sniffle] yet another interesting thread has Taken the Dark Road right back down into the quagmire. Geeze. Sometimes it just feels like ‘Virtual Vandalism’. Oh well… maybe there’s something useful to be found in all the rubble. Kudos to those trying to keep the darkness at bay.

---
Hmmm. The Ankle Debate looks interesting.

I tend to see Ankles as being quite weak when compared to Hips. Ankles also have a limited range of lateral rotation as compared with Hips. I figure it’s like this…

The 5-degree tipping of a relatively weak ankle (sideways) might be used to laterally move the Pelvis to the side. The overall Mass to be moved is some distance from that Ankle. For instance a 5-degree ankle-tilt would move our Pelvis about 2.8 inches to the side.

Looking closely we see a weak little Ankle trying to lever a very large Mass using a 32 inch long heavy pole (that length of leg between the Ankle and the Pelvis). With so little Leverage for moving that large Mass from so far away the foot and ski are far more likely to rotate (laterally) when muscle is applied - and obviously that’s what happens.

While skiing, any lateral Ankle articulation depends heavily on external forces to help it ‘get the job done’ in tipping the upper body. One way or another Ankle Tilt recruits Gravity and/or CF over time to bring about the intended outcome. Ankle Tipping has no real ‘power’ to move the upper body but does produce small imbalances that take a (relatively) long time to bring about big outcomes. There was an ‘Ankle Power’ thread about this some time ago.

---
As an alternative we can very quickly move our Pelvis those same 2.8 inches to the side with powerful Hip articulation. I see three big advantages to using Hip action as a primary tipping mechanism.

First; Hip movement is quite powerful. It’s easily able to forcibly maintain whatever ‘tipping angle’ we like. This delivers us a huge degree of lateral-angle stability and resistance to ‘disruptive’ impulses. The Ankle would simply ‘give way’ under stress which the Hips endure easily.

Second; The Hip joint needs to articulate 10-degrees to produce the same 2.8 inches of sideways Pelvic movement that the Ankle produces with 5-degrees of articulation. While some would proclaim this to be ‘more efficient’ consider that if the Hip joint moves 2-degrees for every 1-degree of Ankle movement (in accomplishing the same outcome) then the Hip joint has a 2-to-1 advantage in delivering angle-accuracy (suggesting a higher degree of precise body-angle control) and a 2-to-1 advantage in leverage on top of its obviously greater ‘power’.

Third; The Mass that is being moved laterally is much closer to our Hip joints than to our Ankles. This delivers an additional leverage-advantage in moving Pelvic Mass sideways as compared to Ankle joints.

Beginners have much greater control of large muscles than of small muscles. If we didn’t tell them about Ankle use most beginning and intermediate skiers would probably never even know about it - nor care. All Ski-Snobbishness aside, there are advantages to be found in each available mix of segment-tipping joint precedence.

---
On another Tipping/Rotation front… the very act of ‘tipping our foot with our ankle’ (even in attempted isolation) causes the lower leg to ‘rotate’. Try it while watching your shin and calf. The lower-leg rotates whether the leg is straight or is bent at the knee. This observation is neither here nor there. Just interesting. It does suggest that a ski-boot liner that restricts lower-leg rotation may actually interfere with ankle-tipping.

I frequently put athletic tape over the tendon in front of my ankle because it ‘rolls’ side-to-side so much that it gets sore. I’ve often wondered at complaints of hair being worn away by ‘shin bang’. Could this be caused instead by many ankle-tippings which in turn force lower-leg rotations inside a tight boot liner…? I also wonder if adding a small piece of thin, slippery material on that tendon might improve Ankle Tipping ease.

---
Regarding the inescapable presence of torque caused by the tipping of ‘ramped’ feet - I notice that no one chose to respond to the persuasion of my 2x4. Do I need to use a 2x6 on those of you still in denial? ...because a 2x6 would exhibit even more rotation-causing torque making it easier to see.

.ma

PS: In the interest of clarity, Torque is not Rotation.

Still, when Torque is present and not ‘Actively’ countered in some way - Rotation Happens. To counter Externally caused Torque with Internal Torque a human limb generally has to rotate at least a bit to get into position before useful anti-rotational tension can exist. Rotating that limb takes an Active Rotational Effort however scorned, disavowed or denied such effort may be.
Yes
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching