or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › John Clendenin's book "Aspen Method" thoughts
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

John Clendenin's book "Aspen Method" thoughts

post #1 of 84
Thread Starter 
I just made an impulse purchase of this book on off-piste technique based on recommendation in threads in this forum in the last week. Its a very short and simple book (good) and the credentials of the people behind it seem top notch (mogul champs). However, the technique it advocates seems counter to most stuff in this forum or HH's books or even my instructor lessons on Mt Hood. I am just confused.

It recommends
1) Narrowest possible stance.
2) Highly active inside ski: no issues there. I agree.
3) No angulation at turn entry (seem very banked)
4) Feathering: low edge angles continuously for speed control
5) Most pressure on UPHILL ski in the second half of the turn.
6) Soft edge angles in the so called "high C" part of the turn.

I actually see the point of a lot of it as speed control in moguls and we all do some of this intuitively in tight terrain but in terms of what is ideal for all mtn skiing, the advice seems counter to what I read on this board, other books or PSIA instruction on Mt Hood. I am not interested in any flame wars or PSIA vs. PMTS vs. this method, just a curious confused skier.
post #2 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by raj View Post
I just made an impulse purchase of this book on off-piste technique based on recommendation in threads in this forum in the last week. Its a very short and simple book (good) and the credentials of the people behind it seem top notch (mogul champs). However, the technique it advocates seems counter to most stuff in this forum or HH's books or even my instructor lessons on Mt Hood. I am just confused.

It recommends
1) Narrowest possible stance.
2) Highly active inside ski: no issues there. I agree.
3) No angulation at turn entry (seem very banked)
4) Feathering: low edge angles continuously for speed control
5) Most pressure on UPHILL ski in the second half of the turn.
6) Soft edge angles in the so called "high C" part of the turn.

I actually see the point of a lot of it as speed control in moguls and we all do some of this intuitively in tight terrain but in terms of what is ideal for all mtn skiing, the advice seems counter to what I read on this board, other books or PSIA instruction on Mt Hood. I am not interested in any flame wars or PSIA vs. PMTS vs. this method, just a curious confused skier.
Hi, raj.

I haven't seen the book so it's difficult to comment on specifics. This isn't meant as an attack in any way, but also please keep in mind that your summary may not be exactly with what John might have been trying to convey in his own words.

That said, I think one key is that the book seems to be aimed at "off-piste" skiing. As we learned in a thread here a couple of weeks back, that term means a lot of different things to a lot of different people.

To me, the term off-piste applies more to powder/crud/off-trail skiing, but it *sounds* like John's thoughts might be aimed primarily at mogul skiing. The points about very narrow stance and significant involvement of the uphill ski would, I think, support that interpretation. If you watch top-level mogul skiers in competitions, I think they practice a lot of what you've listed in points 1 through 6. I've seldom seen serious mogul skiers doing much more than feathered edging (almost never trying to "carve" a turn). They also practice very even weight distribution.

So, if John's main focus in the book is mogul skiing, I don't see very much in your summary that seems out of line. It gets a little fuzzier if the book is aimed more at *my* definition of off-piste skiing, which would be crud/powder off-trail. In that kind of off-piste skiing, here are my responses to your points:

1. I wouldn't get very hung up on "narrowest possible" stance (although I would still normally ski a pretty narrow stance).

2. I wouldn't agree very much with this one. 50/50 weight distribution is about the furthest I would go toward a "highly active inside ski". Most of the time, I'd still be predominantly skiing on the outside ski.

3. I'm okay with that one, although I'm not sure the "seems highly banked" quite makes sense in conjunction with "no angulation at turn entry".

4. Feathering is fine with me. If you *need* speed control given the conditions, the line, or the speed, feathering is a good way to do it.

5. I can't figure that one out at all, unless this is somehow aimed, as I said above, at mogul skiing. Even then I can't quite figure out why this would make sense.

6. I'm okay with that one as well. It sounds from your description that John's book is NOT aimed at teaching people to carve turns on blue groomers. Hard edge angles increase speed and that's not necessarily what you're always looking to do in off-piste skiing.

As to the question of John's advice contradicting many of the other things you read here, you need to keep in mind that skiing involves infinite combinations of terrain, conditions, tactics, and intended outcomes.

One of the main points of contention in many of our online arguments here on Epic is that one type of turn or technique might not be appropriate for every kind of skiing you'll run into. That's why some of us are proponents of learning every way to turn a pair of skis you possibly can and then adapting your turns to the conditions of the day.
post #3 of 84
Thread Starter 
Bob
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I think your main point is that one type of turn or technique doesn't really work everywhere. My interest is more in the steep variety/ ski mountaineering rather than moguls as I am getting more and more tired of crowded resorts and more pleased with backcountry. I guess I too got confused because my definition of "off-piste" is more in line with yours: steeps, powder, crud, crust, tight trees, rocks...

Some specific comments and questions
3) No angulation at turn entry & 6) soft edges in early part of turn "high C". These are the two points that have me most confused. Together they make sense as the idea seems to drift in the first phase of the turn to scrub speed. Contrast this with say HH's books that advocate very early angulation (counter balance) and very early edge angles (showing bases) as ways of speed control. I can do both styles and on wide terrain or groomers, the arc to arc stuff is very enjoyable. On steeps/ tight trees though, I can never get the speed control I need. So, my skiing there is a lot like what this book advocates EXCEPT much of my weight is on the downhill skis.

Reading your post, it feels like off-piste I am naturally doing basically what you advocate, so I will just stick to what is working for me rather than find a "do it all" style.
post #4 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by raj View Post
Reading your post, it feels like off-piste I am naturally doing basically what you advocate, so I will just stick to what is working for me rather than find a "do it all" style.
Exactly!

There are many individuals who have developed and successfully marketed various styles of skiing in various situations. Not all of the people who have done that agree with each other. And many actively differentiate from various others in order to market their unique product. John Clendenin does exactly that and has a very successful branded program in Aspen.

I don't agree with all the pieces that John has put together, but I do know that John is very good at what he does, his customers are very satisfied, and his effort is worthy.

I think the trick is to go ahead and take a look at all these versions, pick out what you need, and when there is a conflict, just keep your mind open.

Skiing is like many sports in that there are lots of ways to do it, and there tend to be huge technical wars over what is right or wrong.

When I was a kid, the techy war was between rotation or counter rotation (reverse shoulder) of the torso. It really was a war and, in retrospect, very amusing.

So read John's stuff. He's worked hard at it, and you might find something you like and use. And you might find things that you choose to discard. I insist that all of my students do the same with my own work.
post #5 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by weems View Post
...I insist that all of my students do the same with my own work.
Hey, it works great for shimming a rocking coffee table too







Really it is currently residing between "Skiing Right" and "Ski With The Big Boys" ...I'd say its in better company there than being discarded!
post #6 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgeib View Post
Hey, it works great for shimming a rocking coffee table too
I will refrain from trying to imagine what you're doing with mine!
post #7 of 84
google JC and Aspen technique and I believe you will find some video clips of John demonstrating his techniques. The turns definitely differ from any other techniques I have seen.

b
post #8 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by raj View Post
4) Feathering: low edge angles continuously for speed control
What is feathering? I know that in crud and soft conditions, hard edges can be a problem.

Talking about the high "C", ride the turn, feel the snow and let it happen. I force my turns from time to time, but that is not the goal. One of the best feeling of "off piste" skiing is fluid motion skiing. It requires a little patience and sometimes some courage.

As with all new concepts, keep an open mind. Take what you like and set the rest aside.
post #9 of 84
The following is a link to the Aspen Method homepage that provides some explaination of the methodology and terms.

http://www.aspenmethod.com/ski_instr...our_words.html
post #10 of 84
I followed that link above, and what I found was different enough from the first post that I think it's worthwhile to post it here. From Clendenin's website:

Overview

At Camp with the Camps, we first introduce the concept of drifting on soft edges.

We learn to control our speed with turn shape avoiding the hard ridges and troughs.

While drifting we find early centering on the uphill foot (little toe edge).

We use the pole touch to cue tipping and committing our center of mass to our new intended drift (momentum). Pole touch is most functional when our torso is facing and connected with our path of momentum.

General debunking of mogul myths, or what we look for in all-mountain skiing:

1. We encourage a stance that is as narrow as functionally possible.
2. We look for hands held comfortably in front of the torso (as if holding a breakfast tray); not way in front or with hands held up (with poles in a vertical position).
3. We encourage a tall stance in the boot; not pressing or resting against the tongue of the boot.
4. Initially we encourage finding early balance on The up-hill ski; not relying and hanging onto the big toe edge of the downhill ski (unless for an Intended weighted release).
5. We teach ski snow contact with avalement, absorbing terrain with the whole body.
6. We encourage soft, that is progressive, edge awareness; not hard (or habitual) edges.
7. We use our four movements concept to create awareness of accurate syntax. For example; “re-balance” not “weight shift”; edges defined as big toe edge of downhill ski and the little toe edge of the up-hill ski; NOT left or right or inside/outside.


The first post in this thread confused me a little, but I completely agree with everything that Clendenin actually wrote. It's all about balance, edge awareness and feel for the snow. That's a concept that some have seemed to miss in their over-emphasis and perfect pure carved turns. It's what I try to get to in my own skiing and coaching. It's actually the opposite of practicing movements to create habitual patterns, which so many people seem to think is the way to learn to ski. Habitual movement patterns work for carving the blue groomers, but they will not get you very far in moguls, powder, crud, or even in a race course.

BK
post #11 of 84
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by weems View Post
Skiing is like many sports in that there are lots of ways to do it, and there tend to be huge technical wars over what is right or wrong.
Weems I can relate to that in all my other sports. I have been snowboarding a lot longer than skiing and 15 years back, there used to be major arguments in snowboarding about no rotation technique vs. rotation vs. counter rotaton. Similarly, knees tucked in vs. independent action of front and back legs. There were arguments for and against wide stance/ duck stance vs. forward facing narrow stance. It all seems amusing now in hindsight but we were hella confused in the early nineties !

Swimming is similar. I was taught a bent arm recovery adn it never felt right so I learnt straight arm as a natural movement (for me). Recently, I was reading a book by Janet Evans (perhaps best ever female swimmer) and she noted that she too did straight arm/windmill because it worked for her body. So again many, ways not necessarily good or bad but different.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bode Klammer View Post
The first post in this thread confused me a little, but I completely agree with everything that Clendenin actually wrote. It's all about balance, edge awareness and feel for the snow.
BK
Bode, no disrespect intended, but why did my post confuse you. I read the book, looked at the pictures, looked at interweb videos and then posted. I think my post, everything you wrote, that is written on the website and videos are consistent. The turn mechanics and visuals DO look different (not necessarily good or bad). Perhaps the parts which looks most different are 1) turn entry where there is very little angulation 2) large emphasis on little toe side. I will have to experiment more next season to see if I like it or dislike it but it IS a bit different.
post #12 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by raj View Post
...why did my post confuse you. I read the book...
Maybe "confused" is too strong a word, although I am easily confused, and I haven't read the book. But there were a few small differences between your summary and Clendenin's web page.
For example, you wrote:

"It recommends
1) Narrowest possible stance."

that statement doesn't make sense to me. It's not what I've ever heard any coach recommend.

Clendenin wrote:
"General debunking of mogul myths, or what we look for in all-mountain skiing:

1. We encourage a stance that is as narrow as functionally possible."

That statement is almost the same, but, in the context if mogul skiing, it's conventional wisdom.

In another example, you wrote:
"4) Feathering: low edge angles continuously for speed control
5) Most pressure on UPHILL ski in the second half of the turn.
6) Soft edge angles in the so called "high C" part of the turn."

He wrote:
" We learn to control our speed with turn shape avoiding the hard ridges and troughs.

While drifting we find early centering on the uphill foot (little toe edge)."

and:
" 4. Initially we encourage finding early balance on The up-hill ski; not relying and hanging onto the big toe edge of the downhill ski (unless for an Intended weighted release)."

Your statement seems to imply that Clendenin is recommending that we ski that way all the time, but Clendenin's statements make it clear that those are skills that need to be learned and applied tactically.

The most important statement that you overlooked was this one:
" 6. We encourage soft, that is progressive, edge awareness; not hard (or habitual) edges."

Off piste skiing is all about spontaneously responding to variable conditions, not about using oerfectly practiced movement patterns. Even a good habit is bad in variable conditions, if that's all you've got.

BK
post #13 of 84
Thread Starter 
Bode, skiing is just sport/ passion for me. I don't instruct so expecting perfect accuracy on skiing technique terms is a bit much, no ? In any case, pictures are worth a thousand words, so look at this demo video and you will see my point
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...9&q=ski+doctor

To my layman eye, I see an ultra smooth technique that is probably kind to your body allowing longevity. I see very soft edges, very narrow stance and much use of the uphill ski. Obviously an excellent skier.

Aesthetically though, I personally liked Reilly's video better. It had a more energetic style, more fun, playing with the terrain. Still, I will give this style a try early next year to see what pieces I like and will keep.
post #14 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by raj View Post
Bode, skiing is just sport/ passion for me. I don't instruct so expecting perfect accuracy on skiing technique terms is a bit much, no ?
You're being too sensitive about this. I wasn't criticizing you. I just found something that I thought was more clear. Why does it bother you that Clendenin can express his ideas more clearly than you can?

Quote:
Originally Posted by raj View Post
In any case, pictures are worth a thousand words, so look at this demo video and you will see my point
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...9&q=ski+doctor

To my layman eye, I see an ultra smooth technique that is probably kind to your body allowing longevity. I see very soft edges, very narrow stance and much use of the uphill ski. Obviously an excellent skier.

Aesthetically though, I personally liked Reilly's video better. It had a more energetic style, more fun, playing with the terrain. Still, I will give this style a try early next year to see what pieces I like and will keep.
That video just looks like an instructor (Clendenin?) showing the easy line through the bumps. That was actually a task on my Level 3 exam. It is smooth and easy on the body. For a lot of skiers (including me), learning that line through the bumps is the first success they ever have in the bumps.
What I find interesting is the difference between the leader and the followers. The leader is smooth, relaxed and balanced, with good flexion and extension. Most of the followers are a little backseated, awkward and static. As result, they need to push their tails a little to stay on line and for speed control. It's just one more thing that proves to me that balance is everything. It looks like a PSIA "Beginning Moguls" clinic. It's not any exotic technique, just good skiing. More athletic skiers will learn that and move on to the zipper line, but plenty of skiers would be happy to ski the easy line as smoothly as that.
I haven't seen Reilly's video. Where is that?

BK
post #15 of 84
Watching the John Clendenin video, I was reminded of these two threads:
http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?t=56501
http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?t=56497
where the words "graceful" and "pretty" were mentioned. I can see how many people would watch that and use those adjectives to describe JC's skiing.

But beauty really is in the eye of the beholder; to my (ex-racer's) eye, keeping the stance so permanently narrow looks stiff and cramped.

However, it must be remembered that JC was a World Champion in freestyle, where a closed stance is absolutely essential for maximum points. So skiing that way is probably as natural to him as breathing to the rest of us.

As Weems said, there really is more than one "right way" to ski - it is a matter of opinion, not clearcut fact. Having said that, if a client came up and insisted that I teach him/her to ski like JC in that video, I suppose I would try my best to comply.
post #16 of 84
Thread Starter 
Hey Bode, no worries. Peace.

You asked for Reilly's video. Here it is
http://forums.epicski.com/showthread...ghlight=reilly

The terrain isn't super difficult, but this type of skiing epitomizes FUN for me. I don't know all the technical terms but I liked this best as a "role model" among the videos I have seen recently.
post #17 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Bell View Post
But beauty really is in the eye of the beholder; to my (ex-racer's) eye, keeping the stance so permanently narrow looks stiff and cramped.
Something is missing, his idea of close together is anal retentive. That coming from someone who's skis are always too much together.

However, he is teaching and demonstrating, therefore the exageration. Skiing with Mike Rogan at ESA last Dec, it was nice to see his skis come together in the bumps. His was a more natural adjustment.

What he is teaching offers break through skiing for intermediates.
post #18 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Bell View Post
But beauty really is in the eye of the beholder; to my (ex-racer's) eye, keeping the stance so permanently narrow looks stiff and cramped.

However, it must be remembered that JC was a World Champion in freestyle, where a closed stance is absolutely essential for maximum points. So skiing that way is probably as natural to him as breathing to the rest of us.
His stance is closer than it needs to be for that easy line, but if he leads any of his students into even a couple of turns in the zipper line- or if they can't follow his line- they'll appreciate the narrow stance.
I think mogul skieers use a narrower stance because they need to ski the tight competition moguls. I don't think it's the judging. The judging is based on the best technique. If someone could ski with a wide stance, finish the course faster and still get good air, the judges would prefer a wide stance. That's exactly what happened in ski jumping, which changed the preferred form a couple of times when skiers developed better techniques.

BK
post #19 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by raj View Post
Aesthetically though, I personally liked Reilly's video better. It had a more energetic style, more fun, playing with the terrain. Still, I will give this style a try early next year to see what pieces I like and will keep.
The difference between those videos is that Reilly is skiing a steeper line more dynamically. If he goes to bigger, steeper bumps, maybe he skis the easy line the way Clendenin does, or maybe he steps up and stays with the steep line. You really need to be able to do both.

BK
post #20 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bode Klammer View Post
His stance is closer than it needs to be for that easy line...
What benefits would he derive from a wider stance in that terrain?
post #21 of 84
As said before John is in the teaching mode in the video. He can ski around, through, or over the moguls in any style he likes. His technique in that video is one of many he could use.
post #22 of 84
It may be an inappropriate comparison but have you ever ridden a four wheel ATV and a good 250cc dirt bike on similar terrain. Maybe they can both cover the same ground but the motorcycle is SIGNIFICANTLY more agile, and I would suggest more fun.
John's teaching is all about 3-D terrain, balance and the ability to go anywhere on the mountain in control. He does not teach high speed carved turns and high G-forces. In fact I think his idea of being "under control" would eliminate most high speed railers.
As has been said many times before, his techniques are some of the many you can use in a day on the hill.
post #23 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max_501 View Post
What benefits would he derive from a wider stance in that terrain?
What benefit is there to skiing with his feet locked together like that? Even the examples people occasionally post here to prove that WC guys ski with their feet close together are not as close as Clendenin is there.
It's just easier to balance on a wider stance than that. Look at the people following him. Do they keep their feet that close together? Does that limit them in any way? Do you think Clendenin could ramp up to dyanamic GS turns on that slope without separating his feet?
OTOH, in tight bumps and trees, or slalom flushes, it's important to keep your feet as close together as possible. That's part of the challenge of doing those things. You need to ski them from a stance that makes it difficult to use all your skills.

BK
post #24 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bode Klammer View Post
What benefit is there to skiing with his feet locked together like that?
When the feet are close together it is easier to balance over a lightly weighted or lifted foot. Wider stances can be more stable but they do not yield better balance. JC's feet are very close together but they are clearly functional for the technique he is demonstrating.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bode Klammer View Post
Even the examples people occasionally post here to prove that WC guys ski with their feet close together are not as close as Clendenin is there.
Well, he's in the bumps so WC bump skiers do in fact support the stance he is using.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bode Klammer View Post
It's just easier to balance on a wider stance than that.
Width can add stability (just as a snowplow does) on firm snow but stability and balance are two different things. Also, width in bumps, crud, and powder typically results in a lack of stability as the skis find themselves in different 3D space.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bode Klammer View Post
Do you think Clendenin could ramp up to dyanamic GS turns on that slope without separating his feet?
Well he's in bumps so doing a high angle GS turn wouldn't really fit the terrain. That said, if he wanted to I'm sure he could. When laying over the skis there would be a vertical separation as he flexed his inside leg but the horizontal distance would stay roughly the same so the actual stance would still be narrow. WC GS skiers often have the outside knee touching the boot of the inside leg, that's as narrow as you can get.
post #25 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max_501 View Post
When the feet are close together it is easier to balance over a lightly weighted or lifted foot. Wider stances can be more stable but they do not yield better balance. JC's feet are very close together but they are clearly functional for the technique he is demonstrating.
He's not lifting his feet, nor does he need to. The tecnique he is demonstrating is just simple skidded turns on the easy line through the bumps. he could do that at any stance width.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max_501 View Post
Well, he's in the bumps so WC bump skiers do in fact support the stance he is using.
WC bumpers ski in the zipper line, not the easy line.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max_501 View Post
Width can add stability (just as a snowplow does) on firm snow but stability and balance are two different things. Also, width in bumps, crud, and powder typically results in a lack of stability as the skis find themselves in different 3D space.
That's all true, but in easy bumps as shown in the video, and as others have noted, there is just no functional reason to lock the feet together like that. Probably he is demonstrating narrow stance to build his students' skills for zipper line. Maybe his students want to ski like Stein. Or maybe he has spent so much time in that stance that he likes it. He doesn't need it there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max_501 View Post
Well he's in bumps so doing a high angle GS turn wouldn't really fit the terrain. That said, if he wanted to I'm sure he could. When laying over the skis there would be a vertical separation as he flexed his inside leg but the horizontal distance would stay roughly the same so the actual stance would still be narrow. WC GS skiers often have the outside knee touching the boot of the inside leg, that's as narrow as you can get.
WC skiers most often come throught the transition pretty wide. They need that for stability, as I would if I were doing GS turns on that bump terrain. Their outside knee touches the inside boot at high edge angles simply because there is no other pplace for the inside leg to go. It's not a choice of technique, it's a requirement of geometry. It's not "only as narrow as you can get," it's as wide as you can get. Whether or not GS turns "fit the terrain" is up to the skier to decide, but it is certainly within JC's ability, as you ackowledge.

Very few skiers have the abilty to ski well with their boots touching all the time, as JC does in that video.

BK
post #26 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bode Klammer View Post
He's not lifting his feet, nor does he need to. The tecnique he is demonstrating is just simple skidded turns on the easy line through the bumps. he could do that at any stance width.
The technique he is teaching has very little in common with a simple skidded turn. And the narrow stance faciliates the weighting of the feet.
post #27 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max_501 View Post
The technique he is teaching has very little in common with a simple skidded turn. And the narrow stance faciliates the weighting of the feet.
Maybe, but I doubt it. I think he's teaching tactics (choice of line), not technique. You wouldn't try to teach that lift and tip thing in bumps, and if that's what he's doing, apparently they're not getting it, because they're all skidding (as he is for that matter).

BK
post #28 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bode Klammer View Post
WC skiers most often come throught the transition pretty wide. They need that for stability, as I would if I were doing GS turns on that bump terrain.
I doubt that they need the extra width for stabilty as they have excellent balance skills. I don't know why they are sometimes very wide and other times just hip width.

I think that adopting a wide stance in bumps would hinder balance as the two skis could easily find themselves in vastly different 3D spaces which would not be a good thing at higher speeds in a bump run.
post #29 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bode Klammer View Post
Maybe, but I doubt it. I think he's teaching tactics (choice of line), not technique. You wouldn't try to teach that lift and tip thing in bumps, and if that's what he's doing, apparently they're not getting it, because they're all skidding (as he is for that matter).
Not to be disrespectful, but have you read John's book?
post #30 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max_501 View Post
I doubt that they need the extra width for stabilty as they have excellent balance skills. I don't know why they are sometimes very wide and other times just hip width.
Courses are designed to challenge the skier's ability, no matter how great that ability is. That applies to balance skills and it does to every other aspect of ski skills. The variatins in stance width, form very wide to feet completely together, is just the result of skiers reaching their limit of skill and control.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max_501 View Post
I think that adopting a wide stance in bumps would hinder balance as the two skis could easily find themselves in vastly different 3D spaces which would not be a good thing at higher speeds in a bump run.
that's only true of the zipper line. Part of the attraction of the easy line is that it can be skied with a more natural stance.

BK
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › John Clendenin's book "Aspen Method" thoughts