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 - Page 3

post #61 of 84
Not sure, so help me. I'd say it's a 'real' turn but he's pivoting non the less. I think I know where you are headed. At one time my turns were pivot turns and now they are more refined.
post #62 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bode Klammer View Post
That's all way to harsh. If it were a video of a beginner lesson, would you criticize him for not carving dynamic turns?
I didn't complain about the lack of carving. I didn't like the excessive motion in the pole plant,the starting of the turn with upper body rotation and the legs were too close together for all mountain skiing. Good luck skiing with that stance that in icy bumps.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bode Klammer View Post
Anyone who has a problem with old fat rich tourists probably shouldn't try to earn a living as a ski instructor.
I'm a race coach, I don't deal with old fat rich tourists. I deal with young super smart really athletic kids. No respectable race or freeride program would hire anybody that skis with that old crappy technique.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bode Klammer View Post
You don't need to go to Mt HOod to ski the best skiers in the world. You can see that stuff on DVD any time you want. You can watch them live or on video for as long as you want, and you may learn something, but you won't be able to ski the zpper like them. You need to start somewhere, and for most people the easy line is where they can start.
Raj who this comment was direted to lives in Portland probably less than 2 hours from Mt Hood. Raj can drive up there, ski and watch the kids ski. At Hood in the summer there will be hundreds of kids that ski better than this John Clendenin guy. Racers, bumpers, freeriders and park skiers.
The technique demostrated in the videos is dead end technique, you can only get so good using it. It's not a good place to start.
post #63 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by NordtheBarbarian View Post
At Hood in the summer there will be hundreds of kids that ski better than this John Clendenin guy. Racers, bumpers, freeriders and park skiers.
For those of you lurking you might want to take a quick read of what some others say about JC and the Aspen Method over here: http://www.skidoctors.com/book_D.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by NordtheBarbarian View Post
The technique demostrated in the videos is dead end technique, you can only get so good using it. It's not a good place to start.
Have you read the book and/or attended one of JC's camps?
post #64 of 84
Perhaps this will help with understanding the target market:

Quote:
The Camps are specifically geared for mature skiers wanting to ski bumps, crud, powder, and any expert-level terrain with as little effort as possible. “So much of the ski industry has been focused on carving and cliff jumping with the advent of shaped skis that we have forgotten the majority of skiers just want a safe, enjoyable experience, but still not be intimidated by more challenging terrain,” says Clendenin.
post #65 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max_501 View Post
Weems, my apologies, I didn't mean to imply that older guys need to ski that line and style.
No apologies necessary. I was just havin' fun. I'm really hard to insult! Maybe because I'm too old for it to matter!

Actually though, even when I ski like an older guy, I don't ski that style. I respect it, but my line and style is very different from that--whether fast or slow.

Also, the Aspen Method, that is trademarked by John is not
the M. O. of the whole school. It is John's method. What he's done successfully is decided that there are four clear and repeatable moves that he is going to teach in sequence to get people comfortable off the groomed. Since there was no "Aspen Method" espoused by the school, he went and trademarked it. He is a very good and smart marketeer.
post #66 of 84
max501,

I have no problem with JC's method. I have skied with JC in Aspen and he skis well for an old fart! My query is how does what John is advocating fit into the whole PMTS philosophy, since I believe he is an accredited coach or examiner or something like that in PMTS? If he was joe public skiing down the hill, I wouldn't think you guys would have much nice to say?

bud
post #67 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud heishman View Post
My query is how does what John is advocating fit into the whole PMTS philosophy, since I believe he is an accredited coach or examiner or something like that in PMTS? If he was joe public skiing down the hill, I wouldn't think you guys would have much nice to say?
JC was one of the early PMTS accredited coaches and one of the few that has attained the black level. I don't know if he is current or not. The Aspen Method is interesting and I think of it as a softer PMTS like approach. Note that the Aspen Method doesn't include the active rotary movements TTS teaches for pivots. I think he's a great skier, very graceful.

I should point out that there are some major difference between JC's approach and PMTS.
post #68 of 84
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by NordtheBarbarian View Post

Raj
Go to Mt Hood this summer and watch some of the racer and freestyle kids ski. You will learn so much more by watching them then you will ever learn from a book. Some of the best skiers in the world will be there.
Hey Nord, Hood is my home mountain and every year I have a season pass for Mt Hood Meadows and another one for Timbeline so that is good advice.

In the mid nineties I got a fair bit of 1 on 1 race coaching ( I used to race snowboards) and figured out my own technique. Now that I am into skiing, I expected there to be more consensus on good technique given that skiing has been around much longer than snowboarding. It seems like that is not the case so, like several posters said, I need to try everything and see what wroks best for me.

I must say it is odd that for a sport that has been around for so long, the best movement patterns are still highly debated. Human body is not changing much and shaped/ fat skis have been there for more than a decade now. One would have espected some consensus to have emerged by now !
post #69 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by raj View Post
I must say it is odd that for a sport that has been around for so long, the best movement patterns are still highly debated. Human body is not changing much and shaped/ fat skis have been there for more than a decade now. One would have espected some consensus to have emerged by now !
There seem to be two basic approaches. One approach minimizes rotary movements (meaning the intentional twisting of the feet, legs, and/or upper body in the direction of the turn) and the other embraces rotary as a requirement for all levels of skiing.

I've had good luck with PMTS which is one of the systems that minimizes rotary. You can see my current results in this thread.
post #70 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max_501 View Post
There seem to be two basic approaches. One approach minimizes rotary movements (meaning the intentional twisting of the feet, legs, and/or upper body in the direction of the turn) and the other embraces rotary as a requirement for all levels of skiing.
That is one perspective of the various ways that skiing is taught, and as a relatively new instructor (entering my fourth season as an instructor, 37th as a passionate skier) not one that I have witnessed. However, the redefinition of words like "rotary" "movements" "twisting" "feet" "legs" "upper body" "direction" "turn" "embraces" "requirement" and "skiing" make this very difficult to explain.
post #71 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max_501 View Post
rotary movements (meaning the intentional twisting of the feet, legs, and/or upper body in the direction of the turn)

Personally, this definition falls a bit short of my understanding of rotary!

But then at least this definition makes "counter rotation" acceptable to PMTS? Oh excuse me counter movements.

How do you define "brushed carve" again? What are the mechanics of it again? Is it magic, do I need a password? Could it possibly be the same as "steering" or "guiding"? If not, please explain again the difference.

Max501,
Would you start a thread to define the Brushed Carve mechanics for us?
I really want to understand the contrast better.

b
post #72 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud heishman View Post
Personally, this definition falls a bit short of my understanding of rotary!

But then at least this definition makes "counter rotation" acceptable to PMTS? Oh excuse me counter movements.

How do you define "brushed carve" again? What are the mechanics of it again? Is it magic, do I need a password? Could it possibly be the same as "steering" or "guiding"? If not, please explain again the difference.

Max501,
Would you start a thread to define the Brushed Carve mechanics for us?
I really want to understand the contrast better.

b
Apparently, the difference is that brushing occurs when a PMTS trained skier intends to allow the skis to slip. Skidding occurs when untrained skiers cannot prevent ther skies from sliding sideways. After they buy the book, they will be able to brush.
The truth is that we all have similar bodies, live in the same world of friction and gravity, and ride similar skis. The differences in tecnique are really differences in descriptions driven by the need for product differentiation. There are real differences in teaching theory and practice, but the difference in skill among instructors is more important than the difference in teaching theory.

BK
post #73 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud heishman View Post
Personally, this definition falls a bit short of my understanding of rotary!
Exactly! When the terms mean different things to those participating in an attempted communication, it is no wonder that extended misunderstanding occurs.
post #74 of 84
<mod comment>Stay focused on the topic, please. The thread still has real potential. Let's stay focused on the movements and results. Thanks.</mod comment>
post #75 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssh View Post
<mod comment>Stay focused on the topic, please. The thread still has real potential. Let's stay focused on the movements and results. Thanks.</mod comment>
What's not focused here?

BK
post #76 of 84
My comment was preemptive.
post #77 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud heishman View Post
Personally, this definition falls a bit short of my understanding of rotary!
After reading SSH's definition of rotary I'm sure it falls short. But the big definition is so broad that its nearly useless to use in discussion. That's why I limited it up above to those movements made in the direction of the turn.
post #78 of 84
I didn't read the book, but I did read the free parts on the web. One of the available excerpts makes what seems to me to be a very valid distinction between different types of skidding. Whether you want to just call it "good skidding" and "bad skidding" or make up a new name, the distinction is there.

Take a look at ssh's tracks in the "I'm a skid" thread -- it is clear they were the result of purposeful, well controlled, even sideways movement of the skis, not just tail skidding at the end of the turn.

On the other hand, even tail pushing has its place -- I still maintain it is the best way to get an emergency slowdown in uneven terrain, since each successive hard edge shoves the skis back under you.
post #79 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bode Klammer View Post
The differences in tecnique are really differences in descriptions driven by the need for product differentiation.
That's like saying that all martial arts are the same but taught with different words. Or that all dance is the same. I ski with some PSIA guys. We definitely are using different technique.
post #80 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max_501 View Post
After reading SSH's definition of rotary I'm sure it falls short. But the big definition is so broad that its nearly useless to use in discussion. That's why I limited it up above to those movements made in the direction of the turn.
This is an interesting perspective. I would argue that it is far better to use different terms to describe the movements that we're discussing, instead, since "rotary" is generally understood by the "broad" definition.

If one wants to describe a particular type of rotation, that's easily done by being a bit more expansive... isn't it?
post #81 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max_501 View Post
I ski with some PSIA guys. We definitely are using different technique.
Interestingly, so do I. And so do I.

Sometimes...
post #82 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max_501 View Post
That's like saying that all martial arts are the same but taught with different words. Or that all dance is the same. I ski with some PSIA guys. We definitely are using different technique.
We all ski the same slopes with the same equipment. Are you saying PMTS is so different that it's really a different sport?
PSIA Ed Staff guys use all the different PMTS drills, as well as others that ore not used in PMTS. The PSIA "technique" (if there is one) is to use your skills effectively. Effectively means to accompllish whatever it is the skier wants to do. If he wants to sideslip a race course, or ski backward, or whatever, if he does it the way he wants to, it's "effective."
Now, since PSIA guys can do any movement they find effective without violating their so-called "dogma", are there any of those effective movements that PMTS guys cannot do? If they can't do any effective movement, why not? Is this really a difference of technique, or is it only a difference of what you have chosen to do? Is it possible thast PSIA use different "technique" because they have a broader range of movements to choose from?
I don't think leaders of PSIA have any trouble understanding the skiing technique of PMTS, or that they even disagree with it. There is a real difference of teaching theory, and of vocabulary and description; but what puts off PSIA guys is the "my-way-only-everybody-else-is-an-idiot" attitude of the PMTS promoters and some of their relatively inexperienced followers. People who have seen this develop from the beginning see beyond that, and they find it condescending, if not obnoxious.

BK
post #83 of 84
Well said Bode!
post #84 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bode Klammer View Post
We all ski the same slopes with the same equipment. Are you saying PMTS is so different that it's really a different sport?
Sorry I didn't do a good job with my example above. Take Karate as a sport and then consider the different styles (schools) available. They have similar fundamentals and yet they are different with different results. The same is true for skiing, one sport with many different styles (schools).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bode Klammer View Post
I don't think leaders of PSIA have any trouble understanding the skiing technique of PMTS, or that they even disagree with it.
I don't know about the leaders of PSIA, but certainly some of the PSIA folks on Epic have trouble understanding PMTS technique. This is easily verified with a quick search through the many posts on the subject.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bode Klammer View Post
...but what puts off PSIA guys is the "my-way-only-everybody-else-is-an-idiot" attitude of the PMTS promoters and some of their relatively inexperienced followers.
Unfortunately there is nothing I can do about that.
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