New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Angulation - What is it? - Page 2

post #31 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Bell View Post
borntoski683, not sure if you're aware of this, but Deb Armstrong's epicski alias is Alpental Angle, so what you heard at that clinic was probably pretty similar to the Alpental Angle post which I quoted earlier.
No, i didn't know that, but makes sense then. ha ha.
post #32 of 43
Quote:
The advantage of "upper torso angulation"? - I don't know, perhaps the fact that it requires less countering than hip angulation means that it can be advantageous in certain phases of the turn...
When I get to my limit in usable hip angulation I often find I need to add in lateral flexion in my spine to add in more angulation. For me it feels like it is not just to control and direct CoM placement relative to edge angle, but also to help anchor the strong inside half of the pelvis through use of the abdominal crossing muscles. And really it's not a 1 then 2 sequence but more a synergy of movements.

For me the upper and lower separation starts at the hip first, but is added to and complemented in the spine. I dunno,,,,our body mechanics seem to dictate that the hip angulates first(pelvic tilt), otherwise we would be in a weak position wouldn't we? What we call in tai chi "doubleweighted". A weak position structurally when we are in moving situations.

Martin, nice examples and explanations. What you are saying makes sense. Same for Rick too.
post #33 of 43
Many years ago it was expalined to me as "what we do to balance on edged skis." That makes edging the action and angulation the reaction. The task is to edge the skis, angulation is a resultant.
Several years ago there was an article in The Professional Skier about "ankle angulation". (which occurs, today, inside the boot) That suggests that it follows the kinetic chain.
post #34 of 43
I think that most of us, when thinking about or discussing angulation assume increasing angulation increases edge angle. This is not neccessarily true, and as Weems and Martin have elluded to, the occurance of angulation late in the turn may be more of an early move of the upper body or cm into the new turn direction rather than a tipping of the edges. So instead of the edge angle increasing as a result of increased angulation, the edge angle may stay the same or even decrease as the degree of angulation increases because the lower body is not changing angles, rather the upper body is doing more of the angulating.
post #35 of 43
Good point Bud; given that situation, these excellent definitions would still hold true:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
Adopting a comma shape with your body so that you can put your cm where it needs to be
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick View Post
it's a means of managing the location of the Center of Mass independent of the edge angle
Perhaps where we have to be a little bit careful, would be saying that "angulation is always used to stay in balance". That movement of the cm into the new turn could be viewed as a kind of "deliberate unbalancing", of a nature that would be called "getting high-sided" if it were to happen earlier in the turn.
post #36 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Bell View Post
Good point Bud; given that situation, these excellent definitions would still hold true:





Perhaps where we have to be a little bit careful, would be saying that "angulation is always used to stay in balance". That movement of the cm into the new turn could be viewed as a kind of "deliberate unbalancing", of a nature that would be called "getting high-sided" if it were to happen earlier in the turn.
post #37 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLATZ View Post
Many years ago it was explained to me as "what we do to balance on edged skis." That makes edging the action and angulation the reaction. The task is to edge the skis, angulation is a resultant.
Several years ago there was an article in The Professional Skier about "ankle angulation". (which occurs, today, inside the boot) That suggests that it follows the kinetic chain.
Balance by means of counter (balancing) tipping movements of the upper body (UB), in a direction opposite to the movement of the lower body (LB-the feet, ankle and legs). This counter tipping movement of the UB is a reaction to edge change movements at the skis from tipping/turning movements of the lower body. I agree this foot/ankle movement maybe close (I don't know for sure) to the start of the kinetic chain. See RickB about hip/pelvic, requirements/issues preceding the foot up kinetic chain path.
post #38 of 43
I understand this point, Bolter, yet I have a hard time looking at it as a "reaction". I think in this counterbalancing role it accompanies and works with the edging, AND it does not precede the edging like I've seen it in many skiers who don't understand it so well.

But, I guess I also believe it's about more than balancing in response to edge angles--as we discussed above.
post #39 of 43
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by weems View Post
I understand this point, Bolter, yet I have a hard time looking at it as a "reaction". I think in this counterbalancing role it accompanies and works with the edging, AND it does not precede the edging like I've seen it in many skiers who don't understand it so well.
Umm...if it doesn't precede the edging then wouldn't it be a reaction to the edging?
post #40 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by weems View Post
I understand this point, Bolter, yet I have a hard time looking at it as a "reaction". I think in this counterbalancing role it accompanies and works with the edging, AND it does not precede the edging like I've seen it in many skiers who don't understand it so well.

But, I guess I also believe it's about more than balancing in response to edge angles--as we discussed above.
Your are right, reaction is out of place. Both UB and LB move on cue from one another, they are equal and opposite and they do serve a comparable purpose. By Reaction I was unnecessarily (at this juncture) involving (hinting at) deflection and ski/snow interface. Thanks, JR
post #41 of 43
Ok, IMO weems and MAX are right. Oh well, the two don't exclude each other.
post #42 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolter View Post
Your are right, reaction is out of place. Both UB and LB move on cue from one another, they are equal and opposite and they do serve a comparable purpose. By Reaction I was unnecessarily (at this juncture) involving (hinting at) deflection and ski/snow interface. Thanks, JR
The ski/snow interface is, I believe, what this is all about. In fact, I no longer even think of edging. I think of creating a platform out of the snow and trying to maintain it--nurse it, if you will. Some times that requires some angulation, sometimes not. In this sense, it doesn't even feel like tipping the edges in. It feels more like staying generally perpendicular to the deck.

The "angulation" is what helps me adjust myself on the deck--both for balance and for movement to the next platform.

However, this is kind another thread and another discussion.
post #43 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolter View Post
Ok, IMO weems and MAX are right. Oh well, the two don't exclude each other.
Fair enough.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching