or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › Counter rotation vs. upper-lower body separation?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Counter rotation vs. upper-lower body separation? - Page 3  

post #61 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolter View Post
Rick, in CR the pelvis moves (twist/rotate) as a part of the lower body. In CA the hips/pelvis move as a part of the upper body- stride like. Do you not agree with this? If you do not agree, then I understand your viewpoint of CA and CR being the same movements. They are not, IMO. Also, I can envision your reluctance to torque neutral transition (TNT) in arc2arc, because CR sure wouldn't do much good in not pivoting the skis (while flat).
Well you make a lot of assumptions Bolter. I understand the traditional definitions of CR and C. and their applications. However I think to hang our hat rigidly on this denies the gray areas of real world skiing and where the separation may or may not be happening and how it may or may not be used.

Does the pelvis always and completely move with the legs in CR, which means all the torque happens and is stored in the in the spine? Not sure I want to give a blanket yes to that. Does the pelvis move with the upper body completely in counter and stride mechanics? Is there no spine twisting too? Another level of separation. Not sure about that either.

truth is I manipulate these relationships everyday in my tai chi practice. Hip pelvic, and waist movement torque and control are a cornerstone of tai chi practice. They transfer easily and effectively to skiing. And I am not speaking of waiststeering, though that too is a good transfer. I'll leave you folks to hash it out.
post #62 of 74
quote=Martin Bell;732360
Quote:
As just an uneducated dumb ex-ski-racer, a lot of this kinetic chain stuff is going way over my head. All I can do is repeat what I wrote a few days ago:

"But is it time to give up on angulation just yet? The world's best skier seems to be still using it:
http://sport.etv.ee/failid/5117.jpg
http://www.skipix.com/bc_world_cup_0...93_Svindal.jpg
I for one am not buying the uneducated ex-ski-racer thing. You prove that not to be the case with every quality post you submit.

The hip angles are clear to see- early, later or on time. BUT the movements to arrive there are at point/discussion. Traditional concepts of CR (misplaced at the top of the arc) will not likely produce what we see in these fine links. These hip angles are formed essentially through CA and counter-balancing tipping movements of the upper body and the tipping/turning movements of the legs. Thus leg to torso angles at the hip.



Quote:
My general impression from racing is that we seem to be seeing more inclination (i.e. less angulation) in the early part of the turn than perhaps was the case ten years ago."
Quote:
Early inclination requires a lot of commitment, and perhaps also anticipation, so should there be a totally different mechanism for teaching first-time carvers? (Bolter is obviously a strong advocate of this, with his torque neutral transition, and it was the subject of this thread: http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?t=56928 )
Please remember that your first post in that thread gave two options of introduction to arcing, rightfully so. The first in the fall line (TN) and the second from a traverse- not torque neutral. Both are valid starting points. AND Both can support TNT or anticipation as options, in later stages of development. I do not see this as an either or situation.

Quote:
One other problem I can see, might be the amount of speed required to make it work.
Shaped skis (Radius less than 14M) with flex to match and flat terrain takes care of this potential problem for the average Joe or Joan.

Thank you for your very clear insight on these subjects. JR
post #63 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by RicB View Post
Well you make a lot of assumptions Bolter. I understand the traditional definitions of CR and C. and their applications. However I think to hang our hat rigidly on this denies the gray areas of real world skiing and where the separation may or may not be happening and how it may or may not be used.

Does the pelvis always and completely move with the legs in CR, which means all the torque happens and is stored in the in the spine? Not sure I want to give a blanket yes to that. Does the pelvis move with the upper body completely in counter and stride mechanics? Is there no spine twisting too? Another level of separation. Not sure about that either.

truth is I manipulate these relationships everyday in my tai chi practice. Hip pelvic, and waist movement torque and control are a cornerstone of tai chi practice. They transfer easily and effectively to skiing. And I am not speaking of waiststeering, though that too is a good transfer. I'll leave you folks to hash it out.
This is the way to get nowhere. If there is the possibility of a movement being used improperly or partially by borrowing from other movement pools, then forget it as a viable root movement to teach/learn arc2arc. How can we get anywhere like this? If you are ducking out of this thread, let me know- clearly. I do not want to make that assumption if it is untrue. And if you are, please tell me why, in a PM if you wish.
post #64 of 74
Perhaps we see the pelvis moving with the legs with "spine twisting counter-rotation" more often today than a few decades ago, because it is a crude movement performed usually by less skilled skiers.

When counter-rotation was more part of mainstream technique and performed by talented athletes, maybe they were able to counter-rotate the shoulders violently (which they had to do with those long skis) but manage to separate the pelvis from the legs. To use this photo again http://www.eok.ee/est/olympiamangud/...stenmark_1.gif
it appears to me that Ingemar must have used a fairly powerful counter-rotation move to get into that position, but his pelvis does not appear to have rotated with his feet that much. (I know it's tough to read too much into a single still...)

RicB is right that there are always overlaps and grey areas, but Bolter I think you're also correct in that most skiers today who crudely use counter-rotation will turn the pelvis with the feet. I mean the "old school", feet together short-turn wedelers. Some people I knew at Beaver Creek Ski School used to call that type of skier "the stiff banana"
You certainly still see plenty of those skiers in Europe. In fact, at the end of the day, some trails have a narrow 5-yard-wide strip of ice down the middle, where these people have used their skis like windshield wipers and pushed all the slush to either side!
post #65 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolter View Post
This is the way to get nowhere. If there is the possibility of a movement being used improperly or partially by borrowing from other movement pools, then forget it as a viable root movement to teach/learn arc2arc. How can we get anywhere like this? If you are ducking out of this thread, let me know- clearly. I do not want to make that assumption if it is untrue. And if you are, please tell me why, in a PM if you wish.
Your assumption being that you and I are far apart in our understanding and/or belief. We aren't. As far as entry level arcing, I may not characterize it the way you do, but I find that eliminating extraneous movements or movements that dilute the needed effective movements to be the biggest hurdle. Nothing revolutionary there though.

Because of distractions and other things happening in my life I just don't have the time and energy for effective posting right now. Nothing more nothing less. I'll be lurking and reading though.
post #66 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by RicB View Post
Your assumption being that you and I are far apart in our understanding and/or belief. We aren't. As far as entry level arcing, I may not characterize it the way you do, but I find that eliminating extraneous movements or movements that dilute the needed effective movements to be the biggest hurdle. Nothing revolutionary there though.

Because of distractions and other things happening in my life I just don't have the time and energy for effective posting right now. Nothing more nothing less. I'll be lurking and reading though.
Thanks, it is good to hear. You know that your input is highly valued.
post #67 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolter View Post
Counter Rotation (CR): turning the skis by twisting the torso and legs in opposite directions. Newton's law of action and reaction applies!

Anticipation: a movement in preparation for turning . . .

Anticipation Release (AR): a turn initiation force used to impart rotary force to the skis, through the unwinding of anticipation

Anticipation prepares the body by storing torque (potentially) to be used to initiate a turn. The torso and legs are brought into a twisted relationship. In anticipation the hips play an intermediary role. Realizing that both muscle masses that are predominantly responsible for the rotary movement of the body connect to the pelvis (quadriceps from the legs and back and abdominal muscles from the torso), we see that the hips are not likely to be totally associated with either the torso or the legs but will, depending on the degree of muscle tension generated by the twisting movement, assume an intermediary role. A skier can anticipate by twisting the torso toward the center of the upcoming turn or by turning the skis beneath the torso. The latter of which has been confusingly assigned the "skiing into counter" phenomenon. It's anticipation, thats all.

CR- Envision the body as two units: 1) head, arms, torso. 2) pelvis, legs, feet, skis. CR implies a movement of these two portions about the vertical body axis but in opposite directions. The simultaneous yet opposite movements of the torso and lower body generate torque.

Anticipation and CR look similar but mechanically the two movement concepts are totally different.


And one more . . . maybe the most important one-

Counter action (CA) is a separate mechanism from CR and AR. The hips and torso constitute the upper body and the legs are the lower body. CA applies no rotary force to the skis, in fact it (CA) negates/counteracts the unwanted torque from the tipping/turning movements of the legs. CA is applied prior to deflection and ideally (in early skill levels) following a torque neutral transition. CA can be viewed as rotary movement of the torso around the body's central/vertical axis- the spine. The torso turns to face outside the arc of the turn. Gait mechanics add important considerations regarding the axis of rotation. That is a different topic, for now.

ATM sources
Bolter,

I have no issue with any of the above, as they are simply your definitions....but I noticed your description of the various mechanisms you did not discuss the mechanism by which Counter or Upper/Lower body separation is achieved according the CSIA/PSIA or WC analysts like Ron Lemaster.

Could you explain why? Seems strange to discuss all these mechanisms, yet overlook the main one....

I have few other questions but will add those to other posts to link to your comments.

Awaiting your response.
post #68 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidude72 View Post
Bolter,

I have no issue with any of the above, as they are simply your definitions....but I noticed your description of the various mechanisms you did not discuss the mechanism by which Counter or Upper/Lower body separation is achieved according the CSIA/PSIA or WC analysts like Ron Lemaster.

Could you explain why? Seems strange to discuss all these mechanisms, yet overlook the main one....

I have few other questions but will add those to other posts to link to your comments.

Awaiting your response.
Skidud72 Your wait is over.

Being that the definitions are ATM quotes, you are in a tight spot.

The main one? You mean Independent Leg Steering? Please, tell me how this is (the main mechanism) in use on the WC.

FWIW, Ron speaks for himself, take it or leave it. Thanks JR
post #69 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolter View Post
Skidude72 Your wait is over.

Being that the definitions are ATM quotes, you are in a tight spot.
Again no issues with your definitions...you can define things however you like.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolter View Post
The main one? You mean Independent Leg Steering? Please, tell me how this is (the main mechanism) in use on the WC.

FWIW, Ron speaks for himself, take it or leave it. Thanks JR
Yes...that little concept of Independent Leg Steering is what I was referring to.....how is it used on the WC? Easy...when "steering" is required both legs or femurs are rotated in their respective hip sockets. This pivoting of two legs about two independent points, Counter Act each other and stablise the upper body.

Not quite sure what you mean about "Ron speaks for himself, take it or leave it".....are you saying Ron should post in this forum? Or are you saying you don't value his opinion? If you don't that is fine by me....but just FYI the USST, the CNST, the CSIA, the PSIA and numerous NCAA Ski Teams not only take his advice...they PAY him for it.

So my next question is this:

Are you implying your "CA" move, as defined by you, is more effective then Independent Leg Steering as defined by me, above?
post #70 of 74
quote=Skidude72
Quote:
Again no issues with your definitions...you can define things however you like.....
I do not like or dislike these terms or definitions. These are ATM not JRN

Quote:
Yes...that little concept of Independent Leg Steering is what I was referring to.....how is it used on the WC? Easy...when "steering" is required both legs or femurs are rotated in their respective hip sockets. This pivoting of two legs about two independent points, Counter Act each other and stablise the upper body.
Why is steering in quotes is there something special about its purpose or application that is different from steering?

Quote:
Not quite sure what you mean about "Ron speaks for himself, take it or leave it".....are you saying Ron should post in this forum? Or are you saying you don't value his opinion? If you don't that is fine by me....but just FYI the USST, the CNST, the CSIA, the PSIA and numerous NCAA Ski Teams not only take his advice...they PAY him for it.
His web site and written material "speaks for itself."
Ron is not my choice when it comes to WC analysis. I value his fine photos. I am sure that checks are good for Ron.

Quote:
Are you implying your "CA" move, as defined by you, is more effective then Independent Leg Steering as defined by me, above
You are completely out of touch. CA is not leg rotation, it is an upper body movement. The tipping turning movement of the legs are a completely separate issue. How could one be more effective than the other?

What is your point about Leg Steering?
post #71 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolter View Post
quote=Skidude72

Why is steering in quotes is there something special about its purpose or application that is different from steering?
No not at all....just emphasising it as a term is all...maybe I should have used italics, or bold or whatever...No "trick" behind it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolter View Post

His web site and written material "speaks for itself."
Ron is not my choice when it comes to WC analysis. I value his fine photos. I am sure that checks are good for Ron.
So are you saying he is wrong? Your points seem so fundatmentally different to his, that I would suggest you both cannot be right...the differences are not sublte, or questions of degrees.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolter View Post
You are completely out of touch. CA is not leg rotation, it is an upper body movement. The tipping turning movement of the legs are a completely separate issue. How could one be more effective than the other??
Well perhaps this is where, you fall down. One is more effective then the other, BECAUSE if you use Independent Leg steering properly :ie as defined by the CSIA/PSIA, Ron Lemaster etc etc, you will have no need what so ever for CA as defined by you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolter View Post
What is your point about Leg Steering?
My point is, that Independent Leg Steering is fundamental to this whole topic....yet you seem to have completely missed it.
post #72 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidude72 View Post
Well perhaps this is where, you fall down. One is more effective then the other, BECAUSE if you use Independent Leg steering properly :ie as defined by the CSIA/PSIA, Ron Lemaster etc etc, you will have no need what so ever for CA as defined by you. .
And yet WC skiers use CA just as Bolter has described it. BTW, I'm not guessing about this. I was able to spend 4 days training with a coach with nearly 20 years of US ski team experience. I was going to post about that camp but I can't under the policy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidude72 View Post
My point is, that Independent Leg Steering is fundamental to this whole topic...
This really depends on what you mean by the above. It is certainly not a replacement fot CA movements.
post #73 of 74
Here is the BB version of what Skidude72 claims as the key mechanism of WC skiing. WOW! Skiing into counter and everything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Barnes/Colorado View Post
...LEG STEERING!...

...Leg steering describes the rotation of each leg, independently of the other, beneath the pelvis, femurs rotating in the hip sockets. Leg steering is one of several options ("rotary mechanisms") available for using muscles to control, or change, the direction the skis point, along with "rotation," "counter-rotation," and "blocking pole plants." Of these options, leg steering is the only one that gives us the ability to turn each leg independently, powerfully or subtly (or even passively, as in a pure carved turn), abruptly, to pivot the skis, or continuously, to guide them along the desired path. It is the only one that does not involve the upper body in any way, freeing it to do other things. Leg rotation, skillfully blended with balance, pressure control, and edging movements, allows us to pivot the skis about any point along their length--twisting the tails out into a skid, or steering the tips in, to shape a gliding or carved turn. Like any of the "rotary mechanisms," leg steering can produce the twisting needed for a hockey stop. But it alone can also produce the precise turning of each foot involved in "thousand steps." Leg steering is the only rotary mechanism that can allow us to make the "right tip right to go right" move that is my "mantra" thought for all basic offensive turns, from the beginner's wedge turn to the expert's dynamic, highly carved, high performance turn.

I would also say that "independent leg steering" is among the least intuitive, least likely moves for many skiers to discover on their own--and therefore one of the most essential things for an instructor to teach. Very short skis have helped here--a lot. New skiers on snow blades are much more likely to naturally turn their feet than on full-length skis--especially "traditional" length skis. The longer the skis, the more likely a beginner is to try to force them around with gross movements of his/her upper body, especially when in a defensive ("I don't want to go that way") state of mind.

And independent leg steering may be among the least commonly understood--and therefore most controversial--fundamental movements in all of skiing. While, as I described above, it CAN be used to pivot the skis, twist them into a skid, and brake, its use--and my suggestion that it is an essential, basic fundamental--definitely does not REQUIRE that. As I have often described, independent leg steering is very much like using the steering wheel of a car. You really should do it! Steering a car does not mean pivoting harshly, throwing the car into a skid, or even turning the wheel at all sometimes--although it CAN mean any of these things. We even steer a car when we are going straight. Many instructors and others badmouth leg steering on the basis of just SOME of the things you can do with it, which may not be appropriate for most turns. Many instructors associate leg steering with wedges and snowplows (and it is, of course, the tool we use to turn those two skis in opposite directions), and with stem christie "pushoff" turn initiations and other defensive, intentionally skidded turns. Many instructors will tell you that steering a ski is the antithesis of carving--and indeed, it can be! (Think hockey stops.)

But steering the skis independently is also fundamental to "thousand steps" which, done correctly, involves no skidding whatsoever. It is the reason that, with each step, you put the ski down pointing a slightly different direction than when you picked it up. "Thousand steps" is, in fact, one of the very best drills going to develop the skill of independent leg steering.

And independent leg steering--or at least, passive independent leg rotation (same movement, different impetus)--must occur even in pure-carved turns, like "railroad tracks." We don't have to turn them ourselves, but we do have to ALLOW the exact same movement to happen as the carving skis turn beneath us, creating the "counter" that is the main subject of another popular thread at the moment ("Pressuring front boot cuffs and Counter."

So, that's it--if you must force me to identify one movement pattern that I truly believe is fundamental and essential to good skiing, without which a skier would be severely handicapped in almost any situation, "independent leg steering" is the one.

Let the objections fly!

Best regards,

Bob Barnes
post #74 of 74
The last few posts in this thread are nothing more than pointless bickering and have been deleted and the thread closed.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching
This thread is locked  
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › Counter rotation vs. upper-lower body separation?