Originally Posted by nolo
In this forum, where technique is put under the analytical microscope, do you feel that knowing how the analyst him/herself skis (via video posting or live encounter) is an important credibility-builder and background check, or is the person's ability to string sentences together in sensible fashion sufficient to override your doubts? Please explain your answer.
I think it's a little of both.
If someone is new to the forum, then a video (or, even better, a live encounter) can help build credibility very quickly. That said, I'm still not a huge fan of making major conclusions about someone's skiing by watching some video on YouTube. I can never really tell the context of the snow, the pitch, or the "feel" of the run when I'm watching the typical vid. You can tell if someone's a hack, but beyond that I think it's kinda difficult watching a vid.
If I don't have the luxury of the visual input, then I base my judgements on the person's posts over a longer period of time. When I'm deciding whom to lend credence to without having seen them ski, I just try to determine whether the things they're saying ring "true" with what seems to be my own experience.
Actually, you - personally - are an example of how that process works for me. I've been reading your posts for years now but had never had a chance to see you ski until Snowbasin two years ago. I had long ago decided that I believed you to be a very good skier with a very strong background in ski technique. Everything you wrote here in Epic about skiing resonated with the way I look at the sport as well. That's why I was looking forward to skiing with you. When we were actually able to make turns together, my preconceptions were borne out. I still have this great mental image of you making these wonderful little turns through that stand of small aspens and brush that we found.
So, it's both for me.