New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Movement Analysis - Page 5

post #121 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post

After posting video of my friend skiing one of the steeper runs ever posted on here(which BTW) is not that steep. And people calling her a barely intermediate skier just because they are so closed minded to what good skiing is. She has placed top 3 at Telluride and Crested Butte in big mountain freeskiing comps so clearly intermediate. I have found 80 percent of the MAs to be a joke and have stopped replying on the forum to anyone who post video, do reply via PM now and again.

.
BW -- I don't recall the thread in question, but as you know, Freeskiing comps aren't really scored on technical skiing ability. The categories are Line Choice (most important), control (don't fall on airs, bobble, etc.), fluidity (continuity of run, pace, flow, etc.), form & technique (not the same as technical ability as Heluva mentions above), and aggressiveness.

The Form & Technique category of IFSA scoring is judged more on style rather than technical proficient skiing. This is best described in the IFSA judges handbook and here is a direct quote: "Keep in mind the competitors skiing fundamentals, but allow for personal skiing style if cleanly executed. Is the athlete skiing with proficiency of motion? Is he/she exhausted? Is he/she gut wrenching to watch in icy areas?".

Again...I didn't read the thread in question, but as illustrated by the IFSA judging criteria it is very easy to perform well in a freeskiing comp while not having the most technically correct movements.
post #122 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Shoelaces View Post
BW -- I don't recall the thread in question, but as you know, Freeskiing comps aren't really scored on technical skiing ability...
Bush's friend was showing fluid billygoating down Great Scott (I think; don't think I posted there though). If he'd posted that she'd placed in comps when he posted the video, he'd have gotten different responses. Mr. Shoelaces may recall that when you posted some video of you in a comp, there was pretty much deathly silence from the normal heads; had you clipped the video at just above the rock garden and had someone post that this was a "friend," I'd bet a 12-pack the responses would have been quite different.
post #123 of 135
These are the Level III standards:
http://www.psia.org/psia_2002/alpine..._cert_stands#3

Many Level IIIs where I teach don't ski that way, and likely can't. Maybe they could at one time. They don't teach to these standards, even in clinics to improve the instructors' skiing when the people can handle the skill level. These skiing techniques in these are rarely, if ever, offered to people asking for advice or movement analysis on this forum, even in de-tuned manner suitable for the ability of the original poster. Where the PSIA Alpine Technical Manual says something to the effect that we must ski and teach to a function, not a form, most of the clinic instruction I've received is to a form, a body position, not to the functionality of the ski on the snow.

My feeling is that every movement analysis, every helpful hint, every instructional tip must contain the answers to two questions---
1) How does it affect the action of the ski on the snow?
2) How is it biomechanically sound and biomechanically effective?

Too many answers posted here do neither.

It should go without saying that all postings must be considerate of others. It should, but it doesn't, and the moderators are not always even handed in this matter. When they aren't, I fire a harpoon at them, and sometimes get a response that they'll do better in the future. We can disagree without being disagreeable. Can we???
post #124 of 135
Hmmm . . . That's a good point . . .

I wonder if there should be a structure to responding to MA threads. Sort of a guide, to keep pertinent information in everybody's posts. If there is a disagreement, then people can take that argument to a separate thread.

Maybe something like:

1. What did you like about the skiing?

2. What needs work (or, What would you like to see in the skiing?)?

3. What would you do if this was your student (drills, etc.)?

4. What would this accomplish (How does this affect the skis on the snow)?

Or maybe, if we add too much structure, then it will limit the free-for-all of ideas that occasionally produced tangible results, but almost always entertains (e.g. Highway Star threads).
post #125 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoftSnowGuy View Post
My feeling is that every movement analysis, every helpful hint, every instructional tip must contain the answers to two questions---
1) How does it affect the action of the ski on the snow?
2) How is it biomechanically sound and biomechanically effective?
These sound like good things to include in an MA, but it's not clear everyone is interested in these things put exactly this way. Many of my MA victims would be asleep before I finished pronouncing "bio..." (I have that effect on people). Most of my students simply want to know what's wrong and how to fix it. Like my teaching, I try to tailor my MA to the needs of the student. This is often quite hard to do online, but I am sensitive that my posts already tend to be lengthy. There is something positive to be said for short posts that skip the details.

Some of my students may not care about the action of the ski on the snow as long as the ski is going where they want it to go. Some students may be interested in skiing with less effort and some don't care how biomechanically inefficient their skiing is. If we can speak in terms of skiing longer and more difficult trails without getting as tired, or getting faster times in the race course, getting more control, etc. then we're talking their language. If the action of the ski on the snow and the reason why certain movements are more biomechanically efficient comes up in the discussion, most of the time this is a sidebar to where the student's focus is. I personally tend to cover these things more with pros and upper level students than with lower level students.
post #126 of 135
Movement Analysis was formerly called Error Recognition and Correction back in the bad old days. MA is a source for feedback. Feedback is a tough thing to controll. You don't just blurt out your impressions to a student without considering how that person will feel. A crushing analysis destroys self esteem. Looking for skill relationships and blending, echoing the coaching from other sources makes your feedback a voice in the chorus, much easier to accept and maybe even something that is welcome.
post #127 of 135
Considering the effect criticism would cause in the mind of the student should be the filter in how the criticism is shared.

Some people can handle direct critical descriptions that are blunt and to the point and others would be shattered by such revelations. I am one that you can bark at and coach this way but most people need it to be worded in a more constructive way to message their egos.

So, dogonjon, your point is that it is not what is said but how it is presented to the good of the student and to address a path to affect changes in movements for the better ?
post #128 of 135
It has to do with relationships. With students you may or may not have a history to work with. Being professional and using Guest sense will establish a positive relationship. Even with collegues there is the need to be diplomatic. I find thick skinned clients benefit from positive analysis, focusing on errors distracts from exploring the possibile solutions. Many people don't need to hear your analysis to benefit from your guidance.
post #129 of 135
Best for both(instructor and student) is finding tasks and drills that redefine a inefficient movement into one that would serve them better ?
The observations should be more often internalized and put into practical use by finding ways to get the student to feel something that helps them make their own decision on what is best or to define a movement that needs to be repeated on their own till it is owned by them .
Wouldn't analysis and the method of using it be the difference between teaching and coaching ?
post #130 of 135
HI where can i find some movement anaysis video! I am going for my L3 and would like to practice!
post #131 of 135
 Welcome to Epicski Meegs!
You should be able to use the search function using the term Video MA and see what comes up.
post #132 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeluvaSkier View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by whygimf View Post
What is "sideload a ski?"
I side loaded an edge on a rock once... after doing that I don't think I'd want to do the whole ski.

I do believe I was there for that. Your DPs did not appreciate the occurrence. 
post #133 of 135
Actually we constantly work on our basic stance again and again at WC level. You are just never done with that. Does that surprise you?
post #134 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post

getting back to the first post....

After posting video of my friend skiing one of the steeper runs ever posted on here(which BTW) is not that steep. And people calling her a barely intermediate skier just because they are so closed minded to what good skiing is. She has placed top 3 at Telluride and Crested Butte in big mountain freeskiing comps so clearly intermediate. I have found 80 percent of the MAs to be a joke and have stopped replying on the forum to anyone who post video, do reply via PM now and again.

I have also learned that I LOVE to teach, and to those on this board that have actually met me or taken a lesson from me, my eye is way better, and my thought more coherent in real life. So I stopped posting in almost all instructional threads because these things.

To some their level may be expert level skiing, and to some it may just be intermediate. It just depends what you compare it with. That does not mean that you friend skis any less or better.
post #135 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lonnie View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Max_501 View Post
Yes, but now we are into apples and oranges. Of course there are natural athletes that just make the movements without thinking about them.

But we were specifically talking about MAing movements and perhaps teaching them to someone else. Two completely different ideas. This means you have to know how to make the turn and I'm saying its unlikely you know how to make a world cup turn unless you've made one yourself (or perhaps if you were instructed by an ex world cup skier that knows what movements are required to make the turn).
Don't you think the folks skiing on the world cup fall in to the category of natural athletes? So are we really talking apples and oranges? I would imagine that the folks coaching WC skiers aren't teaching that much technique, and instead they are "teaching" tactics.

EDIT: And yes, I have taken clincs with ex WC racers and current WC coaches....

Teaching a lot of basic techniques, working constantly on the basic stance. If that is off all the tactics are useless.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching