There are so many muscles firing and doing crucial things in a high end turn. How can you see the muscles fire that sideload a ski?
Do I have to see the my heart beating to know it is?
So if what your saying is true, then how do we ever critique high level skiing? Nobody I know has x-ray vision.
But then I'll ask does it even matter? Do I care HOW I get someone to do something if they are able to do it? Or do I just care about outcome? If I tell someone, carve small radius turns with both feet. If they accomplish the tast, do I care if they had the ski tipped 38* or 42*? Now maybe I would care about that if I would have said, "I want you to ski this run and I want you to tip your skis to 40* in the turns." But I don't know if I could do that or measure that on the fly.
Now I don't know if there are right and wrong answers to these questions, I just want to know your opinion....
It all reminds me of this cartoon, it's fly fishing related, but I think it's the same idea...
This is from Jack Ohmans Fear of Fly Fishing. Here's the caption
RESIDENCE: Condo, Silicon Valley
QUOTE:“All fishing systems nominal”
Watson can’t have fun fly fishing unless he’s got all the latest high-tech breakthrough equipment. He knows the density of his boron rod, the tensile strength of his 400-grain line, the drag coefficient of his fly, how much wind resistance a parachute wing Adams has versus a hackle wing, the porosity of elk hair, the exact chemical composition of Gehrke’s Gink, the gear ratio on his multiplier, the genus and species of every single aquatic insect, the solunar tables, the viscosity of the water’s meniscus, the diameter of his leader in thousandths of an inch, the insulative qualities of his waders, the relative merits of weight-forward line in relation to double taper, the aerodynamic qualities of the Muddler Minnow, the effect of atmospheric pressure on the trout’s lateral line, and the toll-free phone numbers of all his tackle manufacturers.
But he doesn’t catch any fish.