New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Compare/Contrast HM/BODE - Page 3

post #61 of 84
TDK,

You still do not seem to understand the ILE concept as outlined by Rick in his article. At no time did Rick explain ILE is "lifting yourself" nor did he say that you would be supporting most or all of your weight with your old inside leg. In fact, he described it as often being a very slight "nudge" on that leg, which upsets your balance and causes a pendilum action to pull your COM up and over without much of any lifting at all...pure momentum. The fact that the leg is being "extended" is not to lift yourself or push yourself up and over. READ THE ARTICLE ON SNOWHEADS AGAIN.

Secondly, in frame 2, HM's outside ski is still a little bent. He is not weightless yet. Weightless float probably occurred somewhere halfway between frame 2 and 3, and I would argue that it was EXTREMELY minimal weightless float. HM DOES NOT WANT LONG FLOAT. He rather wants at least one ski connected to the snow. By using ILE, he ends up with his new outside ski engaged and very little weightless float time.

You can also definitely see his old inside leg a little less flexed after going from frame 1 to 2, SOMETHING is causing his COM to start to move up and over...ie...like a pendulum. As you pointed out, it would be very difficult for him to torque on his highly flexed inside leg and lift himself up. Something else is causing his COM to move not only across, but up and over also. Then between frame 2-3 his old inside leg is extended quite a lot and his COM is really up and moving across, up and over. There is no question that between frame 2 and 3 he made a lot of extending movements with his old inside leg, and that is just barely past neutral.

In fact, the new inside leg is also less flexed in frame 3 than it was in frame 2! By frame 3, a lot of leg extension has happened, but he has NOT lifted himself so much as simply made best use of the laws of physics to pendulum himelf up and over.

Lastly, just because you flex a leg does not neccessarily mean you are releasing weight from it. You can definitely flex that leg and remain weighted on it. You can even flex it without causing your COM to move across, just ask half the CSIA level 2's you know.

The only person that knows for sure how he was distributing his stance weight on this two skis is HM himself. You cannot assert that flexing his old outside leg was in fact a "release" of weight support. Realize that in certain methods advocated by Max and others...they ARE causing a release to happen by flexing that leg, but they are not only flexing it, they are also transferring their weight, tipping, etc... The G forces do not magically dissappear somehow by flexing your leg. It also does not need to be an all or nothing proposition. The skier can gradually or abruptly transfer weight from one leg to the other.
post #62 of 84

Okay, and why is that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tdk6 View Post
Skiracer55 good post but I must slightly dissagree with you. I think that we should be able to describe the tactics, techniques and movements going on in such photo sequenzes provide in the links we are discussing wíthout taking any standpoint to whether its good bad sufficient or insufficient.
I'm kind of pushing this point, because I see a ton of these discussions where the point seems to be "Okay...I'm gonna prove, beyond all shadow of a doubt, what's really going on here, in terms that we all agree on."

That's a nice academic discussion, but past a certain point, in terms of my skiing, or the skiing of somebody I'm coaching, what difference does it make? Does it have any affect on the world of skiing at large? I am PSIA L3 certified, with 6 seasons teaching in Colorado, and L1 USSA Coaches certified, with 20 years of Masters racing and coaching. And one of the big reasons I quit teaching skiing and doing the PSIA thing was that day after day, I'd listen to my colleagues going through these same kind of discussions, and then I'd go out and ride up the chair with them and look at the skiers below, who were pivoting their feet very rapidly from side to side, and making absolutely no change of direction, and think "So all this paralysis by analysis discussion we just had, regardless of whether it was true or not, had absolutely no effect on the skiing population at large, and, more important, it didn't do a thing for my skiing, either."

So the preceding was a great intellectual discussion...now what am I supposed to do with it? Because I'm 59, and I've been racing for a bunch of years, and I'd like to win this season, not just talk about it...
post #63 of 84
Here is what I see in the HM montage.

I see a superb athlete who's center of mass flow is right on the fastest line and masterfully controlled. I see his center of mass as the control center for what is going on. I see two active feet connect and coordinated through that sense of center of mass. I see no need to release anything as he is never inhibiting the predetermined center of mass flow. He is able to contract and pull his appendages around that core control center in any way he feels a need too in a 360 degree sphere.

His center of mass flow starts moving into the new turn right from the fall line. I see no need for weight shifts here or there or parallel shafts or inside ski first or any of that stuff. He is not coordinating the center of mass from from the feet he is coordinating the turn and feet from the center of mass itself.

All he needs is little nudges here and there from the feet, arms, core and every thing in between, from any position he has them in. on cue from that center of mass to keep things right on target in the fast lane. I am only just beginning to understand this kind of skiing.

I see a superb athlete who can blend movements in ways few bears could even imagine.
post #64 of 84
Right on, Pierre, gravity is not pulling the skis and we try to ride them, rather it is pulling on our body, core, CM or what you want to call it and one uses the skis to deflect it from its path if that is the intent, as in making a turn.

Good skiers should always be conscious where they want to position their body and use the skis to direct them there instead of yanking their bodies across the skis. Adjusting body position simply to keep balance is not my cup of tea.

Letting the body flow and outriggering the skis with varying edge control to keep it in it's intended path is the way I think of it. Gravity is pulling my body down the hill and the skis come along for the ride because they are attached to my feet and are tools to keep me sliding and deflecting (turning). Look at the sequence and ignore the skis and draw a smooth line from Hermann's head all the way along the figures and you will see what I am saying.

....Ott
post #65 of 84
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tdk6 View Post
What photosequense are you talking about?
BM.
post #66 of 84
Thread Starter 
Thank you Pierre. That was a good post.
post #67 of 84
Thread Starter 
TDK,

Must the leg be extended more than 90 degrees for a movement to be called an extension?

This slight extension of HM's inside leg is one of the nudges that Pierre is speaking about.
post #68 of 84
I'm having a hard time seeing any inside leg extension between frames 1 and 2 of the HM montage. However, the outside leg flex is quite easy to see.
post #69 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by borntoski683 View Post
TDK,

You still do not seem to understand the ILE concept as outlined by Rick in his article. At no time did Rick explain ILE is "lifting yourself" nor did he say that you would be supporting most or all of your weight with your old inside leg. In fact, he described it as often being a very slight "nudge" on that leg, which upsets your balance and causes a pendilum action to pull your COM up and over without much of any lifting at all...pure momentum. The fact that the leg is being "extended" is not to lift yourself or push yourself up and over. READ THE ARTICLE ON SNOWHEADS AGAIN.

Secondly, in frame 2, HM's outside ski is still a little bent. He is not weightless yet. Weightless float probably occurred somewhere halfway between frame 2 and 3, and I would argue that it was EXTREMELY minimal weightless float. HM DOES NOT WANT LONG FLOAT. He rather wants at least one ski connected to the snow. By using ILE, he ends up with his new outside ski engaged and very little weightless float time.

You can also definitely see his old inside leg a little less flexed after going from frame 1 to 2, SOMETHING is causing his COM to start to move up and over...ie...like a pendulum. As you pointed out, it would be very difficult for him to torque on his highly flexed inside leg and lift himself up. Something else is causing his COM to move not only across, but up and over also. Then between frame 2-3 his old inside leg is extended quite a lot and his COM is really up and moving across, up and over. There is no question that between frame 2 and 3 he made a lot of extending movements with his old inside leg, and that is just barely past neutral.

In fact, the new inside leg is also less flexed in frame 3 than it was in frame 2! By frame 3, a lot of leg extension has happened, but he has NOT lifted himself so much as simply made best use of the laws of physics to pendulum himelf up and over.

Lastly, just because you flex a leg does not neccessarily mean you are releasing weight from it. You can definitely flex that leg and remain weighted on it. You can even flex it without causing your COM to move across, just ask half the CSIA level 2's you know.

The only person that knows for sure how he was distributing his stance weight on this two skis is HM himself. You cannot assert that flexing his old outside leg was in fact a "release" of weight support. Realize that in certain methods advocated by Max and others...they ARE causing a release to happen by flexing that leg, but they are not only flexing it, they are also transferring their weight, tipping, etc... The G forces do not magically dissappear somehow by flexing your leg. It also does not need to be an all or nothing proposition. The skier can gradually or abruptly transfer weight from one leg to the other.
Can you get me the link to Ricks article. I dont know any CSIA level 1's 2's etc. Maybe this whole relese discussion is BS, seems to me that if we cannot find any consensus we should focus on something else. Why is it so important how the relese is made anyway? Isnt the transition as a whole prosess more important?

My personal opinion is that if HM started to extend his inside leg between frame 1 and 2 he would not be able to move across with his hips the way he is dooing now. He needs to get his hips over his skis and hook onto his new edges before starting to extend that new outside leg. This way he keeps his CoM low and flowing naturally down the shortest and most efficient way. All extension that was made by his inside leg prior to transition cero (perpendicular to the snow) is just fine tuning and furthermore I cannot see any extention worth mentioning. Even if there was, not as having any function of lifting him upwards anyway. The only way HM is able to move his hips sideways across the skis is if he releses the pressure on his downhill ski by flexing that leg. There is still centrifugal forces pulling on him outwards in the turn and as he flexes his outside leg his CoM is pulled in that direction. As he does that he evens out the pressure between his skiis so that in transition cero there is same ammount of pressure on both skis. Which is not much since WC skiers often fly through this pahse of the turn in the air. Or if not in the air with close to no pressure on skis even ski-snow contact is retained. There is a slight rice of CoM as HM de-tipps from frame 1 to frame 2 or 2,5 (we can only picture it in our minds) because of the way we humans are constructed. HM shafts needs to tip over from one side to the other and since they are stiff there is no other way than through pendlum. This is the reason we flex with our knees through the transition. CoM could be held vertically in place if HM had bent his knees even further down than what he was doing but he chose to do it this way. He gained further advantage of that as well since he quicker got his outside leg extended as his hips passed over his skis.
post #70 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE View Post
TDK,

Must the leg be extended more than 90 degrees for a movement to be called an extension?

This slight extension of HM's inside leg is one of the nudges that Pierre is speaking about.
No, not in my opinion. But I think that it is of little significanse since the outside leg is doing something that equals nudges times 100. That is my perspective.
post #71 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max_501 View Post
I'm having a hard time seeing any inside leg extension between frames 1 and 2 of the HM montage. However, the outside leg flex is quite easy to see.
What muscle movements are needed for counteraction?
post #72 of 84
Do you think HM is concerned with his skis or where his body is moving and using his skis to get him there?

post #73 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE View Post
Look where the pelvis is pointing in frames 3 and 4. Outside hip is back, then even. The pelvis rotated about the inside hip joint, while he returns to "torque neutral" and moves forwards on the skis.

I never claimed the inside hip was stationary in a fore/aft sense.
The fore aft relationship between hip and ski is depending on how flexed the knee joint is. If the knee joint is flexed 90deg then hips are placed as far back on the skis as it goes. When knee joint is straight then our hip is placed over our ski as far forwards as it goes. If you look at BM you can see that he used the ski rebound and arms to lift himself up from a back seated position in ref to his inside bent leg and ended up in a stance in frame 4 where both his legs are eaqually weighted (this frame was missing from HM photomontage). Its a typical longleg/shortleg - longleg/longleg - shortleg/longleg turn. HM again longleg/shortleg - shortleg/shortleg - shortleg/longleg. Do the math and you will be able to figure out what leg got extended and flexed and when.
post #74 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ott Gangl View Post
Do you think HM is concerned with his skis or where his body is moving and using his skis to get him there?

Very funny . My austrian coaches used to have me focus on my hips. Other systems in the US talk about movements from skis and up and kinetic chanis.
post #75 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
Here is what I see in the HM montage.

I see a superb athlete who's center of mass flow is right on the fastest line and masterfully controlled. I see his center of mass as the control center for what is going on. I see two active feet connect and coordinated through that sense of center of mass. I see no need to release anything as he is never inhibiting the predetermined center of mass flow. He is able to contract and pull his appendages around that core control center in any way he feels a need too in a 360 degree sphere.

His center of mass flow starts moving into the new turn right from the fall line. I see no need for weight shifts here or there or parallel shafts or inside ski first or any of that stuff. He is not coordinating the center of mass from from the feet he is coordinating the turn and feet from the center of mass itself.

All he needs is little nudges here and there from the feet, arms, core and every thing in between, from any position he has them in. on cue from that center of mass to keep things right on target in the fast lane. I am only just beginning to understand this kind of skiing.

I see a superb athlete who can blend movements in ways few bears could even imagine.
Pierre, good posting. I personally focus on my hips and not on my skis. I try to keep the CoM in the right place because if I dont nothing els matters. If I keep my hips in the right place everything else follows. The nudges you are talking about reminds me of balance which is the basic foundation to everything we do standing on our feet. Your posting takes a step back from where we are at the moment and lets us look at HM skiing from a more general level. Nothing wrong with that offcourse but the relece question remains unsolved.
post #76 of 84

Sorry guys...

...please disregard that last. I am not having a good year, for reasons having nothing to do with skiing, and I didn't mean to lose it. Please continue this discussion...sans moi...
post #77 of 84
Thread Starter 
I'm getting out before I lose it.
post #78 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by tdk6 View Post
Can you get me the link to Ricks article.

http://snowheads.com/ski-forum/viewtopic.php?t=31521
post #79 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkiRacer55 View Post
...please disregard that last. I am not having a good year, for reasons having nothing to do with skiing, and I didn't mean to lose it. Please continue this discussion...sans moi...
Common SkiRacer55, nothing wrong with your last posting! Try to fix the problem we wount go anywhere.
post #80 of 84
Im losing my job if I dont get out....
post #81 of 84
Hey you guys are all super experts and i mean that as a compliment ----ME i just ski . It's obvious that you all will forget more than i'll ever know about this sport

BUT as a layman when i watch these guys i am in AWE . In my simple analysis its like choosing between two finely tuned machines e.g. a Beemer Or a Benz --both great but differant strengths.

Bode is seemingly more INTUITIVE in his style whereas the Herminator seems more STRUCTURED -- but hey i'm only a guy who luvs skiing and certainly no expert at any finer points of technique
post #82 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by tdk6 View Post
Pierre, good posting. I personally focus on my hips and not on my skis. I try to keep the CoM in the right place because if I dont nothing els matters. If I keep my hips in the right place everything else follows. The nudges you are talking about reminds me of balance which is the basic foundation to everything we do standing on our feet. Your posting takes a step back from where we are at the moment and lets us look at HM skiing from a more general level. Nothing wrong with that offcourse but the relece question remains unsolved.
It's not unsolved in my mind.
post #83 of 84
I like Pierre's focus on the core.

The feet and legs exploit the forces, that move the core, that tip the feet, that turn the skis that Jack built.

Pierre, you want to do a thread? Ya think it's worth the bother?
post #84 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
It's not unsolved in my mind.
Not in my either .... . . .
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching