Originally Posted by RicB
We are hard wired to involuntarily seek a vertical posture relative to gravity, yet our sport specific goals require that we actually violate and override this reflexive action and move relative to our goals, learning to utilize and be comfortable with "behavioral gravity" (forces of our movements and/or created by our movements and the skis action on the snow), or voluntary goal specific postural alignments. Even what our body recognizes and qualifies as effective balancing changes relevant to the voluntary goals we pursue.
I'm not sure that the bolding is really the case. Our body still recognizes pressure on the soles of the feet and proprioceptive sytstem as providing strong balancing cues. When running, we REALLY like using a banked track, as it is so much easier to balance in the corners, even though the vestibular and visual systems say we are not vertical.
However, we ARE upright, and the proprioceptive and visual systems are verifying what the pressure and proprioceptive systems are telling us.
As you may know, I define balance as simply that the resultant of all forces acting on the CM points into the Base Of Support. This is often simply taught to beginners as "hips over feet" or prehaps, "ears over feet". Others say that this definition of "in balance" means not falling down. I agree. There is no need to romanticize it any further.
The implication of that is when describing transition as a toppling/launch into the new turn, the resultant will not point inside the base of support. If you are really toppling: our momentum has taken us "out of balance".
So, to fix this, the notion of "balance in the future" is developed to make it ok that you are out of balance right now. Worse, is that "good skiing" means I have to lose balance in each turn, playing catch with my CM. Meanwhile, my body tells me that this loss of balance due to the CM's momentum is really happening. This is not a cue I wish to override by calling it "effective", nor do I wish to teach that sort of imbalance as part of skiing. I know, you're probably thinking: "Here comes that four letter acronym!" but no.
We CAN manage our balance effectively without resorting to redefinitions of words like "balance". We must realize that it is the management of momentum that should be addressed during transition, and how that impacts our balance.
I've been trying to formulate this idea for some time, it's very much a "work in progress".
I like the notion of the two separate arcs -- the arc of the skis and the arc of the CM. I believe managing their relationship so that there are out of balance parts of the turn embeds a recovery move in every turn. I prefer that we manage the relationship so that the skier remains balanced through all parts of the turn, yet can still do very well in a race.
This means that the skier must be very aware of the inertial path of the CM -- and his instantaneous momentum -- and utilize it together with tipping and turning the skis to control precisely where the path of the resultant or "balance vector" is moving. These are "directional movements" -- movement of the CM with the base of support.
The inertial path of the CM is something you can feel as you move from one side of a turn into the other, largely because of the pressures along the bottom of your feet and other proprioceptive cues. I'm quite sure that your lower half can move to ensure that the base of support is always under the balance vector, and, you are still skiing very athletically. (Through tipping, pivoting, waist steering, brushing etc... and judicious control of the momentum of the CM)
There is no need to teach that good skiing has any recovery moves. So, if that is the case, there is no need to short circuit or redirect our attention away from being in balance all the time.
Sorry for being so long winded.
Hopefully, there is something of value in it....