or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › What is right and wrong in skiing?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What is right and wrong in skiing? - Page 2

post #31 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by prickly View Post
For what it's worth, Phil Mahre claimed that Tomba always went to bed early, then got up for an hour or so in the middle of the night to be seen around town, then headed right back to bed. I have no idea if this is true, but Tomba certainly was egotistical enough to try to fuel his image that way. One thing for sure: he has an insatiable apetite for attention. But unlike, say, John McEnroe, he's been unable to reinvent himself after retirement in a way that keeps him in the limelight as anything other than an "ex" (he isn't well enough spoken, for example, to be an analyst like Johnny Mac). I think he's dined out on the playboy image long enough. He was a great skier, don't get me wrong. I just think he took it a lot more seriously than he wanted people to think.
I don't doubt that for a second.

He's my hero, probably always will be because I grew up glued to the tv watching his hips drop and nearly touch the snow.

A few years back (if I remember correctly) he came out of retirement (this is after the shaped-ski revolution changed slalom skis so much) and held a Tomba Invitational and invited a bunch of modern day FIS slalom guys. He won. I think that's hysterical.
post #32 of 49
Just for you:


In reality, not a lot has changed.
post #33 of 49
Indeed, good pic.
post #34 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeluvaSkier View Post
Just for you:


In reality, not a lot has changed.
I think you're right about not a lot changing.

Cheers, mate. Those hips on those 7S's just made my day.
post #35 of 49
Thread Starter 
I'd almost think that some of the posts from #26 forward have proven my point... :
post #36 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by vail snopro View Post
I'd almost think that some of the posts from #26 forward have proven my point... :
I'd agree, but so far no one is picking apart the photo (please anyone who is thinking about it please don't do it here!). If we took the "art" or rather the athlete out of skiing, we would be left with a bunch of skiers who could flawlessly execute the same mechanical movements on snow. When we see an anomaly (say Bode for example) some will try to take what the anomaly is doing and fit it into a mold, or build a mold around it. As VSP says, this is taking the analysis too far - beyond technique - into a realm of in most cases pure speculation. The "larger frame of reference" is what should be looked toward for technique queues. As I said in another thread - skiers don't make turns frame-by-frame - why do people try to constantly fit them into a frame-by-frame box?

Later

GREG
post #37 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeluvaSkier View Post
Just for you:


In reality, not a lot has changed.
Exactly.
post #38 of 49
Thread Starter 
I'm bumping this in case some of you missed it before....
post #39 of 49
thanks for the after-lunch-tomba-special.
post #40 of 49

Yeah, uh huh...

Quote:
Originally Posted by samurai View Post
thanks for the after-lunch-tomba-special.
...the dude pretty much got it right most of the time. The best racers are like that, see what I said in this thread:


http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?t=61061&page=3
post #41 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by vail snopro View Post
My purpose in creating this thread is simple. It is that those who deem themselves qualified to evaluate and comment upon another person's skiing remember that even their experience and understanding limits them to a subjective opinion of anothers performance.

When they themselves are critiqued, the first thing they might think is "How do you know what I was feeling, intending, or experiencing?". And therefore, the analysis is viewed to be tainted.

Everyone is subject to this same result. I don't care what level a skier you are, or what level of experience an instr might have. It is the same for everyone.
I don't think anyone on this site thinks of Skiing as something that is quantifiable. I mean, you'll get those who talk about vectors all the time, but I don't think even they get on the snow and calculate the correct edge angle for the day's conditions. I'm pretty sure talking about that stuff just helps them pass the time during summer. You'll notice how a lot of the REALLY technical stuff dies down every winter, to be picked up again around July.

Since "the art" of Skiing (to use your parlance) is unquantifiable, you're right, every time advice is given, it's just a subjective opinion based on limited information. And I still contend that people here have learned to take all advice with a grain of salt (sand?). I mean, really, what happens when a video is posted anyway?

First, there are stock reactions. Feet too far apart or too close together; weight too far back; hands not up; too much up and down movement; etc. You know, first reaction type stuff where people describe what they are seeing without offering anything else. Second, someone says something intelligent, and a bunch of people pile on with the same advice that was already described very well by the first guy. Third, someone else comes in with some outlandish theory and insane presciption that would probably lead to worse skiing rather than better skiing. Finally, two people argue over this way vs. that way (which almost always devolves into a system vs. system argument), everyone else stops looking at the thread, and the original poster is never really satisfied with the advice he received.

No, everybody on this site knows better than to take all advice given. People recognize the subjectivity of the comments, and pick and choose what they want. You caution people to take all advice as an opinion, but I feel as though people already are.
post #42 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by vail snopro View Post
Science is quantifiable, art is not. This concept is lost on most of the people debating every nuance of a turn on Epic.
Hmmm, what about fractals? Some art can certainly be quantified. Since this is a ski forum, I give you an artistic fractal every skier dreams of:

post #43 of 49
Thread Starter 
Gotta love that snowflake!


But despite its symetry and other aspects, science still can not tell why a crystal is formed! They can analyze it, define it, measure it... but WHY it forms stills eludes them...

It must be art!
post #44 of 49
Thread Starter 
Mattchuck-

I can only believe that given the amount of disagreement which is displayed on various tech threads, that people take their own opinions very seriously!

But because they are so willing to challenge others to prove their point, or to defend their point to the point of absurdity, then obviously my point is being made! That being that everyone is right, and everyone is wrong!

But since most will never look for the larger frame of reference, or give an honest evaluation of the other's point of view, their opinions, analysis, and resultant advice is lacking.

The original post was written in order to place all analysis in a larger reference frame- where any degree of accuracy is predetermined by the viewers ability, knowledge, understanding, and experience.

And even the most experienced, knowledgeable person on this site does not have a monopoly on analytical accuracy compared to others who's knowledge and experience far exceeds that of others!

So, as intended, this thread is about the relativity of each posters accuracy to the above mentioned criteria.
post #45 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by vail snopro View Post
Mattchuck-

I can only believe that given the amount of disagreement which is displayed on various tech threads, that people take their own opinions very seriously!

But because they are so willing to challenge others to prove their point, or to defend their point to the point of absurdity, then obviously my point is being made! That being that everyone is right, and everyone is wrong!

But since most will never look for the larger frame of reference, or give an honest evaluation of the other's point of view, their opinions, analysis, and resultant advice is lacking.

The original post was written in order to place all analysis in a larger reference frame- where any degree of accuracy is predetermined by the viewers ability, knowledge, understanding, and experience.

And even the most experienced, knowledgeable person on this site does not have a monopoly on analytical accuracy compared to others who's knowledge and experience far exceeds that of others!

So, as intended, this thread is about the relativity of each posters accuracy to the above mentioned criteria.
wow... so many words used to accomplish accuracy.

:
post #46 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by vail snopro View Post
"Skiing is subjective, in every respect. It is always and only judged by someone's opinion and/or understanding of skiing. Therefore, every person is right and every person is wrong, within that perspective.
When a single photograph, representing perhaps 1/500 of a second, is debated for weeks, without placing it within the context of a larger frame of reference, I feel sorry for those people. They really need to get a life!
The majority of this paragraph is well written.

But why do you "feel sorry" for posters who critique and analyze and nitpick their way on the forum?

"They really need to get a life?" Did it ever occur to you that these folks find satisfaction, even joy, in their meticulous analysis and opinionated suggestions? Perhaps that process contributes to their enjoyment of skiing?


If it bothers you to the point that you think... and write... that other posters "need to get a life," why not go read something else?


Quote:
This is where skiing becomes art, and no longer a science. Science is quantifiable, art is not. This concept is lost on most of the people debating every nuance of a turn on Epic. Especially people like [name deleted]. He just doesn't get it, YET! But I hope one day he will understand there is so much more to skiing than just the science part, the numbers, the force vectors."
So, you're saying that science/technical-minded folks aren't "getting enough" out of their skiing? They have to enjoy skiing the exact same way you do in order to "understand" what skiing is, what's to it, and how much is to it? They don't "get it" unless they get it and do it your way?



Quote:
My purpose in creating this thread is simple. It is that those who deem themselves qualified to evaluate and comment upon another person's skiing remember that even their experience and understanding limits them to a subjective opinion of anothers performance.

When they themselves are critiqued, the first thing they might think is "How do you know what I was feeling, intending, or experiencing?". And therefore, the analysis is viewed to be tainted.

Everyone is subject to this same result. I don't care what level a skier you are, or what level of experience an instr might have. It is the same for everyone.

VSP, some of the observations and descriptions you make here about the process of interpreting the sport of skiing are excellent, IMO. You just need to take those same concepts into consideration when criticizing the participation and personalities of other posters on this forum.

To point out, so coherently, that there really is no objective "right" or "wrong" in such a subjective experience as skiing, then turn around and claim that other people "need to get a life," is pure dichotomy.
post #47 of 49
Thread Starter 
Baja- please remember that what you are quoting is part of a letter I wrote to another Bear. It was not originally written for general consumption, but I did include it in my post.

My observation that "they really need to get a life" was an editorial comment about the amount of time wasted overanalyzing what should be a relatively simple thing to describe. Just as I have stated- rather than dissecting a single word or sentence, try viewing it in a larger context and you would no doubt understand what I meant.

Does anyone have to enjoy skiing the same way I do? Absolutely not, nor have I ever suggested or implied that. You are reading more into the individual words than the collective thought did imply. Once again, view it in a larger perspective.

For anyone to believe that they will reach any significant degree of performance while remaining in the dimension of analytical thought are deluding themsleves. Performance will plateau until that transition is made.

Even the most accomplished of skiers on this site, when attempting to establish a new pattern in their skiing, will realize a slight diminishing of their performance while focusing on that new pattern. But once ingrained, and the analytical dimension is again left behind, their performance will return to, or hopefully even be better than it was previously.
post #48 of 49
Don't think good skiing or bad,,, think broad skilled or limited.
post #49 of 49
Vail, everything in skiing is just a quantifiable as it is in flying. Liken the snow conditions to the atmosphere and the kind of skis as the type of aircraft .... the math is all there.

That's why perfectly good pilots with "xyz" ratings in "xyz" aircraft with "xyz" hours go out and stuff perfectly good airplanes into the ground.

The big "diff" is that there ain't no FAA examiner to stop you from "flying" ... "xyz" skis ... on "xyz" terrain with ... "xyz" ability ...

The math and numbers are all there ... we just don't quantify em' in skiing.

"Screwing the pooch" ... is .. well ... having the earth rise to smite thee down .. on skis or from the sky ... kinda' academic!

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › What is right and wrong in skiing?