or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › Simultaneous tipping vs independent ski tipping
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

# Simultaneous tipping vs independent ski tipping - Page 6

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Roto My, what fun taking statements out of context can be!!
Always is! Welcome to the internets!
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Max_501 Some ankle movement is beneficial for balance and fine tuning movements.
I've always taken this as gospel (it is repeated by many qualified people) but I've never really seen it proven. It occurs to me that my closest fitting boots with the least movement anywhere are my favorite, although I really dislike fully/stiffly posted footbeds.
Quote:
 Interesting statement. Not something I agree with though and neither would any of the coaches I know.
Let us see the pics or video of someone tipping the new inside ski before they tip the old one.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by BigE It's called inertia and you know it.
I'm not trying to be obtuse. There are significant differences in the way you need to describe these things depending on what you choose as a frame of reference. However, in any frame you choose, the CM does not accelerate without a force acting upon it. The mass moment of inertia is our analogue to mass for rotational frames, and it is useful in understanding how moments will effect the orientation of the body. In non-rotating frames, inertial mass is useful in understanding the relationship between momentum and velocity. Momentum nor inertia explain how the skier "moves the CM" without clever use of the skis and snow.

There is one rather predictable force acting on the skier's CM. See: falling apple. Any other non-trivial acceleration (movement, deflection) of the skier's CM will come from forces created at the ski/snow interface.
Max, 100% can move their legs simultaneously. It just isn't that hard. What I suspect from your postings is that you have had trouble doing so in the past and the solution given you as advice has become biblical dogma. You stated several time that you allow the CoM to flow into the new turn. A more accurate statement would be that when you release the old outside ski, gravity pulls you into the new turn. Momentum plays a part in our trajectory as well but for this discussion it is safe to assume that we all agree that it will cause us to travel in a straight line when we release the skis. At least for a few moments. Remembering that Gravity is the motive force in play here should make this clearer to you. It acts upon our whole body not just part of it. The picture of Bode bears this out quite nicely because until he releases the old turn he is still resisting gravity and momentum. What the rest of his body is doing is irrelevent because until he releases that ski he is going to continue to turn across the hill. The fact that he wedges for a split second only proves he is in a hurry to get the new edge established. Probably to maintain the line he has chosen. Even so this is a racer using whatever it takes to get through that combination of gates. He is also the poster child for skiing off course because his timing was off that day. Inventive? Yes. Consistent? Hardly. If you want consistency use an example like Benni Raich.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by justanotherskipro Max, 100% can move their legs simultaneously.
Just 5 minutes watching advanced skiers at any resort will contradict that statement.
Is it at all possible for me to be a competent skier if I find myself completely lost reading this thread and have never once thought about which leg to tip and how. I just do it, and I honestly could not tell you whether I am simultaneous or independent w/o going up to the slopes and skiing to check.

These technique threads always make me feel like a beginner
No it won't Max. Niether will watching a couple hundred hours of video. BTW if you wanna do that? I have that in my archives. I also have an edit suite if you want to break it down frame by frame. Come on over.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by justanotherskipro No it won't Max. Niether will watching a couple hundred hours of video. BTW if you wanna do that? I have that in my archives. I also have an edit suite if you want to break it down frame by frame. Come on over.
Oh man, I'd bring your beverage and snack of choice if was in the neighborhood sometime convenient for you. Sounds pretty awesome.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by PhilT Is it at all possible for me to be a competent skier if I find myself completely lost reading this thread
No worries Phil, it is probably a good sign that this thread leaves you scratching your head. It's either that or get angry at how senseless much of it is (and I've contributed to that) so being lost is a good choice.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by BillA The result is the same though. This thread will undoubtedly go on for four or five pages dissecting five or six words. Or maybe the real intent is to undermine the Ask a Ski Pro forum.
Prophetic! Bill is so spot on with his prediction. This has become tedious and tiresome. What do I think of the phrase Max used from something I said in another thread? I believe what I said and can substantiate it with whatever proof you could ask for. The trigger might seem to be an isolated movement but IMO that does not happen the way Max describes it. Our legs are the supporting structure that keeps our torso suspended over the ground. Change one leg's length or it's orientation and the rest of the system changes as well. The CoM moves simultaneously with that leg movement. What is not defined is in which direction because it depends on how you move the limb. But the CoM moves with every body movement we make. How can you even debate that point. The CoM is not a place on the body, it is a mathematical idea. In addition I wonder why there is any debate over the consequences of changing something about the leg we are using the most to resist gravity and momentum. The immediate effect happens to the whole body not just part of it because the leg we are talking about is supporting most of the weight of the entire body. The rest of this sillyness is born from a tendency to take everything too literally and look for things to disagree with. Not what I would describe as a positive and productive learning environment.

That's not to say any of you need to agree with me, far from it. We all can learn from each other when we actually share more than opinions. Show your work and why you came to your conclusions though. If you claim a source name it so others can investigate it independent of your conclusion. E did so and was flamed for it. BTW E, I would love to sit down and discuss why you have come to your conclusion because you are not afraid to name names. I respect that a lot more than someone using an un-named source and offering it as some sort of quasi-authority.

Max, I feel you're wrong in your conclusions but it really doesn't matter to me much if you disagree with my understanding of all of this. Do what your coaches say but next time you quote them give them credit for what they are doing by using their names. Beyond that has it occured to any of you that Paul was offended and left long ago? Maybe we should follow his lead and close this thread by agreeing to disagree...
I have been following this thread all along, ball in hand but not wanting to get back in the game.

There are a few of us that actually go out on the snow and work more than one theory through the movements. We are looking for the proof to ourselves to make sure what we are presenting to our studends is correct to the best of our knowledge. The process is similar to proofs in Algebra.

To do this you have to be kinda like a student yourself and use gross motor movements and add in the various things you are trying to prove. Each will have a slightly different outcome and each movement will produce different results. In so doing this exercise we gain lateral knowledge about many different things that can and do work. We do not sit on our laurals and accept dogma or one theory. We always revisit what we have done in the past to see if we can improve our understanding. That is, run through the proofs again.

When we encounter a student who is moving in a certain pattern we easily identify what is going on and have already proofed out what works best. Our student is the beneficiary of that work.

What else does proving out theories do for us? We can look at these arguments and see each persons position and their perspective because we have the lateral knowledge to do so.

Most of these arguments are from the position of one person assuming the other doesn't understand. Most of the time this is not true but each has his own perspective and narrow focus on how to get results on the same issue. This is all fine and good for achieving individual skiing results but it really is limiting when teaching students. For the record I really don't see anything here that does not have some validity.
Nice post Pierre. What offends me about this thread is that instead of asking a direct question to me Max ran to another part of the site to debate something I wrote. He does not ask for clarification or even ask to debate what I wrote. Nowhere does he show his work and why it draws him to his conclusions. He only spouts an unsupported opinion based on erroneous assumptions of terms and math he clearly does not understand. Then he quotes his un-named coaches as a source. That to me is wrong. It is also one of the reasons others are reluctant to share anything on this site.

### I couldn't agree more, BigE!

Quote:
 Originally Posted by BigE I really feel sorry for Max when he posts. Everytime he says "I do it like this...." there is a knee-jerk reaction where folks attempt to discredit the system that taught him to ski. The absurdity of some of the postings people make to try to do so is truly Epic. It would be a laughable situation if he could not actually ski, but in fact he does ski quite well. It's as if there is a fatwah against his technique, including movements that are being taught by traditional ski schools. I find it bizarre. It's too bad really.
Sadly, this happens all too often when Max participates in technical discussions on this forum. I can't believe the condescension that inevitably comes out in these types of discussions. I used to feel sorry for Max every time he started one of these threads, but I've come to realize that he's simply a technique theory masochist.

From what I have seen, Max has appropriately started a branch discussion from a previous discussion on another forum, and opened the topic up for dissection in a more appropiate place. I think it's a great topic, and should encourage some heated (yet professional) debate, but instead has spawned accusations of argumentative intentions and "stealing" thread titles.

And JASP, nobody precluded you from participating in this discussion over here. Max didn't need to, nor doesn't have to ask you [exclusively] a direct question on this thread. You're still welcome to respond to it, just like everyone else.

Let's remember that there really is no "right" or "wrong" in skiing, and "better" or "more efficient" or "easier" skiing is a matter of individual perception and opinion. It's important to take note that Max (and others) try to express that in their responses (most of the time) by coming from the viewpoints of "I do it this way" or "This is what works for me" or "Yes, I recognize that as an alternative way, but I don't agree it's the best way."

Perhaps if we keep some of these things in mind, these discussions will be more productive, (i.e., less "tedious and tiresome") with more participants, and we all may grow a little in our skiing knowledge and ability. I, for one, am planning on taking notes from this thread and experimenting on snow for myself... even those ideas I disagree with in theory.

And if we disagree with another skier, why can't we just agree to disagree, and recognize and respect our adversary as a fellow ski enthusiast who is happy with their own techniques and styles? Why does it always have to come down to denigrating other coaches, organizations, and associations?

Let's try to raise the level of interaction so that our forum can provide us more stimulation and less aggravation.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Max_501 First, the difference in tipping timing is a split second. You probably wouldn't see it without frame by frame video in normal skiing so any divergence would be minimal.
I think you're right....
Quote:
 Originally Posted by justanotherskipro Nice post Pierre. What offends me about this thread is that instead of asking a direct question to me Max ran to another part of the site to debate something I wrote.He does not ask for clarification or even ask to debate what I wrote.
What? The very first post of this thread most certainly gives you the ability to clarify and opens the idea up for debate. Sounds like you wanted that to happen privately? Why?

Quote:
 Originally Posted by justanotherskipro Nowhere does he show his work and why it draws him to his conclusions.
And where have you shown the work you've done that has drawn you to the conclusions you have?

Quote:
 Originally Posted by justanotherskipro He only spouts an unsupported opinion...
Unsupported opinion? I spelled out exactly how I make this movement, exactly how I was taught to make the movement. Its not an opinion, its fact.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by justanotherskipro ...based on erroneous assumptions of terms and math he clearly does not understand.
So, what terms am I making erroneous assumptions over? What math (you must mean physics) principals do you think I don't grasp?

Quote:
 Originally Posted by justanotherskipro Then he quotes his un-named coaches as a source. That to me is wrong.
Now I'm confused. I thought I wasn't supposed to do that. Heck, I'd be happy to quote text, page numbers, book titles, etc...
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Baja I, for one, am planning on taking notes from this thread and experimenting on snow for myself... even those ideas I disagree with in theory.
I am the one very interested to know what would be the essential difference between simultaneous, less than simultaneous and intentionally non-simultaneous. I got Max's point. But I don't quite understand the mechanism behind what would happen if a certain extend of as-synchronous movement exist. In fact I can try it out on real snow. But learning from the experts is probably the best way out.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by carver_hk I am the one very interested to know what would be the essential difference between simultaneous, less than simultaneous and intentionally non-simultaneous.
Ideally the skis will be at the same edge angle. That would be perfect. The question is how do you get there? From a biomechanical point of view tipping both legs the exact same amount at the same time is difficult because its much harder for the average person to tip to the little toe edge. So one common result of a simultaneous movement is that the outside ski ends up with a larger edge angle than the inside ski. I have been taught that starting with tipping the outside ski to the little toe edge yields cleans turns (matching edge angles) more often than a simultaneous edge tipping approach. Clearly, there are others here that don't agree.

Play around with that movement while standing on your skis and see what you feel. After that work on tipping just the inside ski to the little toe edge (LTE) and see what you feel. Do some traverses tipping the inside ski to the LTE but trying to keep the outside ski flatter. After you get the feel for that do some turns with a focus on tipping to the LTE of the inside ski first and being passive about the outside ski's edge.
Thank you Max. I ll try out your move tomorrow on snow.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Max_501 Do some traverses tipping the inside ski to the LTE but trying to keep the outside ski flatter.
Is this move considered simultaneous or non-simultaneous? I ask because somehow each leg is doing something, actively or passively. I don't know how to distinquish.
carver-hk, you probably know by now that I came up as an instructor in bygone days through the Austrian, French and American ski teaching systems, they were very different but have converged by now to where they are very similar, often identical.

That said, the Austrians and the French and the Americans in the beginning taught skiing in a very narrow stance with skis and boot touching though not necessarily in a knee lock. The reason was that with the equipment at the time to make the outside ski turn, all the weight had to be on it.

The inside ski was pressed against the other ski and boot with the inside ski advanced so the front of that ski would ride against the shovel of the outside ski and not cross.

My point is that in that stance every transition had simultaneous edge change, lead change and weight change happening by necessity. To facilitate the transition unweighting was employed, the Austrians used what it called up-unweighting and the French used down unweighting though in reality all unweighting is down unweighting. The Austrians going up before sinking down just gave the unweighting phase more time since it started from a higher point and the French going down from wherever the skier was in time took much more finesse since it lasted a shorter time.

So simultaneous edge change has been happening for at least 50 years in parallel turns. With equipment advances some weight could be carried on the inside ski making independent leg action possible and desirable and the ski stance could open up (though it opened up way far in some teaching to give more stability to the beginner student and became the standard for all teaching but I think it has come back to what is designated as a comfortable width).

In the present a good skier skiing in a stance 4-6 inches between skis can use each ski independently and release either one first or both at the same time. The latter is the most uncomplicated sing it doesn't involve anything more than flowing over the skis which rolls them onto their new edges.

Max comes from the Harb school which advocates of not starting the new turn until the body is well past the skis toward the inside of the next turn, thus as they release the old downhill/outside ski while the old inside ski is still carving in the previous turn and direction, getting the body already toward the center of the new turn and being in position to carve the new outside ski as soon as it rolls over.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that and works great for skiers who have mastered it. There is also nothing wrong with simultaneous edge change or even inside ski initiated transitions, good skiers can do each at will and not have the tail of the skis wash out unless intended.

I hope you can follow all my inside/outside, up and down, etc. in this post.

....Ott
Quote:
 Originally Posted by carver_hk I am the one very interested to know what would be the essential difference between simultaneous, less than simultaneous and intentionally non-simultaneous. I got Max's point. But I don't quite understand the mechanism behind what would happen if a certain extend of as-synchronous movement exist. In fact I can try it out on real snow. But learning from the experts is probably the best way out.
Here's my take on it Carver.

Quote:
 intentionally non-simultaneous
this lies in the realm of "conscious competence". when we are thinking ourselves through something we are unable to address several things at once in so short a time. So we focus on something that will trigger the desired response in a synergetic way. the question we need to ask is this, do we want to stay with this level of performance, or do we want to elevate it to the unconscious competence level?

Quote:
 simultaneous
To me this simply a reference to the synchronized synergy we perform with at the unconscious competence level. The level when one part moves, all parts move. The thinking body and dancing mind. This sepparateness of parts, all moving in harmony, doesn't preclude being simultaneous, nor does it mean to me that all parts are doing exactly the same thing. Only that all parts are motivated and moving simultaneously. And split seconds become smaller and smaller as training becomes second nature and our experience mothers quicker and more simultaneous anticipatory and pre-emptive movements.

I think it is important that we don't confuse what we do to train ourselves to perform movements and develope applied skill, with the level of performance we ultimately want our training to take us to, or our ultimate goal of performance.

Thinking your self through something has never been the fastest way to get anything done. It is a nessassary step on the way through our learning though. Once the learning happens and our experience shapes our learning, then the body will know if we need to be sequential versus simultaneous, or even some combination of the two, with respect ot the various parts.

We intentionally hobble ourselves to guide and direct our training, but should the ultimate intent be to make the hobbles permanent?
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Ott Gangl My point is that in that stance every transition had simultaneous edge change, lead change and weight change happening by necessity.
That's only because you couldn't nit-pick it to death 1/30th of a second at atime with video.

It seems to me that the level of simultaneous vs. non-simultaneous we are talking about in this thread has nothing to do with "Which ski do I turn first?"
Quote:
 Ideally the skis will be at the same edge angle. That would be perfect. The question is how do you get there? From a biomechanical point of view tipping both legs the exact same amount at the same time is difficult because its much harder for the average person to tip to the little toe edge. So one common result of a simultaneous movement is that the outside ski ends up with a larger edge angle than the inside ski. I have been taught that starting with tipping the outside ski to the little toe edge yields cleans turns (matching edge angles) more often than a simultaneous edge tipping approach. Clearly, there are others here that don't agree.

Quote:
 one common result of a simultaneous movement is that the outside ski ends up with a larger edge angle than the inside ski.
That result would come from them not moving the same amount and at the same rate, not whether they moved at the same time Max.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by RicB That result would come from them not moving the same amount and at the same rate, not whether they moved at the same time Max.
No doubt, but the biomechanics make it tough to tip them the same amount at the same time. Hence, one of the reasons tipping the outside ski to the LTE first is a good thing.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Max_501 Do some traverses tipping the inside ski to the LTE but trying to keep the outside ski flatter.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by carver_hk Is this move considered simultaneous or non-simultaneous? I ask because somehow each leg is doing something, actively or passively. I don't know how to distinquish.
In the traverse drill mentioned above its simultaneous (tip one ski while keeping the other flatter).

Active = using your muscles to tip the ski onto its edge
Passive = letting the ski edge on its own (don't intentionally evert that foot)
Quote:
 To me this simply a reference to the synchronized synergy we perform with at the unconscious competence level. The level when one part moves, all parts move. The thinking body and dancing mind. This sepparateness of parts, all moving in harmony, doesn't preclude being simultaneous, nor does it mean to me that all parts are doing exactly the same thing. Only that all parts are motivated and moving simultaneously. And split seconds become smaller and smaller as training becomes second nature and our experience mothers quicker and more simultaneous anticipatory and pre-emptive movements. I think it is important that we don't confuse what we do to train ourselves to perform movements and develop applied skill, with the level of performance we ultimately want our training to take us to, or our ultimate goal of performance.
It's gems like this one from RicB that make wading through another of Max's Mind Benders worthwhile. Thank you, Ric.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by RicB I think it is important that we don't confuse what we do to train ourselves to perform movements and develop applied skill, with the level of performance we ultimately want our training to take us to, or our ultimate goal of performance.
Good point, and it's important not to get too hung up on "final form". Expert skiers should be versatile and capable of different movement patterns.
Here are some examples of racers starting turns by tipping the new outside ski:
http://www.ronlemaster.com/images/20...2006-gs-1.html
http://www.ronlemaster.com/images/la...2006-sl-2.html
http://www.ronlemaster.com/images/la...2006-gs-2.html

And some by tipping the new inside ski:
http://www2.raisport.rai.it/news/spo...idierCuche.jpg
http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/msnbc/C...5a.hmedium.jpg

And of course you can see many examples where both skis are tipped simultaneously.

We should be careful about applying universal concepts like "right" or "wrong" to any particular movements in given situations.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Max_501 When looking at the leg, does it make more sense to use the muscles closest to the snow or farthest from the snow to control our movements on the snow?
Let me think, in tennis the kinetic chain goes something like this: your upper body rotation movement pulls through your shouder on your upper arm that that through the ellbow pulls on your lower arm that through your wrist pulls on your fist that pulls on your racket that hits the ball. Correct me if Im wrong. How does it go in skiing? IMHO ancle roll causes my knee to move inside before my hip does. That is not a good anticipatory movement pattern for creating a strong stance.

The reason I think of turning from my hipps is that if I start tipping at my ancle my hips will allways be late. I need to put the hips in the right place before progressive tipping is applied to full extent. Thats why I start my tipping at my hips with PMTS approved counter movement or flexing of the outside leg. That femure rotation caused by countermovement or the offcet of CoM by OLF will start tipping my skis.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by tdk6 IMHO ancle roll causes my knee to move inside before my hip does. That is not a good anticipatory movement pattern for creating a strong stance.
This was addressed earlier. Just put some tension in your hip muscles when you tip and you'll start the chain reaction of foot tipping, tibia tipping, femur tipping, hip into turn.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by tdk6 The reason I think of turning from my hipps is that if I start tipping at my ancle my hips will allways be late. I need to put the hips in the right place before progressive tipping is applied to full extent. Thats why I start my tipping at my hips with PMTS approved counter movement or flexing of the outside leg. That femure rotation caused by countermovement or the offcet of CoM by OLF will start tipping my skis.
That movement pattern is pretty much opposite of what I know or do.

Here's something that might be of interest to you:

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Bob Barnes/Colorado "Every action should have its source in the feet and its direction coming from the center." -â€”Peter Ralston, from "The Principles of Effortless Power" I like this quote. Think of your movements originating not in the hips, but in your feet. Tiny little muscles with fine motor control, directly attached to your skis, will add precision and accuracy to your skiing. To start a new turn, rather than thinking "move my hips into the new turn," think "tip my downhill ski (old outside, new inside ski) toward its downhill edge." This subtle move will release its edge, and will pull the rest of your body in the right direction.
Thank you all for the detailed explanation.

Ott Gangl - Yes, I did know your background already by following some other post. I believe your wealth of experience did help to clearly tell what's going on about the 'simultaneous' issue. I fully understand what you said.
- In fact I believe I am using the same method you described about Max.

RicB - I guess this is a very good logic about learning especially in skiing. There are simply way too many variables to consider. So sometimes I think it helps to memorise a certain very simple rules. (of course need to understand and appreciate those rules beforehand). Harden each into our muscles through practice. Hope that my understanding is not far from yours.

Max - got it.
I've been a bit surprised by the strong reaction regarding my suggestion that the inside ski should tip first because I've seen this exact movement pattern mentioned on Epic before. Note the last sentence and the emphasis on the word "must".

Here's one example:

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Bob Barnes/Colorado Since the later 1980's, there has been increasing focus on and continued understanding of the very important role of the inside foot and leg. Both tipping and steering movements must originate with the inside foot. If we are going IN the direction of the turn (as opposed to just throwing the skis into a skid), then the inside foot, leg, and ski are IN the way! They MUST move first!
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Max_501 I've been a bit surprised by the strong reaction regarding my suggestion that the inside ski should tip first because I've seen this exact movement pattern mentioned on Epic before. Note the last sentence and the emphasis on the word "must". Here's one example:
It's because YOU suggested it.
You beat me to it MilesB.
>>>I've been a bit surprised by the strong reaction regarding my suggestion that the inside ski should tip first because I've seen this exact movement pattern mentioned on Epic before.<<<

I thought you advocated to tip the OUTSIDE ski first for a release, am I wrong in thinking this?

...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Return Home
Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching