New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Wedge Turn - Page 4

post #91 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssh View Post
And I call it right back. Perhaps you need to view the video, but what you are describing is not what tdk6 has described, nor what he does. He actively moves his upper body out over his new outside ski. I stand by my earlier comment about how the ski education associations with which I am familiar view such a movement.

Ya, I acknowledged I never saw the video...my comments were based on my interpretation of what he wrote.
post #92 of 106
Actually, if you look really carefully at the video, yes, you can see the upper body movement, but look closer and you will see that tdk6 is using a lot of rotary (pivoting) in his wedge........

As well as a healthy amount of steering angle
post #93 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by RicB View Post
I assume by jet wedges you mean something like a crab walk. Skiing in a wedge, tip one ski to a hard edge and the other flattens. Sure, required to pass level one at our mountain.

Do I see people who don't use rotary effectively? You bet. Do I see people who don't use edges effectively? You bet. What has happened in skiing is we are now moving from the one extreme of twisting into every turn to the other extreme of simply riding the edges in every turn with no ability to shape the turn. In between these two extremes is where we need to live.

If you think that rotary skills/movements can not be taught effectively to complement the other skills/movements then I will politely disagree.

But then I practice the Supreme Ultimate rotary methodology, T'ai Chi Chaun, so I have been corrupted.
post #94 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidude72 View Post
What was inaccurate? Don't pass off your misunderstanding and misrepresentations onto others.
I was referring to MY inaccurate use in the context of my reply, not yours.
post #95 of 106
Ghost,

I think SkiDude's comments in #70 reply fairly well to your question. From a slightly different perspective, here are two tactical views, kind of related, to progressing towards full parallel:

1. add a bit of speed, and the skis naturally want to slide parallel through more of the turn
2. use a longer turn radius with a narrower wedge, and again there will be a natural tendency for the skis to run more in parallel.

SkiDude also correctly points out that the Christie progression hasn't been part of CSIA pedagogy since the early 90's. What I do find interesting is that there are elements of the old model that still show up, in somewhat revised fashion. This shows some good progress in defining technique, while indicating that there were some good ideas from the past as well.

The current Novice Turn bears some similarity to the old Glide Christie, in that it introduces parallel skis at the end of the turn. When I look at Fast Track to Parallel, I see hints of the old Elementary Christie. The very significant change (a good change, I think) is that current methodology does not emphasize these milestone indicators as final forms that need to be perfected along the way, and also that it is okay to skip over some steps if the student is progressing well.
post #96 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogulmuncher View Post
The very significant change (a good change, I think) is that current methodology does not emphasize these milestone indicators as final forms that need to be perfected along the way, and also that it is okay to skip over some steps if the student is progressing well.
Unfortunately, there is nothing published or taught that defines what this means. In my mind, the skills and their required display during fast tracking must be specifically addressed if you are going to allow instructors to skip steps. What happens if that student progresses, and possibly even becomes an instructor, and remains clueless about the missing steps? They will lack the criteria to determine if they should skip some steps.

But, instructors WANT to skip steps, since it lets them ski more and demo less of the small stuff. So what happens?

If you give them the opportunity to avoid teaching low level movements, they WILL take it. IMO, the student is far worse off for being led through a progression that is not fully understood by the instrutor than they would be if they were taught to teach and evaluate each and every step in gory detail.

IMO, there is too much rush to let the hill be the teacher. Too little time is spent perfecting the small stuff.
post #97 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogulmuncher View Post
Ghost,

I think SkiDude's comments in #70 reply fairly well to your question. From a slightly different perspective, here are two tactical views, kind of related, to progressing towards full parallel:

1. add a bit of speed, and the skis naturally want to slide parallel through more of the turn
2. use a longer turn radius with a narrower wedge, and again there will be a natural tendency for the skis to run more in parallel.

SkiDude also correctly points out that the Christie progression hasn't been part of CSIA pedagogy since the early 90's. What I do find interesting is that there are elements of the old model that still show up, in somewhat revised fashion. This shows some good progress in defining technique, while indicating that there were some good ideas from the past as well.

The current Novice Turn bears some similarity to the old Glide Christie, in that it introduces parallel skis at the end of the turn. When I look at Fast Track to Parallel, I see hints of the old Elementary Christie. The very significant change (a good change, I think) is that current methodology does not emphasize these milestone indicators as final forms that need to be perfected along the way, and also that it is okay to skip over some steps if the student is progressing well.
post #98 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE View Post
IMO, there is too much rush to let the hill be the teacher. Too little time is spent perfecting the small stuff.
Agree. I always say that an extra hour on the magic carpet won't hurt you when you have te whole rest of your life to ski.
post #99 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by epic View Post
Agree. I always say that an extra hour on the magic carpet won't hurt you when you have te whole rest of your life to ski.
Excelpt for the fact that many LTS programs promise that you'll be skiing from the top by the end of the day
post #100 of 106
Thankfully, ours doesn't.
post #101 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE View Post
If you give them the opportunity to avoid teaching low level movements, they WILL take it. IMO, the student is far worse off for being led through a progression that is not fully understood by the instrutor than they would be if they were taught to teach and evaluate each and every step in gory detail.

IMO, there is too much rush to let the hill be the teacher. Too little time is spent perfecting the small stuff.
Although I prefer to put this in the positive, I think this is right on. As in any sport, the time spent on the fundamentals is critical. Cover all the components, polish skills, checking for understanding, take responsibility for the guest "getting it."

If I make an assumption that the student is getting it just so I can move on, I have not fulfilled my role as a coach/teacher for them. It's vitally important that I connect the dots for them. Otherwise, we're out of integrity with the promise we make. Help them really learn, and avoid the temptation to label "success" when it's really not.
post #102 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by From accross the pond View Post
Hello all.
I was recently teaching a group of 4 beginners on a dry slope here in the UK. A couple of them were having trouble getting to grips with the method of twisting in a narrow wedge to change direction so I tried them with the method of putting more pressure on one ski to turn. This seemed to work better for them & they said made it easier to turn. Just wondered if you guys have a method or methods which get better results & one which you favour?
Looking forward to hear your experienced advice.
After 100 posts, are you guys any closer to answering this? :
post #103 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE View Post
But, instructors WANT to skip steps, since it lets them ski more and demo less of the small stuff. So what happens?

If you give them the opportunity to avoid teaching low level movements, they WILL take it. IMO, the student is far worse off for being led through a progression that is not fully understood by the instrutor than they would be if they were taught to teach and evaluate each and every step in gory detail.

IMO, there is too much rush to let the hill be the teacher. Too little time is spent perfecting the small stuff.
Bad teachers want to take the students too quickly off the magic carpet. Why should we build our world of teaching arround bad teachers? BTW, when I ski with students its in my interest to see that the student makes it down without any problems and safely. It works the other way arround, the students usually the one making the request to go into steeper terrain. Or lets say the parrents if its a kid I teach.

The small stuff is turning by weight transfer. Flattening the new inside ski, guiding, rotating, big toe goes here and bla bla bla... if I cannot understand half of it and make it work I doubt any beginner student will, especially a 4 y old.
post #104 of 106
I have found in my own skiing that the time I spend skiing on "easy" terrain (relatively speaking for each skier) is a great investment. My goal is to take a run or two on easy terrain as my first runs in the morning and after a prolonged break to refine my skills and sensations.

Of course, on a powder day it might be a bit different...
post #105 of 106
tdk6, keep doing what you're doing. It's great to introduce angulation,balance management, and taking full control of turn shape early on. I wish more would do it. Perhaps we would have fewer low edge leaners and tail pushers littering the slopes.

Epic is on the right track. What's the rush? Don't waste the opportunity to introduce a range of skills in a safe environment, on a safe platform. The earlier they start, the further they will go. Fast tracks often lead to dead ends.
post #106 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE View Post
Unfortunately, there is nothing published or taught that defines what this means. In my mind, the skills and their required display during fast tracking must be specifically addressed if you are going to allow instructors to skip steps. What happens if that student progresses, and possibly even becomes an instructor, and remains clueless about the missing steps? They will lack the criteria to determine if they should skip some steps.
Good thoughts here. To me, the issue of completeness is addressed when I see who I am teaching. I have different approaches to general lessons vs instructor training lessons. A lot of things which are very important for an instructor to know don't generate the same level of interest for the general public, so I don't mind accommodating that by leaving them out of the general lesson (the CSIA catch phrases here are "student centred teaching" and "guest experience").

Maybe I can clarify with examples in context:
If I have a nominal beginner skier in a class who is athletic, confident, and maybe with some skills transferable from another sport (e.g. hockey), there's a real good chance that there won't be a lot of emphasis on snow plow turns. It's worth showing, of course, because even racers might use a snow plow occasionally (course inspection & maintenance for example).

If that same skier develops skills and interest to the point that they want to be an instructor, then they will be back for another lesson which does focus on snowplow, because as an instructor, they must know all the steps.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching