Technique Myths Debunked!! - Page 4

"Too much of anything is not good for you, baby"
- Barry White

SMJ, it's hard to comment without personally seeing your skiing when/as your old sage WC racer dude did. Coaches will make recommendations to correct problems they see. The suggestions are not necessarily end-all-be-all ways to ski, but often just ways to nudge students back toward more functional movement patterns. The problem could have been you were skiing with exaggerated counter, or creating it wrong, and he was trying to nudge you back toward more functional states. That would be my guess, and it sounds as though it worked well.

Counter has a purpose. Low edges angles allow for more square (follow the skis) skiing, and that rotational state can provide some great feeling carved turns. Both skis are uniformly under the body and easy to engage and manipulate, and adding a bit of knee angulation is somewhat easier. But as edge angles grow lateral balance becomes harder to maintain if some counter is not re-injected. If you view WC racer images you will see it's very seldom counter is not displayed at the apex of the turn. Often the amount of counter is great. They're using it primarily as a balancing tool.

So yes, counter has a place. The problem arises when people look at these WC images and say, "ah-ha, I need to counter like that when I ski", yet they are getting no where close to the edge angles those guys/gals are using. They thus end up in countered positions that exceed the need, and can even introduce negative repercussions.

So yes, you're right, this all does have to do with what I was getting at when I said: Counter has validity, and square has validity. Comprehensive understanding is knowing how/when/where/why to apply both. You commented earlier in this thread on the problems of black and white thinking. You were so right. Ski technique applied well displays a rainbow of colors.

Rick I think you hit the head right on the nail!

As we were skiing on moderate pitch terrain, the need for high edge angles wasn't there. He also pointed out that on steeper terrain, and with racers, the forces create different needs in our skiing.

I have been really pushing that inside hip forward, and doing it all the freaking time. Black and white thinking on my part. It totally freed me to allow my body to follow my skis again.

I love this sport! It just drives me a bit nuts trying to incorporate all the different ideas and approaches. Today I said "for now I'm trying different ways.but eventually i'll need to decide which approach to use!" But in reality Rick, as you say, there is no one way. I need to know them all, and most importantly when to use each one!

One of these days I will get some video taken and post it.

Right. Rolling the knees to initiate the new turn is great (and what a lot of us should be working on more, with an earlier initiation of the turn, rather than a pivot late) BUT as Richard (SkiRacer55) points out, sometimes you need a bigger change of direction than you can manage by just rolling the edge and using the sidecut.

Then, as Ron LeMaster points out, what you use is an unweighted pivot of skis before hook up (creating an initial steering angle that can be quite substantial.) By beginning your turn with the skis already pointed more down the fall line, you exit your turn pointed more across the hill.

Rick has a nice short post here on EpicSki somewhere with a suggested KISS approach to teaching/learning these pivot entry turns. It helps to finish your old turn by skiing into counter, thus creating anticipation/release as your upper body windup helps the lower body pivot before hook up of the new turn.

Note the total lack of counter in this video of Eric Guay freeskiing.

http://www.youcanski.com/video/guay_fr1.wmv

see how hips are always aligned in the direction of the turn

Yep, and that's a characteristic...

...of the way the Canadians ski as a group. Ron LeMaster: " I am not an absolutist. Bode skis with a lot of counter, Daron skis with very little counter...they both go fast..."

Helpful Hint

SMJ, here's a method I use for identifiing the amount of counter being employed when looking at still images;

- Observe the direction the outside ski is pointing, and project a line forward (out of the skis tip) in that direction.

- Project a line straight forward out of the skiers navel. Closely represents the direction the pelvis is pointing.

- The directional difference between the two lines you projected represents the amount of counter the skier is employing in the image.

Here are a few recent Ron Lemaster montages to experiment on:

http://ronlemaster.com/images/2006-2007-B/slides/ligety-aare-2006-gs-1.html

http://ronlemaster.com/images/2006-2007/slides/schld-aspen-2006-sl-2.html

http://ronlemaster.com/images/2005-2006/slides/rahlves-bc-2005-gs-2-web.html

http://ronlemaster.com/images/2005-2006/slides/bourque-aare-2006-gs-1.html

It's interesting and educational to work the counter determination method in each image of the montage, and notice how counter is applied by through the cycle of a turn.

Rolling the knees is risky. That puts the load on soft tissue that isn't made to carry much load. Your medial collateral ligament is loaded needlessly. Hitting a rut or lump at that time might be enough to pop it. As the Eric Guay video shows, one can get all the ski angle needed with saggitally straight knees (fore & aft) by allowing the hips to cross the skis.

The amount one can and should counter varies by individual. I know that I can't counter my hips as much as some of the guys I ski with, but we can both get the same effect. The purpose of counter is to take most of the range of rotation out of the hip joint to help maintain the grip of the ski tail. Try this...stand, raise one foot off the floor by tilting the pelvis. Rotate that foot inward...if right, point the right toe at your left foot...as far as you can. Now counter with your hips...rotate them the other way from where you are pointing the toes. Notice how that straightens your foot so it's pointing straight ahead? That's how countering the hips locks in the grip of the ski tail. It's not how far one counters, it's how much of each individual's range of motion is used up in the countering action. Countering also has the advantage of bringing the frontal abdominal muscles into use for angulating, vs. just using the weaker obliques.

Yep, exactly...

... a bunch of years ago, the idea was:

(1) Your dynamic balancing act. The skis are moving all over the place, the terrain is changing, the forces are changing direction and strength. If you can't figure out how to maintain your dynamic balance in these conditions, guess what? It won't make any difference what your intention is in terms of how you want to shape the turn, you'll just be fighting for balance, and the turn will never really happen.

(2) The first skill, and the one you use first, is steering. That's not skidding, which is uncontrolled. It's actively steering the feet so the skis line up with what Ron LeMaster calls the "initial steering angle" before you start romping on them.

(3) The next skill is edging...and guess what, if you steer a ski across a steep slope, that'll automatically buy you an initial edge angle.

(4) The next skill is pressuring...and guess what, if you steer a ski across a steep slope, and find and edge, your momentum will start bending the ski, no muscle power required. Watch Benni Raich do this sequence.

This what we used to do a bunch of years ago, when we didn't have skis that had torsional rigidity or any sidecut. Sounds like this method should work fine for today's skis, right? So why did we start inventing this technique that says "If you're not rocking up to a huge edge and pressuring it mightily at turn initiation, you ain't doin' squat."?

Often skiers (especially instructors, at least the ones I worked with, especially those in charge of the place) says that they are doing things they aren't doing, and claim to see things that aren't there.
I am not throwing this at anyone here, I'm stating the situation at the place I worked at. Theese guys were as an example claiming they were arcing in the GS course with skis that has a radius that is impossible to arc a gs course with. Then the ridiculous explanations of how they done it and how to do it etc. In their perception of reality maybe it was clear as water.

Well the situation that followed was that of course other guys listened to theese guys, nodding saying "hmm yes, I see" thinking that rotation is part of arcing when at the same time stating there is no rotation.

Sometimes analysis can go wrong.

On the other hand, many skiers often see skiing as "this is right", "that is wrong". I think that there are endless combinations of details in movements that all are correct for the right application.

There is a time for building up the turn from the sole, there is a time for positioning the body for a turn while in air landing on edges well into the turn. There's a whole spectrum in between.
There are times when the fore of the ski could use a lot of pressure, and yet there are times when it's a good idea to hang back of the boots out of the turn. There are times when you want to be absolutely in the middle of the boot, like when trying to gain speed on flat parts with long straight skis.
There are times when the transitions are made best with raising up the body and there are times when keeping low and letting the skis pass under is a better option. There are times when it doesn't matter at all and the right choice is what's most fun.
I think I could go on like this with just about every movement in skiing.

There really are "wrong" applications and "wrong" execution of movements, but it's really impossible to say this is right and that is wrong categorically.

Btw, in racing the guy who's fastest is right. When the other guys sees this, their "right" shifts to the new "right". Right?

Sorry....I just have to respond to this...comments in Blue I wanted to be diplomatic, I really did...but somtimes a post is so dumb, you just got to let them have it with both barrels.

Here I was, thinking I was agreeing with your last post Skidude.

Regarding the last words about racing, that could be both racer and coach right? Tell me you haven't heard coaches discussing how to implement what the other guys just did?

A. Obviously you have no clue about 3d transformations.
B. I think montages can be analyzed but I don't think body angles can be trusted. (See A)
C. You didn't understand my question in that thread. It may be due to my lacking english. My question in the boot flex thread was if there are other techniques applied to skiing when using boots that flex more than a racing boot. In my view my boots doesn't flex. If they do it's minuscule. What happens in my view is that the inner boot gets somewhat compressed in the tounge allowing for the shin to move forward. I was comparing to boots that could be bent a lot in the store. Maybe they stiffens up a huge amount when cold, but OK, I could have compared to intermediate boots or whatever. When I can make my lower leg move 10 degrees forward (just guessing) I think the boot is soft. Here I was totally clueless wondering did I miss anything, does somebody have use for that flex? It seems to me from that thread the answer is no, but the forces are so low that it doesn't matter.

Hugs and kisses.

There is counter but not that much. At 00:17 you can see it very clearly.

A. Did you ever do slight turn adjustments tucked? Maybe changing direction? Low g-force. Is there really a difference between letting the skis pass you or you passing your skis? Always? Was your question a question?
Does it matter if it's high performance or low performance? Is lower performance skiing not allowed on your hill?

B. How about off piste skiing? Especially steep with thin skis.

C. Do you feel any joy skiing or are you constantly in anger?

Actually, I thought Carl R was right on the money...

...and, not that Ron LeMaster knows everything but I think we'll all grant that he knows a lot (and has probably forgotten more than we'll collectively ever know), and a lot of what Carl says kind of lines up with the kind of stuff Ron LeMaster espouses.

The one that's interesting that I'll comment on is:

"Btw, in racing the guy who's fastest is right. When the other guys sees this, their "right" shifts to the new "right". Right? "

What this says is (a) racing ain't no beauty contest (and neither is skiing, really...) and (b) racers are as suspectible as anybody to "he's winning, must be the right thing, guess I'll try it..."

Case in point, Bode. He's done some incredible stuff on skis, but it's the wrong thing for most racers (juniors, especially) to start trying to "do a Bode." Why? Two reasons. First, every skier has to follow his or her own path, in the end. Bode got to where he is by following his path, so there's no point in trying to get to where you want to go by following Bode's path. Second, a lot of Bode's way is extremely high risk, and requires the full commitment of an exceptional athlete to pull off. And most of us aren't exceptional athletes.

Can any of us learn from Bode, however? You damn skippy, IMHO. This is back to what I said above about each skier trying to follow his or her own path. Yep, skiing has some more or less incontrovertible facts, like gravity and momentum, ski design, human anatomy, and so forth. You can't defy the laws of physics and pretend 2 plus 2 really does equal five and make it happen on skis. However...rules will only take you so far, and a lot of what I see in these forums are endless arguments about the perfect set of rules for skiing, which, if everybody followed them, we'd all ski correctly.

Maybe, maybe not. Back when I was teaching, I had a real rules-based approach to my own skiing, and it took me a long way. Not quite to where I wanted to go, however. I was out skiing with one of my buddies one day, a guy who had a reputation as a real loose cannnon. Rick would either pull off some amazing arcs or get turfed, often in the same run. So we're up making arcs in the Front Bowl at Breckenridge, and he did some stuff I didn't think was possible on skis, to which I said "How'd you do that?" Answer: "Oh, I dunno." He went on to say "Dude, you're really good, but you're not great...yet. You know all the rules. Now go out and break a few of them..."

Words to live by...know your limits and exceed them frequently...

Carl R is new here and addresses quite large areas of skills and movements in his posts but Im sure he will learn to single down to the bare essentials over time. We all have. Newcombers here seldome understand how complex skiing has become here at epic but believe me, there is something here for everyone to learn. You just gotto give it a chanse.

For instance the posting that had Skidude72 upset could have been split up in 50 new threads .

I have to correct this:
I thought it was skidude I had quoted when reading his answer, maybe that I misunderstood what he wrote completely. In reality it was SkiRacer55 that I quoted and it seems we are having similar thoughts.
Sorry for the confusion this may cause. (I can't edit the post)

Tdk6, it's the level of details that I find so compelling about this place. There is so much interesting reading here.

I think I could add my post to the "How to get a Bears Goat Thread".

As for my comments above....It does irk me abit when people point out what they view as "inconsistenices", and then use that to bunk anyone and everyone who claims that skiing can be understood or that we should advocate one "technique" over another. When in reality the inconsistencies that they view only exist due to there own lack of skiing knowledge....hence the very foundation of their argument is flawed.

I also agree with Skr55....his comments about what is right for him, may, but may not be right for another is true, what is right in this instance, maybe wrong in another....that is also true. But where this is often taken too far is when people say...it cannot be understood. This is simply incorrect.

When you UNDERSTAND skiing at its fundamental level, and SKiRacer55 did a good job of mentioning these fundamentals, (physics, physiology, etc), you can then APPLY that UNDERSTANDING to determine what is best in any situation.....


Just a quick note on the WC argument....at the WC level, were improvements are based on 1/100's of a second over say a minute, it is often too complex to say this or that for sure, hence determinations are done emperically (I think that is the word)...ie: they simply watch who is winning.

Yes, Ive not only learned tons of stuff here but I have also been able to get a gripp of my own skiing that is somewhat controversary to what epic stands for.

Ahh, what epic stands for. 15,000 + members & we all agree ? Yes, your skiing is somewhat controversary to mine. I ski like a girl. If you don't, then you're different. I'm sure you have a reason why you don't. And that's ok by me. You're just different. Like about 50 % of the rest of the world.

Great, thanks...

...I think you're getting into what I was trying to say. And you're absolutely right, it helps, a lot, to understand what you're trying to do, and why, before you go out and try to do anything. That's one of the big things I say to my teammates whenever I'm coaching them or whenever they ask about something some other coach told them, which is "Look...you're the consumer. You have the right to say (a) Right on! What you've said is absolutely perfect, and I understand it completely and will go out and implement it forthwith! (b) Sounds good...sort of...lemme hang with it, and I'll get back to you... (c) You are completely out of your tree...get away from me! What you are saying makes absolutely no sense, and no way am I gonna do it...'

I had an interesting conversation with one of my coaches/teammates, Broc Thompson, who is the man in RMM, a former National Champion in SL, GS, and Super G in Masters, who is now on to Bigger Things, namely FIS races...at the age of 40. He is now down to 45 FIS points in SL and plans to win in tech events in FIS races...and I'm sure he will...and after that, who knows?

This was last weekend at Rocky Mountain Masters opening weekend of GS and SL at Loveland, and we were both on the injured list. He took a puck in the ankle in a hockey game about 10 days ago, and I had an accumulation of torn cartilage in my right knee (both of which have since gone under the knife, and are in recovery...) and we were doing what we could to help the other racers, carrying warmups, slipping the course, doing inspections, coaching, etc.

On one chair ride up, we were talking about skills, and coaching, and what we all needed to be working on, technically and tactically. He thought about it a minute and said "You're your own best coach. Everybody's selling something, and you have to figure out what works for you, and how to make it happen for you. I was training up here a couple of weeks ago, and going up the lift on successive runs, two coaches told me to do exactly the opposite thing. So when it comes down to race day, the only person you can trust is yourself, and the only thing that matters is who gets to the finish line first."

Words to live by...so we're all bears, and it doesn't matter who gets to the bottom first, right? So what does matter? One thing I'd strongly suggest, is, if you haven't spent some time running gates with the clock on, go do it. There's a lot of practical reasons, the major one being that clean turns count, finding momentum and conserving it counts, staying upright while you're redlining it counts, and if those are the key elements in racing, then they work pretty good for free skiing, too. The biggest single reason, however, is that suddenly you have a single focus, which is to get to the bottom quicker than anybody else. And there's no style points involved, just the clock...

I doubt that this will come as any surprise to you, sd72, but I *also* found Carl R's post to be quite reasonable. I think it fits in very well with my own experience over a lot of years of working with skiers and coaches and instructors who came from a very wide range of backgrounds.

It must be very satisfying for you to live in a world where everything is "right" or "wrong".

For whatever reason, that sort of smug self-assurance has just never worked very well for me. Maybe I live in too sheltered a ski world here in Jackson Hole. I guess the fact that I've spent a few decades watching world class skiers make beautiful turns in a practically endless variety of ways has colored my judgement.

I envy your level of knowledge of what's right.

Thanks Bob,

Always glad to have your input. So what exactley did you find "reasonable"? The "cant win, dont try" view of ski teaching? If so we will simply have to agree to disagree becuase I cant accept that.

As for your other stuff, your experience sounds great. So what are these "endless variety of ways"? I been a member here for awhile now, and have read much of your posts....why have you not shared them with us? I would love to know more about this endless variety. Do you have any photos...or vids? Perhaps just a general description of what you saw and how one method was completley different to another? I mean we are all aware how skiing evolved as equipment evolved, and how things look different in different phases of the turn....but two guys, from the same era skiing fundamentally different...wow...please dont keep this to yourself, please share!

I think epic is a blend but epic coaches and instructors are mostly PSIA trained. I belong in the 50% you mention.

I was blown away by the inside "stagger" comment

At several of the camps that I've been at the exact opposite is being taught........that there is no room for inside lead.

I find that no lead tends to lock the platform too much & makes it harder to get the hips low for handling turn forces.

Can't lead cause brain damage if ingested?