or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Which foot to pull back?

post #1 of 167
Thread Starter 
Assuming that one wants to be centered over the ski with hips, ankles and knees generally lined up,(stacked), I have been taught and read 2 distincly different methods. One is to pull the inside foot (ski) back as the turn progresses and one is to pull the outside (downhill) foot (ski) back and extend the inside or uphill ski into the turn(tip lead). I have also read as I reviewd this topic that one should pull both feet back while in the turn. Is there a generally accepted method of keeping stacked over the skis during the turn? Is this method terrain related?
post #2 of 167
I'm looking forward to the responses on your question as foot pull back baffles me. If my hips and knees are "into the hill" per the Bode carving tape where he speaks of staggering his feet with his uphill foot slightly ahead. I don't see how pulling the uphill foot back facilitates this. If I'm supposed to pull the uphill ski back when starting a new turn I think I compromise the space I need for my hips to get angulated. HH in Essentials states this pulling the free foot (uphill) ski back at transition is needed to stay in a strong balanced position. I'm lost!
post #3 of 167
I think first you have to seperate different stages in turns or skiing altogether.
Often I find pulling the inside foot back helpful to regain presuure on the outside ski in high speed longer turns on hard slopes.
Then again, it would definately not facilitate initiation for the next turn. So after transition you might want to pull the other ski back even if it still the downhill ski.

Also, pulling a foot back doesn't necessarily imply that this ski is behind the other, it could also mean that it is merely just not that much ahead.

I'm gonna stop here because US terminology and technique is not very well known to me.
post #4 of 167
Ideally, I hold both feet back which results in the hips being well placed over the feet. The question is how to do I get to that point?

At the end of the turn my inside foot has moved forward. That inside foot is about to become my new outside foot and if I left it forward at that point I'd immediately be in the back seat for the new turn. To address this I pull the inside foot back as much as a I can so that at the transition both feet are lined up. Then, as I move into the new turn I hold both feet back as much as I can. Sure, the inside foot will lead a bit as my hips counter, but my intent to keep the tip lead limited to the amount of lead caused by the hip counter and inside leg flex, but nothing more.

Note that its easier to pull the feet back when they are light so the transition is a great place to get recentered with a pull back movement.

What I feel in my feet is a pressure that moves from behind my arch (not so far back that is on the heel) to the front of my arch (not so far forward that its moved to the ball of my foot) as I move from the top of the turn to the bottom of the turn.
post #5 of 167
Max, I'm no scholor of the movement, but the concept of moving the inside foot back effectively pressures the front of the boot keeping that ski actively engaged in the turn rather than passively moving out front. The "feel" is that of moving the foot back, but the "effect" is pressure and alignment in the turn. This places the foot back in a good alignment with the hip, so that as the stance foot is lightened to initiate the next turn, it is in a very balanced position for the crossover or cross-under to the next turn. Like so many other maneuvers, pulling the foot back is an exercise you think about initially, but becomes incorporated into your skiing as a natural position once you learn the feel of pressuring the inside ski. When the idea is expanded to drawing back both feet, it no longer makes much kinetic sense to me. At that point its simply pressuring the front of the boots and keeping the hips moving forward; otherwise, its all in the backseat JMHO.
post #6 of 167
Take a look at this related discussion: http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?t=40457

Bending the inside ankle (more than the outside ankle) as you progress through the turn will prevent the inside ski from getting too far ahead of the outside ski. Some folks prefer to describe this as pulling the inside foot back. At the transition between turns when you are standing perpendicular to the skis and the skis are both flat to the snow the skis will square up, that is the tip lead will go away for a moment before the new inside ski begins to lead slightly.
post #7 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirquerider View Post
When the idea is expanded to drawing back both feet, it no longer makes much kinetic sense to me. At that point its simply pressuring the front of the boots and keeping the hips moving forward; otherwise, its all in the backseat JMHO.
Couldn't agree more.

Also check this thread.
post #8 of 167
Damn Jim, you beat me to it.
Than again, it doesn't hurt to refer to a thread twice if it's a good one.
post #9 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirquerider View Post
When the idea is expanded to drawing back both feet, it no longer makes much kinetic sense to me. At that point its simply pressuring the front of the boots and keeping the hips moving forward; otherwise, its all in the backseat JMHO.
How do you pressure the front of the boots and keep the hips moving forward? I do it by holding/pulling my feet back.
post #10 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max_501 View Post
How do you pressure the front of the boots and keep the hips moving forward?
Flex (close) your ankle joints....
post #11 of 167
Thread Starter 
So from what I have read here and in the referenced thread, if you pull back or hold back anything it will be the inside, uphill foot. Never hear anyone mention pulling back the downhill, outside foot and pushing forward the inside, uphill ski. Maybe what I learned over the summer on the dry slope was wrong and or my memorie is failing or distorted or it is old school teaching. More comments welcomed. Good discussion.
post #12 of 167
Mark, this should be good. From your comment, I think your conveyor belt instructor encouraged you to shuffle the new inside foot forward along with an edge change, to initiate a turn? Perhaps you could elaborate on what the instruction was for turn sequence. There is no doubt that this technique achieves a result, we see it all the time on the slopes. I dare say it will give some of the apostles here a conniption fit.

What happened to the pictures on your Endless Slope thread?
post #13 of 167
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirquerider View Post
Mark, this should be good. From your comment, I think your conveyor belt instructor encouraged you to shuffle the new inside foot forward along with an edge change, to initiate a turn? Perhaps you could elaborate on what the instruction was for turn sequence. There is no doubt that this technique achieves a result, we see it all the time on the slopes. I dare say it will give some of the apostles here a conniption fit.

What happened to the pictures on your Endless Slope thread?
Tom, I must have deleted the endless slope photos from photobucket, I thought that the endless slope thread was dead. Sam did in fact have me extend my new uphill foot while tipping and pull back the new downhill foot. This manuever was like a sling shot effect really moving me into the new turn rapidly as compared to not extending forward the uphill ski. Before the completion of the turn I was instructed to shift my weight to the inside ski and ride it momentarily before tipping both feet to inintiate a new turn. The big drawback I found from the belt was that it was soooo short and before you knew it it was time to turn, very short radius turns. Another unrelated point that was continually stressed was to "feel" the balls of my feet and use the boot, put pressure on the tongue. I understand from much reading here that some would disagree with this technigue. I have been out 6x this season and have yet to feel that I was in the back seat and the leg fatigue that I had experienced in previous years is gone. I feel like I am doing something right. It is odd however to pull the outside ski back and I get confused having tried in the past to pull back the inside ski.

Here are a couple pics from the site:http://www.adventurous.com/cgi-local...html?E+scstore
post #14 of 167
MK,

If you are truly in balance, you need not to pull either foot back. If you are out of for/aft balance, you may need to pull both feet back to regain balance. If you are out of lateral balance (side to side) you may need to pull the inside foot back as you pass the fall line.


Max,

Quote:
Note that its easier to pull the feet back when they are light so the transition is a great place to get recentered with a pull back movement.
The transition in a well balanced turn is where you can extend the feet forward as your body moves toward the fall line to get an early edge engagement, not back.

RW
post #15 of 167
Which foot to pull back?
I would like to be less generic and say that pulling the foot back with what body part and at which joint?
I do teach and employ this tactic to enhance the for/aft stance on the ski throughout the turn but am not sure we are talking about how to do it yet.
Let's start by working on the foot that is going to be the new inside foot after turn transition. Yes we should desire contact with that boot by keeping that foot more under us. I can do it by pulling back with the Hip muscles (glutes) or by flexing the ankle more with the shin muscles or I can do both.
What do you folks do/feel when "pulling the foot" back?
Obviously, I am more inclined (no pun intended) to be a pull backer not a push forwarder.
Greg
post #16 of 167
While I agree that not letting the feet get so far ahead in the first place is great advice, the scope of the thread seems to be how to recenter when the feet get too far ahead.
While it may appear to be a matter of semantics I prefer to suggest moving parts of the body forward to get the hips over the feet. Extending either the hips or knees, closing the ankles and moving the whole body forward, etc...
The reason for this is that if moving into the new turn is the goal, Why suggest moving part of the body away from that direction.
post #17 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max_501 View Post
Ideally, I hold both feet back which results in the hips being well placed over the feet. The question is how to do I get to that point?

At the end of the turn my inside foot has moved forward. That inside foot is about to become my new outside foot and if I left it forward at that point I'd immediately be in the back seat for the new turn. To address this I pull the inside foot back as much as a I can so that at the transition both feet are lined up. Then, as I move into the new turn I hold both feet back as much as I can. Sure, the inside foot will lead a bit as my hips counter, but my intent to keep the tip lead limited to the amount of lead caused by the hip counter and inside leg flex, but nothing more.

Note that its easier to pull the feet back when they are light so the transition is a great place to get recentered with a pull back movement.

What I feel in my feet is a pressure that moves from behind my arch (not so far back that is on the heel) to the front of my arch (not so far forward that its moved to the ball of my foot) as I move from the top of the turn to the bottom of the turn.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirquerider View Post
Max, I'm no scholor of the movement, but the concept of moving the inside foot back effectively pressures the front of the boot keeping that ski actively engaged in the turn rather than passively moving out front. The "feel" is that of moving the foot back, but the "effect" is pressure and alignment in the turn. This places the foot back in a good alignment with the hip, so that as the stance foot is lightened to initiate the next turn, it is in a very balanced position for the crossover or cross-under to the next turn. Like so many other maneuvers, pulling the foot back is an exercise you think about initially, but becomes incorporated into your skiing as a natural position once you learn the feel of pressuring the inside ski. When the idea is expanded to drawing back both feet, it no longer makes much kinetic sense to me. At that point its simply pressuring the front of the boots and keeping the hips moving forward; otherwise, its all in the backseat JMHO.
I most agree with these two posts. One needs to keep in mind that there are no hard and fast rules about which set of muscles fire to get results as long as the movements are the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by justanotherskipro View Post
While I agree that not letting the feet get so far ahead in the first place is great advice, the scope of the thread seems to be how to recenter when the feet get too far ahead.
While it may appear to be a matter of semantics I prefer to suggest moving parts of the body forward to get the hips over the feet. Extending either the hips or knees, closing the ankles and moving the whole body forward, etc...
The reason for this is that if moving into the new turn is the goal, Why suggest moving part of the body away from that direction.
I would agree with moving into the turn if possible but pulling both feet back under a stable CM is far faster than moving the CM into the new turn via opening the knee and hips due to the effects of inertia. Pulling the feet back is definitely the prefered way in bumps.
post #18 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkevenson View Post
Sam did in fact have me extend my new uphill foot while tipping and pull back the new downhill foot. This manuever was like a sling shot effect really moving me into the new turn rapidly as compared to not extending forward the uphill ski. Before the completion of the turn I was instructed to shift my weight to the inside ski and ride it momentarily before tipping both feet to inintiate a new turn. The big drawback I found from the belt was that it was soooo short and before you knew it it was time to turn, very short radius turns. Another unrelated point that was continually stressed was to "feel" the balls of my feet and use the boot, put pressure on the tongue. I understand from much reading here that some would disagree with this technigue. I have been out 6x this season and have yet to feel that I was in the back seat and the leg fatigue that I had experienced in previous years is gone. I feel like I am doing something right. It is odd however to pull the outside ski back and I get confused having tried in the past to pull back the inside ski.
To me it sound like sam was teaching rotation as a means of shortening the turn. You can rotate into the front seat and you can effectively get away with it if there is a little more friction than snow under your feet.
post #19 of 167
Pierre,
If you don't retard the inertial momentum in the first place the core is not going to fall back. Dropping the tips and extending into the trough does not require pulling the feet back. The "pull the feet back" move is a correction movement not a tactical solution for bumps. The reason the hips get so far back in the first place is that the core's inertial momentum has been interrupted. Usually by a strong edge set (check) on the top of the mogul, or the feet are pushed forward (and to an edge) as the mogul top is being absorbed. If the core continues to move through this phase, the feet remain more beneath the hips as we crest the mogul. Watch the best mogul skiers and you will see the sit up / and full extending move which uses a large amount of hip flex / extention.
Route is still the most effective way to control our speed, even if we ski the zipperline. Checking and rotory push off moves are not as effective because balancing and momentum are not maintained.
post #20 of 167
An argument could be made that "Dropping the tips and extending into the trough" is pulling the feet back. A strong extension will do just that, pull the feet back under the hips after they get ahead from leg flexion. It is not hard to see how in dynamic terrain such as bumps, the feet need to travel farther, and at different speeds than the core/trunk during a turn and as such the feet will slow up at the start and speed up through the turn. In other words, the feet may need to move ahead of the hips, and then move back under the hips. The ever changing force line in uneven changing terrain.

Skiing off a bump and into a trough will require the feet to slow down if the skis are to maintain with the terrain as it drops away. The hips are moving in a straight line while the skis need to change their orientation quickly to match the rapid increase in the slope. Just pushing the toes down won't get the skis down on the snow unless the feet are slowed down and brought back under the hips. Our boot geometry requires this for the ski tips to be engaged. For me this requires firing of the glutes and hamstrings, slowing down the feet, drawing the feet back under the hips earlier or with more focus than a simple extension of the ankles knees and hips. In other words the extensions may not happen simultaneously in all three lower joints.

A skier can also huck the CoM up and over the bump as well but then we are adding acceleration to the CoM beyond what gravity is providing. We are adding extra energy.

In the end I may tell one person to pull their feet back at some point, another to slow their feet down at some point, and another to drive their toes and tips down onto the snow, and they may all achieve the same outcome. So I would personally be carefull using such a broad brush to paint the concept of pulling the feet back as always being a compensatory move. In bumps it can very well be the most efficient and effective move. Steeps as well.
post #21 of 167
Not so RicB. Allowing the body to move over the terrain does not require us to interrupt it's downhill flow. The hallmark of good bump skiers is the uninterrupted movement of the body down the hill. The legs are still used to absorb but there is not a braking maneuver used, so there is no need to introduce one. Insofar as the skis accelerating because the slope is suddenly steeper, I would say if the skis is being actively worked at that point the acceleration is mitigated and if it doesn't happen in the first place, we do not need to throw in a corrective movement.

In other words If we are centered (everything moving in the same timeline) we can access any combination of the three skills at will, in any terrain.
post #22 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by justanotherskipro View Post
Not so RicB. Allowing the body to move over the terrain does not require us to interrupt it's downhill flow. The hallmark of good bump skiers is the uninterrupted movement of the body down the hill. The legs are still used to absorb but there is not a braking maneuver used, so there is no need to introduce one. Insofar as the skis accelerating because the slope is suddenly steeper, I would say if the skis is being actively worked at that point the acceleration is mitigated and if it doesn't happen in the first place, we do not need to throw in a corrective movement.

In other words If we are centered (everything moving in the same timeline) we can access any combination of the three skills at will, in any terrain.
JASP maybe you are not looking at this the same way RicB and I are.

In bumps I am using a back pedaling motion while allowing the CM to flow freely. This is pulling or allowing both feet to move back under a stable moving CM. Trying to move forward to stay over the skis instead of allowing them to come back under you would not be as efficient. I do not see this as a re centering movement because of becoming static for a split second.

I will also use pulling back the feet as a tactical move when I either want to weight the tails to shorten a turn or I do not want the CM accelerated as much by gravity.

I may want to shorten a turn by leveraging the tails for terrain or tactical reasons such as being in a race course and trying to take a more direct line than the round arc. Re centering by pulling back the feet is a quick way to get back into the front seat.

I may want to pull back the feet is to minimize forward movement of the CM. To initiate a turn in very steep terrain I tend to pull the feet back progressively leading up to transition rather than adding to the effects of gravity with a forward movement of the CM in relation to the feet.
post #23 of 167
Well you are assuming that adjusting the feet forward or back under the hips interrupts the flow of the CoM as a given. I don't agree that it does. Watch a good bump skier from the side. What we are really talking about here is the attitude we bring to our posture and our skiing, and how this effects our flow down the hill.

The feet should adjust positionally as the terrain changes and we flex and extend relative to the terrain and pressure needs. So one of the first steps in changing the attitude of our posture and movements, is to change our movements so we can feel and develope awareness. Slowing the feet down at the right time I find is very effective in allowing skiers to develope a feel for and execution of the desirable continuous flow of the body down the hill. It is the polar opposite of defensive braking movements that keep the feet always pushing out in front.

I don't usually cite those resident animations, but BB has a good one showing a side view of the ever changing foot movements in bumps. I can't really imagine that we very far apart on this.
post #24 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
I tend to pull the feet back progressively leading up to transition rather than adding to the effects of gravity with a forward movement of the CM in relation to the feet.
It might just be me and I admit that some of the details and technicalities go lost because of the ever present language barrier but I find this a strange remark.

Pulling your feet back per definition has a forward movement of teh CM in relation to the feet as a result.
In both movements (moving the CM forward as opposed to pulling back the feet) the friction and resistance between skis and surface is equal.
As far as I can comprehend both actions will sort the same effect, a combination the skis slowing down and the CM moving forward. The ratio between the two is determined by the resistance and speed.

Unless ofcourse you are using different sets of muscles for each action.
Otherwise I don't see a difference.

Where am I wrong?
post #25 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schussboelie View Post
It might just be me and I admit that some of the details and technicalities go lost because of the ever present language barrier but I find this a strange remark.

Pulling your feet back per definition has a forward movement of teh CM in relation to the feet as a result.
In both movements (moving the CM forward as opposed to pulling back the feet) the friction and resistance between skis and surface is equal.
As far as I can comprehend both actions will sort the same effect, a combination the skis slowing down and the CM moving forward. The ratio between the two is determined by the resistance and speed.

Unless ofcourse you are using different sets of muscles for each action.
Otherwise I don't see a difference.

Where am I wrong?
Well I am probably wrong in using that explanation. Indeed the muscles used are different.

In one situation I am closing the ankle and opening the knee/ hip(CM being propelled forward) and in the other situation I am using hamstrings and core to pull the feet back back under the CM.
post #26 of 167
Quote:
Pulling your feet back per definition has a forward movement of teh CM in relation to the feet as a result.
In both movements (moving the CM forward as opposed to pulling back the feet) the friction and resistance between skis and surface is equal.
As far as I can comprehend both actions will sort the same effect, a combination the skis slowing down and the CM moving forward. The ratio between the two is determined by the resistance and speed.
The stance relationship between the feet and hips changes in both focuses, but the mechanism we use to pull the feet back are quite often different than the mechanism we use to move the CoM forward. It is the mechanism differences that have the greatest impact on the outcome. This is due to the difference in movement of teh core anchoring a movement versus the feet anchoring a movement. The feet can be slowed down and/or pulled back very effectively as we flex or when we are flexed (the core anchoring the movement), whereas moving the CoM forward is usually accomplished through extension (the feet anchoring the movement), and as such can effect the timing of adding pressure to a greater degree.

Keeping pressure or adding pressure through extension at the wrong time can easily interrupt flow. Slowing down and/or pulling the feet back when we are flexing and reducing pressure or are already flexed will usually allow the CoM to flow effectively forward down the hill with no breaking action, which puts us in the perfect position to extend and add pressure early and keep the skis following the changing terrain. That is how I see and feel it anyway.
post #27 of 167
Pierre and Rick, both thanks for clarifying to for me!
Makes more sense now although I thought it had to be something like that
post #28 of 167
I repectfully disagree guys. The skis are not just heading straight down the hill. The across the hill finish lessens the slope angle, further modifying the model. In addition, the BB stick figure is often misunderstood. The surface is changing and so too is the balance point that would be centered. The feet and Co/M do remain centered.

Paul Ruid has a progression I was lucky enough to learn, that method does not use the pull the feet back move. That where I learned it and that's when iIchanged my opinion about pulling the feet back.
post #29 of 167
I do not recommend teaching concentric movements for changing the attitude of the athlete's feet under the CM.
I promote, instead, eccentric 'pushing forward' of the feet (individually or in concert, as dictated by Terrain, Conditions and Intended Effect), followed by a leading movement of either the upper body (in the case of bipedal attitude recovery) or
of the associated hip, to implement recentering.
post #30 of 167
The discussion has strayed into the bumps. I think the OP was asking in the context of carved turns on a groomed smooth slope?

Bumps are an entirely different ball field!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching