New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Shoulder width stance? - Page 3

post #61 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lonnie View Post
Max,

Obviously there is a moment at transition where things are "neutral". Not to belittle this, becuase I think everyone agrees that it's on of the most critical parts of the turn, but our time spent there is very small compared to the rest of the turn (microseconds). I also think most folks intrinsically understand that to go from one turn to the other things much "switch". EDIT: At the transition there isn't a great deal of centrifical force, so our feet can be more under us.

Look at the below pic of ligety from lemasters. From the frames (4/5 & 9/10) that capture the transistion, in the time between the frames the new outside foot is already outside the hip.

LeMaster photos are awesome and this one is no different. Anyone ever think of stance width in terms of vertical separation of the feet vs. just moving them apart? I think the stance width in a lateral sense relates directly to stance width in a vertical sense. Basically, the width you end up with is based on how much vertical separation between your feet you create.

Look at Ligety at the red gate; the space between his boot and his knee is pretty narrow but if you look at his skis there a long way apart. Not in a lateral sense but in a vertical sense. Then in the last frame that vertical separation translates into lateral width as the edges begin to release to neutral. I think that's pretty cool and it's something that I've been working on in my skiing.

If you don't believe this here's a little self check that you can do. Find a steep pitch and sit down on your on your hip. Suck your inside foot up so that it's even with your outside knee. Stand up but keep your feet in the same spot on the snow as they were when you were sitting. You'll be left with a wide stance.

Lateral width is a result of vertical separation and that’s one to grow on


p.s. this may also be an answer to tdk6’s question above
post #62 of 73
I think Rick hit it pretty much right on with the definition brought back from the other thread. Where he describes separation as being lateral distance between the legs, not the vertical distance between the feet/skis.
post #63 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by vail snopro View Post
I think Rick hit it pretty much right on with the definition brought back from the other thread. Where he describes separation as being lateral distance between the legs, not the vertical distance between the feet/skis.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying or what Rick said but the term separation can be used in a couple of different ways when describing skiing. Rick also uses the term "open" while refering to stance width, that can also be understood in a few different ways. Tomato/Tomato.

Based on what you've said here how would you explain the obvious narrowing of the stance width in Ligety's legs while still maintaining the same distance between the skis?

Just a question, don't mean to sound nasty just in case it comes off that way.
post #64 of 73
Cannonball, most people here understand what vertical separation is. Often times confusion is raised about stance width versus ski track width. The two are not the same thing. "Stance" width has to do with the stance of your body. The track width is effected by vertical separation in addition to your stance width. I think you understand this. Where some people seem to get confused is when the track width is confused with their actual stance.

As you showed in the Ligety photo, and has been discussed many many times here, you can have a narrow stance with wide ski track width, as in the case of Ligety at the red gate.

In this case, Ligety is also using a slightly wider stance during transition then he has at the red gate, even though the skis are closer together during transition then they are at the red gate.
post #65 of 73
I also dont want to sound nasty but it amazes me how complex "stance width" can get. Let me ask you guys a couple of questions:
- can you tell somebody to ski with an "open" stance?
- how do you define stance width when someone is "a-framing"? (less at the knees than at the boots)
- how can your "body" have a stance width?
- if stance width is not the distance between the boots/skis/traxs how do you tell a stundet to ski with a "shoulder wide" stance if the stance width actually is varying all the time?
- are diverging skis good or bad? (close at transition and wide at apex)
post #66 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by tdk6 View Post
I also dont want to sound nasty but it amazes me how complex "stance width" can get. Let me ask you guys a couple of questions:
- can you tell somebody to ski with an "open" stance?
- how do you define stance width when someone is "a-framing"? (less at the knees than at the boots)
- how can your "body" have a stance width?
- if stance width is not the distance between the boots/skis/traxs how do you tell a stundet to ski with a "shoulder wide" stance if the stance width actually is varying all the time?
- are diverging skis good or bad? (close at transition and wide at apex)
Yes TDK.

Don't tell a student to ski with a shoulder wide stance. Don't tell them to ski with any prefabricated stance. I think what we have shown here is that the stance and track width can vary a lot depending on the task and the two are not necessarily the same.

Maybe now my first post on this thread will make more sense to you.

Focus on the tasks at hand and the moves required to get there. If you try to hard code a particular stance into the skier, it will eventually get in their way.
post #67 of 73
borntoski683, your first post is ok but you did not answere any of my questions except that we should not tell our students to ski with a shoulder wide stance which is what this thread is all about. The problem I see it is that if you go back and re-read your first post you can see that you are frequently talking about stance width in terms of open/wide/cowboy and closed/narrow/locked. That is perfectly in order but there is annother side to the discussion that refers to how far apart your legs are through out the turn, horsisontal separation, which varies. These two aspects are completely contradicting the way they are used in the stance width discussions here at epic and elsewhere. You refer to dianas stance as very wide, cowboy stance, but still I see no horisontal separation as she is inclined to the max.

Stance width should offcourse allways be in direct relation to what kind of terrain we are skiing and our intention. As you so well pointed out its also a matter of our skill level. If you look for maximum stability, fast transitions and quick reactions to CoM offcet at high speeds or on very steep and hard and often icy demanding slopes then a wide and low stance is preferred. If you are simply looking for a more in the fall line kind of skiing on easy to moderate piched slopes or in bumps or old school powder a more closed stance should or could be used. Note, that Im using the same definition as you are in your first posting. I totally agree with you. This is the way we should refer to stance width. Simply stand a little wider if you feel you need more controll and stability on steeps and narrow down your stance if you are simply cruising or skiing bumps or submerged powder. Note that WC skiers oftern look like total beginners in sertain frames captured from a race; overly wide stance and bent forward at the waist and arms spread wide.
post #68 of 73
Doesn't stance width usually take care of itself?

If a student's stance width is problematic, can't you just tell a student, "For this exercise I would like you to keep your feet farther apart" or "closer together"?
post #69 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
Doesn't stance width usually take care of itself?

If a student's stance width is problematic, can't you just tell a student, "For this exercise I would like you to keep your feet farther apart" or "closer together"?
Yes, exactly. I dont understand why thats considered wrong....
post #70 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
Doesn't stance width usually take care of itself?
I guess I was not clear enough yet. :

stance width will not necessarily take care of itself. A skier could be doing something that results in inappropriate stance width. The question is whether to fix it by telling them to change their stance, or rather to fix it by watching what they are doing more careful to determine exactly WHY their stance width does not look appropriate for the task at hand. There is no set answer here. It very well may be that they are purposefully using too wide of a stance (probably because someone told them to widen their stance). In that case, it would make sense to tell them to narrow their stance. Or perhaps visa versa could be the case.

Or.....

it could be the case that they aren't even thinking about their stance at all, they are thinking about a whole bunch of other stuff and the result is as Ghost is saying...stance is taking care of itself...but its obvious to you as the observer that the end result doesn't look right. So why not? What are they doing wrong? Get to the REAL reason. Telling them to change their stance may not fix the real issue, may in fact bury the real issue deeper or may even introduce new problems as they vainly attempt to "look" a certain prefabricated way.

Quote:
If a student's stance width is problematic, can't you just tell a student, "For this exercise I would like you to keep your feet farther apart" or "closer together"?
it may or may not be the right solution. Another one I see abused all the time is tip lead. I see instructors harp about tip lead, but no other explanation for why not or how the student is supposed to eliminate the tip lead, if its even appropriate. Then a student can easily do things even more wrong in a vain effort to eliminate this tip lead look that the teacher is observing. The more correct solution is to figure out exactly why the student is exhibiting excessive tip lead and focus on improving that skill. The tip lead SHOULD go away by itself.

indicators like tip lead, stance width, track width, fore-aft balance, etc.. are strong indicators for an instructor that SOMETHING is wrong. But IMHO, the correct solution is not always to fix that exact indicator. Figure out WHY they are falling back on their tails. Maybe they need to work on turn mechanics more than they need to work on generally feeling centered. Figure out the real reason why they are exhibiting these indicators. Its not always appropriate to directly fix the indicator itself.

but like I said, if a skier has just been taught a number of times to ski with a wide stance and its obvious they just need to narrow it up, then maybe that is the best thing to tell them.

Different tasks and points of a turn can result in a complex series of stance widths and ski tracks which most ski students are simply not going to be able to understand. So if you start out by teaching them to ski with a shoulder width stance or a hip width stance or whatever....its fine for quick rough reference point...but don't drill it in as gospel.
post #71 of 73
Borntoski683, how does exessive tip lead relate to stance width and how would you fix it?
post #72 of 73
TDK, you're missing my point, but i'm tired of trying to explain it. carry on.
post #73 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by borntoski683 View Post
TDK, you're missing my point, but i'm tired of trying to explain it. carry on.
My only point was that the wider the stance width the more tip lead when inclined.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching