Originally Posted by therusty
There is no disagreement that different levels of detail should have different priorities. But the reality is that there is very little information about on hill alignment assessment for instructors to study should they be interested in allocating their study time to the effort. Pros should make their own decisions about what to study. .
Well no. Novice pros need guidance. That is why the curriculam for L1, 2 and 3 is set for them. Sure some will follow their intrests and that is great, but if anyone thinks they can do an onhill assement of alignment without fully understanding the technical/biomechanical aspects of stance and balance I think they will run into alot of difficulty.
Originally Posted by therusty
I started becoming alignment aware when I was a level two. It's my experience that many instructors could use alignment knowledge by their third season of teaching. We're not talking about developing an ability to tell someone they need x degrees of cant or ramp adjustment. All we're talking about here is an ability to spot that a difficulty in either changing edges or managing fore/aft pressure COULD be due to alignment issues. It's been my experience that level 2's do get exposed to such opportunities. From personal experience, it's not impossible for a level 2 to correctly diagnose that someone has plateaued in their development due to alignment..
I wont argue against anything here....but the fact that you did get your 3 pretty quickly...as I understand...tells me that you were not perhaps representitive of the average L2....but if you want to give L2s some basic concepts...I could see supporting that.
Originally Posted by therusty
Another reality is that more than 8 of 10 new skiers choose not to continue their on snow experiences. Is it unreasonable to guess that at least 2 of those 8 have some form of misalignment that contributed to the difficulty of their first experience? Or turn the argument around. How much harder is it to learn the sport with an alignment difficulty? Could it be possible to increase the sport adoption rate by making sure that all newbies don't start with a biomechanical disadvantage? Well, it may not be cost effective to do so, but how can we know for sure if we don't try anything? One would intuitively think that an 80-20 rule ought to apply. 20% of the knowledge ought to be able to catch 80% of the problem. If we focus on the payoff of improving the conversion rate of first timers to active skiers, that ought to be enough incentive for finding some way to put enough trained bodies in the field to have an impact. Some how. Some way. The reality is that level 3's are less than 10% of the total instructors. Cutting out 90% of your potential work force seems like a tough way to solve a problem. We've got a lot smart people out there who are being told that they aren't smart enough to do a simple job. If we can let a few see how simple the job really is, we might be surpised at the results.
Rusty....seriously....the bolded bit is totally totally unreasonable. 1 in 4 quit due to bad alignment???????????? Do you seriously beleive that? I think the real number would be closer to 1 in a 1000. At best alignment might be preventing 1 in 4 from reaching their full potential...but not be such an issue that they never come back.
I can think of 20 perhaps 30 things that cause retention problems....LONG before alignment is an issue. Since, rightly or wrongly, (wrongly in my personal view) most new skiers get rookie instructors here is 10 none technque based things that I think we should improve first that will improve retention...
In no particular order:
1: Properly tuned skis (how many times have you seen rental gear that is atrocius, no wax and hoplessly burred and dull edges)
2: Ski socks (how many times have you seen beginners with 2 pairs of home knit socks, or regular cotton socks....ouch!)
3: Boots with a reasonable fit...not great, just reasonable (how often have you seen beginners with boots 2 sizes too big?)
4: Proper skis clothes (you dont need to be an expert to appreciate warm dry and comfortable)
5: Cost...enough said
6: Fun - (how often have you seen rookie instructors conduct lessons where the clients just seem to "stand around"...or classes where the instructor doesnt let the students explore and have fun...ie "dont do that"...or "dont go over there"....
7: Proper beginner areas...(how often have they been so crowded you cant think...or too steep...or too short)
8: Smaller class sizes....how many times has the beginner class been 8 or greater? Especially with kids.
9: Ski holiday education (I actually do this...teach people HOW to ski holiday...ie, get up early, hit the slopes early, take lunch early, finish when you are tired....hit the apres....then dinner...then to bed early...and repeat...not the usual, get up late, ski late, miss apres, take a nap, dinner late, then the bar late....
...you can get drunk and dance anywhere...
10: Teach people to carry gear...seriously how many times have you seen beginners walking to the car with the skis in the big X...poles dragging behind, and the boots half undone, all floppy....that has got either get the day off to a bad start or put the final nail in the coffin at the end....
My point is there is a whole host of basics that need to be addressed first. Sovling these issues should be easy...yet this list would have been as valid 30 years ago as it is today....
Of course improved quality of lessons through better teachers would be an addition to all of this....but in keeping with the "alternative" nature of this thread, I think all of these would lend more milage to improved retention.
Hence to recap, I am for this idea of improved alignment education...but like all good ideas execution is more important then the idea itself.
Hence my view is:
This should be mandatory for anyone who calls themselves a bootfitter. For instructors perhaps some basic intro for PSIA L2 ....and then perhaps more advanced level for PSIA L3...hence you might have a boot alignment cert L1 and L2?