or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Rotary Debate - Page 6  

post #151 of 236
That was one hell of a post BTS, I don't agree with every part of it but I liked it, thanks.

Here is my bullet list. Not differences, just observations/characteristics of PSIA

PSIA
Holistic
Skill concept
Maneuver based
Designed by committee
Engineered from the beginner up
Rotary skill acknowledgement- active
Steering to edge angle
Anticipation release mechanism focus in skidded turns and arcs
Biased to extension
Wedge Christies
Poor quality control
Good 'ol Boy club- ageing rapidly
Not a Union
Established monopoly
Perceived value of product- real or not
laughed at by locals, racers and terrain rats- seen as baby sitters, blowhards and fossils that can not buy a turn
Pier recognition
Pin pursuit, the path can be good
Higher cert = higher pay but not always
Fun community
Private lesson whores, group lesson warriors
Pro skier
No progression- bad news IMO
Anything goes, try this and that, does it work for you? YUK! IMO

I could continue forming a long list from a long time PSIA member.

I am not going to put up a list for PMTS. I am sure one will surface.

I came to realize in 1993 that ATS/PSIA mechanics were failing me at my attempt to arc clean. I looked to TEAM BRECK for the way, I think it worked. IMHO- The mechanics of a skill blended shaped turn will never refine into an arc.


I have spent the last year learning PMTS. I am an obsessive sort of person, I immersed myself and my skiing in PMTS and HH 's outline for race programs guided our teams entire training. Ask the kids and masters and they all say, "you taught me to ski and my racing improved" External ques and movement based system flat out works, everywhere.

I would like to know how many others have given themselves to the PMTS as I have. I checked it out from top to bottom, out on the hill, on a daily basis, who else here has done that?

I can tell you I ski better, teach more effectively, coach to a higher standard, clinic MUCH better and now understand WC like never before. I am better off with a defined system.

What I see is that PMTS movements are derived from elite skiing (WC) and reversed engineered to the beginning level. The first movements learned are the same as the movements of the elite. DIRECT PARALLEL to the top level. PSIA is not, will not and never has.

BTW I am a L3 28 year full time ski teacher. So I am not making this stuff up, in agreement with me or not.
post #152 of 236
BTS, indeed a nice informative post.

My God how much more simpler skiing was before Carving skis came along.

What was it, the Elan Stealth?

Here's a question. Would there be PMTS without the invention of short big sidecut skis?

Skiing terminology certainly would be different.

Sorry about the hijack but this thread has been played. It does make for good Summer entertainment though.
post #153 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post
Here in the problem...I don't think you should have to make a choice. Pick the best from both and use the techniques as you see fit for a particular application/terrain/condition.
BTS says later that it's PSIA. Not IMHO its not.

Most don't know enough to make an informed choice, instructor or student. "Application/terrain/condition" That is a huge set of variables. Now throw in skill blending and who knows what will be taught or learned.
post #154 of 236
Having never paid for a lesson but have 50 plus years of skiing under my belt, I'm not sure I qualify to back up my opinion with terminology or description of movements etc. That part of my prowress escaped my enthusiasm and love for the sport. I just somehow can't help but think that words put to muscle and ski movements are sometimes missused and/or mistaken. I know what good skiing is, looks like and feels like. On the same note, I know what bad skiing looks like and for sure know when I make a mistake or get sloppy. Sometimes I care, most times I don't unless it leads directly to a major fall and injury, of which I haven't fallen in a couple years. ( a few minor tumbles in the moguls don't count) But, I'm sure my style can be disected into rotary issues and pivot slips or whatever. I have no video to prove my skiing or back my knowledge but these debates only solidfy my thoughts about taking lessons from either or.

As Phil has said, there is good and bad with both methods of instruction and much to learn if you approach learning with an open mind. Or, like me just take what you want from both and go about your business.

There used to be a sign over our Patrol/Instructor locker room door. "He who refuses to learn can not teach"

That goes the same for listening.
post #155 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lars View Post
There used to be a sign over our Patrol/Instructor locker room door. "He who refuses to learn can not teach"

That goes the same for listening.
Outstanding!!!
post #156 of 236
Borntoski and Bolter-while not agreeing with every word-those were the fairest comparisons of PSIA and PMTS that I remember seeing on EPIC. I'm also a bit surprised that they were allowed (delighted that they did). We've also managed to do so (so far) without getting into any personal "pissing matches". This is exactly the kind of dialog that I've been seeking for a long time
post #157 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by patprof66 View Post
I'm also a bit surprised that they were allowed (delighted that they did). We've also managed to do so (so far) without getting into any personal "pissing matches". This is exactly the kind of dialog that I've been seeking for a long time
Your second sentence is the reason that the first sentence is true; there's nothing inappropriate about them. Your third sentence expresses my sentiments pretty well, too.
post #158 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lars View Post
Having never paid for a lesson but have 50 plus years of skiing under my belt, I'm not sure I qualify to back up my opinion with terminology or description of movements etc. That part of my prowress escaped my enthusiasm and love for the sport. I just somehow can't help but think that words put to muscle and ski movements are sometimes missused and/or mistaken. I know what good skiing is, looks like and feels like. On the same note, I know what bad skiing looks like and for sure know when I make a mistake or get sloppy. Sometimes I care, most times I don't unless it leads directly to a major fall and injury, of which I haven't fallen in a couple years. ( a few minor tumbles in the moguls don't count) But, I'm sure my style can be disected into rotary issues and pivot slips or whatever. I have no video to prove my skiing or back my knowledge but these debates only solidfy my thoughts about taking lessons from either or.

As Phil has said, there is good and bad with both methods of instruction and much to learn if you approach learning with an open mind. Or, like me just take what you want from both and go about your business.

There used to be a sign over our Patrol/Instructor locker room door. "He who refuses to learn can not teach"

That goes the same for listening.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssh View Post
Outstanding!!!

X2. Can I add that to my sig?
post #159 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirquerider View Post
Finndog, my perspective of this as a moderator of the site is that any differences between PSIA and PMTS are a red herring. ...
Cirque, I enjoy your stuff here on Epic but I would hope you could realize that merging opinion like this into site policy (as the head patroller here) injects a strong bias into the site.
post #160 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Si View Post
Cirque, I enjoy your stuff here on Epic but I would hope you could realize that merging opinion like this into site policy (as the head patroller here) injects a strong bias into the site.
Not that it matters Si, or enters into the discussion but I fail to see that.

It's meerly an opinion. If he hadn't stated in bold print that he's the head moderator, you still would have known that right?

I think Cirque is reflecting his opinion about both ideas and methods of learning.
post #161 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Si View Post
Cirque, I enjoy your stuff here on Epic but I would hope you could realize that merging opinion like this into site policy (as the head patroller here) injects a strong bias into the site.
Cliff, you know I don't have any dogs in the fight. I was working with DesLauriers and Holiday, as well as ESA. I am yet to find an expert skier regardless of his system that doesn't have something to contribute to my skiing. I may or may not make it my skiing, but I learn from all of it and it adds to "the collective" that is my technique.

All I'm saying is that the debate that isolates pieces of technique to such an extreme extent is alien to me. That's not how I ski. I learn to make a transition by lightening the inside or adding more counter. The outcome is an experience to me, not an intellectual debate. I establish platform and active tipping, or practice falling leafs or drifting into my comfortable line. Same thing, slightly different feel. My role is to keep people from taking their conviction as to what is right and wrong in skiing, and inflicting judgment on another persons credibility. As has been said here many times; there is no right or wrong. there is however a lot of disingenuous debate designed to assign words (or movements) in other members to create a difference that may not exist. I don't like that.

Join the stakeholders group. We're not doing anything right now, but this is what we discuss.
post #162 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolter View Post
BTS says later that it's PSIA. Not IMHO its not.
Well what I mean by that is that between PSIA and PMTS, PSIA is more open ended. A person working within the confines of PSIA, is more free to adopt a variety of methodologies as works well for them, compared to a skier working within the confines of PMTS.

I am not making any claims whatsoever about the quality of the information obtained at various clinics. I think I have made it pretty clear that I think there is plenty of misinformation being spread around from all sides. (and by the way, my personal bias is that other organizations, including racing organizations are also spreading their own share of good and bad information).

It pretty much always falls on the individual skier to figure out what works best for them and roll with it, keep an open mind, keep learning and growing. I feel that PSIA is more open minded in this regard, even if there is a larger propensity within that environment to spread misinformation through the rumor mill or over-zealous ski school directors, examiners, and so forth. Thus if the goal is to learn many different approaches, take it all in and use a combination of many different things, I think that is closer to the PSIA model than the PMTS model where a very rigid and specific set of goals have been specified by HH and his team of experts.

That being said, its true that within the local PSIA regions, the various trainers and examiners tend to form their own strong opinions about what constitutes good skiing and that holds a heavy bias on how instructors develop their own skiing in order to attain higher levels of certification. I'm not talking about the base skill levels that are well documented by PSIA, but more about the fuzzily defined higher level skiing requirements about what exactly constitutes great skiing. I have personally seen and heard about many cases of complete inconsistency between different examiners, for example, in terms of what they like to see. The only way PSIA can be blamed here is by omission. They haven't specified it, therefore, the folks are deciding on their own. But as I said before, there is a pro and a con to this. The con is that there is plenty of mis information. The pro is that the focus remains on base level skills from a wider context and skiers are more free ultimately, to pursue whatever they feel is getting them closer to the ripper hall of fame.

Personally I don't feel either situation in isolation is ideal. The only ideal solution is to take it all in and go your own way. If you let yourself get bogged down too much by any single over-zealous ski school directors, examiners, teachers or other professionals that want to tell you their way is the only best way to get there, then in my book you're only getting part of the goods....and sooner or later you are going to be held back.
post #163 of 236
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirquerider View Post
Max, at post 127 on this page, I quoted Bob Barnes. His post addresses every one of the items that you have re-defined and reinterpreted to mean what you intend rather than what the guy who wrote the book, said:
I'm sorry if you feel I misrepresented something Bob said. It was not my intention.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirquerider View Post
I read the posts, but the difference is, I accept what is said literally. So when someone like Bob Barnes says:

I take that to mean that rotary, twisting and pivoting is not an important component of good skiing, regardless of any teaching system. It may be necessary however to understand it. You saw something else?
I agree that BB is implying what you have said above. But I think there are others here that feel that pivoting is an important component of good skiing. Rick and SkiDude for example both consider pivoting to be a important technique used by racers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirquerider View Post
I don't know how this thread was ever construed to say leg strength is unimportant.
I'll have to be more careful with my wording. Leg strength certainly is a good thing for anyone that wants to ski all day!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirquerider View Post
BTW, in the above statement I don't believe I have ever seen anyone advocate teaching active muscular twist/pivot/steer for a tight turn, rather I see consistently that high edge angles and allowing the ski tails to drift from the carved line can result in tighter turning radius.
Maybe I don't understand what you are saying, but that sounds like tail push or wash and something that seems to be frowned upon.

Now that this thread has popped back up I think it would be productive if we could focus on what is common in our respective technique and then work to find out what is different. I don't know if this will help or not but lets attempt to analyze this video and compare notes.

post #164 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max_501 View Post
lets attempt to analyze this video and compare notes.

I'd like to hear what you have to say about it, Max.
post #165 of 236
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssh View Post
I'd like to hear what you have to say about it, Max.
I'm working on it. I hope you are too. If we don't all partake then this experiment won't work.
post #166 of 236
Why?

The outcome will be the same.

There will be those who can see Rotary and those who see Pivoting.

It's good skiing and the only person who knows exactly how it felt and what was happening is the person in the video.

Everything else is speculation.
post #167 of 236
Nice pole plants.

What I see is him using the ski to get his turning action. Once they hook up and are pressured they nearly leap into the turn.

He creates his rotary with the ski and keeps everything else quiet and moving together.

Lots of sidecut and ability to bend or a softer ski would be an advantage to get this kind of high edged turning. Wouldn't this be impossible on a straighter ski like a BRO model without as much side cut ?

His skiing looks more evenly weighted than outside dominant . Doesn't he look like he is over his inside ski a lot ? Whatever he is doing I want to be able to ski like that
post #168 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirguerider
I accept what is said literally. So when someone like Bob Barnes says:
Quote:
Quote:
Great instructors "emphasize rotary" in the same way that driving instructors recognize the importance of learning to operate the steering wheel skillfully--even when driving a straight line. They "emphasize rotary" only because they recognize that poor rotary skills--including habitual pivoting to initiate turns--are the root of many skiing problems. Indeed, the teaching of good rotary skills usually involves eliminating unnecessary rotary movements much more than it involves "teaching people to twist their skis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirquerider
I take that to mean that rotary, twisting and pivoting is not an important component of good skiing, regardless of any teaching system. It may be necessary however to understand it. You saw something else?
Cirque, Bob was labeling habitual tail pushing/pivoting at the start of the turn as something that needs to be transformed into an optional technique, rather than a default technique. He was not saying they are inherently bad, or not part of the skill package of good skiing. Just that they frequently represent the one turning option for lower skilled skiers. Tail pushing/pivoting have their time and place,,, just not every time, and every place. That's the message.

Eliminating unnecessary rotary movements means teaching someone how to do it smoothly, efficiently, and with only that needed to get the job done. It doesn't mean tossing the baby with the bath.
post #169 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max
I agree that BB is implying what you have said above. But I think there are others here that feel that pivoting is an important component of good skiing. Rick and SkiDude for example both consider pivoting to be a important technique used by racers.
Just posting here to confirm that Max is 100 percent correct in the words he choose to insert in my mouth. You bet it's important. Does anyone here still believe it's not? After all the splainin we've done about it,,, over,,, and over,,, and over,,, and god help us.

Here's a simple way to say it. Any WC racer skiing a technical event 100 percent pure arc to arc would have a slim chance of even seeing the finish line, much less winning. :
post #170 of 236
Thanks for the clarity Rick. In my skiing, I often let the tails come around, although I don't consider it a push, its more of a braking move than an aggressive move when it happens. It would be good for me to overcome that, but the rocks beyond the rollover look ever bigger and dangerous as I get older. In these situations I am more focused on picking my line and then committing to the turn and letting it happen, rather than pushing into defensive moves; or at least that's what I like to tell myself. I think in ordinary on-piste skiing, that patience comes easier. Anyway, I think I understand Bob's intent is to harness the rotary movements already available in a turn, rather than input a push to force the tails around. The complete turn is still challenging to me in difficult terrain where my mind says stop, but good technique delivers control. That said, I have been known to cross the fall line much faster than the arc of my skis would allow.

I don't mean to compare myself to these guys, but, would you do this without a pivot in your bag of tricks? http://www.vimeo.com/1345821
(Courtesy of Tyrone Shoelaces)
post #171 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolter View Post
That was one hell of a post BTS, I don't agree with every part of it but I liked it
This is what I like about BTS. He has an ability to look through the clutter, think for himself, not get caught up in the us vs them stuff. His filters are good, and he's able to extract the color from the murky pan. For those new to the site, he's a good one to have on your list of posters to listen to.
post #172 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick View Post
Cirque, Bob was labeling habitual tail pushing/pivoting at the start of the turn as something that needs to be transformed into an optional technique, rather than a default technique.
..and for me, the only way I was able to do that was to (temporarily) eliminate it entirely.
post #173 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirquerider View Post
Thanks for the clarity Rick. In my skiing, I often let the tails come around, although I don't consider it a push, its more of a braking move than an aggressive move when it happens. It would be good for me to overcome that, but the rocks beyond the rollover look ever bigger and dangerous as I get older. In these situations I am more focused on picking my line and then committing to the turn and letting it happen, rather than pushing into defensive moves; or at least that's what I like to tell myself. I think in ordinary on-piste skiing, that patience comes easier. Anyway, I think I understand Bob's intent is to harness the rotary movements already available in a turn, rather than input a push to force the tails around. The complete turn is still challenging to me in difficult terrain where my mind says stop, but good technique delivers control. That said, I have been known to cross the fall line much faster than the arc of my skis would allow.

I don't mean to compare myself to these guys, but, would you do this without a pivot in your bag of tricks? http://www.vimeo.com/1345821
(Courtesy of Tyrone Shoelaces)

Yes, on piste is the place to learn it and embed it, because it does come easier there. And to be honest, it's pervasively done by so many on easy on piste too.

Now, as to your individual situation: when things get really tight and steep and crud and bumps, etc,,, throwing in a pivot is not a sin. In fact, it can be a sign of intellegence. When we say pivoting has it's place, that environment easily qualifies as one of them.

But with that said, it is possible to learn to limit the pivoting on the tougher slopes too. Much of it is overcoming the mental barriers. There are some tricks for that. Start out with some single turns. Knowing your only going to be doing one, then stopping, removes so of the grimm reaper visions, and allows you to experience easing into the fallne, as opposed to trying to rush out of it. You need to get comfortable with the roller coaster effect,,, the speeding up then slowing down that goes with round turns on a steep pitch. Find a steep pitch that has some width. Do some bottom half turns to a stop (start in falline, then gradually and smoothly turn to a stop. Do it again the other way. Slighly increase your radius. Get comfortable with the downhill acceleration, and knowing your turn will eventually harness the speed. Then do some top half turns. Enter the turn very smoothly and gradually, then just before you reach the falline, turn back out of it and come to a stop. Keep doing it till you can really feel the clean, smooth turn entry. Then link top half and bottom half turns into a single long smooth turn (with super clean and gradual entry) to a stop. Start with a low degree of turn start (say 30 degree to falline) then gradually work up to 90's. Do a bunch of these single turns, till they fee good, and the roller coaster is feeling fun, and the entries are super clean/smooth,,, then link a couple, and focus on that transition,,, keeping the same clean entry. Then link a bunch, and your skiing.

Note; these do not have to be pure carved. Add a touch of steer if you find it more comfortable,,, the pure carve can come later. The important part, whether carved or slightly steered, is the clean entry and consistent turn shape from start to finish.

The other trick is degree of turn. Turns that finish 90 degrees to the falline I call 90 turns. Try some 110's,,, where you turn slightly uphill before your transition. Then do the clean entry. It actually takes more patience at the start of the turn with these,,, but the speed drops off so, patience is much more comfortable to exercise.

Once you get comfy with the clean entry, play with your turn shapes (different radius and degrees of turn), and turn types (wide steering/narrow steering/carving),,, always trying to maintain the clean entry you learned.

Dang, I have a hard time with those one liner quick tips. Hope this helps.
post #174 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolter View Post
Most don't know enough to make an informed choice
Certainly very true for a lot of students. We don't know enough to select or decide how we should be taught. A doc or a FAQ describing different systems/organizations, their teaching methodologies and philosophies in a fair manner by the practitionners of each system would be very good for potential students.

Quote:
Originally Posted by borntoski683 View Post
It pretty much always falls on the individual skier to figure out what works best for them and roll with it, keep an open mind, keep learning and growing.
Logical thought applicable to an accomplished skier. But this type of personal expression/adaptation requires a certain level of technical proficiency. It is true for music, arts, engineering... I think skiing is the same in this regard. The question is how to get to that level most effectively. There may not be a unique answer applicable to all goals and situations. But a series of "if you want this then..." would be very informative for the skiing public.

As a student, I have no concern if a system is rigid or flexible. No system can stop me (or any skier) from skiing any way we consciously choose for whatever reason. However, I worry a great deal if what I learn from a system will cause me to have trouble making further progress or skiing in a different terrain. I want to hear a serious but civil debate among experts. Even when they agree to disagree, I still learn. Where else but here can we have such a debate so that the uninformed can become informed?

Thank you. I'm back to listening mode (enjoyably).
post #175 of 236
Rick, thanks for the feedback. Let's ski soon. :
post #176 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdf View Post
..and for me, the only way I was able to do that was to (temporarily) eliminate it entirely.
Eliminating it entirely means pure arc to arc carving. Is that what you really mean?

For some skiers, going straight from defensive pivoting/pushing into pure arc to arc introduces all kinds of new challenges (speed, fear, intimidation) that can make for a difficult environment in which to learn other base level skiing skills. Quality steering really does provide some advantages as a platform for learning base skills. With those skills developed, carving can come as easy as falling off a log, and often just happens spontaneously.

I've had recreational students I've been working with just start carving on their own, in mid stream of my progression,,, after only a few days of working with them, and before I had taught them all the preliminary base skills I wanted to teach them. "Now cut that out!" One in particular was a rather non athletic student who prior to coming to me had only 7 days on snow. Funny story with that one: riding the lift, he was pointing out instructors who were pushing their turn entries, and asking me why they were doing that.
post #177 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirquerider View Post

Bottom line I guess is, rotary impulses are there whether I want them or not. The degree to which I resist them or use them affect my turns.
I think this is a very accurate statement!
post #178 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirquerider View Post
Rick, thanks for the feedback. Let's ski soon. :
Sounds good to me!
post #179 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick View Post
I've had recreational students I've been working with just start carving on their own, in mid stream of my progression,,, after only a few days of working with them, and before I had taught them all the preliminary base skills I wanted to teach them. "Now cut that out!" One in particular was a rather non athletic student who prior to coming to me had only 7 days on snow.
Rick,
Wow! Could you describe how you taught them? :
Thanks,
Chuck
post #180 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick View Post
By my definition, any turn that is not a pure carve has had a supplementary rotary force applied to the skis. Lacking such rotary force, when put on edge and center pressured, a healthy ski will do what it's designed to do: CARVE.

Active vs Passive are terms that cause more confusion than clarity, in my opinion.
Just to go back to one of the early posts by Rick in this thread, I remembered a really good comment on this subject by Physicsman about a year ago and was actually able to find it:

http://forums.epicski.com/showpost.p...1&postcount=99

Quote:
Once no longer carving, any sideways drag force differential between tips and tails will cause the skis to rotate (around an axis perpendicular to the snow surface and through the midpoint of the ski). This is a drag-induced pivoting of the skis not directly caused by pivoting muscular input provided by the skier.

Whether or not the path of the COM of the skier is curved once skidding begins depends on the angle between the instantaneous direction of travel of the skier's COM, and the direction of the net drag force vector acting on the skis. If the net drag force is directly opposite the direction of travel, and passes through the COM (when viewed from above, perpendicular to the snow surface), the skier will be making a pure braking move with no tendancy to deflect his path from a straight line, ie, either a hockey stop or a pure sideslip. If there is an angle or offset between the two directions, the skidded path can become curved.
It seems that Physicsman provided a very reasonable explanation for one way that skis can pivot with zero direct rotary muscular input from the skier. He also explains that this "differential drag" can lead to either a straight-line or a curved path by the COM of the skier. The latter sounds to these old ears an awful lot like something that might be called a "brushed carve".

Now, to have the front or the back of the ski drag more, the skier would have to use fore-aft movements, but is there any chance Physicsman's analysis could provide an explanation for the difference between the two ends of the rotary spectrum being discussed in this thread? ie, Fastman's "supplementary" force actually coming from the snow (and a non-centered skier), not direct rotary input by the skier? Also, Physicsman's explanation sounds like there really could be a difference between active and passive rotary.

YOT
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching
This thread is locked