New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Efficient vs. Effective - Page 5

post #121 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick View Post
SkiDude, it seems you agree with the broad skills I advocate teaching, but just have a problem with calling some of those skills inefficient forms of skiing. Ok, that's good,,, were getting somewhere. So lets talk about the terminology.

The definition of efficiency is to do something with the least amount of wasted energy. In skiing it's very easy to identify skiing options that require more energy.



C'mon Rick,

You pushed hard here for a forum that was open to sharing ideas. I supported you on that. Now you have it, it is time for you to put up. It is clear you still havent taken the time to review my posts or definition of efficeint. I stated it several times, not once have you acknowledged it, or commented on it.

For what it is worth...here is the definitions of efficeint taken from "Dictionary.com". The bold is my emphasis (sorry it formats in such a mess).

Quote:
8 results for: efficientBrowse Nearby EntriesDictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
ef·fi·cient // Audio Help /ɪˈfɪʃənt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[i-fish-uhnt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –adjective 1.performing or functioning in the best possible manner with the least waste of time and effort; having and using requisite knowledge, skill, and industry; competent; capable: a reliable, efficient secretary. 2.satisfactory and economical to use: Our new air conditioner is more efficient than our old one. 3.producing an effect, as a cause; causative. 4.utilizing a particular commodity or product with maximum efficiency (usually used in combination): a fuel-efficient engine.
[Origin: 1350–1400; ME (< MF) < L efficient- (s. of efficiéns), equiv. to ef- ef- + fic-, comb. form of facere to make, do1 + -ent- -ent]

—Related forms ef·fi·cient·ly, adverb

—Synonyms 1. effectual. See effective.


Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.
efficient

To learn more about efficient visit Britannica.com

© 2008 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This ef·fi·cient // Audio Help (ĭ-fĭsh'ənt) Pronunciation Key
adj.
  1. <LI minmax_bound="true">Acting directly to produce an effect: an efficient cause. See Synonyms at effective. <LI minmax_bound="true">
    1. Acting or producing effectively with a minimum of waste, expense, or unnecessary effort.
    2. Exhibiting a high ratio of output to input.
[Middle English, from Old French, from Latin efficiēns, efficient-, present participle of efficere, to effect; see effect.]

ef·fi'cient·ly adv.
(Download Now or Buy the Book) The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.Online Etymology Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
efficient

1398, "making," from L. efficientem (nom. efficiens), prp. of efficere "work out, accomplish" (see effect). Meaning "productive, skilled" is from 1787. Efficiency apartment is first recorded 1930, Amer.Eng.

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas HarperWordNet - Cite This Source - Share This efficient
adjective1. being effective without wasting time or effort or expense; "an efficient production manager"; "efficient engines save gas" [ant: inefficient] 2. able to accomplish a purpose; functioning effectively; "people who will do nothing unless they get something out of it for themselves are often highly effective persons..."-G.B.Shaw; "effective personnel"; "an efficient secretary"; "the efficient cause of the revolution" [syn: effective]
If you insist on using your unique definition fine. But it is clear your definition does not match what is used in society at large.

Your entire argument ignores output....it is a red herring.


As I stated earlier, and will again, self serving definitions do nothing but create confusion and perpetuate the spreading missunderstanding and missinformation. I am here to prevent that. For those intrested post #26 http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?t=71719 is another post I made on this topic of the importance of definitions...I started a thread on it too, awhile back.

Efficiency is linked to output. WC skiers are "efficeint" because even thou they put in 100% effort, they get out alot more then a lesser skiilled skier of equal fitness/strenght also putting in 100% effort could. If you dont see that, or are not willing to acknowledge that, despite several Dictionary definitions showing so....there is nothing more I can offer.
post #122 of 135
Thread Starter 
Skidude, I cannot figure out what you are reading in Rick's posts that have you at odds with what he has said. I've gone through most everything. I've highly edited these posts just to include highlights of posters def's & understandings.
Then I bolded where I think there has been a bit of mis-interpretation and this thread has gone sideways and no longer makes since.

Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelA View Post
**Any argument made for 'Efficiency' (in anything) must have a foundation based on specific (often isolated) process measures.

**Any argument made for 'Effectiveness' will likely be based solely on overall Outcome.

We generally want an Effective Outcome first, but we also want a variety of Efficiencies along the way. In skiing we might want to win a race (Effective Outcome) and employ a number of specific moment-to-moment targeted Efficiencies along the way. .ma
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanuckInstructor View Post
Two things stick out in my mind - the variety of definitions of "efficient" and 911's observation that what's efficient may only be a short term solution.

The definition of what is "efficient" obviously varies by what we're doing, but even within a specific activity there are different ways to look at efficiency.
In my mind, the most appropriate measure of efficiency in skiing is biomechanical efficiency. When I think about technique, ultimately what I'm thinking about (in an abstract sense) is what movements are the most efficient considering the capabilities and restrictions of a human body, and by extension, the equipment attached.
If we're being biomechanically efficient, then we're maintaining as much of our energy as possible while making our skis follow our chosen path. Efficient biomechanics means we have more movement options when we find ourselves in a situation that dictates we need to make a sudden change, whether it's due to external factors (terrain, conditions, other skiers) or our own preferences. On a race course this means an athlete can make the most of his physical condition, and is able to make the movements necessary to stick to his/her choice of line.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RicB View Post
Then we need to look at how effectiveness and efficiency change as we change the tools we are using as well.
So be mindfull of both, keep them in balance, but also play with the balance ratio between the two to achieve "efficacy" (thanks JASP ) for all situations. Versatility requires this doesn't it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick View Post
Here's the way I think of and use the terms efficient and effective, in regards to skiing;

"Effective" describes how well the way you're doing something accomplishes what you're trying to do. "Efficient" describes how much energy and movement goes into reaching that accomplishment.

Skiracer55 brought up racing. Two WC racers can ski the same course in the same time. Both were obviously effective in what they did. But one racer ran a conservative line, in perfect balance, and with a very quiet body, and movement conservative,,, while the other ran a straighter line, made more mistakes, more recoveries, more exploitation of extreme balance positions, more dynamic movements. Obviously, the first racer was just as effective, while being much more efficient.

I think what gets tricky is trying to compare effectiveness/efficiency when speaking of different objectives. The whole subject can get very fuzzy if you're not ultra specific about exactly what aspect of the activity, or what objective, is being discussed and categorized.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick View Post
I will also add, that while energy efficiency is a good goal,,, it's also important to learn how to ski in inefficient states.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidude72 View Post
Good answer Rick...but it is all based on 1 assumption.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidude72 View Post

That their is enough time to learn ski efficeintly...thus the next step (or even do it concurrently) is to learn to ski inefficiently.

This is an erroneous assumption.

Even WCers ski better with time...and from first hand expierence I can tell you they spend all their time working on skiing right.

Never seen one yet work on skiing inefficeintly. I have never taught it, nor have I heard of any coaches/instructors doing it.

Sure you may show somone too far forward or back to show them "the other side of the room"...but I just cant imagine actually working on skiing like that.

For what it is worth...in my view....sure great skiers get out of shape...but their greatness is not determined by their abiliyt to ski bent out of shape...it is from their ability to recover. Good skiers recover before they even begin the next turn...great skiers, like Bode, recover before the next turn AND manage to do it in a way that costs them no time....

That "recovery" ability does not come from learning to ski bent out of shape...it is often comes from pure strength, and the ability to sense when something is going wrong, so they can start the recovery before it is too late.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidude72 View Post
Bottom line...top coaches/instructors always teach skiers to ski efficiently. Sure exercies may be used, but efficiency is the goal.

The notion that there is value in teaching people to ski inefficeintly becuase it might aid in recoveries, or adapting to quantum leaps in ski technique is a notion I cannot agree with and doubt many experienced pros would.


Quote:
Originally Posted by justanotherskipro View Post
I think you're mis understanding him.
I think so too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidude72 View Post
If you insist on using your unique definition fine. But it is clear your definition does not match what is used in society at large.

Your entire argument ignores output....it is a red herring.
Skidude, I'm just not seeing a unique definiton of anything in Rick's post. He hasn't brought into this anything off from the conversation. He did bring up learning to ski in inefficient states which I equate to either out of balance , or possibly learning a recovery move which would be less efficient but necessary to keep safely skiing at the moment. Somehow you interpreted that to be a skier physically bent out of shape ?

You also bring up time. My take is time is important to you as well as the rest of us. For me, I have learned that cutting corners can save training time, but costs in the long run. Such as an injury, surgery, recovery, P&T & rehab.

Then I think of the amount of time spent on learning recovery from being in an inefficient/unbalanced state. For each occasion I've had for an instructor to go over it as the opportunities arose, it probably was well under 5 minutes. And each time an event arose to use the recovery skill, it took a second or two to apply, recover, & move on to an efficient state again. So maybe you are thinking Rick is talking about spending a great deal of time as well as teaching some weird biomechanical strange stuff. I think that is where misunderstanding is occurring.
post #123 of 135
911 thank you for stepping in and pointing out that this whole thing is coming across as splitting hairs while losing sight of the original topic.
Like Rick I see a very precice and specific technical solution to every skiing situation. Everything else simply isn't as effective, efficient, or accurate. Even during a world cup race the ability to negotiate the entire race course with the mimimum amount of technical errors is the difference between first and last place. Notice I didn't say with no errors. IMO the idea of acheiving the theoretical maximum level of efficiency is unrealistic considering even the WC winners don't acheive that level of performance.
The best the rest of us can expect to acheive is a personal best level of accuracy, effectiveness and efficiency. Which includes learning to ski in all inefficient states. How else can we expect to learn how to move from that state to a more effective and efficient one.
post #124 of 135
I think it's time for me to drop out of this thread. I've tried to provide my opinion on the topic, and how that opinion plays out in some of my on-snow teaching. I really have no more to say on the subject, and I think my continued presence here trying to re-clarify what I've already said will only serve to fuel continued futile and non-productive sidetrack argument and emotion the likes of which I really do not think are healthy for EpicSki.

This has been an excellent thread, and I think assorted ideas have been presented by a number of posters that all of us can explore and potentially profit from. This is what EpicSki should be about; a number of people, pros and students alike, coming together to share their personal perspectives on a topic in an atmosphere of tolerance, interest and respect,,, and out of that coming together and sharing process the individual and the group as a whole can learn and grow.

That's my vision, anyway, so for now I will say goodbye and leave you guys to continue sharing and discussing in this very interesting and valuable topic. See you in another thread.

post #125 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by 911over View Post
Skidude, I cannot figure out what you are reading in Rick's posts that have you at odds with what he has said.
I'll show you, here:


Quote:
Originally Posted by 911over View Post
Skidude, I'm just not seeing a unique definiton of anything in Rick's post. He hasn't brought into this anything off from the conversation. He did bring up learning to ski in inefficient states which I equate to either out of balance , or possibly learning a recovery move which would be less efficient but necessary to keep safely skiing at the moment. Somehow you interpreted that to bea skier physically bent out of shape ?
(Sorry for some reason I cant change text color, so I bolded the key bit, and then unbolded your "Bent out of shape" bit for clarity)

If you are the student, and you got it wrong....dont ya think that is a problem?

I explained how it should work in my post #108.

You are talking about skiing "out of balance", I am talking about skiing "in balance"...not matter what. Sure your ski maybe over your head....but that does not necessarily mean skiing out of balance. The greater range of motion you can go through and stay in balance, the greater your chances of recovery.....

This is not splitting hairs. This is a huge difference.

Rick, I agree that it is a good idea for you to stop posting now, I will try and undo the damage. But hopefully you will keep reading this thread for the benefit of your future students.
post #126 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidude72 View Post
I'll show you, here:



(Sorry for some reason I cant change text color, so I bolded the key bit, and then unbolded your "Bent out of shape" bit for clarity)

If you are the student, and you got it wrong....dont ya think that is a problem?

I explained how it should work in my post #108.

You are talking about skiing "out of balance", I am talking about skiing "in balance"...not matter what. Sure your ski maybe over your head....but that does not necessarily mean skiing out of balance. The greater range of motion you can go through and stay in balance, the greater your chances of recovery.....

This is not splitting hairs. This is a huge difference.

Rick, I agree that it is a good idea for you to stop posting now, I will try and undo the damage. But hopefully you will keep reading this thread for the benefit of your future students.
Huh? You're balanced all the time? That's a pretty big boast SD.
Especially when you have one ski over your head. Sounds a lot more like a recovery move than an efficient or effective way to ski. Yes you can be as efficient as possible getting back to a more centered stance but how can you even consider representing that as anything close to an effective and efficient way to ski?
post #127 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by justanotherskipro View Post
Huh? You're balanced all the time? That's a pretty big boast SD.
Especially when you have one ski over your head. Sounds a lot more like a recovery move than an efficient or effective way to ski. Yes you can be as efficient as possible getting back to a more centered stance but how can you even consider representing that as anything close to an effective and efficient way to ski?
I know I shouldn't but ok...I'll bite.

First, no I am not balanced all the time. I use toppling at the start of the turn....but other then that...yes that is what I strive for, train for, work on, evaluate against etc.

I never said it wasnt a recovery move....you may want to view the Epic posting guidlines on "Strawman Arguments".

What I pointed out was how you train effectivley to be able to make recoveries when required....ie develop the base fundamental skills of efficient and effective skiing....not the other way around.

If you would like to challenge me on that...please do so.


PS: You still didnt answer my question if you would publicly endorse the message that you teach people to ski inefficiently.
post #128 of 135
Both of you guys know I don't have a clue what this argument is about, but it might just be we've entered that part of skiing that is "feel". Its subjective, hard to describe and would be better resolved by a ski-off.

Just kidding. But a few of these wouldn't hurt.
post #129 of 135
Skidude,

I think you should review the Fallacy known as the 'Red Herring' and also look up exactly what a 'Strawman Argument' really is. Simply pulling these labels out of your hat and slapping them on something you want to discredit doesn't have any merit.

These tactics were originally referenced so that people might become aware of them and hopefully keep them out of their own posts - not for people to use as a weapon to cast an oder of 'wrongdoing' upon others we don't happen to agree with...

.ma
post #130 of 135
post #131 of 135
Thread Starter 
Skidude you have thrown tons of words at what I see is a difference in opinion in how to teach skiing. You believe only perfection should be taught. Appears Rick believes in incorporating skills in dealing with oops factors. Big deal.

But now you are throwing fish , tossing straw, and calling names (lame?). Whazzup with that ? I just can't believe you read or thought about any of my last 3 posts. I'm feeling ignored. I am now compelled to no longer hold back. Yes, there is a horse analogy coming. This will be a long one.

I've been out in the hot sun all day at kids sporting event. No way am I going to even venture to say more until I'm no longer under the influence of heat & sun. Bar is closed for now, cause as an op I have the key & better to close the bar before the cops (mods) are called. Looks like they've taken a peak already. While it's closed, I'd like to have the fish put back in the body of water they came from & the straw raked up & properly placed in the stall. Lame name calling is a no-no, always. G'nite.
post #132 of 135
This thread was closed by the original poster.
That's why we put those tools in place to keep things from going outside what the OP was asking.
post #133 of 135
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by justanotherskipro View Post
Getting back to the op's idea of how skiing and teaching skiing fits into the TQM model though...
...911 how effective and efficient has this thread been?
Jasp, I think that would all depend upon which/whose philosphy or approach was used in measuring it. As well as which efficiency is being measured, and what the goal(s) were. Guess I can't give a measured rating.

I can tell you my answer will be shorter now w/some thoughts floating around & no multi-quoting used.

What this thread has brought to me was a variety of opinions about which efficiencies are defined or looked for. The efficiencies may or may not matter depending on the goal(s). Everything has some measure(s) of efficiency(s) and I think it all depends on what you are looking for and if it fits with a specific goal. As well as an individual's overall goals. I think it's likely there is no package that fits all. Every person and every age is so different, wants, needs, abilities, desires, goals, capabilities, new horizons & interests w/skiing change as we grow in experience and skill. So for me, it was efficient in breaking down the box, tearing down notions, perceptions, & opening up my thoughts with far fewer limitations to what efficiency looks like. Effectiveness can be so many things, again, depends on what we're wanting to do. I love the vast choices and sideroads to explore while heading towards a goal. And that changes to.

As a kid, my mom would head outside w/a snow shovel after a heavy snow. Her first task was to get started on a snow fort, she'd start w/where the fort would be located, then take a few shovels of snow from the driveway to start a wall. One of us or our friends would be begging for the shovel. Then she'd go in & bake something. By the time she was done baking, we'd stolen most of the snow from the driveway for our fort & the snowballs we'd used up during the . The neighborhood snow fort was ALWAYs in our front yard. Our driveway was usually clear & my mom actually didn't shovel it. I forgot how inventive & fun she was. Or maybe just sneaky on the child labor end of it. We'd work for brownies any day.

Basically efficiency and/or effectiveness are just a small parts of the overall forumula. What we do, how we go about it, how much fun and the overall experience gained, learning & accomplishments, the people we meet, are probably the biggest parts & the best measures of all.
post #134 of 135
Well said 911. Using what works best for you means exploring a lot of different options. Not all are useful but there is only one way you can decide what works best for you. My job is to help skiers develop and refine their ability to match their maneuvers to the conditions. The more options they know, the more terrain they can ski.
post #135 of 135
Very Interesting
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching