Random Thoughts - Page 6

That's pretty cool. I've managed to locate some of this from other divisions but if you could point me to a page location, that would be great.


Currently, I think "The Standard" is too vaguely defined at each level. While some descriptions are OK most of them are descriptions of high-level appearances rather than specific mechanical and biomechanical descriptions with sufficient detail to be understood without lots of assistance.

The "Visual Cues" are just that - external visuals - that an observer might see in a candidate and that's why they don't make for a good written Standard for the candidate to understand from their own internal reference point. They're a good series of statements to put on a candidate's final report card and might be easily understood by other Examiners - but not by the candidate that just failed to qualify, raising their irritation level further.

I think an independent observer should be able to read a 'Standard' and with a modicum of terminology comprehension understand what each level entails with reasonable objectivity. I know that's reaching a bit but I think it's doable if key people were willing to make the effort.

In the PNW I'd like to see better dryland training clinics that explain exactly what each Standard level entails with video showing what does, and does not qualify at each level - and why. This might make for a good prerequisite for taking each Exam. It would also prevent the problem I experienced: Poor TD knowledge and outright erroneous information related to what was needed. I only learned what was needed for the L2 Exams by taking the L2 Exams.


It is absolutely true that candidates need to take full responsibility for their own success and failings - but without accurate input by trainers, how exactly does a candidate know what will be successful and what will fall short? That's another reason I'd like to see better, more expansive documentation along with clinics to explain the material.


I also agree that candidates should understand the difference between "a good skier" who is an athletic person able to ski with confidence down steep and difficult terrain vs meeting the L1, L2 or L3 "Standard" which involves proving they can ski well using specific movement patterns while performing specific tasks. Their own athleticism and skiing coolness is a nice-to-have extra, but doesn't in itself qualify, nor does it serve as a substitute for those required patterns.

.ma

It is the journey through which you learn, improve, and become a teacher. The pin just means you met the minimum standards for that level on the day you took the test. Once you get it you need to understand that you are just at the bottom of another learning chain. You may know a lot, but there is a hell of a lot more to learn out there. If you think the journey is over, you've failed yourself and your students.

As one of my mentors said, "Its about the journey not the destination." However, when I finally passed Level II Adaptive I wrote back, "The journey may be fun, but it is really nice to finally get to the train station!"

Of course, I jumped back on the learning train and I have no idea when I'll reach the next station.

This point is what I have come to understand from the literature. The PSIA or CSIA or any other organization that certifies teachers has a certain way of skiing that they want you to teach. It doesn't matter if you can arc down frozen waterfalls while juggling three full mugs of beer; if your skiing and MA skills are not good and broad enough that you cannot see what particular things the desired skiing involves and repeat them you will not pass.

The PSIA-E bookstore has the Alpine Standards DVD for $20.

Phew - this is a tough one. The National Standard is pretty vague. In the Eastern Division, the standards are defined by a few items in each area and the visual cues for each area. The visual cues are pretty comprehensive for being able to determine effective and ineffective movements. Going into greater detail sacrifices simplicity for specificity. That's a no win tradeoff.

In this day and age, the most effective resolution of this is to get oneself video taped. Documenting internal references would be a less productive approach IMO because of subjectivity. Every PSIA cert should be fluent in visual cues for MA for their students and their own skiing.

Have you seen the Eastern alpine exam guide? How does this score?

If your division does not offer clinics that accurately present this information, you need to push them to do so. In the Eastern division, the annual Pro Jam event has a large number of groups focused on exam prep. It took me 5 years worth of these 5 day prep clinics (in addition to other training) to pass level 3, but that's just because my skiing sucks. I did not get a lot of help at my home mountain. You gotta do what you gotta do. Figuring out what you gotta do is the hard part. Places like Epic can help if your home mountain is lacking. Checking out other resources from other divisions is cheating, but it's legal!

Damn, I wish I could have written it that way.

I'm a firm believer in this. For each of my level 2 and 3 passes, I've left the exam with a sense of needing further improvement to justify wearing the pin. I like the "I've been there" bumper sticker analogy. You slap on the bumper sticker in the middle of the journey, but you still have to get home (i.e. the journey continues after you get the pin). This concept makes it easier to accept that some people may get their pin early (1/3 of the way through their journey) or late (after they "should" have gotten it). Yes the pin has its perks and yes some people will acquire the bumper sticker without actually visiting the "there", but the greatest rewards of the pin are internal. Getting it just for the perks or taking shortcuts to get one is just shortchanging yourself. As long as these cases are in the minority, I'm not worried about the exceptions to the rule. The trick is getting the honest pros to learn about this concept. It's neither easy to grasp nor easy to believe in.

Random thoughts...
Call you shots and make them, is how I would describe the demo portion of the ski tests. A paper I wrote on this subject deals with a lot of the mental hurdles candidates encounter on their way towards understanding skiing techniques. A quick summary would be as follows

• Deliberate: have a reason for choosing a movement or maneuver
• Disciplined: execute without adding extraneous body movements that add nothing to the outcome. Or worse yet subtract from the desired outcome. In other words justify what you move, or don't move it.
• Directionally relevent: If your moving into a new turn, move there. Do not move away from the turn (usually seen as an uphill, up, or too lateral move).

The tests are designed for you to show these three qualities and the versatility to change what you do at the request of the examiner (versatility).
Given the specific tasks to practice, it is up to the candidate to practice and refine the skills sets required to do the maneuvers. Each maneuver features a different skill bias, or is a refinement of another meaneuver (skills blend in an actual skiing task vs a drill to feature that skill). The best analogy I can think of is competetive figure skating. Compulsory figures verses a free skate program. You still have to execute (perform to a standard) but it is very clear that the objectives are different for each activity.
As far as what a pin represents, A three is simply proof that you demonstrated that you can learn and after the test it is simply is your license to learn even more.
Enlightenment isn't a destination, it is the process of learning and keeping your mind open to the idea that there is always much more to learn.
A final random thought...

...When you master skiing, you can seamlessly move around and match your skiing level and teaching style to the exact needs of your student(s).

JASP, sounds like a clear breakdown of a well formulated test that identifies the important elements present in the candidate's skill base. One trick ponies need not apply.

To me this mantra is only trying to make a clear destinction between carving and skidding. Between good and bad. Or sufficient and un-sufficient. However, theoretically there is hardly any turn in skiing where the skier actually moves into the turn. The ski radius will allways take the skier away from the direction of the turn.

Just wondering where you've seen these definitions -- they don't seem to match what I've seen (e.g. Level 1 guidelines on CSIA Ontario or Alberta, ) or what I would use descriptively as a CSIA L1 course conductor. I'm familiar with the IACRCV model, recently adopted by the CSIA, in place for a number of years in the CSCF (and NCCP). The part about demonstrating to an intermediate level as the L2 standard (or advanced for L3) has always been described to me as "your level of competency must be above this particular level so you can effectively teach at this level."

Also keep in mind that Snow Stars (great program!!!) is a race performance oriented program, which may not translate well to GP novice/intermediate/advanced.

Technical & Tactical

Back to Page 1 of the thread...

Whatever your preferred definitions might be, the idea of distinguishing between technique & tactics is certainly a good one.

The CSCF model takes it a few steps further:

Technical
Tactical
Physical
Psychological
Equipment
Environment

Without getting too caught up in nuances of definitions, the main point is to try to recognize all factors for a complete development approach.

TDK, Sorry but I disagree with your theory. A centripetal position is inclined to the inside of a turn. When turning, the body (CoM) takes a shorter path than the skis, always cutting to the inside of the curve. At the end of that turn it is no longer effective to remain inside the curve of the old turn, we must move to the inside of the new turn. So even though the move is bigger when we carve at speed, every turn includes this movement.

Hey JASP, I like the first two also. As I see it the third one isn't really needed since it's kind of covered by the first two. If I have a deliberate reason to move a body part in a direction away from the direction of the new turn and also do it to produce an outcome I desire, then my movements fit the first two just fine but violate the last.

The last one seems OK in general but I'm still not on board with that particular idea (from a purely mechanically perspective). Sometimes a movement in the opposite direction is useful (even necessary) to effect a desired outcome.

.ma

An uphill move away from the new turn is generally associated with a balance change onto the old inside ski,,, not to be confused with a pressure change. Moving the CM uphill moves the balance point uphill.

That seems a reasonable reason to move "away" from the turn that doesn't seem too harsh and horrible. I think there are numerous implementations where some body-part could move in a contrary direction and still be a valuable action to take.

Perhaps the statement might be better if stated in the form of 'generally...' rather than in the form of an absolute?

.ma

Actually Mike, the idea is to not interrupt the body's downhill flow. If you do the step turn higher in the turn your body doesn't need to move uphill at the end of the turn. More of a diagonal diverging step to tighten the radius verses a lateral "up the hill move at the end of the turn" to regain your line. Granted corrective moves occur while we ski but I would ask if we should we make a habit of doing them with every turn? I just don't see a lot of "step to the new ski moves" going on in contemporary skiing. Nor do I see a lot of hop turns (rotary push off moves) in contemporary skiing. Freeriding being a notable exception. They tend to use a lot of hop and pivot moves to negotiate a rock face before hucking a cliff.
So what is really the point of the 3D's? Well, it gives a baseline parameter to our movements. If you understand that you have several options and you consider the efficacy of each, you are already using a form of the 3 D's to make your tactical choices before you ever start to make that next turn. Which is the point, think about your INTENT, choose an appropriate tactical maneuver, then execute that maneuver as accurately as you can. Don't just use a move out of habit.
In the cert test situation we were discussing the following questions are asked...
...Can you demonstrate the school turns (compusory movement patterns) and then demonstrate how you integrate them into your free skiing? Do you understand why some movements are prefered over others? Can you do all of this during a lesson (on the fly) as you help your students explore and discover new moves and tactics?

Outside of that realm (ski instructing) how you freeski is really your business. However and this is a big point, on the clock you need to show whatever brand of skiing your resort defines as their signature style. If it' a PSIA school those movements are described in detail in the white paper and in RM the handouts each candidate gets at their prep clinics gives them a clear description of the maneuvers. If they still have questions it is up to them to ask their mentors for more details. Which also forces them to work with a mentor, or to ask someone instead of trying to learn all of this by just reading it. IMO every candidate should be working with a coach who can help guide them through the certification process. Go out with them daily (if possible) before line up, or call them frequently and discuss this stuff. Most trainers are in the program to pay it forward (pass on the time and energy others invested in them).

BTW: Thanks TheRusty, I'll look into that DVD and check out some of those materials you cite.

I think this is just an evasion of our responsibility. It's like a Surgeon saying "I'm not going to document how I do heart surgery for my students because it's just too hard. I'll just give you hints, you try it in front of video and I'll tell you what you did wrong." Would the AMA accept this?

...and it's my opinion that your skiing shouldn't have 'sucked' for so long as you're way to quick on the uptake. True, wayward TD's can hinder and derail us but if the documentation were good enough then I've no doubt you'd have succeeded far more quickly. I got absolutely nowhere for almost three years. Then I figured things out on my own and wrote my own documentation - and succeeded quite easily and quickly over the next couple of years. Our documentation simply isn't good enough for me and I think the new manuals are actually less informative than the old ones.


JASP,

I made no mention of 'my body' moving uphill nor of 'my CM' moving uphill - just a body part. And yes, if I make a move in Zone 'A' then I might avoid that move in Zone 'B' - but that's not really the point.

I also agree that if the Exam Script and Cert Requirement calls for a specific thing then by golly, that specific thing must be demonstrated. Heck, if sliding down a gully on our butt is required; then so be it. (Which it might be since ski-pole arrest technique might be a required task )

.ma

No Rick did.
Yes the point is not to be doing corrections late in the turn when you could have avoided the need for it by doing something earlier in the turn.

More evidence that you are a bit clueless on this subject. I am suprised you can not see the difference from your skiing videos and good examples of the COM flowing from turn to turn. This is a basic prerequisite to expert skiing in my mind. Somebody explain this again to TDK6 so perhaps he will get it. Others have tried repeatedly to no avail.

What we have heah is a failure to communicate.

That's "...Faileeeeyure to kommmyune-ekate..."

Let's not forget that Tdk6 is on the other side of the pond. It's not just the language conversions, it's also all that 'bit leakage' in those undersea internet cables corroded by salt water.

.ma

Sorry, if I came off a bit harsh. Just a little frustrated with the comments and disconnect from what is really happening and what one thinks is happening.

bud

I was hoping the gang here would understand the 3D's as a way of thinking about being more accurate in their skiing. What I see is that parts of it challenge some a bit too much to accept it without a lot more details. Especially when it comes to the last idea.
Imagine being so accurate that you simply do not need to move a body part away from the direction you intend to go. Does that mean small corrections won't be needed if the snow surface suddenly changes? Hardly. All it means is the baseline movement patterns have no extraneous movements, or corrective moves. The theory being if you are truely balanced the corrective moves are not needed.
Rick mentioned a step turn as one example of moving the CM uphill away from the new turn. A valid tactic to either get to the new ski quickly, or to recover your line if you get too low in a race course. My question would be do we take that as a reason to use that move in every turn? No!
So while there are exceptions to every rule, it certainly makes us think about why we're using a move and if it actually contributes to the intended outcome. It also challenges us to explore if there are other options that would be more efficatious.
Mike, you stated that from a purely mechanical perspective there are useful movements that move a body part away from our direction of travel. I would ask if they are corrective moves, or fundamental technique? Please share some of them, so we can discuss this further.

In the middle of a White Pass turn, the COM moves slightly toward the outside of the turn as the outside ski is engaged, doesn't it?

It's nitpicking, I know. The point is there always has to be some room for variation in any description of a skiing maneuver. Generalizations are not hard-fast actualities.

Just a random thought.

I think the general idea/goal of JASP's 3D's is to guide people towards efficient movement patterns,,, away from their current default movement patterns that interrupt a smooth and effortless CM flow from turn to turn. Transformation of inefficient default skiing to efficient. From what I know of JASP's understanding of skiing I'm sure he supports the idea of having various turning options/tools in your pocket. In fact, I was impressed with the 3D's for the very reason that it DOES promote versatility skills.

You bet there are variations to the direct CM flow ideal that are legitimate and useful ski technique. It behooves one's skiing to develop the ability to use them. Not only for options and versatility reasons, but also for the refinement of sensory awareness of exactly how you are skiing at any moment, and the associated ability to then quickly modify it if needed.

(Sorry, no time right now to go into specific examples of variations or uses, work calls)

That's is one way to think about and execute a white pass turn. I would put forth another way which is to maintain flex on the weighted foot and ski as you move directionally into the new turn. Change edges on a flexed leg, so that when you want to set the new outside ski down there is no other CoM movement to the outside needed. Just extend the new outside leg and touch it down. If done this way it dovetails nicely into Jasp's 3D's. This is the way we are required to do it in our division as a level III task.

Done with accurate direction and on a flexed leg, this produces a very smooth and balanced transition into the new turn and allows a very smooth transfer to the new outside ski as the body then moves from inclination (balance to the inside ski) to angulation (balance on the outside ski).

I suppose that one could argue that the move from inclination to angulation is a move to the outside, but I consider it more of a change in balance focus as opposed to a body movement that happens because the skier first extended their new inside leg and then has to move outside just to get the new outside ski onto the snow. So if a skier extends their new inside leg before they move into the turn and change edges then that movement to the outside of the turn would be needed to put the ski on the snow. But that would be that initial up move that Jasp's 3D's are trying to discourage.

Obviously, it does not translate well at all.

I have not found the original I read, but check this out:

http://www.snowpro.com/csia/e/programs/desc_lvl_2.html
"
Teaching
Teach Alpine Skiing from entry level to intermediate (Consolidation) level in accordance with the technique and methodology of the CSIA


"Skiing:
Demonstrate effectively from entry level to intermediate (Consolidation) level"


"Marking System:

Ski: Candidates have to be at the “Consolidation” stage of the Development Model to meet the standard"

What varies here is the understanding by the GP of what an intermediate actually is.... It's pretty clear that the level 2 candiate must be at consolidation. It's also clear that consolidation is labelled "intermediate" by the CSIA.

Good! Some ideas to play with.
Neal when do we engage the outside ski? Somewhere in the control phase, near the fall line. At least that's my understanding of where. How do we engage it? Do we step to the outside ski or bring the outside ski down by extending it onto the snow and slowly flex the inside leg until it comes off the snow, allowing the forces to transfer as a function of the centrifugal forces, not by actively stepping and moving the body over the outside ski? Isn't the objective of a White Pass Turn to get the body inside the new turn and aligned over the engaged ski. So while the CoM's mathematical position changes, does the pelvis actually shift positions?

Ray, not too picky at all. Do you move the outside half of the body backwards, or does the counter develop when the legs are turning beneath the stable body and the inside half ends up leading? To accentuate this would you move the inside half forward, or would you move the outside half backwards. If you did move the outside half backwards, how would you stop the angular momentum you created by twisting your torso that way?

Ric well said, sorry to repeat your well crafted post.
You also raise an interesting question about inclination verses angulation. How do we create angulation becomes the question though. Is it by moving the shoulders outward or allowing the hips to move further into the inside of the turn?
To take that a step further I would question what we are doing during the last third of the turn.Does the upper body start moving towards the next turn while the legs continue to turn across the hill. Is that because we actively move it that way? Or is it because we allow it to begin that migration by letting the centrifugal forces take it there? Does the extension of the inside leg, or flexing of the outside leg happens to drive the body into the new turn or is it to maintain the ski's contact and edge purchase with the snow as the body migrates towards the center of the new turn? Sure, the lower half of the body continues to move across the hill with the skis. Although simultaneously isn't getting the body moving into the new turn one of the objectives during the last half of a turn? Different roles and directional objectives for the upper and lower halfs occur during each phase of the turns. Getting that part straight is one of the reasons for introducing this concept here. I think I have it straight but if you feel I don't, please feel free to show me where this concept breaks down.

JASP,
Thanks for clearing up my thinking, just as in an example of Walking Gait, it would be best, of course, to think of it as moving the inside half forward. The same as the swing leg in Walking Gait.

This 'counter rotation' would re-supinate the outside foot (stance foot), the result being to, engage the bones of that foot and create a lever in preparation of the propulsive phase of gait thereby relieving the need for constant muscular contraction to maintain pressure on the 1st met head.

As everyone knows it is better to resist load with the skeletal structure instead of the musculature whenever possible.

Thanks again