How Do you ski? New School Turning or Old School? - Page 3

I think if you want to make a parallel turn, equal edge angles are essential. Having slightly knocked or bowed knees, is more of an alignment issue & secondary to equal edge angles.




Although finding perfect alignment is nice too.

JF

Equal edge angles does not mean equal pressure. It only means that each ski has at least enough pressure to decamber it at that angle. The outside ski can still have a lot more pressure on it.

Being the class clown on the slopes I ski in all stances from my feet glued together to my feet three feet apart. Sometimes I even have my knees glue together and my skis two feet apart. I also ski with my feet apart or glued together in bumps, same in crud and deep snow.

Stance width does not play a major role if the center of mass is allowed to flow and the skis are guided back and forth to keep up with and dynamically balanced with the center of mass.

Stance width does play a major roll if your center of mass flow is controlled from a stable foot platform as in, your center of mass flow is controlled from the feet up. Basically tipping or weight shifting.

Stance width plays a very major role if the center of mass is basically restricted to that of stability vs dynamic stability. Low level skiers.

Mr Moose's stick drawing does not show this. Either way of moving the center of mass can be infered.

Since most skiers are somewhere between stability and dynamic balance and most want a solid feel it makes sense to adopt a stance width in lessons in order to negated as many variables as possible. Note though that lessons fix parameter like stance width for a spacific outcome and that is not necessarily the way to ski and most of the time isn't. When lessons become "the way to ski" we as instructors has dropped the communications ball.

I think of the stance as the body profile and position as it relates to its connection with the snow surface, that is from the skis/feet through the joints of the ankle, knees, hip and torso (pelvis and spine). By moving the knees apart to create a parallel relationship between the shins you are not changing the width between the feet and skis since they are the anchor/base for your stance.

It is my goal to equalize the edge angles of the two skis. Although the centripetal force of the turn moves the pressure to the outside ski, the inside ski should still be pressured enough to allow it to track on its edge to nearly match the arc of the outside ski. There will usually be a slight convergence towards the end of the turn since the inside ski is not pressured to as much and therefore not bent to the same degree therefore causing a different turn radius.


The outside foot will always have more pressure because of the dynamics of the turn. The centripetal forces move mass to the outside in any round turn. It has been my experience as an instructor that many skiers fail to equalize their edge angles by maintaining parallel shins because they haven't yet learned the skill of tipping the old outside/new inside ski at transition to the little toe side. You will find that if you put the primary move at transition to moving the new inside ski to the little toe edge that the new outside ski will automatically follow onto the big toe edge and better create parallel shins and equal edge angles. This helps to eliminate "A-framing" of the legs with its resultant unequal edge angles. I've found that if, at transition, a skier makes the primary move a tipping of the old inside ski from the little toe to the big toe edge that it almost always creates a momentary "A-framing" with a resultant slight delay in movement of the COM towards the apex of the new turn or in the worst case a skidding of the new outside ski and delayed carve of the turn.

A mantra from a ski school director I worked with. Big toe-Little toe.

Hi!
Your photos reminded me about one video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qH5C...eature=related
time - starting from 6:00 ...

You should always balance over your outside ski but if your stance width is wider you will be attempted to shift more weight than functional to the inside ski. This is the reason advanced skiers ski with their skis close together and total beginners with their skis wide apart. We know that that is not entirely true but if you go back in time 20y this was the standard. Except for race skiers that always have been using a wide stance. This is also one of the reasons a wider stance has become more popular, modern carving skis are more race oriented than what they used to be.

Advanced and expert skiers can usually ski with both a wide and a narrow stance but what we should ask ourselves is when eather stance width is better than the other. Except for the the balancing factor, easier to commit your balance over the outside ski if you have a close stance we have IMO two major components: horisontal and vertical.

Horisontal
If your skis are far apart you get very sensetive to differences in resistance. Even the slightest shift in friction or resistance will cause your body to rotate and seriously affect your balance. For instance in deep snow its hard to ski so that both skis would be submerged equally and both legs produce the exact same ammount of friction. In old school submerged powder I reccomend a close stance.

Vertical
If you ski on a very steep slope or a slope with varying pich like a mogul field its difficult to constantly be adjusting both legs vertically. Sometimes its even impossible. You need to track narrow to be able to squeez yourself through the narrow passages of a mogul field or to eliminate the need for a constant huge vertical separation that puts your weight over the inside ski.

Note, people usually think they use a very wide or close stance when in reality they only adjust their stance width just a few millimeters. General rule is that the more upright you stand the narrower is your stance. For a wide stance you need to stay very low. Think a total beginner that is scared to death. Get the picture? Beginners use wide stance expert use both a wide and a narrow.

Don't really know.

Back when I was a teen, my uncle was "accusing" me to ski too much with an eye on the "style" side and not enough on the "effectiveness" side...

Go figure it was the early (very early) '80s and with "style" he meant what here is indicated as "old school turning" and with "effectiveness" as the "new school turning"...

But wait, if we were in the '80s, how could it be something that it is now called "new school" ?

Anyway, I was the results of many years of ski school training, from then on, many things have changed and I've taken to "explore" the envelope by myself.

As for me being "old school" or "new school", you'll have to ask to the last I've skied with, Mr. Prickly.

Whom, BTW is a veryvery good and fit skier.

I noticed it some with the move to moderately shaped skis, but last weekend I was on my new 190 Gotams and there is no way to ski those close together due to the width and turned up tails.

If they are too close together they will eventually catch on each other and control is lost - not much fun along the treeline or at high speed.

You should try more active engagement of your little toe edge, it sounds like you might be letting it drift a little.

The picture of you is a good example of what I was saying in the post of mine that you quoted. Skis apart and legs together but if your shins were parallel, your legs would not be as close together. It's a nice picture, I haven't seen any of me skiing that well, but I when I said legs together, skis apart with parallel shins, I was picturing something more like the pictures of racers above. High edge angles. The main reason I can't ski more like that is probably because I ski too slow.

As Ghost points out, equal edge angles doesn't mean equal weighting, but for me it would be ok, equal weighting is Telemark gospel. I don't focus on equal weighting, allowing centrifugal forces to shift weight to the big toe ski, but keeping the little toe edge of trailing ski engaged is necessary in Telemark skiing. I tend to ski a little bow legged, 4sters suggestion that might be alignment issue makes sense.

Me too, but if I got high edge angles like Tyrone or Bush, "as close as possible", might be a foot apart.

Old school? New school? PUH-LEASE!

Unless you are referring to the pitiful state of the education system in this country today, what the heck are you on about? That New school skiers are as dumb as their current classroom counterparts?

Good skiing is good skiing. There is effective and less effective, efficient and less efficient, there is adaptable and less adaptable.

Whether a skier chooses to ski in a tight stance or an open one should be determined by the conditions and the desired outcome.

I would make a WAG and say that most of today's so-called "new schooler's" wouldn't know a good turn if it fell on them! (More likely, they'd fall on it!)

No doubt that there are some who came through disciplined programs, and have some real skill. But most of those I have seen claim to have 'steeze', but really it's just 'stink'.

Call me a curmudgeon (you might have to look up that word if you are a 'new schooler'), but at least I'm aware if I'm skiing well or not, and have pretty high standards for myself.

But all I hear these days is "it's all good". I hate to tell you this, bucko, but sometimes it's NOT all good! Sometimes, it downright SUCKS! And so does alot of what's passed off as "new school" skiing.

So, when you "new schooler's" think you have got your 'steeze' on, then take it out and put it up against a truly disciplined skier, and see if it stands up!

Ha, ha. I feel the same way; I was skiing "new school" 30 years ago too, just at higher speeds and bigger turns.

This "new school" basic method consisted of tipping the skis to the left big toe edge and right little toe edge to turn right and tipping the skis the opposite way to turn left. It was adapted to conditions: if a small radius turn on hardpack was called for at slow speeds, then the the ski was bent via a forward weight shift, then tipped; hard snow had weight shifting mostly to the outside ski, but turns on soft snow called for more equal weight distribution and a more careful balance of centripetal force, tipping angle and speed; and, up-moves were allowed to aid in making hockey stops. Ski width was totally dependent on terrain and intent and ranged between skis hitting each other squeezing between bumps and being about hip or shoulder width apart straighlining chutes.

Oh, and for slow speeds we had a "comma" shape instead of angulation.

I feel obligated to post this thought that has been recycled through several threads over the years:

In addition, there's this breakdown of the forces/accelerations:



(that photo was rotated to put the skier on a horizontal level for simplicity).

In the end, I like Bushwacker's notion of "functional and efficient". There are an infinite number of ways you can adjust your stance and style to put all the forces and accelerations in equilibrium, but there will be one "optimum". I think skiers need to settle into whatever is optimum for the given situation. I'd say optimum comes down to whatever provides the most control for the least amount of muscle input. A good skier will have excellent control with minimal work. A lousy skier, or a beginner, will have poor control and have to work really hard.

The term "old school" is more of an intimidation tactic than anything, and I agree with others that its really about more or less effectiveness.

However, that being said, there are definitely a few movements that some skiers are still stuck with from the old days and they are indeed carry overs from old ski technology and the way recreational skiers typically skied on that technology.

The original poster asked about narrow ski width. I would not deem that "old school" at all, there is nothing about the old or new equipment that restricts the stance width one way or another. If a skier is skiing around with boots locked together, I *WOULD* deem that old school because back in the 80's an awful lot of people were led to believe they should ski that way. It was improper to do so then and continues to be improper to do so now, but generally speaking nobody tells anyone to ski that way anymore, so thus I will label that particular inefficiency as old school. :-)

But having your feet narrow but independent is completely different from locked together.

I gave up on all this different style stuff, seems everytime I get close to mastering one style they change it and I have to start all over. So for me its French fries all the way ,don't have to skid or edge or pivot . Jest yell alot LOOK OUT!!!
love those french fries

Curly fries.

I have a newsflash. In 1979 there were folks that sideslipped more than actually turned their skis. There were folks that skied with their boots locked together. There were folks that carved using 95% of the outside ski and 5% of the inside ski. But, there were also folks that carved using both skis. The only difference then vs today is it took a lot more skill and experience to carve an arc because the sidecut wasn't as deep.

In other words, the main difference old school vs new school is that it took a lot more work to become a good skier in the old days, probably even more in the really old days.


So mind yer manners you snot nosed punks..

Most skiers I see that have a lot of separation in their stance while standing up are usually trying to compensate for poor balance and tipping skills at the feet. Their skiing almost always has a strong push off the outside ski, followed by extreme banking into the turn with their upper body, landing their balance on the inside foot, and then A-framing around the turn.

Toss them into rough snow and they usually flail around because the inside ski gets knocked out and then they are totally out of balance. On the groomed they will tell you that they are slaying it at huge edge angles which is true but only if you look at the outside foot which is basically coming along for the ride as an outrigger.

The female skier in Bushwacker's earlier post is doing it right!

Yes, I can see how well that would work while walking on a tightrope.
And on the balance beam too, in gymnastics.
Oh wait, gymnasts lose points for landing with their feet apart.
Ok, in diving: I can see how a competitive diver in the olympics would want to enter the water with his feet apart...
No, I guess not, how about....
Sky diving. Obviously, a skydiver or other parachute user should land with his feet spread, to distribute the force...
No, I guess I'm wrong there.
How about an outfielder jumping for a fly ball? Should he land with his legs spread after making the catch, or with his feet together?

The only sports I can think of where spreading your legs and feet is good: pro football, hockey, and bad skiing.

I think that's the big point-the difference between old and new school isn't wide vs narrow stance. Check out Goldmembers videos in the Trip Report section (Powder highway or something)-one of those features some great REALLY NEW SCHOOL Backcountry jibbing and zipping by some rossignol pro's (sage, etc)-Pretty Narrow stances (with not so narrow skis!) but that's in the powder filled back country. I'm sure other folks might bust out something a little wider as well-but I think there more to modern turning (as opposed to older style--how old are we talking anyway? 80's 90's 50's??) than stance choice.

Also, though I haven't been skiing all that long-the old-timers I ski with-even with their more traditional technique-don't advocate one approach or stance to skiing-I think even back in the day it was understood that different terrain and snow and intentions required different modification to one's skiing style (from stance to turn choice etc.). Does that seem right to any of you long time turners??

Liam

Well Sonny (Liam)

seeemce ta me that when we was young wipper snappers we would just umm strap them old barrel slats on our gummies and head down the hill makin like them little jump turns(not possitive but I is pretty sure thats what startted the "GLM" method a lernin originated) Then somewears along the way the old meathod a "no light between the knees 5 dollars please" method a teachin started catchen on, this involved tight legs an a hole lotta tiltin. Then some europeon city slicker come up with the idea a turnin the feets and keepin the body low and the feet outs beside ya on a turn, I'm thinkin this mightta been that Alberta Tomba fellas granpa. Well to answear yur originally question, We all tried to keep up with what ever the new fangled meathod a the day was and I do believe even at out old decrepid age we reap the benifits still of being comfortable of menya style today.

Hopin this was what ya youne uns wus lookin fur

I saw some sweet Old Skool 70s Racer technique Saturday.  Dude was sportin Rossi STs, the blue ones with red trim, rooster on the tips.  Skis 4 inches apart, tips on the ground with lots of forward shin pressure and the tail of the inside ski about a foot off the ground at the start of each turn.  My first ski instructor skied exactly like that.

 

cr, I remember that position well, and think I can see it clear to the mid 60's in fact. there were posters out in those days that showed racers with the inside ski tail off the snow, and we all emulated what we considered a very bad-ass position. The posters always featured the under-tip symbol of the brand (we would use paint to sharpen the symbol up if it scratched, recall symbols for head, kaestle, fisher, volkl, rossi, kneissel.) by the way, skied those ST-Comps.

 

BW, totally agree that in crust and crud a narrow stance provides greater stabiity. sometimes it feels like a single platform from which to drive through the turn or platform and lift/glide/fly over the chop and onto the other edge.. as above, all the different stances and techniques of the past 40 years are useful tools in special situations.