or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

feet- together or apart

post #1 of 116
Thread Starter 
I'm not exactly sure on this. but I find it more comfortable if my feet are locked especially on on uneven terrain. I also tend to "get into" my skiing- bent knees, use my arms and shoulders more, carve harder ect... but then my dad skis upright, practically standing straight with his feet locked together(I think europeans ski that way) and he is one of the best skiiers I know, he skis the hardest terrain, and skis it faster than almost anyone I know.

so is one way better than the other???

post #2 of 116
Oh boy...here we go again. This topic hasn't been dicussed in about a year.

I'm not sure how one can "carve harder" with feet locked together. Carving requires high edge and body angles, and these are very hard to achieve with your feet locked together.

My personal take: athletes ski with a slightly open, athletic stance who use their edges and body angles to carve turns.
Ballroom skiers ski with their feet locked together and pivot a flat ski for skidded direction changes.

"Good" skiing has many definitions. I do not describe good skiing as someone who can ski with their feet locked together, unless you are on old straight skis. And who would wanna ski those old things with what's available today.
post #3 of 116
Arby's thinking along my lines. Let me try to be a bit more specific, hmm propably i create more questions than provide answers, but let me post ANYTHING [img]tongue.gif[/img] anyway.

"so is one way better than the other???"

The answer to this is IMHO: No. Your dad propably skis what's called - in Europe at least - Parallel-style. Very elegant and effective on straight skis. Just works. It has been taught for decades, i went through this school, too. More style-stuff: Arlberg-style, predecessor to the parallel style, i think, and dictated by the equipment they had back in the 30's. If you ever go skiing the Arlberg region, you can still frequently see people skiing that. And there's Telemark, which i started on as a kid, because my folks didn't trust the Voodo-magic of the then new safety bindings. Forrests have been logged to provide the paper to print essays in ski mag's on your question in the last five years or so. And the wedeln, that's oomph, no offence, 70's disco. To be skied in one-piece ski suit.
Back to the 90's/'00's. The egocentric person i am i think the carving ski and style have been invented just for me. I like it a lot and it's all the buzz right now. Works great too, but nobody lays railroad tracks in terrain really. That's where skills coming from the parallel style come in handy. I personally think it's best to know as many styles, moves or whatever people might call it to be able to handle most of what a mountain might throw at you.
I assume you already have carving type (shaped) skis. If the difference between carving vs. parallel style is not obvious to you, you propably do not carve "right" yet. I think the easist way to get the carved turn experience: Carve a turn faky (backwards).
** Get a free, flat and groomed section of a slope.
** Provided you do not have a twin tip ski, you are forced to lean forward so that the tail doesn't dig in when you ski backwards, right?
** Stop and position yourself so that you've got a lot of clearance from anything
** Lean forward, and let the downhill ski go. People normally do not have any acquired skiing patterns skiing backwards, so what's normally is going to happen is that you lay a perfect railroad track.
** Fallen down? Try again, you'll get a hang pretty quickly.
** Do not attempt to link turns, just let go until you ski uphill and get to a standstill.
** Try a couple of times backwards, and you know what you've got to do initially in a forward turn.
** After a few days you'll have the fine tune to link turns perfectly and lay those GS railroad tracks
** Don't worry if you get the feel for right or left turns sooner than the other way, just stay focused and relaxed, and you'll be on in no-time
post #4 of 116
I don't particularly care for a radically shaped ski. Sure, it's easier, but I haven't been outclassed by a super side cut yet.

ANYway, feet at shoulder width apart is the most stable, even on straight skis. Feet locked, as said, looks like ballroom grace.
post #5 of 116
Yeah, gotta agree with Arby, this has been talked about quite a bit.

For a normal stance, the iliac spine should be directly over the second toe. The iliac spine is the protrusion of the hip as the bone starts to slope toward the groin.

As to stance width, I find that a narrow (not locked) stance works best for me. I balance on one ski and use the free ski control the amount of edge angle I desire. Sometimes I widen my stance in difficult terrain. At no time do I try to swivel my skis.

Hope that I have been of help.
post #6 of 116
Here you go, FunkyBob--from the EpicSki archives:

First, an excerpt from a thread of a couple years ago entitled Wacko, how long have you skied? (most of the thread wandered to unrelated topics):

It baffles me, actually, that we are even debating the "virtues" of a closed stance. As others have pointed out, this is a VERY old debate, and until Harb pulled the closed stance out of moth balls, I don't think there has been any "serious" debate on the subject for years! The ability to vary the stance width to whatever is most functional--narrower in bumps or powder, for example, is clearly important for versatility and virtuosity. But forcing the stance narrower than "natural," or worse, locking it together so the two skis become one, completely ignores the modern ideal that form follows function. Now that skis are finely tuned, highly engineered tools, we MUST follow this credo if we want to take full advantage of them!

We've discussed stance width at length before. There are very real liabilities to the closed stance! Here's a summary:

Problems and liabilities of the Closed Stance:

* It takes effort to force the legs together--energy that could be put to better use unless there is some real NEED to keep them together. It ain't natural!

* It is impossible to use the legs independently of each other when they are "as one" (obviously).

* "Clamping" one leg to the other prevents either leg from making the rapid, fine-motor edging and balancing adjustments that truly high-performance skiing demands. Remember your first aid classes? Splinting one leg to another is a pretty good way to prevent it from moving.

* Knees and ankles, especially, lose their freedom of movement.

* Truly locking the boots together hinders lateral balance adjustments, and prevents the skier from balancing on the inside edge of the outside ski when inclined into a turn--think monoskier. The "long-leg--short-leg" thing, which Wacko described as "vertical separation," eliminates this particular problem.

* Most importantly, when both skis rotate around one pivot point, we lose the extremely important rotary mechanism of "independent leg steering." As I have described several times, without this mechanism, we are restricted to turning the skis with gross movements of the upper body (unless we avoid rotary altogether--hint). Upper body rotary causes skidding and cannot be used to steer continuously.

* A very narrow stance eliminates the "safety valve" provided by the inside ski in the event that the outside ski loses its grip and slips away. If one goes--they both go.

* You can't make a wedge with your feet locked together--even when you need it.

Those are REAL downsides to the narrow, locked stance. What are the advantages, if any? Why does Harald Harb advocate it? I speculated on this a few days ago, in another thread. Harb's progression relies on a very active weight transfer (shift of balance from the old outside ski to the new one between turns). A narrow stance allows this weight transfer to happen more smoothly, without the big lateral shift of the body uphill that would be required with a wider stance. Try it: standing up with feet spread wide, balance on one foot, then the other. You had to move sideways, and it was probably pretty awkward. The closer your feet, the less movement the rest of your body must make when you shift from one to the other.

Is this an advantage? Or does it just point to another underlying problem? I argue the latter. I say insisting on an active weight transfer--a distinct "step" to the new ski--is an error, partially compensated for by the narrow stance! Practicing this active transfer--stepping, stemming, skiing on either ski exclusively--is great for balance and versatility. But real performance turns do NOT require an active, complete weight transfer. Like a car, in linked turns the weight will transfer naturally and smoothly to the outside ski (wheels), flowing through an instantaneous moment of "neutral" (equal weight) at the transition. This weight transfer will occur as the skier moves INTO the new turn--in SPITE of this movement into the turn, even. This flowing, downhill "into the turn" movement stands in stark contrast to the movement UPHILL required to make an active transfer to the uphill ski.

So again, I suspect that the narrow stance is a correction for the error of basing the turn transition on an active weight transfer. By minimimizing the disruption of flow that this move creates, the narrow stance masks a glaring error in the PMTS progression. Just as it requires deep sidecut skis and proper alignment, PMTS needs the narrow stance to prevent its limitations from being exposed.

As a whole, the "lift and tip," "don't use rotary," "force a narrow, parallel stance" system works together. I've said it before, and I'll repeat: as an EXERCISE line, it has merit. But as "the way to ski," I still see it as a system of errors, compensations, and omissions. (Please, Wacko, take no offense: even the very best exercises have something "wrong" with them--otherwise they wouldn't be exercises--they would be skiing!)

So stance width is clearly a matter of personal choice. Anyone who thinks a locked stance "looks good," and who thinks such things are important, should by all means practice it. All expert skiers can do it--very well, too, or they wouldn't be experts. But most don't, except when it is functionally useful (again, a narrower stance is arguably advantageous in bumps and powder). Personally, I think the truly locked stance is ugly. Any aesthetic elegance of the stance itself is completely overshadowed by the inelegance of the movements that result. Skiers with locked stances invariably either force their skis into vulgar skids with gross movements of their hips and torsos, or they carve very long, uncontrolled arcs.

Please note that I am not insisting on a WIDE stance! Provided that the skis and feet can act independently of each other, that neither interferes with the other, and that the feet act in support of each other, the best stance is the NATURAL stance. For some, this will be fairly narrow, depending on anatomy and alignment.

It is not necessary, then, that the skis be far apart, only that they be KEPT apart. Ironically, to carve turns while balanced on the outside ski, we actually HAVE to pull the feet strongly APART, all the way through the turn! The moment the skier stops actively pulling the skis apart, the forces of the turn will pull the inside ski toward the outside ski, interfering with its carving action. Think of the skis as two jet fighters flying wing-to-wing through a turn--what happens when the inside plane stops turning and goes straight? And what turns that inside ski? If it's tipped and pressured, it might carve. But if it has no pressure, the only thing that turns it is the skier, actively pulling it into the turn, away from the outside ski. Skiers who pull their feet TOGETHER are completely missing this point!

If the descriptions we've heard of your skiing are accurate, Wacko, they all make sense! Narrow stance, moderate skidding in most turns, tipping ("banking"), but strong in bumps--these all fit together. Congratulations on your progress so far! I think, though, that continued insistence on that narrow stance will hinder your progress at this point. Your "most important movement" may well now be to explore the virtues of different stance widths!

More snow in the forecast (maybe) for Monday. Anyone going skiing? I might be able to make a few runs on Tuesday.

Best regards,
Bob Barnes
And a few other threads that discussed the stance width issue at length:

Narrow vs wide, my stand

My comments on Expert 2

Lingo clarification on Narrow Stance

Are instructors wrong?

Feet Too Close Together

If you still have any questions after reading all that, fire away!

Best regards,
Bob Barnes
post #7 of 116
I'm not one to stay within a concept if I find a better method to complete a task. I have tried any type of stance to see if there was an improvement in balance,power and agility. I'm going with Bob on this one.
post #8 of 116
Thread Starter 
thanks Bob, (after an hour of reading) your reply and all the other threads answers about all of it. even tho I think I would have to say that ankle lockers can be just as good as anyone(just how much practice they have) but there are limitations to a locked stance.


post #9 of 116
Funky: I'm not sure what kind of ski you are on, shaped or straights, but if you are on a ski with any shape, it is darned near impossible to ski in a locked stance like we did in the 60's.

My first shapes were very mild and until I transitioned to a wider stance the shovel clash was enough to drive me nuts every time I changed edges.
post #10 of 116
I'll add just one thing. People with poor alignment to the inside often prefer a very close or locked stance and relatively flat skis as the skis can be more easily controlled and edge released.
post #11 of 116
Wow--I'm impressed that you read all those threads, Bob!

Just one thought to add (I'm pretty sure this came up in some of those threads, but I'll re-emphasize it here):

It is entirely possible to ski a "defensive" braking-style technique--pushing the tails out to a skid with each "turn"--with the feet clamped together. It does take some skill and good balance, but in some ways it's actually easier than with the feet apart. Each ski stabilizes the other a little. Of course, even here, it precludes the "backup" that a separated stance provides when the outside ski breaks away or slips on the ice.

But it is IMPOSSIBLE to make offensive, gliding, contemporary high-performance turns with the feet together, for reasons clearly outlined in the threads linked to above. And the sensations these turns produce are the ones most skiers fall in love with, once they've experienced them (few have)! And it is these types of turns that offer the most control and least effort in less-than-perfect-corduroy snow (i.e. off-piste, crud, powder, ice), the finest control of LINE, anywhere, the smoothest, least jarring and impactful bump skiing, and the fastest times through the race course.

Best regards,
Bob Barnes
post #12 of 116
>>>I'm not sure how one can "carve harder" with feet locked together. Carving requires high edge and body angles, and these are very hard to achieve with your feet locked together.

My personal take: athletes ski with a slightly open, athletic stance who use their edges and body angles to carve turns.
Ballroom skiers ski with their feet locked together and pivot a flat ski for skidded direction changes.<<<

Arby, as an old timer with 57 seasons of skiing under his belt, I'd like to clear up what I perceive to be some misconceptions. They may not be by you specifically, but for younger skiers in general.

In the very old Arlberge technique, skiing was wide stanced but with the very stiff wood skis the initiation required that the skier sank low while winding up the body, then with a powerfull up motion and unwinding of he body the skis came off the snow or nearly so and as the winding motion was blocked it yanked the skis around s the weight came down on them and they turned.

In the late 40s and early 50s the ski technology advanced to where carving was possible and by the 60s all expert skiers could carve.

Now to the crux of the matter. Carving, or even good skiing on the skis of the era required that ALL weight be on the inside edge of the outside ski, and for carving on the edge from under the boot forward to the shovel, the tail could just stutter or skid along. And for that a powerfull forward push on the boot tongue was required which transferred to the tip of the ski after the travel of the shin bottomed.

Imagine an inside ski without any weight on it in a wide stance swimming around and trying to cross the tips or catch an inside edge. ANY weight carried on the inside ski would dimish the capabilities of the outside ski.

Thus came the question of what to do with that weightless ski so as not to have to worry about it. The answer was to put it next to the weighted ski for stability, not locked together by any means, jus held together, and since that ski is advanced a few inches it will not cross since in the front it hit the upturned shovel of the outside ski and at bootside it hit the inside of the boot.

I don't ever remember that being done for effect or 'ballroom skiing' or such.

Since all skiing took place on the inside edge of the outside ski, very high edge angles could be achieved just by letting the inside ski ride up the leg. I often had the edge of the inside ski at boot top or even higher if I wanted to keep it off the snow, but the shovel of that ski always stayed on the snow since we were forward pressuring and it was impossible to lift the shovel off the snow.

With the arrival of the first softer French made skis in the 70s two footed skiing came back into being with weight distribution between skis going to 80-20 or 70-30. Still, a lightly weighted skis could get squirrely so keeping it close helped.

Now we come to shaped and short skis where we can ski a wider stance and not even think about weight distribution which takes care of itself automatically, increasing toward the the middle of the turn and decreasing as we come out of it.

Not thinking of weight distribution is best, since forcing it just screws the skier up. Being centered in all planes at the transition and gradually countering the forces developed during a turn so as not to be thrown off balance in any of the planes is best.

Aren't you glad you didn't live in the good old days of skiing [img]smile.gif[/img]

post #13 of 116

Unfortunatly this means that I think I'm still living in the 60's!!! This post should probably be in a thread on shaped skis but since it's directly related I'll shoot. (Bob, your opinions are greatly appreciated too!!)

I've been out of touch with all of the great skiers I used to ski with for about 8 years now. For the last 5 I've only been able to get in maybe 30 days. (something that I'm going to change this year whether it puts me back on the open market or not!!! : ) That being said it seems it may be hard for this old dog to learn (or better yet. . accept) new tricks.

As I've said numerous times, I love my toothpicks. I'm a speed freak who thinks the only time one should turn is when something gets in your way. I still like bumps, powder, crud, mashed potatos and the like, but burnin' corduroy simply gets me off to no end. The only time I've tried shaped skis was app. 7 years ago. I ran a pair of Elan SCX's for a day. I wasn't really blown away by them. As I've also said (ego here!!) I still ski better than 90% of what I encounter on the slopes regardless of their equipment. I've held the opinion, for the last 7 years, that shaped skis were there to help mediocre skiers. Therefore, the reason behind why you see so many of them on the slope (that's a double pun there folks!!). I also tend to think that professional skiers will ski what their sponsors demand of them. I.E. A Ford sponsored driver isn't going to drive a GM without reprecussions.

Now for the questions. Have things changed enough in 8 years to where I would be blown away by the new shaped ski's?? Is there a marked improvement in high speed turns?? Are they quicker in the big picture??

Several people here have stated that they would never go back to toothpicks. Why??
post #14 of 116
Well, first of all, toothpicks aren't manufactured anymore so we'd have to get our replacement skis on ebay .

Seriously, we all skied just great, albeit with more effort, on straight skis and yes, shaped skis have come along way in seven years. About five years ago I went from a 210 cm straight ski to a 200 cm shaped with a 26 meter (79ft) sidecut radius.

I am a heavy person at 230 pounds and sometimes more and those skis did well for me, tracking better than the straight ones. Then, before last season I went a foot shorter to 170 cm Atomic 11.20 skis. They are kind of heavy but at least as stable as any ski I've ever skied and the edges stick like glue, yet they are so much easier to turn, I'm just nodding my head in the direction I want to go and they carve cleanely . No more of the old up and down or hard forward pressure.

Anyway, if you give them a chance you'll love them, I'm sure.

post #15 of 116

Now about that forward pressure and angulation, the first day out on my Rossi Bandit X’s, I applied the old technique of hard forward shin pressure, hard knee angulation, and deep hip angulation. Like you, I am a large, heavy and aggressive skier. My old Élan’s would have made a nice 12-meter radius turn under those influences. The Bandit’s made about an 8 meter, or perhaps smaller, radius turn and just about pitched me over the “handlebars.” It took me a few runs to even begin eliminating the hip and knee angulation from the matrix and I still need to work on tipping without hard forward shin pressure.

I now ski on the Atomic 11.20 and I agree with you, they making carving effortless. The big plus with the 11.20’s is the utter stability as nearly any speed in any kind of crud.

I have never understood the rancorous debate about “feet together v. athletic stance.” I simply ski what the conditions require. And, no, I don’t think about it, it just happens. I suspect that I tend to ski with an athletic stance, but that is probably due to my size, shape and skiing history.

Hey, save a run for me sometime. I can’t imagine anything more enjoyable than spending a few hours skiing in your wake.

post #16 of 116

Great post as always. I know what you're saying, just don't have the years of experience to articulate it. My posts tend to be generalizations, and yes can lead to misconceptions.

I never (I mean barely ever) carved a turn on my old straight skis, but others could.
post #17 of 116
Wow- excellent discussion. I wish i had two days to read it.

My $.02. I think that you should go to the top of the hill and stand as natural as possible. Unless you're in the army, you'll find that your feet are typically about shouler width apart. If you don't ski like this and you're on shaped skis, you're wasting your money- go get old straights.

Skiing with your feet at a stable width will make you a much better skier.

I had to retake the PSIA cert. this year and found that this is what's standard. Before I just thought it was a good way to learn, now it's THE way to learn and ski. It's called "open parallel" to the best of my knowledge and is becoming pretty widely used. Watch any racer, watch any freeskier. DONT watch a good bumps skier.
post #18 of 116
Welcome to EpicSki, KT! Stick around--you'll find plenty of good discussions here. Hope you'll join in! Do read some of those threads when you get a chance--there are many reasons why an open (not necessarily wide) stance is "the way" these days. It is definitely not just a fashion statement!

While competitive bump skiers tend to ski a somewhat narrower stance than, say, a World Cup downhiller, their stance is still functionally "open." That is to say, they maintain the ability to work both feet and legs independently, even though they do often work them both as one.

Did you have to retake the Cert. exam because you had let your certification lapse, or did you go for another level? When were you first certified? (Hope you don't mind a few questions... ) It's always interesting to hear the perspective of someone who has been around for a while, and witnessed some of the evolution of the sport.

Best regards,
Bob Barnes
post #19 of 116
Thread Starter 
I do use a variety of forms, for different terrain and sometimes just because i'm bored. do you think its wise to play around with different forms for fun, or will that hinder my skiing?

post #20 of 116
I think it's an excellent idea to play around, FunkyBob! It's best, though, if you do it consciously. You should know when you're practicing one thing, and when you're practicing another--practice defensive braking moves for braking, offensive turning movements for "going where you want to go"--controlling line.

The real problem arises when someone just practices mistakes, without realizing it, and without practicing the alternatives. Play with the alternatives, for fun and versatility. Practice to ingrain good habits. There are no bad skills, but there are definitely bad habits!

Best regards,
Bob Barnes
post #21 of 116
funkybob, Bob Barnes is the authority on that, I just provided some history, but frankly, as long as your main skiing is done in the latest available technique for the skis you are skiing, it doesn't hurt to play around with whatever you want, even wedeln

If you look at the video that Bob shot of me wedeln you can see that the skis are slightly apart. With the straight skis you would have never seen daylight between my legs, but the wide shovels of the shaped skis keep nipping at each other at every turn if they are skied close.

No matter, it just goes to show you that old maneuvers like wedeln can be done on the newest equipment.

Actually, everything that has ever been done on skis can be done on the new shapes. Some slight modification in pressure and stance may have to happen, but that even held true in the past when going from one brand of skis to another.

post #22 of 116
If you get new skis you might consider going much shorter, up to your nose. 160-170 or so.

post #23 of 116
Just something I've noticed that works for me. The lower my body is into my turn(angulation),almost skidding my hand on the snow the more control I have. However,the outside ski has almost come out from under me. Booting out? After inspecting my ski tracks my feet don't seem that far apart(12 to 15"). In any case I like the sensation.
post #24 of 116
Alright already!, . . . and since even ebay doesn't have toothpicks anymore. . . I'll try. I'm 5'10" at around 180 so I'm thinking an Elan GSX or K2 Merlin (188 - 198) simply because of the price I can find them at right now. I'll drop that in the gear forum and reread some Ski reviews. If the money gods are happy maybe I can do it for a Christmas present to myself.

[ December 14, 2002, 01:15 AM: Message edited by: ski2xs ]
post #25 of 116
Hello Bob!! Thanks for the warm welcome! Actually, I've been instructing for a while now, just never took the cert till now. Our hill does not require it and this year is the first year I've decided it was worth it (time and money). It's great to see the sport progress at such a fast pace. Just today I was thinking; "wow, how much fun is it to be back on the hill". I'm so happy that things have changed because I really enjoy skiing shorter skis with an open parallel stance. I feel that it makes me a better skier in many ways. I was always a decent skier (I think) but now I just feel that much more confident.

I used to be on a different forum giving as many suggestions as possible, but I found that people on that forum weren't very "open". I hope that people here at epic ski will respect opinions, and so far things have been great!

As for a wide stance, those of you who think it's not the way to ski---go try it! Have fun with it and excellerate your ability!

Peaz and Carruts,
post #26 of 116
Originally posted by ktrubin:
...I used to be on a different forum giving as many suggestions as possible, but I found that people on that forum weren't very "open". I hope that people here at epic ski will respect opinions, and so far things have been great!...
Kyle, let me also welcome you aboard Epic. The other forum that you referred to can be lots of fun, but it is *very* different than here. Many of the people over there are quite savy and are very helpful, but they definitely like to come across as having an "attitude" towards newcomers, sort of like a hazing ritual. Anyway, Epic is a bit more sedate, maybe a bit older on average, but also wonderfully knowledgable and helpful. AFAIK, there are many more high level instructors/trainers/examiners/SSD's over here. Lots of us swing both ways (grin) and post on both forums depending on whether they are feeling sassy or serious.


Tom / PM

PS - BTW, people over here love discussing things like PR's vs 10ex's vs g4's, so if you want another sampling of opinions, do a search and then post some aspect of the question that hasn't been discussed recently.
post #27 of 116
Originally posted by Bob Barnes/Colorado:

While competitive bump skiers tend to ski a somewhat narrower stance than, say, a World Cup downhiller, their stance is still functionally "open." That is to say, they maintain the ability to work both feet and legs independently, even though they do often work them both as one.
"somewhat narrower" is a major stretch, bob. let's face it, good bump skiers use a closed stance...period. ALL of my coaches/instructors have taught me to keep my feet very close together. i think even shoulder width apart is too wide for effective zipperline skiing.

what's wrong with admitting that no one stance is appropriate for all situations?
post #28 of 116
somewhat narrower" is a major stretch, bob. let's face it, good bump skiers use a closed stance...period. ALL of my coaches/instructors have taught me to keep my feet very close together. i think even shoulder width apart is too wide for effective zipperline skiing.
Lets face it, pure zipperline skiing requires only youth, athletic ability, no real turning and very little carving. I guess a narrow stance is good for that. I would like to buy 25 years of youth.

[ December 15, 2002, 05:46 PM: Message edited by: Pierre ]
post #29 of 116
Originally posted by Pierre:
Lets face it, pure zipperline skiing requires only youth, athletic ability, no real turning and very little carving. I guess a narrow stance is good for that. I would like to buy 25 years of youth.
if there's no skill involved, thenwhy are there SOOOOO few good bump skiers? regardless of where i ski, i rarely see more than 2 or 3 other zipperline skiers on any given day.
post #30 of 116
Adema the reason you don't see many zipperline bumps skiers is because of the first part of my statement. You have to have youth and good athletic ability. Those things are rare. The advice on how to ski zipperline, is much more plentiful than skiers with the body to do so. There is no lack of skiers who would like to.
By the way, I don't see anything in my statment regarding lack of skill. Skiing zipperline does require agility and very good balance [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ December 15, 2002, 07:23 PM: Message edited by: Pierre ]
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching