New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

feet- together or apart - Page 4

post #91 of 116
Well SI, I really see this issue simply points out the limitations of the world through a keyboard and monitor. Also the difference between teaching through writing in an academic settng and out there on the snow. Comunicating through a keyboard is a skill somewhat unto itself, directly related to ones comfort and dexterity with the keyboard, on top of ones ability to write. I consider not very good at it. My fingers never seem to be able to keep up.

My guess is that these evolving discutions would continue to pop up as long as free discutions are allowed. A seperate forum is not a bad idea, but do you really think it would keep these discutions from happening in the "public" forums Ott? I see that it would take active moderation. And who would decide if someone could or couldn't post a reply to answer a request for help? Who would control direction of threads? As I see it, the best way to exercise control is to simply not respond. If someone responds to a post, then there is interest. And is the level of the initial question all the higher the discution on a given thread allowed to go? Is there a fear that someone might not get their question answered, or is it a fear of not being in control of the information being exchanged? [img]graemlins/evilgrin.gif[/img]
post #92 of 116
CalG, I agree that a seperate section should not be off limits to members, but Lisamarie's fitness thread got spun off into a seperate section and is great for fitness advice.

All I'm advocating is a place for professinals to have a place for shop talk which may not be of interest to the ski technique participants, they could ignore the whole thing, or not, as they choose.

post #93 of 116
Ric, I did not, and don't advocate a "big brother" type of seperate forum, Just one like LM's fittness forum which some of us don't read, or the ski gear forum, or resort info forum, etc.

There would be no taboo on asking a question in the "instructors forum" but it should most likely be answered in the technique forum unless it is germain to the discussion.

What you wouldn't get is someone stating there that they've lost it nor the need to ask someone their qualification to partake in the discussion.

Dchan often moves a discussion into a more appropriate place as can you or anyone by starting a new thread in that appropriate place.

Ski swaps are not discussed in the technique forum. Why does this thread, which is mainly about boots and alignment not fit into the gear section?

post #94 of 116
I think we all understand, or should, that there is an appropriate differance in the depth, scope and perspective of info offered as an answer to: "help my skiing as a student" vs, "help my understanding as an instructor, so I can help my students".

Are we just losing track of the audiance sometimes?

Does our inate and noble desire to know a deeper "why" re-direct threads to be more about interacting responders needs than those of the origional requestor?

Just wondering.......

Happy Holidays
post #95 of 116
No Ott, I don't take you for a big brother type. But I do think that sometimes the resistance to these threads are in large part someone trying to decide for others the value of what's being discussed, which is different than deciding where the discussion should take place, or debating the merits of whats being said and so allowing others to make an imformed decision. As I said, I don't have any problem with a seperate forum, but I don't think it will solve the perceived problem of the evolution of threads. Whatever is decided by the powers that be will of course be fine with me. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

I would expect to find a thread on how equipment affects our technique in the tecnique forum, but that's just my view.

I will also add that freely evolving threads sometimes uncover things that might have remained hidden if more control were exercised. Again, that's just my view. [img]smile.gif[/img]
post #96 of 116
Ric and others,

I in know way infer that any info presented here should be restricted. Nor do I believe it belongs in a separate forum. Nolo asked a direct question and I gave an answer. I don't think I'm talking about a limitation of the keyboard and our environment here. I very much enjoy (and participate in) discussions which are "instructor oriented." Actually, I don't really think there is or should be such a labeling as it implies a two class system that I don't think is of any value. My comments were specifically addressed to a style of posts which I think are not nearly as effective as they could be. In that sense they were intended as constructive cricism, nothing more.
post #97 of 116
Anarchy is the soul of the internet.

We have here the greatest library the world has ever seen. But the books are all in a big pile in the middle of the of the floor, and many of them have come unbound. That's OK, in searching for what I want I might just find something more interesting.

post #98 of 116
I too am begining to agree with Ott regarding a separate forum, as long as it is not closed to the general membership. I have commented before that I doubt anyone here speaks with the same degree of technical depth to their students, as they do on this forum. But some of us seem to be biomechanics geeks, and perhaps the simplicity that students seek stems from the depth of an instructor's technical understanding.

Quite often, when a group of people become excited about a specific topic, ideas are tossed around quickly, resulting in a sort of muddled chaos. Sometimes this eventually leads to clarity and order, sometimes not.

That being said, for those of us who may one day want to write for the general population, I think its good to get the feedback "I don't understand what you are talking about!!!"

Also, some issues are just "teacher issues" understandable to anyone who teaches anything. WHen I read about an issue surrounding a ski school which has similarities to stuff that goes on in the fitness industry, I notice that I am able to respond, and give advice objectively. The same sort of problem discussed on a fitness instructor forum may illicit a may, well, should I say, 'emotional' response!
post #99 of 116
I have to agree that adding another forum wouldn't have any effect on threads that drift and become overly technical. The only thing that would solve the problem is people having the discipline to start a new thread when they start to move away from what the original poster wanted to discuss. Which, incidentally, is what we should be doing now!
post #100 of 116
Merry Christmas all you Bears!! I wish you all a fine New Years and a prosperous and joyful 2003!! Oh oh, here I go.

Hmmm, speaking of threads drifting, which is a natural thing once the original point has been covered and new ideas have appeared, why is this one now completely off track with people jumping in and trying to define a topic they self admittedly have zero interest in pursuing? If a thread spawns offshoots that aren't interesting to you, READ ANOTHER THREAD! As was pointed out before, funkybob was answered with a pile of info and archived threads that directly dealt with his original question and people moved on and kept a line of discussion alive. There isn't anything wrong with that. If funkybob's post didn't get answered and techno/detailed/complex discussions ensued without regard for the poster, that would be a rude hijacking, that isn't what happened.

What I find rude and a real "hijack" are these consistent problems people have with what and how others discuss a topic that they are not even interested in, sometimes without ever reading the whole original thread to get the context. Get a life and quit interfering with what others obviously wish to pursue. How would it change anything if this was a different thread in a different place? Would that suddenly make the jargon and nitty gritty analysis okay? I'm not getting it. I suspect personal issues by some are behind alot of this. I don't need a censor and am quite capable of deciding for myself if a thread holds merit for me. I have gotten a great deal of ideas and directions to pursue from the threads on balance and alignment that have gotten the greatest amount of flak lately. For me, it is incredibly irritating to see a thread I'm following bound up over and over again, sometime pages at a time, by those who feel it their right to filibuster and post unrelated complaints so that the original discussion is disrupted and delayed. You have a right to do it, but I wish you'd ask yourself why. Maybe you'd go READ OR START ANOTHER POST. Sorry about the rant, it had to come out sometime.

Please don't read a great deal of irate anger into this post, it's not there. I just want to get to the end of a complex discussion and not have someone crap their pants and ruin a thoughtline I've been following.

I have now contributed to the further drifting of this thread. Sorry. :


[ December 25, 2002, 12:10 PM: Message edited by: joel ]
post #101 of 116
I'm with you, Joel. I reckon the balance/alignment conversation will go to email now that this topic has been graded as inappropriate for FunkyBob and the EpicSki community.
post #102 of 116
Joel, as usual, you make some excellent points. So many threads have become unreadable and hard to follow, simply from the amount of filibuster posts, protesting the contributers writing style. A simple, polite, "I'm not quite following you, could you explain, please?", might get better results.

Also, I don't think many people realize that our "SEARCH" option is once again functioning. These are probably close to 30 threads that come up with the words "stance width" or "feet close together".
The word "balance' kicked up 24 threads. Many threads on both these topics took a much simpler approach to what has recently been discussed. Check them out.
post #103 of 116
Jeez, nolo, don't be so thin skinned, I just made a suggestion I thought to be worthwhile, if it isn't, so be it. Besides, I have nothing to say in it's implimentation anyhow.

I'd rather have peace in the community than do anything to disturb it. If it was a bum suggestion, oh well [img]redface.gif[/img]

Happy Holidays to you and yours... ....Ott
post #104 of 116
David M:

Pierre: Modern equipment and technique advances have changed everything.
DM: Wow! This explains everything. No wonder I’m confused. I had no idea that the ski industry had such incredible power. They came up with new equipment they changed the laws of the universe at the same time. They invalidated the laws of physics and mechanics and killed off Newton in one fell swoop. And they have totally changed the way the human system works. Tell me quick can I now walk on water and fly too? I’m dying to know.
David, if you think that I don't know my physics, I do. If you think that I can't follow exactly what you are explaining, I can. I am offended by your tone but will not respond in kind. I will be straight to the point and say the following about your posts thus far.

I find your technical information on the subjects of balance, stance and how it relates to equipment to be of the highest caliber. I find it thoughtful and well laid out. Nice job.

Where we part company is how you relate all that to movements for efficient skiing. I find your application to skiing technique to be dated to the late 80's or early 90's and I suspect you are relating things to what you feel in your own skiing as you type. I suspect that your skiing is not near the caliber of you're posts.

That's how I feel in a nutshell.

Back to something more positive about your latest replies to this thread. I suspect you and Bob are saying the same thing too.
When we speak of total outside foot dominance in turns vs two footed 50/50 pressure in turns we are really miss interpreting different portions of the same turn taken as snap shots. Its near total outside foot dominance at the fall line to near 50/50 distribution at edge change.

In my own skiing, I am looking for balancing on the outside ski throughout the turn, reaching maximum dominance of the outside ski pressure at the fall line, to 50/50-inside/outside ski distribution of pressure at edge change. In my own skiing, I am looking for a very smooth passive blending of pressure between feet with no active shift of pressure or balance between my feet from turn to turn. Balance from one outside foot to the other is a gradual dynamic progressive change from foot to foot not an active transfer from one outside foot to the other with a shift in weight or unweight.

Keep in mind that contrary to your opinion, I am not dumb enough to think that I am balancing on two feet except for maybe a nano second at edge change but in my skiing you won't see an active change like you have talked about in other posts.

I don't find your technical merit at odds with anything that I have said and you have helped me greatly clarify where everything fits. I thank you very much for that, now I understand both sides.

It might do you wise to reciprocate and really find out what the short shapes have really allowed us to do. Nothing new that wasn't possible with straight skis before, its just that short shapes physically make possible, complicated movement patterns for mortals that were only available to athletes. We can blend things a bit more with good results. That is what Bob is trying to get across.

Again, your posts are high quality bet understood by very few on this forum and read by many. The minute you reply in a sharp tongue you lose credibility with those who do not follow the technical jargon. They will write you off every time.

Interpretation of the latest technical threads is "ski in dynamic balance between your feet by guiding and letting the skis do all the work instead of jumping up to turn or shoving the tails out to the side".
post #105 of 116
Pierre, excellent post. David M. you are many times your own worst enemy. Being a d*** at the drop of a hat does you or me no good what so ever, and it gets in the way of me getting your ideas in a coherent manner. Thank you, by the way, for the change in writing style, it is clearer and more easily assimilated, if you dropped the knee jerk verbal retorts we'd all benefit. Hope this isn't the end of it. Merry Christmas y'all.

post #106 of 116

I tend to agree with you: the instruction forum should be a place for students to ask questions and receive answers from professional and amateur instructors. Perhaps the instructors might drum up some business this way, if not for themselves then for ski schools and private programs in general. Let this forum be a marketing vehicle.

Let the instructor's forum be a place where instructors can share technical theory and practical/tactical tips and generally be instructors in dialogue with instructors. There currently is no site on the Internet where such high-level dialogue can take place since I ceased publishing Hyperchange Cafe. I have received a number of emails from people in academic settings asking me to reconsider that decision. Unbeknownst to me, some of the papers published there were being used as supplementary reading in college courses.

I'm for anything that will save students from learning more than they need and that will enable instructors to learn all that they should, and that will ease the confusion that occurs when the twain meet.

[This could be a topic for a separate thread, but this responds to an active sidebar in this thread and Ott's note about me being thin-skinned, so here it is.]

[ December 27, 2002, 07:29 AM: Message edited by: nolo ]
post #107 of 116
nolo, since LM chairs the fitness forum, and dchan this one, why couldn't you moderate the pro forum and continue the high level dialogue you had on Hyperchange Cafe? Call it: Hyperchange Cafe on EpicSki.

post #108 of 116
From the Plateau of the Average Skier, oboe votes "Aye!"
post #109 of 116
Small correction: I don't officially moderate the fitness forum, although some may say that I "push my weight around!"

Pun intended, sorry I just could not resist! [img]tongue.gif[/img]
post #110 of 116
I guess the discussion has evolved very technical while I am away skiing.

Bob Barnes,
Thank you for your suggestion on taking a ski instruction, but I left before I saw your comment. In Jay Peak, I was busy taking care of my children (7 and 5) for 5 days on a green cirlce area and did not have time to do anyting challenging. The condition was great though: Very cold, but few people and a lot of snow.

I did try "phantom move" first time. It works for me. I think my skis (Dynastar Speed Carve 63 178cm) may be a little to long for me to get the full advantage of the shaped skis (I'm 5'10" and 170 lb.), but it is interesting to see how Harald Harb's "free foot management" works. Only problem I had was lifting and tilting free foot is physically demanding for me. The total weight of boot and ski is just too much for me. I have to develop more leg muscle.

In fact I am heading to Colorado to attend one of Harlad's camps in a week. I will throw some of the opinions/theories discussed here to the instructors while I myself test their approach there. While I am inclined to their approach, I will try to be as objective and critical as possible.

Happy New Year!

post #111 of 116
That's an idea, Ott, but I like the great job dchan does and I'd rather be a player than a coach or custodian.

I thought I'd get some static for implying that pro-am dialogue is a form of marketing. Gonzo must be on Xmas break.
post #112 of 116
Originally posted by Pierre:
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.
As Pierre mentioned and as was probably mentioned many times....and as *I've been there*'s all beginning with alignment. You using footbeds? Once your feet are aligned Within The Boot..and your cuffs are set correctly, you'll enjoy the freedom and *touch* gained with the increased ability to steer and edge more independently..enabling you to ski the uneven terrain with lighter/quicker feet, giving you more options.

post #113 of 116
OK, nolo, no one would have to be a custodian, but don't you think it would be a great place for shop talk? All of us could look in anytime and participate anytime or ignore it anytime .

Neither AC nor many other instructors have voiced their opinion.

Is it because they think they would be losing something or not gaining something or what?
post #114 of 116
What's not to like?
post #115 of 116
Originally posted by Ott Gangl:
It's time to revisit the idea of a seperate "Instructors forum" or section. Please no one should be offended by what I'm about to say.

When a thread that is started by someone who asks a simple question explodes into a lengthy discussion among instructors and technicians and thus leaves that someone, and others hanging, either not understanding or uninterested, it is time to move such discussions into a section of it's own where there is no interference from non-professionals.

The setup that was suggested is actually pretty good. It proposed that the instructor's section would allow any pro discussion by instructors, patrollers, health and fitness professionals, etc. to have a place to shop talk, may it be about how a ski school is run, the intricacies of being a pro, etc.

All members of EpicSki could read the pro section but if they had a question they would post it here in this technique section which is read by all pros anyway and the pros, or anyone else, would answer and discuss the question in simple to understand language as had been done sofar.

This would not diminish this technique section but would clear it of the lenghty posts which only concern the professionals.

I first voted to not have a special section because even though there were lengthy explanations by pros,especially Bob Barnes who writes with such clarity approaching the point from various angles and gives good examples, that I didn't think it a good idea. As you see, I've changed my mind, not because I think the pro discussions are not valuable, just not in threads asked by intermediate skiers. But anyone could read the discussions and learn, if so inclined.

Give me a break! I can't tell you how much time and money I have wasted over the years on so-called "Professional Ski Instructors". There is such a ridiculous range of quality and knowledge that is represented by "professionals". And it is really hilarious that you think that such credentials are required before anyone ought to take what one says seriously.

I enjoy these threads because I am interested in different ideas and I think that (seemingly) non-credentialed participants' posts are as informative, interesting and keep the discussion just that. A discussion. Instead of just a series of ego-maniacal polemics which, unfortunately, these threads often become.
post #116 of 116
DC_Skier, my suggestion for a seperate section for instructors shop talk was not meant to keep anybody out, just to have discussions and bitching sessions about ski instruction together in one place so that folks like you who don't think much of professional ski instructors could ignore it and it would not encroach on discussions about technique as the thread "Ski instructor-career or hobby", which has nothing to do with skiing or technique, does.

I also agree with you that "non-credentialed" skiers are the life blood of this forum. If you stick around this forum a little longer you will realize that instructors of the highest caliber and never/evers and all inbetween consider themselves as equals and there is no condescending or 'talking down' taking place.

It is a sharing of information and we all learn from each other, that is the fun and the value of this forum, I think.

I'm sorry you had such bad experiences with "professional ski instructors", but it happens and that is exactly what the pros are discussing, from proper training to unionizing to how to get and keep talent,discussions which may be of no interest to many.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching