New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"Skiing is . . ." - Page 2

post #31 of 58
[quote]Originally posted by oboe:

Quote:
a skier standing across the fall line on an even, smooth moderately steep slope has at least these choices: Pure sideslip down the fall line, braking to control speed to the max but allowing gravity alone to determine line, or: Carve, giving up control of speed as such but controlling line precisely, and using gravity but not allowing it full control. Proficiency in both of these skills - slipping [and braking] and carving - and the employment of each in varying degrees, allows the skier to go where the skier wishes at the speed the skier wishes.
That's pretty good oboe, for the most part I agree. You do have to add steering as one of your options though. Steering and sidesliping are actually 2 different skills. Sideslipping is strictly a release of the edge engagement of the slope with no rotary movements involved. This will provide very little direction control if you attempt to encorperate this in a turn. You must also introduce the rotary element associated with steering to gain the fine direction control combined with the speed control you seek.
post #32 of 58
Quote:
If you need to dump speed or turn sharper then ski geometry allows you can abort the carve and muscle the desired result through steering or pivoting, but this is an energy inefficient option and the signature technique of the lower level skier
I spend the vast majority of my time on a ski with a 10m turning radius. In the event my intent is to make a turn with a tighter radius I do so via inside foot steering. I think the application of the term "muscle" connotes something far different than mere inside leg rotation.

In addition I think it is incorrect to describe steering or pivoting as the signature technique of the lower level skier. Tail pushing, yes. I fail to see how braquage or inside foot steering is a signature technique of the lower level skier. The first in it's purest sense is pivoting and the second is a steering mechanism.

A skier in a gliding wedge or a skier learning a wedge christie should be taught the same movement that I make to make a 9m radius turn and that is inside foot steering.

In the parlance of Bob Barnes it is, "left tip left to go left or right tip right to go right". The signature of this wonderful mantra is a ski tail following a ski tip as opposed to a ski tail being displaced.

Lastly, I don't profess to be a high level race coach, however, my untrained eye sees occasions when world cup racers do a great deal of pivoting and steering if the occasion calls for it in order to redirect their path.
post #33 of 58
Thread Starter 
Yes, I do understand the classic trinity of edging, pressure, and rotation [steering]. Here we were focusing mainly on edging. From reading, and from watching the experts, it's become obvious that the use of these skills, and the blending of carving and slipping, allow great skiers to do pretty much whatever they damned well please . . . and I do so respect and envy that.

To ski where I want and maintain speeds that are safe for someone like me, I'd cut of my left thingamujig to have those skills.
post #34 of 58
[quote]Originally posted by Rusty Guy:

[I spend the vast majority of my time on a ski with a 10m turning radius. In the event my intent is to make a turn with a tighter radius I do so via inside foot steering. I think the application of the term "muscle" connotes something far different than mere inside leg rotation.

FASTMAN:
In clean carves we strive to use the innate turning capabilities of the ski by putting them on edge, directing the forces of the turn to the heel/1st MT arch of the outside foot, and seeking an efficient balance position with skeletal alignment, removing muscular involvement as much as possible. Steering depends on muscular involvement.

And I hope you are steering both skis, not just your inside. If not, unless your making the turn with pressure totally on your inside ski you'll be making face down snow angels.

A 10m radius ski and you still need to steer your turns? Geez Rusty, how slow do you ski?

RUSTY:
In addition I think it is incorrect to describe steering or pivoting as the signature technique of the lower level skier. Tail pushing, yes.

FASTMAN:
Depends how far down the skill ladder you go. I was referring to a level lower than expert. I'd put tail pushing a couple more rungs down.

RUSTY:
In the parlance of Bob Barnes it is, "left tip left to go left or right tip right to go right". The signature of this wonderful mantra is a ski tail following a ski tip as opposed to a ski tail being displaced.

FASTMAN:
Mantra? What an appropriate term!! If you are using this MANTRA in association with steering then something is amiss because the tail does not follow the tip in a steered turn, they follow different arcs. Thus the washed track. The wider the wash the greater separation in the arcs.

RUSTY:
Lastly, I don't profess to be a high level race coach, however, my untrained eye sees occasions when world cup racers do a great deal of pivoting and steering if the occasion calls for it in order to redirect their path

FASTMAN:
Your layman's eye is correct. At least in respect to pivoting. Steering is a very slow technique so what you will typically see is a pivot followed by a quick feather into a carve. This is one of the myths that has emerged with the usage of short radius skis, that pivoting has been virtually eliminated. Wrong! On steep course sections you will see it often. But the goal when the course and slope allow is always pure carves. Any introduction of steering or pivoting is like applying the brakes. Not quite what we're looking for in racing! :

[ May 28, 2003, 06:57 PM: Message edited by: FastMan ]
post #35 of 58
Fastman,

I don't want to be argumentative, however, you put forth information that quite frankly flies in the face of what is being espoused by technicians I respect here in central Colorado. First of all you stated, In clean carves we strive to use the innate turning capabilities of the ski by putting them on edge, directing the forces of the turn to the heel/1st MT arch of the outside foot, and seeking an efficient balance position with skeletal alignment, removing muscular involvement as much as possible.

In years past technicians advocated weight moving from one area of the foot to the other and as respectfully as I can say this a seeming majority of current technicians seem to advocate weight remaining centered. I would say the pendulum has swung away from ball-arch-heel movement. In Bob Barnes text "The Complete Encyclopedia of Skiing" the author writes, "I am convinced that the best, fastest turns at any level involve a centered stance throughout each turn and through the transition to the next turn."

Please explain how tipping the skis cannot involve "muscular involvement". Again "we" currently teach students to begin turns via inversion or supination. Inversion inherently causes a mild "toeing in" of the foot, hence in a "pure carved turn femural rotation exists to combat this tendency. I'll speak more of this in a second.

You equate steering with speed when you say, "Steering is a very slow technique so what you will typically see is a pivot followed by a quick feather into a carve." I don't see what steering has to do with speed. In the past year in "The Professional Skier" Deb Armstrong lamented the fact that she did not have a greater understanding of the role of inside foot steering while she was competing. In addition, since inversion of the inside foot actually causes the toe to abduct,as I said earlier, carved turns actually require femural rotation. I know you are fond of advocating indoor drills. Draw a line down the center of either thigh and tip your foot towards the little toe edge. The rotation is evident. Again, "we" talk about steering existing in all turns, no matter the speed, since our legs are rotating under our pelvis in every type of turn. Carved, scarved or skidded.

Perhaps we are more in agreement than I realize, however, in my short tenure teaching in Colorado, there seemed to be a chasm between your view and those of various clinicians that I have encountered.

A great many folks will read what you have put forth as being "the way" and I simply wanted to offer a dissenting opinion.
post #36 of 58
Quote:
FASTMAN:
Mantra? What an appropriate term!! If you are using this MANTRA in association with steering then something is amiss because the tail does not follow the tip in a steered turn, they follow different arcs. Thus the washed track. The wider the wash the greater separation in the arcs.
When doing any turn including railroad track turns where the tail follows the tip, the inside ski runs a tighter arc than the outside ski. Tell me how it is possible to do this with more weight on the outside ski, without steering the inside ski?

In railroad track pure carve turns the outside ski is not actively steered however the inside ski is. Don't confuse steering with pivoting.
post #37 of 58
Quote:
Originally posted by Pierre:

In railroad track pure carve turns the outside ski is not actively steered however the inside ski is. Don't confuse steering with pivoting
Amen!

[ May 28, 2003, 09:08 PM: Message edited by: Rusty Guy ]
post #38 of 58
[quote]Originally posted by Pierre:
[QB][quote]FASTMAN:
Mantra? What an appropriate term!! If you are using this MANTRA in association with steering then something is amiss because the tail does not follow the tip in a steered turn, they follow different arcs. Thus the washed track. The wider the wash the greater separation in the arcs.

PIERRE ASKS:
When doing any turn including railroad track turns where the tail follows the tip, the inside ski runs a tighter arc than the outside ski. Tell me how it is possible to do this with more weight on the outside ski, without steering the inside ski?

FASTMAN:
OK, first I will answer your question, then I will tell you why this question doesn't speak to the point I was making.

Theoretically it is possible by increasing the edge angle of the inside ski to produce a turn shape that keeps the feet at a constant separation distance. Sounds like more than I want to do though, so I'm with you, I'm going to steer it the amount needed to compensate for the variance in paths of travel.

What I was referring to however was a steered turn where the tip and tail of the same ski are following separate paths of travel. I don't consider a turn where the tip and tail of the outside ski follow the same path to be a steered turn. The topic Rusty and I were addressing was one of steered turns so I commented on that presumption. I did give him the option to correct me if my presumption about his statement was incorrect but he seems to have declined that offer.
post #39 of 58
[quote]Originally posted by Rusty Guy:
[QB]Fastman,

I don't want to be argumentative, however, you put forth information that quite frankly flies in the face of what is being espoused by technicians I respect here in central Colorado.

FASTMAN:
Don't worry Rusty, I'll get you guys straightened out!

RUSTY:
First of all you stated, In clean carves we strive to use the innate turning capabilities of the ski by putting them on edge, directing the forces of the turn to the heel/1st MT arch of the outside foot, and seeking an efficient balance position with skeletal alignment, removing muscular involvement as much as possible.

In years past technicians advocated weight moving from one area of the foot to the other and as respectfully as I can say this a seeming majority of current technicians seem to advocate weight remaining centered. I would say the pendulum has swung away from ball-arch-heel movement.

FASTMAN:
Rusty I fear you have misread my statement. If you are referring to the concept of finding and maintaining fore/aft neutral in the foot we have no contention. My statement was meant to identify a particular arch of the 3 with in the foot as the place we ideally want to direct pressure to. It was not an advocation for moving fore/aft pressure location during the turn. There is a theoretical optimum distribution of pressure across this arch but I don't wish to cover that right now.

However if you were speaking of attempting to achieve and maintain laterally centered pressure across the foot there are many reasons why this is neither advisable nor feasible. Not ready to go into a full explanation of this tonight either.

RUSTY:
Please explain how tipping the skis cannot involve "muscular involvement".

FASTMAN:
Now Rusty you NO I didn't say NO involvement! Please reread my statement:

"removing muscular involvement as much as possible."

Of course there has to be muscular involvement in skiing, but the more skilled we become with balancing on a clean edge the less we employ it.

RUSTY:
You equate steering with speed when you say, "Steering is a very slow technique so what you will typically see is a pivot followed by a quick feather into a carve." I don't see what steering has to do with speed.

FASTMAN:
Steering places a ski in an angular orientation to the direction of travel. Pressuring a ski that is orientated in a direction other than it's actual direction of travel (which steering does) produces a braking effect. Pivoting allows for a non pressured redirection of skis prior to carve that reduces the breaking effect to the brief moment of feathering back to carve. Much less net breaking.

RUSTY:
Draw a line down the center of either thigh and tip your foot towards the little toe edge. The rotation is evident. Again, "we" talk about steering existing in all turns, no matter the speed, since our legs are rotating under our pelvis in every type of turn. Carved, scarved or skidded.

FASTMAN:
This gets more complicated than you present in this argument Rusty. The rotation is opposite in each leg and can alternate depending on skier intent. It can also be neutral depending on the tipping mechanism we use. Femoral rotation can be used as a turning mechanism or a balance mechanism.

RUSTY:
Perhaps we are more in agreement than I realize, however, in my short tenure teaching in Colorado, there seemed to be a chasm between your view and those of various clinicians that I have encountered.

FASTMAN:
Much is just a matter of semantics, as evidenced by the responses I've provided here. The rest I'm trying to fix!

[ May 28, 2003, 10:14 PM: Message edited by: FastMan ]
post #40 of 58
Fastman?
Quote:
OK, first I will answer your question, then I will tell you why this question doesn't speak to the point I was making.
You may be close to us in thinking but what you are doing in trying to make you're point, is using teminology that we have tried to abandon but is still expoused by the bulk of uninformed instructors. I could tell that Rusty was not really reading you're post but assuming that you were expousing the same old stuff.

Inside foot steering and stance on the inside foot (strong inside half) is so important that we never leave it out of conversation and have separated steering out from other forms of rotary like pivoting. When the tail does not follow the tip, pivoting or tail pushing is occuring

When you speak of steering in the same breath as pivoting and tail wash you will be interperated wrong by all who still do these inefficient things. You will also be interperated as a lower level instructor by people obsesed with a strong inside half. Expect to get jumped on if you don't separate the two in posts. Also expect to get miss interperated by racers on the course if you don't separate the two. They will pivot every time you want them to add more steering to the inside foot.

I have read enough of your posts to know that you are not in the catagory of lower level instructor. Pivoting a flat ski followed by a quick feather to a carved edge was the norm in a slalom course on straight skis. I think that you would agree that the new courses and techniques are striving to gain an early edge rather that pivot to a carve. We use to call that pivoting "steering angle". We don't anymore so as not to confuse the term "steering". Pivoting to a feathered edge is still seen regularly in the course as this is still a great way to gain a higher line or correct for mistakes after you have blown your technique on the previous gates. Do you agree with this paragraph?
post #41 of 58
Quote:
Originally posted by FastMan:
FASTMAN:
Don't worry Rusty, I'll get you guys straightened out!
That would be great....I'll hang on every word

[ May 29, 2003, 06:35 AM: Message edited by: Rusty Guy ]
post #42 of 58
Quote:
Originally posted by Pierre:
I could tell that Rusty was not really reading you're post but assuming that you were expousing the same old stuff.
I read it....I swear I did....I either am not the brightest guy in the world and don't get it(the opinion held by those who know me well) or disagree with some of the stuff posited by our friend from Florida.

I started to ask him about his use of the word "we" in all his writing. "We" do this or "we" believe that. I decided to skip it.
I was afraid I'd get the sermon on the mount that Ydnar received. Fastman.....Ydnar is a fairly well respected and well thought of teacher in Utah!

[ May 29, 2003, 06:34 AM: Message edited by: Rusty Guy ]
post #43 of 58
Rusty you are obviously prejudice by the fact that he is from the great skiing state of Florida. Otherwise you would not mention it.
post #44 of 58
Back to the topic for a post...

Skiing is...

Further proof of a supreme being/creator.



S
post #45 of 58
All,

Boy, make one little post go away for a day and all hell breaks loose.

Whygimf,

My statement was made in another thread and was meant to be practical rather than poetic.

Fastman,

Here is another category of skiers for you. They know there is more to skiing but they only ski a couple weeks a year and don’t think they can put in the time to reach ‘the heights’ because they have been told that it is a long hard climb.

Actually, some of your post reinforces my comment. I work with the general skiing public and I can tell you that there are a lot of people out there who are aware of the possibilities above their current level yet for a variety of reasons don’t pursue them. They are legion, but as a race oriented coach/instructor you seldom come into contact with them so you make the assumption that there can’t be many of them.

You also seem to read a lot more into my statement than is in the words themselves, I said and implied nothing about your past experiences or how you got to where you are. All, I am saying is that you have a racer’s/ race coache’s view of skiing and that that might not be as broad as it might be. I indeed have no idea how you got to where you are or just what ‘top’ you are at all I have to go by are your posts and to me they have always reflected this limited view. And to be a great race coach this limited view is necessary to some extent.

Oboe,

My statement is indeed opposed to the instructional didactics espoused by many in our industry today where the carve is king and anything else is a lesser form of skiing. But having been opposed to the powers that be in almost all aspects of my life for as long as I can remember it feels very natural. The only people I really listen to in regard to what works and what makes good ski instruction are my students. They know, observers are just guessing. Also, i should add carve into the brush, skid and slip statement. The best skiers can do pivot slips, hockey slides in a ski width corridor, leave single or double grooves in the snow behind them and anything in-between. The pure carve is a limited tool to ski the whole mountain with.

What I meant in the pure carve statement is that your speed is determined by the physics of the situation you are carving in and your choice of line is limited to that very small slice of paths that fall in the skis carving range. For example, how do you carve a 12 meter radius arc on Rusty's 10 meter radius skis or how do you carve a 10 meter radius arc on my 34 meter radius downhills.

On the Rusty/Pierre/Fastman conversation,

It is necessary to steer (or tip for that matter) only the right ski to go right and only the left ski to go left. The other ski follows every time, at least every time I have ever done it. Actively guide the inside ski and both go where you want them to.

It takes no more muscle to point (steer) the inside ski than it does to tip (edge) the inside ski so if anything i have to use more muscle when carving because I have to deal with the greater forces generated by the turning ski. I can go from a pure carve to any degree of brushed carve I want with no change in muscular input as far as force is concerned. Its a pointy feel rather than a tippy feel.

Interestingly enough I always try to tip the inside ski a little more than the outside not just when doing RR track turns. Its easy and produces incredibly fast, accurate skiing.

Yd
post #46 of 58
ohh la la what a discussion. I'll let y'all hash that out.
Quote:
My understanding - even my experience! - is that the purer the carve, the less control per se over speed I have, but I have more precise control over line. -Oboe
Oboe you may be able to ski a more precise line, but the range of lines is much more limited in the pure carve. If you allow the skis to break a bit then you can ski many more lines.

Let's say you're trying to follow the tracks of another skier with a different sidecut and length of ski. To do so accurately there are going to be times when the skis will have to skid to stay on the tracks. If you stay carving the entire time, you'll have a precise line but it won't be accurate to the previous tracks. So you will have skied a very precise but also very inaccurate line.(now let's get physicsman involved...)

[ May 29, 2003, 03:27 PM: Message edited by: Tog ]
post #47 of 58
Tog,

Thanks, i think your explaination is better than mine.

Yd
post #48 of 58
Well now, aint this a bag of fun! Don’t worry LisaMarie, it’s mob behavior, but I promise not to compare it to terrorism!

I’ll try to respond to some of your comments. In doing so I will try to refrain from referring to your place of residence, criticizing your writing style, expounding on your narrow vision of the sport, or twisting any of your words to provide myself with a better basis for an argument. And I will also attempt to treat Yadnar with all the royal respect he so righteously deserves.

PIERRE:
You may be close to us in thinking but what you are doing in trying to make you're point, is using teminology that we have tried to abandon but is still expoused by the bulk of uninformed instructors.

When you speak of steering in the same breath as pivoting and tail wash you will be interperated wrong by all who still do these inefficient things

FASTMAN:
I understand what you are saying here Pierre. Anytime someone dares to not walk in lock step with the formation the sergeants are bound to squawk. But as I’m sure you know progress does not always come from within the conformity of the ranks. The way I see it here progress is to be made by ensuring that something of value is not lost in the rush to change.

Steering is nothing more than the turning of a pressured ski with rotational force delivered through the foot. Yes, this requires muscular application to accomplish. This steering can take place on the inside ski, the outside ski, or both, as long as the ski(s) is/are pressured. If the ski is not pressured then steering is not truly taking place because turning will not result from the action. The term was named appropriately for the result it created, immediate control over the direction of travel, as in a car when you turn the steering wheel. The sharpness of the turn is totally up to the skier and is dependent on the amount of rotational force applied. The greater the force, the sharper the turn, the wider the track wash. That’s right, track wash. A steered ski redirects both tip and tail, as opposed to the tail pushing connotation of the term tail wash.

These skills are what oboe is hoping to refine in his skiing for the great control of direction and speed they afford.

Pivoting is the redirecting of a lightly, or non-pressured ski, usually done at the beginning of a turn. It is often done in conjunction with a carve, but doesn’t have to be, it can also be followed with a steer. Its purpose is to quickly sharpen the turn shape and is necessitated out of carving or slope limitations. Examples would be a narrow chute where the direction change has to happen NOW, or in a race course where the required turn shape exceeds the limits of the sidecut.

It now seems you are telling me the term steering has been commandeered, and can now only be used in the narrow scope defined by the powers that be without risk of severe reprimand. This is unfortunate, as steering has many varied and legitimate applications, as does pivoting. I truly don’t believe these are inefficient things we (me and my skis) shouldn’t do any more, as you suggest. There are situations we (me and my skis) encounter while skiing the mountain (yes, I do venture away from the race course Yadnar) in which these techniques are the most efficient choices for accomplishing what we are attempting. Removing these options from our (me and my skis) skill quiver deminishes our (me and my skis) versatility. Removing the use of the term in its traditional context from the skiing vocabulary challenges our (me and my skis) ability to share descriptions of these valuable skills to others

Pierre, you and Rusty use the term steering two different ways. You used it in regard to the correction movement of the inside ski to correspond to a carving outside ski. In that instance the outside ski is determining turn shape and the inside ski is being adjusted to conform. Rusty used the term to define the way he produces a 9 meter turn on a 10 meter ski. In his example the turn shape is being established by the steering ski. Is it not so much the function, but the location of the action that grants currents legitimacy to the usage of the term?

PIERRE:
Pivoting a flat ski followed by a quick feather to a carved edge was the norm in a slalom course on straight skis. I think that you would agree that the new courses and techniques are striving to gain an early edge rather that pivot to a carve. We use to call that pivoting "steering angle". We don't anymore so as not to confuse the term "steering". Pivoting to a feathered edge is still seen regularly in the course as this is still a great way to gain a higher line or correct for mistakes after you have blown your technique on the previous gates. Do you agree with this paragraph?

FASTMAN:
Down here in Florida we (me and every other coach) always called pivoting pivoting. Steering is something that was then, and still is today, avoided because of the speed loss it causes. Yes, early establishment of carve is now the goal. It always was, it was just harder to accomplish with long radius skis. We (me and other racers) would sometimes add a diverging step at the end of the turn to suppliment the carve so we could avoid the pivot and feather at the top of the turn. This is the technique that earned Debbie Armstrong her Olympic Gold Medal in 1984. If she had steered her turns in that race you would not know her name today. Pivoting is still employed when the direction change exceeds the sidecut. Most would be very surprised how extensively it is used in tactical application today. As far as edge angle, the ski does not have to be flat to be pivoted, it just has to be light. And yes, it does come in handy in times of line crises too!

YADNAR:
I work with the general skiing public and I can tell you that there are a lot of people out there who are aware of the possibilities above their current level yet for a variety of reasons don’t pursue them. They are legion, but as a race oriented coach/instructor you seldom come into contact with them so you make the assumption that there can’t be many of them.

FASTMAN:
I don’t buy that. My first category spoke of people who had no desire to improve. I would doubt you as an instructor would have greater contact with people who have no interest in lessons than I as a race coach would because they have no interest in contacting either one of us. My contact with the world of skiing does not begin and end at the bottom of a race course. It’s a cumulation of 40 years of immersion in various facets of the sport. Racing just serves to provide me with an extra perspective many don’t have privy to.

YADNAR:
You also seem to read a lot more into my statement than is in the words themselves, I said and implied nothing about your past experiences or how you got to where you are. All, I am saying is that you have a racer’s/ race coache’s view of skiing and that that might not be as broad as it might be.

FASTMAN:
As good ole Ronny Reagan would say, “There he goes again.” The view of the sport I possess today IS A PRODUCT of my past experiences!! Thus the reason I presented them.

YADNAR:
I have to go by are your posts and to me they have always reflected this limited view.

FASTMAN:
The views I have expressed here have been tailored to address the focus of this forum: ski instruction. These posts as such only represent a microcosm of my view of the world of skiing.

If you read my posts closely you will notice that I started a thread in which I attempted to stress the importance of delaying the introduction of carving skills until a thorough foundation of basic skills has been developed, and commented on the current rush to carve tendency. Bob Barnes jumped in to be an ally in that effort. Obviously my focus and interests go well beyond strictly carving. I also started threads on fear, and on balance. And just recently on the subject on innate movement patterns. As I said before, that pigeon hole classification is way of base.
post #49 of 58
Quote:
Originally posted by Tog:

Let's say you're trying to follow the tracks of another skier with a different sidecut and length of ski. To do so accurately there are going to be times when the skis will have to skid to stay on the tracks. [/QB]
Your right Tog. From the smallest radius turn the skis with the larger radius sidecut can carve up to a straight run the skis will be able to track each other because the skiers can vary the edge angle to produce an infinite range of turn shapes. But once the skis with the more dramatic sidecut begin to carve turn shapes with radius smaller than the larger radius skis can produce the skier on the larger radius skis will have to abort the carve to follow the track. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

[ May 29, 2003, 09:55 PM: Message edited by: FastMan ]
post #50 of 58
FastMan,

Mob behavior? Hardly, you are just in the position of being a lone voice aginst several and as far as I can tell from the written words alone are as guilty of being sarcastic/belittleing as anyone. An example of this is my wondering if your miss-spelling of my handle is just a mistake or some kind of attempted put down. From the remark about giving me the respect I deserve I am leaning to the second explaination but I really don't know do I. Hell, if you feel that we are ganging up on you then its only natural that you might react defensively, I would.

As to those who are unmotivated to change. I know they are out there because their friends and loved ones who do want to improve tell me about them all the time during lessons and I actually do get to meet a lot of them when their friends and loved ones drag them in for a lesson or when they show up for a lesson and explain that they are there because their friends are achieving skills that they didn't think possible considering the time they have to devote to skiing. I doubt if any of these people would ever show up for a serious race program or any kind of race oriented lesson for that matter.

One thing that we do agree on is that once people exprience a carvier way of skiing they don't want to go back, especially when they realize it is as simple as pointing the right foot right and the left foot left. And interestingly enough it really dosen't matter a lot which foot the pressure is on.

I begin to feel that your statements about setting we who don't agree with you straight should be written without the smilely faces.

Yd
post #51 of 58
[quote]Originally posted by Ydnar:
[QB]FastMan,

Mob behavior? Hardly, you are just in the position of being a lone voice aginst several and as far as I can tell from the written words alone are as guilty of being sarcastic/belittleing as anyone. An example of this is my wondering if your miss-spelling of my handle is just a mistake or some kind of attempted put down. From the remark about giving me the respect I deserve I am leaning to the second explaination

FASTMAN:
The miss spelling of your handle was an honest mistake. If I had been going for an insult I could have done better, but I try to avoid such childishness. The respect comment was a response to Rusty who, because I dared to disagree with you, thought it necessary to inform me of the high esteem you are held in.

I freely admit that I challenge many ideas and present alternatives here on this forum, and of course it initiates some spirited debate, but I think this is a potentially healthy thing. Little could be gained if I came on here and played the role of the head nodding disciple.

I make great efforts during the exchanges to keep the interaction on my end focused directly on the ideas being presented, not on the qualifications of the person at the other end of discussion. Allowing the conversation to diminish to that level degrades the quality and potential of the debate, and serves to provide nothing to the outside reader of value other than the entertainment some find in witnessing such foolishness. I have no desire to entertain those people. I'm here to try to provide something of value to those who are pursuing excellence in this sport.
post #52 of 58
Quote:
Well now, aint this a bag of fun! Don’t worry LisaMarie, it’s mob behavior, but I promise not to compare it to terrorism!

I’ll try to respond to some of your comments. In doing so I will try to refrain from referring to your place of residence, criticizing your writing style, expounding on your narrow vision of the sport, or twisting any of your words to provide myself with a better basis for an argument. And I will also attempt to treat Yadnar with all the royal respect he so righteously deserves.
Ok Fastman not so fast. You're jumpin the gun here. Whenever someone comes back at me like this I go back an re-read my posts to determine if I could have been interperated as sarcastic in any way. Such is never my intention so I am quick to do a double back and check. Sometimes the words on the page are not our intentions. Sarcasm only serves to shut down true discussion within a form and has no place.

It is obvious if I read between the lines in your post above that you do understand the difference between steering, pivoting and what have you. Sometimes you do not appear to take the time to clearly separate the two in your writing. We are all guilty of that from time to time. I would like to clarify a few things.

As far as steering the inside ski I am right with Rusty Guy. Steer the inside ski and the outside will follow. Is the outside ski steering? Yes but in a passive mode not an active one.
Quote:
Steering is nothing more than the turning of a pressured ski with rotational force delivered through the foot. Yes, this requires muscular application to accomplish.
Yes this is all true but what muscles and how.
Quote:
This steering can take place on the inside ski, the outside ski, or both, as long as the ski(s) is/are pressured.
This is also true and I would not try to correct anyone who was doing any of these things in a race course or otherwise if that resulted in more speed. I guess where I have the problem with this statement is none other than it's potential for miss-interperatation by the GP. Saying that to 97% of the general public will result in twisting the outside ski and pushing the tails darn near every time.
Quote:
If the ski is not pressured then steering is not truly taking place because turning will not result from the action. The term was named appropriately for the result it created, immediate control over the direction of travel, as in a car when you turn the steering wheel. The sharpness of the turn is totally up to the skier and is dependent on the amount of rotational force applied.
I agree with this statement entirely.
Quote:
The greater the force, the sharper the turn, the wider the track wash. That’s right, track wash. A steered ski redirects both tip and tail, as opposed to the tail pushing connotation of the term tail wash.
Not very long ago I would have said this to be absolutely true. I still think there has to be some tail wash and some loss of speed but real visible tail wash, no. I watched a D team member do what I thought was impossible. Leave what appear to be railroad tracks no matter what size turn he was doing even below the natural radius of the skis he was on. He even changed the size of the turn while the turn was in progress, all with the same result. His answer was, use stance and position to apply the rotational force instead of muscle power to rotate the inside leg. Ski from the power position always. That was right after ESA I and my skiing took a quantum leap forward as soon as I really understood what he was saying. Seeing skiers actually ski this way is exceedingly rare even at the PSIA examiner or level II coach level.
post #53 of 58
Quote:
Originally posted by FastMan:
I did not get to the level I’m at by divine intervention. I’ve had to climb the mountain of skill progression step by step just like everybody else who gets where I am, so I’ve had personal exposure to every level of the skiing experience on the way along the trail to the top. In contrast to your statement, I would suggest that only by ascending the mountain to it’s peak can one truly have clear understanding of ALL the levels of satisfaction this sport has to offer.
Fastman,

You are the one who planted yourself on this lofty pinnacle. In fact all we really know about you is the above and your claim to have raced and coached. By the way, I believe you did both. You reached the above mentioned pinnacle and arrived in Florida. I understand life choices, job transfers, etc., however, you must admit skiing pinnacles and sandy beaches are a tad incongruous. Billy Kidd and Stein didn't exactly retire to Miami.

In contrast, I know something about Ydnar and Pierre based upon their reputation in the industry, the place they are employed, their certification level. I have had the chance to ski with one of them. The other is employed at a convent that has few weak sisters. Kind of like physicians. You hear a practitioner is on the staff at the Mayo Clinic and you assume he can do the job.

More importantly, I have read what they have had to say and read what you have said. I have fundamental difficulties with a few of the premises that you posit. Remember..... a few. The problem is they are fundamental.

I must admit I have a rather unpleasant bias. The woods around here are full of "ex-racers" from the seventies and eighties who now call themselves "race coaches." They seem to think adding the term race to their CV makes them something very, very special. A great many of these folks are heel pushing, boot glued, sperm turners who have little business teaching technique to impressionable kids and taking money from parents all under the lofty heading of "race coach". I ran a few gates in high school. I do mean a few. I was in awe of Wayne Wong so I got off the race course. Running a few gates in a few high school races doesn't make me a "racer" or qualify me to be a "race coach".

Having said that there are a great many coaches out here who are doing a wonderful job, are trying to keep abreast of new techniques, who put their heart and soul into the skiing of the kids. I applaud the latter and bemoan the former.

I honestly think the mountain top rift and comments about "changing you guys" struck a discordant chord.

[ May 30, 2003, 07:08 AM: Message edited by: Rusty Guy ]
post #54 of 58
Quote:
Originally posted by Pierre:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
Quote:
This steering can take place on the inside ski, the outside ski, or both, as long as the ski(s) is/are pressured.
This is also true and I would not try to correct anyone who was doing any of these things in a race course or otherwise if that resulted in more speed. I guess where I have the problem with this statement is none other than it's potential for miss-interperatation by the GP. Saying that to 97% of the general public will result in twisting the outside ski and pushing the tails darn near every time. </font>
Pierre:

As part of the GP, I must say that I try not to be so d&*n daft.

Likewise, withholding information certainly isn't going to be of help either!
post #55 of 58
Pierre,

Accepting the deffinition that steering involves a pressured ski just what do I call what I do with my inside (guide) foot when I use it to initiate and shape the arcs I make on my way down the hill. I ask this because it doesn't matter if there is no pressure or 100% pressure on that foot. I have never really liked the term inside foot or leg steering but have found that to be the best term to use in communicating my ideas to other instructors.

Yd

Prehapse I have already answered this for myself in the course of writing this. I don't steer with that foot I guide with it, but is guide/guiding too vague of a concept for others to grasp without a lot of discussion/explaination.
post #56 of 58
cgeib:
Quote:
As part of the GP, I must say that I try not to be so d&*n daft.

Likewise, withholding information certainly isn't going to be of help either!
The better skier and more educated you are, the more information you can assimilate without overload. I would certainly put you near the top. Definitely not as daft as 97% of the gp. Four days at the Academy beats two hours on our local bunny hill any time. We have to try to cram too much into one hour.
post #57 of 58
Ydnar:
Quote:
I have never really liked the term inside foot or leg steering but have found that to be the best term to use in communicating my ideas to other instructors.
Yah know in all actuality I am starting to agree with you on this one. Harb certainly believes that using the term inside foot steering always conjures up twisting ones foot on the snow instead of tip and guide. Maybe the battle isn't worth wining. [img]smile.gif[/img]
post #58 of 58
Quote:
Originally posted by Pierre:
cgeib: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />As part of the GP, I must say that I try not to be so d&*n daft.

Likewise, withholding information certainly isn't going to be of help either!
The better skier and more educated you are, the more information you can assimilate without overload. I would certainly put you near the top. Definitely not as daft as 97% of the gp. Four days at the Academy beats two hours on our local bunny hill any time. We have to try to cram too much into one hour.</font>[/quote]Pierre:

Alright, I wasn't in sync with the frame of reference you were coming from. I was thinking along the lines of a discussion on EpicSki in the Technique & Instruction section, where you pro's have the ability to thoroughly convey your meaning, and us civilians can absorb the whole - 'thread', if you will - in context.

I concur that the fine points of steering is not a valid discussion for the mobs arriving by bus at BM/BW : (Argh, after conjuring up that image again, I think I need to go lie down for a spell : )
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching