New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is different wrong? - Page 2

post #31 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phlogiston View Post
I do it wrong. I usually ski without poles.
I can accept the fact that what I'm doing is wrong. I ski down Hellgate to Gun Hill or Eisenhower, at Hunter, in 2.5 minutes, and get back on the Quad chair without stopping. 6 times an hour. And I don't fall, ever, which is wrong, since falling is a part of skiing.
And I haven't suffered any kind of injury since tossing the poles... and getting injured is part of skiing too... so I've got that wrong.
And until recently, I was skiing on crap skis, too.
So what I'm doing is wrong, very wrong, and I just can't help myself. I probably need No Poles Anonymous, to help me (or to keep Polish skiers off the mountain, not sure which).
And to further prove my deviance, I like it when I see more and more skiers skiing well without poles at Hunter, so they've joined in this cult of wrongness with me. I corrupted them.
I have been thinking maybe I should carry a golf club, for stroking snowboarders sitting in the middle of the slope, as I pass; but that's a different thread.


Is Tai Chi skier back?
post #32 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by MojoMan View Post
100mm fatties on hardpack groomers?
Anymore I don't consider 100mm fat. And my 105's are actually good on hardpack groomers.
post #33 of 41
This is an incredibly interesting thread! Some random points (which may cut in different directions):

1. The human body has certain built-in limits (example: the knee only bends in one direction), proportions, and points of balance. That means for us humans, for certain physical goals (skiing down a hill, shooting a basket, hitting a baseball, etc.) there will be some way(s) of doing it that are, as a matter of physics, more efficient than other ways.

2. Notice that essentially the same "ready position" is used in skiing, infielder stance in baseball, guarding the player with the ball in basketball, etc. Our human center of gravity, skeletal structure, etc. make that a natural position. Probably would not be a natural position for cheetahs, polar bears, etc.

3. I coached kids baseball for eight years. The kids would often complain when I tried to break them of bad habits that "worked" for them -- side arm throws, sticking the bat way up in the air before the pitch (like Kevin Youkolis (sp?)). I felt that 7-14 year olds should first learn the "right" way. Then, if/when they got a pro contract, they could add their own idiosyncratic technique.

4. Accepted understanding of the "right" way to execute something in a sport may of course evolve. Ever see videos of the swimmers from the old Olympics? They look sloppy. In fact, as recently as this last summer Olympics, there was a lot of discussion of how Phelps and many of the contenders were staying under water a lot longer after a turn and doing a "dolphin" move with their body. The conventional wisdom just a couple years ago was that the swimmer should get to the surface as quickly as possible without breaking momentum.

5. Over the past couple decades, the evolved thinking on the "right" way to execute a sports move has been aided immensely by the application of science. In the swimmer example, the use of the dolphin move was after extensive computer modelling, etc. In baseball, has Ichiro found a generally better way of batting (i.e., more efficient for the human form), or has he adopted an inefficient method and made it work for him? One example, of one person, is not sufficient to establish a new paradigm.

OK, back to work.....
post #34 of 41
Jimi...as an ex-swimmer that dolphin thing is pretty interesting. I mean, even to kids, it's clear that dolphin movement underwater is powerful, so it's funny that it took computer modeling to come to that conclusion. Another example of over analyzing the intuitive.

Frankly, I think looking at dolphins probably could have told us that -- they dont' swim on the surface
post #35 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by billyymc View Post
Jimi...as an ex-swimmer that dolphin thing is pretty interesting. I mean, even to kids, it's clear that dolphin movement underwater is powerful, so it's funny that it took computer modeling to come to that conclusion. Another example of over analyzing the intuitive.
So what we need here is to study an animal that naturally skis and analyze its' movements. You should be able to learn a lot from this video then: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2iiNVICfjg
post #36 of 41
Billy,

I agree, although if you consider my second point, the fact that it works for dolphins doesn't necessarily mean that it would be optimal for humans. In this case though, it worked. I think the conventional wisdom had been hung up on the idea that swimmers propel themselves with their arms, which you can't really use effectively until you're at the surface. But the dolphin movement uses the whole body for propulsion, as I understand it (disclosure: my son is the competitive swimmer, not me).

Here is an interesting article on it: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=93566627
post #37 of 41
UtahPowderPig: I don't consider 100mm fat. And my 105's are actually good on hardpack groomers.

My mountain bike is "actually good" on the road, but I prefer a road bike.
post #38 of 41
I had the impression that Phelps underwater turn was successful because he was using boyancy to accellerate. In his turn, he dove to the bottom, then used the boyancy as an accelerative. I don't recall any discussion of the actual dolphin-stroke. Interesting.
post #39 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by eblackwelder View Post
So what we need here is to study an animal that naturally skis and analyze its' movements. You should be able to learn a lot from this video then: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2iiNVICfjg

Best post in thread.
post #40 of 41
Here is someone who made a fairly lucrative career out of skiing the wrong way, according to the conventional wisdom of the time.

From about the middle of the third page.

Quote:
Except that Art's ability to make a turn, any turn, on either ski convinced him that what ought to be taught was balance over the skis, not formalized ski positions. As proof, he delighted in disproving every sainted axiom of the teaching plan by skiing with weight opposite to the conventional rule. "I wanted to prove to the big bosses of skiing" Art says, "that their skiing was incorrect, by proving you can ski on either ski. I did everything the wrong way. That got me into trouble." Art was warned and, after a few unheeded warnings, was abruptly dropped from the Swiss Ski School Association in 1959.
post #41 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phlogiston View Post
I don't fall, ever...
Wish I could say the same!

I toss the poles every once in a while, forces me back to the basics, helps keep me from developing bad habits.

I switch style and form to what situation I'm in, if anyones style is far from "correct" it's mine. I like to rip it up a little, have fun, play in the snow like a kid.

I find it boring to be that guy you see in perfect form, effortlessly making the flawless carve every run.

While riding up the lift, my son said to me "That guy is really good, bet you wish you were as good as him". I could only respond by saying "Yes he is good, he may be enjoying himself but it's boring to me, I like to have fun".

What is "Correct technique"? How do you measure it? The guy shaping perfect carves on the groomers or the guy dropping 30'ers?

If your not harming yourself or more importantly, a danger to others, your technique and style is what you enjoy.

A good teacher of any sport will teach you the basics, then help you fine tune your own style.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion