or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

do i need to unweight? - Page 4

post #91 of 164
Calm down now Bob, you are not going to "PUCK" us again are you?

post #92 of 164
Three pages, pretty good for a thread that started out as someone wondering if they needed to jump up in the air to turn their skis. Just what have we learned out of all this.

Well, people have different definitions for the same word and they tend to be very attached to them. This is one of the big reasons for my dislike of all the technical jargon surrounding ski instruction. I believe that most of it came about because a bunch of ski-jocks were trying to impress each other by making up big words and applying big technical words to skiing. One such type once told me that we needed this special language so that we could better understand each other when we talk about skiing amongst ourselves. I said that we had a language to talk about skiing with, English. And when you also consider that a lot of the language that is used in ski instruction has historical connotations, which can make applying the older terms to "new" technique an iffy proposition, things can get complicated. So instead of using these "loaded" terms why not use a phrase or sentence to describe just what it is that you are trying to communicate. This might make us use a few more simple words instead of one big one but I have found the understanding and communication is usually enhanced when this is done. For example, Dr.GO and I could talk "turn transition" and end up arguing about whether unweighting takes place or not or we could agree not to use a word that means different things to each of us and maybe exchange worthwhile information. Otherwise, we might as well just talk about "counter-preroticipatoriation".

We also seem to be divided into two groups, those who see the moments around the edge change to be perhaps the most important in a turn (again this goes to definition, this is the end/beginning of a turn by their definition) and feel that we must "do something" to change edges/move the CM across the skis and those who feel that this is just another part of the turn and that edge change and the change of relationship between the CM and the feet are just outcomes of actions
(in this case guiding the CM and the feet along paths that cross) taken much earlier in the turn. The first group looks for "triggers" (movements) to make the actions happen. The second group (I anyway) look at the movement pattern that causes these outcomes and how changes in the movement pattern changes the outcomes. We should probably take a good long look at the other groups viewpoint because the first can come up with some great cues to use in teaching skiing and the second can lead to a deeper understanding of what is happening in this fairly complex thing we call a turn and maybe help us explain things more simply to our students.


Pierre eh referred to my use of the terms ride ski and guide ski and you asked why not use HH's terms of stance foot and free foot (I think your post referred to Pierre's, its hard to tell sometimes with this linear discussion board format), here's why.

First, I've been using the terms for over a decade, long before I heard about HH and long before anyone had heard of a "shaped ski". You see I was teaching people to "carve" long before shaped skis came out and when the shaped skis hit the market I didn't have to change what I was teaching. Just marvel at how well it worked with the new equipment. An aside here, I realized how big shaped skis were going to be because when they first started showing up in my group lessons I noticed that while all the students became "carvier" those with the "funny looking" skis were always the "carviest" even if the "funny skis" were on the feet of the out-of-shape middle aged housewife skiing with the group of athletic twenty-somethings.

Second, the terms "ride ski" and "guide ski" are very easy for the student to understand and grasp. They are almost intuitive for many. My experience has been that "stance foot" and "free foot" take a little more explaining. Not a lot but one of my teaching philosophies is "less time talking means more time skiing.

Finally, "ride ski" and "guide ski" are mine. I made them up in the course of teaching a lesson lo those many years ago and I'm proud of them. "Stance foot" and "free foot" are HH's. Both are good sets of terms for what we are talking about I just like mine a little better. By the way, if I hadn't had "ride/guide" I probably would have stolen "stance/free".

This post is too long so bye for now,
post #93 of 164
Not too long for me, Ydnar--great post! Nice summary of this long discussion.

I may "borrow" your ride-ski/guide-ski thing too....

Best regards,
Bob Barnes
post #94 of 164
Steering means use your upper legs to ski, right?

So on one hand you say skiing is about the feet, but you teach skiing so that it's about the legs - steering.

What am I missing here?
post #95 of 164

Who you talkiing to? Let me answer anyway.

"Steering" means a lot of things to me but "using the upper legs to ski" isn't one of them. Using rotation of the femur at the hip socket is one form of steering but then so is pointing your toes where you wants to goes.

I teach people to go where they want to when they have skis on. I can do this with focus on the feet, the legs, the body, the arms and hands. Within any particular focus on a part of the body I can teach that person to get where they'er going on a skidding ski or a carving ski their choice. If this was directed to my could you be a little more precise in just what I said that makes you say I talk about the importance of the feet but teach the legs.

Basically I teach that one uses their feet and legs to guide their skis where they want to go while controlling the interaction between the skis and snow to create, control and direct the forces of skiing in such a way as to direct their body where they want to go.

I don't think you are missing anything you just have a viewpoint shaped through limited experience (it is your third season right?) and a lot of passion.


<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ November 04, 2001 10:22 PM: Message edited 1 time, by Ydnar ]</font>
post #96 of 164
There you go again you guys are "Pucking" with us again.

No one wants to talk about JUMPING or even BOBing to initiate or even end a turn.
(although this may be a necissary technique at times, if you haven't been there yet, push the envelope, get outside your ZONE and make it happen)

Telling your students that you do not use your upper leg muscles and instead tell you skis where to go. May not be productive for the student, as they sit there with HUGH question marks over their heads.

Sound like more Mumbo-Jumbo, Psycho Ski babble to me. More Hocus-"Poke US" (spelling intended).

Ott may appreciate this one, the Autsrian's were more honest with us in teaching the young americans "Ben zee kneez TEN DOLLARS please"

(your "job is to put smiles on their faces" as they are too polite to tell you your full of yourself!)

Get off the babble and on to the good stuff; FUN

I can see you have PASSION, but the attempt to keep it all to yourself with CODE words is counter productive to good instruction!

If I may I would also add that it is counter productive to RETENTION of SKI STUDENTS. Who mearly SMILE AT YOU AND LEAVE! (They got class, they got grace, now put the smile on my face!)

post #97 of 164

Again GUYS I am just being DEVILS advocate here, nothing personal, if we were face to face I would have NO PROBLEM pushing like this to get you to SEE something.

IF you have a guy or gal under your tutelage, it is far better to not argue or attemp to CORRECT thier language or DIALECT but assist in defining your version of the mechanics. SO they can see the better way, more efficient way, to enjoy skiing. (enjoy is the code word)

Earlier some one, I think Bob said that what ever you call it is not important. Getting it is! So great, call it "Ydnar" and what that means it THIS and demonstrate your actions. Here I guess it is important to keep talking about what your actions are not what the TERM is.

Again in an attempt to walk in your ski boots I see that it may become an objective of a member of the GANG, (saw it in another post, not my words) you may need to have the same speak as THEY do but. It is not important to PUSH that on others who may or may not want to talk just SKI, and have FUN, they have PASSION lets not KILL it with Phsyco babble, ski terminology war. (of course IF you are looking for acceptance then you will need to push hard to be RIGHT and have as many posts here agree with you as you can so you can logg off and go to bed at night feeling fullfulled)

PEACE BABY! [img]smile.gif[/img]

I love this stuff just as you do and as Bob does. I have had your job and his too.

Know what?
That is cool, but there are six or seven million others who ski also. (there used to be TEN MILLION) We want to keep all of them.

Keep up the great work, the discussion is cool, just the attacks are not neccisary.

Bob, had attempted in good leadership style to meet in a middle gound. This as indicated is good LEADERSHIP. Probably THE most improant lesson here. (I do not think this is covered in the exams is it? Well possibly the Examiner looks for it but it has less lesson plan, BOOK STUFF than maybe it should)

Instructors need to become LEADERS to their group in short order. YOu have several advantages, First you are put in front of the GROUP as a PRO. This is good they look up to you right away.
However from there on you earn your position, or lets say you are voted in our out. This is not a popularity vote but a comptency vote. You belittel ONE in your charge you lose votes. (in NAM they shot you in the back, or you got a FRAG .. another thread perhaps)

Stay on course, be a good LEADER get with the program.

EVERY ONE HERE IS RIGHT, we may have to "message" a bit here or there but, they have PASSION, they want FUN. DOnt' Kill it! (they wil be back)


post #98 of 164

Again someone has made assumptions about how I teach based on how I write in this forum. The two activities bear little resemblance to each other.

Yes, I sometimes confuse my students, in fact I have been known to confuse them on purpose,
because its when this confusion is resolved that learning happens. I want to see that question mark above there heads because then I know that we have a chance to produce a "Wow" lesson. And that's what puts the smile on their faces.

As to student retention I'll put my ability to "bring em back for more" up against anyone's. After a lesson with me people enjoy skiing more than they did before and isn't that what its all about.

By the way what are the "code words". I really wish you would be a little more precise in your posts as I find it hard to respond to sometimes hard to follow rants.

So anyway, I'll continue to "put smiles on skiers faces" because they like it and so do I,
post #99 of 164
Dr.Go, I don't know why everybody makes such a mountain out of a molehill.

I have said it before and now I'm saying it again: Skiing is so rediculously easy that never-evers can learn how to make linked parallel turns in one two-and-a-half hour lesson.

There is no other activity that I know of where such proficiency can be learned in such a short time.

The techno-babble here is just shop talk among pros, students will never hear it.

When we started teaching on our home hill here 40 years ago, managment brought several instructors from Austria, Switzerland and Italy over to teach for the Winter.

The Italians only spoke two phrases in English. "Do like that" and "No do like that". Those were all the words needed to teach their classes.

post #100 of 164

It depends on what your definition of skiing parallel is. If you think skiing parallel is the point when the skis become parallel at some point during the turn, then I agree with you. But most of the skiers I see, don't ski parallel.
post #101 of 164
Way to go OTT.

Maybe if we all were in an area (country) where we could not TALK or WRITE (post) so much stuff we would be better off!

Calm down Ydar.

You be the greatest, I give, YOU DA MAN.

Continue to DO what YOU DO!

Mean while, can we revisit this in about 10 years or so.

I would love to get your take on it when you ski ten thousand miles, or one hundred thousand depending on your ski days in years to come. Or herringbone 10,000 feet. (do you guys still do that? I am sure there is a better word though) Any way it is good conditioning!

For that matter get on the other side for a while. Take a lesson in a few areas, get out of country and see them tell you in thier language how to do this or that. Until you hae walked in anothers ski boots it is difficult I know. But give it a try.

The beautiful thing about LIFE is that each new and upcoming generation, just like me and mine, think we invent this stuff. It is as old as Dolomite I fear.

Love this stuff!

Keep going guy you are passionate!

: :
post #102 of 164

Yeah. This whole thing about skiing in text just ain't the same as skiing on the white stuff. Most here can't make the turns they talk about.

I've been around for a while now. I don't agree with most that's said, vis-a-vis ski instruction. And as a businessman, I really do think that a ski lesson is the worst value at a ski area. Buying beers is a much better value than buying a ski lesson.

And as far as HH goes, it's all about the numbers, nothing else. If he has happy customers who love his product and his books continue to be #1, that's all that matters.

Everyday, I talk to happy customers and I see testimonials, praising HH and what he's doing. They're all pretty much the same - how much they love his product and how frustrated they were with traditional ski instruction.

I've yet to see one positive testimonial from one ski instructor here. So you guys can say what you want - but I'm about facts and numbers. And so far, the facts and numbers say that alternative ski instruction is by far and away what customers want, right now. It's more popular than all the competitive offerings - combined.

I'll add my 1 cents worth but now that ski season is here I'm just like, whatever.
post #103 of 164
SCSA, >>>But most of the skiers I see, don't ski parallel.

SO WHAT! Most of the skiers I see have never taken a lesson either.

Did you ever consider that many, if not most recreational skiers who can make it down a green slope any which way do not want to get better? For the few days they ski and for the money it costs to take a lesson or even to get some mileage, it is just not worth it for them.

That is fine with me. Those that want to improve, can, those that don't, leave them alone.

Why this obsessing over that everyone should be a good skier? It's about the fun, and I have seen skiers sreaming with delight even though they sat down ten times in hundred yards. It gets them out of the bowling alley for a day.

post #104 of 164
Yeah, SCSA, I feel your pain, or angst.

However I am not taking up arms or an anarchest.

My intention as I am sure yours is, too bring this wolderful experience of SNOW to as many as possible.

We may need to share and we may need to project, but we must not push away.

ALL of this is GOOD STUFF. I see we all have enjoyed ourselves. (some more than others) I pray none have suffered becasue of anything I have done or failed to do.

These are fine men and women, those who go out and teach, any method.

But you are correct, dogma and CODE with the "Gang" (not my words) will actualy repell instead of attract.

We must assist ALL in visualising a better way. Again as stated by many what we say here is for the INSTRUCTORS. But I gotta tell ya there are thousands, (and I am sure AC hopes millions) of folks out there that just come in to check it out. THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE TRYING TO DECIDE if the should take a lesson from the ski area or whatever.

I would argue that a beer is not a better investment than a lesson. (i know you are being entertaining) But there are simularities. Beer has a HEAD, so does the ski shcool and instructor. Beer has a taste, so does the ski lesson. NOW big head little head, bitter or flavorful and rewarding, thirst quenching. Yeah that is what we want to quench our thirst!

That is why we are all here, is it not?

post #105 of 164
Dr.Go I agree with Ott. Playing devils advocate is great but this forum has a technobabble personality. We are not on a ski hill. You cannot convey body language, demonstrations or convey attitude easily with a key board. There is no snow here. I for one believe that if an instructor does not understand something well, they will make whatever they are trying to teach much more complicated than what it needs to be. The beauty of this forum is we can beat something to death far more than our cold hands and feet would allow on the slopes.
We can disect and idea, turn it sideways and look at it, get input from several sources, expand on it and finally come to a personal understanding of what was debated all without boring a single paying student. Debating here in technobabble has infinitely expanded and simplified skiing for me. Whats important and what isn't can be picked out.
The gist of actual teaching, the pitfalls and phycology is much more approriate for www.hyperchangecafe.com
By the way, when the snow hits the explanations get much less technical and more "I did this today, what do you think"

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ November 05, 2001 10:16 AM: Message edited 1 time, by Pierre eh! ]</font>
post #106 of 164
Hey OTT you got it!

Is the question "weather" they ski like me or ski like you or ski like they want.

Spend time on the SNOW and GO.

The more they enjoy the SNOW the better it is for all of us.

Saftey is important and "weather" you like LEMMINGS or not they are a hazzard unto themselves. SO we must continue our effort to offer assistance as you have said.

NOW, how can we get that PASSION or FUN of the many up to a level that they want a lesson?

Some times in FREE skiing we see our instructors going out to the bowls away from the larger sking public. Sometimes they stay on the cordoroy. I have found that when they stay on the goomed slopes they tend to ski in packs or get in some clinic time. This is good however it is also not cool. THEY, the skiing public, by and large do not want to do SKI SCHOOL TURNS. That is why THEY call them that!

I told you about ICE once didn't I?

The Director use to make me go out on REALY icy days and SKI as perfect as I could the HILL. For two reasons. (first of all I could) but the real two reasons were. The lift or front office would get these complaints that the hill was UNSKIABLE! Secondly, As I would ski down, arcing and controlled as you must on ICE (not spots of ICE I am talking OHIO - FULL SHEET JOP TO BOTTOM ICE, if you are a UTAH skier you have not seen this, maybe in spring when no one there would ki anyway, Midwest we get it for CHRISTMAS big revenue day for the ski area right?) There would be lines of folks on the edge watching. Ski School lessons went up within the hour. (why on the edge you from the west ask, cause in the middle you slide down, IT IS ICE, ICE RINK ICE, that is the ICE i'm talking about)

(Sorry I am not attempting to blow my horn here stay with me there is some redeeming points here)

I belive that WE, the way we speak, write, have FUN are all being watched and bought into by the folks that PAY OUR WAY.
(or in my case, you too Ott, used to pay our way)

We want more to join the sport, we want more to join the lesson, we want more to join the dialog. We want PASSION and FUN!

I am on a rant?

You be the judge... :
post #107 of 164
As for skiing ice under the lift to get folks to take lessons, been there, done that. It was standard fare under Ziggy.

I think for us here on those two low hills, 3000-4000 student hour lessons A DAY, EVERY DAY is quite enough, we don't need no more stinkin' students. As for passion, to each his own.

post #108 of 164

I agree. I've said it before - that the market for "motivated" skiers is very small. I see a lot of companies fighting for a very small customer base.

Of course. I think it's great that skiers just want to come out and have a ball. When I talk to skier on the lift I'm not like, "Hey, what about your turns" blah bla blah. I'm more like, "What do you think about what's going on in the world"?

But if we start to talk about instruction and how to create a better product, that's when the heat gets turned up a bit.
post #109 of 164
"While "unweighting" is objectively a feature of transferring pressure from one edge or set of edges to another, the skier's intent is not to take pressure off the skis but to redirect it from one side of the skis to the other. This is intentionally a transfer of pressure and is not intended to take pressure off the skis." - Bob Barnes

Again I say the answer to the original question is YES.

post #110 of 164
Where did THAT come from, Dr. Go? I did NOT say that! (I don't even understand it!) That must be a quote of some other Bob Barnes (there are several--they even had a Bob Barnes on one of the big news shows last night--wasn't me, in case anyone's wondering--and it wasn't the Bob Barnes of Winter Park either.)

Anyway, the statement above is not from me!

Best regards,
Bob Barnes
post #111 of 164
Bob, could you please show me where I misqouted you.

All the quotes are well defined and I do not believe you were not misquoted.

I do wish you would read more carefully, BB, before you lash out at something not done.



cold water
post #112 of 164
[quote]Originally posted by zeek:
[QB]Do I need to 'unweight' my skis at the end of a turn?
The energy stored in my skis (because they are decambered) goes into an unweighting before I switch edges, why not just let that energy project my CM down the slope into the next turn?
I am confused about unweighting.
Don't I want to keep as much pressure on my skis at al times?
A pressured ski is not always edged?

This is a much better question than, where does it all begin? Although it is in essence the same question. Check this out

The answer to the first question, I would say NO. YOu do not need to "unweight" skis. at least not in the clasic way. You can if you want but I usualy don't hit a pitching wedge on the tee. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

The energy in the ski thing is easily understood. Think about this, if you bend a ski in your hands like a bow and arow, how much energy would it take to bend it into the shape you would need to make a turn. That is the potential energy of a decamberd ski. You being the arow, how far would that ski toss "you"? Not far I am sure.

So where does all the pop come from?

The missunderstood aspect of rebound, it is what amounts to a pole vault. Simply, the forces that make you feel like you are being pulled out of a turn are equal to the force you exert to stay in the turn. If you don't stop fighting the force you will lock up the leg till it is a rigid post. The body moving up and over the post can direct the cm into an orbit that renders your legs to short.

you can control the trajectory by skiding, flattening the ski, or letting go of the muscle tention. if you dont you can get launched when the ski either stops below you and your center hase to go up to go over the length of the leg bones. momentum takes you down hill and you have nothing left to stand on.

A contrtolled realease of the egde can be acomplished through decreasing the tension you are exerting to stay in the turn. Which will also convientiently flatten the ski.

ok not so simple but that works for now. So what does this mean.

There are movments we make that involve geting taller and shorter in skiing. These moves do not have to make your head move coser and farther away from the snow. The net result is that these moves blend together so buttery smooth that often we miss the connection.

There is a beginning and an end. The place where the up and down begins!!!!!!


I hope this makes sence to someone out there. The spot that the downward move at the end of a turn stops, is the beginning of the up move at the beginning of the new turn. Ok now that spot is exactly when the skis are


Flat and cruzing with the skis, and I like to think the center of mass is traveling streight forward. The skis will be CLIMBING THE HILL Slowly to a new edge.

So in the end understanding that moving downward with gravity will reduce the amount of pressure on the ski for a moment. If this is true then the opposite must also be true. Moving up or away from gravity you will have to push a little harder than you would normaly standing still.

In a the case of a rebound turn, you sustain the pressure and lock the bones they become the pole in the vault. That and a little pop from the bent up ski is what you get the whuuutang from. Basicly a rebound turn is when you don't get the new outside ski engaged until after the fall line. or you miss the first part of the turn.

There is also the situation in modern GS that presents a differnt view of rebound. IF you have experimented with total "downunweighting, Flexion, or retraction turns. Allowing the skis to shoot under the body flipping to the new edge so quickly that a rebound effect can result.

you see many jr racers load up the ski and dump the pressure so fast that they come into the new trun with the outside leg completely in the air and often sholder height. Herman Mair ring any bells out there. One of the few skiing crash shots that made it to the Dan Rather news level.
In racing you have to time the flattening in relation to the rise line. This is a trade secret don't tell anyone.

Often it is overlooked that a flattening ski can also be a carving ski. Carve the ski flat and carve to the edge. the only time the skis should be able to skid is when they are flat and if you are carving they will be going directly forward at that point in time so you can choose if you want to skid or carve. But when most people are given the choice they usualy choose the carve lik junkies choose black tar haroine.

The end result is as you asked is an "evenly pressured ski through the entire turn. This is basicly unachievable, but if you squint a little and you have a good imagination it can actually happen. We do have the ability to bend the laws of physics, but only in short bursts.

Ok sorry I wanted this to be shorter.

As usual oposing view points are welcome.
post #113 of 164
OK Bob,

GO to :

There you will find;

Pandora's Box* A case study of the A-frame by Bob Barnes*

Page down to UNWEIGHTING.

If it is MY mistake I am truely sorry, however or whoever that BOB BARNES is this should be straightened out very quickly.

It is of utmost national security!

: HyperCafe
post #114 of 164
Hey MOSH...."golf clap" , "golf clap"

And Ydnar...i thought your post from last night summing up the broad picture of the evolution of this thread was right on. It took me a few reads to arrive at what I believe you were getting at. Mainly that it is a good time for the discussion of ideas and concepts while looking beyond strict adhehence to conventional/classic defintions associated with PSIA. It really is a time of skiing evolution and ski teaching should do all it can to keep up. I think you were alluding to this happening. Hope I'm right!


post #115 of 164
Dr.Go, I believe that article was written by the "other" Bob Barnes of Winter Park, though I'm not sure, there are a lot of Bob Barneses around.

I also think that it is just a misprint, someone didn't proof read it before posting it in the article.

If you substitute "Weight change" for >While unweighting< the paragraph makes perfet sense.

("While "unweighting") "WEIGHT CHANGE" is objectively a feature of transferring pressure from one edge or set of edges to another, the skier's intent is not to take pressure off the skis but to redirect it from one side of the skis to the other. This is intentionally a transfer of pressure and is not intended to take pressure off the skis." - Bob Barnes

And also, could all of you please stop that pissing match? It's time consuming and not very helpful to wade through all that crap just to get to some meaningful stuff.

post #116 of 164
OK Ott,

post #117 of 164
Hi Dr. Go--
I can certainly see where you thought that I might have written those words, from the link you posted above. But if you go back to the page, you will see that it includes links to several other pages, one of which is the "Pandora's Box" article, which I DID write. The rest of the the page, including the passage you quoted, is stuff that has resulted from discussions of the "Glossary Project." That it was written by a committee explains it all!

Cold Water--An incomplete quote, or one taken out of context, is as much a misquote as a change of words--and even more insidious when done intentionally. Otherwise, you would not object to the following quote of your own words, from your last post: "I misquoted you." Thanks for admitting it.

Best regards,
Bob Barnes
post #118 of 164
Ah, I see. It's just the linked in blue Pandora's Box article which is yours.

But the way it is presented on that page it sure looks as if you wrote "that" article which had that >unweighting< quoted by Dr.Go in it.

You guys named Bob Barnes really ought to do something to your signature so we can tell which Bob it is.

post #119 of 164
I may be confused, but in linking turns with shaped skis it seems more like I am changing the area of pressure, from edge to flat to new edge. Although I am reducing the amount of weight on one ski and moving it to the other I still have my all my weight on one or both of the two skis. If I jump, drop down quickly then my skis have less than my full weight upon them.
post #120 of 164
Lucky, what's your confusion? What you said is right.

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