or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

PMTS People

post #1 of 32
Thread Starter 
Spent a little time with the HH, Diana Rogers and Rich Messer today at Loveland. I work with a woman who is a PSIA cert and a green PMTS cert. In fact she is teaching SCSA junior for the next two days.

All were very nice and impressive skiers.Had a little lively kidding with Diana along the lines of PSIA vs PMTS. She has a nice sense of humor. I'm not changing camps, however, had to report they are good folks.

Don't claim to have the greatest eye, however watched HH intently. Stance was a little narrow but not overly so. Really tips his skis well but I've got to say I could see no evidence of any "phantom foot". Watched him initiate a couple of turns at the top of a run and both tib/fibs seemed to tip at precisely the same time. Perhaps I have no "eye" for the subtlety of the move or perhaps it's imperceptible.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ October 31, 2001 07:25 PM: Message edited 1 time, by Rusty Guy ]</font>
post #2 of 32
Glad you had a chance to meet those folks RustyGuy!

Lifting (phantom) is learning, lightening is skiing. Because the real goal is to tip both together at the same time, lightening the old stance foot as the new turn begins. The Phantom Foot move is a dynamic balance excersise that improves skiers skills.

So is the "O-Frame" release, another cool thing... The phantom move itself is not the final "form" or "goal".

Hey, didja get hooked up with K2? Let's ski sometime soon, weekends are my bag this year. Real Job. Sigh.
post #3 of 32
Thread Starter 
Yes to the K2 question. Will "pro rep" at Eldora while teaching this year. Did I see you at Loveland doing laps last week?

Didn't want to suggest I thought HH would be lifting or that I SHOULD be able to see the lightenining. I realize that in it's purest form it should be imperceptible. He can really tip a ski.

I'm wrapping up a job back east and will be on skis full time withen a couple of weeks.In the mean time I commute via delta for a couple of days at a time. Sorry you took the plunge and became an mf'er. That's 9-5 Monday thru Friday. I plan to ski at Loveland on my days off. Love the place. I look forward to seeing you there.
post #4 of 32

Way to go. They are, really great people -- some of my favorites. It won't be long now, you'll be singing the PMTS song...lead by yours truly, "The Wacko"!
post #5 of 32
Thread Starter 
I may have to listen to you sing it, however, I won't join in!

I'm more convinced than ever that you cannot re-invent the wheel.
post #6 of 32
Rusty, I think why you don't see any difference in skiing by the PMTS folks is that, at the expert stage, skiers all ski like that.

Harb's PMTS teaching is different in it's approach to teaching, not the final results.

post #7 of 32
post #8 of 32

I gotta agree with you. Most experts ski pretty much the same. If one would watch HH carefully, you can see the release happening first.

The real difference between PSIA and PMTS is the approach to teaching. Student Directed Ski Instruction (similar to Guest Directed Ski Instruction) is the backbone of PMTS. All teaching must tie to SDSI and the three elements; motivation, understanding and movement. Ignore one element and the whole system fails. Various teaching styles can be used, but they absolutely need to tie to MUM.

Determining motivation, ie, student needs and expectations, is the foremost critical issue. Fulfill these needs and the lesson will have been successful. I suspect that of the three elements, motivation is the most important.
post #9 of 32
Hi Rick,

From my point of view I would modify your statement:

"Student Directed Ski Instruction (similar to Guest Directed Ski Instruction) is the backbone of PMTS."

I would say that this is one component of the backbone. I would say that another, perhaps even more distinguishing part of that backbone, is a system of teaching based on the use of external cues and implicit learning. (Sorry for the jargon but it's succinct and if you look at ESki's and Bob Barnes' posts under "Foot Work of Good Skiing" I think you'll see a nice description of what I mean by these). To me this is the "product" and the teaching approach is how you deliver the product. Obviously, both are critical in order to be effective. I think that what differentiates PMTS is its commitment to this type of learning and teaching model at its foundation. (That's not to say that no one else can understand or uses this type of approach).
post #10 of 32
Rick H and Si...

I don't dispute the approaches, though different, each have merits and problems, my contention was that once the expert stage is reached there isn't much, if any difference in executing a turn.

You say HH releases first. Who says other experts are not doing that or doing that makes one expert better than the other.

My view is that experts use whatever is called for by the terrain, snow conditions, et al, may it be early release, wide or narrow stance, unweightng or not, whatever.

If you are comfortable with the performance of your equipment and you are positive in your execution, in other words, you know you can hack it, you just do what is called for without thinking about it.

Thus the only variable is how to reach the state of being an "expert". HH and PMTS cannot be used successfully in the midwest with one hour/20 students classes, often, if not mostly with disinterested students like many students of the school groups who only come to class because they have to in order to get the cheap bundled rental/lesson/ticket price.

PMTS excells with small, motivated students who actually want to be there and lessons that last more than one hour.

The PSIA approach may seem cumbersome because it embraces all situations, and because these zillion situations are all different, the PSIA approach is to educate the instructor and let him/her taylor the class material to his/her unique situation.

So, there is a place for everyone.

post #11 of 32
Hi Ott,

I'm not sure why class size should limit the selections of progressions used in teaching ski movements unless certain progressions require more space than is available. (No doubt thay class size extremely limits the time you can spend individually with a student). No matter what the size of the class, there are basic skills and movements you try to teach and the size of a class doesn't necessarily force a specific set of movements to be taught does it?. Certainly equipment and alignment issues have a very great effect on the progression chosen. Assuming, however, that a reasonable progression for the situation is used, I would think that the use of external cues and an implicit learning model would still be the way to go (based on research its just a better method for motor learning). For the environment you describe I would be interested in hearing about the "primary movements" (perhaps only a single movement given the 1 hour time frame) that are taught and whether you think there are good external cues for these that can make learning easier?

I wonder if there would be agreement between different schools of thought about efficient progressions for people using older skis and boots who are not necessarily (unlikely to be) reasonably aligned.

BTW, I assume you don't really mean that all small or Midwest areas are like you describe, rather you are referring to other areas like the one in the Midwest you (and Pierre) describe.
post #12 of 32
>>>BTW, I assume you don't really mean that all small or Midwest areas are like you describe, rather you are referring to other areas like the one in the Midwest you (and Pierre) describe. <<<

The ones near metropolitan areas are.

60 minuts divided by 20 students is 3 minutes per student, and you can't leave the rest of the class just stand in the cold while taking one student at the time, you just can't. So you teach to the class as a whole rather than to any individual.

When asking for questions from students as to what they want, you get very basic stuff from the incompetent ones and more advanced stuff from the impatient ones, so you try to teach toward the middle, hoping the slow ones will learn something they don't know and the more advanced ones will benefit by reviewing what they had in class three weeks ago.

And so it goes... ....Ott
post #13 of 32

Everything in PMTS ties back to SDSI. AS I said, it is the backbone. Everything, including external cues, is a subset. In the initial conversation with students, motivations and some understandings are determined.Then movement is brought in. Here is where the cues are developed. But before anything is done, I, as an instructor, must have determined what the student's expectations and needs are. This knowledge is crucial if I am to satisfy those needs.

Here is where most candidates for accreditation fail. They may be good technical teachers, but they are not satisfying the students needs or expectations. Last year, Kim Peterson sent me an e-mail reply to some questions I had. He said that if I address the affective, cognitive and psycho-motor aspects of a student, I can teach anybody. As I get into teaching theory, I find this to be very true.

Hopefully, I can convince enough people at our Fall Camp to work on teaching. I have talked with Diana Rogers about it and she said we just need some interest. We will see.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ November 01, 2001 03:26 PM: Message edited 1 time, by Rick H ]</font>
post #14 of 32
in the past I have always wondered how a program like PMTS can work in a ski area because it looks to me like such an idealized setup which in my 25 years as an instructor could be only whishful thinking.

It would be so nice if it could work everywhere. If you indulge me I would like to ask a few questions and maybe you could tell me how it is done.

First, do you take all comers at SolVista who want to take a lesson? Say this bunch decided to take a day at a ski area instead of going bowling with their club and thought since it has been a while, they better take a lesson.

Say one hundred tickets were sold for the morning 9a.m. class and they were divided among ten (or more?) of PMTS instructors.

Your ten said they are intermediates. Half are, and the other half, as skiers are wont to do, vastly overestimatd their skills.

I presume your lessons are more than an hour. How much time do they get for their twenty bucks? One and a half, two or three hours?

You have never seen these folks before and chances are you, or any other instructor will never see them again.

So where do you start, to what level do you teach, the real intermediates or the stragglers?

In my experience we spend an inordinate ammount of time with the slow ones trying to bring them up to the level of the top half of the class thereby neglecting many better skiers in the group.

Please be assured that I am not trying to disperage PMTS because I think absence of the "us vs. them" rederick we can learn a lot.

I really would like to know the practical side of it. I heard all the components of Student Directed Ski Instruction, but how do you implement them? I realise that I may have the wrong premise in the scenario I gave above, but if I do, please correct it and give your side of it.

Thanks... ...Ott
post #15 of 32
What I've learned is that at the "finer points of skiing" level, it's all about keeping the skis parallel and maintaining the same edge angles -- all the time, every turn, any slope, anywhere.

So I'll agree that's the pinnacle and there's not just one way to get "there".

But, I just see very few skiers who I'd say are "there". I can go days, weeks, months -- and hardly see a handful.

But every time I show up and hang with my PMTS(Harald really should have come up with a better name)ians, I see some -- more than a few. But then again, we just look different.

So I guess the only logical conclusion to be made is that I'm blind!
post #16 of 32
>>>So I guess the only logical conclusion to be made is that I'm blind!<<<

Or in denial. [img]smile.gif[/img] ...Ott
post #17 of 32

This is sounding like a chicken or egg argument but from my perspective I think the teaching progressions and approach of PMTS is the key part that many people will identify. Just look at the results produced alone with the book. I have talked to and heard from many people who feel that they have made dramatic improvement just from the approaches outlined, without any instruction. I would never say that the teaching approach is not important, it often is quite critical. But in this case the methods of PMTS alone can serve to change someones skiing for the better.

For myself as a student, I would say that the type of teaching approach is not very important to me. I am interested in learning as much from an instructor as I can possibly can. After that I work with the knew knowledge and try to figure out how to make it work for myself. When Diana asks me what I'd like to work on I usually have a very difficult time coming up with something to satisfy her. All I want is as much of her knowledge and understanding as I possible can get. I guess I'm an independent or self learner.

On the other hand, as an instructor, I think the aspects of teaching you refer to are of great importance. There is no doubt that someone's teaching can be improved through proper training methods. However, I often times feel that all the training in the world only serves as a modifier of someones natural ability to teach (although an important one).

I'm not saying that you shouldn't think that the student directed teaching approach of PMTS isn't its most important part. I'm just pointing out that that is not true for everyone.
post #18 of 32

We try to group students according to their presumed ability during lineup. The raw beginners are not the problem, it is the "intermediate" or "advanced" skier. We take these folks for a short run on our Green run and devide them into ability groups. In PMTS, we have a progression called the "wedge to green/blue". Here, the wedge from other schools is converted to the Phantom Move. This is where most of the students fall.

Our classes are 2 1/2 hours. The cost is $35. For a group of ten first-timers, I can usually get them into a rough parallel in that time. Some move slower, but all will have a direction change and the ability to stop safely. For the wedge to PM, 2 1/2 hours is great. We can really get some skiing in.


I understand where you are coming from. But for most students, there are expectations and desires. It is the "mission " of PMTS to satisfy those desires. Progressions are tools for teaching. SDSI is a tool for learning. But the teacher needs to know what the student wants from the lesson. You want to learn as much as you can. But, I suspect that you have some sort of idea of what you want. You mentioned external cues. That should be the direction that your instructor guides you. External cues are pretty unique to the person using them. The instructor can suggest a variety of cues. From the movements that you do in discovering what works, you will find an understanding of how the cues work for you. I hope that you understand what I am trying to say. All teaching/learning has objectives. SDSI deliniates the PMTS objectives.

Si, you have managed to get me into a place where I am not accustomed to being. I am trying to explain how we teach to the best of my ability. I hope that you accept my explaination.
post #19 of 32
>>When Diana asks me what I'd like to work on I usually have a very difficult time coming up with something to satisfy her. <<

The point of being coached as a recreational or professional skier - is to come up with something that will satisfy *you*! Its the coaches job to roll with whatever you toss their way, regardless of their personal opinion on the subject matter.
post #20 of 32

I understand you. All I'm pointing out is that you are coming from one point of view and that there are others. Neither is necessarily right or wrong. When you say:

"But, I suspect that you have some sort of idea of what you want. You mentioned external cues. That should be the direction that your instructor guides you."

I think you're missing the point. I for one am just interested in learning what someone has to offer and what they're best or expert at. If I decide that they offer enough I might come back for more. Personally I expect a coach or instructor to evaluate my skiing and make suggestion on where and how I can improve. Sometimes they might make a suggestion and provide an external cue that works for me, often I've got to try to find one for myself based on some things they suggest I might change. Usually, I would say I learn more from watching and listening to them offering instruction to others.

Again, I agree with you that "tools for learning" are often (usually) critically important. However, there are certainly instances when they are secondary (i.e. when someone is learning on their own) or not important at all and the basic knowledge or information being conveyed is the key.
post #21 of 32
Todd, that's a good point but the way I related my interaction in this case was probably not accurate. I think asking a student what they want to learn or focus on is a great way to start in general and I do it when I'm in a teaching role. Unfortunately it doesn't work well for me as a student. I'm more interested in picking people's brains I guess (that's why I enjoyed this forum for a good while before I even started to participate). Since most people don't necessarily feel that way I wouldn't expect an instructor to start out telling me what they're best at and what they like to do. I usually can get by that first awkward moment, however, and explain myself.
post #22 of 32
Rick H
There is something that I am missing. I haven't been to other areas as far as teaching or dealing with PSIA so I can't speak for other PSIA areas. I learned that SDSI was the most important thing through our local PSIA. I personally don't see any difference between what I was taught and what is in the PMTS instructors manual yet you talk as if SDSI is somewhat unique to PMTS. Have you had other experiences with PSIA that would lead you to that conclusion? I get that distinct impression from all PMTS people that SDSI is unique to PMTS. Am I in an isolated pocket here in Central division that believes in SDSI.
I think I know where Ott is comming from. We get students for one hour. If they are intermediates and if we are lucky, that is about 5 runs or 1000 vertical feet . With the crowds, skioff would take up more than half the lesson time. Instead we just get handed 10 to 20 students and they say go. We don't have a clue how they ski. Our average actual lesson time is around 50 minutes. If those lessons are with school kids the last 10 or 15 minutes is handing out stickers reducing the effective teaching time to around 40 minutes, thats enough for 3 runs or 600 vertical feet. The students are on equipment that I couldn't ski on worth beans. Canning lessons like PMTS would be a godsend here for school kids if the organization were done right but mass confusion of where their classes are and what time is the rule of the day. Classes most of the time are divided up by who wants to ski with who.
post #23 of 32
My limited experience with PSIA in Central recently is that it is very PMTS influenced.
Some of these guys were doing it before it had a name. I only show up every two years so I'm not "on top" of things here.
post #24 of 32

SDSI was developed by Kim Peterson, a co-author of the PMTS Instructors Manual. It is part of the Manual.He also developed Guest Directed Ski Instruction for some PSIA schools, Steamboat being one of them. Both are pretty much the same; Student's expectations set the agenda. I know that Mel Brown and Roger Kane are pretty up on it. So, it could have, and probably did, cross over. This is not a bad thing; we all profit.

Si, I would think that you are in the minority.Most guests come with expectations. It's our job to satisfy them. AS Todd says, we ahve to field the motivations. Simon, as far as I am concerned, we have beat this topic to death. The end!

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ November 02, 2001 03:22 PM: Message edited 1 time, by Rick H ]</font>
post #25 of 32
Thread Starter 
I've been traveling and am only back for a day. Should have the bulk of my work completed in the next two weeks prior to Eldora opening.

Bought the latest PMTS text at the airport and read it with interest. Some of it I found to be very good. There were parts that I did not find myself in agreement with. There were sections that I felt were in error. I want to read it more carefully before I tear into the text here.

Scsa, I'm heartened that you acknowledge that there are various ways to get to the pinnacle. I marvel at the "system" HH is putting in place. I do bristle when I read or hear claims of any system being the best or sole methodology to teach skiing.

Says who?

I had particular problems with the section of the text concerning alignment. Will someone glance at the first two pages and tell me what meaningfull information is put forth?

HH and Diana seem like wonderful people. I'm very interested in what they are doing. It is however, in my humble opinion, not the only way, not necessarily the best way, and certainly not their invention.
post #26 of 32
Kim Peterson has labled behaviors that the truly good instructors have been using for years. He has developed a great way of Training new instructors to reach this level of teaching quicker. It is nothing new. It is the refinment of everything we have done for years.

Listening to his presentation at Copper last year I found little new and different in how or what I should teach. Just a much better way to blend the mechanical and methodological info when training new instrucors. It is a tool to help us train instructors It will have little effect an what the great instructors are already doing.

At the core of Guest Centered Teaching and SDSI is the understanding that the guests/students needs are the most important element in the lesson and that the coach/instructors behaviors must facilitate those needs. In other words a new skier must feel safe and secure before learning to stop. Some one who is cold needs to be warm before focusing on learning. A testtosterone

As I understand it Guest Centered Teaching was developed as the trainers at Winter Park were trying to train new instructors to do what experienced instructors had been doing for years. Kim is a part time instrucor at Winter Park and Guest Centered Instruction is coprighted by Winter Park. It would be great if we could get Kim in on this discussion.
post #27 of 32
As I've skied with HH and read his book I'm saddened that the fsact that he felt the need to seperate himself from PSIA. Much of what he has to say is good.

I get the sense that HH was impatient with how long it took PSIA as an organization to come out with new information regarding coaching styles and short/carving ski methodology.

We have all been on the same journey of discovery with these new tools. Many creative and inspiring things have been happening at ski areas, local divisions of PSIA, and at the national level. It takes time to reach consensus on this process.

It is unfortunate that he did not feel that he could contribute to that process and had to create a new 'wheel' still very similar to the existing wheel.
post #28 of 32
Thread Starter 
Hapski- Great post! I am looking at the cover of his text and one fundamental question strikes me. Printed on the cover it says "The most effective ski instruction system available."

Sez who?

Perhaps he simply quoted SCSA!!!!!
post #29 of 32
The most efective ski instruction system is when the instructor and student have relationship that allows the student to benifit from the instructors experience there by guiding their learning. No labels, it has nothing to do with organizations.
post #30 of 32
Hi Hapski,
First let me say that I am enjoying your posts here on EpicSki. With that said let me take "slight" issue with you most recent post in this thread:

The most efective ski instruction system is when the instructor and student have relationship that allows the student to benifit from the instructors experience there by guiding their learning. No labels, it has nothing to do with organizations.[/quote]

I don't think you've gone nearly far enough to describe the "most effective ski instruction system." There is no doubt the relationship between student and instructor or coach is a critical component. A belief system is a valuable component of any instruction system. However, there are both skill and expertise that are also critical to an instruction system. There are better and worse approaches or frameworks to build the student instructor relationship on (both from technique and teaching perspectives). If an instructor's experience is based upon the use of only moderately effective approaches or teaching systems they may hardly have a clue of what they and their students are missing out on. My own experiences and observations suggest this happens far too often. In order to remedy this situation we also need to understand and promote effective teaching systems. While good approaches to teaching may not be unique or exclusive of one another they certainly may be closely linked to an organization.

Based on your first few posts here at EpicSki and your profile I would expect that in your environment where you direct a ski school some effort is made in analyzing the effectiveness of your framework for instruction.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching