or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › Rob Butler, What the Heck?????
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rob Butler, What the Heck????? - Page 3

post #61 of 126
LM, not to get in a flame war with you, but there are many fine instructors out there whose biomechanical knowledge does not extend much farther than "the leg bones' connected to the hip bone....". Much of modern ski technique comes from the World Cup skiing of Alberto Tomba, who I somehow doubt managed to study biomechanics very much between races and orgies. Like Ott says, you shouldn't be so hard on them. Whenever I take a lesson (or read instructional material), even if I hear something that sounds inconsistent with what I have learned in the past, or just seems wrong, I give it a fair try. I've learned quite a few useful things from doing this.
In any event, hopefully your skills will progress enough this year so that you will fully understand what Yuki was saying about narrowing your stance in the deep snow, and why your balance was so off that day.
post #62 of 126
Thread Starter 
Yeah, Tomba can race and have orgies, but can he teach??? The best performers are not always the best teachers.

What instructors don't seem to realize, that as students, who are spending money that really cannot afford to spend, we have a choice. The line up of instructors out there is pretty big, with many just sort of hanging out waiting for students.

Partially from hanging out on Epicski,and partially from my own bad experiences, I've learned to ask many questions about a teachers background before taking a lesson. I invest too much on my own education to take a lesson with someone who is just teaching for the free lift ticket.

BTW, the idea that keeping the boots locked together in powder is nonsense; I learned that from one of the Bears.
post #63 of 126

Now I'm jumping in.

Your comment about "...keeping the feet together in powder is nonsense..." -- is nonsense.

First of all, I could show you lots of skiers who keep their feet together in powder. In fact, I could point you to the very best all-mountain skiers in the world; Eric Des Laurier (who is Eski), Doug Coombs, Harald Harb, Chris Anthony, Lito, on and on, who'd tell you that THE ONLY WAY to be successful in powder is to ski with your feet together! Are you really going to tell me that they're wrong?

Listen girl. You wanna get better? You better start to open up your mind a little.
post #64 of 126
Thread Starter 
Like I said, if men, or masculinely built women want to start teaching WOMEN to ski, they need to taking some courses in female anatomy. Lets face it.Lessons are expensive. Skiing is expensive. If there are teachers who teach in a style that is more appropriate for me, I'm not going to waste my time on someone who has only learned to teach one half of the population. Its all about being happy. If I know I'm not going to enjoy myself, why bother. Saying to someone "You better start...." either doing this or that is not an effective way to to encourage someone to learn something different.

What works for AN EXPERT MALE SKIER may not be appropriate for a woman who learns to ski in her 40s.
Anyone who does not understand that, is not well versed enough in their knowledge of basic anatomy for ME, PERSONALLY, to take a lesson with them, now matter how spectatcular they are as a skier.

Now as I said, this really was NOT supposed to be about stance width. Do a search for that thread and bang the drum 100 tomes more if you still want to talk about that.
It was supposed to be about how {and if} a skidding drill can help you carve better.
The only person who was able to answer that question adequately was Todo. Everyone else just got hung up on the whole ego thing of stance width.
I guess I must have struck some macho ego thing whe I said that for my personal esthetics, Butler's skiing does not appeal to me.

I guess some of you dudes thought that you looked like Stein Erickson out there, doing the s#### turner thing.
Sorry to disapoint.
post #65 of 126
But Lisa, as far as I know, Jenny Thoren is the ONLY one who's advocating that women need a different approach or that knowing a women's anatomy makes a difference in teaching.

So, I suppose she could be on to something.

But I've asked Diana Rogers about this and she vehemently disagrees with Jenny's approach. Diana has been studying biomechanics for a long time now -- some of her work has been published by the Skiing Congress. You would think that she knows what she's talking about. I mean if Jenny was on to something, you would also think that other top notch teachers would be following - but they're not.

So I have to strongly disagree with your opinions. There's no evidence that I'm aware of to suggest that teaching skiing to a women is any different, at least from a biomechanical standpoint, than teaching skiing to a man.

Sure, you may find a few instructors who agree with you, but if you look long enough, you can find a few people to agree with just about anything one says!
post #66 of 126
Thread Starter 
Jenny Thoren is not the only one advocating a different approach for women. I have had many MALE instructors who understand that. I occaisonally take Women's workshops, and there are ENORMOUS numbers of women who will only take classes with female teachers because they have had male instructors INSIST on putting them into a stance that does not feel right for them. You have to keep in mind that most recreational skiers are not trying to become World Cup Olympic Athletes. Some of us just want to enjoy our time on the hill. And if an instructor is going to spend the whole class time beig inflexible about their teaching styles, well heck, their are other instructors out there.

Besides, back in the ENDLESS stance width threads, we already established that the Harbians, for the most part,are not talking about boot buckles being "locked" together.
post #67 of 126

I just want to enjoy my time on the hill too. Sure, I'm a turn nazi, but it's all in the interest of getting to the enjoyment part ASAP! Falling down a lot sucks!

I took the liberty of forwarding your comments along to someone I met who's a heavy duty ski person on the biomechanical side. He's a P.T., has been in the business since the late 70's, working with the U.S. ski team and other World Cup racers. He also works with with Jane Q. Skier.

I hope he responds. If so, I'll post his comments.
post #68 of 126

One last thing and my intention is not to open up the stance debate.

I skied with Bruce Ruff the other day. Bruce is a ski model, has been on countless magazine covers, and has been in a few Warren Miller movies.

Bruce skis with a wide stance. Does it work for him and does it work for others? You bet it does. Does a narrow stance work for others? You bet it does.

Which is "better"? I don't think anyone can really say -- yet. Sure, alternative ski instruction (which preaches a narrow stance) is experiencing rapid growth. But until we see thousands of skiers experiencing success, I don't think anyone can really say. But if we do ever see thousands of skiers experiencing dramatic results with a narrow stance, I think the industry will have no choice but to adopt it as a standard technique for shaped skis.
post #69 of 126
Thread Starter 
SCSA, in all due respect, the wider stance was developed in response to the creation of shaped skis. The boot locked stance was indigenous to straight skis. What I am talikng about, is pelvic width. When I am teaching some of my stability ball classes, I start people out with their feet on the ball, pelvic width apart. Then, I ALWAYS need to go around the room and correct positioning.
Because everyone looks at their neighbor to figure out pelvic width. It has to do with anatomy, and what is FUNCTIONAL, as opposed to what is contrived and decorative. A good instructor can look at someone's build, and find the appropriate stance width. A clueless instructor will just arbitrarily put everyone in a boot locked stance.
post #70 of 126
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lisamarie:
BTW, the idea that keeping the boots locked together in powder is nonsense; I learned that from one of the Bears.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not advocating LOCKING here, but really LisaMarie, get some miles in waist deep powder and tell me which works for YOU Wide or Narrow. Until YOU ski Powder what any of these guys tell you is just that FREE ADVICE.

I appologies in advance as it looks like a pile on LM here but ... Anyway an emotional argument just is not as rewarding as an intelligent one.
post #71 of 126
In all the lessons I've had no one has ever told me which stance is better or any of that. I've been told to take a narrow stance to work on my balance during lessons, but thats purely a drill, but when it comes around to just skiing around just do whatever feels 'right'. After all, the #1 thing in skiing is confidence and balanced, any skier should ski in a width they are comfortable with.

My most recent lesson was the 1st day this year, I wasn't planning on taking one but my dad dropped out of his private lesson so I took his spot, my instructer hardly said a word about technique, we just worked a bit on getting more forward on the ski (hey, it was my first day on skis in a while), then after that was solved we just ripped down a bunch of black runs in boot deep pow .
post #72 of 126
Thread Starter 
Dr.Go, in powder, I may have my feet closer together, but not locked. I tried locked under the "guidance" of the instructor at Jay Peak. I tried locked at Bormio Italy, along with a bunch of other archaic techniques such as heel pushes and reverse shoulder leans.
Closer together works for me. Locked does not. If I wanted to use two skis as one, I would take up mono skiing.

BTW, I too find it interesting that people have chosen to "pile" as you say. As I keep reiterating, very few here have been savy enough to answer my original question. And because people did not have a sufficient enough knowledge base to respond to what I was asking, the defensive mechanism was to flame me about something that was just a minor point of my post.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ November 21, 2001 07:26 PM: Message edited 1 time, by Lisamarie ]</font>
post #73 of 126
LM, skiing can get you hurt or killed just as easily if you are doing it right!
I wasn't saying anything about Tomba's teaching ability, just that alot of what is being taught today comes directly from his skiing.
I only used Yuki's comment about narrowing (he certainly didn't say boot locked) the stance for powder as an example of what kinds of things you will discover as your skills progress.
My wife asked "why does she want to bring the gym to the ski slope?" And I think she brings up a good point. What you do in the gym, when done correctly SHOULD feel right, because our bodies are designed for that sort of thing. Skiing is different. The most efficient movements are unnatural. It's like swimming. What is the most natural swimming movement? The dog paddle. Not very efficient, is it? Also, skiing is about fun. Fitness is about health. And getting laid.
Bottom line is, it's not very important to recreational skiers, and you don't really need to concern yourself with the biomechanical aspects of it while learning. Just learn the movements, they are the same for men and women. Most instructors won't say anything about stance unless there is an obvious problem.
The turns that Butler is doing in that video are probably the easiest to learn turns for getting down steep terrain. They don't really require that much up/down, but that is very helpful for learning them. As you get better at them and more confident, you can reduce the up/ down and start the carving much earlier in the turn. Or just do them like in the video, it's still great skiing.
post #74 of 126
Sorry, I had to re-read ALL of my posts to see where I was off base with you. Guess it is just in the eye of the beholder. Sorry again, and RELAX!

LisaMarie Defending her position, holding her own, against all comers.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ November 21, 2001 07:29 PM: Message edited 2 times, by Dr.GO ]</font>
post #75 of 126
Lisamarie, the first "flame" (I think it's too strong a word) in this thread was from you,

I quote:>>>Do they REALYY let instructors teach without explaining the Q angle to thme.

...to which I responded because I thought it an insult to instructors in general, because Q angle has as much to do with teaching skiing as edge set has to do with Pilates. And we have gotten along without the Q angle explanation for years and there was nothing "scary" about it.

Rarely do you post without reminding us about your fitness teaching, and though I've not mentioned it before, it really hasn't that much to do with skiing because you don't have to be very fit to ski, and ski well.

post #76 of 126
Thread Starter 
No Ott. The first flame was someone responding to a SERIOUS QUESTION FROM A STUDENT by saying "It seems that some of you posters think 'I'm so better than that'".

What a truly sad change this signifies for this forum. When a student poses a question that challenges the long held belief system of an instructor, rather than answer the question, the instructor makes a highly offensive remark.

And then, in every forum frequented by instructors, there is the collective whine
"Oh why don't we have enough students???"

Well, I guess this is no longer the forum to ask questions. Too bad.
post #77 of 126
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ott Gangl:
....... because you don't have to be very fit to ski, and ski well.


I don't know about that Ott,
I have been on both sides of this issue and I must say that skiing FIT is much more fun! Ture you don't have to, and you can probably ski pretty well, but can you ski all day for a few days maybe a week and still not have those thigh muscles say WHOOOOAAAA!

Cal Cantrell showed us up is STOWE a few years back, that you can ski with out exerting too much energy in the leg but again, I like to slice em up a bit at times.
(He was GS with us down Haymaker through the BUMPS, or those short littel icy sidded things that the EAST calls bumps, at about 45MPH, had a hard time keeping up, he looked good though, can't remember how old he told us he was then)
BUt his knees were a bit shot after many years on the A team, and he did GREAT!

SO it can be done but I like my power at times too much to settle back just yet, I guess. FIt is good.
Besides, I wager a month in TELLURIDE, that LisaMarie looks a bit better than you or I!
post #78 of 126
I know more than a few people who can't run around the block yet they're great skiers...So even though I'm a fitness guy, it probably doesn't matter, vis-a-vis skiing. Well you know, if you're skiing bumps the better condition you're in the better off you are though.

I'm trying to figure out what the heck Lisa is upset about. I dunno, maybe the thread has gone sideways? Lisa, have you been drinking those cosmos again? If so, have a double for me!
post #79 of 126
Thread Starter 
I only bring up my fitness instruction because I am talking to other TEACHERS and as TEACHERS we all relate to HUMAN BEINGS.
Some concepts of communictaion are universal. For that matter, there are certain subtleties of movement that can be cariied over into different activities. The instructor who finally got me to love skiing, was the one who was able to show me what I already knew how to do from my years of teaching fitness, and how it relates to certain skiing movements.
The better instructors of ANY activity show an interest in other activities.
This helps them relate better to a greater variety of studnets.

Why do you think Todd is interested in learning some things about Pilates.

That being said, I do in fact agree. There are people who are amazingly fit who can't ski worth a damn.

If you read my article on Functional Training in Health and Fitness for Skiing, you would be aware that I felt that way.
OOps! I'm sorry! Fitness has nothing to do with skiing, so you probably had no interest in reading it.
That's okay. I'm quite used to the non exercising population being defensive around me.
What I'm not used to, is instructors saying, "Oh you think you are so better"

BTW, you mentioned that you got along without the Q angle for years.
Funny, it was not until recently, when a few instructors, both male and female, decided to buy a clue, that more women started to ski.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ November 21, 2001 08:39 PM: Message edited 1 time, by Lisamarie ]</font>
post #80 of 126
Hey Ott,

Here is a German skier...

Looks a little like you
post #81 of 126
Lisamarie, let's just drop this, it is taking a wrong turn. Ask your questions and state your opnions, but when you state that it is scary that new instructors are allowed to teach because they dont know the Q angle, you have just hit a few thousand of them over the head with a 2x4. That was quite presumptious of you and you HAD to expect some pointed replies.

Dr. Go, you are right, it is better to be fit than not, but it is still an individual choice which takes time and commitment. I have always been overweight and lazy, so that is why I picked activities which don't take much fitness like skiing and chess.

And in my 56 years of skiing I don't think I have ever skied all day, though I've skied every day for a week. This skiing all day is a particularly American activity which has never appealed to me much. Ski vacations are VACATIONS which to me and many of my European friends means sleeping late, having a hearty breakfast, ski a couple hours until lunchtime, have a two hour lunch, and if the lunch-bunch is interesting and the beer and wine flows freely, extend lunch until after the lifts close. Otherwise, ski a couple of hours in the afternoon.

When I go to Summit county, CO to ski, I always take a day off here and there to go gambling to Central City/Blackhawk, another day or two to go to Denver to shop or see a show, so 30-40% of my vacation is not skiing and when I'm skiing I enjoy it so much that I don't have to do it all day to be satisfied.

And I also enjoy the good things in life and won't deny myself to partake of them just so I'll look good in the casket.

Otherwise I think it's going to be a good Thanksgiving.

post #82 of 126
Been there done that.
Fact is there are a few friends that when I ski with them I pack my backpack with the wisperlite and my fondue pot so I can STILL ski all day and get in the obligitory SHOTSY PARTY! (the singing is a bit campy even now)

Why can we not get those cute little shot bars slope side here in the states?

I still ski all day even now. Besides, it takes all day sometimes to get back to the really good skiing, and then you gotta ski back home from there!
post #83 of 126
Thread Starter 
So instructors can insult students for asking questions, but students are not allowed to question an instructors training, if they find it lacking.

I understand . These are the new rules of the forum, so I guess I have to play be them.
Subject closed.
post #84 of 126
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lisamarie:
Do they Really let instructors teach without explaining the Q angle to them?

Hey I just learnt about the Q angle today. I always wondered how simple things ended up with such important sounding “names” ???? We always called it “hip wide” stance. Sort of makes walking easier.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ott Gangl:
no, it was because they observed that my class was having more FUN than any other on the hill. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right on Ott! Perhaps you had a nice line in “ski instructor accent” as well and the thoughts of Sigl kept showing up as a big cheesy grin.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wigs:
I turn them in everyday so I don't have to carry them around. So I don't have a clue what I'll get the next day.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wigs you are one sick puppy. Must cost you a fortune in fresh socks and foot disease cream?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lisamarie:
As I keep reiterating, very few here have been savy enough to answer my original question. And because people did not have a sufficient enough knowledge base to respond to what I was asking, the defensive mechanism was to flame me about something that was just a minor point of my post.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Careful LM it can get a tad breezy on the shoe box.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lisamarie:
the wider stance was developed in response to the creation of shaped skis.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Um I recall the APSIA advocating a hip wide stance back in 1985. ( just as I mastered the Austrian “boot lock waltz” ). I believe the wider stance came from racing background pre “carve skis”

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr.GO:
Why can we not get those cute little shot bars slope side here in the states?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe because it is dangerous to drink outside during the day in a country with "the right to bare arms" ... as you will get sunburt.

Interesting how Robs well known and simple in house demo of pivoting the feet can end up in such an interesting manner.

I hope it snows soon so we can all do it and not stew it.

Back to my crate for some house training!

Oz [img]smile.gif[/img]

the edits where me trying to get the pesky quotes to work.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ November 21, 2001 09:03 PM: Message edited 4 times, by man from oz ]</font>
post #85 of 126
Lisamarie, I reread your opening post, and after stating your dislike for Rob Butler and his teaching, you asked THE QUESTION you keep mentioning. It was:>>>Am I missing something???? <<<

And the answer is yes.Rob Butler tried to explain, but you dimissed his explanation off hand. So you have indeed missed something.

Now that I answered you question, can we lay it to rest?

post #86 of 126
Thread Starter 
post #87 of 126
When I stated: "Some of you posters think you are so better than that," my point was to get all you dissin' tha man to back up off it.
Butler has been in the spotlight as a model skiier before I was a twinkle in my daddy's eye.
Looks to me like Butler could rock on me 'old school style.' Those old school guys are the fathers of new school.
In other words - How we ski and what we ski on are all built on what those old schoolers have accomplished. Give them some props.

post #88 of 126
Can of opened worms here.


Don't take anything I wrote personally.
Cause it ain't.

Worms everywhere.
It's all gravy to me.
post #89 of 126
Well, this morning I feel silly about last night rant, I was feeling kind of sassy then, and though I hardly ever react when one of my hot buttons is pushed, yesterday I did.

So I apologize to everyone, especially to Lisamarie for my outbursts, I'll try to control myself a little better in the future.

I now go and sit in the corner with my dunce cap on.

post #90 of 126
Oh, I wouldn't worry too much about teeing Lisamarie off. Those city girls are pretty damn tough.

Besides, this is her biggest thread.

Now if we could just get her, Minker, skibunny, and Sugar Snack to show up in the same thread...Ooh, somebody stop me. I'm starting to sweat.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › Rob Butler, What the Heck?????