New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Fore/Aft Balance - Page 2

post #31 of 54

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by justanotherskipro View Post

 .......... My advice would be to experiment with the location of the cross over and the Dirt of the movements used to balance on the skis. Especially in the fore / aft and lateral arena.

 

I think this is great advice for the advanced skier.  I like your imagery of the feet moving one way while the body moves another. These are the kind of images that allow a learner to break down complex tasks and to focus on the components.

 

I was similarly inspired by watching boarders carve beautiful arcs to experiment with the relationship of the body to the skis in order to move further to the inside and further down the hill very early in the turn. In my case I was trying to move the control phase or active carving phase  way up to the top of the arc. Back when I was on "straight" slalom skis this required an  especially pronounced forcible leg extension against the skis which were essentially uphill of the body at this point in order to bend and shape the skis early. The effect of this was to allow the skis to accelerate through the remainder of the turn as well as allow the body to take the kind of "shortcut" you describe to arrive in the right place at the right time. That was awhile ago. I haven't been teaching or skiing very actively in recent years but your description effectively brings up my recollection.

 

post #32 of 54

IMO the ability to understand the two paths and how we allow both to move at different speeds and in different directions is the one constant in all skiing maneuvers. It's often packaged in advice about an athletic stance, or a dynamic athletic stance, and as finding the sweet spot on the skis

 

For a beginner this might mean moving in a small RoM because their turns are relatively slow and don't involve the need for the same fore /aft RoM we would use in more dynamic turns. It also means the lateral RoM is smaller at this level. This disciplined and purposeful quality is ofter misunderstood to mean all ski maneuvers should be performed with this limited RoM. All it means is for that maneuver the appropriate movements need to be used.

Intermediates tend to move through a wider RoM because to produce their intended turns the paths of the feet and the body need to have greater separation.This also mean the difference in speed between these two parts of the body increases. It should be no surprize that this continues to happen to an even greater degree as a skier begins to work on advanced and expert level maneuvers. How the limbs and joints move to keep the feet and the body connected but moving along their separate paths is necessary information but should not distract us from accomplishing the goal of keeping both the body and the feet moving along their separate paths.  

So lets draw the two paths from an overhead perspective for a couple different levels of turns,

  • The beginner maneuvers use two very similar paths and the drawing would look like a slivered moon.
  • Intermediate turns would use slightly different paths and the drawing would look like a crescent moon.
  • Advanced and expert turns would include using all of the above but in very dynamic turns this might also include two very different paths and the drawing would look like a quarter, or even a half moon.

 

 

I think this should explain why I am not a fan of the type of advice like always pull back your feet through the transition.  Pulling the feet back is a corrective move and if you find yourself using this move a lot, it should tell you that your body has stopped moving somewhere during the last turn and this has disrupted the timing of the balancing movements.

Rick called it moving towards the danger, Bud calls it catch and release, I sometimes call it playing cat and mouse, but in the end it all comes down to allowing the feet and the body to continue moving along their separate paths. When either stops moving our fore/aft balance is compromised.

 

Loki, I hope by understanding the dual paths idea you can understand how fore/aft balancing is accomplished and how it changes in a turn.

post #33 of 54

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by justanotherskipro View Post

IMO the ability to understand the two paths and how we allow both to move at different speeds and in different directions is the one constant in all skiing maneuvers. It's often packaged in advice about an athletic stance, or a dynamic athletic stance, and as finding the sweet spot on the skis...........................

 

I think this should explain why I am not a fan of the type of advice like always pull back your feet through the transition.  Pulling the feet back is a corrective move and if you find yourself using this move a lot, it should tell you that your body has stopped moving somewhere during the last turn .........

An understanding of this and just the image (the "swoop") could go a long way toward moving many skiers off the usual plateau involving limited range of movement but I think there are good reasons why such complex processes as you describe are often packaged, as you put it, in specific advice. Many if not most of the people I used to teach with would have a difficult enough time digesting this never mind their students hence the need to incorporate in in small bites or just bear in mind the principle in your teaching.. I think most people aren't merely failing to move fluidly throughout the turn they are chronically in the backseat. I suspect the root cause is a defensive and natural response to moving down the hill. You can observe the same kind of behavior in people walking downhill or on irregular terrain. Good teaching can help to supplant the underlying fear and create a comfortable and confident approach to learning how to ski but finding an effective fore and aft stance even if only for a moment can be key to learning to move the COM to the inside. Many of the people I taught could not balance properly against developed forces because they could not experience those forces in the context of a functional turn. Moving the feet back as a remedy helped them to experience those forces in a context that delivered a positive result. I suppose I'm arguing for this as a remedy and you are pointing out correctly that  good skiing involves continuous movement. I would only add that for most skiers continuous movement of the body fore and aft is an attempt to find and maintain an effective position relative to the skis.

 

 

post #34 of 54

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by justanotherskipro View Post

 

 

Pulling the feet back is a corrective move and if you find yourself using this move a lot, it should tell you that your body has stopped moving somewhere during the last turn and this has disrupted the timing of the balancing movements.

 

It's odd then, isn't it, that Sarah Schleper of the US ski team was talking about the power of (routine) foot pull-back last summer and saying that it was introduced to her by Ted Ligety who has one more discipline world cup title to his credit than does the naysayer above .  It seems to me that Ligety is the more authoritative of the two sources of skiing wisdom as measured by FIS and their clocks .

post #35 of 54

Since we have gotten this far away from balancing  fore & aft let me move just a little further.  Justanotherskipro, reading your last post.  Would your two lines, the skis and the body be divergence? 

 

Front to rear weighting is a response based off of too many variables to list; turn radius, speed, snow, type of turn, terrain, transitions, phase of the moon, song stuck in your head,.....  It is reactive too feel, more often than not, it is little more than pressure changes on the tongue of the boot.  Much can and has been said about this but is it much more than letting your body flow down the hill to allow you to remain dynamically balanced over your skis at the completion of the turn? 

 

If I had to remember and think about all this stuff while skiing, I'd stay in the lodge.

post #36 of 54

Well Sharpedges you're quoting someone who is quoting someone. Then suggesting that somehow they have given you insight no one else could possibly understand. A curious response even from you my friend. We disagree about this but you will notice I am not insulting you to prove my point is valid. The math supporting this is enough. In fact, the dual paths model doesn't need me to prove it, that happened a long time ago. All I am pointing out are the often overlooked portions of that model. Pulling the feet back can be a very effective move in certain circumstances but I'm surprised that you would propose it should be a common element in every ski turn. That IMO is overstating it's usefulness.

 

Stranger,

It really isn't a lot to think about once you feel it. The proper fore / aft stance changes throughout a turn because the forces involved have a different effect at different parts of the turn. Here are a couple quick examples of what I'm talking about.

  • Gravity pulls us downhill all the time but if we are turning towards the bottom of the hill it helps us make that happen. In this part of the turn, Gravity is pulling us into the turn. As we turn across the hill and away form the pull of gravity it still pulls us downhill but now it's pulling us away from the turn.
  • Changes in our speed are happening as well. You would know this as the acceleration and deceleration that happens during a turn. Turning towards Gravity we speed up, turning across the hill we slow down. A simple rule about this is the faster you are traveling the more your body needs to move inside the turn to maintain "balance".
  • Angular momentum and linear momentum are at work as well. Start rotating and unless you do something to stop the rotation it will continue to happen. Go straight and gain speed and you gain linear momentum which will cause you to continue to go straight unless you do something to change this.
  •  Also consider how a vertical stance during a traverse creates enough edge angle to continue the travese. Fore / aft adjustments during a traverse don't do much. Change that to a vertical stance as we face downhill and all of this changes. Our vertical stance doesn't create any edge angles but our fore / aft stance would be decidedly aft.

 

More examples exist but I think these example should point out that fore / aft balance involves so much more than simply finding the sweet spot and remaining there through the entire turn. That spot moves as we move and changes location as we change direction, In addition, remember that we are traveling across the snow and through the space around us. This is where the model breaks down for some. They mistakenly assume the body is moving as a single unit and where the feet go the body must also go.

I've described the two paths several times. One very round path and one more arc shaped. For those to be contemporaneous, the parts of the body following that inside path need to move slower than the parts of the body following the rounder outer path.

 

Perhaps it would be easier to accept my opinion if I used examples from other sports. Let's consider how to develop club head speed. The head of the golf club moves much faster than the grip because it is moving further over the same time period. Same can be said for a baseball bat, or a tennis racquet, or even a horse whip. The outside end of the inanimate object is (you guessed it folks) moving faster and further than the inside end.

post #37 of 54

All ski instruction is context specific.  Generally foot pull back, or changing the relative position of the cm to the feet, and the applications of force needed for the move are a good idea, but if you're already skiing correctly and you add more of the same, then it puts you off, and if you're skiing on your ski tips with your tails levered into the air that move will make you fall on your face.  It's all relative.

 

You should only take advice given to someone else with a grain of salt, and even then disect it and understand it, and only use it as a departure point for exploration; you need specific advice given to you by someone who knows and given after watching you ski.


Edited by Ghost - 5/31/2009 at 05:50 pm GMT
post #38 of 54

Skipro; sure the old concepts of total motion and centripetal force always play into a ski turn. 

 

To place your body in an athletic stance over your skis at the end of the turn, to allow you to initiate the next turn requires lots of continual adjustments of weighting and body position. Lots of words are spent on dissecting what is intuitive and instinctive,  we make it way too complicated and confusing.  You as an instructor know that the biggest challenge to teaching this sport is to convince peoples brains to let their bodies do what they want to do instinctively, we just add more gravity.  People do not lean back when they walk down the street.  If you run around obstacles you will instinctively do just about everything you are talking about (or run into something).  If you are a high end race coach or clinic instructor for level 8+- skiing the dissection is great.  If not it is like the famous angles dancing on the head of a pin.

 

Back to my question from earlier post.  Your two lines, body line, ski line through a turn.  Is this what is considered divergence in modern teaching?

 

Not trying to jump your case, I respect a lot of what you say.  I am just an old minimalist who lives and taught by the KISS theory. 

post #39 of 54

The term divergence is used to describe the condition where your skis take divergent paths.  They literally ski away from each other, if only for a brief moment. You can see divergence in photos where the tips are farther apart than the tails.

 

One sure fire way to create divergence is to put too much weight on the inside ski.

 

One sure fire way not to allow divergence is to ski with most of your weight on the outside ski.

 

 

post #40 of 54

Divergence is typically used to describe the paths of the two skis. Not that it doesn't apply to the dual paths as well, just that it isn't as common to hear it used in that context.

 As far as KISS is concerned, it's a very good idea to package your information in an easy to digest presentation. That doesn't mean using the KISS principle to edit out important details and content. Understanding and learning come from communicating more than a sound byte here and a catch phrase there. We need to share more than the headlines.


Edited by justanotherskipro - 6/1/2009 at 04:48 am GMT
post #41 of 54

Skipro

 

Agreed on communication, I just don't want to type that much. 

 

Do this for my own pleasure now rather than profession.

post #42 of 54

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by justanotherskipro View Post 

I think this should explain why I am not a fan of the type of advice like always pull back your feet through the transition.  Pulling the feet back is a corrective move and if you find yourself using this move a lot, it should tell you that your body has stopped moving somewhere during the last turn and this has disrupted the timing of the balancing movements.

 

Hey JASP,

 

I'm wondering what you consider "pulling the feet back"?  The reason I ask is because it isn't a corrective move--at least not in the context I use it.  Rather it is simply a means of describing the motion that you use to move forward (from a centered or aft position).  Some folks describe it as moving the hips forward.  Regardless, the key is that the movement comes from the hamstrings.  We were actually discussing this movement in race training today.

post #43 of 54

Geoffda,

Extending the knees is a way to use the front side muscles to move the hip forward without pulling the feet back. Allowing the pull of gravity to pull your body into the turn is another (releasing the body into the new turn). a third is to do an ab crunch. Heck even moving the arms forward will do this. So to say all forward movement of the hips needs to come from the hamstrings is IMO an over statement. It's only one of many ways to produce forward hip movement.

Maybe if you started releasing the body into the new turn earlier you wouldn't need to pull your feet back all the time. Don't get me wrong the pull the feet back has a place in our arsenal, but suggesting it is necessary to perform every turn with it is IMO another over statement.

If you have a chance next fall come out and work with Bob or myself and I'm sure one of us can show you on the snow what we were working on. I gotta say like you guys when the idea was first presented to me, I was very skeptical. After three or four days of race training I was surprised by how infrequently I felt the need to slow my feet down so my body could catch up. I was also making reaching slalom turns and not missing gates I normally would have missed. So from this first hand experience I have come to the conclusion that pulling my feet back isn't more than one of several options and certainly not a common element in all ski turns. Far from it.

Getting back to Loki though I think this whole discussion point out that there are a variety of opinions out there about fore / aft balance and in the end the proof is in learning them all and deciding for yourself what to believe and what not to believe.

Don't accept things as true just because someone says so, experiment and draw your own conclusions from that experience.

post #44 of 54

 

"Slowing the feet down" is a misrepresentation.  Whether you are aware of it or not, all movements you make to get your CM over/past your feet use the hamstrings.

 

Now I'm going back to hibernation mode.

 

Have a good summer.

 

 

 

post #45 of 54

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by justanotherskipro View Post

Geoffda,

Extending the knees is a way to use the front side muscles to move the hip forward without pulling the feet back. Allowing the pull of gravity to pull your body into the turn is another (releasing the body into the new turn). a third is to do an ab crunch. Heck even moving the arms forward will do this. So to say all forward movement of the hips needs to come from the hamstrings is IMO an over statement. It's only one of many ways to produce forward hip movement.

Maybe if you started releasing the body into the new turn earlier you wouldn't need to pull your feet back all the time. Don't get me wrong the pull the feet back has a place in our arsenal, but suggesting it is necessary to perform every turn with it is IMO another over statement.

If you have a chance next fall come out and work with Bob or myself and I'm sure one of us can show you on the snow what we were working on. I gotta say like you guys when the idea was first presented to me, I was very skeptical. After three or four days of race training I was surprised by how infrequently I felt the need to slow my feet down so my body could catch up. I was also making reaching slalom turns and not missing gates I normally would have missed. So from this first hand experience I have come to the conclusion that pulling my feet back isn't more than one of several options and certainly not a common element in all ski turns. Far from it.

Getting back to Loki though I think this whole discussion point out that there are a variety of opinions out there about fore / aft balance and in the end the proof is in learning them all and deciding for yourself what to believe and what not to believe.

Don't accept things as true just because someone says so, experiment and draw your own conclusions from that experience.


Thanks JASP--yeah, I'd love to track you guys down next fall and see what you are doing on snow.  Based on your previous posts, I'm pretty sure I understand what you are doing, but at my level of racing experience, things are still happening pretty fast in the gates & I'm not sure I could apply it  .  So it would be cool to see somebody using that technique in practice in some gates (who isn't on the USST!). 
 

 

Hopefully my initial post where I mentioned foot pullback didn't come off as suggesting that as the only approach to handling fore-aft.  That was certainly not my intent--as you point out, there are many ways to accomplish just about everything in skiing. 

 

That said, I think I still believe that even when you release your body into the new turn even as your skis are finishing the old one there is still some element of tension in the hamstrings that comes into play.  Or to put it another way, I think there is a spectrum here.  On one side, you have an aggressive movement of one or both feet relative to the hips.  On the other side the "movement" may be nothing more than tension to prevent your feet from moving forward.  I think the "foot pullback" notion is a way to get people to understand this range and where it comes from. 

 

 

post #46 of 54

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger View Post

........

  we make it way too complicated and confusing.  You as an instructor know that the biggest challenge to teaching this sport is to convince peoples brains to let their bodies do what they want to do instinctively, we just add more gravity.  People do not lean back when they walk down the street.   

No, but they do lean into the hill.

 

I don't think there is anything very natural about what is required in advanced skiing. The feet move at different and varying rates of speed than the body. Lots of people will disagree with this point because the sensation of the feet moving appreciably faster than the body is not in their experience. This is kind of a watershed in the progression to really advanced skiing. Having the feet move rapidly at very different rates than the body is no more an accustomed experience than walking on banana peels. Most people when they get past the sensation of their feet moving out from under them and manage to recenter the body seek to maintain a more closely static relationship of the body to the feet which means that the feet will never get very far out from beneath the body .
 

Analyzing and describing all this is very complicated but the art of teaching is the art of of conveying this in ways that a student can assimilate.

post #47 of 54

Actually I was a USSA coach back when my bear was racing. Devo stuff mostly but it evolved from helping her understand what her coaches would say. To do that I felt I needed to use the same terminology and philosophy. Some here might not understand that all the different organizations have their own unique view of things. As a past patrol trainer, race coach and current ski school trainer I've seen three distinctly different approaches to skiing and ski technique. Not to mention my years in the Aspen ski school, where there are so many conflicting opinions. I think it's because the coaches come from so many different parts of the world and not all of the teaching organizations they come from see thing the same way. Katy tends to rein some of this in but this diversity makes her school one of the best in the world.

So to fast forward to working with Bob Barnes and Bobby Murphy over at Keystone, they both expect us to continue to grow and expand our understanding of ski technique. Bob Barnes in particular makes it a point to say at the start of every one of his clinic, "Don't believe anything I say". He challenges you to try stuff and come to your own conclusions, instead of just accepting it based on the fact that he said it. Although you also need to be prepared to support your opinion with a sound mechanical understanding of why it works how you think it does.

 

If you have the chance, I would recommend working in a place where you will be exposed to pros from many different teaching organizations. It will open your eyes and IMO you will gain a much deeper understanding of ski technique.  

 


Edited by justanotherskipro - 6/1/2009 at 05:28 pm GMT
post #48 of 54

Oisin, I will stand pat on my 'skiing is natural' comment. 

 

Learning our sport, or just about anything else, is a matter of establishing and expanding on someones comfort zone.  A first time skier can walk so an instructor will help them learn to walk on a pair of skis, thus expanding their comfort zone and develop from there.   A  good instructor will challenge a students skill set and comfort zone but won't intentionally scare them.  As the skill is acquired it becomes comfortable for the person learning it, at that point it is a natural motion (you don't have to think consciously about it to accomplish it), things like moving your balance fore and aft through a turn or a transition.  Once something is a natural action, you own it.  Our student is now skiing black bump runs smoothly and comfortably, she is diving off into the loose snow at will and is comfortable and natural there too.   She is an advanced skier now IMO.  If a skier can not ski advanced terrain and conditions in a relaxed  and natural fashion are they an advanced skier?   

 

Walking is a natural skill, but a young child normally must develop and learn  that skill.  After learning more skills the child learns to run but not till they own walking.  Now hide the car keys.

 

It has been a lot of years since I taught and cliniced seriously.  This what I learned, what I taught and what I believe.

post #49 of 54

In their Long Term Athlete Development model, Steve Norris & his colleagues at the Canadian Sport Centre identified four basic environments for movement and sports skills:

 

  • On the ground
  • In the water
  • On snow and ice
  • In the air

 

The goal for full physical literacy is to develop ability in all of these environments to provide a solid foundation for any sport activity.  The best long term results will be achieved when this physical literacy is developed before roughly the age of 12. 

 

So...is skiing natural?

 

For a first timer with some exposure to sliding, maybe from skating, or even playing on the toboggan hill, there will be some experience to draw from, so it might be a natural progression. 

 

For an older teenager or adult who has no experience with sliding on ice or snow, not necessarily natural at all.   

 

post #50 of 54

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger View Post

Oisin, I will stand pat on my 'skiing is natural' comment. 

 

Learning our sport, or just about anything else, is a matter of establishing and expanding on someones comfort zone.  A first time skier can walk so an instructor will help them learn to walk on a pair of skis, thus expanding their comfort zone and develop from there.   A  good instructor will challenge a students skill set and comfort zone but won't intentionally scare them.  As the skill is acquired it becomes comfortable for the person learning it, at that point it is a natural motion (you don't have to think consciously about it to accomplish it), things like moving your balance fore and aft through a turn or a transition.  Once something is a natural action, you own it.  Our student is now skiing black bump runs smoothly and comfortably, she is diving off into the loose snow at will and is comfortable and natural there too.   She is an advanced skier now IMO.  If a skier can not ski advanced terrain and conditions in a relaxed  and natural fashion are they an advanced skier?   

 

Walking is a natural skill, but a young child normally must develop and learn  that skill.  After learning more skills the child learns to run but not till they own walking.  Now hide the car keys.

 

It has been a lot of years since I taught and cliniced seriously.  This what I learned, what I taught and what I believe.


Stranger
 

I agree with you regarding learning and good teaching. I don't intend to argue with you about the meaning of "natural". My point is that the kind of development you describe requires learning and expanding one's comfort zone as you put it. Instinctively most people lean into the hill, tend to remain vertical on an incline and, especially if they have been frightened and/or pushed beyond their comfort zone while learning to ski, will develop defensive habits and a defensive posture almost digging their heels in, so to speak, in response to acceleration..  Even among people who have been skiing for quite awhile it appears to be quite natural for them to be a little back. Even accomplished skiers have to address the issue from time to time.In fact the examiner's comment to the unsuccessful candidates in the skiing portion of my PSIA level III exam was that they were "a little bit back". Bear in mind these were all people who had been skiing and teaching for some time, level II certified and had prepared for a level III exam. An effective stance in skiing requires you to allow your body to move down the hill, balance dynamically while your skis are speeding up, slowing down, generating forces to balance against and then releasing those forces. That isn't something that most of us are comfortable with when we come to take up skiing. Now you can argue that  learning to do these things correctly is quite natural but so, apparently, is learning to do them incorrectly.

post #51 of 54

Stranger,

With respect I diagree with the idea that skiing is natural. It goes well beyond the idea that our feet are sliding, even though that in itself can be a terrifying feeling for some. We are also wearing two by fours, and very stiff boots and leaning one way then the other to get the edges of the skis to gain edge purchase and turn us back and forth across the hill. All while moving down a snow covered hill.

 

As products of our environment and experience I cannot think of any other activities we would encounter where these unique factors would occur.

post #52 of 54

We disagree on the term natural, okay. Alright how about skiing is not natural like breathing, it is natural like whistling.  Once it is acquired and mastered the skill its pretty much instinctive, natural.  There is fear at each level of skiing with the response of backing away from it; back seat, hill hug, ET AL.  A competent skier at any level has mastered the skills they are using, executing without fear of what they are doing, they are relaxed, natural(my term maybe not yours).  That skill is in their 'comfort zone'; if you aren't familiar with "comfort zone" please read on it, not rocket surgery but it will make you better at teaching and learning.  Take it up a notch and they are pushing out their comfort zone, they experience discomfort maybe ski stiffly.  Push them through the wall of the comfort zone outside and the skier is scared, the classic fear signs all return.

In the beginning we are walking on snow with slippery snowshoes on our feet to keep us from sinking, and carrying sticks in our hands to help us balance.  You guys teach and I did, most student given time would become relatively comfortable with this ridicules form of walking, and their motions on snow would become more relaxed, natural, less stiff.  Is the first try of a the beginner a thing of beauty NO, the childs first steps aren't either but with practice they are soon running. 

 

Maybe not a high jack but do and truly diverted!

post #53 of 54

Thanks for mentioning comfort zone and IMO it is very relevant to fore / aft balance and how it changes through a turn. A beginner tentatively performing a maneuver lacks relevance and will often make movement errors that disrupts their balance. We coach them to reign in those large movements to produce relatively pedestrian turns without a lot of dynamic movement. Why? Well the objective is to get them accustomed to balancing on a moving platform and only moving enough to produce the desired outcome. This approach covers most of the first seven class levels and is quite honestly what most skiers settle for as far as performance goals. IMO there is absolutely nothing wrong with them being satisfied and skiing within their comfort zone.

 

It's the adventurous that will not be satisfied with skiing at this level. Their self image drives them to reach a little higher and "go further". That's where I explain it's all about resetting their perception of disciplined, deliberate, and directionally relevant movements. To get the skis to perform as desired we need to explore making movements that will produce that outcome. Sweet spot thinking gives way to pushing past our comfort zone and exploring what's beyond that with wide eyed enthusiasm. The only parameter that doesn't change is the dual paths needing to be contemporaneous enough to allow us to remain relatively upright on the skis. Which is kinda funny because we are simultaneously exploring getting as far from upright as possible.So IMO fore aft stances are very, very outcome related and no one set of movements will produce all the outcomes possible.

 

 The answer to Loki's second question (how do we affectively stay balanced through those changes?) is by lining up the forces through the CoM and the BoS and the only way to do that is by keeping the dual paths contemporaneous. Beyond that the question lacks sufficient context for there to be one move, or set of moves that could produce balance in every type of turn.


Edited by justanotherskipro - 6/3/2009 at 06:01 am GMT
post #54 of 54

JASP,   for commenting on the comfort zone.  A whole new experience on skis comes when they've been expanded.  Smiles grow and the fun factor leaps.

 

 

www.YourSkiCoach.com

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