or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Carved turns 1st movement - Page 2

post #31 of 46
Yep I do disski. You know my knee tracks in a little too as it flexes. How to teach an old dog (me) new tricks.
post #32 of 46
I am imagining this slightly hysterical picture of my students, who have (hypothetically) read our responses to this question and are attempting to initiate a carve. Some are skiing down the slope moving from foot to foot. Some are thrusting their hips to this side and then the other. A few seem to be fixated on an attempt to move their toes. One is skiing like a cowboy who'd spent too many days and nights in the saddle!

Come to think of it, I think I've seen all these things at one time or another. Now I begin to understand.

Seriously, these descriptions must surely have originated in attempts to address particular defects in already accomplished skiers. I can't beleive they were intended to teach someone to initiate a carve.

The simple fact may be that describing how to initiate a carve may be far more difficult than actually doing it. (hence the challenge for a group of ski instructors)

I would bet that the initiation of a carve occurs first somewhere in the mind of the skier. (So provide the student with an image of what is the desired outcome for Pete's sake). That's one pathway to the mind's eye. Instead of beginning with a description, why not place yourself (and the students) each between two desks, two people, or two other means of support and ask them to emulate your lateral movement and describe what means they use to accomplish it? I'm sure their descriptions would run the gamut of what has been described here but at least they'll be learning how to make the movement.

[ December 20, 2002, 07:15 PM: Message edited by: arcadie ]
post #33 of 46
Hell Arcadie, that's where all skiing happens isn't it? Somewhere in the mind of the skier. I actually thought people were discussing their version of the first move made to initiate a carved turn. But you know how things evolve, and this is entirely different than a discussion of beggining carved turn progressions. It might be confusing to someone trying to understand how to carve a turn for the first time. Does that mean people shouldn't bounce around a conversation about the ideas that evolve from the question 1st movement in a carved turn? Looks like I'll have to put in a purchase order for a couple of desks when I finally get to go to work this season. Maybe that's my problem, I can't go to work yet.
post #34 of 46
Oh & Ric - how much is a little? my natural lunge - loose & not pushing the muscles would leave my knee centre about 2 inches inside the inside edge of that foot. I just tried & I am not flexible or strong enough for a full lunge these days - but that is my current 'easy' length trying HARD not to 'correct the knee' which is now my norm in a lunge(doesn't happen with running shoes on - orthotic holds it)

Thanks Ric
I am still trying to get a grip on how much of what is needed & in what order - so I can try to get something done. As I said the bootfitters have done ZIP to impress me - they use smoke & mirrors type tactics & gadgets & are pretty unimpressive.
post #35 of 46
Are we are approaching a golf swing level of mega-complexity when various muscles are being designated for contraction by their latin names? I have never skied with any such purpose/focus.

Have a clear purpose.
Have a simple focus.
Have trust in your your body genius.

Desired outcome: Carved Turns

Purpose: Start to release CM before you enter transition.
Focus: Progressivly relax legs.

Purpose: Change edges without changing direction.
Focus: Lead w/new inside foot to release edges and roll them over.

Purpose: Progressivly transfer balance to outside foot/leg.
Focus: Lighten inside foot as you roll it (keep it on snow).

Purpose: Shape turn any way you want it.
Focus: Roll feet to progressivly adjust sidecut exposure.

Purpose: Enjoy the outcome.
Focus: Any, just grin when it feels good.

Order of Movement: Release, transfer, engage, shape (repeat)
Options: Rate, timing, intensity and duration (of movements).

As Albert Einstein says: Keep it simple, but not too simple.

post #36 of 46
Arcmeister - may work for most - I have no idea - but for me i get to 'relax legs' & go - ahhh - yeah - sure - if I ever had ANY idea how much tension was in those muscles I just might be able to try that.... Now what did you want me to do again?
post #37 of 46
Ah but Arcmeister, Einstein also somewhat grudgeingly understood the need for the "layers of complexity" that science placed onto the fundamental truths that enable people to discuss, understand, and qaulify all the variations and realationships between the underlying fundamental truths. The "What is" of things. Not an end in itself, but a nessesary tool for the betterment of humankind, or maybe just a better day of skiing for someone. Einstein's version of the simple side of complexity. I'm always surprised by the resistance to, or selling short of, free and open conversation to the "what is" of skiing and all it's layers of complexity. Doesn't the path to the simple side of complexity lie through the layers of complexity? And ski instruction loves to have that path lie through one of it's own. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Disski, wiht me it's not that much. On the rocker jig in my boots it was a few cm. Just in free movements it's progressive and ends up a little more. [img]smile.gif[/img]
post #38 of 46
Originally posted by Arby:
Here is a relatively easy question I'd like some clarification on.
Sorry, I was reacting to what I percieved as a digression away from the origional request that started this thread. I can go the golf swing route as well if the goal is a greater depth of understanding to support a simpler presentation to a student.

I had a long ranting vent about my aversion to using latin or jargon in leu of simple comprehensive statment of purpose, process, and outcome. But I simplified it to: Any attempt to accuratly identify the muscles required to pull off some movement by their latin names implies a (false) degree of detailed accuracy that is precluded by the very complexity of any muscular action. The resulting paradox created is thus:

"You can only get it wrong by attempting to make it usefull, or make it useless if you present enough detail to get it right."

If you can relate a process of increased awareness of tension somewhere (or lack of it) to a purposeful outcome, that is a very cool thing. I call these "physical cues". But shouldn't we seek to understand them in a simple usable context, as to what "purpose" they achieve? i.e. "When I relax the tension in my strong outside leg as I start the transition to my next turn, I feel it lets my body flow more easily into the next turn, and I do not pop up or get a hard pressure spot at my turn finish". In the context of ski teaching, why would anyone care the latin names of the muscles that were used? The relavent how, what and why are all there.

I do respect your desire to learn and understand the details.
I am generally considered a very detailed "why guy", but I beleive any dive into the detail deep end should re-surface, not just with increased understanding, but a simpler, not more complex, explanation (i.e. presentation to a student). I learned long ago that progressive rolling of my new inside foot toward it's little toe edge will release one turn, change my edges, and shape the next turn. This experiential knowledge was in no way enhanced by, much less became dependant upon, my later cognitive learning that my tibialis posterior muscle plantar flexes to invert my foot to do so. Even with a usefull purpose, process, and outcome to make it relavant, I am laughing to mysself at the irony of this rant being the first real use I have found for this information.

The more I understand about this sport, the simpler it gets, not more complex. Our long history of complexity in ski teaching is almost entirely based on the irony that there are a vast and endless variety of ways do anything inefficiently (I find the arguments about who's inefficiency is "better" hilarious). However, what we have evolved to understand is that the more efficiently you do anything, the simpler the process of doing it becomes.

The very best skiers are very simple skiers.

Roll'em & bend'em till you get where you're going, grin when it feels good.

Please excuse my ranting.....

[ December 21, 2002, 05:43 PM: Message edited by: Arcmeister ]
post #39 of 46
Originally posted by Arcmeister:
.....I learned long ago that progressive rolling of my new inside foot toward it's little toe edge will release one turn, change my edges, and shape the next turn. .....

Roll'em & bend'em till you get where you're going, grin when it feels good.

Roll to little toe does NADA for me.
yet being taught HOW to use my muscles & joints to achieve an edge roll works.

So what do you do when I am you student & your 'roll'just fails - point blank.

I have reduced an examiner to saying 'We have just done EVERY exercise I know to teach this stuff- none of them work' what do you do NOW? when none or your little simplicities work????
post #40 of 46
Good challenge!
But I'm confident that we could determine what you want to accomplish, and I could lead you thru whatever experiences "you" need to get there, and that together we could find such verbiage as is meaningful to "you" to identify your physical cues, so that you could learn whatever it is you want to learn. I am also quite sure we could do it without speaking any Latin and nothing would be lost. However, if your convinced that can only 'invert' your foot and cannot 'roll' it, or 'tip' it, why should I care what you call it, if whatever you call it gets you the movement you need to learn?

I frequently invite my students to choose their own word or description that is most meaningful to them to describe what is going on. But I would never say, ?invert? your new inside foot as my first description of what a student should do just to perpetuate of the grandiose aura of complexity.

When I get students mired way over there in their left brain trying to dissect and map out every movement they make, I've found that shifting the focus to enhancing their experiential learning skills to be highly successful. Your brain can only learn 'about' skiing, it is your body that actually learns to ski. If you haven?t read it, I suggest Tim Galloway's classic 'Inner Skiing'.

[ December 21, 2002, 09:21 PM: Message edited by: Arcmeister ]
post #41 of 46
Arcmeister - it is not that the word doesn't work but that I simply cant do the move.

I could NEVER jump not even 2 inches from a standard static position. I didn't KNOW how to move muscles & which ones to move. I needed someone who could tell me & poke at me until the right muscles(matched) were tense & relaxed. & then to tell me how to release the tension.

starting to get the picture? NO WORD was ever going to achieve it - now any word I can link to the learned move will do as long as I understand the word goes with the move.
post #42 of 46
Thread Starter 
Pretty much 90% of skiers have a weak side and a strong side. Agree? The other 10% have both weak sides . Just kidding.

My weak side is my right turn. I feel awkward and uncoordinated turning that way. disski sounds like having the same issue. This is where once the problem is identified, some things have to be forced. For me its the hip. The only way for me to get my hip and center of mass in the correct position is to forcefully put it there! Yank it, thurust it, whatever. Everything is smooth and natural going left. Going right it can be done, but I have to make it happen.

Now that I've been forcing this turn over and over, my muscle memory have been developed and it doesn't feel as forceful as it once did, but its still not as smooth as my left. I don't ever expect it to be.

So disski, I think the word you are looking for is force. Don't be afraid to force it at first. Once you get the feeling for the move, it will come easier.
post #43 of 46
Soon as somebody tells me I don't need to know something to do something that actually requires the use of those somethings to do this something I have to ask, why wouldn't I? Just seems like an obstacle to understanding, not an answer to anything.

Last year I had students who at the start of lessons challenged everything from how well I could ski, to how much I knew about hte bio-mechanics of the body and skiing. Go figure. I had everyone from bumpskiing doctors with pacemakers to cigarette smoking flat landers who wanted to hike the ridge (we didn't of course). As far as I can tell, there will never be an end to what I should know, and I'll probably hang up my shield feeling I never knew enough.

Arcmeister, I'm in agreement with you, on how to teach. I wonder though, what path Galloway took to get where he's at. And I never read anywhere in his book that the teacher should not pursue the deepest understanding fo the subject they can, whereever that may lead them. It takes a heeluva alot more than a good skier to be a good teacher! But then, maybe that's why there are so many pisspoor lessons being given.

Woke up to 3 inches of fluff on the deck. All it took was the meteorologist to say we would have a brown christmas. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]
post #44 of 46
Originally posted by Ric B:
Soon as somebody tells me I don't need to know something to do something that actually requires the use of those somethings to do this something I have to ask, why wouldn't I?
Aaah Ric I will have to manage a lesson with you one day [img]smile.gif[/img]

CalG asked me yesterday when talking about David M & the balance threads regarding my need to know WHY? My answer - WHY NOT?

Unfortunately poor Cal then copped an earful from me on people who ASSUME that because a certain learning method works for them it SHOULD work for everyone.(Sorry Cal I get a bit emotional at this time of year)
post #45 of 46
Originally posted by Arby:

So disski, I think the word you are looking for is force. Don't be afraid to force it at first. Once you get the feeling for the move, it will come easier.
No no forcing required - I simply have to think from the START that that hip WILL do the move & the knee go where it should.

The biggest problem with that is that in order to do that I am really performing some sort of 'balancing' act. THAT is why Ydnar's & then Ric's posts rang a bell. It is the LOSS of that solid feel that Ydnar described.
To make a point clear I REALLY DO feel much more stable on skis when skiing well than I ever do walking around. Ydnar's post hit a BIG "YEAH" in my brain.

The trouble is that the 'hip' thing causes what SnoKarver would call my 'monkey brain' to scream blue murder. It hates the idea of giving up a stable feeling for a dodgy platform. I think as I learn I am teaching my 'monkey brain' that although it is NOT a stable position the 'good turn' is a reasonable trade as I am still more stable than in a 'bad turn'.

It is just that I WANT that turn to feel STABLE like the left one.
I DO have the same difference between balancing on each foot in BARE FEET - no stability in the dodgy foot. The sensation is similar - I CAN balance - but it is NOT as good a balance
post #46 of 46
Disski, I will look forward to it! [img]smile.gif[/img]
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching