|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 ]