or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Up move - Page 2

post #31 of 54

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick View Post

Tell me why I teach it. 

 

www.YourSkiCoach.com


You teach the up move because how else would you be able to initiate a turn if not carving?

post #32 of 54

You teach the up move to help your students learn to adapt their skiing to the terrain, the mood  and the moment.

post #33 of 54

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4ster View Post

Up moves, I think they have their place.

 

There was no intention on this run, except to ski toward the camera & have fun.  There are probably a number of ways to ski the conditions here & be in more control, but I don't think it would have been as fun.  I for one am glad I have an up move in my library.

 

 

If it feels good, it is.

JF


Nice!
 

post #34 of 54

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick View Post

Tell me why I teach it. 

 

www.YourSkiCoach.com


Beats me....in 25years I dont recall ever teaching it. 

post #35 of 54

JASP, great reply! 

 

Let's talk PMTS for a moment.  Is PMTS against the up move?  No, it is against teaching the up move.  This is a critical difference that people often ignore.  The idea behind PMTS is to enable skiers to master the fundamental movements that are essential for high level skiing. Once those movements are mastered, PMTS skiers can and should expand their skiing as they see fit.  Of course, skiers who truly master the essentials will find that movements such as the up move are not needed as often as you might think.  Some would even claim an up move is never needed--and for skiers with incredible skill, that might even be true.  The rest of us are going to find cases where an up move is useful, but we also need to be aware of the price that such a move entails.

 

The "price" that is attached to the up movement is that it involves gross muscle movements that are hard to control with precision and take more effort to perform.  Lower-level skiers attempting the up move along with active rotary are often going to end up pulling their bodies into positions that are counterproductive to good skiing.  Skiers who have mastered the fundamentals, on the other hand, have less trouble with this and are able to quickly pull things back together should their bodies get out of position.  For high-level skiers, the up move can be used without detriment to their skiing development, so it is an appropriate skill to develop.

 

Interestingly enough, there is a PMTS drill that illustrates the difficulties involved with this move really well.  The drill involves tipping your skis on edge and then hopping to the opposite set of edges.  The point is to develop balance skills, but in the context of this conversation, the drill demonstrates just how difficult it is to control this move with precision.  If you try it, you are most likely going to end up rotating your skis as a consequence of the up move and/or not controlling the passive rotary from tipping.  Even Harald Harb doesn't do this perfectly on the his DVDs.  Decoupling up from rotary movements and obtaining precision is hard!

 

A related problem occurs when the up movement is developed as the primary means of turning.  That is, an up-unweighting used to facilitate steering the skis.  This is really the "up" movment that PMTS is concerned with--and the problem here is timing.  Ron LeMaster mentions this as part of the discussion of the "virtual bump".  Skiers who use this movement will extend off the top of the virtual bump.  While this works at slow speeds, it will not work at higher speeds, where the virtual bump must be absorbed.  As a result, skiers who rely on this kind of up move will need to unlearn it before they can progress to expert skiing.  They must switch from extending to flexion and change their timing.  The PMTS position is simply to teach a progression that doesn't require unlearning movements.  You may not agree with that, but there you have it.  Regardless, this is the meat of the PMTS complaint against up moves--not using the occasional up-unweight to deal with something nasty.

 

 

Of course, the other issue with the up move is that it takes physical effort to perform.  Skiing a few thousand feet using only up moves is going to wipe you out.  That reason alone makes it the lesser option and is a worthwhile reason to continue to improve your ability to release using flexion in as many conditions as possible. 

 

The final issue with the up move is that when it is taught to skiers of lesser ability, they may end up relying on it as a crutch and using it in conditions where it is not needed.  Even if they are able to do it without messing up their body position, the often ends up limiting their skiing because it allows them to access more difficult terrain with lesser technique.  The classic case are the skiers who rely on the tail-hop to ski steeps, and never advance beyond that.  Finesse is sadly absent in the skiing of the masses.

 

Of course, part of the problem is the mindset of the average skier.  If the focus is on unlocking more of the mountain, as opposed to developing stronger technique, teaching the up movement is simply meeting the needs of the customer (however short-term those needs might be).

 

Regardless, I fully agree with Rick, JASP and others that the up-move is a useful tool.  Even very good skiers occasionally encounter situations where they just "can't".  The up-move can be a very good option in those situations.  It should be taught, but carefully!

post #36 of 54

Ah, I see we have another convert in our midst.  How was the Kool-Aid?

 

Here are a few things to consider.

 

1st)   I don't buy all this "un-learn" stuff.  Ingrained movements (go - to movements if you prefer) are tough to break.  So don't break them......go out and learn new stuff.  Your recent post at the PMTS site and here indicates that's exactly what you just did.  The breakthrough isn't a result of unlearning as much as learning a new skill(s), right?

 

2nd)   Every move done on a pair of skis has a place no matter what system may consider it right or wrong.

 

Up works, up unweighting works, absorbing (releasing) works.  They all have their moment out on the hill.

Don't believe me?  Ask yourself this (and be sure to get back to us with the answer), Wouldn't HH's avatar picture be a result of an up movement or terrain unweighting or both?  Can't be done w/o going UP now can it ?  Need another example?  How about a helicopter?  Can you really not rotate and not go up to do a helicopter?

 

3) "up-unweight to deal with something nasty." The quote above is a response to a question from "just a skier" (over there)  isn't it? Where he/she had to go up and over a bunch of rocks?  So up is "somewhat allowed", but never practiced?

 

If you don't want to use an up move.....don't!  If you never use an up move again I can pretty much tell you your skiing will plateau, just at another level.

 

I did a series of turns last week on video when I was working with Rick.  I did serious vertical motion on half  a run and release with no upward movement (I hope) for the rest. I'm sure Rick is watching this thread.  I'll ask him to post the turns, (the first video we did on Sundown Rick) and you can give me an MA, or better yet, I'm in Dillon till Friday.

 

post #37 of 54

Hey UL.  The Kool Aid was tasty--probably because it wasn't too different than the regular flavor!  I don't think we're disagreeing.  If I wasn't clear in my post, I use up moves when I need to and I think its a necessary element of the tool box that most of us should have.  I think part of the issue with PMTS is that Harald is a world-class skier and while he may be fully capable of eliminating the up-move from his skiing in all conditions, the rest of us may not be.  Not only does he not teach it, but he doesn't do it.  Actually he tried to demo an up move in his DVD and it was pretty funny.  He has honest to god removed it from his skiing to the point that he could hardly demo it!  Some folks take that to mean that up moves and quality skiing are diametrically opposed.  I'm with you; I don't believe that.  I wish I didn't have to use up moves in certain nasty conditions because its hard work.  But I doubt I'll ever get rid of it completely.  Then again, I'd love to go find the nastiest, ugliest snow out there and have Harald (or anybody else that can ski it without an up move) show me how. 

 

I do think we do disagree on #1.  If you are a terminal intermediate extending off the top of the virtual bump, your timing is going to need to change to achieve expert skiing.  The degree to which that actually hinders progress may be great or it may not be, but you don't have a choice regarding losing the movement if you want to progress.  OTOH, there are valid reasons for learning to ski with that progression that may make it worth the trade-off.

 

Regarding #2, I agree.  My post was largely because of some of the PMTS folks were doing the "up is unequivocally bad" thing.  That is why I think it is important to draw a distinction between being against teaching something, versus being against the concept period.  In Essentials, Harald notes that if you master the fundamentals, it is relatively easy to teach yourself how to do things like pivot.  For me, this is what allows me to take the system seriously.  I don't disagree that up moves (and active rotary) have a place in skiing, but I also think that ideally (and believe me I recognize how inapplicable that ideal may be for the average student) these are advanced skills that should not be taught until the student masters the fundamentals.

 

#3 Like I said, IMO its not a question of allowed or not.  The point of PMTS is to remove movements that can hinder your skiing to enable you to learn the fundamentals.  Once you have mastered the fundamentals, you can do things like introducing rotary or up movements back into your skiing--at that point you are capable of fully understanding what you are doing and not messing up your body position.  OTOH, you may decide not to.  The movements that PMTS uses to replace active rotary work pretty well.  Like you say, if you don't want to do something; don't.  But I think it is a mistake to paint PMTS with the brush that says "don't ever learn up movements or active rotary."

 

For me, PMTS is a teaching system, not a style of skiing (though as with any system, some style is invariably imparted on the student).  I can accept that PMTS doesn't teach active rotary or up moves.  PMTS makes a compelling argument (which I recognize not everyone believes) that these things are detrimental to learning the most fundamental building-blocks of good skiing.  So I see validity in the premise that teaching this stuff to low level skiers is a bad idea.  I can also believe that there are skiers who are so skilled that they don't need these moves at all.  I'm willing to believe that Harald is one of them and as such I fully understand why its not part of the system.  If it isn't necessary and it isn't essential, why teach it?  But as I also said, these moves *may* be required for us mortals (I certainly use them as needed).  So my position is, if they won't hurt your skiing why not learn them?  I'll never criticise anyone for using an up move unless I can demonstrate at the time that a retraction release is possible.  Which is exactly what I'd expect from anyone criticising me for using an up move.  If they can show me how to do the same turn without the up, I'd be grateful for the instruction!

 

Enough rambling from me.  I guess If I'm trying to convince anybody of anything it's simply that PMTS doesn't require you to take the "no rotary, no up moves" pledge.  Its simply a good way to learn the fundamentals of skiing; what you do with your skiing after that is up to you.

 

Meanwhile, if you're around next week let's go skiing!  I'm pretty flexible with my schedule.  Where are you going to be at?  I kept meaning to try to track you down and never got around to it.  Anyway, if you are interested, I'd love to share some turns with you.

post #38 of 54

geoffda, can you give an example when you think an up-extention movement is needed for turning. Also, can you give an example of what PMTS movements could be used insted.

post #39 of 54
Thread Starter 

Sorry for not getting back to this thread.  Some great comments,,, well thought out,,, and many good uses for the old tried and true up move. 

 

I think at this point I should define what an up move is, just so all the readers know what we're talking about here.  The traditional up move is characterized by a flexion of the outside leg through the body of the turn, and an extension of that same leg during the transition.  The result is some degree of lightening of the skis, dependant on the aggressiveness of the extension. 

 

A rising of the Center of Mass through the transition is NOT an indicator of an up move.  That can just be a result of the pendulum effect during transitions.  In fact, it can require a very dramatic retraction/flexion of both legs to completely avoid it.  Even ILE's, unless exectuted on the aggressive side of the spectrum, do not represent the traditional upmove, because rather than unweight the skis they intensify the pressure and ski to snow contact,,, the opposite outcome of a traditional up move.  If you really want to identify a traditional up move, watch the action of the outside leg.

 

Uncle Louie did put some examples of up moves and lack of on my video camera a few days ago and I'll post them up when I get a chance to hit my editing studio. 

 

geoffda, thanks for the well thought out posts.  I like your open minded understanding of the versatility an up move provides to skilled skiers.  And I totally agree that when any type of transition becomes a default transition that skiers find hard to waiver from, a problem exists that will limit their options and narrow their overall skiing experience. 

 

Also, this thead was not started to spark a debate over the merits of any particular school of instruction, including PMTS.  It was simply aimed at shining a light on yet another ski technique that carries situational value, and to provide people with an opportunity to define specifically what the up move's virtues are and how they employ them in their teaching. 

 

The value of versatility in skiing is timeless.  In the rush to be cutting edge we must always be careful to not forget that reality, less we fall victum to tossing baby with bath.  Over my many years of teaching and observing skiing I've seen many loose their footing on that slippery slope. 

 

Carry on gang,,,, I'll be bock!

 

www.YourSkiCoach.com


Edited by Rick - 4/11/2009 at 11:29 pm GMT
post #40 of 54

I tend to use an up extension in deep, heavy, wet snow if I'm on steep terrain.   Since it's steep, I have to finish my turns and keep my speed fairly low.  In that situation, I find that the heavy snow hangs up my skis and they won't come around through the high C part of the turn.   My CM moves down the hill, but my skis don't follow and  I end up falling on my head. To counteract that, I find using a strong up move combined with a lifted inside ski allows me to hop the edge change.  That is usually enough to get my skis moving with me into the turn and it is fairly fluid.  I also use it sometimes if the frozen chicken heads get big enough to start hanging up my skis.  I'll also use a full jump turn on some occassions in ski-length wide chutes.  Usually, this also involves deeper, heavier snow where simply releasing my edges isn't enough to start the turn and the resistance of the snow makes foot steering too hard to control with the required precision.  In all cases, these movements require physical effort that is tiring so they aren't my first choice.

 

The only release the PMTS teaches is flexion.  As you know, flexing the stance leg eliminates the resistance that is holding you inside the turn.  When you quit resisting the forces of the turn, you get pulled across your skis and your CM crosses over (though this type of release is often referred to as "cross-under").  Releasing this way and "using the force" to pull you into the next turn is considerably more efficient and less taxing than releases involving up movements and/or inside leg extension.  Because of this, it is the release I'd like to use all of the time.  But I can't.  In the snow conditions I've described, it takes a considerable amount of speed to make this work and in some cases, I'm not willing to go that fast.  So the only option that leaves me (at least that I can see) is the up move I've described--which is why I think its worth knowing.  Harald would probably just crank up the speed in the same situation and get the retraction release done, but if more speed is required and I can't (or won't) do more speed, that doesn't help me.  Which is why I think mere mortals such as myself need to know how to use the move.  My fundamentals are sound enough that I can use this move without any negative consequences to my skiing.  Furthermore, I understand that retraction release is generally a better option, so I'm not going to use an up move if I don't have to.

post #41 of 54

Rick, just saw your followup--thanks.  Hey, if you are lurking about I'm going to bump your steering thread since I had a couple of questions that I hope you might be able to answer.

post #42 of 54
Thread Starter 

Sure, geoffda, bump away.  I'm working on shot scripts for this week filming, but will try to get a quick reply off to you.

 

www.YourSkiCoach.com

post #43 of 54

TDK6, one other place I use Inside Leg Extension (ILE) is to recover when I don't manage the forces correctly in a turn.  If I don't manage energy correctly, mess up the turn shape, mess up the timing, or for whatever reason don't have enough force to work with to accomplish a release with retraction, ILE will get the job done and get me into the next turn.  The thing to watch out for with ILE is that you don't launch your body too aggressively and end up into the new turn without the forces to balance against (leaning in).  It is also easy to end up heavily inclined when you use ILE.  If your goal is to get counterbalance early, you have to be especially careful that the leg extension doesn't end up moving your upper body around in undesired ways.

 

Also, it is very tough to distinguish between ILE and Outside Leg Retraction (OLR) by looking at photos.  Retracting the outside leg to release, requires that the inside leg extend to maintain snow contact.  The difference between the ILE and OLR is that in ILE, the extension is active and I'm pushing against the snow to push my body over my skis.  In OLR, the extension is passive and I'm just doing it to maintain snow contact through the transition.  Since the movements can look identical, you often have to be able to ask the person doing the move whether they were using ILE or OLR. 

 

Another thought. ILE requires more work at the transition, but it works well at lower speeds.  In order to use OLR, you need to start by developing enough force in the turn to pull you into the next.  To stay in the turn, you have to resist the force.  The act of resisting itself takes energy.  So for relaxed cruising ILE may well be a better choice.  Though it takes more energy in the transition, you are also using considerably less energy in the turn itself.  This is also true for less agressive skiing on steeps.  Again, if the forces aren't there at the bottom of the turn, you have no choice but to use ILE.  Then again, if the slope is steep enough, gravity will be strong enough to allow a transition if you simply release your skis by tipping, so I suppose its still OLR if you started the release by tipping your downhill ski, but didn't extend as you transferred weight to the uphill ski.


Edited by geoffda - 4/12/2009 at 12:07 am GMT


Edited by geoffda - 4/12/2009 at 12:08 am GMT


Edited by geoffda - 4/12/2009 at 12:09 am GMT


Edited by geoffda - 4/12/2009 at 12:10 am GMT

 


Edited by geoffda - 4/12/2009 at 12:46 am GMT


Edited by geoffda - 4/12/2009 at 12:50 am GMT
post #44 of 54

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by geoffda View Post

Rick, just saw your followup--thanks.  Hey, if you are lurking about I'm going to bump your steering thread since I had a couple of questions that I hope you might be able to answer.



 

Thanks.  Might take me longer than I thought--man that thread got big in a hurry!  Anyway, I need to read the entire thread to make sure the answers aren't already there.  Mainly I'm curious about whether it is possible to make "pure" leg steering movements without inducing any subtle hip and/or upper body rotation.  If so, I want to find out how its taught.  Anyway, I'll read first & see if the answers are forthcoming.

post #45 of 54

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick View Post

 

I think at this point I should define what an up move is, just so all the readers know what we're talking about here.  The traditional up move is characterized by a flexion of the outside leg through the body of the turn, and an extension of that same leg during the transition.  The result is some degree of lightening of the skis, dependant on the aggressiveness of the extension. 

 

A rising of the Center of Mass through the transition is NOT an indicator of an up move.  That can just be a result of the pendulum effect during transitions.  In fact, it can require a very dramatic retraction/flexion of both legs to completely avoid it. 

  Well done Rick.  Glad my subtle post was not lost on you.  So what we are talking about is extension.....and when we talk about extension we are really talking about????????????

 

Answer that....and all the confusion/learning/unlearning/when/where/what arguments fall by the wayside.....but I think you already know that

 

 

 

Quote:
 

 

Even ILE's, unless exectuted on the aggressive side of the spectrum, do not represent the traditional upmove, because rather than unweight the skis they intensify the pressure and ski to snow contact,,, the opposite outcome of a traditional up move. 

  Are you sure about that?  Dont forget the force on the skis in the body of the turn is equal to the skiers mass plus ____________?  Hint: in the transition this ___________ force does not exist.

post #46 of 54
Thread Starter 

SkiDude,,, the ILE thing,,, it's all in the range and intensity of execution.  It's a learned skill.  ILE can easily be transformed into having the same unweighting effect of an up move if over done,,, or it can be a transition that locks you to the snow and provides great feel, feedback, edge control and fore/aft balance management if done correctly. 

 

But that's another thread. 

 

Welcome back. 

post #47 of 54

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick View Post

SkiDude,,, the ILE thing,,, it's all in the range and intensity of execution.  It's a learned skill.  ILE can easily be transformed into having the same unweighting effect of an up move if over done,,, or it can be a transition that locks you to the snow and provides great feel, feedback, edge control and fore/aft balance management if done correctly. 

 

But that's another thread. 

 

Welcome back. 

Totally agree.  I thought you were implying that ILE by its very nature could somehow generate this increased pressure outcome....which of course, as you stated is above, ILE can create more pressure then other transition moves...but depending on how it is excuted, it can also create less.

post #48 of 54

ILE is totally different to traditional up-unweighting. Both in how its performed and in intent. The traditional up-unweighting move is an extention of both legs into a non carved transition and turn entry. ILE transition is extending the inside leg only when skiing arc to arc carving. Check out the traditional up-unweighing move in this CSIA video. Dial in the flexing and extending movements and cycle during turning in the opening wedging clip. Flexion through out the body of the turn and extention at transition. Since up-unweighing is not needed when wedging its the up-unweighing move that is being thaught from the very beginning.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uysdG0uFD5I&feature=related

 

There is lots of valuable information in this thread but the obvious reason why up-unweighing is being thaught seems to be fuzzy to most participants. I have 7 options for traditional up-unweighting when skiing non carved turns. ILE is no option to up-unweighing.

 

This thread tangents the steering thread very closely since the traditional up-unweighing move is used at transition to lighten the pressure under the skis. This enables the steering part of the turn. The up move can be very subbtle and the steering phase can be very subtle as well. Hardly notissble. Its the transition that kicks off the steering phase and skis can be steering through out the turn without any active rotary. What it all boils down to is definitions. We do not have any unanimous definitions so we need to be a bit patient with each other and use a bit of imagination.

post #49 of 54

Sorry guys.  I completely misread Rick's post & thought we were including ILE.  A second read makes it clear that we aren't.  At least my ILE execution falls in the spectrum of increasing pressure, not decreasing.  So just ignore my ILE post .


Edited by geoffda - 4/12/2009 at 03:16 pm GMT
post #50 of 54

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tdk6 View Post

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uysdG0uFD5I&feature=related

 

 


That is an up-move all right. The wedge turns annoyed me in that video because they had the captions right on top of the skis the whole time!

post #51 of 54

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by epic View Post

 


That is an up-move all right. The wedge turns annoyed me in that video because they had the captions right on top of the skis the whole time!


What is "captions"?
 

post #52 of 54

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tdk6 View Post

 


What is "captions"?
 


the words crawling cross the screen

post #53 of 54

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by epic View Post

 


the words crawling cross the screen


Thanks, yes annoying
 

post #54 of 54

Good topic Rick

 

During the evolution of ski design the techniques have certainly changed.  While historically the skier needed to up-unweight to facilitate an edge change, current ski design makes this technique more less obsolete.

 

I look at the extension movement in relation to the edge change timing along a spectrum.  At one end we can begin the extension movement before we begin the edge change movement (flexion/extension).  At the other end we make the edge change before we begin the extension (retraction).  In practice we move along this spectrum blending the timing of these two movements with the more functional movements being somewhere from the middle of the spectrum toward the retraction end.  Unfortunately many skiers are stuck at the "extend then turn" end where they transfer weight too early to the little toe edge of the uphill ski and extend like a tree grows instead of perpendicular to the slope.  This does not release the edges to turning until very late in the extension movement and disrupts the flow of the cg into the new turn.  

 

So the "Up move" is different than a functional extension in my view.   I regularly teach a simultaneous "steer & extend" movement which takes full advantage of most of the range of extension to steer the ski.  This requires that the skier makes the edge change before using much of their extension range of motion allowing the leg rotation the opportunity to steer the ski into the fall line more powerfully and actively.  The option is there to move more aggressively and carve rather than steer as well.

 

Sorry if this post is redundant as I admittedly have not read the other posts.

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