Originally Posted by tdk6
Skiing a race course especially at top level needs serious commitment and attack. You simply cannot go down that track without attacking it. But people do it differently. Simply compare Bode with Pranger. One is calm as a old lady taking an afternoon nap while the other is shaking, spitting, steaming and exploding out of the gate. Still both are attacking the course. Only in their own way.
Well actually you could go down that course in a wedge...oh...you mean have a chance of getting the fastest time on that course? Ok, you need serious skills and physical ability, commitment - i.e. Will, and tactics. (oh wait, if we throw "touch" in there then we've got the Sports Diamond).
The thing is you call "calm as an old lady taking an afternoon nap" and "steaming and exploding..." both "attacking". Clearly "calm as an old lady..." is not what we commonly mean by "attacking"!
Yet both are in the ball park of winning on the course, so "attacking" in the common sense is not a necessity.
As a side thought,does Joe Mauer,(Minn.Twins ), who's hitting .370 right now 'attack' the ball? He sure hits it a lot.
Originally Posted by Lars
I think Bode attacks by "Reacting". It's a "balls out" approach that has him falling down a hill reacting to the race course itself. He has all the skills necessary to win every race but seems to use them in a reactionary method of skiing. Because of this, his recovery methods and anticipation are second to none that I've seen. Recless? Maybe.
So, I put forth the theory that Reacting is a form of attacking.
Ok, people who actually have some knowledge of racing at this level should feel free to chime in here, but nevertheless.I think actually it's the total opposite and it's true of all skiing.
I think Reacting is defensive.
Reacting to the race course, or the trail etc., means you take what you get. An action is taken after
an event. Something has happened and the skier reacts- whether it's say "oh my god it's ice!" or a bump, or in this case the location of a gate. A skier Reacting is thus in the past
already. Meaning that whatever actions the skier is about to take are in response to an event that has already
occured. Something happens, you react. Clearly this is not in the same realm as attacking where actions are initiated to create
Take the gates for example. Does one react to where the gate is? That is the description of a true novice in a Nastar course. You can watch them get to the gate, then turn. They don't know that they have to create a path around the gate that exists before they get to it.
You're saying Bode has incredible anticipation. Anticipation is also opposite to Reacting. Anticipation is focused on the future
, what is about to happen, or what is going to be encountered. Now I suppose you could say Bode's recoveries start as reactive, but I think they change very quickly to creating a result he wants instead of just surviving. This is an active,focused on the future movement - trying to create the result of getting on a line he wants. I'd say he may look in survival mode, or "reckless", but to him it's not since he's creating until truly it's too late.
Now let's take wc or high level bump skiers. To the untrained eye, it looks like they are merely reacting to the bump that's there. It looks like the bump pushes their skis to the side each time. Reading anything by BushMogulM will quickly dispel this notion. The high level bumpers are looking ahead like 20 bumps! They are both creating the line they take and creating what they want to happen with their skis and body position. They are again focused on the future
and initiating actions to effect it Now those actions may not work out like they want, in which case they respond and create by initiating new actions. This process never ends obviously, and can cycle in fractions of a second or a much longer time scale. Someone who coaches at that level would be able to see most of the process. To others, it's just one big blur of action.
This brings up Bob's "Go There" paradigm. Which says good skiers turn to "go there" or go where they want, It is offensive in nature. Skiers who have the paradigm that they "turn to slow down" are defensive in nature.
So good skiers, "go there" - offensive - take it further and we get - attack.
Not so good skiers, constantly braking - defensive - we could say 'submit' to conditions?
Offensive to me is a little one dimensional.Where do we go from there? There's attack.
There has often been this phrase "falling into the future" used here to describe essentially allowing yourself to go down the hill while your skis come around and catch you. "Go There" implies that you are skiing into the future - you are determining the path you take before you've gotten there. We could say that you are creating the future you're skiing into. At every moment. I would describe it as Responsive
instead of Reactive. One responds to the snow conditions, the terrain, equipment, physical condition etc.
What about the "Go There", offensive skier who comes to terrain or situation he's not comfortable with? If there's only offensive, or attack as descriptors, but they employ some sort of defensive move, are they then defensive skiers? We know they're not. They still are creating the way things will go, it may not work out like planned but they create again in a seamless process.
So I would say "Go There" - is Creative skiing. The skier creates the future, it may be offensive, very offensive, attacking, or even at times defensive. The intention though is to create the future one is skiing into. Using "Creative" for good skiing allows the inclusion of the style Ricde58 talks about which is a style that is not attacking or offensive but is not defensive either.
If the opposite of creating is reacting, then opposite to "Go There" - Creative skiing is Reactive - defensive skiing.Thus, in this theory of the world, there are two types of skiing: Creative and Reactive
Originally Posted by ssh
You have said what I have been thinking... that observing may not give us enough data to determine "attack" or not. "Not flinching" implies that there is enough of an "oh-oh" moment to create a flinch if we're not taking it on, and that is a very individual thing. Makes me wonder if you have to be in someone's head in order to judge "attack" or not? What do you think?
I think we can speak from the outside of a style that looks attacking. A person may be attacking in their intent but it will not look like an attacking style. Can the reverse be true? - They're actually attacking but it doesn't look like it?
I guess I agree with BigE in that the video under discussion is not what I think is generally considered attacking. Clearly it is not defensive. It is under the "Go There" model, it's offensive. It's Creative - he's creating how it will go.
It doesn't look so much what we usually describe as attacking, but it kind of is too.
Maybe it's the casualness of the transition that makes it look not attacking but actually is attacking.
You could almost look at Bode's antics as a high stakes poker game. He waits till the last moment to play his hand, which hand will he play? He has the physical ability and technical skills to do what few can do. I think what keeps him in the game is it really is constantly a creative act. Where will he turn, what method for that line and speed etc.. Things don't work out quite as planned and he creates a new hand. All while going very fast and being on the edge.
There's that book title on the US ski team downhillers, Right on the Edge of Crazy
, Now creating in that situation, that's some serious fun! - for him.