Nick Hill attacks each turn - Page 2

I also think the feeling of constanting rolling into the next turn (like a flowing river) is essential.  If you focus on just completing or holding a turn it always seems to lead to trouble, although the process can move to slow motion.  That is part of the irony, the faster you go the slower things become.  When doing high speed GS turns (like Hilly in the video) you are usually quickly punished for making quick movements, so everything slows down.  It's like gravity and momentum have a gun on you, "OK buddy, no sudden moves." 

 The mountain has core strength!  Hilly has core strength.  Core strength and the rotary discipline help the mountain down the river with the image of calm!

sorry just had to add.

Watching again with your intent Weems makes perfect sense!  Looking forward to more material from the Diamond!

I guess "attack" means something else to me, but the level of attack shown in the video seems appropriate for most free skiing, and the majority of my skiing is at that level of attack.  A higher "attack" level would be appropriate for a race for example, or for those occasions when you just feel like attacking 'cause it's fun. 

The residual effect of our experience is fascinating.  I recall being a little confused when I first joined this forum, not having the same background as the ski instructors here.  They seem to have an assumed frame of reference with, for example a right uphill ski at the start of a left turn, and a right downhill ski at the end of that turn.  Being self-taught, I had non of those pre-set assumptions.

My very first turns may have been at the end of traverses, but those didn't last much past the first few hours.  I do recall through the mists of time, that my formative turns consisted of individual turns connected together by straight lines, and that I "grew" the turns until they reached each other in the middle in order to smooth out my line and thus be able to take the curves faster.  However, for the most part these turns were not from a traverse, but from the fall line, as I was doing my best to follow the fall line.

Weems,
I think from the very start, the thrill of speed was a big attraction in skiing for me.  I was a Downhill ski fan.  I can remember going on car trips, egging on my parents to drive faster.  The speeds on the hill were just within the boundaries already set by prior experience.

As an early skier, I was into biking, and racing cars on the back country roads a la Dukes of Hazard.  I also was heavily into the martial arts while becoming an intermediate and advanced skier.  Maybe that has more to do with my interpretation of attack. 

Before skiing?  Well I remember tobboganning, and riding bicycles.  I remember as a teenager, I would try to find the biggest longest hill to bike down.  Maybe it all started with me having something to prove as a young child.  As a very young child (5 or 6 ?), I remember there was one dirt road with a hill we would dare each other to go down, we would push our bikes up 1/8th of the way up, 1/4, etc.; of course I had to take it from the top, being the youngest and having the most to prove. The bike went into a wicked wobble about half-way down.  I think I spent the following three days in bed.  My mom was not pleased with the amount of gravel she had to pick out of my face.  Maybe it was this early-life feeling of having something to prove that made me take risks, jump from the higher rafter into the hay, or balcony into the snow, go down the steeper hill, but once I got addicted to the speed, it became a fun thing to do.  Certainly by the time I was 12, was well into it.   To this day, I really enjoy the adrenaline rush of speeding.

I can certainly appreciate how other skiers might see things differently.  My wife, for example, has the opposite view of speed.  My eldest daughter likes speeding; my son, not so much.  Different strokes for different folks. 

Again, people are falling into the right or wrong trap.  One approach may be more efficient than another, but that doesn't necessarily distinquish it as more "right".  Skiing is about free expression, and descending the mountain in a fashion that provides the biggest thrill/enjoyment/smile to that skier at that moment. 

That said, recognizing exactly what is happening and how the turn and transition is being done opens a door to the awareness that makes refining execution and learning new approaches possible.  Most skiers do not possess the complete arsenal of transitions, turn shapes and edge control options.  The more they can grow their skills and expand their options, the more the opportunity for finding fun on skis grows. 

I see Weems Diamond approach as a brilliant product for mastering the mental side of skiing.  It confronts and overcomes obstacles that plague every skier's attempts to improve, as well as the general quality of their experience on the mountain.  I think it melds superbly with more technical skill development methodologies.  In my race training days I developed skiers to FIS and World Cup skill levels through a very comprehensive skills based training program.  Along the journey I would always face mental obstacles and attitude challenges that until overcome would impede the progress of my student.  I had my personal methods of attacking those psychological hurdles, but the Diamond would have been a useful tool. 

Weems, about that rotation/pivot I'm seeing.  Watch what the skis do right at release.  They redirect downhill, then engage again.  If I had the time, I'd pull out some stills that would show it clearly, but I'm a bit pressed for time trying to get my Transitions DVD finished up,,, sorry.  The rotation is subtle, not the gross forms we're used to seeing in the typical recreational skier, but it's there.  You can see it in how the upperbody seems to follow the skis through the transition, and into the entry of the new turn.  There's a bit of rotation in that following that is powering the pivot that he's employing.  

About the falline to falline approach to smoothing out a transition;  it definately can help, but it also throws shadow on the exectution details of what actually makes a transition look smooth,  It's teaching one trick pony skills to riders who end up not really knowing how they're doing the trick.  Focusing on the technicals of a transition will get the skier the same smoothness, while letting them know why it's happening, and how to vary it in the exact manner they desire to achieve the precise outcome they seek. 

 Threads like this make me wonder why anyone would want to ski. If this is skiing that the best of us aspire to, the sport is in trouble. It does not look like someone having fun.

Telerod15,
This is skiing that illustrates "not holding back".  It looks like fun to me, though he may be paying a little too much attention; he looks like he's concentrating, maybe due to the camera causing some self-consciousness. 

I don't want to attack the turn or the hill. I don't seek aggression in my recreation, but to each his own.

I love this quote.  Sure skiing is just about free expression blah blah blah.  So what are you teaching in a ski lesson then?  If it is all good, there is no right or wrong, why should anyone waste their money and time?  I have taught countless never ever lessons, where the class had a great time.  So are they done?  "Tai Chi Skier" looked like he was having a ball, would you take a lesson from him?  Would you personally reccomend his lessons to friend or family member?  If there is not right or wrong, what was that 3 year debate you had with M501 all about?  Where you arguing that his way was not fun?  That it wasn't free expression?

Many people enjoy the very aspect of learning.  Some desire to become more efficient so they can ski better longer, Some love the feel of performance they get from carving...some love the control they get so they can ski in a relaxed manor, others use it so they can exploer more challenging terrain....this can only be achieved by showing somone the right way....which by definition means there is a wrong. 

This whole "do what ever feels right" is really getting old...and really does not fit on a ski technique forum.  In a "general skiing forum" , sure....knock youself out...."WHEEEE"....but please leave the tech forum for those who know.

FOR THE RECORD:  There is right technique and wrong technique.  The only thing that is up for grabs is how you apply it...that can be in endless ways and situations, that is the definition of an open skill sport after all.  But dont think that all technique is good technique, and that technique cant be analysed and crituqed.  It can....the real issue is the people doing the critiquing, espeically here, are usually looking at skiers that are well beyond their own skill level, and thus often make very wrong, and confused conclusions.


No Rick.  Fall line to fall line is just a mental image.  Of course you then discuss the details of transition.  In fact the fall line to fall line approach allows you to talk about the transition as 1 thing in its entirty....this is different to the traditional "C" shape turns where transitions are discussed as a 2 step process....end one turn, start another. 

To call it one trick pony is rather ironic becuase it gives you a whole different way of viewing it beyond the tradtional approach...you can still do all your OLR, ILE, cross under, cross over, mumbo jumbo within the fall line to fall line approach. 

But I think you knew that.  Getting bored Rick?   Or are you more concerned how this advice will contrast with your latest DVD?  Do I sense major editing in your future?  Or do you just feel the need to create abit of a stir? I am happy to engage, but lets do it on something more technical....ya?
Edited by Skidude72 - 9/27/09 at 3:25pm

Probably becuase you never experienced that sensation of carving.  It feels like cornering at high speed on a motor cycle...in fact even better....more like a jet fighter. 

Fact:  Top motorcycle racers in the world can only pull around 1g in a corner.
Fact: Top ski racers in the world can pull upto 3g in a turn!

If that is not fun, I dont know what is.

3g! So that would feel like weighing 500lbs? Does not sound fun to me. I have carved a turn or two, just for the record.

Well that would depend on what you weight standing still.  For me it would be closer to 600lbs....but fair enough it is not for everybody, and lets face it 3g is the worlds best, most will never achieve it, nor could they stand up if they hit it....

So what do you aspire to?

 I aspire to flowing in harmony with the mountain, not attacking it.

Nothing wrong with that.

Agree with your point, but check you facts.  Motorcycle gets 1.8 gs.
http://www.f1complete.com/content/view/4638/389/

I stand corrected.  This article explains how a bike can get more downward force with no wind effects like a F1 car.  Who knew?.....oh ya, ghost did.

http://www.genjac.com/BoomerBiker/Two%20Wheeled%20Physics.htm

For the record, I'd like to say that I don't think their is a right technique or a wrong technique. Just as ski design constantly changes, so does technique. Just as terrain changes, so does technique. As conditions change, so does technique.

There is no perfect way to ski. There is no perfect skier. There is no perfect run. For every skier who makes a run down the mountain, there is a person who thinks they have the knowledge to critique that skiers abilities. And certainly, there is no one person here perfect enough to critique correctly every video put up. Why? because everybody sees it from a different point of view based on their skiing beliefs and the way they as individuals have evolved as skiers and teachers.

Skiing will certainly change again as certain as ski design will change. I wonder if someone put up a video of someone skiing 20 years ago, if any of us could critique it properly? It's really funny how ski design has changed technique theory over the years. Isn't it?

People see things differently. That's fact. You can have 20 people witness a crime. Not all of them will see the same thing. That's fact. Same with critique on video. We all see different things at different times. It's the discussions and the egos that get in the way that really distort the real pictures. The slow motion and the stop frames. Not the skiing.

So, my theory is that there is no one here perfect enough to be infalable or mistake free in their critique. No one that never makes any mistakes or skis perfectly enough to be perfect and right all the time in their critique of others.

There is no right way to ski or wrong way to ski. There is only skiing. It might be good, it might be bad. Just like your critique.

Nice and convienant answer for those wth limited skill and knowledge of skiing and ski technique.  There are so many fallacies in this post I am not sure where to start.

No particular order:

1. People see different things becuase not everyone here is at the same skill level in doing MA.  I know that hurts, but it is true.  The difference are often due to the experience level of the poster...not opinion.
2. MA skills like most things are a pyramid...there are less people who are true experts, more with middle skill level, and even more with lower skill level.  Hence if you go with the "majority" opinion, I can pretty much guarantee you that you will have, perhaps a close answer, but highly unlikely the full, complete and correct one.
3. Technique vs. Tactics:  I have developed my skiing skills to a particular level.  When I ski with Mrs. Skidude I apply those skills differently (ie different tactics) then how I apply those skills when skiing with my mates.  But a good instructor can spot my skill strengths and deficiens regardless if I am skiing with the Mrs or with mates.  The skills and underlying technique is identical whether I am crusing a blue, or charging a double black.  The only difference is tactics.  This concept is clearly not widley understood on this board. 
4.  Sure, you can apply different types of tactics, and that boils down to intent...but technique is technique, either you have it, or you dont, deficiens show no matter what.  People need understand this difference...it is huge, and very important.
5. Changes in equipment will change technique.  That does not mean that technqiue is flawed or weak, or opinion.  It simply means that as technology evolves so does technique to take advantage of the new technology. 

I think the root cause of the problems is that the PSIA or at least the PSIA certs who post here clearly have no clear framework upon which to build their knowledge.  They are also chasing "movments".  The idea of teaching and analysing movemnts went out in the 70s!  Every major, and dare I say respected ski teaching/coaching body on the planet teaches skills and has for years now.  This teach and do this movment here apporach, and that movment there approach is garbage.  No wonder the whole thing seems hopless to you. 

The standard approach adopted on this board is a major set up for failure.

Teach, learn and understand skills.  I dont care what system you use, there are tons, pic one.  Learn it from start to finish, front to back.  Then if you feel it is needed, change, adopt modify and improve.  This idea that you can learn bits and pieces from all over, and then somehow put them all back together in a cohesive technique is rubbish.  It will never happen.

Hence just becuase you dont understand somthing is not justification for "no-one" can understand.  I dont understand how computers really work....but I know others do.  I am not so arrogant to believe that since I dont understand it, no one can. 
Edited by Skidude72 - 9/27/09 at 7:43pm

The red underlined bit above is where I strongly disagree.

Skiing is not about multiple technqiues.  It is about developing a core base set of skills.  There are not 100s of these.  Teaching orgs typcially have 4 to 5.  Coaching orgs typically have a few more, but these tend to be just variants of the 4 to 5 core ones.  The CSIA and hence myself uses 5:

1. Stance and Balance
2. Pivoting
3. Edging
4. Pressure Control
5. Timing and Co-odination

What changes from situation to situation is how these skills are employed.  That is tactics, not technqiue.  Often, as you wrote, skill deficiences limit our tactical options.  But the solution is not to talk about flawed tactics, the solution is to go to the cause; identify the deficeint skill and build it up.

In that regard, there is right and wrong.  Either the skills exist, or they dont.  There is nothing to debate, "free expression" is not a factor.  As I wrote above skilled instructors can spot skill deficiences a mile away, whether the skier is doing bumps, long turns, short turns, powder, skiing fast or slow.  The skills deficient in one tactical application, will still be deficient in another.  Skills dont just magically appear, or disapper as the case may be. 

As for seeing fads come and go...sure we all been there, but these fads where not fundamental throw the baby out with bath water, and start over changes...they were in real terms suitable changes, usually brought on by some new kid who was tearing up the WC.  And while these fad may have faded they certainly did not disappear completely.

SkiDude, I can't believe you're trying to trying to argue in favor of skills based teaching with me.   I've probably been the loudest proponent voice for it here at Epic for years.  If you're trying to promote that cause, you'd do better arguing with someone who actually opposes it. 

Skills allow for versatility on skis. There are many ways to balance on skis, each providing situational performance benefits. There are many ways to initiate a turn, each serving a specific purpose.  There are numerous ways to steer, each no more universally right or wrong than the other, but each appropriate for providing the turn shape and speed control the skier desires at the time.  And there are so many types of transitions, each providing situational advantages.  Only when the base skills are developed can these various skiing options be fully exploited. 

So keep promoting skills based training, you're on the right track.  One thing, though.  Your list of 5 are skill areas.  Within each area are a multitude of individual skills.  The whole spectrum of those skills, within each of those areas, needs to be developed to realize the highest form of expertise on skis. 

Skiing isn't anymore technical than it was 30 years ago. Ski design has changed the way we ski. Camber, sidecut, waist, tip and tails widths as well as flex and torsion. Along the road someone decided we should put skis on edge and carve back and forth across the trails like snowboarders instead of fall line skiing. Sure made it interesting for all you insructors. no doubt it increased your lesson load.

no skidude, I don't pretend to have the knowledge of skiing to analyze and break down each turn movement. Nor do I care to. which wasn't the reason for the OP's thread. Nor do I care to look like an albatross with flaps out crisscrossing back and forth down the slopes cutting in and out of people just having fun. It's people like you that are the reason i stick to bump runs and trees as well as the back country dabbeling in powder and chutes on my fatties. Avoiding the groomers where instructors and techies look upon us as hacks and wannabies.

I'll get by knowing i'm comfortable with my abilities to ski anything, anywhere in any conditions on any mountain not caring that people like you might be pointing me out to one of your lessons.

Well that is symantics....but yes there is some truth to that.  Often that is where coaching orgs have more skills.  Ie CSIA just has "Stance and Balance".  This includes all aspects of Stance and Balance...but the CSCF breaks it down into Fore/aft balance, lateral balance, rotational, and vertical (or at least they used to).  But this does not increase the number of skills to hundereds as your writing seems to suggest...the number is still limted to around 10 even if you take the expanded view.

Further, regardless of using 5 or 4 or 10, skiing can be defined and analysed in terms of skills. Again, skills exist or they dont, hence the infinite number of transitions that exist (and yes it is infinite (inside ankle bent at 3degree, knee at 152, 30.8% pressure on inside foot...blah blah blah) is irrelevant.
Edited by Skidude72 - 9/28/09 at 3:54am

If you dont know and you dont care...why muddy the water with BS posts?  I am glad you enjoy your skiing, that is what it is all about. 

But for the record...I spend alot of time teaching in the pow, chutes, bumps and trees so you are not free from scutiny there either.

Cleaning up the thread. 
Edited by Rick - 9/28/09 at 3:20am

Done
Edited by Skidude72 - 9/28/09 at 3:50am

Skidude,
I find our posts very informative.

I'm not up to speed on the skills-based approach.  Nor even sure what a "skill" really is.

Perhaps you could start a thread on it.  I'm also wondering what you would do for a skier who is limited by an ingrained movement pattern (eg. unweighted pivot transition low edge angle turn every time, or hard edge set after unweighted pivot), who seems to have great balance etc.

 

The recreational skier is trying to carve edge to edge turns and introduces a pivot when the skis go flat. The pivot is wrong because it is contrary to the goal.

The skier is trying to negotiate a mogul run and control speed, but never pushes the tips of the skis down the backside of the mogul.  This too is contrary to the goal and is wrong.

 

Introducing "personal aspirations" like "stylin'" can introduce a whole lot of wrong movements -- it does not make the movements "right". 

For example: The skier is coming to a stop.  Instead of doing a simple hockey stop, they start stylin' and lift the downhill ski off the snow and use the outside edge of the uphill ski only.  This is a wrong way to stop, and they know it.  Before you guys start to complain that "hey they stopped therefore it was right", please note that you'll also stop if you just fling yourself onto the ground. The outcome does not justify the means.