New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Nick Hill attacks each turn - Page 4

post #91 of 300
9/29/09 at 2:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by justanotherskipro View Post

I'm glad you guys are so passionate about teaching and the CSIA system. Although I don't see that as reason enough to hijack threads to sell your system to everyone.I stopped listening to negative commercials years ago. This thread is about WILL which several members have already pointed out. Weems offered the idea that Nick's will is demonstrated by his moving his body into the new turn. He also pointed out that he (Weems) projects his hip into the turn more than Nick does. To me this connection between attitude and movements is what Weems was trying to point out.

Sadly this thread has devolved into a discussion of CSIA methodology and definitions. SD you are going to great length to differentiate your system and offer a glimps into how you classify ski movements. The skills concept you offer avoids using the word movements but even in your assessment of Weems' skiing you use words like extending and you describe his shoulders moving backwards as a result of his hips extending and with that the CoM moves backwards. All without using the words move or moving. But let's be clear here, you are describing movements (using action verbs like extention to describe motion) and suggesting how Weems should move differently. Call it "execution of the skill" if you wish but that's just a contrived way to avoid using the word movement.

 

Actually JASP if you review the thread again you will see my posts where directley answering questions by Weems.  Not sure how Weems can hi-jack his own thread.  Intrestingly, yourself nor Rick have answered Weems' questions yet.  Please do.

As for deliberatley not using the word "movment".  You got me.  But let me be clear:  In my view the term "movment" as used on EPIC as has taken on a whole meaning, far beyond what a person on the street would think when they hear the word.  When doing skills analysis do you look at how people move?  Yes of course.  But you dont start there, you look at the skills, see where they are working, where they are not, and then look at why.  It is that first step of looking at skills that answers Weems question "How do you know what is right or wrong"...or as I put it..."what is right, and what can be improved".  Without a skills assessment first, you are shooting in the dark and just dispelling opinion.

Also for clarity, please look at my definations for "skills" this also contrasts greatley with the term as used on Epic where things like "transitions" a viewed as a skill...rather then a phase of the turn where skills are applied.  For those who dont fully understand all this, this may seem like a simple case of symantics but it isnt.  It is a crucial distinction.
Reply
post #92 of 300
9/29/09 at 3:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhcooley View Post

Regarding the relationship between movements and skills:

 




For a physical activity like skiing, we learn, implement and display skill by performing movements. We experiment with different movements to learn more about the skills, and we attempt to refine movements in order to more successfully apply skills and obtain a desired outcome.

Skills are the fundamentals, and yet we use movements to help us understand them and use them, and our skill understanding and application affects how we move. The required skills are the same; the movements vary at least somewhat, and sometimes radically, depending on terrain, conditions, intent, understanding and many other variables. This, in fact, is why one wants to focus on skills: they are far more broadly applicable than specific movements. On the other hand, movements are always necessary to apply skills, and many movements must be learned, practiced, kept, discarded, etc. in order to apply skills effectively.

It is tempting, of course, to go pursuing the "perfect" movement or set of movements. It's a recipe. People like recipes, as I think I said elsewhere. Movements are specific. Focused. Understandable. And, even if your focus is skill development, the skill has to be supported by movement.

But still, they're specific. A given movement won't work well in all situations. Maybe it won't even work well in very many situations. It takes skill to understand what works well, and what doesn't work so well, and when, and why. It takes skill to understand the application and limitations of a movement.

Attempting to focus entirely on skill development has its problems too, of course. I'm not even sure how you would do it without movement. An appreciation of a skill means little, I think, without some idea of how to move to apply it.

I think the relationship between movements and skills is one of the most important things to understand about skiing. When discussing/teaching a movement, it must always be related to a skill or skills. When discussing an application of a skill, the movements for specific situations, the "how," and the limitations of that "how," must also be considered.

When it's all over, when the practice yields a desired outcome, when a movement is owned and some small piece of a skill is fitted into the puzzle, we get to turn it loose again, ski with intent, show the Will, and have fun.

Nick doesn't look like he's skiing right on the edge (even though he's on his edges), so I'm not sure "attacks" is the right word (for me, anyway). I'd say he is, indeed, skiing with intent.
 

WOW...great post.  Totally agree.

The only point I will make,....and I made it earlier in post 95 before I read this (or at least I tried to)....."movement" as the term is used on Epic is much more encompassing then simply "moving" as in when you bend your knee you "move". 

In your post, I believe you are using "movment" as defined and used in everyday language....not like it is used on Epic...where for example bump skiing is defined as a "movmement". 
Reply
post #93 of 300
9/29/09 at 3:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by weems View Post


 


 


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwvSfitjG9w


Here Weems,

Compare the shoulders of these guys to yours.  Notice in your BIG extensions how your shoulders go back?  This is apparent in the middle and end of your video.  These guys also make big extensions, and keep the shoulders forward.  It is very apparent when you look at the skis...notice how yours, hen you get air the tails touch down first?  Or at best the ski lands tip and tail at once?  In my video the guys land tips first, or at worst tip and tail at once.

You recover well and get the shoulders over top...but if you alter the way you extend that recovery wont be neccessary, and you will be able to make BIG full extensions without negativley effecting fore/aft balance...this will give you alot more control, and thus more options earlier in the turn.



Good luck with it.
Reply
post #94 of 300
9/29/09 at 3:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by weems View Post

 Skidude, you sound pretty frustrated.  Sorry that this caused all this tension!

But here's a question on wrong and right.  For all of you.

When you decide that, yes, this movement or skill production (and I really don't care which, so don't start with me!) is either right or wrong, what are your criteria for deciding that it is right or wrong?  

Before answering, consider issues of environment (the chaos in the snow), personal aspirations (stylin', accomplishment, line), possibility (fitness, equipment, physics), and courage (commitment to movement).

Interested in your thoughts on these.
Been listening in....  Your question above, Weems, sounds like a great new thread topic.  Any chance of making that happen?
Reply
post #95 of 300
9/29/09 at 3:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidude72 View Post

In your post, I believe you are using "movment" as defined and used in everyday language....not like it is used on Epic...where for example bump skiing is defined as a "movmement". 
 
To my little mind, bump skiing uses a variety of movements (yes, movements that have been taught, trained, practiced and tested) to apply my admittedly minimal skills in the areas of balance, edging, pressure, rotary and DIRT to have a fun and enjoyable experience in challenging terrain. And the movement set (and skill blend) for this bump will be different than the movements and skill blend for that one.

If it's a good run, there won't be too many movements that I should have discarded long ago, my skill blend shifts smoothly through each bump and turn, I don't get tired despite my age, I look and feel smooth and focused, and the whole thing seems to happen so slowly that I can even think a little, even though I'm not supposed to. Doesn't happen often enough, by the way.

But then, what do I know?

And, for Weems, "intent" to me conveys focus and purpose; "attack" makes me careless and sloppy, although it's probably a lot funnier to watch.   FWIW. YMMV. Do not fold staple or mutilate.
Reply
post #96 of 300
9/29/09 at 3:42pm
, but Weems said he didn't mind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidude72 View Post




Originally Posted by weems View Post

But here's a question on wrong and right.  For all of you.

When you decide that, yes, this movement or skill production (and I really don't care which, so don't start with me!) is either right or wrong, what are your criteria for deciding that it is right or wrong?  

Before answering, consider issues of environment (the chaos in the snow), personal aspirations (stylin', accomplishment, line), possibility (fitness, equipment, physics), and courage (commitment to movement).

Interested in your thoughts on these.   
Edging: the ability to roll the ski onto and off or its edges
Pressure control: the ability to control pressure
Timing and Coordination: the ability to time and cordinate the above skills together.


Simple huh?  Of course so far we have just defined what the skills are.  As a coach, I say that someones "skills" are good, or need improvment based on 2 things:

1: how effectiley they were able to be excuted. For example, for pressure control - did the skier control the pressure, yes or no?
2: did their execution of the skill negativley impact on their ability to execute the other skills.  For example did their pressure control negativley effect their fore/aft balance?


This picture, and the video of the same skier in this thread illustrates the point.  Is the skier controlling pressure in the bumps?  Yes.  Does the way this skier control pressure negativley effect the other skills?  Yes.  It is clear from this shot and the video that as this skier extends, there is a lot of extension in the hip, and less in the knees, as such the skier's shoulders go back, thus the COM goes back and the skier is unable to generate early tip pressure to start the next turn.  Hence I now know that if I was this skiers coach I would need to improve the Pressure Control Skill so that I can improve his fore/aft balance.

Intent/Snow/Line/Equipment etc etc is not a factor in my analysis. 

I have no idea how the movment approach could lend the same result.

To develop Pressure Control I would do a range of things, but generally I would start by getting you to feel what proper fore/aft balance feels like in the various phases of the turn (I am sure this wont be hard for the skier in question as the skill level is obviously high), then I would focus on keeping that "feeling" while playing with knee/hip and ankle flex. 

While perhaps seemingly simple this approach does take considerable skill on the part of the instructor as they need to understand skiing from it base building blocks up, they then need to be able to understand the interaction of 5 skills working together...hence the combinations can get pretty intense.  But the benefits are huge.  Hopefully it is clear from this post how a true skills approach does not rely on opinion, and is not effected by intent/snow/equipment/line etc.

The benefits for the student are that you dont need to learn a multiude of subtly different maneouvers, instead you learn and develop core skills that you apply as the situation suits...using the above example, after some more development of the Pressure Control skill, the skier can always control pressure, as and when required without effecting balance, thus no matter what the terrain or intent is the skier can do it....provided of course the other 4 skills are up to it.

This is a "no short cut approach".  It takes considerable work for the instructor to master.  It also takes considerable work for the student.  But it will get you there....dare I say quicker then any other system out there....
Thanks for elaborating.

Let me see if I got this right.
Skills involve controlling your bodies forces and torques.  The skills are subdivided as follows: some into controlling those forces and torques that would if unhindered result in the following movements: skis tipping onto their edges, skis pivoting, skis or portions of skis being pushed;  timing and coordination; and lastly, managing all forces acting so as to control your state of balance.

Not so simple.  I was about to ask which skill I use if I use edging and pressure control to apply more force to the front inside edge of my skis affecting a change in steering angle, but you beat me to the punch with " they then need to be able to understand the interaction of 5 skills working together..."

You can see how the forces are related to the resulting movements.  I think Skidude's skills approach is as much better than a movement approach as dynamics is better than kinematics.

I didn't realize "movement" had a special meaning on epic (must refrain from bathroom humour).  There may be a "Company line" maintained by the site owners and operators here, but I'm here, I'm a member of EPIC, and I can assure I subscribe to no company line.  
Reply
post #97 of 300
9/29/09 at 4:33pm
The best part of this post...
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud heishman View Post

A shameless post of will! 
...is the smile!

Nicely done, friend!
Reply
post #98 of 300
9/29/09 at 4:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by weems View Post

 Oh.  And while I'm at it.  What do you think of these turns?

Wasn't that what you were trying to show me that day I almost ran you down? 
Reply
post #99 of 300
9/29/09 at 6:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssh View Post

On the contrary, quite a few people would invest quite a bit of time and energy in an effort to ski like this. Not that everyone would, but many would. YMMV.
 

There is a sucker born every minute. P.T Barnum
Reply
post #100 of 300
9/29/09 at 6:59pm
SD, sorry it took so long to get back to you. I answered Weems' question back in post 63 which is just a few posts after he posed an open question, As far as getting involved in the questions he posted directly to you I didn't see any reason to get in the middle of the two of you and your joint discussion. Actually you and I are not very far apart when it comes to the use of incomplete terms and abbreviated phrases that somehow become a term. Transition is a phase and an action though so we need to modify that by using a more complete description like; through the transition from one set fo edges to another, or during the transition phase Blablabla is occuring. Cross under / over originally described a certain type of transition from one set of edges to the next. Most here understand that but it still opens up the misunderstanding. Tipping skills are another. They are skills and movements. If I want to tip the ski to 60 degrees that is describing an action but doesn't say which movements I am planning to use to accomplish that. Rolling the skis over to a sixty degree edge angle is describing a tipping movement. although I still have not gotten very specific about everything I need to move to create this outcome. For me the ultra specific paint by numbers approach that describes a long sequence of movements and adjustments is so missing the point that when skiing there simply isn't enough time to have that micro manager telling us a step by step sequence. The objective is tipping the skis to 60 degrees, not following a script to get there. That where I open up the lesson to active experimenting and guided discovery. Mostly because no two skiers will ski exactly the same way, live the same way and train the same way. So their ability to perform exactly the same way is a bit of a stretch as far as expectations are concerned. Close maybe but never exact. Helping them figure out how they can accomplish that goal is more my focus. do I use skills and movements to describe and demonstrate options? Absolutely. It requires both if I expect them to gain ownership of some movemetns and to develop a higher level of skill in all classifications.
Reply
post #101 of 300
9/29/09 at 7:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by justanotherskipro View Post

SD, sorry it took so long to get back to you. I answered Weems' question back in post 63 which is just a few posts after he posed an open question, As far as getting involved in the questions he posted directly to you I didn't see any reason to get in the middle of the two of you and your joint discussion. Actually you and I are not very far apart when it comes to the use of incomplete terms and abbreviated phrases that somehow become a term. Transition is a phase and an action though so we need to modify that by using a more complete description like; through the transition from one set fo edges to another, or during the transition phase Blablabla is occuring. Cross under / over originally described a certain type of transition from one set of edges to the next. Most here understand that but it still opens up the misunderstanding. Tipping skills are another. They are skills and movements. If I want to tip the ski to 60 degrees that is describing an action but doesn't say which movements I am planning to use to accomplish that. Rolling the skis over to a sixty degree edge angle is describing a tipping movement. although I still have not gotten very specific about everything I need to move to create this outcome. For me the ultra specific paint by numbers approach that describes a long sequence of movements and adjustments is so missing the point that when skiing there simply isn't enough time to have that micro manager telling us a step by step sequence. The objective is tipping the skis to 60 degrees, not following a script to get there. That where I open up the lesson to active experimenting and guided discovery. Mostly because no two skiers will ski exactly the same way, live the same way and train the same way. So their ability to perform exactly the same way is a bit of a stretch as far as expectations are concerned. Close maybe but never exact. Helping them figure out how they can accomplish that goal is more my focus. do I use skills and movements to describe and demonstrate options? Absolutely. It requires both if I expect them to gain ownership of some movemetns and to develop a higher level of skill in all classifications.
Creepy...we are kinda of agreeing.  I feel so dirty.
Reply
post #102 of 300
9/29/09 at 7:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by weems View Post



So back to my question....and you guys have taken this challenge well.  Because there are so many "versions" of what to do out there, how do you choose?  How do you choose between Skidude's sense of precise skill acquisition, and telerod's sense of harmony.  Can you have it both ways?  How can you say that Hilly is quiet and yet attacks at the same time?  (For me that is pretty easy, as I know that "attack" is a highly loaded word!)

So I choose this way:  I seek three criteria in my skiing and teaching.  I don't always get all three all the time, but this is my direction.
  • Effectiveness
  • Efficiency
  • Versatility

Can I do the thing?  Can I do the thing with the least effort?  Can I get it done everywhere.  If my students can (1) accomplish their goals in a way that (2) wastes the least energy, and (3) can be accomplished most places/conditions/speeds...then I can guess that the day is going to be pretty nice.  Dare I say BRILLIANT!??

So the MA for me is never contentious.  It's only interesting.  "What are you seeing?  Can I see that too?  How does that move ad to the three ingredients of the soup?  Or does it take away?"  This also becomes the discussion/collaboration between me and my student.  "Why are you doing that?  How does it help?  Is there a better way?"
Anybody want to respond to this post ?

I try to ski with Telerod's sense of harmony. It's what I like. The balancing act we do with gravity and our motions. Play with it knowing disharmony can mean injury. Harmony is peace. Peace can be enlightening.
I try to teach with Skidude's skills as my outcome since we try to build good fundamentals not memorized maneuvers. I build movements using the skills as building blocks. We do need to apply the skills to all of our teaching but how we do this has an endless array of opportunities.

Learning to use the skills is our base of fundamentals to learn and to teach . What we do with them can place us in harmony with nature. 
Reply
post #103 of 300
9/29/09 at 8:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarryZ View Post
Originally Posted by weems View Post



So back to my question....and you guys have taken this challenge well.  Because there are so many "versions" of what to do out there, how do you choose?  How do you choose between Skidude's sense of precise skill acquisition, and telerod's sense of harmony.  Can you have it both ways?  How can you say that Hilly is quiet and yet attacks at the same time?  (For me that is pretty easy, as I know that "attack" is a highly loaded word!)

So I choose this way:  I seek three criteria in my skiing and teaching.  I don't always get all three all the time, but this is my direction.
  • Effectiveness
  • Efficiency
  • Versatility

Can I do the thing?  Can I do the thing with the least effort?  Can I get it done everywhere.  If my students can (1) accomplish their goals in a way that (2) wastes the least energy, and (3) can be accomplished most places/conditions/speeds...then I can guess that the day is going to be pretty nice.  Dare I say BRILLIANT!??

So the MA for me is never contentious.  It's only interesting.  "What are you seeing?  Can I see that too?  How does that move ad to the three ingredients of the soup?  Or does it take away?"  This also becomes the discussion/collaboration between me and my student.  "Why are you doing that?  How does it help?  Is there a better way?"



Anybody want to respond to this post ?

I try to ski with Telerod's sense of harmony. It's what I like. The balancing act we do with gravity and our motions. Play with it knowing disharmony can mean injury. Harmony is peace. Peace can be enlightening.
I try to teach with Skidude's skills as my outcome since we try to build good fundamentals not memorized maneuvers. I build movements using the skills as building blocks. We do need to apply the skills to all of our teaching but how we do this has an endless array of opportunities.

Learning to use the skills is our base of fundamentals to learn and to teach . What we do with them can place us in harmony with nature. 


 

Pretty easy to respond to really.  For the bolded red bit...why chose?  The skiers with best skills are the ones who are at most harmony with the mountain...almost by defintion.  So there is no choosing one over the other...instead skill development is the path to harmony.

As for Weems' other comments in the above post...........I agree.
Reply
post #104 of 300
9/30/09 at 4:36am
Practice makes perfect.  Practice skills; ski in harmony.  I sometimes practice, sometimes think, and sometimes not, and sometimes I'm somewhere in between.

Is devour more harmonious than attack?  Is a skier devouring turns in harmony with the mountain?  Is a bear devouring black bearies in harmony with nature?  A cougar attacking a deer? Both ARE nature.  (I imagine the deer doesn't find it to harmonious)    A skier can attack the turn, without attacking the mountain, but in any event, I still maintain that "attacking" is a sometimes only way to ski, but not holding back should be full-time.
Reply
post #105 of 300
9/30/09 at 7:35am
So to bring this back to Nick, I've read some posts that suggest he wasn't attacking because he wasn't flailing. I would say he was "in harmony" with the snow and his ability to match his intensity to the situation suggests a pretty high level of mastery. Not too aggressive, not too timid. I've watch racers smoke the field skiing this same way. Precise and efficient to the point of not being all that interesting to most since he wasn't flailing or blowing up. To me it's very interesting and like Weems, I want to ski this way, even though to the casual observer it doesn't look all that impressive.

I remember working with Squatty on short radius turns a few years ago. We were on some pretty flat smooth slope and I was trying to amp up my turns. His feedback was that I was trying to get too much out of the ski for that situation. My movements were too dynamic for the slope and the speed we were skiing. Forcing the turns by being too dynamic instead of taking what the mountain was giving me. Seeing Nick's skiing through that filter suggests to me that he was indeed attacking in the sense that he committed his body to the new turn but didn't over commit to the point of creating an error that caused him to flail.
Edited by justanotherskipro - 9/30/09 at 7:46am
Reply
post #106 of 300
9/30/09 at 8:47am


IMO, he's not attacking, he's just going for a lazy ride.

Reply
post #107 of 300
9/30/09 at 9:05am
I wonder how poor Nick feels about this whole discussion about him and his ability/inability to ski.
Reply
post #108 of 300
9/30/09 at 9:26am
 I will bet he can "will" himself to sleep at night without difficulty.  After all he is living the dream!
Reply
post #109 of 300
9/30/09 at 9:31am
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbinder View Post

I wonder how poor Nick feels about this whole discussion about him and his ability/inability to ski.

Which brings back in mind a few years ago when video of some psia biggies was put up for some unknown reason, one of which wasn't meant for MA. But was disected and discussed for pages. Leading to some banning of people and policy changes within Epic.

The whole cruxt of this issue is putting up video for one reason and then getting ma and critique for reasons unwarranted. I could be skiing all day in fine form in all conditions but if someone took a video of my last run down the mountain at the end of the day, they would certainly see a different Lars.

Does the person want MA? If he does, what are his reasons? What is he looking to gain? What were the conditions? What skis were he using? were they tuned? Did he have a bad back that day? Is he nursing a sore shoulder? There are so many factors involved including attitude and physical conditioning along with snow conditions.

To start argueing about movements and who sees what and what is right and wrong or good and bad isn't fair to anyone. And sometimes people doing the MA are more concerned with showing everyone who reads these threads that their skill levels and movement knowledge is far superior and shouldn't be questioned. ( if the shoe fits, so be it).

It's egos that threaten this forum, not the information received.
Reply
post #110 of 300
9/30/09 at 9:33am


Quote:
 
IMO, he's not attacking, he's just going for a lazy ride.

Really?
Reply
post #111 of 300
9/30/09 at 9:40am
Yeh, I hear ya, but I'm sure Weems probably wouldn't put up the footage without giving the guy a heads up first. Besides, I don't hear anyone really knocking his skiing, I certainly wouldn't be ashamed to ski that well. Sure, I see some things that I might want to do differently. But in honesty, is there anyone that posts on this forum, even high level instructors, who don't have something that they would like to work on in their own skiing? I tend to think that the best skiers out there are the most critical of their own skiing. I think it's more of a pissing contest, my system is better than yours, etc. Or people are just seeing things that they want to see, real or imagined, to suit there own beliefs or agendas.
Reply
post #112 of 300
9/30/09 at 10:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by justanotherskipro View Post

So to bring this back to Nick, I've read some posts that suggest he wasn't attacking because he wasn't flailing.
 
Sorry. I didn't mean to imply that Mr. Hill would flail if he attacked. I thought I said that I would flail if I attempted to attack. It is a comment and reflection on my own incompetence (and certain people here have clearly agreed with this opinion) and not intended to be a negative comment on Mr. Hill's skiing.

To clarify (I hope), when I think of a truly skilled skier (not me) attacking the hill, I think of, say, a WC racer. The racer is definitely not flailing, but he's clearly not as relaxed as Mr. Hill appears to be. Mr. Hill appears to me to be clean, focused, precise, skiing with intent. He's doing exactly what he wants to do, whether it's totally correct PSIA form or not. And he's having fun doing it.

With that, I'll resurrect my old signature one more time, with which several people have strongly agreed:
My presence here indicates that a village somewhere is missing its idiot.
Reply
post #113 of 300
9/30/09 at 11:22am
OK, I've done the technical analysis thing, with my apologies,,, now I'll talk about Weems WILL topic. 

Will, to me, is about taking an offensive attitude into your skiing, regardless of what that skiing looks like.  Arc to arc, pivot, carve, steer,,, it really doesn't matter.  It's more about; are you enthusiastic about going down the mountain, or are you descending tentatively?  Are you charging downhill with your body acting as point man blazing a trail, or are you sitting in the backseat looking frantically for land mines, letting your poor little skis lead the way? 

Will is very much a product of confidence.  Confidence can be enhanced by altering mental perspectives, but it also is born of expanded skills and positive performance experiences.  I find the greatest confidence boosts in my students come from attention devoted to a combination of the two.

Fear is the arch enemy of confidence.  Fear can leave confidence huddled up deep in a foxhole.  For confidence to thrive, weapons have to be employed that sends fear scurrying away. 

I have a consistently successful methodology for subduing fear.  It's based on building skills, and providing tools that let skiers know they always have a safety line they can pull to get themselves out of trouble.  When they know they have that, suddenly skiing offensively is not so scary.  Suddenly it becomes fun. 
Reply
post #114 of 300
9/30/09 at 11:54am

JH, I wasn't implying it was you who said he wasn't attacking.
E seems to think these are lazy turns though. Which says he doesn't think he is attacking. I'd say there are various levels of attacking and his skiing shows offensive intent through the transition phase even if his hips don't move as far forward as Weems'. He demonstrates discipline and restraint which are also willful qualities. Even so E is entitled to his opinion I guess.  

Also IMO, SD's comments about Weems' shoulders moving back suggested that it occurred as a consequence of the big hip extension. Weems responded that he used that as an anticipation movement. Even though they disagree about appropriateness it is clear that Weems' hips moved offensively into the new turn more than Nick's. Which was what Weems said in the first place 

Which is really what this thread is about. Is Weems' use of the word attacks wrong? No, at least not in my opinion. Was it an all out undisciplined attack? No, more a controlled and disciplined attack. We could argue forever about what Weems meant, or we can try to understand what he was saying by looking at things through his perspective and trying to understand the video through his filters. I'm talking about exercising better active listening and comprehension skills here instead of getting so caught up in the definition of a word or two. Before you guys flame out let me say over time I'm as guilty of doing this as the rest of you but IMO this site would be more productive if we all agreed to look for meaningful information instead of perpetuating the circular debates over the definition of the words used to convey the idea.


Edited by justanotherskipro - 9/30/09 at 12:15pm
Reply
post #115 of 300
9/30/09 at 12:07pm

nolo,

Yes really.  

I disagree with the claim that this skiing is an example of attack.


Attacking is a state of mind that I'd hope to see in the skiers stance, dynamics and technique. The stance can easily be more aggressive, the movements more dynamic.

Technically, I'd think really getting forward on initiation to tighten those turns would be attacking each turn.

This skiing is similar to a thread using the WC free skiers video, where Simplyfast stated that one of the skiers was simply "Falling down the hill like a sack of potatoes."  Merely going fast is not attacking. 



 


Edited by BigE - 9/30/09 at 12:21pm
Reply
post #116 of 300
9/30/09 at 12:16pm
The point E is that he is falling down the hill not falling backwards into it
Reply
post #117 of 300
9/30/09 at 12:33pm
I editted my post above a bit, same idea though.

If he was falling backwards at those speeds, he'd soon be looking at the sky.  You do need to get downhill, but he's getting downhill too late to be attacking. 

Why? He does not recenter enough to begin the turn without needing to turn the feet. He needs to rotate/pivot at the beginning of the turn because the recentering is late.  IMO, an attack of a turn when skiing arc-to-arc has no pivot, since a strong recentering action negates the need to pivot.

That's why it's not a great example of attack. 

He himself may consider that skiing attacking, but I would not choose that video as a textbook example.
Reply
post #118 of 300
9/30/09 at 2:52pm
Attack is a full-throttle proposition.   It is done at maximum effort, a matter of life and death.  If you don't think so, then I would advise you refrain from attacking anybody, because unless they defend like you attack, the attack could kill you.

It looks to me like the skier could ski faster if he wanted to, he could turn harder if he wanted to.  He's skiing at about 3/4 throttle, not attacking. 

Having said that, let's try and understand the message.  Does anybody who shares my view of attack really think that Weems is advocating that attacking style of skiing for general free-skiing?   More than likely he uses the word attack to push people out of their complacent skiing (or worse out of their tentative skiing),  the skiing I see in the video looks to me like it is not complacent, and is appropriate for the intended message.
Reply
post #119 of 300
9/30/09 at 2:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE View Post


I editted my post above a bit, same idea though.

If he was falling backwards at those speeds, he'd soon be looking at the sky.  You do need to get downhill, but he's getting downhill too late to be attacking. 

Why? He does not recenter enough to begin the turn without needing to turn the feet. He needs to rotate/pivot at the beginning of the turn because the recentering is late.  IMO, an attack of a turn when skiing arc-to-arc has no pivot, since a strong recentering action negates the need to pivot.

That's why it's not a great example of attack. 

He himself may consider that skiing attacking, but I would not choose that video as a textbook example.
 

I can agree with that, given he has all the skills necessary to perform perfectly. But couldn't everyone be overreading or taking for granted that Nick is a great skier posessing all the skills, therefore with the knowledge and skills he does have, and his attitude, he may be attacking the slope?

we can only guess about his true skill level and his attitude.
Reply
post #120 of 300
9/30/09 at 3:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by nolo View Post




Really?
 

Since you asked, YES, at least for this reader.  My first impression when the thread opened was park-n-ride in the bottom 2/3 of each turn and a casual transition.  It still is after reading 4 pages of posts.

I'm sure that someone of Mr. Hill's experience is able to make impressive dynamic turns, but here he's just coasting and lollygagging along, not "attacking."  Which is fine, because any time on snow is good -- you don't have to "attack" to enjoy skiing.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching