New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

'True or False??? - Page 3

post #61 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssh View Post

Umm.... Si? That quote was from the Random House Dictionary. Wikipedia notes that it can refer to either a region or a joint. The hip bone is the big, flat bone that forms the pelvic crest. Rotating the hip bone is not the same as rotating the femur. Here's an example of hip rotation referring to moving the pelvis around. Here's a "hip rotation" exercise similar to using a hula-hoop. Here's a description of "opening the hips" towards the target in golf, referred to as "hip rotation."

In other words, it doesn't look to me like my definition is any different from a number of respected sources, although it may disagree with others (including yours), which makes your statement simply hyperbole. Again, this is why I chose to be specific about it rather than referring to "hip rotation" which is clearly ambiguous. That ambiguity was my primary point.
 

No hyperbole intended and I don't think that's the issue.  My goal was to make the point that using the same term to refer to the rotation of a joint and rotation of a body segment (which may involve numerous combinations of joint movements) only leads to confusion.  I see people continuing to do this.  To talk about rotation of a joint I think we should try to specify the movement of a bone within the joint socket.  If I am going to talk about rotation of body segment I try to specify the body segment and the plane it is rotating in.

As I look back, yours was one of posts that is confusing (at least to me) when you say "Leg steering does not cause the hips to rotate."  If I think about rotation of the hip joint (rotating femur in the hip socket/acetabulum) I understand that that is exactly what you use to create leg steering?  Are you using hip rotation here to mean the rotation of the pelvis through a vertical axis?  
post #62 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Si View Post

No hyperbole intended and I don't think that's the issue.  My goal was to make the point that using the same term to refer to the rotation of a joint and rotation of a body segment (which may involve numerous combinations of joint movements) only leads to confusion.  I see people continuing to do this.  To talk about rotation of a joint I think we should try to specify the movement of a bone within the joint socket.  If I am going to talk about rotation of body segment I try to specify the body segment and the plane it is rotating in.

As I look back, yours was one of posts that is confusing (at least to me) when you say "Leg steering does not cause the hips to rotate."  If I think about rotation of the hip joint (rotating femur in the hip socket/acetabulum) I understand that that is exactly what you use to create leg steering?  Are you using hip rotation here to mean the rotation of the pelvis through a vertical axis?  
I called it "hyperbole" because you were clearly exaggerating in an effort to discredit my definition. You said,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Si View Post

I'm afraid that your nomenclature is then contrary to every medical, biomechanical, physiological, and anatomical definition in the world.

"...every...in the world." is clearly hyperbole (and, as I showed in my previous post, also clearly false).

The irony here is that I was doing the same thing with my definitions that you profess to be intending. I took the word "hips" from Rick's initial post and read it as the hip bones, not the femurs.

As a reminder, here's what he said:
Quote:
 
A countered pelvis can't be maintained while leg steering, because leg steering causes the hips to rotate.  For that reason you can't hold an edge when leg steering either. 
Because of the juxtaposition of the terms "pelvis" and "hips" I made the assumption here that they were referring to the same body part, and that if they weren't the statement would be "A countered pelvis can't be maintained while leg steering, because leg steering causes the femurs to rotate." That would make it obvious that the two phrases are completely independent rather than cause and effect, rending it even more obviously a non sequitur. I assumed that the statement was intending to say that you can't maintain a countered pelvis because leg steering causes the hip bones to rotate (i.e., the pelvis) and since it's rotating, you can't maintain counter. To imply that you can't maintain a countered pelvis because the femurs are rotating below it is nonsensical.
post #63 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick View Post

Lars, are you playing with that question, or serious? 

Rick Rick Rick, you've cut me to the quick.

All this stuff has me looking for a pair of race skis and hitting the Tavern Leagues again. I may even seek out that kid from Buffalo for some coaching tips. But, no stretch suit though.
post #64 of 75
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lars View Post




Rick Rick Rick, you've cut me to the quick.

 

Lars, my knife was in my pocket.  I honestly wasn't sure if you were really asking, or just enjoying a bit of sport with us.  I know in the past you've tended to angulate towards not getting overly technical with it all, and just skiing the Nike way.  Letting your years of experience do its magic.  If you're really interested in digging into the technical and jumping in the gates again I'll help in anyway I can.  
post #65 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by nolo View Post

With all these angels dancing on the head of a pin, let's not forget that, as SkiRacer55 puts it so eloquently,
 


I love the picture of Lindsey Vonn. That's what I call a beautiful demonstration of balance.

I do too . Will ?   She's wiggling past that gate with her upper body while maintaining lower body focus. She's an amazing athlete.
post #66 of 75
Thread Starter 
Quote:

As a reminder, here's what he said:
Because of the juxtaposition of the terms "pelvis" and "hips" I made the assumption here that they were referring to the same body part, and that if they weren't the statement would be "A countered pelvis can't be maintained while leg steering, because leg steering causes the femurs to rotate." That would make it obvious that the two phrases are completely independent rather than cause and effect, rending it even more obviously a non sequitur. I assumed that the statement was intending to say that you can't maintain a countered pelvis because leg steering causes the hip bones to rotate (i.e., the pelvis) and since it's rotating, you can't maintain counter. To imply that you can't maintain a countered pelvis because the femurs are rotating below it is nonsensical.

Yep, Steve, that's what it meant.  You interpreted correctly.     
post #67 of 75
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharpedges View Post




Her pelvic counter is an attempt to prevent leg rotation into the turn -- to not steer.  If she relaxed the counter while retaining that angle, she'd begin steering for a few milliseconds before going splat on injected snow and taking a trip to the medical clinic or the morgue.  

Are you sure?  That would suggest that skiing square (devoid of counter) imposes a rotary force to the ski.  Or perhaps you mean that moving from counter to square is the culprit that creates rotary force.  Are either of those what you believe? 

Do you think there actually might be another reason she's countered?  
post #68 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssh View Post

I called it "hyperbole" because you were clearly exaggerating in an effort to discredit my definition. You said,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Si View Post

I'm afraid that your nomenclature is then contrary to every medical, biomechanical, physiological, and anatomical definition in the world.

The irony here is that I was doing the same thing with my definitions that you profess to be intending. I took the word "hips" from Rick's initial post and read it as the hip bones, not the femurs.

As a reminder, here's what he said:
Because of the juxtaposition of the terms "pelvis" and "hips" I made the assumption here that they were referring to the same body part, and that if they weren't the statement would be "A countered pelvis can't be maintained while leg steering, because leg steering causes the femurs to rotate." That would make it obvious that the two phrases are completely independent rather than cause and effect, rending it even more obviously a non sequitur. I assumed that the statement was intending to say that you can't maintain a countered pelvis because leg steering causes the hip bones to rotate (i.e., the pelvis) and since it's rotating, you can't maintain counter. To imply that you can't maintain a countered pelvis because the femurs are rotating below it is nonsensical.
 

If the postulate that I was trying to prove was that the the use of the term "hip rotation" to refer to both femural rotation in the hip socket and pelvic rotation is confusing then I could best conclude (from a mostly forgotten math background) with Q.E.D. 
post #69 of 75
Well, i've certainly learned some things here. First of all, a technical discussion really can go past page 2 without any arguements, and that mutual respect during thesse discussions goes along way to helping the readers who don't delve into the discussion actually get something they can take to the slope.

I have a sneaking suspicion that Rick had this in mind when he posted this question. Showing that the technical part of this site isn't broken and really doesn't need fixed, just some good input from people in the know.

Not to leave out Steve, i'm glad to see him get his feet wet again. I need a dictionary handy though when I read his posts.
post #70 of 75
So what about Rick's four questions?
post #71 of 75
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by justanotherskipro View Post

So what about Rick's four questions?
 

JASP,  Steve may be right in that we need to start another thread to discuss those.  I think we've pretty well established here in this thread that the pelvis can move in the rotational plane independant of the feet/skis while steering.  I'll now take those questions into a new thread so we can explore how that fact can be exploited to manage the nature of our turns.
post #72 of 75
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lars View Post

Well, i've certainly learned some things here. First of all, a technical discussion really can go past page 2 without any arguements, and that mutual respect during thesse discussions goes along way to helping the readers who don't delve into the discussion actually get something they can take to the slope.

I have a sneaking suspicion that Rick had this in mind when he posted this question. Showing that the technical part of this site isn't broken and really doesn't need fixed, just some good input from people in the know.

 

Yes, Lars, I was hoping that's how this thread would go.  We always need to remember that we have many silent readers trying to digest our words here.  When we can check the egos at the door and shape our comments with the motivation of helping them, Epic shines. 
post #73 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lars View Post

Well, i've certainly learned some things here. First of all, a technical discussion really can go past page 2 without any arguements, and that mutual respect during thesse discussions goes along way to helping the readers who don't delve into the discussion actually get something they can take to the slope.

I have a sneaking suspicion that Rick had this in mind when he posted this question. Showing that the technical part of this site isn't broken and really doesn't need fixed, just some good input from people in the know.

Not to leave out Steve, i'm glad to see him get his feet wet again. I need a dictionary handy though when I read his posts.
That's cool, Lars! BTW, that's the bonus I offer: expand your vocabulary while learning a bit about skiing! With some browser plug-ins and on some operating systems, you can right-click a word and ask for the definition... 
post #74 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssh View Post
 you can right-click 

I smell smoke.  (ssh and SugarCube are the only two who get this one liner)
post #75 of 75


Only in your case, Louie, only in yours. 
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching