or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Video for your Critique

post #1 of 18
Thread Starter 
This is a clip of 3 separate "runs" all on medium to steep pitches, in knee to waist deep Utah Snow.

Have at it.

Video Clip

Better quality? Video Clip

[ February 11, 2004, 02:05 PM: Message edited by: dchan ]
post #2 of 18

(closing eyes and dreaming) Looks more like boot deep to me, but still a ton of fun.

The first impression is that there is a lot of good things to talk about. Nice rhythm, good speed control, ok roundness to the turns, hands are level with a little up move to help get the tips out of the snow, legs closer together ok for powder. And excellent discretion on avoiding the treelet straddle (that coulda hurt)! These kinds of turns need no "fixing" for recreational skiing.

To work on making good turns better... (and this is being real picky)... It looks like the weight is back a bit at turn initiation (in order to help the ski tips come up?). A suggestion would be to try to get the tips to rebound off the bottom layer of snow and use pulling the toes up instead of sitting the butt back. You can see the skis get knocked around occaisonally and some stepping in a couple of bobbles. I think this is a result of getting back and some banking on the left turns. On the left turns you can see little more pop up (instead of forward) at initiation that is leading to the banking. An improvement goal would be to work on rounding the upper half of the turns more. One thing that will help this is focusing on getting the pitch of the shoulders to better match the pitch of the slope. Another thing that may help is steering the feet a little less and using a tiny bit more edging instead.

Just my humble opinion. Hope it helps?
post #3 of 18
Thread Starter 
Originally posted by therusty:

(closing eyes and dreaming) Looks more like boot deep to me, but still a ton of fun.
in knee to waist deep Utah Snow.
This observation is from actually pushing my pole down while trying to move. Actual "sink" depth with skis on is probably about ankle deep.
post #4 of 18
I'm going to get blasted for saying this, but I'll say it anyway..

The hand position might be technically correct, but it looks "feminine"... no other way to describe it. The dainty little reverse poleplants just look funny to me. It all looks very retro compared to some of the other skiers you recorded on some of the other clips.

I usually try to be "elbows out" as opposed to hands out, with hands in an athletic position (not out in front of me, not at my sides either).

The footwork looks a little retro too, but its hard to fault it. He/she looks really smooth, I wish I was that smooth.
post #5 of 18
The camera work is nice and steady but the video is kind of contrasty and colorless for a sunny day.

The snow looks mighty fine though.

Oh yeah, the turns look good too.
post #6 of 18
I don't have an issue with the hands, although I do find them a little too far out relative to the elbows.

The skiing is really smooth and nice. It may be little retro, but for powder it is real nice. The problem with the retro approach shows up in more funky terrain. Form breaks down a little and the very narrow stance is thrown off by crud. On the other hand, I also skied those conditions in Snowbird, so I can attest that the powder was a little heavy and the crud could throw you around.

Bottom line: outstanding skiing. Not as good as a top pro, but then I am comparing to the cream of the crop. I would be damn proud to ski like that, nevertheless.

If there is anything I "don't like" about the skiing is that it does not look powerful. Matter has referred to it as feminine, but that is not at all what I mean. When I think powerful skiing I tend to think about Arcmeister's approach to skiing. The man looks almost the same on groomed, powder, steep or crud. That translates to a powerful skiing style that disregards the conditions and trusts the technique in all situations. I think this skier can attain such skiing and should strive for it.
post #7 of 18
DCHAN's reply raises an interesting question: is there an accepted definition for how to measure "(fill in the body part name) deep snow"?

I've always referred to knee deep/waist deep/neck deep as relative to where one floats while skiing in the snow, going straight at a comfortable speed (or almost an average depth when skiing 3 dimensionally in the snow). So knee deep for me could be waist deep for a child. But for adults, knee deep seems descriptive enough within a fairly wide range of body heights, to be distinct from boot deep or waist deep.

One might ask why not just say what the snow depth is, but this does not describe the skiing experience. The skiing experience depends on the texture of the snow pack. 12 inches of fresh pow is boot deep if it's sitting on a packed snow base, but would be waist deep if it fell on top of 24 inches of unsettled snow. But at some point the moisture content of unsettled snow creates a "bottomless" phenomena where a ski won't sink through to a packed hard snow surface. So it does not really matter how far you can push a pole into the snow (unless you are a snowboarder that needs to walk across a flat section) or what the total depth of the snowpack is.

The distinction is somewhat important in that there are distinct adaptations one must make that are different between boot deep, knee deep, waist deep, neck/snorkel deep and (if you're lucky enough) bottomless.
post #8 of 18
Thanks for all the great feedback so far!

I've a few thoughts of my own, but hoping a shameless bump back to the top might get a few more comments first...
post #9 of 18
There used to be a time when instructors gave some pointers to the occasional videos on this forum. Sadly that is not the case anymore.

cgeib, I am still impressed with your skiing. Very smooth. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]
post #10 of 18
The problem with critiquing powder skiing is that the average person see little of it in his skiing career. Lets see, I think this person grew up skiing on mole hills and could open up the turns sizes a bit. Use a little more cross over than cross under technique to increase that cool floating, magic carpet feel. Seem like I have skied with this skier before and if I am correct, he made drastic improvements in his skiing since the last time I skied with him. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ February 13, 2004, 06:14 AM: Message edited by: Pierre ]
post #11 of 18
on a side note about snow depth...if we judge it by how much the skier sinks, won't that be drastically affected by ski width (say dchan's 65s v a standard tgr forum member's 90s) and by skiing speed (waterskiing effect)?

I thought it may be best to judge by how much you sink when not wearing skis ('coz measuring it just by pushing down the pole may lead to interesting results, such as 'we usually ski in neck-deep powder').

This could also have the benefit of launching a new way of measuring snow depth, e.g. "15 minute snow" (as in "took my skis off, sank down and spent 15 minutes trying to get out of the snow to put my skis back on again")
post #12 of 18
Thank you all for the pointers and observations!

therusty: Yep, I was back, but not to get the tips to come up. First run in those conditions on those skis and I was trying figure them out ...the top half of the run where the vids start, I got a little forward and they would really engage. I think I got a bit more centered and figured the edge angle a bit better as the day went on! I agree the top of the turns needs more work as well as matching the pitch. I'm working on dialing the steering back...old habits die hard!

Matter: Well, what can I say ... I'll eat more spinach! Seriously though, I'll work on the pole plants, and, like I commented above, dialing the steering back a bit.

TomB: Narrow stance is my big issue ...I only practiced it for 30 years! It always comes back when I get lazy with the inside leg; if I keep it active then my stance works, if not I'm rubbing boots. And you're right, those conditions did hold some surprises hidden underneath. I agree with your comments about power and Arc. I wasn't driving those turns and the conditions would have had less impact if I'd have committed to the turns and trusted the technique and skis. Thank you for the encouragement!

Pierre: Mole hills! Isn't that a bit of stretch? You wouldn't want to mislead people into thinking we actually have any sort of elevation here When I was growing up they were teaching me to Wedel, so I think I have opened my turns up quite a bit [img]tongue.gif[/img] On a more serious note, yes, I agree both on opening the turns a bit and on cross over ...was yesterday any better?

Thanks again for the input!

post #13 of 18
I just downloaded the video. All I got was "sweeet" and a black screen. I kinda wanted to see your skiing...
post #14 of 18
cgeib said:
On a more serious note, yes, I agree both on opening the turns a bit and on cross over ...was yesterday any better?
Sorry for seeing this comment a few days to late. When skiing with you on Sunday I was a bit suprised by you're skiing. The last time I skied with you I saw many upper body movements that resulted in various jerky motions. I saw little of that on Sunday.

What I did see was a style and smoothness that went very well with a very narrow stance. Many a skier would look at you're style and say "that is the way that I want to ski". Narrow stances done well are very stylish. Along with the fact that you can ski everything in comfort I choose not to say anything to you about changing you're stance. You can continue to refine the narrow stance that you have and still make progress.

Opening up you're stance opens the door to very different movement patterns than what you are currently doing. Its an addition to what you already have. You will lose nothing because you will always own the movement patterns you already have. We have discussed many of those movement patterns at length in recent threads.

The changes that can take place in a wider stance are really eye opening and fantastic. The down side is that the movement patterns are very different and therefore difficult to make the switch over. For that reason a wide stance requires a substantial mind change and commitment.

Right now you are a poster child for PMTS. I am not sure as a non instructor that I would be so inclined to jump onto that wide stance band wagon if I had the refinement in narrow style that you already have. You have far less incentive for change because of the level that you have already achieved.

The only reason for change would be if you are bored and want to open a door as strange as Dorothy did on the Wizard of Oz when she first stepped out into munskin land. Just expect the same commitment that poor ol' Dorothy was faced with.

There is no reason you cannot contiue to refine what you have. [img]smile.gif[/img]
post #15 of 18

I don't know what causes that? I've been able to bring down all the vids dchan has posted, with the exception of aschir01's...I get the same black screen you got when I bring those down, and I've tried at least 3 times.

Maybe dchan or another guru has an idea or can make a suggestion.
post #16 of 18
Thread Starter 
usually the reason for a black screen is an incomplete download (corrupt file) or incompatable file format. because I don't create all the videos I don't always check the file format before they get posted. (even when I post them)
What OS and Viewer are you using and what version. If you are using Windows media viewer/player, make sure you have the latest codec's

post #17 of 18

Thanks! Downloading a new update/upgrade got it to work for me.
post #18 of 18

Interesting! Thank you for the comments. Hmmm...not sure I agree (or at least follow)100%. Maybe I can get some video when I'm out this weekend to see if I can spot the same things you do. I'll probably keep venturing through the door to Dorothy's world just cause it's fun and I enjoy learning.

I'll keep working on that stance!

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