or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Negative Movements - Page 3

post #61 of 95
Rusty,

I think your dropping of the inside hand is a great example of what we're talking about here (and one I have at least some experience with relative to myself, family, friends, clinic groups, etc.) When you remind yourself or someone else reminds you about keeping your hands up and forward I'm sure you immediately feel the positive effects and recognize the negative effects dropping that inside hand creates. However, my own humble opinion is that ultimately it takes a focus on more agressive intent, desire, and confidence aimed towards keeping the skis moving down the hill (not turning across the hill, not hanging on to a turn) in order to more permanently change this characteristic. I don't think that adressing the hand specifically will do that very effectively (although it certainly plays a role in a skier learning about the positive effects of keeping it up and forward).

I think that for an advanced skier, the "mind and body" recognize that it is not possible to to keep the flow in bumps or crud if the inside hand is dropped. Thus, I would suggest that one needs to build repetition with focus on intent and visualization (ski a steep crud run without ever turning across the hill, follow Bob's tracks right through a tough mogul run) to more effectively and permanently address this issue.

Note that this doesn't mean you can't ski big round turns in this kind of terrain - only that keeping them pointing down the hill for a while will build the efficient skiing characteristics we're aiming for. Once they're better ingrained, with the resultant confidence, the hand isn't going to drop down very often any more. Also, the comments I made were for a very advanced skier. In the case of a beginner or intermediate there is no doubt that modified approaches would be required.
post #62 of 95
Thread Starter 
I began this thread to inquire about the meaning of the words positive/negative as used by Bob Barnes. It seemed to me that direction was implied by the context in which the words were being used, but apparently I was reading too much into it. (Thanks, Arc.)

I agree that improvement is most likely when ego-protection is not an issue, but at some point we have to say Yes (positive) or No (negative). Back in the day, we used to train M/A by quizzing the student-observer as he/she observed a subject, where the student-observer was just to answer Yes/No to statements such as those on the lists that vera and I shared.

Quite simply, I think M/A is a form of gap-analysis, and skier improvement is a matter of closing those gaps.
post #63 of 95
Two things.

Si,

If we assume that Rusty has largely mastered using his feet to create and shape his turns then addressing something like his hand position will indeed pay great dividends and his concious focus on hand position will correct the problem quicker than just focusing on skiing turns that go more down the hill. In fact if the dropping of the hand is severe enough it will basically prevent the skier from being able to follow someone skiing a more down the hill line. This observation is based on working with hundreds of hand droppers over the years and having to correect this very inefficent move myself.

All,

PSIA came up with a great way to describe what is mechanically happening in a ski turn when they developed the skills concept but basing a teaching system on a mechanical description of what is happening is a very poor way to teach a physical activity. So much of what we observe is the outcome of a movement or blend of movements. We need to teach the input not the outcome.

yd
post #64 of 95
Thread Starter 
ydnar,

Do you think that CenterLine expanded on the Skills Concept in a beneficial way? How about the Common Threads?
post #65 of 95
Si

'So much of what we observe is the outcome of a movement or blend of movements. We need to teach the input not the outcome.'

and yet Franz Klammer says all you need to do is get children to follow a good skier and they will copy as they do in many so things they learn. Do older people lose the ability to copy as their analytical faculties begin to complicate matters? Afterall skiing is as complicated as you want it to be, it is essentially fractal, and yet is it really any more complicated than many of the learning experiences we take for granted like walking, bikes or swimming?

My hunch is that we exacerbate, by building in unrealistic goals in the attempts to process learners, 7 hours to parallel or whatever and the psychological pressures to test their nerves more than their skills.
post #66 of 95
Nolo,

The centerline idea really didn't change the tendency to teach outcomes. It was about this time that PSIA got so enamored with moving the cm into the new turn as the prime move for high level skiing, again an outcome of other moves (releasing the outside foot). It was also about this time that I became very unpopular in PSIA clinics for asking the clinic leader just how I was supposed to move my cm across the skis. None could answer this beyond things like "You just move that sucker across."

By the time the Common Threads idea came along there had been a shift toward looking for the causes of what we were observing rather than emphisizing the outcomes. So things like releasing the outside ski to allow the cm to move across the skis became a 'common thread'. But, I don't think the common thread idea was reaponsible for this change it just came along at the same time that there was something of a paradigm shift toward teaching causes.

The unfortunate fact though is that the vast majority of instructors are still teaching the outcomes. Even more unfortunate is that often it is the senior instructors that are most resistant to changing what they teach so that this teaching of outcomes keeps being passed on to new instructors.

yd
post #67 of 95
Quote:
Originally posted by ydnar:
[QB] Two things.

Si,

If we assume that Rusty has largely mastered using his feet to create and shape his turns then addressing something like his hand position will indeed pay great dividends and his concious focus on hand position will correct the problem quicker than just focusing on skiing turns that go more down the hill. In fact if the dropping of the hand is severe enough it will basically prevent the skier from being able to follow someone skiing a more down the hill line. This observation is based on working with hundreds of hand droppers over the years and having to correect this very inefficent move myself.
Si,

Ydnar is right on the money. I will also add the issue becomes much more acute as terrain steepens, as snow conditions worsen, or as my skis approach 90 degrees to the gravity line.

As
post #68 of 95
Oh & I am one of those children that did NOT learn from copying - I wish just ONE of the stupid teachers/coaches etc I had as a child had thought to teach me in a different manner when the copy thing did not work.... I would have had a very different life if I had ever been able to get just ONE movement pattern from them....
post #69 of 95
daslider: Do older people lose the ability to copy as their analytical faculties begin to complicate matters? Afterall skiing is as complicated as you want it to be, it is essentially fractal, and yet is it really any more complicated than many of the learning experiences we take for granted like walking, bikes or swimming?

In contrast to disski, everything I learned about skiing was from copying others (and reading, of course). I only received instruction at the ESA, so I believe that adults are more than capable of learning that way.
post #70 of 95
Quote:
The unfortunate fact though is that the vast majority of instructors are still teaching the outcomes. Even more unfortunate is that often it is the senior instructors that are most resistant to changing what they teach so that this teaching of outcomes keeps being passed on to new instructors.
I've had such lessons, outcomes not causes... frustrating. I think that's a factor in why Harb started his PMTS... that and a few other things that I won't trot out here for fear of conflagration.
post #71 of 95
Quote:
Originally posted by daslider:
Do older people lose the ability to copy as their analytical faculties begin to complicate matters? .
I wrote answer to this yesterday but it seems to have gone missing...

No - but childrens brains are more adaptable & better engaged in learning generally...

Check out how much a baby's head increases in size in the first year of life (I think about 60% or so) ... all that is due to brain growth - they are growing brain & making connections FLAT OUT...
Children are still doing so...
Adults can too - but often chose paths that are "comfortable" ... ie those intellectual types avoid the physical challenges & tyhe "sport jock" types avoid learning much beyond the stats of their particular passion....
Forcing yourself to learn things OUT of that comfort area is protective against senility etc in older age... you make your brain develop new pathways...

From my viewpoint it comes down to this.....
The trick with s is to teach to their strength (use their preferred learning pattern) but to then extend that learning into their other learning pathways... (eg Ydnar asking HOW to move CM... for those that do it is easy - but note their inability to describe HOW they do what THEY DO... )
post #72 of 95
Yd and Rusty,

1) I wasn't trying in anyway to specifically address Rusty's skiing or claim I know something you guys don't. I do, however, have a different perspective then either of you seems to have.

2) Yd, I mean no disrepect to the experience gained in working with hundreds of hand droppers.

I have not said that specifically addressing hand dropping is a bad thing. In fact I think it is critical in order for someone to be aware of consequences of this action and the (specific and global) effects of correcting it. But I think Rusty's comments about where and when this "negative" movement tends to appear just confirms to me that just a correction of hand movement will not work most effectively to make a permanent advancement.

Contrary to Yd's substantial experience, my personal experience, more limited experience with others, and intuition tell me that correcting a dropped hand helps to correct things for the moment but doesn't lead me to the kind of transformation I am pursuing in my skiing.

Basically I think we have a chicken or egg argument - that is, should we correct the technical movement and have that lead to improved confidence so that the hand isn't dropped anymore, or, have a skier work directly to change their perceptions so that they don't react by dropping their hand.

I certainly think that a mixture of both are needed. However, it is my belief that at all stages of instruction too much relative emphasis is placed on the "corrections" vs. "perceptual transformation." At least for myself I have, for the most part, abandoned formal instruction as the time spent on "corrections" did not take me where I wanted to go very effectively. In talking with other skiers (especially advanced skiers) I have found that some others feel similarly.
post #73 of 95
Si,

There is a point floating around here that came clear to me while reading youjr last post, it ties into what separates an ok instructor from a great one.

Great instructors are able to recognize when something like hand dropping in an outcome of someone trying to turn but not having the basic skills to do so under the circumstances they are skiing in and when that hand dropping has become the problem that is holding the student back. There is a fine line between these two states and I beleave that the ability to recognize the difference is one of those things you really can't teach to a new instructor. It takes many years of experience to sense which it is and even then you can be wrong.

yd

ps. Rusty, you asked for a tip in the post that got clipped and my reply was clipped also. I'll repost my suggestions later.
post #74 of 95
Disski says that children are more agdaptive, more open to learning. Why would that be? SI says that adults can copy or mimic, that we are still capable of learning new movement patterns. Aren't both of these true? Ydnar says we need years of experience to become insightfull coaches.

Somethng that I think needs to be considered, is the way the brain categorizes the sensory input it recieves. Hanaford lays out a very good science that detaild how our brain uses emotions as the filing system to categorize our bodies sensory input and keep it referenced for future use. Hanaford says "Episodic memories have an added emotional component which appears nessesary for complex memroy developement". She says further, "memory appears to be a free form information system that facilitates information retrieval from all brain areas instantly and simultaneously. Therefore, in order to most efficiently remember something, it is best to connect it to a sensory, emotional, and physical episode".

When I think about this simply as patterns in my brain, it's not hard to see how my patterns are more developed than a childs, and explains why certain patterns carry emotions that create obstacles to my learning and developing new patterns. So when we talk about our comfort zone, aren't we really talking about episodic memories that have positive emotions atached to them. Which tells me that in order to learn and develope new more efficient patterns, I need to address the emotions attached to certain sensory input or my body might react in reflexive way, protective way.

This is really the CAP model but with a twist. The twist being that if all our memories of sensory input have emotions attached to them, then this emotion needs to be reprogramed along with the choreography. That with every movement there is an attached emotion. And simply getting someone to move a little differently may not change the emotion attached to certain sensory inputs, like the vestibuar disturbances and the feel of the forces acting on us.

Ydnar, my question is why should it take years of experience to learn the insight into this enviroment? Why not introduce and study it from the begining? I for one think SI has a valid point. Along with a new movement pattern and physical context needs to come a new emotion or the memory retrieval reference might stay the same. Just some thoughts in the interest of dissucion. Later, Ric.
post #75 of 95
Very interesting contribution Ric. I would like to try and clarify one point. It is true that I think that "adults can copy or mimic, that we are still capable of learning new movement patterns" as you say but this is not always the key aspect of following someone.

I think the main reason I brought it up relates more to the "emotional" content you refer to. For an advance skier to follow an even better skier a number of things happen. There is commitment, trust, belief, and many other things that can occur in following someone. For the advanced skier to follow the "expert" the commitment to the next turn must come without hesitation - there can be no hanging on to the old turn in any way (droppping a hand, riding the outside ski, or any other "negative" movement) if one is to follow an expert whose skiing extensively flows from intent. So, as long as a skier has the ability to execute the requisite movement patterns, the additon of this type of content into the skiing results in a very special transformation. Sometimes even new movement patterns can be discovered in this type of environemnt, beyond a skier's existing repetoire.

While this example relates to pretty advanced skiers, there are analagous environments for every level. I recently had my 61 year old brother (a beginner) find similar transformation when he was able to connect 2 turns on a blue/green bump run. In doing this he was able to execute movement patterns beyond what he had previously performed on the groomed, analogous to what I described for the advanced skier.
post #76 of 95
Quote:
Originally posted by Si:
For an advance skier to follow an even better skier a number of things happen. There is commitment, trust, belief, and many other things that can occur in following someone. For the advanced skier to follow the "expert" the commitment to the next turn must come without hesitation - there can be no hanging on to the old turn in any way (droppping a hand, riding the outside ski, or any other "negative" movement) if one is to follow an expert whose skiing extensively flows from intent. So, as long as a skier has the ability to execute the requisite movement patterns, the additon of this type of content into the skiing results in a very special transformation. Sometimes even new movement patterns can be discovered in this type of environemnt, beyond a skier's existing repetoire.
[/QB]
Si,

An advanced skier can follow an expert and if the "student" is a good mimic change MAY occur.

It only works with a visual learner and even then it doesn't guarantee change or improvement.

I would argue more really lousy " just follow me" lessons are given by ski instructors who are poor teachers and it is this type of lesson that results in the most complaints at ski school desks.

Again, I will use this tactic, however, I am always exceedingly careful to consider the efficacy of the exercise prior to taking off down a hill with a student in tow.
post #77 of 95
As a beginning skier, I find it very helpful to follow a good skier. When I'm struggling to ski a hill with any style or grace, I look for an opportunity to jump in behind someone who knows what they're doing. I can get down the mountain much faster that way, and feel much more in control. If I don't have to worry about picking a line -- if I see someone ski a line smoothly and quickly without getting beat up and thrown around -- I am much more confident, which, for me, means my weight is more forward, where it's supposed to be. I have more time to think about the mechanics of turning if I'm not afraid of the hill.
post #78 of 95
hope you don't ever jump behind my instructor.... that tends to leave you stuck in tree tops ... I KNOW - it happpened to me (tree tops above a creek even)... & he knew I was behind him.... it gets worse when he is alone & heading back to ski school...
post #79 of 95
Well, aren't we really talking tactics here, and how tactics affect technique, and play into our established movement patterns? So if I'm following someone, I'm really just having the decisions of where to ski removed, and if the need for a decision of where to ski to is removed, then we're freed temporarily from decision of which already established pattern to use, and maybe this allows us to focus on how to ski the line we're following. I've removed the "hesitation". I think this is what helps us deal with the emotional context related to our skiing, and trying something new, terrain or technique.

Personaly, I teach tactics alot, and do this through follow me alot also, but the caveat Rusty brings up needs addressing. Follow me needs to be tied to the techniques we are working on and what the effects of the chosen line are as they relate to turn shape, speed, and technique. Of course you always want to be giving the students more string, so to speak, slowly adding those positive emotions to the movement patterns, so they end up with new "episodic memories" and self sufficiency.

I find it works with all learners if you make the effort to relate it to them in their learning style. We're all on skis skiing the same terrain.
Later, Ric.
post #80 of 95
Ric B,
Sounds like a well-balanced approach. I never intented to suggest this is the only or best way to learn, only to question the balance between the specific teaching of movements and the use of terrain, tactics, and/or follow-me (where intent is implicitly more emphasized). Looking at the discussion here at Epic and what I observe on the slopes it seemed to me that the balance is too heavily weighted towards the analysis and specific teaching of movements.
post #81 of 95
Quote:
Originally posted by Colossus178:
As a beginning skier, I find it very helpful to follow a good skier. When I'm struggling to ski a hill with any style or grace, I look for an opportunity to jump in behind someone who knows what they're doing. I can get down the mountain much faster that way, and feel much more in control. If I don't have to worry about picking a line -- if I see someone ski a line smoothly and quickly without getting beat up and thrown around -- I am much more confident, which, for me, means my weight is more forward, where it's supposed to be. I have more time to think about the mechanics of turning if I'm not afraid of the hill.
I would argue that in the situation you have described a good teacher would see the difficulty you are having or have discussed it with you and picked terrain where mechanics could be worked on without pitch or conditions being an issue.

If, on the other hand, you wanted to ski something a little more difficult, and articulated a desire to follow someone's line for the reasons you cite, that's another matter.

It's all about communication between teacher and student. I just know "follow me" is abused and an easy out.
post #82 of 95
" Looking at the discussion here at Epic and what I observe on the slopes it seemed to me that the balance is too heavily weighted towards the analysis and specific teaching of movements."

SI, maybe it has to do with this being cyberspace, I don't kmow, but I agree with you. Unless we can apply our technique to real world tactics that serve our intent, then the lesson may end up lacking. Rare is the student that will ski for the first time, down terrain that is at the upper end of their comfort zone. Nope. Usually they want want to first see how a chosen line, turn style, and turn shape come together tacticly to achieve the intent. Later, Ric.
post #83 of 95
Thread Starter 
I suppose it all depends on who's doing the leading, eh?
post #84 of 95
And of course - Who's doing the following!
post #85 of 95
I can certainly see how the "follow me" approach could fail miserably, but I think it has its place. In this nonprofessionals opinion, a great instructor makes use of all of these teaching methodologies, changing gears as necessary to meet the needs of the student. I also think it paints too broad of a picture to label a student as someone who learns from mimicing. We all learn many different ways and the key is to find which works best in a given circumstance. I know that I learn well from mimicing sometimes, and in other instances I do not.

I worked with an instructor (level 3) this winter who integrated these methodologies very well in my opinion. Sometimes we would do drills working on specific movements and sometimes we would do "follow me". Many times I could replicate the movements that she was performing and other times I was not. The key was that she was able to determine when I was struggling, and went with a different approach. I will say that we finished every lesson playing "follow me" by taking turns leading and with me getting feedback on the chair after I led. It provided a great ending to a typically great lesson.
post #86 of 95
Thread Starter 
For me, the thing about following a good skier is "learning by osmosis" -- bypass thinking and go straight to feeling, which I think is Si's point--you can think and talk through a great turn, but can you do and feel it?

Additionally, when I am following a good skier, I am not processing the image (which would be thinking, now, wouldn't it?) so much as experiencing the feelings here and now. It's learning in action and it certainly has its place with doer/feelers like myself.
post #87 of 95
Personaly I am not sold on the "follow me" concept, except for terrain selection tactics.

When I learn from watching others, I need far more input than "follow me" allows. For learning purposes, I would much rather see video of others and myself than ski behind somebody.
post #88 of 95
Nolo

I understand what your saying and am in general agreement with allowing yourself to feel the movements that your replicating. I think, however, that the disconnect in this situation arises when the "following" skier is unable to identify the subtle movements that are often times seamless when watching/following a gifted skier. As a result they are unable to mimic and experience the feelings of the correct or intended movements.
post #89 of 95
Excellent point Coach,

'..when the "following" skier is unable to identify the subtle movements that are often times seamless when watching/following a gifted skier..'

such skiers make it look effortless, which is fairly unhelpful!
post #90 of 95
Quote:
Originally posted by Ric B:
Along with a new movement pattern and physical context needs to come a new emotion or the memory retrieval reference might stay the same.
Here's my take on this. ( Warning, could be rubbish, and is really a sidebar.)

Ric B may have just stated the reason why "follow me" works for adults when the adult is following, but fails to make real lasting changes:

Once the leader is removed, the key part of the reference use to retrieve the memory is gone.

For children it is a different matter, as I suspect their memories are less sophisticated, and not so focussed on remembering precisely what the leader did. Kids don't cloud their recollection with irrelevant memories.

I suggest that kids are more likely to remember what is happening to them *physically* when they follow. This rememberance is of pure sensation and so is proprioceptive. That is why changes are more lasting. Looks like Klammer may have a very very good point!

Now back to the main topic...

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