or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

A note for my on-line pals - Page 3

post #61 of 167
Thread Starter 

I think that's the best thing that I've heard in a long time. Now the question is, will it happen. There's no doubt in my mind and I think in the most conservative of minds, that changes are needed. If we're talking about the PSIA, it's also clear to me that big changes are needed here too. And, it could very well be that the organization we see today is not the organization that we'll see tomorrow. If that's the case and we're all better off, great. I for one wonder how they can maintain as a non-profit. If I was in charge, I'd take a serious look at becoming a for-profit organization. Why not?

Sometimes I get the feeling that some people think ski instruction is absolved from change -- that changes don't apply here. This makes my blood boil.
post #62 of 167
Thread Starter 

I just think that the entire teaching system needs an overhaul. There doesn't seem to be any cohesion.

Like what LisaMarie offered. It's time to do the research and put together a teaching program that reflects what's been happening in these past few years. If someone like brand x has been successful, learn from them.

Said it before, say it again. Ski instruction should be productized.
post #63 of 167

not sure what you mean by "productized." made uniform? it seems fairly productized to me as it is.
post #64 of 167
feeling a bit confrontational....

SCSA, I think, that although your demeanor has been quite a welcome change lately, you may be in need of another SLAP. Where do get your background and inside knowledge of PSIA to be so sure that they need this drastic overhaul? Also, becoming a for-profit company is the LAST thing they should do. It would result in the epitome of conflict-of-interest. Could you imagine the backlash when people go to exams and don't pass? It's bad enough, as it is, when people go to exams unprepared, so even the thought of someone not passing an exam so that they would have to pay to attend another exam is exactly what is tyring to be avoided. There are a lot of instructors out there that already bitch and complain about the cost of dues and events, thinking that PSIA must be a cash cow and raking in huge profits for its executives. (FYI, dues and event fees are actually VERY inexpensive). While you're at it, why not suggest we go public, so that we could answer to share holders as opposed to the members?

You do not know PSIA's internal workings, the thoughts of the people that make up PSIA, or for that matter, any other ski instructor or ski school student that has ever existed. You only know what you know. You don't know what you don't know. Don't claim to know what you don't know because of some anecdotal evidence that you heard through some source that you can't recollect.
PSIA is a well run organization, and, I truly believe, does the job they signed up for, very efficiently and effectively. They provide a great service to the membership. And while progressions and methods of teaching skiing may be debatable, that does not mean that the way the organization does business is flawed.

PSIA is an organization of 28,000 members, and ski instruction is a living animal. For changes to be made in manuals and in practice throughout an organization this size, it takes time. If you knew what PSIA was about (an organization which trains and certifies instructors at the art of teaching a complex sport to human beings), and understood that the "jist" behind ATS is not to be a methodical series of steps by which a person learns to ski, but rather a method by which one teaches individuals to ski through proper understanding, communication and known milestones by which progress can be measured, you might understand that PSIA, and the ATS that they have created, work exceedingly well at getting the masses to be able to safely make turns while sliding down a snow covered hill with a smile on their face.

I can't imagine what "big changes" you think need to be made. You stated "Like what LisaMarie offered. It's time to do the research and put together a teaching program that reflects what's been happening in these past few years.". I didn't see anything like that in LM's last post, but I'll state again, that PSIA and the ATS do NOT put together teaching programs. ATS is a system (that's what the "S" stands for) for communication and teaching. It is not a progression or a teaching program. That's why PSIA members have such a problem with Brand-X. His so called "system" is nothing more than a progression. All ski instructors have a whole book of progressions in their heads, to use as needed, to be able to teach any human being (not just a hypothetical best case) any particular skill or movement pattern that they wish to learn, or the instructor feels would benefit the student. ATS provides knowledge into understanding HOW to communicate to students through sight, feel, action, or words. To be able to understand how people learn. To be able to understand whether the student is grasping what you are teaching, and is learning. To be able to understand and act on that feedback. To be able to use MANY different styles of teaching the student to use the tools they are given more effectively. To make sure the student is safe and aware of their surroundings so that they don't get hurt.

THIS is what PSIA is about. As an active member for 18 years, who probably knows a bit more about the organization than you, I submit that it does not, by any stretch of the imagination, need some sort of "major overhaul".

**end rant**

**Due to the power shortage, the light at the end of the tunnel will be turned off indefinitely.
post #65 of 167
I, for one, do not want everyone to become instantly great skiers. It would only bog down the runs I like to ski that much more.
my $.03

Deep yogic breaths...
post #66 of 167
Before I respond, please forgive me, but I need to do a one sentence vent about something that is totally unrelated to this topic: MICRO MANAGERS S*CK!!!!!!
Thanks! I'm just so ticked off that my creativity is stifled. Now I can write.

Ryan: The quote is about whatever you'd like it to be. Given the age that I learned to ski, I like the line "Time makes you bolder", but the rest of that line makes me cry so I won't write it.

Regarding PSIA, the woman who is trying to work in that direction has said that she believes that "taking the best practices of many theories is superior to competing theories."

I think that problems arise when methodologies in any field engage in competition bashing. True, its an excellent marketing tool. But is it really? From a student's perspective, who really gains if all we are presented with is alot of name calling? I've studied with 4 of the major Pilates certifying bodies. I use things from all of them. Sometimes, I will even create a version of the exercise that I feel is more suitable for my student population.
IMHO, once you get "married" to a brand name, your learning becomes stunted.

Then I saw my reflection in a snow covered hill...

Be Braver in your body, or your luck will leave you. DH Lawrence
post #67 of 167
Thread Starter 
John H,

You couldn't have found a better guy to confront. Here we go...

First of all, get off of your horse. I'm tired of hearing you say, "You're a nicer SCSA now, but you're still not quite nice enough, SCSA, and you still need some work.." Blah blah blah...

The problem that I see is that too many do pass the exams - most of whom are only in it to get the pro discount, the pin, and the glory! C'mon, admit it. Ask 10 Level 1 instructors on the side and they'll admit it. They're in it for; the pin, the discounts, and the bragging rights. The slopes are littered with shi**y instructors! So who's to blame?

Then, if ski instruction is so great, how come there's so many crappy skiers?

You hold on to this PSIA thang like an old flame.

I could care less how big this thing is or how long they've been around. No one is above criticism.

Aren't you the one who steadfastly claimed that brand x isn't a teaching system? And then, you tell me I'm clueless? Yeah, right.
post #68 of 167

As someone stated, SCSA has a history of PSIA bashing. I glanced at your profile and note you registered in June. Please take a look at some earlier posts and I think you'll understand.

I will say SCSA's demeanor has improved, however, I had to comment when he began spouting PSIA teaching methodologies when I felt he has little exposure to "our" system.

Again, I consider myself to be a friend of the guy and like him. I also applaud the shift he has made to a kinder/gentler SCSA. I simply had to surface when I felt he had made an error.

This whole place is about discussion. It is not about bashing.
post #69 of 167
John H,

Great post.


How come there are so many "crappy skiers"? You have said many things that I didn't agree with or like but this one takes the cake. Think for a second about what you have said. Perhaps they are new to the sport. Perhaps their uncle taught them to ski. Perhaps they are only "crappy" in your mind. Go to the average public golf course next Saturday morning. Is the range of talent that one would see the result of the PGA. The "A" stands for ASSOCIATION.

Why do you continue to criticize? The more applicable question is why do we engage you?
We ought to all consider ourselves foolish.

YOU HAVE DEMONSTRATED ONLY SCANT EXPOSURE TO ATM. Hence, how the heck do you think you are capable/qualified to offer criticism?

What is wrong with you? Did a PSIA member yell at you when you were a child?

I'm a lousy tennis player. Who's fault is that?
post #70 of 167
You might be far more persuasive if you talked about -what- you think the experience should be rather than what the organization should do.
It's not necessarily a problem with psia as we've talked about. Certainly psia could use some changes, esp. in the east. But that's sort of a different story...
post #71 of 167
Way to go dchan

Good comments in your post this morning about PSIA, ATS and instructors on the hill. I find it humorous that many people imagine PSIA to be a group of mirror-image automatons who all do the same thing on the hill. Not once have I been with a group of instructors who interpret anything the same.

Which brings us one of the reasons for PSIA's inception; standardization. An attempt to give the public a consistent product nationwide.

It's like DIN standard boots and bindings, or the four-hole snowboard binding. Sure they all fit together, but there are still alot of different kinds out there to choose from...and it wasn't better before.

I have experienced PSIA as an organization there to help instructors develop the skills and knowledge to be independent rather than dependent. Any organization is a collection of individuals. The good and bad always come together.


I have looked into some of the previous postings and am somewhat aware of SCSA's reputation/demeanor. It is quite obvious he has had little exposure to PSIA's concepts. To me it sounds like he may be just repeating 'someone else's' point of view without having done the reasearch himself.

On the other hand, he may have taken a look and misinterpreted it. It is hard to tell. Another possibility is that seeing PSIA guys get their panties in a bunch is his reward. As long as he gets rewarded the behavior will be repeated.

Trying to make someone change their mind is guaranteed frustration. I too dislike seeing PSIA bashed and belittled. It is difficult sometimes not to take it personally since I am a member. If they say PSIA sucks, they might be saying I suck. This is something all of us have dealt with since we started.

I choose to view each event as an opportunity to offer information which people may use to educate themselves further. I recognize they are free not to even if it is to their own detriment. That just isn't my responsibility.

One thing I try to remember, particularly when people are trying to be insulting is this...

Ultimately their actions reflect upon them to a greater degree than those they are insulting.

<FONT size="1">

[This message has been edited by Roto (edited June 27, 2001).]</FONT>
post #72 of 167

Boy this is amusing as ever, again, still.

I am very glad that I am involved in both PMTS and, well I'm going to call it ATS, becsuse I am actually one of those folks that has been certified by my resort, and that's what actually got me up the ladder.

As a prodigal returning member of the PSIA, my situation was a little different. There is a general consensus that I should be recert, but at what level?

Level I would be O.K. but a little silly (I would feel that it was a waste of money). Level II is more reasonable, though I am considered Level III at the resort I teach at.

This did not get resolved, this year, but I did not push it. Through the season, I kept learning and playing with PMTS methods. Clinics from PSIA/ATS (tts) trainers.

I honestly got more out of my involvement with PMTS than anything else this year. For my personal training, and teaching.

PSIA is more of a club-like organization, and PMTS is more of a system or method.

Being trained and involved in BOTH is pretty eye-opening. It's not straddling the fence, either.

It's about being a sponge, and ALWAYS learning...

Crappy skiers are having fun! Let 'em. Now just convince them that they can have a lot more fun, well, then I'll be booked solid.

There are some very interesting things that happen when you blend the ATS/PSIA perspective, and the PMTS methods. I like being there.

While there is some crossover, I think they are different enough in focus. Sticking to the PMTS system while I am teaching gives great results. But being in the PSIA is still very valuable, if nothing else, as a professional yardstick.

Being a Microsoft MCSE, can't I get cert from SUN or Novell, or even Apple? Why should this be any different?

¯¯¯/__ SnoKarver <A HREF="http://communities.msn.com/SnoKarver

" TARGET=_blank>http://communities.msn.com/SnoKarver

post #73 of 167

"Banking" refers the action of tipping the whole body as a way to get the ski onto edge. Otherwise known as Whole Body Angle, or Leaning(In).

The tipping(edging) of the ski can be effected in a number of ways.

Other edging movements besides banking are described in the "Skills Concept", which is part of the American Teaching System.

The Skills Concept consists of four categories of body movements which are utilized while skiing.

"Edging Movements" is one such category. Banking is one such movement, but is generally used to describe an ineffective movement which tends to get skiers out of balance.

Your comment about brandx having "one way and one solution for every problem" is interesting. It sounds simplistic. Obviously, it seemed to work for you.

In comparison, The American Teaching System presents a Skiing Model which helps instructors understand cause and effect relationships in skiing.

ATS also presents a Teaching Model which helps instructors utilize the skiing portion of their professional knowledge to help a variety of people in a variety of situations.

I have found skiing to be a sport of such a dynamic nature I am rarely presented with identical teaching situations, much less identical skiers to work with.

The skiing and teaching models were not pulled out of thin air. They go all the way back through skiing history. Though they were formulated and published in the late 1980's and early 1990's, they reflect what good skiing and good teaching have been since before PSIA even existed. Skiing has changed immensely since the last manual came out.

Good luck on your search for education

When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro...
post #74 of 167


Why come down hard on somebody for giving you their interpretation of PSIA's stuff? Isn't it an
opportunity to 'check for understanding?' I find the impression that PSIA advocates moving with the
uphill ski first quite logical. Granted, no National or Divisional educators are actively coaching it
anymore and neither are the best instructors(a lot of TD's are), but you can still find it all over the
place in our written material.



I must be bored because I just glanced through a 1996 copy of the Alpine manual and can find no mention of weight transfer to initiate a turn. I will say I didn't read the text cover to cover and will say I could be mistaken. I simply read the portions describing wedge turns and wedge-christie turns. I think Bob B says it best and I doubt he will object to me quoting from his book. Bob states, "While a weight transfer happens in almost all turns, it's role in skiing is widely misunderstood." Bob goes on to add later and I think this is the most salient fact,"So,weight transfer is a natural result of turning"

Please correct me if I'm wrong but I don't know of any section of the Alpine manual that describes a turn being initiated by active weight transfer much less "all over the place" as you describe.

I have to be honest, I cringe when I hear teachers telling new students to actively transfer weight to initiate or to continue/control a turn.I will say I am merely a level I cert, however, I take my new vocation seriously and have studied carefully. SCSA, to your point, perhaps this is what you are trying to say. I think PSIA is clear that extenion/flexion/tipping/turning BLENDED turns a ski. There are PSIA certified instructors who tell students to actively transfer weight. Is that a fault of PSIA that there are certified instructors espousing incorrect information? I guess I would look to individual ski schools and suggest instructors need to be monitored to insure they are teaching correct curriculum. Weight is transferred as a result of the aforementioned blending of movements. It does not cause a turn, its the result of a turn.

Roto or others please correct me if I'm wrong re the Alpine manual.
post #75 of 167
Thread Starter 

I'm trying to find information about PSIA - I can't find anything substantial. I can't figure out what it is they're all about on their web site. Their mission statement reads like a bad Power Point presentation.

This isn't bashing. I'm just pointing out what I consider to be some, "huh's"?

A while back I asked how everyone else makes turns, couldn't get two answers that were the same. Now, I'm trying to find some documentation about this "Centerline" thing, and I can't find anything. Maybe Todd or SnoKarver has something for me.

I mean, here's what it boils down to in my twisted little mind.

1) There's this organization that doesn't have any meaningful documentation available. So, isn't that an oxymoron?

2) I still can't figure out how skiers are taught to make turns, other than wedge turns. Yet, this organization certifies instructors to teach skiers of all levels. What the hell is anyone paying for?

3) What the hell is this "Centerline" thing? Can anyone provide me with some meaningful documentation?

I'm just trying to get to the heart of the matter...

post #76 of 167
I just came across this quote by Robert de Castella, which, IMHO, sums up what EVERY teaching organization should be about.

If you do today what you did yesterday,
you'll be beaten.
If you do what others are doing now
you'll be competitive
To win, you must seek to do today what
others will do tomorrow.

Be Braver in your body, or your luck will leave you. DH Lawrence
post #77 of 167

BUY THE BOOKS!!! I have provided you with the ISBN #'s on another thread, however for three days we have been telling you to buy the PSIA Alpine Manual or Bob's book.

Various people have tried to explain the concept to you and you either haven't read what they have said or don't understand what they have said. I suggest you might be well served by doing the same thing we have done and that is get the texts and read them.

How would you feel if I said to you or Snokarver, "what's all this computer networking or software stuff?" I've been to the microsoft site and that Bill Gates guy sure doesn't explain it?

In short "centerline" is a blend of skills and various skiing milestones. I know that is confusing, however, no less so than explaining how a bunch of adding machines are linked by wires in a network.

Please buy the texts. I'll buy the books if you'll just be quiet and read them for awhile.
post #78 of 167

Written material is always subject to interpretation by the reader. There are many references to the 'outside ski' to be found in PSIA materials, and there are many more books than the 1996 manual in which to find them. I don't think any of them say "move the outside ski first", but there are plenty of phrases than can be misinterpreted as such, especially when someone with limited knowledge is exposed to them, or is trying to interpret it that way.

Anyway, the point is moot here if SCSA hasn't read any of it. The outside ski thing he spouts must just be something he's been told by someone else.

Have you ever played that game telephone?

Thanks for championing our organization. Don't let him get to you. Continue to have confidence in a group of great skiers and teachers that has proven its effectiveness a thousand times over in the smiling faces of people who have been part of successful and fun lessons.

When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro...
post #79 of 167
I hate to say it, but I am going to mildly defend SCSA (how revolting)!

He is skiing PMTS. His basic knowledge is PMTS. His viewpoint is PMTS. His aquired knowledge is is 1997 and later. His skis are shapers.

PSIA Alpine was published in 1996 and written in 1994/95, before the shaped ski revolution. It desparely needs to be updated, and will as soon as the new manual is available. He is talking apples and you guys are talking oranges. Share you experinces with him.

SCSA, try to listen to these folks. Try to understand what they are saying. Both you and I ski differently than most of them. I teach differently than most of them. But, I am hear to learn and understand why they teach the way they do. I don't agree with the way they teach, that's why I teach PMTS and not ATS. So listen and try to understand what they are saying. Remember, Student Directed Ski Instruction's elements are motivation, understanding and movement. This forum is a vehicle for learning to understand. I am sure that you understand what they are saying, but try to UNDERSTAND what they are saying.

To Roto: Try to pick up a PMTS Instructors Manual. It will give some insight as what SCSA and Snow Carver are saying. PMTS is very different than what you describe as ATS. For instance, all movements start with the feet. There is no active steering of the legs. There is no active movement of the hips, except the release of counter when starting a new turn (advanced/expert). This is not a bash but a comparison that I see between the two systems.

SCSA: Ewe is off skindiving in Baja or some other weird place!

post #80 of 167
PMTS....1997...sounds like limited knowledge to me.

I am well aware of PMTS. I've seen some of Harb's videos and writings. I can't say I know PMTS, have not been instructed in it's use. I have not assaulted it either. I have noticed that PMTS is often presented as adversarial to PSIA concepts, which shows in the attitudes of its disciples.

Harb seems to be an axe grinder. Why not let PMTS stand on its own merits instead of continually comparing it to something else?

PMTS and ATS share more than they do not, except for the attitudes of their leaders. I agree with you on the PSIA manual and have commented on its outdated status. The ski teaching concepts in use by true professionals within PSIA are current with technology. The evolution of these concepts has occurred on the snow and is not apparent in a manual form yet...unless the new one is out on time.

When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro...<FONT size="1">

[This message has been edited by Roto (edited June 28, 2001).]</FONT>
post #81 of 167
SCSA, You wrote "The problem that I see is that too many do pass the exams - most of whom are only in it to get the pro discount, the pin, and the glory! C'mon, admit it. Ask 10 Level 1 instructors on the side and they'll admit it. They're in it for; the pin, the discounts, and the bragging rights. The slopes are littered with shi**y instructors! So who's to blame?

I LOVE It!!! The problem that YOU see is that too many do pass the exams???? Again, I'd like to know where you get all this personal experience and inside knowledge of what goes on in PSIA? How many people do you personally know that have taken an exam and passed, but you think should not have? And why do you think they should not have passed? What makes you more able to judge someone's teaching ability than the examiners that that person had at the exam? FYI, I'll give you a little more insight. About 50% of the people who take the Level II exam pass, and about 35% for level III.

Most are in it for the pin and the glory??? Level I instructors in it for bragging rights??? Get real! I don't think there are too many level I instructors out there bragging. Afterall, they are surrounded by more experienced instructors. And as for pro forms, the manufacturers do not require that the instructor be a member of any organization. Just a pro.

The one question I do like is "if ski instruction is so great, how come there's so many crappy skiers? ". Here's the answer: Because they don't take lessons, or even ski very much. Who's fault is that? It's certainly NOT PSIA's. It wouldn't matter who they took lessons from, would it? Why don't they take lessons? That's been a matter of much debate over a lot of years, but my guess is that it's the fault of the ski areas for not promoting lessons and doing what really needs to be done to retain new skiers.

Yes, I'm the one who claimed Brand X is not a teaching system. You don't even understand the difference between a teaching system and a progression of exercises. Yet you claim to know so much about the subject. This is where you get yourself into trouble.
post #82 of 167
John H:

I have to disagree with you saying that PMTS is not a teaching system. It is a progression of movements, not excersizes, that results in expert skiing. If this is not a system, I don't know what constitutes one. It would be nice if we had discussions without bashing. Let's try to have discussions on the merits of the issues and keep emotions out of it.

Roto: The controversy over PMTS v PSIA will probably rage on for some time. I think most of it comes from each side not understanding the other's position or methodology. And I think there is some turf defense going on. It is true that Harald Harb is pretty bitter towards PSIA. That does not mean the rest of us hold that grudge. While I do not agree with the way a lot of instructors teach, I respect them for having the right to teach the way they do.

I wish that more people would spend more time developing new methods in teaching;how to present the product to the student. It would help all of us by developing new teaching principles. Joan Rostad is working on some new teaching projects. I totally agree with what she is doing. I just wish there were more Joan Rostads and Kim Petersons in the ski teaching industry.

OK, what do you teach?

post #83 of 167
Just getting back to this forum...

A quick question, SCSA, you are relatively new here, and I've been gone since the fall, so please tell me when the last time was that you took a lesson from a PSIA LIII instructor?


Ski fast and laugh often.
post #84 of 167
RickH - So, therefore, A Progression of movements = a Teaching System. ?? Maybe this is where we are disagreeing. I see a progression of movements as a lesson, not a teaching system. I see a concept of how to teach as a teaching system. A progression of movements is not "how to teach", it is "what" to teach. And I do NOT like the idea of someone telling me what to teach. If this happens, the lesson becomes instructor centered, as opposed to student centered. Every student is an individual.

In SCSA's post, he said that he'd like to be able to take a lesson, then be told to go to a web site and look at lesson #x, or "expert skiing", to see what he learned today. I see a couple of problems with that. One is that if I had SCSA in a lesson, as an "expert" skier, and Fred, another instructor, had Eva Gabor in an "expert" lesson (let's just pretend, okay?), what's to say that Eva and SCSA need to learn the exact same thing, and learn at the exact same pace? Maybe Eva is working on setting an edge in the gates, but SCSA is working on stance and balance. Eva is a kinestic learner, and Fred taught the lesson using reciprocal teaching methods. But SCSA is a "feeler", and I used Guided Discovery as the method of teaching with SCSA.

Also, along SCSA's theory that this needs to be a for profit business. Who is going to pay for this elaborate web site? And my biggest stink with it, is; Why the hell would anyone even take another lesson with an instructor? It's all right there on the web. One way to learn. If that method doesn't work for you, you'll hate skiing and give up. If it does work, you have no need to spend the money on an instructor. I'm not going to pay someone $60/hr to validate what I already know, and tell me what I just read on the web.

By the way, I have not bashed PMTS. I have only said that I don't consider it a teaching system. SCSA get me in a huff trying to tell me/us how screwed up PSIA is, as if he knows anything about PSIA. I'm sure he doesn't even know that a teaching model and skiing model exist, much less, what they are. Does PMTS have a teaching model?
post #85 of 167
Thread Starter 
Yeah! What Rick H says! I'm with him (I know that's going to scare him)!


All I know is PMTS. I skied a little when I was a teenager (Denver native), then quit for 24 years. Technique is everything, so when I started again, I wanted to learn what I thought was "the best" system. I bought Harb's first book and video, then booked 2 privates with him. Then, I met SnoKarver and SnoKarver showed me some stuff. SnoKarver and I are pals, and we ski together. Also, last year I went to Harb's All Mountain Camp at Berthoud Pass.

Now, I just practice the movements. Each time I ski, I spend time practicing the movements and working on balance drills. Like on Blue groomers, I ski on one foot, doing the vonGrunigen move and Javelin turns. Then at the end of the day, I work on drills.

I get there early and I stay late. Usually, I don't get off the hill until about 4:30. 15 minutes for lunch, made by SCSA's wife, and I don't have a beer until I'm done. Last year, I skied 70 days. The year before, 50 days. My fitness is good (I bicycle and swim), so I can ski top to bottom, without stopping, all day. I now ski with my boy, SCSA's boy, him and I ski about 16 runs. 4 runs hot chocolate, 4 runs lunch. 4 runs hot chocolate, 2 to 4 runs then tubing (him and I go to Copper).

I guess I'm not your typical skier, and I'm definitely not your typical person - ha ha.
post #86 of 167
Rick, Sorry, I forgot to address this question; "It is a progression of movements, not excersizes, that results in expert skiing. If this is not a system, I don't know what constitutes one."

I'm talking about a teaching system. A progression of movements, as I said in my last post, is a LESSON, not a teaching system. A teaching system is a system which teaches someone to teach. Let's pretend you are a math teacher. By your statement, if you wrote down on the black board that 2 + 2 = 4, and a couple of the students understood that, then you have a teaching system. I would disagee. However, a plan which described how you communicate what it means to add two and two together, and how to identify students that don't understand, and how to handle them, as well as how to handle unruly students, how to make sure the environment is conducive to learning, how to handle students that learn at different paces and through different means, THEN you would have a "teaching system".

Does that make more sense?

Maybe if PMTS were relabled, PMSL (primary movements skiing lesson), then I would not be able to argue it.
post #87 of 167
Hey SCSA, We agree!!! You certainly are not typical.
post #88 of 167

for such a diehard, how/why'd you "quit for 24 years"? you didn't ski at ALL?
post #89 of 167
Thread Starter 

Nope. Not one time.

When I was growing up, my family was so poor...And then when I'd go skiing, I knew I had all kinds of ability, but I didn't have any training and I couldn't afford equipment. It was all so damn frustrating, and I developed a lot of anger - "Friggin rich kids, rich people..." They'd see me and my dad in the lunch room in our jeans and snarle at us. So I just dropped out.

In 1983, I took up triathlon. Exercise literally turned my life turned around. I won't go into that, but I think you know what I mean. I started to get good, finishing in the top 10% of any race I entered. My best race, I beat all the pro women - I was so proud of what I had accomplished.

Once I saw that I could compete with "the rich guys", because that's what my perception of people who exercised were, I just started to develop a ton of confidence. It all lead to starting my company.

Then, once I was able to see people as people, and that we're all born naked, I made the decision to ski again - for the rest of my life. I still have some problems with competing - remember when I told you I bait skiers to follow me? That's true. It's like getting redemption for when I was a kid and people would snarle at my dad and I -"Hey rich folks, you ain't nothing. Follow me". No, none of this is good and I'm not proud of these antics. And I've learned, with some help here, that this isn't what skiing is about. You know, compare yourself to yourself -- not others, or you'll become bitter and vain.

The irony is that I'm in the highest tax bracket. So am I angry at myself? What's the Talking Heads line? "Watch out, you just might get what you want".

That's what SCSA's shrink is for.

Oh boy, gotta go.

Talk to you -

Before I run off, I'd like to share something. Maybe someone out there will benefit.

I dropped out of high school and started building custom homes - big ones! I was always the lead man, and I knew I was smarter then just about everyone on the job. But I had a lot of anger. I used to get into fights with people, verbally. But one day, a tinner and I actually started throwing punches. That's when I met the man who truly changed my life, Ed Norton.

Ed was also a tinner and he stepped in and broke up the fight. A while later, he came up to me and said, "SCSA, you seem like a really smart person. What's up with you?". He invited me over to dinner and I accepted.

Ed was a vietnam vet and had been through everything. He was also a martial arts expert. He started to tell me his philosophy about life and for the first time ever, I was actually listening to someone. He also told me how important being fit had become to him and he challenged me to a run around the block. Well, Ed was like 50 and I was like 22. Even though I had never run a lick, I thought there was no way he'd beat me. He did, easily.

So when we came back to his apartment, he told me that he was going to run the Mayors Cup Marathon here in Denver. It was the inaugural race. He told me that he thought it'd be cool if him and I entered. Well, the thought of it was overwhelming. A marathon? My idea of a marathon was staying up late, partying with SCSA's girlfriend(s).

Ed got into my soul. Him and I started running at night and pretty soon, I was running 20 miles! The whole thing really became infectious. I started to see that I really could be what I wanted to be. I finished the Mayors Cup Marathon in just under 4 hours. And that included a potty stop.

Ed, god bless him, didn't finish the race until 2 hours later. He was sore and blistered. It turned out that he was running the race and had entered the race because he knew how important it was for my life. The man went through 6 months of training and 6 hours of hell, for me.

About a week later, Ed disappeared. He was from Boston, and maybe he went back there. God, I miss him and I just hope he's doing alright.

Had it not been for Ed, I'm not sure I'd be here today or be the SCSA I am. So what's the moral of this story (for lack of a better term)? I think, in life, you'll meet a few dynamic people. When you do, don't let them out of your site.

And, the old sayings are true. You really can accomplish whatever it is/anything it is -- that you set your mind to. You just have to want it bad enough.

I don't believe in motivational crap, but there's one saying that's on my wall -- I read it everyday. Here it is:

"Until one is committed, there is hesitancy. The chance to draw back, always ineffectiveness.

What you can do, or dream you can, begin it.

Boldness has genius, power and magic in it.
Begin it now."


I get all tingly.<FONT size="1">

[This message has been edited by SCSA (edited June 28, 2001).]</FONT>
post #90 of 167
Here's another analogy I just thought of for teaching systems.

Teaching skiing is an art. I don't think there are too many people that would disagree. (Not that there aren't bad artists). ATS is like an art class that teaches you how use color and shades, how to mix colors, about the Pantone Matching System, and in general, how to paint. PMTS is more of a paint-by-numbers with 5 colors included. Sure, both ways, you end up with ink to paper, but one way is rigid, formal and strict... Offers no room for creativity or personal differences. The other way allows one to truly create art that reflects whatever the artist want to express. No preconceived notions. No, "it must be done this way".

Or... Consider the ski instructor a fisherman. Give a man a fish... teach a man to fish... The PMTS instructor is given the fish, the ATS instructor learns to fish.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching