or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New website - Page 2

Ydnar,

My hat is off to you. By asking a very succinct question you have answered the point I have been trying to get across for some time.
[/quote]
Take off the gloves, proof read you're stuff and drop the sarcasm. It doesn't serve your intelligence and skills here.
___________________________
I will do that, thanks for taking the time to read.
Greg
[Take off the gloves, proof read you're stuff and drop the sarcasm. It doesn't serve your intelligence and skills here.
I will, thanks
Greg
ski coach,

For the last few years I have been a pain in the butt to many clinic leaders because every time that they tell the group to move their cm into the turn I have asked them just how to move it. They don't like the question because they don't have an answer. They can't tell me which muscles to use to push the cm across the skis to the other side because in a skiing situation there are no muscles that will do this task. Some start to tell me that extending the, at that moment. uphill leg will move the cm across. I point out that untill the edge has changed extention of that leg will act to move the cm away from the direction that they want to move in. These people watch a skier and see that the cm moves from one side of the feet to the other and come to the conclusion that we have to 'move the cm across the skis into the new turn'. This is such an easy statement to make that for years it was the mantra of how to teach skiing and led to a lot of banking and rotation into the new turn.That was OK though because it gave the instructor/clinic leader some 'errors' to 'correct'.

Here's my take on what's going on.

First, my cm is already moving along at a pretty good clip, 10 to 15 mph when I'm skiing slowly and 20 to 45 mph for most of my skiing. I'm using the force I generate with my skis to direct my cm where I want it to go. The greater the force I apply to the cm the more I can change the path it is traveling along (the tighter the arc i am following). Now if I lessen the force on the cm then it will follow a path of less arc and if i remove the force completely then the cm will move in a straight line. By relaxing or actively shortening the outside leg during the last part of a turn I am lessening the force applied to the cm so that it will follow a larger arc yet my feet are still being carried along the arc created by the carving ski. The cm and the feet are now moving along very different paths, paths that will cross and produce gross edge change. I can further control the crossing of the feet and cm by manipulation of the edge angle of the skis. Less edge means less force to the cm so that the cm follows a straighter path and if I suddenly flatten the ski the cm will go balistic and follow a straight path untill I begin to apply force to it again. Since most of the force is being transmitted through the long strong outside leg then I can produce the greatest effect by focusing on flattening that foot when I come to the point I want to transition from one turn to another. That is a very long way of saying I allow my cm to cross the path my feet are following rather than continuing to direct it along another path. This is also very akin to what you are describing as cross-under, I just try to avoid the use of cross-over, cross-under because the two should be blended smoothly together in upper level skiing.

More tomorrow in resopnse to your question about the effectiveness of inside foot use to create and shape turns.

Yd

PS Was yours the article on inclination/ extention through the top of the turn and allowing greater creation of angles through the bottom of the turn? That was a great article and happened to dove tail with what I was babbling about last season in realtion to upper level skiing.
Guys (particularly, Greg and Pierre), so as not to hijack this thread, I just started a thread you might be interested in:

Proper definitions for banking, angulation, edging and inclination

Take a look and tell me what you think.

Tom / PM
[quote]Doesn't it make sense to put the best coaches with the younger kids? That way they are less apt to have bad habits when they get to the top of the heap. I spend way to much time trying to correct old problems that often seem like they could have been eliminated with some good coaching early on.
_________________________

I am not sure if the question is directed at me. I am all for having the best technical coaches with young kids. Unfortunately in the US you cannot make a living doing it. So as a coach you end up working at a FIS level, if you want to do it full-time. And yes, we do have a lot of basic technical flows in racers arriving to the national team. There we do not have much time to work on it as we need to squeeze the results out of what we have.
It is a problem with our ski racing. They do it different in Europe.

Greg
Ydnar,

Again, Bravo!
I gave my definition in the article http://www.youcanski.com/english/coa...ique_of_gs.htm

I was referring to it the way i have described it. hope it is more clear.
Greg
Hey Ydnar:
Thanks for taking so much time.
I am generally agreeing with you.
Greg
The question wasn't directed at anyone, just thrown out there.

Right about not being able to make a living.
A friend of mine spent two winters in Switzerland bringing up his J III stepdaughter. He had a lot to say about the differences.
I think the main problem here is the size of the country. Switzerland is about the size of one of our medium states. When I was there we had breakfast in Trento Italy, lunch in Stams Austria and dinner in Graechen Switzerland. Here in Central we travel that long for a Region race, let alone a Mid-Am.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Return Home
Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching