or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › Lingo clarification on Narrow stance
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Lingo clarification on Narrow stance - Page 2

post #31 of 46
It's too bad these discussions always end up with the psia vs pmts thing. Of course this one was prompted by showing pictures of HH so it's more understandable. The other threads were pretty neutral for a while. I sort of wonder if we were discussing this on snow if it would be better or worse? ("Yeah you did!" "No, I didn't!" )

SnoKarver, I don't understand this:
>>Pulling the new free foot/old stance foot closer to the new stance/old free foot(we are in the grey zone, one turn ending, another beginning) helps a skiers balance. <<

How does this help balance? Do you mean it helps to fall into the new turn?
post #32 of 46
yes, Tog. Dynamic balance ability, as the skier is falling into the future.

I think I'll go away for a while, this is getting quite old, for all of us. Never mind.

Visit me here &gt;&gt;&gt;SnoKarver
post #33 of 46
Thread Starter 
SnoKarver is so right.

How many thousands of skiers are you guys going to have to hear from before you accept it? What the hell guys, change really does happen.

But Barnes and his boys will still come along and tell those skiers they're wrong.

What a bunch of dolts.
post #34 of 46

Thousands?????? given me a break . . .
post #35 of 46
i don't think any of the "gang" say you can't learn from PMTS and that PMTS does not produce good skiers, just that it's not the one and only way. SnoKarver, RickH and others have said they use whatever works for their students. For them the PMTS progression works for a lot of them, Lito says commitment and a week long camp or consistant instruction is important. for many others it's just practice, practice, practice. and it needs to be "perfect practice" which usually means under the watchful eye of a good instructor. from what ever camp. Probably the most technical instructor I had was from down under. I didn't find out what his "us qual's" were but I appreciated his ability to help me make very minute adjustments. For many people they are happy just going down the hill in control and safely. Nothing wrong with that either. As long as they are enjoying themselves and being safe.
post #36 of 46
Nice narative on "passive and active" Bob, I find those terms constantly misinterpreted.
Personally, I believe "rotary" is always "on" in varying degrees, intensity, direction etc. Like has often been said, "just cause you're going straight, you don't let go of the wheel". In this case I would be talking steering the skis. Even the theoretical absence of rotary movement, is steering. As you described, even "muscular tension" implies active rotary.
One quick question, in addition to deflection, would a blocking pole plant be considered "passive rotary"?
It's funny, I am a hard headed SOB, as a racer I readily questioned rotary movements place in skiing. In the early eighties, Uncle Milty made me question my rigid dogma. Once broken, that "paradigm" (will someone invent a new word) opened incredible opportunities in my ski racing.
As was evidenced in the reaction to the stance thread, strongly held views can be powerful allies and/or enemies to personal growth.
post #37 of 46
PSIA and PMTS...just like instructors, there are always Pros and Cons. Damn, I made a clever double-entendre quip!
post #38 of 46
post #39 of 46
How do you make those "smiley faces"?
post #40 of 46
I have always found Bob's comments to thorough and well written. I find that he lays a good foundation for understanding the many pointers that are posted here. Quite helpful, never dogmatic. That is why I am so perplexed by the animosity his posts generate in a few here on this forum.

I get the sense that some of the posts are like an argument over which band is better: the Beatles or the Stones. But from my perspective, Bob is like someone who has the music knowledge that can help anyone enjoy both bands better.

post #41 of 46
Bob, Very nice explanation of rotary. I was getting lost in the forest.
post #42 of 46
post #43 of 46
Thread Starter 
I'll consider what Bob and Robin have said to be progress and positive signs.

Maybe things aren't as bad as I had thought.
post #44 of 46
Bob, Thanks for the long definition. I'm trying to understand the Active rotary definition because it seems quite broad and thus less useful in conversation.

You said:
>>And again, by this definition, a ski lifted off the snow, if it turns at all, turns with "active rotary." Even if it's just held in place with muscle tension as the skier carves through the turn on the other ski, that "tension" is the "active rotary" we're referring to. << Bob B.

Bob, I see what you mean but might there not be a better working definition? If your just keeping the unweighted inside ski parallel to the weighted outer carving ski you are not affecting the turn with active rotary. It seems to me that it might be clearer if somehow we distinguish the active rotary that affects the turn.
In Harald's turns what is the visual evidence of the active rotary in the second sequence?
I like the "conscious" and "involuntary" working distinctions from Ott's post in "Rotary Rules". (I suppose a problem with that is people are often not conscious of what they're doing!)

sorry if this is nitpicking...

<FONT size="1">

[This message has been edited by Tog (edited September 07, 2001).]</FONT>
post #45 of 46
Well, I guess if the narrow stance was good enough for the Vikings.......
post #46 of 46
Nice Bob. I think it is important to also note that using the definition of "steering" above (that unlike isolating a rotary mechanism or movement), edging and pressure control may, and probably is part of the equation. Often the"rotary" movements that define that skill set are viewed in an isolated way. The term steering, as a way to "point" the skis usually takes pressure and edge contol movements within it's context. Even if the ski is lifted, it may be steered, though in that case edging and pressure is a null or negative value.

I may have to read that again to see if it makes sense.

edit:spelling<FONT size="1">

[This message has been edited by Robin (edited September 07, 2001).]</FONT>
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › Lingo clarification on Narrow stance