or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › PSIA vs PMTS - what's the difference?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

PSIA vs PMTS - what's the difference?

post #1 of 53
Thread Starter 
In the thread about HH Rusty said:

---
I merely disagree with the PMTS progression and I have alluded to the basis for my disagreement. I have explained my criticism ad nauseum, however, to reiterate, it involves two predominant components;

Balance Transfer
Stance Foot

My ancillary concerns are "lifting and lightening".

---

Can we elaborate a little? Let's assume that stance width is not an issue. Keep your feet as close or as far as comfortable (for the terrain you are skiing). Also let's assume that this discussion relates to decent, strong skiers. This is not about beginners, about alignment, about large classes. And it is not about the wedge. I want to see the real difference between PMTS and PSIA at the upper levels of skiing. To me it is VERY fuzzy.

Stance foot:

There is no question that the outside foot is the predominant stance foot in skiing. While PMTS seems to put more emphasis on its role, it seems to me that both PMTS and PSIA models converge to the same thing (at higher levels of skiing). Whether you lift/lighten or tip, you are effectively making the outside foot the dominant stance foot. Obviously you can tip the inside foot without any lightening, but a 50-50 weight distribution is highly unrealistic in most conditions.

So what is the difference here? Maybe it is in the Balance transfer? Let's see now ...

Balance Transfer:

I know that PSIA folks do not believe that one has to "step up" to the new outside foot (the Stance Foot). This moves the CM in a direction that is counter productive, they say. Agreed. But again, when you analyze this more carefully, you realize that the Balance Transfer idea converges to the same thing at upper levels of skiing. Nobody in his right mind would "step up" to the stance foot in normal, dynamic skiing situations. Lifting/lightning the inside foot automatically achieves the balance transfer that one is looking for. Tipping the inside foot does about the same thing. Let's face it, what really happens in either approach, is that one removes the inside "obstacle" to allow a balance transfer and a re-direction of the CM, simultaneously.

So I have to ask, what is the big difference (other than stance width) between PMTS and PSIA. I do realize that I have simplified all this a little, but I am trying to primarily concentrate on the 2 points that Rusty has brought up. This may have been discussed before (what hasn't?), but there are many new members and we might as well get into details. Let's learn something! [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

[ October 25, 2003, 07:24 AM: Message edited by: TomB ]
post #2 of 53
Quote:
Originally posted by TomB:

There is no question that the outside foot is the predominant stance foot in skiing. While PMTS seems to put more emphasis on its role, it seems to me that both PMTS and PSIA models converge to the same thing (at higher levels of skiing). Whether you lift/lighten or tip, you are effectively making the outside foot the dominant stance foot. Obviously you can tip the inside foot without any lightening, but a 50-50 weight distribution is highly unrealistic in most conditions.
TomB,

I'm tied up with my duties related to my football , however, I can type a couple of thoughts while grabbing lunch.

First of all what I post has nothing to do with PSIA. That is an important differential. PSIA has certified my teaching skills and my skiing skills at level III. I am not bound to teach any particular dogma.

A primary difference for me is that the outside foot BECOMES the dominant foot. I want to be able to choose when that takes place as opposed to having that be the genesis for a new turn. It can happen early in a turn via outside leg extension or it can build throughout a turn as a result of centrifugal force and/or extension or a combination of both.

Tipping or a blend of tipping and turning (right tip right to go right or left tip left to go left) does not require balance transfer or weight transfer.
post #3 of 53
Funny thing about stance width. I notice that Diana Rogers skis in a more "normal" stance width than Harb. I wonder if the narrow stance thing is as important as his books and tapes make it out to be. Harb and Diana represent the only PMTS skiing I've ever seen (from the videotape), and their skiing looks very dissimiliar to me. So maybe it's not as rigid as it sounds.
But as far as the stance foot/free foot thing I would guess that it might be easier for lower level skiers to separate the roles, but who knows? Obviously at higher levels, the roles are not so separate unless an effort is made to make them so.
post #4 of 53
milesb,

I have a question. I have seen Diana ski in person a couple of times. I noted a very pronounced lifting of the tail of her inside ski on every turn. It occured to me this may merely represent a drill that she was doing with a student as opposed to something she does at all times. Is this noticable in the video that you have seen?
post #5 of 53
Any teaching system that focuses on balance on one foot or weight transfer is seriously flawed. While balancing and skiing on one foot is certainly a useful exercise and I use it myself, it is a mistake to introduce this concept to beginners for this reason: From the first lesson on, a student should learn to center themselves over BOTH FEET. As soon as a student gets the feeling of "grip" on the outside ski, they often depend upon it for support and start the lateral push that leads to "platform skiing" and the intermediate rut. The whole method of skiing becomes moving from the old outside ski to the new one, finding the new "platform " to brace against.
The other point, weight transfer, is and should be taught as something that happens naturally, not something we "make" happen. It is simply the body trying to stay in alignment over the feet. It would feel ackward and difficult to balance completely over the uphill ski ( the short leg ) so most of us feel that our 'weight' is on the downhill " outside" ski. The fact is we feel most balanced when we are standing on both feet and we should try and find this 'spot' as much as we can. Try skiing 50-50 as much of the time as you can. It feels good.
This may seem like obvious stuff, but I have met plenty of racers who are convinced that outside ski to outside ski is the way and that is where HH comes from. While he is an incredible skier, he admits himself that he knew nothing about PSIA teaching methods, wasn't interested in learning and the next thing you know he's on the demo team. PSIA has a flawed history of promoting great skiers who are lousy teachers. But that doesn't mean their teaching methods are flawed. All of us who have been out there in the trenches teaching beginner groups on overcrowded bunny slopes know what works and what doesn't. There is no 'right way' to ski and if moving from outside ski to outside ski is what you like to do, go for it. But if you want to have true versatility and the ability to explore all slopes and all conditions, I would suggest a more 'centered' approach.

: Edit:I just reread TomB's post; sorry about the references to beginners, you were looking at how this applies to more advanced skiers. But a movement pattern taught at the beginner level carries over to advanced skiing and often becomes a very difficult thing to overcome.

[ October 25, 2003, 11:18 AM: Message edited by: snowdancer ]
post #6 of 53
Lifting the tail of the inside ski is something you'll see in most WC slalom turns at the beginning of the turn.(Bodie too) It happens because the skier is leveraging forward and that ski is light. In some cases(Benni Riach often)you see the tail of the outside ski up as they carve with forward leverage on the inside one. None of this is because they try to, rather the result of something else.
I remember an examiner telling me when he asked Phil Mahre why he lifted his inside ski, Phil said,"I'm not lifting my inside ski".
post #7 of 53
snowdancer,

I wish I could have posted what you stated with equal eloquence. What you said is precisely the point I was trying to make. Well said.

SLATZ,

I suppose I would differentiate between that happening as a result of world cup athleticism vs the skiing being done by Diana. In addition, I have to wonder whether there is as much leverage occuring today, as a result of the new technology, as opposed to the technology in use when the Mahre's were racing.

[ October 25, 2003, 11:37 AM: Message edited by: Rusty Guy ]
post #8 of 53
I am observing some out-side-looking-in interpritive mis-conceptions about some of the inner workings of PMTS as a learning pathway. Some of these views seem to confuse the use of learning vehicles (i.e. balance transfer exercises) and how they work (lightening and directing movement of the inside foot to the inside of the new turn, NOT by moving laterally toward the outside foot (traditional PSIA)) with the goods these learning vehicles are being used to deliver (efficient role definition of each foot's "primary role" and the primary movements to perform them). Learning and performing skiing and other things well usually requires understanding that something leads the show (that does not exclude secondary or shared roles).

Even when Fred and Ginger dance at the highest levels imaginable, Fred leads.

We certainly ski with both feet in different degrees of shared support that vary greatly whith the situation, but usually skiing dynamics compell our bodies to use the outside in a dominant support role. Thus there is merit when learning, to understand and experience that alowing the outside's foot/leg's role to primarily be one of support and balance, that correspondingly we free up the inside to be more active in leading movements that engage both our bodies and our skis' technology in and efficient synergy to ski however we wish to. At any level.

Early on the PMTS path defines and clarifies these roles for the purpose of developing efficient primary movement patterns that later on progressivly lend themselves to integration and adaptation in more advanced applications (i.e. two footed release)

It is important not to confuse the pathway with its destination. Trying to justify critisism of what the road to Katmandoo is not by saying that the road to Katmandoo is not Katmandoo does not demomstrate any true knowledge of just exactly what the road to Katmandoo really is. And you will never truely understand the road to Katmandoo (much less Katmandoo itself) until you actually travel and experience it first hand, optimally with a guide. Watching the a travel video doesn't provide working knowledge.

So rather than discount it, conquer your fears of change or the unknown or peer ridicule or whatever and jump in and experience it first hand! Worst case scenario is you become an expert critic, vs one with out true working knowledge (and a gap in what is out there to be learned).

Before a doctor gives me a diagnosis I'd like to know they have more actual hands-on experience with the issues at hand than just having read a book.

Learning should be an open exploration and integration of whatever we find of value to add to our collective toolbox. I'd encourage you to see contrast not as a path to conflict but as a puzzle from which to discover a path of new growth. That is seldom found when discounting and discrediting what we have not experienced and do not fully understand.
:

[ October 25, 2003, 12:33 PM: Message edited by: Arcmeister ]
post #9 of 53
As no one has presented the PMTS point of view, let me try to outline this so that everyone will understand the biomechanics in the technique. I will not argue nor defend about what I am writing, because it will serve no useful purpose. You will ski your way and I will ski my way.

That said, here I go. Let's start at the finish of a left turn. The left ski is on its little toe edge, the right ski is on its big toe edge. Keeping a focus on keeping on the left ski on the little toe edge throughout the transition, lighten and tip the right ski to its little toe edge. At the same time, bring the right heel back so that the bindings are even. This allows more range of motion in the tipping action. At this point, both skis are on their little toe edges. This is what HH calls an "O-Frame." The left ski cannot skid because it is hooked up. The right ski is light and being moved back and is tipping. What happens to the center of mass? With a lightened ski that is downhill of the new stance ski, the center of mass moves downhill, or into the new turn. What happens to the left ski? The CM has moved downhill and because of the stiff ski boot, the left ski follows the CM and the edges change from little toe to big toe and engage. Properly executed, there is no skidding of the new outside ski.

I hope that I have clarified the PMTS movement sequence and why the skis are independant of each other. There are other types of turns, ie, weighted release, where the inside ski is kept weighted through the top half of the turn and then weight is transferred to the outside ski.
post #10 of 53
Thanks, Rusty..I'd like to ski with you sometime and compare 'notes' . I would like to clarify a few things:
Firstly, I do not claim to be an 'expert' when it comes to PMTS or the inner workings of HH's mind. He has, however, set himself up as the Guru and has discredited some time tested methodology in order to sell his program.
Secondly, I do not advocate that there is only one way to learn skiing and I do encourage students to explore the outer limits of their abilities and have fun doing it. That's why we're here, isn't it?
I agree that there's definitely more than one way to go down the road to Katmandu. We could try walking backwards, or better yet, how about hopping on one foot? That way, we could rest one foot and switch when we got tired. Some would advocate the "crawl before you walk " method, insisting that is necessary in order to master fundamental skills before attempting rocky paths standing up. There are balance issues and equipment issues to overcome as well ( sandals, once the accepted 'norm' have been replaced by high tech hiking shoes with support arches ). And of course there's the impatient teenagers who insist on running all the way to Katmandu, without regard to their own or other's safety.
What's the best method to get there? I don't know for sure, but at least for me the two footed approach feels best. :
RickH- The 'O' frame? I guess we used to call this bowlegged, but if HH says you can be on both outside edges at the same time,who am I to argue with the Guru? Only an ex-racer would be more concerned with skidding than staying in balance.

[ October 25, 2003, 05:18 PM: Message edited by: snowdancer ]
post #11 of 53
Rusty, I see alot of tail lifting by both Harb and Diana in the video. It is much more pronounced when Harb is demonstrating. However, he reuses the same bits of footage so many times that sometimes it is hard to tell what is demo and what is skiing.
I have had many instructors lift the tail, but this was only done for fall line turns on very steep terrain. It is a very good move for that situation, but I can't see the point of doing it all the time.
post #12 of 53
One reason for doing it all the time, Miles, is if you can't initiate a change of edge with both skis at the same time and want to "look" parallel.
post #13 of 53
Quote:
Originally posted by milesb:
Rusty, I see alot of tail lifting by both Harb and Diana in the video. It is much more pronounced when Harb is demonstrating. However, he reuses the same bits of footage so many times that sometimes it is hard to tell what is demo and what is skiing.
I have had many instructors lift the tail, but this was only done for fall line turns on very steep terrain. It is a very good move for that situation, but I can't see the point of doing it all the time.
What the videos represent are exactly that: "demos". They show a lot of footage of the path, with the exercises being practiced in a variety of skiing situations, and little of the end destination. When Harald, and Diana, are skiing with groups they are leading on the path, they are always demoing to re-inforce the images for their clients (as skilled instructors should do). Note that because of the shape of H's lower legs the "O-frame" is exagerated in his demos, but his general skiing shows both skis in the snow and both leg shafts moving in a consistant relationship.

Note that they re-inforce:
"Lifting is for learning, tipping is for turning"

I have skied enough Harold to know what mode he is in and that when he is out there just skiing, and not in the "demo mode", his images show the destination of the path. You see consistant application of the same primary movements adaped to the intended turns, snow conditions and terrain at any point in time. Harold skis a lot of two footed release where the gap in the order of movement at his refined level is minute. The amount that he lightens new inside ski is "just enough" for the situation and seldom would show the ski leaving the snow except on the firmest groomed conditions. The video does not convey the actual experience of skiing with either of them, which I'd encourage anyone to do and learn what they can from the experience.
[img]smile.gif[/img]

[ October 26, 2003, 06:33 AM: Message edited by: Arcmeister ]
post #14 of 53
Thread Starter 
Good discussion, but I am going to follow Arcmeister's advice. Let's explore a little more.

Rusty said: A primary difference for me is that the outside foot BECOMES the dominant foot. I want to be able to choose when that takes place as opposed to having that be the genesis for a new turn. It can happen early in a turn via outside leg extension or it can build throughout a turn as a result of centrifugal force and/or extension or a combination of both.

Tipping or a blend of tipping and turning (right tip right to go right or left tip left to go left) does not require balance transfer or weight transfer.


Rusty's distinction of when the outside foot becomes dominant is a subtle difference, but nobody can argue that the outside foot is dominant in skiing. PMTS makes it more simple and mechanic, but at upper levels of skiing one can play with it, no?

As for the tippin/turning, I have to argue that a balance transfer has to take place as soon as the inside foot gives attempts to tip or point in the new direction.
post #15 of 53
Is a difference between PMTS and PSIA that PMTS has a "path" and PSIA has "stepping stones"? PMTS seems pretty rigid compared to PSIA (whose flexibility is precisely what allowed Harald to make the Demo Team despite knowing nothing of PSIA instructional standards).

From the PMTS Instructor's Manual: "In the PMTS, maneuvers aren't taught. Parallel turns aren't taught. Movements that result in parallel turns are taught. The PMTS uses a sequence of movements that advance a beginner to the expert level. Each movement is closely related to the movements that precede and follow it. It is the instructor's job to provide, connect, and refine the movements that a skier needs to achieve the desired outcome." (p. 13)

From the PSIA Alpine Manual: "Movements are what you do with your body. Motion is your dynamic state as you ski down the mountain. The focus when skiing is to stay balanced into the future! PSIA has developed a foundation for discussing skiing movements and functional skiing through the "skills concept." This concept allows us to use a common language that evaluates ski perfromance in a nonjudgmental manner and remains relevant during the constant evolution of equipment tecnologies."

Another difference between PSIA and PMTS seems to be the skills concept as a way to talk about movements used in good skiing.

[ October 26, 2003, 03:00 PM: Message edited by: nolo ]
post #16 of 53
Quote:
So I have to ask, what is the big difference (other than stance width) between PMTS and PSIA.
This uneducated observer sees little difference except how the concepts are defined. Like listening to two people describe the same thing only one is speaking French and the other German. Same description, different language.
It might be of more value to everyone to examine the similarities rather than the differences.
But what do I know?
post #17 of 53
Sorry I've been gone awhile.
In reference to my post about lifting the tail of the inside ski, that post was based on veiwing frame by frame the recent WC Finals tapes.
I have been doing this for many years now(viewing tapes of racers one frame at a time)and the practice is as prevalent now as it aways has been. The short skis have not changed the basic movements, only the range of motion used.
My reference to Phil Mahre was only to show that it is not intended. Someone asked me the same thing after I had done a short radius demo and my response was: Was I? I didn't think I was. I thought and felt like I had been grounded with both skis the whole time.
You really have to view the video one frame at a time to see it. It's not very appearant if you don't and, like I've tried to point out, you don't realize it's happening.

[ October 27, 2003, 11:00 AM: Message edited by: SLATZ ]
post #18 of 53
Quote:
Originally posted by Rick H:
At this point, both skis are on their little toe edges.
Is this even possible? Without putting yourself in a terrible position?

PSIA may be stilted and overly-regimented, but at least it usually makes sense.
post #19 of 53
At the risk of diverging too much from the posts of the thread, at least this is true to the topic heading. Rusty Guy asked "How many PMTS instructors?".

I went through the harb ski systems web site and counted 57 certified pros (3 blacks, 18 blues, 1 yellow and the rest greens). PSIA has approximately 29,000 members.

Regards,
Rusty
post #20 of 53
Here's a few compare and contrast items between PSIA and PMTS.

PMTS has a teaching model. Can anyone provide an overview? There are some hints on the PMTS web site.
The old PSIA teaching model was "student profile" (psychology stuff) + "instructor behavior" (things to do during the lesson) = "the learning partnership" (a description of the desired results). The new approach (from the core concepts manual) is to build your own model based upon piecing together many of the same concepts, but emphasizing being flexible in your approach and discovering and adding new elements as you grow.

PMTS has "SDSI" (Student Directed Ski Instruction).
PSIA talks about discovering your students and developing relationships. PSIA's message to tailor instruction to student needs sounds awfully similar.

PMTS claims to be able to get skiers to make parallel turns in a "few" short lessons. PSIA is promoting a direct to parallel concept as an option for teaching beginners to make parallel turns on their first day. The PSIA approach involves a "stepping stones" model that lets the instructor determine whether students start with wedge turns or parallel turns and the pace with which the turns are taught. The PMTS web site talks about some beginners skiing blue runs on their first day. PSIA makes no promises.

So far, I'm concluding that PMTS is similar to PSIA, but just uses a different terminology.

Regards,
Rusty
post #21 of 53
Rusty,

From what I am told, much of the PSIA Core Concepts came from the Winter Park "Skier Directed Instruction" ( I may have the name incorrect)model, which was developed by Kim Peterson. By some coincedence, PMTS "Student Directed Ski Instruction" was developed by Kim Peterson and refined by HH. From my persective, any teaching/learning program that will involve the student needs and desires is a plus for our industry. We should not care, one iota, who developed it, as long as it works for the student.
post #22 of 53
therusty, Rick H and Everyone,

I've said this before but I'll say it again. Student centered skiing models are nothing new. Its what successful long time instructors have been doing for years. In most cases its what made them so successful. What Kim P. and others have done is to recognize this and quantify just what it is that these instructors are doing so that newer instructors can learn to do it too.

Yd
post #23 of 53
Yd,

I agree. The situation here is that someone put it to paper, as did Kim.
post #24 of 53
Hiya Yd,

Yup I agree. The focus I'm working on is "what's the difference"? I picked up some things from the HH web sites, and started to compare ....
and found not much difference. Hmm - I could be wrong. The HH web sites say they are so much different from "traditional
instruction".

I suspect Rusty Guy has picked up on the movements piece of PMTS as something significant. I'd like to at least see a discussion of what they are versus the relative merits of different approaches.

The Rusty
post #25 of 53
therusty,

One of the differences between PMTS and PSIA, is accreditation/certification. It is not lateral. Green is not the same as Level I. The new Yellow is fairly close to Level I. Almost all Level IIIs end up as Blue accredited. Black has very few skiers that have the skiing ability or the teaching ability.

I am not going to get into the accreditation requirements here, as it is too long. You may, however, go to PMTS.org for that information.

One of the key components is Student Directed Ski Instruction. Except for Yellow, the candidate must demonstrate the ability to determine and fulfill the student's motivation, understanding and movements. From Green to Black, it gets progressively more difficult.

Skiing is very important. Most skiers transfer to a flat ski, me included. When this happens, the tail slips out a little bit. This is viewed as not parallel. The requirement is to consistantly ski parallel throughout the four days of accreditation. I have seen almost all of the coaches at the EpicAcademy slip a bit.

I hope that I have helped to illustrate some of the differences between PSIA and PMTS.
post #26 of 53
Rusty,

The fatal flaw or achilles heel, IMHO, is the "stance foot".
I think it MAY lead to a very quick learning curve for beginners, however, terminal intermediacy as an eventuality.

Rick H,

How many instructors were "certified" last year? I just don't see HH's teachings as having set the ski world on fire.

My evidence is exceedingly anecdotal, however, my impression is that many folks who turn to PMTS for certification are "terminal" level II certs who have either failed the level III cert or know all to well there is no point in going to the exam and turn to PMTS as an alternative. Again, scant evidence, purely a gut feeling.
post #27 of 53
Quote:
Originally posted by therusty:
found not much difference.
The Rusty
Less difference now than there was in the late '90's when PMTS appeared on the horizon and became a fresh perspective that infuenced many PSIA folks clearly frustrated by PSIA's lack of tangable response to the opportunities afforded by shape skis.

A perspective I reciently came across is: top-down Vs. bottom-up.

Our body naturaly moves within itself to guide the path of the center, from the feet up (cause). Our body's path thru space/time is observed as resulting movement of the body's center (effect).

PSIA traditionally presented "edging movements come from movement of the body center" that taught the effect by focusing on movement from the center to try to cause things to happen at the snow. (top-down)

PMTS uses Primary "causing" movements from the feet, up thru the body's kinetic chain, to guide the path of the body's center. (bottom-up)

Over the last 6-8 seasons this bottom-up movement concept has achieved more mainstream recognition by the masses as how the best skiers actually ski (and what a few of the best instructors already knew and have taught for years). That this recognition has altered the content of PSIA's most current offerings in this direction could be due in some part to HH's role as eye-opener while he was on the D-Team in early '90's finally taking seed and his PMTS providing a fresh awareness that there was valuable stuff out there that the PSIA box would have to stretch to incorporate.

[ October 30, 2003, 10:43 PM: Message edited by: Arcmeister ]
post #28 of 53
Quote:
Originally posted by Arcmeister:

A perspective I reciently came across is: top-down Vs. bottom-up.

Our body naturaly moves within itself to guide the path of the center, from the feet up (cause). Our body's path thru space/time is observed as resulting movement of the body's center (effect).

PSIA traditionally presented "edging movements come from movement of the body center" that taught the effect by focusing on movement from the center to try to cause things to happen at the snow. (top-down)

PMTS uses Primary "causing" movements from the feet, up thru the body's kinetic chain, to guide the path of the body's center. (bottom-up)

.[/QB]
Sources please.
post #29 of 53
Thread Starter 
Sources? Isn't Arcmeister a good enough source? Does he not have the credentials to make such an assessment?

As an observer to all this, I have to agree with Arcmeister. When HH started talking about the phantom foot (in Ski or Skiing magazine and on his web site), PSIA was still talking about directing the knees into the turn and using your belly button as a guide to your turns. This was long before SCSA joined this forum and long before anyone mentioned tipping the inside foot.

HH's focus on the phantom foot (or the "bottom-up" approach as Arcmeister defined it) coincided with the growing popularity of the shaped ski and it addressed an easy/simple way to take advantage of the ski's sidecut. There was no such focus in PSIA and it took PSIA a while longer to tweak teaching methods to address the shaped ski.

Maybe individual ski pros were ahead of the PSIA, and adjusted their teaching methods to address the shaped ski revolution, but the available literature certainly did not show this nearly as much as HH's articles and web site.

I may not be an instructor, but I read everything in sight during those years, and there is little question that HH had a primary role in identifying how primary movements and the especially the phantom foot can take advantage of shaped skis.

I also think that PSIA has now perfected the "bottom up" approach by relaxing what I think are too narrow (pun intended) guidelines in PMTS. For example, I cringed when I read Rick H's post where he mentioned that one has to be able to transfer without any slippage at all during 4 days of accreditation. My first thought was: if you don't want the tail to slip, don't transfer on a flat ski (i.e. keep both feet engaged through neutral). [img]smile.gif[/img]
post #30 of 53
I think PSIA has taken a stance of peaceful coexistence toward PMTS. Although Harald has retrained himself somewhat lately in making disparaging comments about PSIA in public, it stands to reason that the guy would want to measure PMTS against PSIA's teaching system. PSIA, the standard for ski instruction in the U.S., does the smart thing and designs its system so it is big enough to include PMTS. I think some divisions award PMTS training general ed credit and maybe even certification reciprocity at the lower level.
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 › PSIA vs PMTS - what's the difference?