Skiing Pretty

 I think you can "ski pretty" on any run, even bumps and steeps.  IMO it's about economy of effort and always moving something.  Balance is dynamic.  Smooth, graceful skiing is good skiing!  Smooth, graceful skiing can also be powerful skiing.

Some people attack the mountain in a very agressive, dynamic and althletic way.  This makes for exciting skiing to watch, but since ultimately you cannot overpower gravity, you will wear out rather quickly, both on the short and long term basis.  Others always stay in perfect balance and caress the mountain using the least amount of physical effort possible, which allows them to ski almost effortlessly without stopping or tiring.  A good skier can use a mix of those two techniques as the terrain, snow and their mood dictates.  Addmitedly it is a broad generalization, but guys tend to ski the first way, and women the second.  Although women usually like to watch guys skis, that is not what they aspire to.

As someone who has been skiing for about a half century, and can still ski the steep bumps pretty much all day, I can tell you that if you want to last in this sport, the sooner you figure out method number two, the better.  Call it "pretty" if you want, but that's what I'm usually shooting for.  It's fun to amp it up once in a while, but if you get in a fight with the mountain it will beat you almost every time.

Interesting question. I would say it all depends on what your objectives are and your crtieria for sking well. Also, everyone has their own defintions of fast, steep, and gnarly. For someone used to skiing ungroomed 45-degree pitches, someone who skis on a groomed 35 degree pitch is not skiing steep or gnarly terrain, and on and on.

As far as whether or not it is possible to ski well at lower speeds on groomed blue terrain -- if it is not possible, then the instructors who teach the technique to intermediates while skiing at slower speeds on blue groomed terrain are not skiing well when they instruct. Obviously, this would mean instructors are incapable of skiing well at slower speeds because it is not possible to do so. Nobody would be able to pass a Level I certfication because they can't ski well on blue groomed terrain. It then follows that intermediate students would always be shown how to ski poorly.

In this case, it sounds more like an individual not having the goal of putting herself into the environment of what she deems as fast/steep/gnarly and is simply content with more mellow offerings. There is nothing wrong with that. We all have our own limits and desires. I believe everyone has a limit which they have no desire to cross. Some have set the bar much higher than others. Skill is secondary to this limit, IMO. 

I'm sure the definition is debatable, but IMO a "good skier" is one that can ski in control on the slopes they choose, which certainly doesn't require "fast/steep/gnarly."  Many people ski well and enjoy the spot immensely without pushing the limits very far, while others always ski on the limit, but aren't really very good skiers.  Hubby shreds the fall line of a steep slope while wifey cuts slow controlled GS turns down the same slope.  They are both in their comfort and fun zones, and lucky to have a mate they can ski with.  I doubt she would not be considered a "good skier" in that situation. 

Athletic style skiing as practiced by a huge percentage of mostly male skiers is ultimately a losing proposition leading to quick fatigue at best, and eventual injury at worst.  By 2:00 at most resorts the crowds dramatically thin.  It is usually more exciting to go hard and fast for a short time, rather than ski smoothly for the entire day.  I know many ladies that cannot keep up with the boys, but they usually outlast them.  Does that mean they are not good skiers?

After decades of being stuck on equipment based on the racing model, we are finally getting to a point where it reflects how people want to ski recreationally.  I think instruction is going to go through a huge transition because of the newer wider, rockered equipment.  The leaning curve is shorter and easier, and I believe it will benefit women probably more than men.  The new equipment does not require as much aggression and strength to make it function well in a wide variety of situations, which I think women will find particularly attractive.

We also need to keep in mind that individuals who are more athletic to begin with have a higher standard of fitness than the average recreational skier. Sure, using efficient and clean technique makes things easier but it still is going to take some strength and stamina to ski steep and gnarly terrain all day long. You still have to counteract the forces being put on your body. Your legs can only take so much before they start to tire and you are forced to slow it down. I am not a racer but don't know of anyone who can ski 45 degree pitches at Mach One for nine hours straight.

I agree, but I think skiing is such that if you are doing it a little bit unbalanced, it takes a lot more physical effort, and it is probably easier for the average ski to develop better technique than more strength.

Maybe it is a case of want vs can.  Because your car can go 130MPH does not necessarily mean you want to.  If you have the ability to cruise all over a mountain like Bridger Bowl, you are a good skier.  This skier without a doubt has the capability to attack a run when the mood or situation calls for it, preferring to ski with the run may be more enjoyable to our happy skier IPO dominating it.  She and I would do well together now, not so much in my youth.

It comes down to personal preference and taste in the  moment for most people.  A multidimensional person probably likes to listen to more than one style of music, it is reasonable to expect them to mix up their skiing styles too if they can. 

Hormones and culture plays into this mix too and attitude about what is good.  A group of young alpha males will probably have a different opinion about what is good skiing.  They would also be the group to follow if you like to go to yard sales. 

Aggreed. I think we are now able to answer the original question posed by the OP. 

'She wants to be a better skier but doesn't want to ski like him..'

Refine your skills to become more efficient in movement within the performance envelope you now find yourself immersed. Don't approach it like you have to move on up to steeper or more gnarly terrain or take on the preferences of anyone else. With that being said, you may find that your confidence grows to the point that steeper or more gnarly terrain does not seem as formidable as it once did. You may even have the desire to 'move on up' knowing that you have the confidence and skills to efficiently handle some new conditions. I know that's how it worked for me. I certainly am not an expert and do not ski experet terrain but I find I get bored once I hit a plataeu on terrain that I am used to and start to slowly explore more challenges. 

To the guy, I would say let her go at her own pace and don't push it. Everyone has their own approach and limits and some people advance quicker than others. That's just the way it is and you have to respect that.

Sorry for hijacking the thread for my personal rant. 

Mojoman, I think we are in complete agreement.  Girls ski differently than guys, and that's OK.  She does not have to try and ski more like him to be a better ski.  Increase of control in any situation tends to lead to increasing the situations in which you have control.

I remember starting a 2,000 ft. vertical bump run under the chair (Al's at Taos) with a couple of middle aged ladies, who are very good skis.  About 3 bumps into the run a young guy blew past us turning like a wildman, and one of the ladies remaked that he was a good skier, but when the run was over we had beaten him to the bottom.  Athletic abiltiy did not stand up for long against smooth solid technique.  Skiing "pretty" does not mean that you will be forever confined to the blue runs, or always finish behind the guys.

Yes

A balanced skier is always pretty,slow or fast. The only difference is having the skills for the tasks at hand. Chicks that Rip,yeah.

Of course it is possible to be a good skier and ski "pretty" without being overly aggressive.  Good skiing is good skiing, no matter how low or how high the g-forces are or how quickly, suddenly or slowly turn shape changes.

The corollary is also true.  Dynamic aggressive brutal skiing doesn't have to be ugly. 

Good skiing is about how the movements are made, the amount of control and precision of the movements,  effectiveness and efficiency (they are not the same thing), and how graceful the skier is, not how much force is required, how quick or how fast the skier is. 

Fred usually led.  

If she want's to be a dancer, perhaps she'd like to be this lady. 

I was seeing this a lot teaching level 7-9 students last year.  Women tend to understate their skiing, while men tend to embellish their skiing.  Most of last years students were women ages 35-55 who came with a boyfriend, husband, child who made them feel like something was "insufficient" about their skiing.  Most of these women needed a little speed control and tactical adjustment and they were good to go on off-piste blacks and some double blacks.  Most of the time I got to meet at least some of the men in question.  Only one was a real ripper.  Some made "dynamic parallel" turns, but couldn't adapt to the steeper terrain and couldn't control their speed or ski in something narrow like Tower 3 Chute.  So I do think that pretty skiing is efficient skiing and becomes powerful because the effort expended is used effectively.  I also know that slow controlled skiing on blues takes skill and is, to me, good skiing.  I think that someone with that skill set can ski more challenging terrain, if they wish, and do so with out beating their body to a pulp.

Elegant, slow, fluid skiing on blue groomers is an art.  Few do it well.  If she succeeds, she'll probably be a stronger skier than her "athletic skier" husband. 

I suspect, however, that any success would be due to "modeling skiing instruction after WC skiing," that is focusing on balance and fine motor control.  It takes far greater balance to exhibit fluidity and elegance in skiing at low speeds than when ripping.

If you aren't skiing pretty on the blue runs, you probably aren't skiing pretty anywhere else either. I tend to think most people associate skiing pretty as often as not with a controlled upper body more than the kind of footwork that is the hallmark of modern expert skiing.

How about slow on steeps and bumps?  Or controlled and not fast?  Or any speed that is chosen by the skier?  It's pretty easy to go fast.

Smooth and efficient skiing showing a fluid flexible motion = pretty skiing. 

Speed, difficulty of terrain, and snow condition don't determine elegance, they just enhance the level of the challenge.  If our skier looks pretty incorporating these they are good.

Elegant skiing may have a gymnastic flair, or aggressive actions but should they be required?

You guys are missing the point.

#1. Tight black pants. 
#2.  SHORT jacket with fur trim
#3.  No hat - hair band.
#4.  Old school Vuarnets
#5   Boot warmers.  Nobody like rubbing cold feet.
#6.  Tight Underarmor shirt.  White.  Zip neck.
#7.  Unbuckle boots on lift so lots of bending in unload area and in lift line.
#8.  Moisturizing lip gloss.
#9.  Enough Coco Chanel so you can juuuuuuuust smell it sitting next to her on lift.

That about covers it.

I disagree with anyone that doesnt want to ski off groomers, If you get the skills whether at 5 or 20 mph eventually groomer skiing becomes boring. Even in older woman. 

You dont have to pound or shred anything good skiing is good skiing it can be smooth and pretty, but to limit yourself to one type of terrain except for health reasons is just being scared and nothing more. 

skiing pretty is skiing well, even the people pounding bumps have grace to it.

You got me @ #1.

Excellent point. I started playing golf because it was a social activity that my former in-laws enjoyed. I didn't aspire to do much more than not loose a couple dozen balls in a round.

It is a slippery slope we tread when we measure others by our own yardstick.

No and I hope so. Just because I'm a guy, why do I need to adjust my values? Just because I can ski using my guy strength doesn't mean I don't ever ski "pretty". My values are to meet my students wants and needs. My values are that I've done the best job possible if I've met my student's needs in one lesson and they don't need me any more.

In my level 3 exams 2 seasons ago I saw a couple women who skied well and pretty and passed. Your skiing certainly fits that description. The Fry sisters can switch between powerful and pretty at will. There is no reason why technically efficient skiing has to be "macho".  My question for instructors is how do you take pretty skiing and turn it into "elegant" skiing?

I'd rather open the student's eye's to new possiblilities.  Take your lady as an example.  Perhaps right now she THINKS she doesn't want to ski blacks.  It's because she currently does not possess the skill base that allows such slopes to be skied in complete comfort.  Right now she perhaps sees them as something intimidating that she wants no part of.  As her skills grow, that will change.  As it changes, the sprectrum of pleasures the sport has to offer her blossoms.  She may not realize that presently.  Should we cater to her misconceptions, or strive to be an instrument of inspiration and enlightenment?  To me, the latter course is what teaching is all about.    

Nolo,
I'd draw a parallel with dancing. I've been watching Dancing with ths Stars (Never imagined this would happen. Thought it was a stupid premise for entertainment. Got hooked by the skimpy outfits) and can't get over the similarities to skiing. It's about balance, body awareness and controlled rythmic movement. The Jive, Foxtrot, and Quick step are way more energetic then the Waltz but when done well can anyone claim it isn't GOOD dancing.

The challenge of the Pros teaching the amateurs certainly seems to parallel teaching skiing. They get students of all ages with all levels of atheleticism same as we do, and do their best to develop skills in a limited amount of time.

Should we as instructors be able to adjust to the different goals of our students? If we can't we need to develop our teaching skills more. In the case of women wanting to ski pretty, could that be their way of saying they want to ski with more rythum and flow?
Kazooski