or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

# Tipping vs. Twisting a Ski - Page 3

Tipping doesn't have to be about high edge angles or inclination. I teach it from the 2nd run off the magic carpet and I don't look back. I teach it from the wedge (which probably sounds like total blasphemy to some) because I like the extra steering angle and stability that the wedge allows. The beginner skier can feel like he is in a safe place, and he can also feel the ski making him turn right from the beginning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by justanotherskipro

Si, fair enough. You subscribe to a method where a tipping bias is preferrred.
So here's an idea that might help explain why IMO rotary skills while learning to slide across the snow are so much easier to learn. Let's begin with the idea that we stand vertical to the Earth all the time. As we walk and run we turn the legs as we stride and guess what? Over the course of several steps we turn. If we're walking down a slope we already know how to stand so we don't fall. We also know how to adjust our stance to balance as we turn back and forth across the hill as we walk down the slope. The built in edge angle (slope angle when we are standing vertical to the Earth) is sufficient to keep us from sliding sideways down the hill. On skis, this skill is still present and stepping drills tap into this knowledge / experience base as we do step turn / figure eights, etc. Scootering on one ski allows us to also tap into this knowledge base while simultaneously introducing balancing (standing) on a moving platform. Finally after putting on both skis the guest is now ready to leave the terrestrial world of a high friction contact point with the Earth. Although balance in this temporary world still involves a mostly vertical to the Earth stance. Which I may add still includes sufficient edge angles to facilitate turning the skis as they slide across the snow. Just like what occurs when we walk down that same slope.

Contrast that to asking a student to inclinate so the skis tip to an arbitrary edge angle and then asking them to ride that ski while balancing on that constant edge angle. Without the vertical stance component they've used since they learned to walk just getting them to find balance this way is a tall order. One that usually results in using too much edging which in turn results in their getting locked onto an edge and the skis taking them where the ski wants to go, not the other way around.

So from the perspective of finding commonality between skills a student posesses and ones we're trying to develop, teaching for transfer just makes sense. As these students gain mastery of balancing on the skis, exploring more edge and more inclined stances is a matter of expanding the RoM of balancing. Not trying to do it in one step.

Jasp I think this post starts to address the fact that a lot of the differences may be semantic.  I used stepping drills considerably and successfully, especially in getting people to connect turns.  As you might guess I would give guidance to tip the right foot/ski while turning right and the left ski while turning left.  So, what you may consider as a drill with a twisting focus I consider one with a tipping focus.  I also love stepping because of it's positive effects on balance and ability to give skiers direct feed back about their fore/aft balance.  My biased view of all this is that stepping practices tipping and easily leads people to connected turns.  I will stay with stepping sometime for a short while to try and achieve better fore/aft balance even if someone may be ready to move on.  Once there, I work on how flexing or relaxing the tipped ski assists so much more.  You may consider stepping as a ski twisting focus where I just think of it as a context within which I build tipping skills.  Like I said, I think there's a lot of semantics involved in the differing points of view.  The main difference may be that I may refer to or think about rotating or twisting the ski in the plane of the ski to a much lesser extent
than others?

I try to avoid the term rotary in discussions here as much possible as it is very confusing to me and different people seem to give it different meaning.  It is listed as one of three basic skills in PSIA but as the other skills relate to what you can do to a ski I assume it means rotating or twisting the ski in the plane of the ski.  On the other hand, some refer to any rotational join movement as rotary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by therusty

Si,

Is a well rounded skier focused on tipping? There is a lot of merit in that thought. Is a well rounded skier focused on skiing?

The PSIA stepping stones model says the most powerful teaching focus is to have options for the paths from beginner to expert. One of those paths could be tipping focused. When that path is chosen, the hope is that it is the better way for that student. To the extent that the instructor has made an accurate assessment of the student and the environment du jour, this can easily happen. There are lots of direct to parallel success stories.

When a school mandates an approach for its instructors, they often take the flexibility for chosing an approach out of the instructors hands. One reason could be that they want a consistent product. Another reason could be that they don't expect their instructors to be experienced enough to reliably make accurate assessments. When instructors are expected to teach groups of students the problem grows more complicated. What if some students would learn better with a tipping focus while others would learn better with a twisting focus? It's been my experience that the "tippers" learn twisting better than the "twisters" learn tipping. Note that when I say "tippers", I mean people that I would teach tipping to if I taught them individually. If this experience is universal, then there should be no wonder why a school would choose either a blended or twisted (sic) focus.

You said it yourself:
Quote:

What if your students don't have enough balance to tip? One argument for twisting is that it lets students ski and develop balance skills as they go. An argument against twisting is that with more than 8 out of 10 first timers not taking up the sport why should we worry about people with balance skills that are so poor that they can't tip their skis? If you can't teach them balance on day 1, then dump them. If those people represented 30% of the population (I just picked that number for the sake of argument), we'd still have the opportunity to triple our success rate with the remaining students. With a lack of any hard data proving that a focus on tipping can achieve this level of success, is there any wonder why SSM would chose not to use an approach that essentially would tell x percent of their first time customers "Sorry - you're better off tubing"? Realize that there is hard data that a beginner program can easily double the national success rate simply by changing things that are unrelated to the teaching focus (e.g. my resort routinely sells what is essentially a return ticket to 30% of our first time customers on the day of their first visit!).

When it comes to this "argument" there is no right or wrong. There are only choices and benefits and consequences. A line instructor is not necessarily going to see all of the benefits and consequences at the school level. Those with more experience will tend to have a wider perspective. Sometimes an obviously better approach is not so obvious when viewed from a different perspective. It's a rare manager who never makes a decision that doesn't "look stupid" to someone else.

I hear what you're saying Rusty.  I especially like your last paragraph.  I am the first to admit that I am not approaching it from any kind of business point of view.  If I inherited a financially successful highly "twisting" oriented school it might be much more difficult to risk a complete overhaul than I would like to imagine.  I would like to think that I would give it a shot, though.
The GCT model was originally intended as a debriefing tool for the coach / teacher to identify their teaching bias by tracking the activities of the day. By putting a chit mark in the appropriate cell for each activity, the instructor could get a daily snapshot of what they taught and where their teaching biases influenced their lesson content. The idea being without a tracking tool the coach is left with only their impressions and over time these impressions tend to be inaccurate. Especially when you color those memories with a strong opinion about the superiority of your biased approach.
I could add some data from my teaching database but to be honest what's most important is conveying the need for understanding all three skills equally and being able to teach whatever skill focus or blend of skills a student needs or wants. Limiting your teaching or learning to one particular bias is sort of like teaching your students to only make left turns. When they face the inevitable right turn they won't own that skill and if you spend all of your time teaching left turns you won't know how to teach them a right turn.  Don't be seduced by your current opinions, stay open to a wider and more comprehensive approach to ski teaching and learning. BTW, Like most of us I'm sure your opinions will change over the years and the latest and greatest fads will fade away as the equipment changes. Five years ago it was the rage to own a short slaom carver, now it's a fat rockered ski. Who knows what it will be next. What I can say is a complete and comprehensive approach to owning all the skills will allow you to adapt your style to that still undeveloped equipment far easier than a more biased skill set ever could. That fact won't change. Know em all, use em all, teach em all...
JASP
Edited by justanotherskipro - 2/3/10 at 7:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Si
It is listed as one of three basic skills in PSIA but as the other skills relate to what you can do to a ski I assume it means rotating or twisting the ski in the plane of the ski.  On the other hand, some refer to any rotational join movement as rotary.

From the Viisual Cues:
Quote:
Rotary movements involve turning some part of the body relative to other parts.
What is also sometimes misunderstood is that PSIA believes that some rotary movements are ineffective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by therusty

From the Viisual Cues:
"Rotary movements involve turning some part of the body relative to other parts."

Rusty, since this discussion has wound down and has been pretty civil maybe it's a good time to ask about the "3" skills.  As I said earlier, pressuring and edging are two of the three ways you can rotate a ski in a given plane.  Shouldn't twisting or rotating the ski in the plane of the ski be the third?  I think that for the sake of discussion it's very important to separate what you can do to a ski from the movements it takes to do it.
You attempt to enhance the misunderstanding of PSIA rotary and then ask why they don't do so when you find an alternative definition to the one you wished to support.

What are you really asking ? You seem the be hammering away at the Icon but aren't making any headway . So now you ask to redefine rotary again to suit your intentions of this thread ?

Am I missing your point or am I  not ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarryZ

You attempt to enhance the misunderstanding of PSIA rotary and then ask why they don't do so when you find an alternative definition to the one you wished to support.

What are you really asking ? You seem the be hammering away at the Icon but aren't making any headway . So now you ask to redefine rotary again to suit your intentions of this thread ?

Am I missing your point or am I  not ?

I'm not sure whether you are missing or misconstruing the point.  I personally am truly confused about rotary.  It's listed as one of the 3 basic skills and then defined as any rotational movement of a joint.  I see this as a dichotomy, don't you?  I don't personally care how they define their 3 basic skills or rotary but I am trying to make sense of it.
Si, if you tie the three skills of rotary, edging, and pressure to the three anatomical planes of movement then maybe it will make more sense. Rotary movements in the body happen parallel to the horizontal plane. Rotary skills are our "skillfull" use of these movements. Just like with edging and pressure, rotary skills can add to, take away, or simply maintain the status quo. In other words by skillfull use of rotary, we can add torque, reduce or remove torque or simply maintain existing rotation orientation. Hope this helps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Si

Rusty, since this discussion has wound down and has been pretty civil maybe it's a good time to ask about the "3" skills.  As I said earlier, pressuring and edging are two of the three ways you can rotate a ski in a given plane.  Shouldn't twisting or rotating the ski in the plane of the ski be the third?  I think that for the sake of discussion it's very important to separate what you can do to a ski from the movements it takes to do it.

Si,

It's perfectly ok to think in terms of the forces that manipulate performance characteristics of the ski and the movements that we must make to generate and control those forces. Thinking about these in isolation also makes it easier to understand them. But taking them out of context also makes it easier to misunderstand them. For example, I know that rotating femurs is a key component of high performance skiing. But I can't make my femurs rotate. I let them rotate. This rotary movement does not generate a force on the ski in the plane of the ski. This movement allows me to stay in balance and thus make other edge/pressure movements that do impact the ski. I believe that there are times when we do want to make rotary movements that do generate forces in the plane of the ski. I think that for the sake of discussion it is very important not to separate this out from the ideal that rotary movements must be blended with other movements in order to be effective movements. If I wanted to prove rotary movements were ineffective, the first thing I'd do is talk about them in isolation. This is why we also talk about a fourth skill (balance) even though it does not directly impart forces upon the ski. It may be important for us to understand how to manipulate a ski in 3 dimensions, but PSIA believes it is more important to focus on teaching movements that develop 4 skills. You've raised an important question about which movements should have priority when we teach. Reasonable people disagree on this subject. I prefer to make such choices in real time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RicB

Si, if you tie the three skills of rotary, edging, and pressure to the three anatomical planes of movement then maybe it will make more sense. Rotary movements in the body happen parallel to the horizontal plane. Rotary skills are our "skillfull" use of these movements. Just like with edging and pressure, rotary skills can add to, take away, or simply maintain the status quo. In other words by skillfull use of rotary, we can add torque, reduce or remove torque or simply maintain existing rotation orientation. Hope this helps.

RicB,  I really do appreciate the attempt but in all honesty it doesn't help .  Why name three skills, with two relating to actions of the skis within defined planes and one other relating to planes of movement of body joints.  I don't mean to be obstinate but I really don't get it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by therusty

Si,

It's perfectly ok to think in terms of the forces that manipulate performance characteristics of the ski and the movements that we must make to generate and control those forces. Thinking about these in isolation also makes it easier to understand them. But taking them out of context also makes it easier to misunderstand them. For example, I know that rotating femurs is a key component of high performance skiing. But I can't make my femurs rotate. I let them rotate. This rotary movement does not generate a force on the ski in the plane of the ski. This movement allows me to stay in balance and thus make other edge/pressure movements that do impact the ski. I believe that there are times when we do want to make rotary movements that do generate forces in the plane of the ski. I think that for the sake of discussion it is very important not to separate this out from the ideal that rotary movements must be blended with other movements in order to be effective movements. If I wanted to prove rotary movements were ineffective, the first thing I'd do is talk about them in isolation. This is why we also talk about a fourth skill (balance) even though it does not directly impart forces upon the ski. It may be important for us to understand how to manipulate a ski in 3 dimensions, but PSIA believes it is more important to focus on teaching movements that develop 4 skills. You've raised an important question about which movements should have priority when we teach. Reasonable people disagree on this subject. I prefer to make such choices in real time.

Everything you've said makes sense.  Maybe I'm just to much of a scientist who has done a lot of modeling but I would just like to see systems that clearly define actions of the ski, the movements needed to effect that action on the ski, and then the relationships between actions and movements.  If I interpret yours and RicB's response correctly then my hang up with the way PSIA defines skills is not going to be resolved in the current system as it stands and I'm just going to have to modify the way I view things if I'm going to correctly interpret what some people are saying.
Edited by Si - 2/4/10 at 10:40pm
Well they all three relate to ski snow interaction, but also to movements of the body n the three anatomical planes of movement. Frontal plane = ab/adduction and edging movements, the sagital plane = extension/flexion and pressure control movements, and the horizontal plane = rotational movements. All the movements the body makes are covered within these categories. The ATS Skills Concept simply takes these accepted scientific categories of human movement and defines how these categories relate to skillfull skiing. It is a great assessment tool as well as a prescriptive tool for those who understand the underlying concept. If you only want to focus on two that's OK by me. I personally find the skills concept a very usefull tool. As I do other schools of thought too. I like to keep an open mind about things. In the end it is simply about turning left and right. we all keep coming back for more turns.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Si

RicB,  I really do appreciate the attempt but in all honesty it doesn't help .  Why name three skills, with two relating to actions of the skis within defined planes and one other relating to planes of movement of body joints.  I don't mean to be obstinate but I really don't get it.

Thanks for that Ric.  I think it's a more complete description of the ATS model that makes better sense.  It doesn't, however, let me easily express what I've been trying to say since I've been talking about emphasizing two ways to move the skis (without trying to exclude appropriate ski action in the third) and don't think that it translates well to any particular emphasis or restrictions on movemements in any of the anatomical planes.  Depending on body position, directions, and conditions, movements in all three anatamical planes can easily be involved in each of the three actions of the skis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Si

I'm just going to have to modify the way I view things if I'm going to correctly interpret what some people are saying.

Don't think of it as modifying how you view things. Think of it as being able to see the same thing from multiple perspectives.
I'm thinking it's the complications of rotary with all the parts we have that can move that have little to do with moving a ski that makes this such a hard subject to nail down.. Some rotary causes us to be in balance, some do the opposite, some can reduce or we can  enhance edging and pressure so it's a deep subject that does need to be discussed. Twist your wrist, turn your head. These ,with so many other possible  movements ,are rotary and might not involve directly the twisting of the ski but can alter the package of balance, rotary , pressure and edging.

Maybe a start would be to define what we feel is helpful rotary and what often is not. It's just a word and it's connotations are not  simple to use to examine,reject or defend unless we are specific .Generalizations of rotary just lead to arguments because they are rarely fair or accurate.
That definition is in the visual cues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by therusty

Don't think of it as modifying how you view things. Think of it as being able to see the same thing from multiple perspectives.

Of course.  I think I was just subconsciously expressing a bit of lament about having to view things from a perspective that I find less effective than others while on the other hand wanting to understand and learn from those who share that perspective.  Let me also add that I am enjoying those interactions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarryZ

These ,with so many other possible  movements ,are rotary and might not involve directly the twisting of the ski but can alter the package of balance, rotary , pressure and edging.

Gary, the circular nature of this comment where the term rotary is used to talk about it's effect on balance, rotary, pressure, and edging highlights the very root of my confusion.  I don't mean to be critical in this comment just trying to better explain my confusion.  My impression is that this type of circular reference happens a lot in discussions here.
One thing I've noticed about people learning skiing is they get lots of parts moving in many directions and we have to sort through this often to  find the skills concepts being used in concert and in collision.
It seems normal to me to see rotary applied to other forms of rotary. It's not circular but a reflection of reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Si

So my question is: Why should one ever isolate and focus on twisting the ski when it is almost always more effective to tip and twist or in some cases exclusively tip the ski? I ask this question whether it is the context of a drill or real skiing. I also realize that there are a few situational exceptions where a pure twisting of the ski might be desirable – let’s try to focus on the more common skiing situations and environments, not the exceptions or drills like pivot slips.

I do it just to make Harald mad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusty Guy

I do it just to make Harald mad.

Hopefully it's too late to turn this discussion in that direction
Ayup, this discussion has definitely reached the tipping point.
I keep coming back to the idea that the process of learning to ski involves first finding balance, then exploring how to move out of balance to create a specific outcome. The first stance we learn is relatively static as we endeavor to simply stand on the skis as they slide across the snow. It's also a fairly symmetrical stance, especially during a straight run. As we step out of that straight run we use a small amount of rotary (or twisting if you prefer) as the ski is in the air. Notice this occurs before placing back on the snow facing a new direction. In additon the small amount of tipping needed occurs quite naturally as a function of the skis turning across the slope and the skier remaining in a relatively vertical stance. It is very important to understand that adding more tipping at this point only locks up the skier on an edge and restrict our ability to access to all three skills. Even as we begin to link turns we still don't need much tipping since we will instinctively stand on the skis in an inclined stance. Just like we would do when we change directions as we walk and run.

Fast forward to a blended small turn and we're talking about a skidded outcome but not a windsheild wiper type of turn. Balancing on the middle of the skis and tipping them to create a higher edge angle can certainly create a small turn but no where near as small as we can with some steering. Nor would it be very efficient to try to bend the ski to create a three meter turn. That would take more muscle power than most skier can develop. So even in this example it should be obvious that a tipping bias is far less efficient or appropriate.

In conclusion I am suggesting that a blended turn more often than not, is more relevent to recreational skiing and much easier to perform. It's also more efficient in most cases. Eventually a carved turn is something we can add to the mix but only after we have developed sufficient skills. Before then all we're doing is showing a skier how to get locked up on an edge and get taken for a ride. Not exactly what I want to be around since these people have a bad habit of using collisions as a speed control option. I've scraped up far to many injured skiers who hit some one or got hit by someone using a too tippy skiing bias.
We've been candy coating this to accomodate various opinions and I'm sure some would suggest I'm wrong here but IMO a tipping first bias in our teaching is inferior because it introduces too much tipping (locked on an edge problems) and position to position skiing. In addition I see no advantages being offered that suggesst discarding a comprehensive approach that has been in use for years. New mousetraps? No thanks mine works fine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Si

Thanks for that Ric.  I think it's a more complete description of the ATS model that makes better sense.  It doesn't, however, let me easily express what I've been trying to say since I've been talking about emphasizing two ways to move the skis (without trying to exclude appropriate ski action in the third) and don't think that it translates well to any particular emphasis or restrictions on movemements in any of the anatomical planes.  Depending on body position, directions, and conditions, movements in all three anatamical planes can easily be involved in each of the three actions of the skis.

Bingo, the last sentence of this post should go a long way to helping you understand the differences between the way you have been thinking about skiing and the way PSIA instructors have been trained to think about it.I just want to add one thing. Rather thsn thinking of the three actions of the skis think in terms of how these actions affect the interaction of the skis and the snow and the reaction of the skis to this interaction. After all it is this interaction and reaction that gives us our motive force when skiing. If we are in the air it doesn't matter whether we tip or twist the skis press the tips of the skis down or anything else our body keeps going in a straight line.

fom
coming to this thread late...  Some valiant attempts by all to revisit this old topic with grande formality and civility....  kudos to all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justanotherskipro
In conclusion I am suggesting that a blended turn more often than not, is more relevent to recreational skiing and much easier to perform. It's also more efficient in most cases. Eventually a carved turn is something we can add to the mix but only after we have developed sufficient skills. Before then all we're doing is showing a skier how to get locked up on an edge and get taken for a ride. Not exactly what I want to be around since these people have a bad habit of using collisions as a speed control option. I've scraped up far to many injured skiers who hit some one or got hit by someone using a too tippy skiing bias.

We've been candy coating this to accomodate various opinions and I'm sure some would suggest I'm wrong here but IMO a tipping first bias in our teaching is inferior because it introduces too much tipping (locked on an edge problems) and position to position skiing.

yea JASP.

My opinion is that there is just no short cut to high end skiing.  Some would like to go straight to tipping and carving and carve they will.  But high end skiing DOES involve rotary skill.  Would you rather that skiers start making fast carving turns and then years later finally realize they need to learn how to blend other skills?  Or would you rather teach them safety first, and as they get better and more experienced they can learn how to truly carve their skis to go faster?

I vote for the second option.  There is no such thing as a short cut to the top.  It takes a lot of time, a lot of practice and a lot of blending.  The best skiers I know can arc-to-arc or perform perfect pivot slips with equal ease.  And they can blend in many different combinations in between those two extremes.

That being said, there are bad habits galore all over the mountain.  Some of those bad habits are in skiers that never took a proper lesson.  Some bad habits are learned from instructors.  Bad habits can include park-and-ride-on-the-edges problems, all the way to massive rotary problems.  The truth is that most skiers take a lesson or two and then go their own way.

There is not ample evidence to show that teaching with a bias towards tipping vs a bias towards rotary will result in a better outcome years down the road.  There are mostly opinions.  However, with modern skis, a tipping bias will probably cause a new or less experienced skier to just forget all about rotary and rely on their equipment to ride all over the mountain, never really learning rotary or how to blend it.

yes, higher end skiing involves a lot more tipping and carving then what PSIA wants to teach beginners.  I have NOOOOO problem with that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justanotherskipro
IMO a tipping first bias in our teaching is inferior because it introduces too much tipping (locked on an edge problems) ...
Funny, I got the exact same message from the powers that be in my ski school this year. My opinion is that this is throwing the baby out with the bath water. I've certainly seen too much tipping in the kids on the race team and in some of the classes being taught on the hill. But not any of my classes. What I have seen in my first time lessons is that when a tipping bias is successfully used, my skiing students learning curve is the same as my snowboarding students learning curve as measured by how many students progress to the next level of slope difficulty on day one. When I use a steering bias in my teaching approach, fewer students progress. My observations are not scientific. Aside from possibly being inaccurate, they could simply be a result of choosing to teach tipping to first timers with greater inherent ability or that I've become a better coach since I started teaching direct to parallel for first timers. My first day tipping student could also be developing edge lock problems on subsequent trips that I don't get to see.

I do get to see one common element between my fastest learning skiers and riders. They all let the gear turn them. We know that this is a more efficient method to turn and we know that a carving ski is more stable than a skidding ski. Beginner gear with short turning radii and a soft flex pattern provides a lot more sensory feedback when the edges are engaged. I believe that this is why I see steeper learning curves for students in tipping bias lessons. I've also found that it is far easier to teach carvers to skid than it is to teach skidders to carve. I've only had one student with a carving problem and that was a snowboarder.

I still teach steering biased (what you call a blended turn) lessons to first timers for a variety of reasons. This season I'm making an effort to teach both approaches in all first time lessons and then proceeding with what "sticks" with each individual student. Some times this means every student tips, some times every student steers and sometimes it's a mix (e.g. you steer and you tip - but we're all going over here),
I'd say we probably can teach a variety of ways and results are hard to track without gathering data. Something I saw happening in Aspen BTW. It's what prompted them to return to a more balanced introduction of all three skills instead of the tipping biased approach that preceded it. Mind you were talking about 1400 pros over the course of many years. While some registered level coaches get a chance to work there the prereq in that school is a full cert. So we're talking about a lot of talented pros and a sizable data base. Their choice to return to a more centrist approach is in my mind not due to a handful of SSD level people creating something because they have a strong opinion one way or another. It's a conclusion they arrived at after looking at all the data they collected. It's also similar to the demo team opinions like Rogan's, so it isn't easy to suggest this group is wrong, at least IMO. Their high return numbers suggest the students are voting with their wallets and the rest of us should at least consider that model as an example of success breeding more success. Do circumstances occur where their model isn't the best route? Sure but that can be said about any system, or approach.
As far as the baby going out the window, well in a biased approach we're excluding information and that's when we have more of a chance of watching the baby go flying. One final point I'd like to make here is how we measure progress. Is it linear and measured by the slope a student skis during the lesson? Is it measured by the versatile performance of the skills in a lot of laterally equal situations. I can take never evers and have them on solid blue terrain in a day and on black terrain in three. I can also explore a wider variety of green and blue terrain instead. I try to avoid linear measurements because they don't represent acquisition of skill as much as a mesurement of the skiers agressiveness and willingness to challenge themselves. We see far too many people over-terrained as it is.
Edited by justanotherskipro - 2/9/10 at 5:15pm
Wow, I thought this discussion was nearing an end.  I don't think I have much new to add but I don't find the repetition of argument on the other side to be very convincing.  All this talk about people being led to locked in edging just doesn't jive.  Just look at the vast majority of skiers at any resort and you will see skiers who twist their skis with very little integration of good tipping skills (NOT to be confused with carving).  I also wonder how or why a tipping focus morphs into a carving focus in so many of the posts.  At least the way I look at things that does not at all have to be the case.  That includes a range of levels from beginner to advanced.

On another note, I would like all my friends here in the instruction forum to know that while I maintain my preferences I don't think it is a good thing to totally throw out twisting of the skis.  Here's another  thread where I posted about spending most of today working on things that involve a lot of twisting of the skis with active hip rotation: