or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rotary Rules - Page 2

post #31 of 45
Braquage, is a term, like many others coined by Georges Joubert. It refers to a rotary mechanism specifically the simultaneous, independent rotation of each leg. Each leg using the other as support. You may also hear the term fulcruming or the fulcrum mechanism, which is ususally hard to understand. Suffice to say braquage is fulcruming but non-sequential only simultaneous rotation.
Braquage only occurs below the pelvis and requires interestingly an open stance (you decide how narrow or wide that can be).
In my opinion this kind of steering is essential at all levels of skiing, regulated to the task.
Say what you want, skiers with too narrow a stance, unable to effectively and independently steer in this way limit their efficiency. At the extreme the inability to use braquage due to a locked or too narrow stance typically manifests itself in a change of rotary mechanics, usually counter rotation or rotation of the upper or entire body. Just the facts.
Ever notice that a person who has release issues or cannot smoothly transition through neutral seems to over come it by slightly widening their stance?
I am not dissing narrow stance, but since we cannot define "narrow" or "wide" except to return to "natural" and "functional", the latter being the case here.
post #32 of 45
Breakage. Great. More terms that only gang members or leaders understand. And, I'm willing to bet that if you asked 50 of 'em, you'd get 50 different answers.

So the gang instructor says to their student, "You gotta get some breakage going!"

Gang members and leaders have this terminology that only they understand (not). What's funny is that they then use this same terminology in lessons.

"Da do do do. Da dah dah dah, that's all I want to say to you"
post #33 of 45
A competence in ski terminology in it's historical context or in reasonable technical conversations between pros is not a sin SCSA. Just like physics, you don't discuss it in a lesson but they underscore all that we do.
I realize technical discourse frightens you as it is not within your domain, however a reasonable question deserves a reasonable answer.
Dumbing down terminology works with 97% of all students but limits the growth of professionals.
Most competant instructors I know save the Skibonics for the bar and forums like this. Sorry if this conflicts with your paint-by-numbers sensibilities. Congrats on the anniversary by the way, looks like Kea Lani.
post #34 of 45
post #35 of 45
funny how that works Robin,
Lyle and I were talking early in our lesson at the canyons and as we were skiing for some reason the concept of swallowing or compressing for bumps came up and I and I responded "you mean Avalement/reploiment?"

At that point he started quoting other obscure items and mentioned that Since I had read Joubert he felt is was ok to quote more. Also that I was the only "student" he had met that had read some of his (Joubert) work. and unless I ever mention stuff like that during a class I doubt I would ever hear the terms again.

By the way, SCSA, you mentioned you purchased the Encyclopedia from BobB. All three of these terms are in there.<FONT size="1">

[This message has been edited by dchan (edited August 27, 2001).]</FONT>
post #36 of 45
Every time I read "An Art...A Technique" I learn more, as I do with Witherall etc. Technology changes the skill bias and application of skills, but our bodies haven't changed much.
Most pros do not spew technical terminology unless, like in your case, Dchan, there is an existing level of understanding. It otherwise just is unnecessary.
post #37 of 45
agreed Robin.
everyone needs to be on the same page for terms to be understood.
post #38 of 45
Ever notice that a person who has release issues or cannot smoothly transition through neutral seems to over come it by slightly widening their stance?

I don't understand this. Don't these skiers typically already have a wide stance?
post #39 of 45
I should clarify...people who have too narrow a stance, you are right too wide can inhibit release. But tipping the little toe is generally accompanied by widening when intiated in a narrow to locked stance. Instead of quibbling about width we should start with what kind of stance works for what.
post #40 of 45
post #41 of 45
Sorry Milesb, gone for a while and I am still not good with my explanation. I just see it this way. For lower body simultaneous leg rotation (ideal)or braquage to work, you gotta have some seperation in the stance. In a locked or too narrow stance, if there is rotary confined to the lower body, it will usually result in push off, a check rebound, stem, step...some kinda sequential leg rotation (not as good) or if the leg stance remains locked, it will inevitably result in upper rotation, fullbody rotation or counter rotation....typically less than ideal.
For braquage to work in concert with simultaneous edge release...you can't have an unnaturally narrow stance.
God, I hope I got that right. And I hope you forgive me for not clearly describing my thoughts on the subject. Robin
post #42 of 45
If you are creating the turns you advocate, it's in there. Call it minute, negligible, insignificant even unnecessary it's in there.
post #43 of 45
Well, yea, Robin. But shhhhhhh! Don't talk about rotary till the skiers are getting fairly advanced. If at all. Confuses them. Teach the moves that produce turns with just the right amount of rotary as an effect of the move.

Teaching things like braquage at a higher level (like 8-9) is going to give a bigger bag of tricks, but I wonder about it's neccesity. A lot of current ski teaching and technique relies on "skill blending". If you teach via blending, especially too soon, folks can get confused... you know, the "set theory" of skiing...

Even if you don't talk about rotary specifically, and just do skills and drills. For instance balancing on a log, ski tips and tails in the air, feet on top of the log. Do the "femurs only" twist, no butt and/or upper body rotato-potato. Lots of others. Been teaching rotary, like most of us, for years. The emphasis came from years of training, watching others, ski manuals, etc.

Is it WRONG to teach rotary? I dunno, but I am very busy checking my premises.

I worked on trying the "new" vs the "old" in a subtle way last year. I tried to be very objective, and did not favor one over the other. But my students DID favor the more straightforward approach. And technique. Yea, that "acronym" style again.

Umm, heck, I just advocate better skiink fur alles.

Visit me here &gt;&gt;&gt;SnoKarver
post #44 of 45
Even with first timers, I don't teach rotary, I teach turning in balance. Skill bias, intially is revealed by the individual. But have you ever noticed a 7 year old with a natural stance, balanced in a functional gliding wedge. Teach 'em to turn? Go that way! Rotary happens! Maybe whole body, counter rot, push off, something! Then deal with isolating effective steering from the feet up. Very natural. Edging and pressure control movements then evolve as a function of speed and shaping.
Beginners tend, in my experience to come from a natural apptitude toward steering the skis, their bias is rotary, naturally. Skill blending occurs from the instructors guidance laterally to develop the other skills. So, do I teach rotary? Nope, just turning, and the skills that make it happen, but rotary is there from beginning to end.
<FONT size="1">

[This message has been edited by Robin (edited August 28, 2001).]</FONT>
post #45 of 45
hiya SCSA, welcome back to the forum, as well as home. Has Elway settled down yet? Give him a biscuit for me, make sure he slobbers on it real good

Sorry about the braquage term, and it's pronounced "bra-kaj", SCSA, not breakage... It's nice to use a word that is descriptive, and yea, I kind of forgot some of you would not have heard of it. Key to the pivot slip in the PSIA exams. I still like doing pivot slips, because I worked hard on them for a while... Wanna learn them SCSA? har har...

The avalement/reploiment thing was a big deal in my skiing, years ago, when I was learning to ski bumps, my "holy grail" for years. Ski like zee French! Well, back then, anyway. Feeling old again...

Catching up on the posts;
Yea, Pierre, eh? alignment and balance issues are critical no matter WHAT a skiers "preferred stance" stance is. But aligning to a more effective stance, for a particular skier, is a blend of mechanical and ski technique issues.

Have any of you looked at my previous posts about walking (and some wheeled) machines/robots? Skiing stuff IS physics, coupled with biomechanics. And the variations of the human body and/or equipment
issues taken together. Right back to the "dynamic base of support" thing. Hmmm, another one just occured to me, the neat designs that keep skyscrapers safe(er) in eartquake active areas.

As far as opinions go, I thing EVERY human should give skiing a shot. Put wings on your feet, feel the wooo hoooo! But I am very opinionated about that...

Using the temporary canting wedges is a sticky issue, insurance, etc. It's best to only do this at the heel, because doing it at the toe will mess up release with most binding designs far more that just at the heel. Wondering about running a set of tests with the torque wrench, and a release (Vermont whatchamacallit) test jig, and get some real numbers on the various bindings. Would MOST newer binding designs would still be "in range"? Test safe, according to the charts? Wouldn't this cover the issues of releasability and liability? It would be a neat thing to try. Doing this test canting stuff on the hill is really important.

Kneale, the comment about being past "the initial balancing fear stage" is quite true. But still out of balance, and doing funny stuff to compensate, there's our intermediate. You know, the person who, lesse... doesn't release (yeah Todo!), does the rotato potato in the midsection, etc. Not afraid, but working too hard, and a bump run? Nope, unnn nnnnn, no fun in bumps for that skier...

And, ummm:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"Stand up, pick up one foot, you automatically do at least a bit of initial steering with the other foot to maintain your balance." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Right on! rotary. That little bit of rotary does rule!

BTW, what do you think of the balancing activity, the slight wiggling the foot you are standing on is doing? Humans do that well, yes some better than others.

Todo, I am wondering about that observation, of the widening before the release. Is the release a sudden one, with the ski staying loaded up, just till the release?

Presuming this person has a fairly balanced stance, or is becoming aware of good balance, at least... If that skier flexed slowly while lightening the old stance foot a bit earlier in the turn, then the release would happen easily. Lighten the load, earlier. The TWIST is happening because the skier is stuck... that'll untick'm.

Add tipping the arch "skyward" on the (now) free foot, while pulling the foot in. There's that "little bit" of rotary, and CM moves to where it needs to be to balance on the stance foot as the new turn progresses.
Yup, there's rotary. But it's being managed indirectly by the movement of the free foot, and it's subtle.

The car analogy is ok, but isn't skiing more like riding a bicycle? And umm, tipping the bike around a corner, what fun....

Robin, you have some interesting comments, I caught while editing this, hence "out of order" in the messages.

If you do not (or need) use any of the "braquage" in a turn, then would the narrower stance be more appropriate? Especially at the release?

Unless of course the skier is having an issue with staying loaded too late. Well that happens sometimes, eh?...

Visit me here &gt;&gt;&gt;SnoKarver
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching