Okay, I was enjoying the reading, then I started to get annoyed. Not because of the "TTS" bashing, or even the contradictory remarks such as saying that it's a bad thing that TTSs ask you to do the long leg, short leg thing, and then go and advocate it's usefullness in His system. But when I saw him start to talk about pole use, I almost hit the floor. He is advocating a forceful dragging of the UPHILL pole!! Umm. Hello? Where do you come up with this shi!#?
Okay, fine. I laughed, I got over it. Then, he goes back into lifting the downhill foot, and tells us that it is good to hang out on the uphill edge of the uphill foot for a while. Now, I understand he's basically teaching "patience turns", which I, personally hate, but to tell you to stand static in a traverse on the uphill foot means that you MUST move your CM UP (yes, I said UP) the hill. To defend this, he says that TTSs ask you to move your CM into the hill and edge too quickly! Huh? He want's us to regress 10-15 years and NOT get on an early edge? He seems to think that getting on an early edge is what is putting the skis on opposing edges (wedge). No siree, bob. Not getting the CM across the downhill ski is what puts them on opposing edges.
And his photo sequences. You gotta be kidding me?! He keeps re-using this one sequesnce of a girl (is that Diana?) doing some intense shoulder initiation, while her CM compensates for the shoulder initiation by moving back up the hill. In one set of comparison photos, they put that same sequence up against her doing a small wedge at the beginning of the turn. What glared out at me, was that in the first frame of the PMTS sequnce, her body was vertical, with shoulders trying to tip into the hill. In the wedge sequence, the first photo shows good early CM crossover, with her body perpendicular to the slope. To anyone who knows HOW to ski really well, it would be obvious that the sequence they were trying to bash is actually a better turn than the one he advocates.
My other, more general beef with the manual, is that yes, it is a manual for a beginner teacher. So much so, that he shows how to use a pole strap properly. I'm cool with that. Yet, he has never mentioned how to identify errors and how to correct them, other than to say, go back and do the previous step again. More recently, in the manual, he got into accentuating balance again. Certainly not a bad thing. But he wants a low level intermediate skier to be able to balance completly through a turn on one ski before they can move on. I don't know about lessons at his place, but at my mountain, I have an hour, to an hour and a half. I'd need three days to work balance that much with some of our guests. Geez, he's even asking lower intermediates to do complete inside ski turns (he has re-named them "banana turns"). Again, from my previous posts, he is, without saying the words, advocating banking and having too much pressure on the inside foot.
So, in general: Bank; ski on the inside foot; drag the inside pole; and move your CM against the hill at the beginning of every turn; then wait patiently for your CM to get across the one foot you are balanced on, before you begin edging.
As I read along, I get a smile on my face, saying "good... good" to myself, then every few minutes I go wide eyed, saying "What?! Is he NUTS?!"
You know, I thought I was going to like his progressions. As it turns out, I am just getting into the Blue/Black section, and I find only a couple of exercises to be valid. I don't know whether to be happy because this is validating my concerns with his system, or pissed because I know he's a better teacher than this, and is completely selling out just to try to make a buck. As a professional ski teacher, I think I'm more pissed. I really wanted this to be a good system so that I could stop getting in arguments over it.
I think I'll go eat lunch and read some more.