|Originally posted by Bob Barnes/Colorado:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />If we take the terminology exactly as selected I don't think we'll find "the term" in much use among racing circles.
I suppose it depends on the definition of "much" (more jargon?). It would be a rare and uninformed race coach, at least in this country, who would not have a credible reply to someone who asked, "I've been hearing this term 'reaching turn' occasionally--do you know what they might be talking about?"
From any half-decent race coach, the answer would very likely be something like, "well, that's a fairly new term that denotes the cleaner, more carved round short turns of modern slalom, as opposed to the more abrupt, "float and sting" movements of classic slalom."
They might go on, as I probably would, to say, "I don't particularly care for the term myself, but that's what it usually refers to." Personally, I NEVER use the term, unless someone else brings it up. I really do NOT like it, because it is NOT self-descriptive, and it DOES need explanation. But because people often do use it these days (and let's not forget who brought it up this time), it's my job, and my interest, to explore how it's commonly used. Ugly is right that, defined the way he did--like "reaching for the remote control" (perhaps that's the problem, although he insists he skis now and then too), it doesn't describe many recognized movements of good skiing.
But if we simply ALLOW that it refers--to most who use it--to the turns Laure Pequegnot made in the sequence I posted earlier, then we've gained a little understanding. Then we can choose to use it, or not. If two people both understand that it describes Laure's turns, then they can communicate effectively with the term, if they choose. If only one understands it that way, they can't. That's true of any word in the dictionary, whether you call it "jargon" or not!</font>[/quote]Well, Bob. I do agree 100% with your statements about race coaches familiarity with reaching terms. And I wholeheartedly back your opinion of it's currentness etc...Even your relatively lukewarm opinion of it, though I am gladly learning to ski it and experience what it has to offer. However, the flavor of this argument and Ugli's requests for info elsewhere point strongly to this issue being limited to "CLEAN CARVED ROUND REACHING SHORT TURNS" or some such thing....not simply 'reaching turns.'
I would expect any coach or instructor for that matter to at least raise an eyebrow sarcasitcally if someone asked for verification of that ...sentence.... as a ubiquitous term. That is why gave the defenders of the faith the advice I did. Because the deck is stacked.. purposefully.. against any real resolution.. and for a continued and escalating face-off.
Very little, if any, real communication can actually occur in this setting. So, like I do with people who are there 'against their will' and 'for credit' (I'm sure you know what I mean) I accept what they have to offer and step away from the confines of dogmatism that organized standardization sometimes looks like (to some people) in order to communicate. (Otherwise I would get bad assessments Heh heh). Whether I tow the 'party line' approach, or back door the 'alternative approach' the goal tends to be the same since it's all just skiin' (read FUN) in the end.
You know, it's funny. For many years I have worked for ski schools ands race programs at the same time on the same mountains. In nearly every case the leaders of both 'factions' were at each other's throats about this or that he's wrong she's wrong don't ski like them etc. etc. It is with great irony I usually see the very same people, within three seasons, coaching the very same concepts to their staffs after they have gained ownership of the ideas for themselves. I have to say everything I have learned from both camps has been exceedingly valuable to me, equally so, and were it not for the people involved the techniques and ideas would be easily seen (if anyone actually stopped to look) to ski down the hill hand in hand complementing each other to create a much better skier than either one offers by itself.
And, finally. I don't get why so many people fail to even look at the idea that PSIA is simply a bunch of people working on skiing. And that there is no PSIA way. It's just skiing, and PSIA "knowledge" and "technique" is more similar to than different from any other "technique" or "knowledge."
I have to laugh at some folks in here stipulating that you 'create the jargon'. I'm sure it's more accurate that you simply record it. Not to diminish what you are doing in any way. I find it ultimately respectable, especially of the hard work you put into doing it. I may edit this post upon later perusal. I am out of time at the moment to really do a good proof.
[ August 29, 2003, 06:45 PM: Message edited by: Roto ]