Pulling the Inside Foot Back - Page 2

justanotherskipro: Stance corrections like pulling the inside foot back, or flexing the inside ankle and boot just to get the body and feet aligned is still treating a symptom.

I think we need such adjustment ALL THE TIME. Flexing ankles or pulling feet back a little are just part of normal skiing. As instructors that should be understood and accepted. NOBODY stays in balance all the time.

March 9, 2010

Hi JASP:

I find your point of view intriguing.  As I have been working very hard this season on "pulling back" the uphill boot (or in other words, "stance adjustment"), I would like to know what is considered or how would you define "better stance" and how would one go about incorporating this 'better stance" in ones skiing?  Instead of working hard on "pulling back" my inside boot, it would probably be time better spent in developing a "better stance".  Thanks.

Think "more" snow

CP

Stance is a position, balancing is an act.  If you balance accurately, by definition you will be the correct stance at all times.  If you are in the correct stance, you will soon be in the wrong stance if you cannot balance.

If an instructor tells you to hold your hands up, he is correcting your stance but you learn nothing about balance.  Maybe it makes your balance worse because holding your hands rigidly in front of you prevents you from using them for balance.  Pulling you foot back is mostly about correcting your stance, but you may become more aware of your balance.  Flexing or extending your ankle is better than pulling your foot back (as an exercise) because it is less about stance correction, and more about directing your awareness to what's happening under your feet. 

That's why I never tell anyone to hold his hands up, rarely tell anyone to pull the foot foot back (or advance the other one for that matter), but occasionally tell someone to flex or extend his ankle.

BK

Well put BK.

An analogy involves talking about the "upper body facing down the fall line"  or countering the upper body.

I prefer to suggest the student reach down the fall line, or move their body diagonally across the skis and downhill into the next turn, or start moving towards the new turn while the current turn is still happening.

All of these have the effect of facing more down the hill, but are actions instead of positions.

March 9, 2010

Hi BK:

Thanks.   This flexing and extending of the ankle, would the flexing be closely associated with "dorsilflex", i.e. trying to grab the inside of one's boot with one's feet?    Would this translate to "dorsilflex" instead of "pulling one's boot back"?  Would the "extension" occur at the transition part of the turn when one is going from "two edges" to "four edges"?  However, my above statements, if more or less correct, are still "too mechanical" and does not follow the spirit of your description of "awareness of the snow under foot" and "dynamic balance", which I agree is at a higher level of skiing.

Thanks SMJ, your explanation of "action" vs "position" is clear, direct and concise.

Think snow,

CP

ps: by the way, like your sign on handle, BK.

I can't answer for BK but let me expand on my previous post #21 which addresses your question. I suggested that I've had better results in dealing with stance problems of excessive tip lead, scizzoring, by having students concentrate on the opening and closing of the ankles (plantar flexion vs. dorsi-flexion) as the skiers legs alternately extend and flex. If a proper stance is established and maintained, as a leg flexes the ankle must dorsi-flex or "close" which creates increased forward cuff pressure. If the proper stance, i.e. ski tips alignment parallel to hip/shoulder alignment, is not maintained and excessive tip lead occurs there will be minimal if any forward cuff pressure. This is a sensation that can be felt by the skier ("awareness of the snow under foot") and can help to guide them in creating efficient stancing or "dynamic balance". 
As this flexion occurs the opposite leg extends which allows that ankle to open, bringing cuff pressure to neutral. This is again a sensory feedback which can be used to focus attention to a proper stance which aligns the skis properly. At transition where both legs attain similar length and minimal tip lead for an instant, cuff pressure should be equal between both legs since equal ankle flexion/extension is present.
As BK so nicely stated, "that awareness is always useful, regardless of the particular circumstances". Each turn, no matter the turn shape or terrain variation should go through this alternating opening and closing of the ankles which is a distinct sensation when focused upon which can be useful in attaining and maintaining proper stancing. 
Edited by gcarlson - 3/9/10 at 12:28pm

fixed it for you:  "Pulling your foot back is solely about maintaining fore-aft balance." 

(Any corresponding change in stance is because stance necessarily has a significant correlation with balance.  It is effect, not cause.)

Hey Nobody, you've got a fan!

I wondered how long it would take before someone drove that stake into the ground...

No, you didn't.  Pulling the foot back is only about changing positions.  If you are in balance when you pull your foot back, it will put you out of balance.  That happens to a significant number of students when you tell them to do that, in my experience.

BK

BK - what level of students do you typically teach?

Bob added a post to another thread and I thought was very relevent to this thread. Notice his comments about recentering moves.

Originally posted bt Bob Barnes

Quote:
"Thought I'd bump this thread back up for another look. Here's a simple little animation that should need very little explanation. In smoothly linked turns, this is what must happen. Describe it in any words you like:



All right, a little explanation..... The blue curved line is the path of the body (center of mass--indicated by the standard symbol) in a typical carved or well-shaped turn. The red line represents the path of the point of balance--essentially the feet (indicated by the red ball). Obviously, the feet travel a longer line than the CM, so they must also travel faster than the CM, as the animation shows. With their greater speed, the feet must pass the CM in the transition of every turn, while the CM takes the shorter line, moving downhill ahead of the feet. The feet, of course, move from the left side of the body in the right turn, to the right side of the body in the left turn, transitioning from left to right in--not coincidentally--the transition phase. Because the body and feet are traveling and facing somewhat across the slope at this point, it gives the appearance of the skier being "in the back seat," or of the body (CM) moving downhill and BACK--NOT forward--relative to the feet.

Note that the motion of both the CM and feet is continuous and smooth, with no jerkiness in the transition or anywhere else. The motion of the CM and feet in the transition is a continuation of motion that began earlier. There is no need to "redirect," "re-center," actively extend or retract either leg, actively flex the ankles, extend the knees, or make any other muscular exertion to initiate the turn.

Yes, the paths of the CM and feet run diagonal to each other in the transition and, yes, the CM does indeed move "forward and downhill"--relative to the mountain, but NOT relative to the feet. Relative to the feet, the CM moves downhill and BACK (or the feet move ahead, whichever you prefer). Clearly, to the original topic, the only point where the CM is directly above the feet is the moment of initiation--the point of "inflection" where one turn ends and the next begins and the two paths cross. Depending on the posture of the skier, the hips may never appear directly above, much less forward of, the feet!

If these thoughts appear to contradict any firmly held beliefs or doctrine, keep thinking about them, and go out and play with this stuff on the snow. Ultimately, there's no better teacher of skiing than skis and a snow-covered mountain! 

 

Best regards,
Bob"

Hmm, what does it mean if you move your downhill ski forward?  I have noticed that it is easier to turn if I move my downhill ski forward.

I'm thinking about recommending that animation and explanation to my buddies still in academia to give in 1st year oral qualifying exams to their physics phd students with the instructions "debunk this."  The goal is always to see them reason competently about physical systems in configurations they haven't seen analyzed before, so this would fit nicely.

Easier to finish a turn that way, or start a new turn?

Wouldn't this seem to support the idea that one can virtually never pull the inside foot back too far? 

No, it supports the idea that short of a select few skiers and FIS racers, no one on the mountain is ever truly forward or even knows what it feels like to be skiing in a hips forward position - let alone how to teach it.

I teach all levels, but mostly advanced skiers. 

THis is my last post here.  Once it gets into detailed descriptions of where your hips need to be or whether your kneecaps are over the LTE when your hands are reaching downhill, I lose interest. I have nothing more to add.

BK.

Sound like I ruffled more than a few feathers here. Sadly, I'm not seeing the compelling evidence to suggest Bob's model is wrong. Just a lot of predictably dogmatic responses and opinions. Call it what you want but show your work, don't just spew dogma.
Edited by justanotherskipro - 3/10/10 at 6:36pm

For many of us in the trenches, a fair number of our guests (students) are people who ski a week a year, maybe two weeks. We see them from Level 1 (never ever skied before), through Level 4 (mostly parallel, ski blues and greens), and with any luck, on up to upper intermediate skiers - and beyond.

We have a very short time in which to help them - actually, help their bodies - to learn what skiing feels like. We use demonstration ("Here's what it looks like") and words ("Let's try this").  We try activities and words to bring them into the movements we hope they'll learn. We hope that they FEEL the movement in their muscles and learn it there rather than just know it in their brains.

These guests (students) are not all formed with the same cookie cutter. Their cognitive and kinesthetic "understandings" vary. A demonstration, verbal description or activity that lights one of them on fire might be meaningless to another. Each "understands" and reacts differently. In some cases, the instructor is as much psychologist as athletic trainer, especially because we not infrequently are working with the guest's fear or fears. As we learn one guest, we learn what works and what doesn't work for that particular guest. Telling a guest the "right" way to ski might work - and it might not. Dogmatic discussions of the "right" way to ski rarely help me to help the guest to learn. Note I said "dogmatic".

Are we first teachers helping people to enjoy skiing, or are we first "Defenders of the Faith" teaching in so many words what is deemed (these days) to be "right"?

Please accept my apologies if I have repeated points already made in this interesting thread. This is intended both as an expression of my own experience and point of view, and as an invitation to discussion.

This is interesting to me, because I've coached all levels too. When I say all levels - I mean beginners up to 50-60 point racers, and even a few PSIA examiners. To date, I've not experienced a skier who was too far forward before or after any coaching on the subject. If fore/aft discomfort is created by pulling the inside foot back, it is commonly a sign of another significant deficiency related to [lateral] balance and movement in the turn. That's my experience anyway.

Now for the rest... This is way too long...

Sorry for those who think the "do nothing" approach is the best approach to take on this topic - it isn't - and it is severely out of touch with what happens at the highest levels of the sport and evidence that they have likely never experienced what really being forward feels like. It has nothing to do with beliefs and everything to do with reality - you know - what is really happening on a mountain with snow on it. It also has a little to do with experience with and knowledge of high level skiing - you know - actually doing it - on a mountain with snow on it (not just talking about it on the internet). To suggest that a dissenting opinion on this topic is the result of dogma is just plain insulting to those of us who know better. All of the skiers I know and know of who practice this "do nothing" approach to fore/aft balance are ALL in the back seat with no hope of ever experiencing a truly forward turn. They all think they are forward though... Perception vs Reality rears it's head again.

Bob (I know you didn't post on this topic, but I'm referencing your words here), your diagram is really cool [reminds me of the skier track diagrams I did a few years ago], but it does nothing to address the fore/aft relationship of the feet, hips, and upper body through a turn [hint: it changes]. You're only showing lateral changes of the CM versus the feet, and making a false assumption that the fore/aft relationship of the CM to the feet never changes. The feet, hips, and upper body can make significant adjustments in the fore/aft plane and still keep your CM in the same location in that plane - or they can make that relationship change. By not discussing proper movement in that plane of those parts of the body it does the student and reader a huge disservice.

With the approach: "There is no need to "redirect," "re-center," actively extend or retract either leg, actively flex the ankles, extend the knees, or make any other muscular exertion to initiate the turn" you will end up with a bunch of inadequate, passive movements resulting in backseat skiing and no hope of fixing errors. The skier will not move enough and their skiing will stagnate - voila - backseat. Even the skier who executes a perfect forward turn with extremely early and forward pressure on their skis (which I suspect is the situation you're referencing in your post above) - they are still maintaining the feet in the fore/aft plane so that they are still able to pressure the front of their skis sufficiently. You can call this pulling back, holding back, pushing back, doing nothing because you're already forward - whatever - it doesn't change what it is - it is a skier flexing at the ankles to stay forward in the fore/aft plane and making sure that the feet are not unnecessarily advancing out in front of their CM. This requires constant movement - one of which is flexing at the ankles by keeping the feet back. The skier who cannot do that (everyone for the most part), needs a way to fix their fore/aft balance while skiing. Movement starts at the feet. Do the math and you'll find a good place to start to address a fore/aft balance issue.

I suspect that there are very good skiers at most of our "home" mountains. Some, however, seem to be in a league of their own. Heluva (IMHO)  falls into the latter category. I had the pleasure of taking 5 (2 hour) lessons with him this season. Pay attention to what this guy says. Even at age 70-my skiing has never been better. Magic happens when you get those hips in front of your ankles ( or better yet-pull the feet back to accomplish the same thing).

I can't help but agree with Greg that we are always adjusting our balance and  my understanding is the ankles are our most powerful tool . The relationships of feet, hips and shoulders are a fluid movement and there are no real fixed rules for all situations but  we try to learn to stay in balance to deal with this changing environment. 
Why not be aware and do what is helpful to correct ? I would prefer to adjust balance in anticipation of a changing balance environment therefore not using big corrections but if a correction is necessary and timely make it so.
We can make basic static guidelines to get people to experience different balance states resulting in adjustments of their conceptions of fore , centered and aft but the use of these is only relevant in the environment we take them into . Bumps are undulating terrain and balancing in them mean you are balanced not compared to the horizon or the general slope angles but with the direct surface you are moving on. What may look aft may very well be perfectly balanced on the incline that is the front of bump. What may feel fore  could be aft when moving over the front and adjusting your feet under you will put you in balance in that moment in time.
We always adjust our balance. Fixed rules are always meant to be broken and are only starting points in learning dynamic balance.

I rather like Bob's moving diagram above - but also agree that it lacks accuracy due to some important context information that is missing.

In particular, that diagram works nicely if our skier is on (say) a 5-degree slope. But as the slope angle gets steeper, it starts to fail due to the increased acceleration one experiences as the slope gets steeper.  The placement of CM vs. feet becomes increasingly inaccurate as the slope angle grows. Likewise, turn radius and even the selected technique can affect CM vs. feet positioning.

Still, the image is a good start and could be modified to reflect specific slope angles for specific turn radii.   Technique would have to be left as a generic element.

.ma

Helluva, I was who wrote the dogma comment. I was not directing that comment at you as much as challenging everyone to explore the idea Bob expressed before offering a conclusion based solely on dogma and convention.

As far as I'm concerned I see a lot of too forward skiers who exhibit a variety of errors due to being too forward, as well as too aft. The later contributing to the "need" to pull back the inside foot. Allowing that foot to advance too far ahead of the inside hip (and the CoM in general), is the point I've been trying to make. Don't allow that to occur and the "need" for a big realignment movement disappears, That's not to say holding that foot back doesn't occur, it does and IMO is the better alternative in a baseline model. 

I would also like to offer a few examples of" too far forward skiing" I see on a regular basis. Notice none of these skiers are WC level  but they are all experiencing a too forward levered stance issue.

• Absteming at the end of a turn due to excessive tip pressure along with some unintentional tail wash-out.
• Winsheild wiper turns, or a skidded turn with a pivot point in the tips of the skis. We all own this move and might use it occasionally but if it's an elemental part of every turn, it's a sure sign of a balance issue and using the tongue as a balance "crutch".
• An inability to absorb moguls, or washboards because the skier is levered so far forward that there is little or no RoM left in the ankles.
• Rotary Push Off transitions often occur as a direct result of levering forward excessively.

As an addition to the basic dual paths concept I feel the graphic is a conversation starter, which is why I added it to this thread. I want to thank you for sharing your opinion. BTW I shared that opinion until recently. Tony Sears and Bob had a heck of a time convincing me to be more open to the idea that tongue pressure isn't an elemental ingredient in all ski turns. 

I'm not crazy about Bob's animation above. Maybe it's the speed that the two circles move at and how they show up on my computer. To me, it requires way too much staring at to try and get the point that at transition, the cm is behind the feet. I found the diagrams and photos posted in the various other threads more effective.

Quote: [yawn...] Oh, wait I should be at rapt attention.
To what content though, I'm not sure, still trying to find it. If you're trying to hide actual content the effort is working. What exactly is your view on pulling the foot back? In response to the OP's,

Here's the statement we've got so far:


Just a tad shorter than the tag line. Sorry for the cynicism, just my observation. Looking forward to your content...

The orange part in the quote above. Ok, there's probably several thousand words posted by Bob on that topic in the thread the animation was taken from, along with 5 pages of posts by others Here it is:

"Where do we want our hips over our feet?Why do we want to move our hips forward?"

http://www.epicski.com/forum/thread/90579/where-do-we-want-our-hips-over-our-feet-why-do-we-want-to-move-our-hips-forward/0.

Well, I guess below "your" 50-60 point FIS racers, things are a bit different? Here's Michael Janyk. Appears he is quite "in the back seat" here.
To send help, here's his contact: http://www.mikejanyk.com


photo: Ron LeMaster

I do much prefer this guy though.
Here's a full speed version of Felix Neureuther at Kitzbuhel 2010 Slalom, then a 5 minute super slo mo. What percentage are his hips behind his feet, 70? 
Here's Felix's contact so you can help him ski with his hips forward of his feet more:
http://www.felix-neureuther.de/


Full Speed:

---

Slo-mo music video:

Edited by Tog - 3/11/10 at 1:08pm

I am ever vigilant in telling my classes and private lessons, "This isn't to tell you how to ski. This activity is to allow you to feel a certain sensation and to build muscle memory." As Bob Barnes might say, "This is an exercise. If it were fun, it would be skiing."

This painstaking analysis of the mechanics of skiing is driving me nuts, and WHO CARES whether the shin NEEDS to touch the tongue? You get a guest in your class or private lesson who is having huge difficulty getting out of the back seat - a guest that is skiing for maybe a week this year and a week next year - THAT'S IT. A discussion like this thread is valueless to most such guests. The question is, what trick in our bag of instructor's tricks will work for this person? I think the concerns that these guests will perpetually hang on the tongue and "ski incorrectly" is misplaced. I have NEVER seen ANY skier at level 1 through 7 skiing "too far forward" by any stretch of the imagination. If I were to encounter such a skier, however, I would utilize a different approach than that used for a perpetual back seat skier.

And this debate about what skiing "should" be - for what, to what end? I know that the styles and techniques of some our most revered members - for example, Bob Barnes and Weems - vary to the extent that one thinks that the other is "doing it wrong" or some such thing, and don't take this as a quote, please. But they both are acknowledged experts. I have seen clinicians at PSIA events with very different styles and theories

Let me be clear: Were it not for the EpicSki Academy, I would never have become an instructor seven seasons ago. I have learned tons and tons from Bob Barnes, Weems and nolo, and others. That said, what interests me are the techniques available for helping the guests learn to develop skills sufficient to enjoy their skiing safely and in control, techniques that will help them to overcome and diminish the fears that are obstacles to their learning and pleasure. If I insisted that their shins should NOT touch the tongue of the boots, I would wager that the greater number of them would never get out of the back seat. If I were NEVER to suggest pulling back the inside foot, I would be failing the student by not trying something that just might work.

Strangely enough, I can find points where I can agree with both of these. I should - both JASP and Heluva are far more experienced than I, and I have no business telling either one they're wrong!

I know about levering too far forward because I used to do that. It can happen when the skier is attempting to follow repeated instructions to get forward, by whatever means. I realize it happens rarely - most skiers clearly have their COM behind their heels. But it does happen, and it's often the result of someone trying to follow instructions. As has been noted, different people respond to the same instruction differently.

I agree that, at least for an efficient, clean, low-effort basic turn on groomed terrain, it may not be necessary to "re-direct," etc. to initiate if the balance is accurate in the first place. All that's necessary is to allow the COM to move down the hill and allow the skis to tip down the hill. No correction required.

This is a good thing to know and understand, because the vast majority of our students often attempt to do too much and work way too hard to make a turn happen. They, in fact, need to do less, and they would benefit from understanding how easy it really is to make a basic turn. They work too hard for a variety of reasons. In many cases, their balance is inaccurate in one or more directions.

I also agree with Heluva in the sense that such turns, while possibly smooth and elegant, can be pretty passive. Nonetheless, I believe they should be mastered, and mastered as early in the skier's learning curve as possible. Then, once the skier knows and owns the minimum that's really necessary, once the balance is tuned to allow the low-effort turn with gravity doing as much of the work as possible, it's time to consider dialing it up. The skier can add to the turn, make it more dynamic, more powerful, more versatile. The skier who can ski the groom while just balancing accurately and doing very little else has the fundamentals to learn to correct, to extend, to retract, to add just enough power and movement to float over or around the next bump, blast the next drift or nail the next gate.

I'm not even close to being the skier that either JASP or Heluva is. I have a bit of trouble with cuff neutral in that I have trouble tipping my old outside/new inside ski to the little toe edge without just a little cuff pressure (unless I'm sking very passively). Nonetheless, I manage to ski bumps without shin bang in a pair of plug boots (but I'm old - no WC bumps for me). Heluva is right. Bumps (or trees or crud) take constant movement, frequent correction (at least for me) and the addition of selectively applied power. It takes active extension and retraction. It takes flexing the ankles as much as the boots will allow. It takes muscular exertion. But not as much muscle as many people think. And being able to do it with less exertion comes from being able to cruise down that groomer while doing as little as possible besides standing on the skis and balancing accurately (which itself requires constant movement, of course). So JASP is right, too.

I'm not certain, but maybe one is talking about the "ideal" turn under ideal conditions, while the other is talking more about what is ultimately needed to deal with real world conditions. Or maybe not. As I've said before, I'm easily confused!

As for suggesting to a student that they pull the inside foot back - well, it's a correction. One of many. Some can use the instruction effectively, and some cannot. It may create other issues, or it may not. YMMV.
Edited by jhcooley - 3/11/10 at 2:26pm

Tog... you ski right? How close is YOUR skiing to the images you just posted? Care to show us and provide some content of your own? If the answer is "not that close" please cease to post on this topic because it is clear that you don't understand it. I mean... if you're going to come at me, at least have the courtesy to weigh in before you step into the ring... not that it would matter.