Blending Movements - Page 11

Originally Posted by michaelA 
In particular I was interested in the rates-of-change related to the rates-of-skier-motion for each given model (AWT vs. PWT).  

......

That's why I modeled the entire process from Apex to Apex on spreadsheets - to see exactly how much weight/pressure was actually available to bend each ski assuming a typical 60/40 generic distribution to start, assuming each leg w/gear represents 20% of the skiers total Mass and taking available CF/Gravity into consideration at each moment along the progression through transition.

Personal perceptions and beliefs are often a result of what we skiers feel.  Unfortunately, we comparatively 'feel' more weight on a bent leg than is actually present as compared to our straighter leg.  We also intellectually perceive weights/pressures at each foot/ski depending on how we typically move during transition such that our beliefs get skewed:  We simply don't know how much weight/pressure would have been present had we not implemented our typical movements.  Instead, we convince ourselves what that un-experienced moment would be like based on the fact that it's contrary to what we already believe is necessary for things to "work properly". 

I think we often rationalize our beliefs and expectations, even developing mechanical explanations to support our experiential expectations by cherry-picking isolated mechanical concepts (those that support our belief and not those that might disprove it).  By putting actual numbers on a spreadsheet I can eliminate any perceptions or beliefs to see if something should work regardless whether I currently believe it or not.  I didn't initially believe the PWT was a workable idea and had ways skied with AWT before I worked out the mechanics.  Now I know it works - and perfectly at that.   I also went on to prove a skier could do short radius edge-to-edge dynamic parallel turns with PWT on slopes even up to 65+ degrees... (but that's another story  ).

That's great that you modeled it with spreadsheets. I'm sure that you make your model take into consideration many variables, however, maybe not all of them. Empirically, that little PSIAMAN pin guy also illustrated PWT being possible. Also, empircally, going out and skiing like that also shows it working. 

However, making judgements about what "we" "feel" and "perceive" based on your biases isn't necessarily science either. I recently had knee surgery and have been dealing with a very very weak leg. It has taught me a lot in the feedback, the, "Oh, no, it's collapsing again - I thought it could handle that" times that I've had. However, even without one bad leg, I think it depends on the skier how accurate their perceptions of weight and pressure are. 

Even so, regardless of what you think you or others feel, when you are out there skiing, you end up having to go by what you feel because that is all the feedback you are going to get. I've taught some students that I label as kinesthetci illiterates. They really don't know what they feel and mostly it's due to the gobbledygook that is in their head and emotions.

So, I'll continue to cast my vote for what I do and what I see others doing, not what someone on paper says we can do, are doing or is possible. Now, I'm not trashing your modeling. I think it's great. If my son were here still, I'd be feeding him stuff to model for me. I'm just saying that it's great to mathematically model (heck my brother spends his whole days doing that with economic world and another brother with the world of optical physics/lasers). I'm am simply saying that when it comes to skiing, I put the snow before the math.  

.ma

---

[Sidebar On]

Cookie,

First, no need to apologize to me.   I've just noticed (with growing irritation) the innumerable times you've charged virtually everyone here with 'lacking understanding' of concepts and ideas presented despite receiving assurances to the contrary.

People here may have different points of view and may disagree with you - that doesn't mean they didn't understand, don't understand or aren't capable of understanding and I'm asking you to respect that.  The reason I chose to say something (again) is that you continue to escalate and are now even deriding entire classes of people as being incapable of understanding the very things you apparently believe yourself capable of understanding.  If you can understand something please assume others here can understand it also - unless they themselves declare otherwise. 

As to posting my private remarks openly here, again, apologies for that.   I'd normally have sent a Private Message to let you know what I (and many others) are seeing and perceiving from the way you're liberally sprinkling 'dismissals' of everyone else's thinking and reasoning  capability.  Unfortunately this "new and better" software has killed our ability to send PMs to people who have Facebook accounts.  (GRRRRrrrrrr)

My post above was not intended as an 'attack' of any kind and I genuinely hope you see what I'm trying very hard to communicate.  We broadcast the most telling image of ourselves in how we address others and I'm simply pointing out the increasingly poor image I (and many others) are receiving from your (perhaps unintended) tendency for deriding the competence of others whenever they disagree with you.

We've had countless 'Posturing Wars' here in the past and have only this last year gotten things on an even keel again.  Frustrations, irritations, growing anger and open hostilities generally come about progressively due to ongoing subtle insults, superiority posturing, contemptuous tones and ridicule/sneering about other people's perceptions, preferences, ideas, opinions and competency.  These are good people here and are likely to become your Virtual Friends if you can avoid continually (even if accidentally) talking to them as inferiors.

My own highest and best suggestion is that you try what I did when I first started posting here - write your posts in a separate editor (perhaps Notepad or Word), re-read it when done looking for potential errors (and infer-able insults) and otherwise mull it over for a while before tossing it into the Epic Editor for finalizing.   I think you'll find you'll create far better content as well shorter posts.  Again, no offense intended (nor taken - just irritated as I rather like these people and I'm aware just how competent they are).

I gave you my email  cookiebewley@gmail.com. You are more than welcome to continue expressing your irritation publically if you want.

FYI, I do not always write my posts on the screen. I go back and reread them and edit them regardless of where I wrote them. I'm sorry that my posts are too long for you. Again, how is this "kind advice" and "continued mild chiding" helpful except maybe to relieve some of your pent up displeasure with me? I do not try to irritate you, but I really can't control your reactions when I make a general statement about a group or simply state my beliefs on skiing.

Rest assured, that my blook pressure is not up, I am not irritated, frustrated or angry, or hostile. I do not believe that I have been talking to anyone as inferior and it's too bad that is your perception, both yours and others. If you and others have been developing a poor image of me, that's okay. I am who I am. You can't like everyone in the world. I tend to be rather black and white and dogmatic in my statements. However, prove me wrong and I change. I do come from a very scientific background and have a hard time being politically correct and all that stuff. 

I'm not too sure about the moderators, but I do think if you want to continue to advise me, you probably should simply email me - cookiebewley@gmail.com. You do realize that engineers are not the ruler of the world, don't you? Contractors are! 

[/Sidebar Off]

.ma

Originally Posted by Uncle Louie 
 Uncle Louie's great history - omitted for brevity sake...

Try a few inside leg extension turns.....Right................ get on that new steering ski early (while it's still on the "wrong edge" as I can remember one examiner described it)  and extend off it.

Try a few outside leg releases....let that leg collapse without you collapsing

Try both at once (make sure no one can see you at first....especially if they post here.....and make sure there are no cameras around) and hang on.
 

In that context a skier generally needs to get from edges-left to edges-right in a hurry.  By quickly transferring support from the downhill leg (the one we're currently balanced over) to the uphill leg we're left out of lateral balance and therefore topple over into the new turn much more quickly than if we'd done things otherwise.  It's the ideal pattern when quickly building G-Forces require rapid inclination one way, only to need the total reverse a moment later.

Just a side note to your analysis of early weight: I do not agree that transferring the weight to the old inside leg early shortly after the apex puts one out of lateral balance and causes a topple. The point is to be progressive and controled in both the weight shift and the guiding of your CoM into the new turn. There is never a point of unbalance and toppling in what I see and feel, especially in the higher speed arcs.

I also like your brief history of transition-emphasis evolution.   I suspect many skiers commit preferentially (and perhaps perpetually) to the methods and reasoning in vogue at the time they themselves suddenly 'get it'.   That current method works well for them and gets them over their own learning-curve hump - so they swear by it forever more. 

When new gear comes about (like shaped skis) people take their old methods and slightly adapt them to use the new gear.   But few people with ingrained patterns are likely to 'start over' and figure things out from scratch again.  This leaves it to the younger generation just now learning to ski well (and therefore unattached to old ideas) to figure out the new gear from scratch, thus developing new methods specifically optimized for the new gear.

In a way that's happening again right now with wide, pontoon-like skis.   Many of the movement patterns I've worked so hard on function really well using standard shaped skis but simply aren't optimal on the latest gear.   What I do now isn't 'wrong' or anything - I just need to accept that what I do isn't necessarily 'current' using the latest gear. 

Sure, I can make the new gear perform using what I do now - but I can probably optimize my use of that new gear if I'm willing to listen to what the younger generations have already discovered devoid of my own historical biases.

I think this forum is probably the best place to keep up with what's currently being tried and refined.  I also think it's great that many long time Pros here are willing to explore new ideas rather than just endlessly defending their own idealized and deeply vested models of how skiing should be done developed long ago based on older gear.

.ma

"About flat skis, don't think of it at all."

It might help you to know that some of the folks here can actually ski a little bit. 

Sighing... I can only speak for myself, so when I talk about what I believe and do, it's not comparing or putting down other people. I am simply saying about me! I've never said that the people at Epic can't ski, that is ridiculous. I've never thought that either. Obviously though, there are many here who disagree with me, do not think as I do and challenge and question much of what I am saying. SOOOOO, that is in no way putting everyone else down. I seem to be a bit outnumbered here at Epic, but I was just making the point, that in other circles, I'm the norm... for what it's worth - not condemning anyone here. Obviously I wouldn't be here if I didn't think it worthwhile and the people here worthwhile to talk with. I enjoy it here, but sometimes I am thinking I need to quit if I am disturbing your flow here soo much.

I'm trying to make a point here, not learn how to do early weight transfer. The point is: Can we get a definition of what early weight transfer that we can agree on? Your track record says no, but let's see where that leads us.

Yep, the weight transfer concept has been around a long time and the "early weight transfer" concept means different things to different people. So let's start by not confusing early weight transfer with progressive weight transfer. If we can accept that maximum loading of the outside ski normally happens around the fall line (for straight down the fall line skiing with turns),

I would agree to maximum loading after the fall line and apex not at the fall line and apex.

then the weight transfer has to start before edge change if it is going to be progressive throughout the turn. So what we're really talking about here is where the weight is 50-50 relative to when edge change occurs.

I think we can agree that "late" weight transfer (i.e. more than 50% weight on the new inside ski at edge change) is not efficient skiing. But if you've seen decent White Pass turns, you'll have to admit that late weight transfer is not necessarily "bad" skiing.  People have been talking about floating through the transition for eons. That sounds a lot like 50-50 weight at edge change to me. Why call 50-50 at edge change "early" if that's what people have been calling "normal" for eons? The term had to be introduced to mean something different? Is it just different movements to accomplish the same thing or does it actually mean literally what it says? Regardless of what you call it, if one can make "late" transfer (i.e. after edge change) than it is certainly possible to get weight to 50-50 before edge change and that ought to be called something.

I am confused by your point. First of all, I never called 50:50 at transition as early. I said that if you are making a progressive lateral weight transfer, and looking at being 50:50 at edge change, then you simply need to begin the weight transfer BEFORE the edge change. That is a statement of simple logic. 

The longer before edge change you begin the weight transfer, the more time it has to be progressive. That is another statement of logic. (and I'm not trying to talk down here.... geee, just pointing out that I'm not saying anything other than what I stated - no implications, just the logic of it all..)

The word "early" refers to the fact that the weight transfer is before edge change; i.e. that you do not wait until edge change to start to transfer your weight to the new outside ski. Not a new concept, but it is a concept that is not widely applied and used in many people's skiing. In a couple of divisions, I have even seen and skied with some examiners who do not do it - one this winter, full time instructor and examiner who only just realized what it really was and started to work on it...... Also, is this relevant to todays' skiing, yes and it's also quite current if you want to be trendy too!

Now let's take a look at the USSA video. The camera angle is pretty neat for seeing movements, but it's lousy for seeing proof of weight change (e.g. ski bend, snow spray, leg length difference vs turn force difference).

Early weight transfer is one of those things that is almost impossible to see in a video or pictures. In order to look for it, you have to feel it - you have to put yourself into the body of the person you are watching and imagine what they are feeling.

The best way, I think, to coach it, so to have someone follow you and you talk, very loudly telling them what you are doing. Then you have them synchronize with you, still talking. Then you follow them and talk to them, telling them the timing.

But there is a cool little Silverlight feature that a lot of people might miss. See the 5 white triangles under the video progress bar? If you stop the video there and click on the down arrow in the lower right corner of the video frame, some explanatory text will pop up. The fourth triangle covers the beginning of early weight transfer. The text there says "Weight begins to transfer to the right ski. Can be done because of the matching edge angles between the inside and outside ski (parallel shins) and a stance that is fairly square to the skis".  I'd also add the hips being inside of the inside ski also plays a role here. The $64K question here is "is this skier 50-50 at transition"? If you advance to 18.02-18.09 seconds it sure looks like it from a still frame perspective. But if you look at the frames between those two points you will find some interesting movements. What do you see that might be taking weight off the outside ski? Could it be possible that there is greater weight on the old inside, new outside ski before edge change? If so, how?

I'm not going to say that this clip proves that weight is more on the new outside ski prior to edge change in early weight transfer. What I am going to say is that whether 50-50 occurs before, during or after edge change can simply be a reflection of a choice in tactics vs a necessary description of a skier's skill level. Being able to choose where 50-50 occurs relative to edge change is a marker of skier skill.

Often there is more weight on the new outside ski before edge change. I never said there couldn't be. The 50:50 at edge change is just an approximate reference point. Skiing is more art than science. When you try to make it follow rules to exactly, it becomes quite mechanical and looses a lot of its flavor and flare. Some words can be very exact and it's difficult to soften their edges sometimes.

So, point being is so what if there is sometimes more or less than 50:50 at edge change. The main point is the timing of the movement pattern - what it feels like when you start to move, why do you start there, what is your marker etc... How is it all coordinated or blended with your other movements. Body and skis, two lines, when, where, how and why? Kind of like snowflakes and not always exactly the same - lots of variables. That is why skiing is fun.

Cookie,

The first point was pointing to an example of you talking down. You may not have meant it, but look again and you might see it as others could see it. It's not a matter of you being outnumbered. It's a matter of some people interpreting your posts as absolutes and "rights" when they see a different picture. There is obviously a lot of truth in what you've shared and obvious that you've been exposed to high quality coaching. Still, there are some here who have traveled in those "other circles" and have learned slightly different truths. It is irritating to hear that we are ignorant even though that is not what was meant.

Shall I go back to where you said 50-50 at edge change and no difference between normal and early? Sigh.

It''s not impossible to see. I challenged you to find the signs. You've not even tried. Look again and tell me what you see. If I have to tell you, you'll only argue about it. You see that was the tricky part of the original trick question. The answer was not nearly as important as the process of answering. The "art" is in being able to see. Understanding the "how" is the science. The main point is not the subtle timing of the movement pattern. The main point is the movements themselves. There are distinct differences (and similarities!) and they can be seen. It's important to be able to see them so that one can do things like not only notice the difference between push off and early weight transfer, but be able to tell the victim what they are doing and how to change their movements to make their skiing more efficient. We may have these skills as art, but until we know these skills as science we won't be able to easily pass them on to the pros who will eventually take our place. And that is why people are arguing so much with you in this thread.

I understand your diagrams, but when you put the changing slope into them, then you have what looks like a combination of the ILE diagram with more of the OLF movement of the CoM, and just a little of the up component - which many times goes away when you take the change in slope into account. 

The up-unweight diagram is not the modern extension through transition, but rather the older version and this is not what PJ and Ted are doing in their turns. I'll try to find some time to make some diagrams too - takes more time though than sitting here typing..

I do think that we are basically really close to how we are analyzing the skiing. 

I thought that as a moderator, you were meant to "police" it if people got personal in their exchanges or "attacks" and not actually be the one attacking someone's person.

You can read whatever you want to into what say - I have said a lot, that's for sure! 

Above, you have also just made quite a few statements assuming what I have done in my life and the experiences that I have had. I thought that it was cleared up that, regardless of whether some here is famous or not, it is what is said that counts. Not who they are. However, you don't even know me!

It appears that you have issues with someone who is direct and states their beliefs in an up front, dogmatic manner. To you, that seems to imply a derogating of others. If I question the logic in what someone is saying, you find the fault with me, especially if it was a comment that you had made. 

Then you made some convoluted "trick answer/question" statements, what on earth is the "he tricky part of the original trick question"? That's being nice or what?

I disagree with a lot of what you say on skiing. Isn't it possible to just leave it at that instead of trying to deride me? I've made comments about WHAT has been said, not WHO has said them. Now, here you are a moderator, chiding me instead of just discussing the "what".

I disagree with what you said, but it appears that you find that disagreeable and choose to go after me personally.

Concerning what you said above about skiing:

I do not agree that the art is being able to see and the science is the understanding the how. Many times it is the art that leads in understanding the how way ahead of the science and the science only catches up later. I could quote some famous ski coach friend who have made similar statements about the athletes being ahead and the coaches be a step or two behind.

I disagree with the main point being the movements. I believe that timing is often almost more important. I am not arguing for the sake of arguing with you. I disagree with what you said. Timing in skiing is critical.

I guess if I were to say that I believe teaching to be more of an art than a science, you would disagree - I do, and yet I have a Masters in Teaching the Gifted and Talented. If I say that, does that mean that I poo-poo the science? No. Why else would I be engaging in these discussions. I do love skiing and I do love people. It is almost more this love that makes me a good teacher, however, since I also understand what I teach, that only adds to the benefits that help to make my students successful, and have fun doing it.

I disagree with why people are arguing so much with me in this thread. It is not because of your perception of that I disdain the science. It is because I am engaging them, replying to their statements, questioning and disagreeing with them. The discussions have mostly centered around things, not people. I believe that you and MichaelA are the main ones who see frustrated enough by my not buying into your tightly held concepts, to take the next step in also attacking me personally instead of being civil.

I am pretty amazed, to say the least. In the real world, I have been defending the Epic Ski crowd from some statements made by some very well known friends in the skiing world. I have been an advocate for these forums and this site. 

However, with your recent comments in the capacity of a moderator, I am reconsidering staying around. Ghost, TDK, Uncle Louie, Bud, JASP, FOM, and quite a few others have been quite fun to talk with. FOM told me, "I type way too fast and have a quick mind". That was his opinion and I didn't even argue with him!  He also gave me some kind advice. 

So, Rusty, are you saying you want me to crumble and vanish? That I should go away because I am not agreeing with what you say? I am going against the standard set of beliefs of a few of the other instructors here and that is annoying to you? That this community needs to be kept pure or something?

What I am saying is not unconventional or whacked, but if you think it is, that is not my problem. You obviously do not agree with either many of my ski science/art beliefs, or with my ski teaching philosophy. So what. So what if I believe that skiing is a sport and not a spreadsheet, but that I still love spreadsheets too! 

I thought that as a moderator, you were meant to "police" it if people got personal in their exchanges or "attacks" and not actually be the one attacking someone's person.

You can read whatever you want to into what say - I have said a lot, that's for sure! 

Above, you have also just made quite a few statements assuming what I have done in my life and the experiences that I have had. I thought that it was cleared up that, regardless of whether some here is famous or not, it is what is said that counts. Not who they are. However, you don't even know me!

It appears that you have issues with someone who is direct and states their beliefs in an up front, dogmatic manner. To you, that seems to imply a derogating of others. If I question the logic in what someone is saying, you find the fault with me, especially if it was a comment that you had made. 

Then you made some convoluted "trick answer/question" statements, what on earth is the "he tricky part of the original trick question"? That's being nice or what?

I disagree with a lot of what you say on skiing. Isn't it possible to just leave it at that instead of trying to deride me? I've made comments about WHAT has been said, not WHO has said them. Now, here you are a moderator, chiding me instead of just discussing the "what".

I disagree with what you said, but it appears that you find that disagreeable and choose to go after me personally.

Concerning what you said above about skiing:

I do not agree that the art is being able to see and the science is the understanding the how. Many times it is the art that leads in understanding the how way ahead of the science and the science only catches up later. I could quote some famous ski coach friend who have made similar statements about the athletes being ahead and the coaches be a step or two behind.

I disagree with the main point being the movements. I believe that timing is often almost more important. I am not arguing for the sake of arguing with you. I disagree with what you said. Timing in skiing is critical.

I guess if I were to say that I believe teaching to be more of an art than a science, you would disagree - I do, and yet I have a Masters in Teaching the Gifted and Talented. If I say that, does that mean that I poo-poo the science? No. Why else would I be engaging in these discussions. I do love skiing and I do love people. It is almost more this love that makes me a good teacher, however, since I also understand what I teach, that only adds to the benefits that help to make my students successful, and have fun doing it.

I disagree with why people are arguing so much with me in this thread. It is not because of your perception of that I disdain the science. It is because I am engaging them, replying to their statements, questioning and disagreeing with them. The discussions have mostly centered around things, not people. I believe that you and MichaelA are the main ones who see frustrated enough by my not buying into your tightly held concepts, to take the next step in also attacking me personally instead of being civil.

I am pretty amazed, to say the least. In the real world, I have been defending the Epic Ski crowd from some statements made by some very well known friends in the skiing world. I have been an advocate for these forums and this site. 

However, with your recent comments in the capacity of a moderator, I am reconsidering staying around. Ghost, TDK, Uncle Louie, Bud, JASP, FOM, and quite a few others have been quite fun to talk with. FOM told me, "I type way too fast and have a quick mind". That was his opinion and I didn't even argue with him!  He also gave me some kind advice. 

So, Rusty, are you saying you want me to crumble and vanish? That I should go away because I am not agreeing with what you say? I am going against the standard set of beliefs of a few of the other instructors here and that is annoying to you? That this community needs to be kept pure or something?

What I am saying is not unconventional or whacked, but if you think it is, that is not my problem. You obviously do not agree with either many of my ski science/art beliefs, or with my ski teaching philosophy. So what. So what if I believe that skiing is a sport and not a spreadsheet, but that I still love spreadsheets too! 

IMO the slope change has nothing to do with the transition type. It has more to do with how much you incline and how quickly do you have to incline the other way. And how fast you are going.

Maybe I didn't put it quite right. ILF and OLR are still different as you say. However, the incline of the slope has to do with how much vertical occurs in the path of the CoM - the steeper the incline, in the ILF, the "z" value of the CoM, through time, doesn't always go, but can remain more constant or even get lower in respect to the actual elevation. All I meant was that the slope allows the skis to be lower relative to the CoM. I'm not too sure how to put it, but does that make sense to you? 

The up-unweight diagram is not the modern extention through transition. ILE is. The up-unweight diagram is to show the "traditional" extention through transition. Im saying "traditional" or "classic" because its still being used. But not while carving. Neather does Ligerty on the race course if everything goes well. Your comments above show that you still do not really lower yourself to my level  .

So, we do agree that the up-unweight diagram is the traditional or classical form and not applicable to Ligety and PJ. AND I'm not too sure that I'm laughing at the thought of coming down to your level!!! I like my extension and the uppity feeling you get from it! 

If you took this as a personal attack I apologize. I was trying to help you make your posts "friendlier".  I wouldn't be doing this if I didn't believe you were bringing value to the table. I am trying to enhance that value both for the community and my own sake. One of the fun aspects of ski teaching is finding common truths among multiple (and sometimes apparently conflicting) view points. To that extent, I'm often willing to repeat am opinion that I may not personally believe in, but have gained value from being exposed to. On the flip side, I've stayed out of much of the debate in this thread because I agreed with what was being said.

First, please humor me with this statement:  I am going to simply state what I know, forthright, up front, black and white and probably somewhat dogmatically. I am not trying to be unfriendly, but simply engage in a black and white, scientific type of a discussion.

I will answer you what I see in the video. I am very familiar with the turns that I see because I can do them also. I know what the mechanics feel like and they are not a mystery to me. I assume that you do too. That is why I am somewhat wondering why you asked the questions that you did about the video.

So since no one has bit on the "what" that I found interesting in the USSA clip, I'll drop some more details. Did anyone else notice a fairly wide stance, what looks to be like excessive tip lead preceding the early weight transfer,

I do not see any excessive tip lead. The wide stance is just the skiers preference for this drill and is not that relevant. This boy is a big boy and he has a wider stance also naturally. I do not see any tip lead as being excessive. As the inside leg is flexed more than the outside leg, due to our anatomy, tip lead has to increase. I'm sure this is nothing new to you.

the path of the skis cutting across the path of the upper body right at the same time the early weight transfer is supposed to be starting,

Actually, the early weight transfered occurred prior to the time of the skis cutting across the path of the upper body. The early weight transfer occurred, as pointed out in the stop action comment part, just about the point where the inside leg finished being at maximum flexion, where the inside ski is still on its inside edge - not where the skis are cutting across, but before that.

the hunched over upper body position?

Again, this is the racers preference and his stance. It is not imperative to have such a hunched over upper body position. 

What happens to weight distribution when the hips drop lower and to the inside of the turn after passing through the fall line?

After the apex, as the skier flexes, his inside leg flexes. His outside leg does not flex as much due to stacking or aligning to the turn forces - long leg, short leg flex - to stay balanced to the turn forces. So that is why his hips drop lower and more to the inside. This is the key point at which, if you are going to have an early and active weight transfer, you need to make it happen. An early weight transfer doesn't happen by itself. 

As you flex right after the apex, you put more weight on your inside leg by simply putting less on your outside leg. The turn forces are putting more on the outside leg, but as you flex, you can change that by keeping your hips more square and beginning to balance more against the inside flexed leg - the outside leg still has most of the weight, but not as much as it would have had had you not softened it some and started to pressure the inside leg more. The hips do not need to be moved over the inside leg. The hips are wide enough, cover both your legs and it's your choice how to muscularly divide the total turn pressure between the two legs, as long as they are square enough. Counter the hips here and you cannot start to transfer more weight to the inside ski as easily. 

One image I have of what it feels like, is that as I soften my outside leg to put more weight on my inside leg, if the turn isn't that dynamic and I'm well balanced, I sort of start to "sit", if that makes sense on my inside leg for a fleeting moment. If the turn is much more dynamic, then I feel like I have to almost push or claw my way to be on that inside leg a bit more and start the weight transferring going. It's more of a really quick resistance of the outside leg, a quick "push" to start to transfer to the inside followed by a softening or more easing up on the outside leg.... Don't know if that makes sense to you, but that is what it feels like. What I think to do it is, "up one leg and down the other leg" - sort of like when you walk very slowly. 

Another example is to simply stand up. Stand on too feet. Now slowly start to raise one foot. Your weight will automatically go onto the other foot. Some sort of concept, but not the same regarding the flexing/extending pattern - you don't raise your foot, your outside ski....

In the turns in the drill video, they are relatively slow and easy turns. There are not a lot of turn forces. The skier is using the early weight transfer to "pump" or almost skate and propel himself into the new turn. By beginning to transfer his weight to the new outside leg, early, prior to the edge change, he is able to push/extend/reach with his legs at the top of the turn, and gain speed there.

So after the skier flexes and starts to transfer more weight to the new inside ski by softening his old outside leg, transferring more of the support to his flexed inside leg - the skier then starts to extend his inside leg, extending and moving his body across his skis while his skis continue to finish the turn. As his body and skis cross at edge change. he continues to extend and almost skate or push off the top of the turn, pumping as we call it, with both legs. It's a very progressive lateral weight transfer, as well as a very progressive extension/flexion movement pattern. I think of the weight flowing up one leg and down the other. In some turns, it's very slight and maybe only 60:40, in other turns, is 80:20 or even 99:01 sometimes. 

A good way of learning this "pumping" is to go to a flat hill and try it - a pumping, skating like movement.If you doing the drill where you ski right on the tails of the skis of the person ahead of you and where you have to put your skis about one foot outside his tracks, you really need this early weight transfer and moving into the new turn to keep up with them - also a very fun drill and a great one for not only teaching moving into the turn, but also the early weight transfer.   

The video explains when transfer is occuring and how it's enabled, but it does not say how it's done. Wouldn't it be cool if we could fill in some of those details?

Is that enough details, or would you like more? As I often advise people going for their Level 3 teaching, ski it, feel it, then talk about it, in your own words.... my words are sometimes many.....

What I found intriguing about this clip was how easily I could dream up plausible but conflicting descriptions of what was happening in these turns. What I'm toying with is how the various descriptions could be used as coaching regardless of whether they are "right" or not. That is what I was hoping to get help from the Bears here with without polluting the idea pool with my own biases.

So, Rusty, I would be intrigued to hear what your own biases are and I wouldn't consider that polluting the idea pool here. I am also curious what you think your ideas would pollute the idea pool. I mean what do you think about my ideas, or TDK's ideas? Are we polluting the idea pool here?
 

Hi Cookie, glad to see you are doing fine and still very engaged in the sport.  Say hello to that skier  (PJ) for me too please.

My Best, Pete

Oh Yeah, for those Bears who thought the video skier was ok, well that is an understatement if I have ever heard one.  Simply Amazing here on Epic sometimes.

Rusty,

Regarding your previous posts and now your apology: Apology accepted. However, I have a question:

If you perceive that your method of so called "helping" me is indeed of positive value, then wouldn't if be of more positive value if you eliminated the disparaging and harmful words and tone, the "tricks", if  you desire to attempt to be so helpful again in the future? 

Rusty,

Also, if you indeed have something to add to this discussion, why are you not coming out and saying it instead of "dropping some more details"?

I've already said why. I don't want to pollute the discussion with my bias. I don't have all the answers and I don't want to throw stuff out there to be argued with. I want to see other peoples opinions. I have my own opinions, but I could take them in multiple directions. I wanted to see what other people say to help me learn. I don't want to argue one line of thought. I want to be able to follow multiple lines of thought. I've been told I have a good eye. It's been my experience that if I first tell people what I see, then mostly they either say nothing or just agree with me instead of telling me what they see. That does not help me learn. I also have multiple projects going on. I don't have time to polish rough ideas without help.
 

 I think that the extra tipping ankle movement performed after the fall line (between the the third and the fourth arrows - 15-16 seconds) increased the hook up of the skis and the natural tip lead change that results from turning created a brief moment where the outside foot fell behind the hips. I think the viewing angle makes the tip lead hard to see. I would not call the tip lead of this skier excessive, but I would say that there is a moment where it is relatively excessive. I don't believe that inside leg flex vs the outside leg necessarily lead to tip lead, but that is exactly the kind of information I was looking for.

At 15 seconds I'd say that Michael's feet are hip width apart. For almost all of the other frames I'd guess that his feet are slightly wider than hip width apart. My guess is that this is being done on purpose to accentuate ankle movements.

Let's agree to disagree on this one. At 16 seconds, the clip says "weight begins to transfer".

Let's agree to disagree on this one. At 16 seconds, the clip says "weight begins to transfer". I see ankle tip and ski hookup happening between 15 and 16 seconds. Clicking on the arrows to swap back and forth between these two frames was very interesting.

What I'd love to see is a pressure guage reading of the right leg from 14-19 seconds. I do agree that inside leg extension starts at 16 seconds. Is the extension a cause of weight transfer or a symptom? My thinking is that it can be both and in this case is only a contributor to weight transfer as opposed to being a cause.

Yes, but does this position encourage/assist upper body flow to the inside of the new turn? Have you noticed that, in general, the Canadiens seem to have a more hunched style than the Americans? The question is why some skiers prefer this? What benefit does it impart?

That's too simple for me. I think the weight transfers to the inside as a result of the combination of tipping and flexing. One could think of it as the vertical and horizontal position of the hips relative to the feet determine the distribution. But as both you and the clip point out, the rotational "z" orientation also plays a role. But as much as the clip talks about being square (and I agree with that in general), I see early weight transfer starting at a point where maximum counter exists. It's not a lot, but it is where I see the most. Could one use the frame at 16 seconds as an example of "steering into counter"? Weird - just plain weird.

 But as much as the clip talks about being square (and I agree with that in general), I see early weight transfer starting at a point where maximum counter exists. It's not a lot, but it is where I see the most. Could one use the frame at 16 seconds as an example of "steering into counter"? Weird - just plain weird.

If you hips are too countered, you won't be able to do this easily. It is true, that if you overly counter your hips and drop them inside, you can get more weight onto your inside ski, however, this is not an early weight transfer that we are talking about. This is more sitting on the inside leg. This move limits your ability to drive your shins and edge your skis; i.e. with your hips inside your thighs are now pointing too much down the hill and you simply can't edge much more, except by pulling your whole body over to edge the skis....

You see this and sometimes this is actually a recovery move you see in the race course. However, it is not a "good" skiing technique.

Let me make sure I understand what you are saying. When you say increased the hook up of the skis, are you meaning the increased edge angle, after the apex, when the skier drives theirs shins more and edges more while they are flexing more? If so, then that's what I agree with for anatomy and ski lead.

Now compare the first picture arrow, frame 12,  with Frame 16. Both are about where early weight transfer starts. Look at the hip orientation. A bit different camera angle, but still the hips in 16 are already beginning to counter as the skier is beginning to move in with his hips a bit too soon. This is what I think you are calling the outside foot falling behind and tip lead. He wasn't timing it all quite right - just being a normal human being in an imperfect world.

As far as the wide stance to accentuate ankle movements, I'm not too sure how a wide stance can really accentuate them. When your stance is too wide, or much wider than your hips, it is actually harder to tip the shins together and have the same effect to edge the skis. If anything, have a too wide a stance causes the outside ski to edged more while the inside ski is edged less, especially when the legs are flexing. 

So, how does a wide stance accentuate ankle movements? I'm not sure I understand what you mean by that?

I am interpreting "skis cutting across the path of the upper body" to be the edge change/transition point. That is closer to 14.30 and then again at 18.20. The early weight transfer is at about 12.75, per the first picture (frame 12), prior to 14:30 and then again at 16.93, per the fourth picture (frame 16).

I was merely stating that the crossing is before, not at the same time as the early weight transfer.