or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › Getting Back to the Core Issue- Are there inconsistancies?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Getting Back to the Core Issue- Are there inconsistancies?

post #1 of 27
Thread Starter 
This is to continue the Wedge discussion, but we moved into another realm. We started with discussing whether to place someone in a wedge stance and then teach movements, or teach movements and allow the students bodies and other factors to find it's platform. We may or may not be required to adjust that stance based on whether it inhibits good movement patterns. Where or when you teach wedge braking for safety, as in lift lines, etc. is completely separate, since everyone should agree that simultaneous inward femur rotation and progressive edging of opposing inside edges are not similar movements as fluid effective turns in any stance, wedge or parallel.

That's what is so interesting in the way the conversation moved. It ended up being a discussion of the usefulness of stemming for advanced skiing. Some who have so vehemently argued the need for teaching a wedge stance to almost every "never ever" moved more to the importance of wedging or stemming for advanced skiers rather than beginners.

What then is the goal of advanced and expert skiing? In my experience I've seen a lot more instructors who've got the stemming thing down and struggle to keep the skis FROM stemming on their turns. Why does PSIA determine that an advanced skier or Level 2 or 3 instructor be able to ski a turn with absolutely no stemming whatsoever? Why does PSIA describe wedge turns and christies as part of the progression that leads UP TO advanced and expert skiing. (I use PSIA as an example, please don't go off on a tangent). Arc previously described some of those faulty movement patterns that cause stemming, and a prescription to remedy. Since I did not see anyone arguing with Arc's analysis of the causitive issue, let's look at something.

If stemming (or moving the skis into a wedge relationship), is caused by inefficient and ineffective movement patterns for most advanced skiing situations, then are the movement patterns for wedge turns different than that of parallel turns?

That is the million dollar question when you place a student into a stance before you teach them how to move. You can teach a braking and gliding wedge to almost any student in 5 minutes. But you can spend years trying to eliminate that pesky stem (of any type) that is causing a hiccup in their turn. Some of you might have experience with this. Once again this is not an issue of the stance, but rather the movements.

Let's call everything we've been talking about with stances and movement patterns TOOLS. Assuming most on this thread and almost all of our students don't spend more than 30 days on snow a year, they can only have so many tools in the toolbox. Assuming 90% or more of their time is on-piste groomers which allow reasonable medium radius turns at medium speeds, what do you think are the most important tools to have in the box?

In our attempt to harmonize skiing let's not pretend that all roads lead to the right destination. Stances are stances and movements are movements and all can lead to good places or places no one would pay money to get to. In the debate over what stance to place people in, some on both sides have entrenched themselves so deeply that they become committed to whatever good or bad movements tend to arise from them. They stop teaching efficient movements and focus on secondary appearences. That's why I believe so many instructors to be sorely lacking movement analysis skills. They are distracted by resultant appearances rather than causitive movements.

Find yourself or your teaching inconsistant at times? You may have to pull yourself out of the trench.

Spag - "Long Live the Wedge" ???

How about "Long Live Great Skiing"

[ November 15, 2003, 07:05 PM: Message edited by: MC Extreme ]
post #2 of 27
Form follows function.

So if:

Functional (efficient) movements produce functional stances (forms).

Should we be concerned that maybe either:

dis-functional movements produce dis-functional stances?

or

dis-functional stances produce dis-functional movements?

[img]graemlins/evilgrin.gif[/img]
post #3 of 27
Thread Starter 
Or maybe both!
post #4 of 27
In the "parallel"(pun intended) world of sport fitness training, we descibe posture, vis a vie, alignment or stance, as the place where all movement begins and ends. With that in mind, we can speculate that optimal alignment or stance leads to optimal movement.

Right? Sort of.

The caveat: Those of us who take a less simplistic approach, will differentiate between static and dynamic alignment. Dynamic alignment encompasses transitional balance and strength, which is dependent on correct muscle firing sequences, as opposed to brute strength,or a "posing" type of balance.

Since I don't teach skiing, I'll give an example from my own industry. When I used to be interviewed for articles, the publications would use their own professional models. These girls were taught proper alignment, enabling them to pose for a photo, but the demonstrations of my exercises were a bit warped.
Their bodies lacked the instrinsic mtor sequencing necessary for arrriving in a pose that would accurately demonstrate the exercise.

Getting back to skiing, starting in a good stance increases the
possibility of good movement. But since the brain,and therefore the muscles, works by pattern recognition, movement sequences that promote fluidity, swiftness, as well as proper deceleration must also be practiced.

If I had it to do over again, I would have liked to learn the side slip on my first day of class.

But then again, what the heck do I know?

[ November 15, 2003, 08:29 PM: Message edited by: Lisamarie ]
post #5 of 27
MC,

PSIA's latest "method" is called "stepping stones". The basic idea is that are a lot of different elements in skiing and that one can progress to advanced skiing by "stepping" on any number of those elements in any order. In other words, PSIA no longer says that one needs to do wedge christies on their way to parallel skiing.

Under the old methodology of going from wedge to christy to parallel there was a theme of common movements between all turns involving flexion and extension and moving the center of mass into the new turn (among other things).

The theory was that it was easier to develop the movement skills (this is oversimplified) and stay in balance with the wider platform of the wedge. As the skills developed, the reliance on the wedge for balance could be gradually reduced. With modern equipment, there is less of a need for this. This is one of the reasons PSIA has changed its methodology.

BTW - I believe the reason many instructors are "so weak" in movement analysis skills is that it takes a lot of experience to develop those skills. There is very little material available to assist the development of movement analysis skill. Most instructors get some help from watching video. However, I've found that computerized analysis software can be much more effective in accelerating the learning curve for developing movement analysis skill, especially in the area of training the eyes to be able to observe the victim and denote data points. Being able to isolate symptoms from causes is the next part of movement analysis that takes accurate technical knowledge.
post #6 of 27
Thread Starter 
I'm aware of all the history and thought processes. My point behind the discussion is how many instructors have globbed onto a narrow element of ski instruction, such as a wedge stance, and made it the make or break issue.

Just look at the initial tone of a few threads back when I challenged some ideologies. Since then the tone has lightened a bit, hopefully as minds open. Just reading Lisa Marie's comments really made me feel like it's coming across. As a non - ski instructor, she pointed out some farely astute observations that were coming across to her by following the discussion.

I had the opportunity to see much of the "stepping stones" as it was being developed and in its finished state. It has its pluses and minuses as any teaching or coaching system has. I would hope that instructors would also go outside PSIA and soak up everything else available, apply it to a good sound knowledge of biomechanics and movement analysis, and put it to use.

Remember: A "little" knowledge can be a dangerous thing.
post #7 of 27
MC. Why does everyone insist that the wedge and great skiing are mutually exclusive to one another?!? The goal of any "tool" is to promote 1) SAFETY, and 2) patterns of movement that will be functional and tactical throughout a person's skiing career. I choose to focus on the rotary movements with beginners and the wedge can easily be used to develop a solid and safe arena for the student to learn how to move. Do we stay there forever? Don't be silly. No. We move on. We nurse the MOVEMENTS that we learned while doing the wedge and let them grow into the movements that we use to ski parallel, and carve, and skid... and SKI. You've said yourself that not all roads necessarily lead to the right destination (I assume your are talking about the various "systems" out there), it's the movements that are important. I couldn't agree more.

Are there inconsistencies? For sure. But I honestly think that people get far too melodramatic about it. All teaching systems have been developed by people, not God himself, and they are therefore going to be fallible in one way, shape, or form. (not that I believe God is infallible, but that's a thread for a totally different forum) I'll put it this way. THERE IS NEVER GOING TO BE A "PERFECT" TEACHING SYSTEM FOR ALL TYPES OF STUDENTS, OR INTRUCTORS FOR THAT MATTER. THE LONGER WE SIT AND DISCUSS "INCONSISTANCY" AND NIT-PICK SEMANTICS, THE LONGER WE IGNORE THE PRINCIPLES OF SKIING. SOME OF WHICH ARE... 1) When skiing, we are BALANCING, not "in balance", 2) Gravity is the "machine" that makes us go forward, not muscle, and 3) A skier cannot increase pressure by any muscular means and maintain it. An increase in pressure can only be the end result of external forces. (your weight, speed, and centifugal forces, for instance.)

What does all this have to do with the wedge? Nothing. What does all this have to do with NOT teaching the wedge? Once again, Nothing. Make your own decisions, people. If you believe you are doing your students a service by teaching them to ski and showing them how fun and life-altering it can be, then YOU ARE! As MC said, if you feel inconsistant, then maybe you are entrenched and need some fresh air. The use of the wedge, or direct parallel, or spitting in their ear means nothing to the end result... That being (hopefully) new blood for our sport.

I will only say that I am a proponent of the wedge at the beginner levels because, in my experience, it has a higher success rate in the realm of SAFETY than Direct Parallel does. And that's not to say I don't find DP and appropriate teaching tool sometimes. I do! But at the end of the day, I'd rather have 50 students out of 50 still sliding on their skis than 48 out of 50. As time passes and I see that begin to flip-flop, I may very well change my mind. It's been done before, and someday maybe I'll galdly stand up in front of some group of jaded instructors and say "Hello, my name is Kevin and I used to teach people the wedge." And they'll all wince and say (in unison) "Hello Kevin!" And then I'll give my testimonial about how the Direct Parallel approach has CHAAAAAAAAAAAAANGED MY LIFE! (hands waving in the air) But until I see any evidence that the wedge is completely useless, that day will be a long time coming.

LONG LIVE THE WEDGE!
LONG LIVE GOOD SKIING!
LONG LIVE FINELY SHREDDED COLE-SLAW!
LONG LIVE THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT I HAVE NOT CHANGED ANYONE'S MIND HERE. NOR DO I EXPECT TO. I'VE ONLY SAID MY PIECE.

Anyway, time to go to bed.

Sweet dreams and may we all pray for snow tonight!

Spag :

[ November 15, 2003, 10:13 PM: Message edited by: Notorious Spag ]
post #8 of 27
Oh Yeah. The Rusty. The Snowboarders in the Northern Rocky Region have developed a sweet little CD-ROM that they sent to all the SSD's to aid in training. It's Niiiiiice, to say the least. It puts everything right at the trainer's fingertips and my understanding is that an updated one with video images is up and coming. My hope is that Alpine will do the same some day.

(yawn)

Spag :

PS: MC, I just read my own post and realized that it looks like I directed the whole thing at you! Sorry. I was trying to carpet-bomb everyone and I think I got more on you than was necessary. I just felt like ranting. You make some great points.

[ November 15, 2003, 10:20 PM: Message edited by: Notorious Spag ]
post #9 of 27
Quote:
Originally posted by Lisamarie:
If I had it to do over again, I would have liked to learn the side slip on my first day of class.

I WAS taught to sideslip before ever being allowed off the bunny hill....

Then again - I was taught the snowplow & stem christie too....
post #10 of 27
As usual Arc is hardly a dead fish. Don't you ever change, that might put you in good stead again. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

I have a bit of trouble following MC extreme's post. When I was done, I found myself asking, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?".

To me stance if a function of two things. One, the anatomy and equipment that a skier posseses and two, the movement patterns that he or she adopts to effect control.

The type of turn that a skier is using is not the cause of inefficient skiing. Wedge turns and stem turns can both be done with efficient movements and inefficient movements.

The turn does not make the skier the movement patterns that he or she learns or chooses makes the skier. [img]smile.gif[/img]
post #11 of 27
MC Extreme,

I think that what you are saying is right on. But why do I get the impression that you think that a non wedge approach is a new thing, or somewhat new, and that the others are starting to see the light, as you say.
I am posting a letter I put in “To wedge or not to wedge” back in the beginning of the 2000 season, on this tread, and I think you will see that some of us have been teaching a direct parallel method for quite some time, and that most in this forum are somewhat familiar with this teaching method. There are some in this forum that taught, can you say GLM back in the day, but I won’t mention names. : I mentioned in that first post that we started DP back in the season of 2000-2001. That’s when we were allowed to teach a direct parallel method without a wedge here at Snowmass. But I must say, I was very much into getting folks out of the wedge and into parallel as soon as possible, and did so for many years prior to that. But being a PSIA sanctioned school; we were obliged to teach the wedge progressions first.

It also seems to me, and that may be because you have only just joined the ranks here at EpicSki, that you are really not aware of the talent in this forum. Believe me when I say that there are many here I’m guessing, have many more years of experience than you, but I could be wrong. And they are excellent in their MA skills and ski more than 30 days a season. MC Exreme, It’s not my intention here to seem like I’m bustin’ your buns. But IMHO, I think you should lighten up a bit on the other Pros in this forum. Again, I think that your posts are right on and your enthusiasm for teaching is great, keep up the great posts and threads.

SPAG,

>>I will only say that I am a proponent of the wedge at the beginner levels because, in my experience, it has a higher success rate in the realm of SAFETY than Direct Parallel does.<<

I disagree, IMHO. But then again, to each his own. [img]smile.gif[/img] ------------Wigs :
post #12 of 27
MC,

OK - yes - the issue of wedge vs direct to parallel is akin to an invitation to a religious dogfight.

I decline. And I think PSIA does as well. They are 2 different alternatives where either one may be more effective depending on the specifics of the situation. As our experience with DTP grows, the vicious aspect of the debate will go away.

Where I teach, on a typical February Saturday morning, if you attempted to teach a DTP lesson, carnage would result. Finding space to breath is a minor miracle. But lo and behold the off day with a group of 5 rollerbladers on 120s and a DTP lesson is a thing of beauty. Our official resort policy is
(drumroll please) ...
The instructor decides what kind of lesson to teach.

My personal experience is that under the right conditions, the learning curve is faster with a DTP lesson than a wedge lesson. I believe a faster learning curve leads to a higher retention rate. That is an objective for our industry. Yet I still teach most of my never evers to wedge first.

Spag ->
I rode with a bunch of knuckledraggers from the Northern Rocky Region last April (at Rider Rally) and those dirt bags never mentioned they were holding (the CD). I'd love to see it. As for alpine, I've threatened to make my own MA video based on my experience with the computer video analysis software. Unfortunately (aside from having no video making skill whatsoever), I keep losing my round tuit button. It's the nature of these things that someone has to just do it.
post #13 of 27
The Rusty. Yeah, they were pretty tight-lipped about it for awhile because they hadn't got any reaction from the small group they had distributed it to. Give 'em a bit of time. I wouldn't be surprised to see them submit it to National in the next few seasons after they get all the bugs worked out. (I can see it in the catalog right now..."Snowboard Trainer CD-ROM, by Skynet Inc." $500) Anyway, it's still pretty much under the radar and being worked on constantly. The first draft was good, I'm looking forward to the finished product.

Spag :
post #14 of 27
I love it when Northern Rocky leads. :

You know, there's a reason for using the wedge with novices that has not been mentioned, and that is developmental. People who don't have a lot of physical fitness or who have not engaged in sports much (an enormous population and growing--literally) are not unlike a developing child who displays "mirroring" of actions of upper/lower and left/right halves of the body. The wedge fits well with a person with delayed physical development because it asks the left/right sides to do the same thing and the upper and lower halves of the body to do the same thing.

It may take a while for someone with this neuro-physical profile to learn how to "separate."
post #15 of 27
functionally, the wedge turn as described by PSIA manuals etc invloves the turning of both legs/femurs in the same direction, like parallel turns, but at different rates and with different timing to alow for the development of movment patterns over time.

the gliding wedge platform isn't acheived by turning the legs toward each other as in a braking maneuver. It is merely a function of a wide stance for the inexperienced skier who is likely to need a wide base of support for balance.

Coming from this beginning, wedge turns do share movements in common with parallel turns.

Now is this the wedge turn that most people (even PSIA Instructors) teach? possibly not.

there are many teachers out there who teach the braking wedge and move to turns with that as a platform.

There are teachers who teach a braking wedge, teach a gliding wedge as well, and use that as a platform to teach sking.

In my experience, the gliding wedge approach has more in common with direct to parrallel movment patterns than only using the braking wedge.

I think there are many instructors and trainers who do not know (even though they know the names) there is a difference between Braking and Gliding Wedges and thus, do not understand how they differ in reference to turns and movment pattern invloved in turns.
post #16 of 27
Quote:
Originally posted by nolo:
I love it when Northern Rocky leads. :

You know, there's a reason for using the wedge with novices that has not been mentioned, and that is developmental. People who don't have a lot of physical fitness or who have not engaged in sports much (an enormous population and growing--literally) are not unlike a developing child who displays "mirroring" of actions of upper/lower and left/right halves of the body. The wedge fits well with a person with delayed physical development because it asks the left/right sides to do the same thing and the upper and lower halves of the body to do the same thing.

It may take a while for someone with this neuro-physical profile to learn how to "separate."
Thank you Nolo... because despite having an instructor now who has taught direct parallel quite a bit, I cannot imagine how ANYONE could have taught me to ski that way.... This instructor still regularly reverts me to snowplow/stem turns to show me what I am about in my skiing at the present point of time .... somehow on a beginner hill in a slow snowplow I seem to do terrible turns REGULARLY still....

I still believe direct parallel would have resulted in me in the bar on days off for the rest of the season, instead of on the hill during the daylight...
post #17 of 27
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Pierre:
I have a bit of trouble following MC extreme's post. When I was done, I found myself asking, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?".

To me stance if a function of two things. One, the anatomy and equipment that a skier posseses and two, the movement patterns that he or she adopts to effect control.

The type of turn that a skier is using is not the cause of inefficient skiing. Wedge turns and stem turns can both be done with efficient movements and inefficient movements.

The turn does not make the skier the movement patterns that he or she learns or chooses makes the skier. [img]smile.gif[/img]
Pierre, What do you have trouble following? When did I not say movement patterns can dictate a stance? I also said stances can dictate movement patterns. If you don't believe that then try to teach a release movement to a 5 ft tall skier in a 5 foot wide wedge.

Calling wedge turns and stem turns different types of turns may be an admission that they both regularly produce different movement issues both good and bad. Another example of stance potentially dictating movements. Would anyone argue that stem turns have a much higher degree of sequential movement than parallel turns. Are any of those movements ineffecient or non conducive to parallel turns? Absolutely.

My belief with most DTP teaching systems is that they seek to move a skier to high level skiing at a faster pace by eliminating some movement patterns, which on the great majority of the masses, produce unwanted results. Can someone question their methods, absolutely. But make sure you really know what those methods are. I've seen more time spent on this site talking about GLM as if it were PMTS and every other DTP program. This to me just shows the lack of knowledge of what these DTP programs teach.

This leads me to responding to Wigs. I apologize for not bowing down and paying homage to everyone I should. Maybe we should publish everyoness bio, so that if I see that they have taught for 20 years, we just assume they are highly skilled and know more than almost everyone else. Fortunately or Unfortunately, for most, we must rely on what they actually espouse in words as the knowledge they posses. Don't read my words with hostility, because I'm just a to the point kind of guy. I actually really enjoy the dialogue. In many places and circles, the kind of diologue on this site would be akin to treason.

You give me a great idea for a new thread though.
Evolution of Knowledge - Is It Just Time and Random Chance?
post #18 of 27
>>>>I've seen more time spent on this site talking about GLM as if it were PMTS and every other DTP program. This to me just shows the lack of knowledge of what these DTP programs teach.<<<<

This is so unfair. Those of us who have been skiing and teaching for 40 years or more know well that Cliff Taylor with his GLM method had nothing but the simplification of the road to parallel in mind.

At that time carving was the domain of some very upper level skiers and racers and 'parallel' was godliness. Parallel skidding was the ultimate a recreational skier could dream of achieving at the time and GLM had varying success with that.

GLM was the PMTS and DTP of it's time. And we'll see the present systems being rideculed in the future also, so don't get entrenched too far.

....Ott

PS....To paraphrase you:....'and your posts just show a lack of knowledge of what folks in this forum are all about.'

Could you just lay off guessing as to how much knowledge folks in this forum have about various methods, programs or skiing in general?
post #19 of 27
Thread Starter 
Ott,

Could you just actually read and respond to what I write, not what you think I think. You also completely misquoted me in your P.S. note. Please don't change my words and then ascribe them to me.

How was I even talking about Cliff Taylor and his motivations? I am reading the actual words of writers who have numerous times said "DTP Programs such as GLM". GLM happened how many years ago? A few changes in skiing technology have occured since, and my objection was the lumping of all DTP systems into one big hopper. What you read in beyond that is not my issue. Efficient or non-efficient movements need to stop being about one system or another.

And your issue with my challenging credentials, where did that occur? If challenging someones knowledge is making them explain their beliefs and offering another opinion, then I must be guilty. Flog me please, I deserve it. Funny though, I've never seen you accuse anyone else who agrees with you of that.
post #20 of 27
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Ott Gangl:
>>>>
GLM was the PMTS and DTP of it's time. And we'll see the present systems being rideculed in the future also, so don't get entrenched too far.

....Ott

Who is really the entrenched one Ott?

Before you start the ridicule, answer me this. Are traditional teaching methods moving more toward DTP or vice versa?

Maybe it's really just about efficient skiing and teaching, not the name on the book cover.

[ November 17, 2003, 12:15 PM: Message edited by: MC Extreme ]
post #21 of 27
Well, I paraphrased your quote, as in "..This to me just shows the lack of knowledge of what these DTP programs teach."

...and I said: "..PS....To paraphrase you:....'and your posts just show a lack of knowledge of what folks in this forum are all about.'

Now lets forget talking about each other and talk about wedge and parallel.

I say, just like in pornography, let the comunity standard prevail

I come from so far back in time that in my native Bavaria, just like in Austria at the time, only athletic teenager were meant to ski, because to turn the skis of the time you had to hop and start turning the skis while in the air and that was not for older people of 25 or so.

And one more question: did you learn to ski in the wedge and are you still stemming? Probably not because you advanced with ski technology, and ski and boot technology have been the driving force of what makes it possible for skier to advance. Teaching models lag a bit behind.

...Ott
post #22 of 27
: MC

You have put your finger on the Number 1 false assumption that PSIA perpetuates. Namely: that expert skiing is basically the same as intermediate skiing, only experts do it better. Lito T-F, with laser-like acumen, correctly observes that expert skiing is fundamentally different than intermediate skiing! Intermediates (and beginners) like a stable stance - a wedge or wide parallel. Experts are always in motion, so, for them, the key is dynamic balance as the cm crosses over (or the skis under). Experts agressively move their cm's down the hill and into the turn. For intermediates, you just hope that they don't lean back into the hill. Experts use their weight on the downhill ski to control the turn - the inside ski is used for balance or to control the shape of the turn. But any expert could lift the inside ski, if he wanted to, through most or all of the turn. Try lifting the inside ski in a wedge turn at slow speed and see what happens! Some intermediates can get to be quite good with intermediate technique, but it is a different set of skills! If you try to create an expert turn using intermediate techniques, you are bound to have problems.

When we hang on to the intermediate stuff, those problems linger; Level II instructors who still stem to initiate turns. The answer is not (necessarily) to forgo teaching the wedge and wedge christie. The wedge is very useful! And there are certainly circumstances where I will deliberately start a turn with a stem. But PSIA needs to let go of the idea that it is the same set of skills (Yeah, it is balance, edge, rotary and pressure, but applied in very different ways). Add the expert turn to your quiver as a new arrow. Don't try just to re-feather an old arrow to make it better. It won't shoot straight! LTF, in his newest book, gives some wonderful progresssions and exercises to develop an expert turn.

PSIA's "Stepping Stones" concept is a great start in letting go of old dogma. Let's keep it going!

"When you make the inside foot light, good things happen!"

Mtngeo
[img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]
post #23 of 27
MC Extreme said:
Quote:
Pierre, What do you have trouble following? When did I not say movement patterns can dictate a stance?
You're post are so dripping with condescension and sarcasm combined with an awkward sentence sturcture that I cannot figure out what you mean. I don't know if you are being sarcastic with explanations, have an agenda or are sometimes serious.

I have re-read my post and do not find where I questioned anything about you're movement pattern explanations. What gives with that. Why do you assume we are all behind the times

So far I still cannot figure out whether you mean that wedge turns and stem turns are dead end or that they generally can contibute to defensive movements. So far I have seen nothing other that you're condesecending attitude that I really disagree with but I am not sure what you are saying. I am not sure you think there is a right and a wrong way to ski. All I see is retoric. I can't get past the condescention and sentence structure eh.

[ November 17, 2003, 03:28 PM: Message edited by: Pierre ]
post #24 of 27
Thread Starter 
Pierre,

I'm glad we agree. I also got a A in English Composition, but then again my Prof was a big Wadsworth fan, so that could be the problem.

You're wrong though, I'm not condescending, I'm combative. And it's not my fault, my Parents did not give me enough love.
post #25 of 27
Mc Extreme,

I agree with Pierre, you are all over the map in your first post. You may be combatative, but you are not as clear and concise as you could be. Nevertheless, I basically gathered that you argue against a progression that uses the wedge and stemming to reach advanced/expert skiing. Right?

I think nolo makes a good point. How do you teach DP to people who simply do not have what it takes to do it? These peple will never be experts either. They will always ski like intermediates and will always have some kind of stemming activity. Let's face reality: not everyone can be an expert, regardless of the promisses made by certain instructors. Based on that argument, what do you do? Tell the skier to go home and forget it?

A good instructor better be willing to teach the wedge and progress to stemming or the majority of skiers are screwed. If however, an instructor can identify a more athletic skier who has little trouble balancing on one ski, then, by all means teach DP. But don't close the door on any of these tools.

NOT EVERYONE IS CREATED EQUAL!
post #26 of 27
Ah MC Extreme, you didn't come back nasty, thats good.

Two things I disagree with you on.

One, you said "try thinking outside PSIA for a change". Well, yah see thats impossible since PSIA purposely set themselves up to give such a wide umberella that virtually everything fits right or left of centerline and all within PSIA. Since everything said, good and bad, fits within PSIA, how can PSIA be wrong? They can't. That is also part of the problem with PSIA and why its so difficult for new instructors.

Two, good efficient movements including efficient release of the inside ski can be taught from a wedge and in fact can be taught from a braking wedge.
post #27 of 27
Quote:
Originally posted by Pierre:
Two, good efficient movements including efficient release of the inside ski can be taught from a wedge and in fact can be taught from a braking wedge.
For a new guy in this community like me, this thread from spring 2002 provides some insight. In it, Bob Barnes blows apart one of the myths about wedge turns, specifically that the movement patterns for a wedge are drastically different from a solid parallel turn. His posts in this thread certainly got me thinking!

ssh
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › Getting Back to the Core Issue- Are there inconsistancies?