EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › Are intermediates really that different?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Are intermediates really that different? - Page 2

post #31 of 57
Yep Nolo - that was wht I was trying to say... the instructor that started the biggest breakthrough process spoke to Challenge Aspen staff & after realising I have motor control - although no feedback - they decided I COULD potentially ski quite well - but it would require a LOT of work providing feedback & allowing my body to learn to compensate... (I rely on my sense of touch for those that don't know)

This instructor then set about the process of starting to teach me to be THAT skier - the one I COULD be.... His attitude was not to teach me to 'do OK' it was to teach me to be a GOOD SKIER... yes my reflexes are almost non-existent.... yes change of balance will always be problematic for me... etc etc... but within that I will be a GOOD skier

OBOE: I agree from this perspective.... Population is NOT gifted with a single set of abilities... like any other skills the physical requirements for skiing are distributed amongst the population in varying degrees....
Unfortunately there is a subset (maybe a large one or a few large ones) of ski instructors who assume the world exist at THEIR level (usually greater than average) & refuse to accept that the rest of us can't "JUST JUMP" ... sorry but "JUST JUMP" irritates the crap out of me as it is VERY hard for me to jump...
If ski schools REALLY wanted to increase retention they would develop teaching methods to allow for ALL comers... but as it is they are prepared to consign a largeish portion of the population to 'natural attrition' when they CAN'T DO IT... or DO IT BADLY & GET HURT .... or GET EMOTIONALLY HURT ... in the process of trying to learn to ski

Terminal intermediates - seriously MANY people are simply lazy too.... it SUITS them to be able to
1) Brag of never having had a lesson
2) Ascribe lack of ability to 'ice' or slush or crud or bad skis or...etc
3) Not ski in bad weather/poor snow/spring/early season etc to get more snow time
4) Not face the challenge of REALLY facing the issue of doing stuff you don't WANT to do if you WANT to improve... ya can't BUY improvement (despite all those lessons I have)
5) Not put in the 'mental effort' to analyse WHY a lesson did or did not work & then GO DO SOMETHING to find the solution... Things like TELLING ski school what you are looking for
6) Not do off-season training (yes I have been slack this year myself with fires etc... but a lot of my success can be attributed to my INLINE SKATING instructors - who worked their butts off (& mine) to make me get better)
post #32 of 57
Nolo,

I suppose this is what I have been attempting to say all winter. In your unimitable and diplomatic manner you have raised the question again. In my manner, I'm more apt to say I see an awful lot of instructors making lousy looking turns and giving crummy lessons.

I was more linking the malaise to economics, ie., why more lessons aren't taken. This approaches the horse from the other end, and I suppose a purer sense.

After all, if the instructor corps can't get students past an intermediate plateau for whatever reason, a substantial "market share" is left untapped.

[ May 06, 2003, 06:35 AM: Message edited by: Rusty Guy ]
post #33 of 57
WTFH and nolo both are correct. Try as I might, I expect NEVER to have the BAC at the same level as Fox.

As to his notion of skiing like an "expert oboe" and nolo's comment about achieving things we never thought we could - YES! That's what skiing has been all about for me, and YES! I AM achieving things I thought never would be possible for me.

BUT I WANT A LOT MORE!!!!!!!

AND BY GOD I SHALL HAVE MORE!!!!!

That is all for now. Gotta go do what they pay me to do.
post #34 of 57
I'll also paraphrase a favorite quote of mine from, I believe Henry Ford,

"If you think you can or think you can't you probably will"
post #35 of 57
Hi guys, a break from packing and looking into cardboard boxes!
I have oft told a bummed out instructor after a "non-breakthrough" lesson, that they have the responsibility to be the best instructor they can be; and the the student has the responsibility to be the best student they can be. Basically, the instructor creates the learning rich environment enhanced with targeted stimulus, the "learner" takes the ball and runs with it! SOME PEOPLE WILL ALWAYS BE CHRONIC INTERMEDIATES!
Nolo, I believe it has more to do with "loops of learning", wherein people progress (sometimes incrementally, sometimes with an ephiphany) because their learning loops remain closed, constantly redefining and refining skills. Some folks keep their loops open, resulting in half-baked skill development. Their fundamental skills are entrenched and grooved into movement patterns that inevitably define them as "intermediate". Some of these movements are developed into "negative expertise or competence" and will take deprogramming.
I used to tell my novice students, "these fundamental skills must continue to be polished, like scales of music. Stop working on fundamentals and you will become an EXPERT INTERMEDIATE! Like the commercial on TV, you can pay me now or pay me later....later costs more!
post #36 of 57
I'm not sure I understand all the brouhaha over "teach me to ski like me". What exactly does this mean? How do you know what you ski like if you're still developing the basic skills? It sounds more like people are advocating "I'll never be....so just get me to feel comfortable" Well you're setting a limit on yourself right there. Sure, you're not going to get a product endorsement but you can get a lot better even if it's slowly.

Isn't teaching something new or getting you to do something different making you "better"? If you don't want to get better why take a lesson in the first place. Even learning to be more comfortable is "better" no?

Usually the desire to ski like the instructor or someone else comes from the student. You have to teach the skills though and the movements. If they follow you enough (this is usually friends though) they might end up sort of looking like you. Just visually copying though can often lead to people taking positions on their skis and very static skiing.

The half pipe is a good place where you see people's conceptions. A huge percentage of the beginner to intermediate skiers I've coerced down it think they can't possibly do it because they assume they're going to have to get big air like you see in ads. They don't really think they can just go up a bit and turn down or if you get nervous you can just ski down the middle like a regular trail.
Quote:
Trust and a realistic perspective can accomplish a great deal in the teaching partnership. In my experience, it isn't physical attributes that hold the skier back, but mental/emotional attributes, mainly a lack of vision. If one can't see past the present to a better future, they are stuck. - nolo
What if you accept people when they say, "oh it's not me to ski in the half pipe?" Ok fine, you're not going to hang out in there with the kids but going through it expands their vision a bit. At the very least it gets people to confront their fear and see they can get by some of that.
post #37 of 57
Tog, the "teach me to ski like me" thing isn't about beginners, but about people who are already skiing. It's about building on their fundamentals. If the fundamentals are wrong, then they need to broken down, but if they are basically correct then they need to be built on.
The fundamentals are based on what the skier has already been taught, what they have learned, their physiology and their psychology.
If a skier doesn't want to ski a half pipe, what is the reason? If the reason is because they think they have to get air to turn, then show them and lead them down, making turns on the pipe. If their reason is because they don't like performing in front of crowds, then bring them back later when it's quieter and let them build up confidence.
To push someone in a direction they don't want to go will create resistance from them, which will be more difficult to break down than if they are lead in a way suitable for them.

Once a level of trust is established between skier and instructor, then the instructor can start pushing the skier's envelope.
Remeber the other comment I made, about being the best skier you can be? That's where a good instructor comes in: they see the potential in a person, and create the situation which enables that potential to be realised.

e.g. I have no desire to break the speed skiing record. If you want me to break it, you're going to have to give me that desire, you're going to have to work with my skiing from where I am now until I can do it. Now, I do have a strong desire to enjoy my skiing more and to have greater confidence.
Which is going to work better? You pushing me into a speed suit, or you leading me down gradually steeper runs, and working with my abilities to improve my conifdence levels?
Either way is going to involve overcoming my fears, but one way will make me be the skier I want to be, and the other will make me the skier you want me to be. And I know which one I want when I sign up for a lesson.

S
post #38 of 57
Quote:
I have no desire to break the speed skiing record. If you want me to break it, you're going to have to give me that desire, you're going to have to work with my skiing from where I am now until I can do it. Now, I do have a strong desire to enjoy my skiing more and to have greater confidence.
Which is going to work better? You pushing me into a speed suit, or you leading me down gradually steeper runs, and working with my abilities to improve my conifdence levels?
- wtfh
That's just teaching!
There's nothing new in what you say at all. Perhaps if you're comparing more "old school" or perhaps what was more European based where you are taught pretty rigidly to do certain things than ok it's different. It seems like that issue has been settled here(US) long ago. It may not always work that way, but that's what is supposed to happen.

Whether it's Guest Centered Instruction or "Student Directed Teaching System" -tm (Harald Harb) it's taking the students needs and desires into account. What about this needs to change? It seems like what's being talked about are sub-optimal lessons or bad ones.

With some there seems to be a disconnect between wanting to get better and actually committing to doing something.

I had a small group (private) this year that basically just wanted to cut lines. Ok, fine but maybe you can learn something too? Talk about classic intermediate rut, they pretty much drift down the trail rather fast and push the tails out. Well, I couldn't even get them to follow me in a round, fast turn (since they liked to go fast I thought we'd start there). Well going up the lift once we see someone coming down skiing moguls in a zipperline. "I want to be able to do that" one of them said. I told him, "ok, great let's learn how to turn first on the groomed and we'll try some moguls" That didn't even last a quarter of a run though as they just skied on down without trying -anything- we talked about or even following me. Their competition to beat each other down was way more important than learning anything. In some ways they'd have been better off in a Euro system where they were commanded to do certain things. Of course they would have left though.
post #39 of 57
I remember the day. I remember the run. It happened on a bump run. After that I could ski pow too.
post #40 of 57
Read between the lines, Tog. You're hearing from the intermediates, and we have something on our minds. We want to be heard, and if you're an instructor, we want you to listen. Your posts do not come across as empathetic and interested in our point of view.

We're asking that instruction generally place more emphasis on learning the physical ability issues of the student and giving the student commensurate instruction. The example you pose of the line cutters is not apposite to our own situation - because we do not take instruction to cut lines, we take it to learn to have more enjoyment, and some of us are frustrated as hell with our level of athletic ability.

As an example, nolo's response to my post indicates empathetic active listening. That's one reason why four days at the Academy with her as coach was so worthwhile.
post #41 of 57
I think that much of the jump from intermediate-dom is as mental as it is technical, assuming that advanced-toward-expertdom means skiing more difficult terrain (steeper, iffier conditions, etc.), because it will involve, as milesb addressed, getting out of the backseat on terrain that will kick your arss if you don't make that "leap" to trusting that getting out over the skis (pressuring the tips) is the place you have to be in order to make "it" work.
Looking down at terrain steeper than you're comfortable with is enough to lock you onto your heels. It is a leap of faith that, I think, no instructor can instill in a student. You can show us the tools and demonstrate how/why they work, but you cannot make a skier suddenly fearless (assertive). That will HAVE to come from the skier and, speaking for myself, involve no small amount of trial and error.
Only the skier can know whether or not they're willing to do this, to put the tools to work.
I'm sure there are "bad" lessons. There are also lazy students, or, to be kinder, skiers who want to get to point Z from point A bypassing all the (sometimes) uncomfortable stations in-between. If you want it, it's on YOU to do it.

[ May 06, 2003, 03:53 PM: Message edited by: ryan ]
post #42 of 57
Thread Starter 
I'd like to correct a mistake I made in my last post. It is the LEARNING partnership, not the Teaching Partnership. Apologies all around.

One trick I have taught students, Ryan, is not to pause at the top of a steep run, but to pause somewhere before that point for the pep talk (or positive self-talk, as the case may be) and be on the move through and past the overlook. It's okay to stop at any point beyond the first couple of turns, but whatever you do, don't stop at the top and psych yourself out.

Thank you, Oboe. That was one of the nicest compliments I have ever had bestowed. I found piano lessons to be a humbling experience and I completely understand the frustration of trying to accomplish something for which I have so little aptitude. But though frustrated, I am more attracted to the possibility of finally playing Jesu, Joy of God's Desiring, and not making JSB roll over in his grave.
post #43 of 57
Maybe that's a part of the attraction, nolo! For me, skiing has been doing what I never dreamed I could do. If it came that easily, it would be a different experience. Remember when Ott Gangl told us that his son doesn't ski anymore? Ott's son explained, "It's like walking."

On the other hand, I would cut off my left thingamajigger to be a more naturally talented skier like my son.

Another time, another medium, I'll fess up and tell you exactly what are the neuro-muscular and perceptual frustrations that seem to keep me in the Purgatory of the Intermediate.

As for JSB, he is to me the greatest musical creative genius of them all, and a bust of him sits on my piano. You have chosen most beautiful music.
post #44 of 57
Sibelius is pretty good too, but not so great for skiing...unless you're doing it in slow motion.

Maybe "the struggle" is part of the enjoyment of skiing. Maybe for people who get it easily, they miss some of that satisfaction (or even joy) of striving and feeling "it" when it happens.
post #45 of 57
Tog - to give you a rough idea... I am told I ski better than my instructors(an oz examiner) APSI Level 1 candidates(PSIA 2 roughly)... yet we would almost NEVER do 1 ski skiing - which they do a LOT...
WHY? - when we tried it each run he asked me 'what did you feel' each time the answer was 'unbalanced' 'falling' etc the final straw came when I answered a more specific question with 'No I was too busy trying not to fall down to think about that' I don't think we have done any quantity of 1 ski stuff since... I guess he simply made the decision that there were BETTER ways to teach me the skills he wanted... I KNOW that before that he was quite sure I WOULD do the 1 ski bit by seasons end or the middle of following season.... This guy LIKES 1 ski skiing exercises... he simply adjusted HIS teaching to MY skiing... I am learning to ski LIKE ME ... me has a balance problem - 1 ski skiing is not a useful exercise atm...

Similarly with jumping & any other balance challenge - the task is 'adjusted' until we achieve a suitable result...

RE the PSIA vs the world stuff - NO!!!! the instructor I had that COULD NOT ADJUST - PSIA2....
The instructor I had with APSI 1 & years of Austrian experience was better at teaching to my needs...
The PSIA chick thought if she used nice words she was 'client centred' & that would do... NO EMPATHY AT ALL!
post #46 of 57
There is a human relations principal called "discounting".

For example: Child jumps out of bed and runs to daddy and says, "I'm scared!"

Here's discounting: "Now, now, there's nothing to be scared of."

Here's acceptance: "You're scared! Come here, tell daddy what is scaring you."

Another example: Wife: "I'm feeling angry about your staying out late with the boys."

Husband discounting: "There's nothing to be angry about."

Husband accepting: "You're angry? Are you angry at me, or angry about the situation?"

Instructors would do well to study this aspect of human relations. Listen to your students. HEAR your students. ACCEPT communications from your students, rather than discount them. If you show that you hear them, there's a greater chance that they'll hear you.
post #47 of 57
Here's a thought.

Ski instructors often seem to want to take charge of our learning whereas skiers, particularly those who've stuck with it, are apt to be freedom-loving adventurous sorts who enjoy being in charge of their own experience. Is it teaching or sharing?

Give me insights, show me what you can do, give me something to emulate, help me know when I am getting it, share with me a great experience. Does that sound like what we've come to expect from ski instruction?
post #48 of 57
Quote:
Originally posted by oboe:

Instructors would do well to study this aspect of human relations. Listen to your students. HEAR your students. ACCEPT communications from your students, rather than discount them. If you show that you hear them, there's a greater chance that they'll hear you.
Quote:
Originally posted by oboe:

Another time, another medium, I'll fess up and tell you exactly what are the neuro-muscular and perceptual frustrations that seem to keep me in the Purgatory of the Intermediate.
Oboe:

Are you requesting of Nolo (and others) "Please listen", and at the same time acknowledging you didn't share with her what you are suggesting she should have listened to?
post #49 of 57
OK, let me clarify that:

I have made no assertion whatsoever that nolo "didn't listen" - and if you read my posts above, you can see that I thought she was a damn fine active listener and coach. I have zero complaints and mucho gratitude.

However, I will confess that I have not given full disclosure on some issues and would prefer to do so in a private communication.

But you do bring up an important point being covered in another thread: The student also has a responsibility for the student's instruction and progress. I'm fessing up to my own responsibility in this regard. Even the world's best instructor isn't a mind reader. The student has the reponsibility of being self examining and also of disclosing conditions, thoughts, feelings, incapacities whether real or perceived, to the instructor. Sometimes the truth is embarrassing and it's more comfortable to disclose that to the instructor privately.
post #50 of 57
Quote:
Originally posted by oboe:
OK, let me clarify that:

I have made no assertion whatsoever that nolo "didn't listen" - and if you read my posts above, you can see that I thought she was a damn fine active listener and coach. I have zero complaints and mucho gratitude.

However, I will confess that I have not given full disclosure on some issues and would prefer to do so in a private communication.

But you do bring up an important point being covered in another thread: The student also has a responsibility for the student's instruction and progress. I'm fessing up to my own responsibility in this regard. Even the world's best instructor isn't a mind reader. The student has the reponsibility of being self examining and also of disclosing conditions, thoughts, feelings, incapacities whether real or perceived, to the instructor. Sometimes the truth is embarrassing and it's more comfortable to disclose that to the instructor privately.
Oboe:

Yep, I did read them. I agree that you never suggested or implied a deficiency in listening. That wasn't what I was getting at.

My point was exactly what you acknowledged - your required participation in communicating "what" needs to be listened to. For all I know, Nolo can read minds! But it must take a lot of energy, so why make her work so hard?

Oboe, I agree not broadcasting your concerns on the www is a good choice I and the rest don't need to know .... it's none of our business

Thanks,

Chris
post #51 of 57
I'm wondering how many people, students and teachers, expect any real breakthroughs to occur during lessons. In my own experience -- your mileage may definitely vary -- any breakthroughs (profound improvements) require lots and lots of practice to refine and internalize those changes begun during any lessons. At every level of my own skiing, I've found that my existing technique, even if it's somewhat dysfunctional, is comfortable for me. To change that technique to something that is more functional is often initially uncomfortable and initially makes my skiing suffer. Practicing technique that initially makes my skiing suffer does require a leap of faith, but it's only after committed practice that these changes lead to more functional movements. I can make small tweaks to my skiing in a short time, but those small tweaks rarely lead to real breakthroughs.

For me, the best lessons are those in which I can 1) be made aware of the possibility for specific improvement; 2) be taught avenues to approach that improvement; and 3) be given guides for self-assesment and self-awareness so that I can recognize, on my own, if I'm moving closer or further away from that improvement.

So, I'm wondering if some people may have unrealistic expectations of lessons. I think some of those expectations may be propagated by marketing promises to "break out of the intermediate rut" just by attending a multi-day clinic. If people do have plateaus in their skiing, is it possible that at least some of those plateaus are due to an unwillingness or inability to commit to internalizing the changes begun during lessons. There may be lots of other reasons for plateaus, but I'm wondering if I haven't described one of them.

Of course, maybe I'm just remarkably slow, and perhaps most people can actually make profound positive changes to their skiing much more quickly than me.

cheers,
stmbtres
post #52 of 57
I'm told I CAN - some things the guys can tell me what they want & we do a few runs working on it & PRESTO it incorporates into my skiing...

SOME things - like flexing my ankles we literally worked on for MONTHS!!! AAAAAArrrrrrrggggghhhhh!

One instructor keeps telling me he envies me my ability to change - he has skied practically all his life & says even SMALL changes are hard in such a long time technique...

I have NOT been skiing long & have ALWAYS had lessons - he thinks that is why when I can understand & do a movement I often can change more easily...

I understand having to work for a LONG time for small gains is the norm though...

All to do with entrenched movement patterns...
post #53 of 57
Quote:
Originally posted by stmbtres:
...For me, the best lessons are those in which I can 1) be made aware of the possibility for specific improvement; 2) be taught avenues to approach that improvement; and 3) be given guides for self-assesment and self-awareness so that I can recognize, on my own, if I'm moving closer or further away from that improvement...
True.

Quote:
Originally posted by stmbtres:
...If people do have plateaus in their skiing, is it possible that at least some of those plateaus are due to an unwillingness or inability to commit to internalizing the changes begun during lessons...
stumbletrees ( ),
haven't seen you here in a while, but you're back with a good post.
The last line is the one that I would use to define a breakthrough (whether small or great). It's about what begins with the lesson.
I would rarely finish a lesson and say "that was a breakthrough". What would tend to happen is that something in the lesson finally clicks into place for me, so, for example, in the lesson I learn something on one run that makes a lot of sense, and that I can do, and when I do it, my skiing feels better. If I repeat it on the next run, then it's starting to sink in. If, a week, or a month later, I am still doing that, and as a result I am doing it on more difficult terrain than first taught, then I would look back and consider the lesson a breakthrough - it gave me something I could use, and I could advance with, and something that will, hopefully, become second nature. The problem I find, that prevents me from advancing, is that I learn something in a lesson, but either it doesn't stick, or it doesn't feel right, so I forget it. Now, if it doesn't stick, that's my own fault. If it doesn't feel right, I should be going back to the instructor to find out what's wrong, including the possibility that it's a new sensation, and sometimes new things don't feel right the first time.

In my most recent lessons, I did learn things that stuck, and that made sense. Does it mean I learned to ski more like nolo or Ziggy? No. I learned to ski like a better version of me. And I like me (even if I'm not quite perfect).

S
post #54 of 57
stmbtres, good post!
Quote:
Read between the lines, Tog. You're hearing from the intermediates, and we have something on our minds. We want to be heard, and if you're an instructor, we want you to listen. Your posts do not come across as empathetic and interested in our point of view. -oboe
Oboe, sorry if my posts appear as if I don't care about what the point of view expressed is. I do care, I'm just trying to figure out what the issue really is so I'm pushing it a bit. I don't mean to dismiss this concept of "I want to ski like me" but find out what you really mean by it. Taking into account someone's ability, fears and motivations is supposed to be standard procedure for teaching so I'm wondering how what you're talking about is different or expands on that. Perhaps negative examples you've had may make it clearer.
The example of the line cutters perhaps wasn't all that relevant to this discussion. The discussion has been set up to encompass the entire range of intermediate skiers though and they do represent a fraction who say they want to get better but aren't willing to do anything. Then they often refuse to take lessons as a "waste of time". Ok, so let's eliminate this group from the discussion and only concentrate on those who want to improve and are willing to do something about it like yourself and those who post here.

Quote:
Once a level of trust is established between skier and instructor, then the instructor can start pushing the skier's envelope.
...That's where a good instructor comes in: they see the potential in a person, and create the situation which enables that potential to be realised. -wtfh
This statement could almost be taken from the manual. I would certainly agree with that. The tough part is how to do that when it's an hour and 45 minute lesson which really means 1 1/2 hours by the time you get out. That problem is why multi day lessons or camps are a much better way to learn.

Quote:
In my most recent lessons, I did learn things that stuck, and that made sense. Does it mean I learned to ski more like nolo or Ziggy? No
Well you could probably say yes to that too, meaning you have learned to ski a bit more like a high level skier. Are the technical differences in "expert" skiers really that large? (this could be a good thread in itself) Perhaps it's more like different rims on the same car- they can make it look quite different but it's basically the same thing.

I take it what fox means there is that nolo didn't say "you should ski like this" or "you need to ski this way". From my take this is fundamental to the American system. It does have a downside though as shown by Bob:

Quote:
{From being in Austria in 1988} But the reality, it seems, was that most American instructors focused on linear learning almost exclusively. Our perfect groomed green, blue, and even black runs lend themselves to linear learning, and many of our students learned to make "parallel turns" in just a couple days. But they couldn't ski AT ALL in anything but perfect groomed conditions.

What a contrast to the Austrians! I remember watching an Austrian ski class go by, following exactly in its instructor's tracks, stem christying down a moderately steep pitch covered with inconsistent heavy crud. Dave Merriam, now the head Demo Teams coach, stood next to me and remarked on the contrast. These people probably hadn't ever made a parallel turn, which American students typically did in a couple days, but they were happily skiing conditions that most American skiers of their experience level couldn't ski AT ALL. Dave remarked on how versatile and adaptable the typical Austrian intermediate student was, compared with the one-dimensional, yet arguably higher skilled, American intermediate student.

Which one is better? The only thing I'll argue there is that our teaching model emphasizes that the STUDENT should determine the direction of the lesson--not the instructor. If you're a wedge-christie-level skier, and you want to work on your parallel turn, a good instructor should be able to take you there (linear learning). If you're a wedge-christie-level skier and you want to explore bumps, steeper terrain, or ungroomed, a good instructor can take you there too. (Just don't expect to do both at the same time!)
So the line cutters in Austria would have been forced to do things that might have helped their skiing. Of course they would have known this before even going into the lesson though.

[ May 07, 2003, 08:46 AM: Message edited by: Tog ]
post #55 of 57
By Tog
Quote:
The tough part is how to do that when it's an hour and 45 minute lesson which really means 1 1/2 hours by the time you get out. That problem is why multi day lessons or camps are a much better way to learn
Good point. Tangible outcomes are often increasingly difficult for a progressing student to recognize in the hour or so of a typical lesson. This probably contributes to a disinclination among many skiers to take more lessons. Contrast that with the beginner who, in addition to usually benefiting from a ticket/rental/lesson deal, will feel tangible progress in the first hour or two when he or she can turn left, right stop (sort of) and may be even ride the chair lift.

Since progress during an hour lesson generally becomes more difficult to discern the further a person moves past the beginner stage, many may feel that maybe they can just ski their way to greatness, unassisted. Unfortunately, most just ski their way to terminal meritocrity.

Sure it’s all good. However, people will have more fun and ski more often if they actually feel that they are skiing better.

Multi-day lessons or clinics are, IMHO, a MUCH better way to learn. They can be packaged so as to remove any possible stigma of "lessons" (like "The Academy" for instance). The challenge for many ski areas that don't cater to the Deer Valley type clientele is to make them affordable.
post #56 of 57
Quote:
Originally posted by Lostboy:
Multi-day lessons or clinics are, IMHO, a MUCH better way to learn. They can be packaged so as to remove any possible stigma of "lessons" (like "The Academy" for instance). The challenge for many ski areas that don't cater to the Deer Valley type clientele is to make them affordable.[/QB]
When I look at instructor pay and overhead vs the amont charged for lesson this does not really seem like a huge challenge. Surely it just calls for ski area management to take its eyes off the bottom line long enough to look toward the future. Some of the most remarkable growth in business has followed just such behavior. Think of how Henry Ford transformed an auto industry that formerly had only offered very limited high price products to a very few, carefully looking after its bottom line.
post #57 of 57
In Europe a few years ago I was never offered a single day lesson, it was always over 3 or 5 days, and with an option for doing 1/2 days instead of full. Perhaps it is a more recent thing to do 1/2 - 1 day lessons, or is it just that we're all too eager to have instantaneous solutions?

S
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 › Are intermediates really that different?