EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › There's nothing wrong with a skidded turn.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

There's nothing wrong with a skidded turn. - Page 4

post #91 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamt View Post

A friend of mine was in the Swedish national team at the same time as Stenmark. He said that when Stenmark entered the team he was spending a great deal of the time in the training camps carving edge to edge down relatively easy slopes, while the rest of the team were hammering gates. The rest of the team wondered what the heck he was doing. He could spend a full day doing this, and then come back in a bad mood becuase he did not get some technical detail to work as he wanted.

In retrospect he was obviously on to something. Later he tried to get Elan to create shaped skis, but they never managed to make them with enough torsional stiffness.

This was in 1973.

 

My friend also told me that no-one in the rest of the team could ski on his Elan skis. Other brands tried to get him to change brand, but he was loyal to Elan throughout his career. As far as I know almost no-one in the WC was using Elan back then.

 

Interesting stuff about Stenmark. I remember his skiing tips and ski school in the newspaper back then. Taken form his book on skiing. That book used to be a bibel to me.

post #92 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by tdk6 View Post




Since its irrelevant to you how PSIA defines the wedge there is not much to discuss is there? Its a free country and you can think what you want within certain limits.... BTW, I like the way you do not slam the wedge/stemchristie/parllel turn progression. One of my favorite progressions.
 



Also, if you skied back then you will recall that 80% of the weight and force went to one ski at the pinnacle of the turn, the outside ski.  So a lot more ski flex was involved than today when we distribute that force closer to equally between both skis  The dip was much deeper that way than the dips are using today's technique..

post #93 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamt View Post

I wonder what kind of skis he uses for off-piste, they look kind of narrow with todays standards.


 

They're Atomic Atlases, fat with rocker smile.gif

 

 

FWIW

All kind of turns are necessary to be able to do since they all have their purposes, we just, as individuals, think of them as unequally fun

post #94 of 99



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarle View Post




 

They're Atomic Atlases, fat with rocker smile.gif

 

 

FWIW

All kind of turns are necessary to be able to do since they all have their purposes, we just, as individuals, think of them as unequally fun


Oops, I think I fooled myself by looking at the tapered tip.
 

post #95 of 99



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tdk6 View Post




Since its irrelevant to you how PSIA defines the wedge there is not much to discuss is there? Its a free country and you can think what you want within certain limits.... BTW, I like the way you do not slam the wedge/stemchristie/parllel turn progression. One of my favorite progressions.
 

 

I realize I am trespassing in the instructor coaching forum, and I did not intend to be snarky, but after reading some of the posts, it occurred to me that occasionally you folks need to be reminded that for the great majority of skiers simplicity and effectiveness always trump whatever the current PSIA "correct technique" happens to be. The concept of upper body down the fall line and identical turning ski position from snowplow through parallel turn I learned from Stein almost 50 years ago is still valid today, regardless of the huge change in PSIA technique philosophy during that period.

 

I have nothing but respect for people who devote themselves to being good ski instructors, but they should not lose sight of the fact that for the vast majority of skiers, what the PSIA thinks is the correct way to ski has no affect on them whatsoever.
 

As Buddha said, "The teachings are like a finger pointing at the moon.  Do not mistake the finger for the moon."

 

Thanks, I've enjoyed the discourse.


Edited by mudfoot - 10/22/10 at 9:36am
post #96 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by crgildart View Post

Also, if you skied back then you will recall that 80% of the weight and force went to one ski at the pinnacle of the turn, the outside ski.  So a lot more ski flex was involved than today when we distribute that force closer to equally between both skis  The dip was much deeper that way than the dips are using today's technique..



Hmmmmmm....  Im not so sure about this.... 

post #97 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by mudfoot View Post

I realize I am trespassing in the instructor coaching forum, and I did not intend to be snarky, but after reading some of the posts, it occurred to me that occasionally you folks need to be reminded that for the great majority of skiers simplicity and effectiveness always trump whatever the current PSIA "correct technique" happens to be. The concept of upper body down the fall line and identical turning ski position from snowplow through parallel turn I learned from Stein almost 50 years ago is still valid today, regardless of the huge change in PSIA technique philosophy during that period.

 

I have nothing but respect for people who devote themselves to being good ski instructors, but they should not lose sight of the fact that for the vast majority of skiers, what the PSIA thinks is the correct way to ski has no affect on them whatsoever.
 

As Buddha said, "The teachings are like a finger pointing at the moon.  Do not mistake the finger for the moon."

 

Thanks, I've enjoyed the discourse.



I hope you realize that we are talking partially semantics here. If PSIA failed someone for carving a wedged turn it was because a proper wedge turn should not be carved. It should be evenly brushed. But now we run into the problem of how do we define carving. If we define carving to include evenly brushed then we will never agree to something that acutally is the same thing. Just called different things. The reason we are brushing our wedged turns, and parallel turns too, is that this way we can easily controll the turn radius and we can scrubb off speed during turning. If we are carving there are no edges scrubbing against the snow causing us to slow down. Actually if we were wedging and carving at the same time only our outside ski would be carving. Our inside ski would be angled and skidding over the snow slightly sideways. There is usually a very logical explanation to everything. Im like you, I like to keep things simple.

post #98 of 99

Mudfoot you are not trespassing here. I am glad to see your opinions posted here because it gives us a chance to discuss your ideas. That doesn't mean I will agree with what you write, or that you will agree with what I write. Stein told you something a long time ago and it shouldn't be discounted by anyone who wasn't there to know the context and purpose behind his advice. That doesn't mean it was a universal truth though. As many here have mentioned a gliding wedge has been taught for a very long time and it doesn't include sequential edge engagement and carving on the outside ski. It features simultaneous but partial edge engagement of both inside edges and a blend of steering, pressure control and tipping. Why? Well lets be practical for a moment, a beginner in the confines of the beginner corral faces the task of turning in a limited amount of space, while avoiding the rest of the skiers in that small area, and overcoming their fear of sliding down the hill in an uncontrolled manner. Does that really sound like a good environment for locking up the skis on an edge and riding them until they turn? I read the comments about a carved five meter turn on a twelve meter ski and to be honest I laughed because I know from experience that we're talking about skiers moving at under a half mile an hour. Releasing one ski and trying to bend the other that much while moving that slow isn't likely to happen. So another approach was adopted that gave the students a better chance at success within the constraints of the typical beginners corral. The gliding wedge is that more practical alternative and it's been in use for at least sixty years. That is also why it appears in all the teaching manuals mentioned in this thread. It's there in black and white Mudfoot, you don't have to agree with it's use but that doesn't change the fact that it's in those manuals. It's also worth asking why the carved wedge turn you described as superior and "correct" isn't the accepted standard in all of those manuals, or most of the school systems around the world?   


Edited by justanotherskipro - 10/22/10 at 11:14pm
post #99 of 99

TIME ON SNOW

 

As I beginner, after a couple of days spent going through a snow-PLOW - stem Christie- parallel turn progression with a little side-slipping edge angle refinement and hockey stops thrown in,  I spent time pivoting and pushing my skis around.

 

Through experimentation I learned to use less effort and more pressure control, edge angle control, and weight shifting fore and aft to let the snow turn my skis for me rather than me turn my skis so they could turn me.

 

However, due to my passion for high speed skiing I discovered edge-locked pure-arc carving fairly quickly, and I was hooked.  For the next few decades, all I was interested in was carving gs + sized turns.  Hockey stops would suffice to dump speed when necessary.  I didn't need no schtinking speed control turns.  Sure I looked like a hack, but who cares? 

 

Nevertheless, due to the time I had spent not arcing pure turns as a beginner, and the sheer number of runs where I would brake my way into the lift line or be forced to "steer" while brakeing for moguls, tight turns at the bottom of steeps etc., I was still fairly good at smearing a turn on flat groomers (like the stunt driver who parks his car between two others by doing a 360 into the spot only on skis).

 

Stay in this game long enough and you eventually get around to all things.  My progress in mogul skiing was delayed significantly by my lack of practice in the "smeared" turn skill set.  Exploring mogul skiing was an incentive for me to improve the "smeared turn".

 

Lately I've gotten around to getting better at the smeared turn, just for the sake of doing a nice speed-controlling smeared turn.  Having relatively little time on it, I can see that I am much better at carving arcs than I am at the basic parallel turn.  I'm even thinking of leaving my P50s at the 1-2 bevel as this works a little better with smeared turns than my preferred 0.5-3.

 

Now, I am likely the exception to the rule, having likely spent more time carving edge-locked pure-arc railroad track (but diverging ski tracks at apex) turns and less time smearing than most skiers, but the point stands.   Time spent arcing does not make one as well at the basic parallel non-edge-locked turns as time spent making basic parallel non-edge-locked turns.

 

I think with today's shorter radius "shaped" skis, many more new skiers will get the "carving" addiction sooner than was the case in the pre-shaped ski days.  Leading to more time on snow carving pure-arc edge-locked turns and less time on snow smearing.  This scenario will likely lead to a much higher proportion of skiers who cannot make good smeared turns, but can arc turns just fine.

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 › There's nothing wrong with a skidded turn.