Originally Posted by majortato
Put a hockey player on skis, and they fall.
Actually hockey transfers to skiing quite well, totally disagree with you there
Did you play hockey before you skied? did you ice skate? after ice skating, were you just able to ski down the hill without falling? I know I ice skated pretty well before skiing....I couldn't make it down the bunny hill without falling the first time. I agree hockey skills translate well, but the balance is still very different and needs to be relearned. I have a Canadian friend who played a lot of hockey growing up. He's pretty beginner at skiing. So yea, maybe a hockey player can learn to ski faster than a person who didn't play hockey. But they don't just jump on skis and go their first try.
Your basic argument becomes that skiing usnig old skis and new skis use pretty much the same balance movements, so a person could just easily adapt. I argue that the balance techniques used is different enough that the person needs time to learn it.
I never said that. I just said that they would be skiing very well, better than most on the mountain in a very short time. And that they'd still be considered experts.
I know you didn't say that..but I'm rewording your argument and that's what it ends up being. You don't agree because once I reword it, it's clear it becomes a poor argument.
You've agreed with my point that even Roddick can't be an expert (in regards to frying pan tennis) when you give him unfamiliar tools.
Never said that either.. I said all along that he wasn't better than experts with a frying pan. But, I did say he was probably better than other experts using antiquated and unfamiliar old school rackets.. high school champ example
Umm...look a few posts up. Your exact words were "True, he wasn't an expert with the frying pan". Do you deny saying this now? High school varsity tennis players are experts now? I was a varsity tennis player in a large HS...I'm far from expert. You really putting me in the same category as Roddick? I'm flattered.
If an expert can just adapt right away to any equipment, then we wouldn't be able to guess who has an advantage in scenarios 2 and 3, where they're both using the same equipment. I argue that McEnroe knows all the strengths and weaknesses of the old equipment so he can use that as advantage against Roddick, who cannot have figured it all out yet. Likewise, Roddick knows all the strengths and weaknesses of the new equipment and will use that knowledge to get an advantage over McEnroe.
An expert can watch someone ski on different equipment and gain insights that will help them figure it out. Combine that with their sure footedness, fore aft balance, and edge awareness and they can ski any conventional ski with a great deal of skill regardless of the vintage. That's what experts do.
I never disagreed with you here. I'm talking about equipment. knowing the strengths and weaknesses of equipment. Read my posts better please. What do you think would happen in those different matchups I mentioned? Who gets the advantage?
So we can conclude that the expert's relative skill level (regarding the use of new equipment) will drop with a switch to unfamiliar equipment. Now assume someone who, in the past, was barely considered an expert. We can then conclude that it's possible his relative skill level will drop enough for him to be considered a non-expert. Therefore, the statement "an expert then is an expert now" is proven false.
Nope. quite the contrary. New equipment could make a mediocre expert from the past much better,
It could, and it would in time with practice. I'm talking when you just jump onto them and are not familiarized with them.
Your definitions of expert is skill level relative to the average Joe. My definition of expert is skill level relative to other experts.
So you pick a supreme expert from a population of average experts? Expert skill relative to expert skill equals ZERO. FAIL!
What?!?!? you made no sense here. Are you saying there's no difference between a high expert and low expert?
Another component of being an expert simply involves having knowledge to fully understanding the tools you use to do the task at hand. I don't care who you are, knowledge regarding something is not so easy to just "figure out" by yourself. Think about everything you know...I guarantee 99% of it is something you learned from someone or somewhere, not something you came up with on your own.
Maybe but not from folks like you
What's with all the personal bashing? Can't a debate happen without someone resorting to these silly tactics?