- Joined
- Dec 21, 2015
- Posts
- 4,123
can we just agree that angulation might not feel like the same thing to every person, and maybe we should teach movements that lead to proper angulation.
can we just agree that angulation might not feel like the same thing to every person, and maybe we should teach movements that lead to proper angulation.
Oisin, you are not on the wrong track about developing counter and then leaning your upper half forward (rather then tilting your torso sideways) to create a kind of angulation with less pinching sideways to do it. In actual practice its probably not 100% cut and dried that you can create enough counter and exclusively bend forward at the waist to create a kind of hip angulation. In actual practice there can be some leaning forward at the waist (if there is counter), and there can also be some amount of leaning out sideways as well, and there will also almost certainly be come articulation in the spine, which can also be in 2 dimensions in addition to whatever is happening in your hip socket... The counter, if present, just changes a bit which direction the spine should articulate...and it will probably not be exclusively sideways, nor exclusively forward. It will be whatever it needs to be in order to balance over the outside ski with whatever amount of counter you happen to have at the moment. If you try to do it exclusively by leaning forward, you will also have to bend forward considerably more then if you mix in some sideways, in order to get balanced on the outside ski. I would say that exclusively trying to do it by leaning forward will produce hip dumpy skiing with exaggerated counter. You are quite correct, however, that counter enables the skier to get balanced over the outside ski using using different larger muscle groups, leaning sort of forward rather then the sideways pinch, which is a good thing.
I differ with you 150% about how to develop counter. Your thoughts about trying to twist the femurs to create counter are, however, quite common in PSIA circles.
Here is a thought experiment for you. Think for a bit, what would the effective differences be between practicing say.....double pole plant drills and pivot slips, with regards to developing better counter? I see and experience myself huge differences between those two drills in terms of how upper-lower separation is created, yet both develop what different people would refer to as so called "counter", not necessarily the same kind of counter in those different cases, so there again we have another word which can mean different things depending on the bio mechanical movements used to create it.
I also want to ask you, if you create hip angulation by twisting your feet to the side and bending forward at the waist, do you expect this action to cause increased edging? I don't. If you try to twist BOTH femurs, do you expect this simultaneous action to swing the pelvis outwards into counter against edged and stabilized skis? I don't.
can we just agree that angulation might not feel like the same thing to every person, and maybe we should teach movements that lead to proper angulation.
Ok, I don't necessarily disagree about hip angulation being more about balance, then about edging. PSIA currently does disagree with you though, FWIW. However, lets ask the question again another way.No, angulation is used to adjust lateral balance. Inclining your legs produces edging. Different things.
There's no need for angulation if you are not experiencing significant lateral force.
That (lateral force) would normally mean that edging is already present.
I don't disagree that angulation involves a blend of those things you mentioned. My point was to bring up the relatively limited contribution bending the spine can produce. I've often seen people try to teach or to learn to angulate by bending the spine sideways (getting the "pinch").
I'm not sure what you mean by double pole plant drills. I've used these in conjunction with hop turns on steep chutes (I think it was one of the long term instructors at Taos who was pushing these) but I don't think this is what you are referring to. So I don't know what you mean by different types of counter, Counter is counter to my way of thinking but I'm open to further understanding. Counter is not some kind of built up torgue in the spinal column if that's what you mean although it might be present or not.
Please consider the possibility that if you are balanced on your outside ski and the pelvis rotates outward on the outside hip socket alone, then it is swinging out like a gate on a hinge, where the outside hip socket is the hinge of the gate. Then reconsider the question about what happens when you try to twist both of your femurs underneath your pelvis pivot slip style and contrast the difference.I don't think swinging is involved.
See above.Absent this simultaneous leg rotation your pelvis (and hence your upper body) is going to remain "square" to your skis and your body is going to remain this way throughout your turn.
who said anything about flinging their arms and upper body around? Zenny tried to explain this to you already I will try again. "counter rotation" is in fact what you have to do with your pelvis around the hinge of your outside hip socket, in order to create the visual image of a stabilized or disciplined pelvis and what looks like a quiet upper body. This is UPPER BODY discipline. Trying to accomplish this by twisting your femurs is not going to get you there.I suppose you could fling your arms and upper body around in what used to be called "counter rotation" but this isn't what we do.
Leg rotation or perhaps more accurately the leg rotation force is what we use to get counter.
cancel each other out? Not sure what you meant by that, but like many have pointed out about standing on two bar stools and twisting your legs, the lever arm of the pelvis enables you to twist both legs without counter-acting the pelvis at all as described above. They provide a way to push against each other and twist them both... Yes that results in a pivot slippy way of the skis pointing a different direction then the pelvis...but that is ENTIRELY different from what is achieved with counter-action of the pelvis against the outside leg.. It requires weight on both skis and other things which are counter-productive for good ski turns. Different muscles, different movements, different outcomes entirely.If the rotational forces in each leg were equal though I suppose they would cancel each other out as they act upon the pelvis.
YES. You are getting dangerously close to a breakthrough with that thought!I imagine that what we must actually do is to unbalance these forces to allow the pelvis to turn with respect to the direction of the skis. I suppose a person might think that is the skis which are being turned and not the pelvis but since we know that the turning force that turns the skis is not coming from the legs but from the skis and their relationship to the snow and we know that the pelvis is being turned with respect to the direction of the skis and our direction of momentum then something must be acting upon the pelvis to alter the relationship of pelvis to skis.
why would you want to use a leg rotation force (whatever that means) to counter-rotate the pelvis? In truth you need to keep a strong inside half from the pelvis up.I would say that is leg rotation force.
can we just agree that angulation might not feel like the same thing to every person, and maybe we should teach movements that lead to proper angulation.