Deb Armstrong: A critical look at the PSIA Technical Model

[wnyskier]

Deb Armstrong YT on PSIA

I found this post to be interesting. As and Ex-Racer and coach, I've had some instructors tell me that I ski really well, but that it's "Racer style" and not what instructors teach or aspire to. To each his own, and I take no offense, but why is there a disconnect between examples of the highest level of technical execution of the fundamentals by racers and what instructors use as models of excellence?

 

[Cheizz]

In general - and what I have heard ski instructors and racing coaches discuss - for racing, the end result of speed is the goal (obviously); whereas for ski instruction, control and efficiency is the goal.

 

[MissySki]

Interesting

 

[wnyskier]

@Cheizz, I don't disagree with what you have heard regarding instructors thoughts, as it confirms my experience. And yes, the end goal of a ski race is the fastest time through a course, but Deb's point is that ski racing technique represents the highest level of both control and efficiency in the most challenging of conditions in order to achieve that goal. Those same fundamental principles of technique can be applied to every level of skier.

 

[KevinF]

In general - and what I have heard ski instructors and racing coaches discuss - for racing, the end result of speed is the goal (obviously); whereas for ski instruction, control and efficiency is the goal.

Define control and efficiency. I would argue that any ski racer who is not in control isn’t going to be finishing many races. Any ski racer who isn’t using their skis efficiently (ie, the skis turn the skier) isn’t going to be doing well.

Franz Klammer has always maintained that he was in total control during his famous gold medal run.

 

[geepers]

Franz Klammer has always maintained that he was in total control during his famous gold medal run.

 

[SpeedyKevin]

^^^ "He has got to let it go". Yea really lol

 

[Cheizz]

Well, 'control' doesn't just mean 'not wiping out', IMO. But that's semantics.

My point is: for a racer, efficiency is a means to reach the goal (the shortest time through a given course). For non-racers, that control (safety) and efficiency IS the goal.

 

[fatbob]

I get the argument and think at heart it must be right. That racers hang it all out on the fringes of control doesn't invalidate the core technique.

My criticism would be that the time invested into structured development for the high level racer vs the leisure skier is vastly different so you can't expect the same outcomes. It's also why as adults you can usually tell those who raced as kids.

 

[wnyskier]

@fatbob, no argument with the investment of time required to reach a high(er) level of proficiency. Many golfers are happy to shoot 110-120 every day. A committed amateur can get into the high 80s to low 90s with reasonable practice and good coaching of the fundamentals. Same with skiing.

At clear and concise definition of the fundamentals in concert with an evolved pedagogy will make the skill acquisition more accessible and achievable for the amateur athlete.

 

[oldschoolskier]

View attachment 205111
View attachment 205112
View attachment 205113
View attachment 205114
View attachment 205115

Austrians called him a "Flying Rag Doll" (loosely translated).

The better answer is....let it all hang out and pray stay on course! All seriousness, you've got to be good and crazy enough to let it run like that.

 

[Dave Marshak]

Deb Armstrong YT on PSIA

I've had some instructors tell me that I ski really well, but that it's "Racer style" and not what instructors teach or aspire to.

Instructors teach an edge locked carved turn. They call it a "GS turn" but it's more about control than speed and it's too slow for a real GS race. (Q. Why are ski instructors like minivans? A. They all look the same and go slow.) After you master the edge locked carve you can aspire to ramp up the dynamics to make a race turn. That's the direction the aspiration should go.
Here's a Sean Warnam video showing the dynamics of a race turn. He won't even call an edge locked turn "carving." He calls that arcing. I think that language is a little confusing, but his point is still valid:

dm

 

[James]

Instructors teach an edge locked carved turn.

If you say so.
That video is slalom. Note the gs shown there’s no stivot, and he’s talking about re engaging after the float as early as possible.

There’s only one group who shall not be named that used to insist all turns were fully carved C’s.

 

[Seldomski]

There's a big group that have no desire to ski like a racer and would be turned off by the idea of a lesson that marketed ski racers as the inspiration. Are mom and dad going to sign up their kids for lessons if all the messaging is about racers skiing fast? If you are a cautious person learning to ski, you are more likely to take a lesson to reduce risk. Meanwhile the people who want to ski like a racer may be less likely to even take a lesson, perhaps due to risk tolerance or the visual they have of the typical instructor.

I was one of these cautious skiers for many years - why do I want to ride the edge of my ski? I don't want to go fast like the downhillers. I want to be in control. It makes me go really fast when I ride the edge and I get in the back seat! I don't want to go fast, why are we doing railroad tracks? It took a long time for me to get comfortable with being on edge and also feel like that improved my control.

I feel like ski instruction for the masses is split in two and needs to be split. There's the group that aspires to be in control and get around the mountain safely. Most recreational skiers fall into this camp when they start and stay there if they don't ski many days per season. They are taught in a way that can lead to the intermediate plateau, statically balanced and not able to throw themselves down the hill. Then to get off that plateau, you need to get into the other camp - what Deb is talking about. In other words, you have to start over fundamentally and relearn to ski.

Or maybe this is just me... just the result of skiing many years for 2-3 days a season, then relearning quite a bit once I upped this to 10+ per season... I am not sure you can really teach each of those groups the same way?

 

[Dave Marshak]

There's a big group that have no desire to ski like a racer and would be turned off by the idea of a lesson that marketed ski racers as the inspiration. Are mom and dad going to sign up their kids for lessons if all the messaging is about racers skiing fast? If you are a cautious person learning to ski, you are more likely to take a lesson to reduce risk. Meanwhile the people who want to ski like a racer may be less likely to even take a lesson, perhaps due to risk tolerance or the visual they have of the typical instructor.

I was one of these cautious skiers for many years - why do I want to ride the edge of my ski? I don't want to go fast like the downhillers. I want to be in control. It makes me go really fast when I ride the edge and I get in the back seat! I don't want to go fast, why are we doing railroad tracks? It took a long time for me to get comfortable with being on edge and also feel like that improved my control.

I feel like ski instruction for the masses is split in two and needs to be split. There's the group that aspires to be in control and get around the mountain safely. Most recreational skiers fall into this camp when they start and stay there if they don't ski many days per season. They are taught in a way that can lead to the intermediate plateau, statically balanced and not able to throw themselves down the hill. Then to get off that plateau, you need to get into the other camp - what Deb is talking about. In other words, you have to start over fundamentally and relearn to ski.

Or maybe this is just me... just the result of skiing many years for 2-3 days a season, then relearning quite a bit once I upped this to 10+ per season... I am not sure you can really teach each of those groups the same way?

I agree with all that, except that no one should be taught in a way that leads to a intermediate plateau. If learners want to stop learning at a static turn, that's fine, but they should be taught skills that can lead to more and more dynamic skiing if or when they want to go there.

dm

 

[Dave Marshak]

If you say so.
That video is slalom. Note the gs shown there’s no stivot, and he’s talking about re engaging after the float as early as possible.

There’s only one group who shall not be named that used to insist all turns were fully carved C’s.

Outside of race programs, IME most ski school clients are happy with effective speed control turns. The edge lock carved turn leads to a more and more dynamic turn as you add speed and bring the radius shorter. No one ever did a GS turn without first doing an edge locked carving turn, and no one ever did a slalom turn without first doing a GS turn. It's all a continuum of the same skills, applied more accurately at higher speeds and accelerations.
What got me into this was the OP's comment that an instructor told him that he "aspired" to something less than a dynamic race turn, and that he implied that the OP could do race turns but not speed control carved instructor turns. That seems ridiculous to me.

dm

 

[James]

Or maybe this is just me... just the result of skiing many years for 2-3 days a season, then relearning quite a bit once I upped this to 10+ per season... I am not sure you can really teach each of those groups the same way?

It’s pretty difficult to get very far skiing 2-3 days per year. It certainly works better when young. Most of the first day is getting back into it. Then how much time before the second day? One is also likely spending 3hrs or less per day actually skiing. I suppose it’s still more than surfing.

Are mom and dad going to sign up their kids for lessons if all the messaging is about racers skiing fast?

Yep. Skiing fast isn’t about just going fast. Most people who ski fast are not fast through actual turns as it takes technique plus increasing degrees of athleticism plus strength/energy.

Anyway, it’s a straw man argument and pretty irrelevant, as “speed” is not the goal. Most kids who think they’re fast are exceptionally slow when racing where they have to ski a slow line fast and get a time.

What got me into this was the OP's comment that an instructor told him that he "aspired" to something less than a dynamic race turn, and that he implied that the OP could do race turns but not speed control carved instructor turns. That seems ridiculous to me.

Yes, totally ridiculous.

 

[Bad Bob]

Most skiers are too damned lazy to ski like a real racer. The athleticism strength and training required is not always fun. There are always a few who see that path and choose to follow it, but not too many.
Beyond fun, in our part of the world there will be some heavier investments in time effort and money to become more than a junior racer. That is probably part of the European Alpine countries secret, they create programs where the parents don't have to invest everthing into the kids skiing.

 

[oldschoolskier]

I have to say its about approach and understand of what is involved. You want to improve you will find a way, you want to have fun then thats what you do.

Are you controlled, safe and having fun, who cares what you do.

 

[JESinstr]

There is only 2 things a ski can do. It can slide or it can carve. Most (over time) can adapt to the multiple variations of a sliding ski. What needs to be taught is the carving function of the ski... ie. the intentional conversion of straight line travel into circular travel.

Once those two abilities are learned (and to the extent that they are mastered) the slope/racecourse is yours to conquer.