Favorite Bumps/Mogul Videos for tips

[tball]

The first shot is from tower 5 down to tower 4 is the steepest on the trail. First skier leading the pack is Hannah Soar with the purple top and blond ponytail flying. Light perfect carves with almost zero impact simply amazing. Guy right on her tail in the yellow pants is Randy "The Hammer" Grasso using all of his 215 lbs to punish the moguls. The other skier I am not sure but someone mentioned a mogul pro skier named "Ian" was in the crowd. Great video to close out one of the best spring days of the season.

Thanks! Hannah Soar's skiing is amazing.

Her US Ski Team page:
https://usskiandsnowboard.org/athletes/hannah-soar

She dispells two persistent myths about comp bump skiers: that they can't ski out of the course, and that they only know how to bash the bumps. She also shows that you can be smooth AND fast, with enough skills. All that in the first 25 seconds:


Hanna's first-place run at the Park City NorAm in March:


The most recent edit she's posted was two years ago, and she was ripping at 16!

 

[geepers]

I'm trying to keep it simple, even if that means no one understands it. When skiing down a hill, the skis can be pulled back more relative to the body than skiing up the hill. This is why the bicycle motion is inevitable even if the skier constantly maintains shin pressure.

Well, I'll try to also be simple. What part of this am I not supposed to be able to do without constant shin pressure?

It starts like this, when instructors are telling everyone that those bumps can only be skied with impact

Never had a ski instructor care much about impact. First it's a subjective concept (*) and since nearly all the people in the bump lessons are decades younger than me why should they? It's my issue, not theirs. The instructors I've had teach methods to retain balance and control speed. From there, you go as fast and wild as you wish.

(*) I'm looking at The Hammer decapitating moguls in the Killington vid and thinking "that's an interesting approach. Nothing can go wrong, go wrong, go wrong..."

First skier leading the pack is Hannah Soar with the purple top and blond ponytail flying. Light perfect carves with almost zero impact simply amazing.

Yep, excellent.

What was it... cardinal rule #5? Ski only as fast as you are willing to fall. Totally willing to admit that I'm a candy-a$$.

 

[jack97]

I'm not surprised. The bumps in those courses are usually tightly spaced so it needs really quick feet and technique to stay in 'em. And lots of practice. (I used to eject around the 3rd or 4th bump and these days I don't even try.) Keep in mind ski instructors are learning and teaching a technique for a variety of terrains and there's probably a very low portion of students who would be interested in or have the ability to go into those man-made bumps. (I have had instructors take us through those bumps but it's more a bit of comic relief than serious. I ski on the side with the other weenies and enjoy the chaos.)

You can practice all you want but you need the right techniques to practice with to ski a tight and direct line.

I ski in New England, mainly in mountains with trails more on the narrow range, the skills needed to ski a direct line in a single lane man made run are applicable for these narrow trails. When the wider natural trails are allow to bump up, most of the time, a single lane is formed. That tells me we have skiers who are trying to ski them direct.

 

[jack97]

Never had a ski instructor care much about impact. First it's a subjective concept (*) and since nearly all the people in the bump lessons are decades younger than me why should they? It's my issue, not theirs. The instructors I've had teach methods to retain balance and control speed. From there, you go as fast and wild as you wish.

(*) I'm looking at The Hammer decapitating moguls in the Killington vid and thinking "that's an interesting approach. Nothing can go wrong, go wrong, go wrong..."

The Hammer is a F'ng legend around these parts, not sure how old he is but the guy is amazing. First skier at 0:14 & 2:51.

 

[skier]

Never had a ski instructor care much about impact. First it's a subjective concept (*) and since nearly all the people in the bump lessons are decades younger than me why should they? It's my issue, not theirs.

I've got a theory about why it's nearly impossible to have a conversation about different bump styles without a non-comp person saying fall line skiing is too much impact. A direct line is hard to do. The fast exit as Lito calls it is always harder than the slow exit. Everyone wants to be the "expert" bump skier, but many are intimidated by the seemingly inaccessible performance of some of these great skiers. The moment you say it's too much impact, it's a huge weight off the shoulders, because now you can be the "expert" bump skier for responsible people without having to put in the time to ski the toughest lines. Sure there are other skiers that can do some amazing things many levels beyond, but they are being irresponsible for their long term health. They are just like drug users and pimps. So, it doesn't matter what age you are, it's an out to preserve the ego, and people grab onto it with amazing tenacity. A student might say, "How do you ski like that guy?", and an instructor will respond, "That's too hard on my knees." then the idea is dug in like a tick that's almost impossible to remove, and they pass that idea onto the next person when people are comparing styles on the lift. Many don't realize how such a simple, easily accepted, statement like too much impact can fuel a thread war, but if you unravel it, you're basically saying, "Good for you for skiing the way I can't, but you're being irresponsible for your health. I'm a responsible person who cares about myself not like you, so I don't need to worry about learning how to ski really hard lines."

 

[jack97]

Well, I'll try to also be simple. What part of this am I not supposed to be able to do without constant shin pressure?

Foster doesn't consistently apply shin pressure as he approaches the bump, that's why he thinks of it as a "series of recoveries". He also uses turn shapes and goes to slower lines to control his speed.

I have no problem if this is what skiers want to aspire to. My point has been, more technique options are available if a skier aspires to ski a more direct line.

 

[geepers]

I've got a theory about why it's nearly impossible to have a conversation about different bump styles without a non-comp person saying fall line skiing is too much impact. A direct line is hard to do. The fast exit as Lito calls it is always harder than the slow exit. Everyone wants to be the "expert" bump skier, but many are intimidated by the seemingly inaccessible performance of some of these great skiers. The moment you say it's too much impact, it's a huge weight off the shoulders, because now you can be the "expert" bump skier for responsible people without having to put in the time to ski the toughest lines. Sure there are other skiers that can do some amazing things many levels beyond, but they are being irresponsible for their long term health. They are just like drug users and pimps. So, it doesn't matter what age you are, it's an out to preserve the ego, and people grab onto it with amazing tenacity. A student might say, "How do you ski like that guy?", and an instructor will respond, "That's too hard on my knees." then the idea is dug in like a tick that's almost impossible to remove, and they pass that idea onto the next person when people are comparing styles on the lift. Many don't realize how such a simple, easily accepted, statement like too much impact can fuel a thread war, but if you unravel it, you're basically saying, "Good for you for skiing the way I can't, but you're being irresponsible for your health. I'm a responsible person who cares about myself not like you, so I don't need to worry about learning how to ski really hard lines."

 

[skier]

Alright! Since you are entertained, I'll add on. To demonstrate this concept, I'll track how a variant peculates to a level of non-truth that you might more easily accept. I often use mogul skis which kind of stand out this day and age. Therefore, talking about mogul skiing often comes up while riding the lift with folks, and incredibly often I hear the statement, "mogul skiing is too hard on the knees." They aren't talking about zipper line skiing. They are merely talking about going into the moguls. Now, do you believe that merely skiing in the moguls, the simplest way possible, is too hard on the knees? Lots and lots of folks do. If you give up trying to ski a direct line, and you don't worry about going fast, then it's kind of a brain dead notion to people of a certain level that skiing in the moguls can easily be done without anything hurting long term or short term. The real statement they should be saying is, "I'm not good enough to ski moguls.", but their ego doesn't allow that, and they need to invent some reason to make it ok for them to suck.

I do it too. There's skiing like this below which I don't think I would ever try to do. My reasoning is that I don't want to die. I still believe it's an irresponsible pursuit, but maybe I just suck. (It keeps getting more amazing by the end.)

 

[James]

I'm trying to keep it simple, even if that means no one understands it. When skiing down a hill, the skis can be pulled back more relative to the body than skiing up the hill. This is why the bicycle motion is inevitable even if the skier constantly maintains shin pressure.

If no one understands what your saying, maybe consider what you're saying. I think it wasn't the what, but the explanation of it's just geometry that was confusing as the geometrical explanation alone made no sense.

According to that, if you pull your feet back at the top of the bump your shins always will stay in the front of the boot on the way down? What's the part the skier has to do?

How about what Dan DiPiro says:

"Your extension is your return to your tall home posture. Remember to drive your hips up (skyward) and forward (down the hill) as you return to home. Try to maintain that shin-to-tongue contact all the way down the hill." Everything the Instructors Never Told You About Mogul Skiing by Dan DiPiro

I agree with you about most instructors and that few can ski a direct line in bumps.

This was explained several times, second vid Martin has air coming off the previous absorption so his is landing and extending. He places his feet forward so that both ankles and knees has the range to cushion the impact of the landing. Though the amount of air is small, he still "reaches with feet" to keeps his ankles open at the landing to absorb the impact

If you want to interpret what he's doing, say it's outdated, or say people don't teach that now fine, but that is not what he's saying. It's pretty specific to absorption and extension, not about a and e only when he gets air. That's why I quoted his entire statement on absorption and extension so it would be clear. His words, his ideas. Are you saying what he's saying only applies because his technique always gets air?

Foster doesn't consistently apply shin pressure as he approaches the bump, that's why he thinks of it as a "series of recoveries". He also uses turn shapes and goes to slower lines to control his speed.

I have no problem if this is what skiers want to aspire to. My point has been, more technique options are available if a skier aspires to ski a more direct line.

Yeah this has nothing to do with a direct line. He also has an ingrained extension habit to start the turn which occurs right when he should start absorbing, but he gets over it pretty well.

 

[skier]

If no one understands what your saying, maybe consider what you're saying. I think it wasn't the what, but the explanation of it's just geometry that was confusing as the geometrical explanation alone made no sense.

I do consider what I'm saying. I'm sorry it was confusing. I don't think I can say it any more clearly without putting too much time into illustrations. The angle of the skis affects where you can put your feet. When you pull your feet to your butt, look what happens to the angle of your skis. They point down to the ground. Is it possible to stand vertically, bring a foot to your butt, and have that ski point up? Try it. Stand up. Bring one foot to your butt. Pretend you have a ski boot on with a ski. Can you make that ski point up? What do you have to do to make the skis point up? Answering those questions shows that the bicycle move isn't about opening and closing the ankles, as some misinterpret. Even if you maintain shin pressure to keep the ankles as closed as they will go, the skis will still move back and forth under the skier. I believe Geepers pointed to the Barne's bicycle illustration as evidence that we should be pushing the feet forward. I believe that focus may overdo it by opening the ankles, because really all you have to do is balance, absorb and extend, while continually pulling the feet back to maintain shin pressure, and you will produce the bicycle move. The section 8 guy opens his ankles which is kind of core to that dolphin move. Mogul skiers do not open their ankles unless maybe they are landing, but still when they are landing the ankles are never as open as this picture below. If you open your ankles like that on a tough line and get that far back, you're out.

 

[James]

Actually, the Barnes graphic has cuff neutral. Yeah everyone gets the foot up tip down thing. It was the other parts. I think the fuller Barnes animation may get at what your saying with the geometry.

Some of all this is effort, what one is used to and or what one thinks about. For example, skiing moguls with the feet together and keeping them together takes more effort than people realize- if you're not used to it. Once done a lot the effort moves to the background and you forget it's an effort at all.

From 0:55
He was involved with hart and tweaking the F17 for Patrick Deneen back then.

And for some more zipper:

 

[tball]

I'm looking at The Hammer decapitating moguls in the Killington vid and thinking "that's an interesting approach. Nothing can go wrong, go wrong, go wrong..."

I look at high speeds on crowded groomers that way, but the consequences are far greater. That's what scares me.

I think Josh Foster nails it at the end when he says "maybe put in a few thousand hours of training..."

I've met so many folks who wonder why they still suck in the bumps when they "try to ski one or two bump runs each day." What they don't get is good bump skiers usually ski bumps all day, every day, for years.

Like most bump skiers I know, I'm from the side of the tracks that has never had any formal training. We just skied a ton of bumps, and unlike groomers, the bumps will tell you when you are doing it wrong for the most part. Put in the mileage and you'll get better!

 

[skier]

Yeah everyone gets the foot up tip down thing. It was the other parts. I think the fuller Barnes animation may get at what your saying with the geometry.

I'm not sure there were any other parts to the geometrical explanations.

 

[jack97]

If you want to interpret what he's doing, say it's outdated, or say people don't teach that now fine, but that is not what he's saying. It's pretty specific to absorption and extension, not about a and e only when he gets air. That's why I quoted his entire statement on absorption and extension so it would be clear. His words, his ideas. Are you saying what he's saying only applies because his technique always gets air?

.

.... here we go again. In his absorption vid he gets air so he has to lead with his feet to get more range to absorbed . In his other vid, on speed control, he doesn't get get air, so he has no need to lead. Martin is about shin pressure and getting forward when the skis are in contact with the snow.

 

[jack97]

Actually, the Barnes graphic has cuff neutral. Yeah everyone gets the foot up tip down thing. It was the other parts. I think the fuller Barnes animation may get at what your saying with the geometry.

Some of all this is effort, what one is used to and or what one thinks about. For example, skiing moguls with the feet together and keeping them together takes more effort than people realize- if you're not used to it. Once done a lot the effort moves to the background and you forget it's an effort at all.

From 0:55
He was involved with hart and tweaking the F17 for Patrick Deneen back then.

And for some more zipper:

I don't think Patrick Deneen advocates cuff neutral.......

 

[skier]

.... here we go again. In his absorption vid he gets air so he has to lead with his feet to get more range to absorbed . In his other vid, on speed control, he doesn't get get air, so he has no need to lead. Martin is about shin pressure and getting forward when the skis are in contact with the snow.

I went back to look at the Mogul Logic DVD, and in the speed control section right after
the portion shown on the web, he says, "Watch how Ryan maintains shin pressure on the
front of his boots at all times. Absorbing the moguls and maintaining shin pressure throughout the turn will help you gain speed control."

 

[jack97]

^^^ thanks for doing that. The DVD has more content and its been a while since I last viewed it. I have talked to people who attended Martin's camps and they say he reiterates the shin pressure and getting forward much like Carmichael. What we have presently are posters who want to take snippets of what they want to hear and use it re-enforce that system of teaching they believe in. Much like the Barne's cuff neutral concept and associate this to Deneen's zipper line sequence...,,,, one concept implies this result, kind of idiotic IMO.

 

[jack97]

I

I think Josh Foster nails it at the end when he says "maybe put in a few thousand hours of training..."

Maybe, I think the best thing foster did was to pay homage to Brassard at the beginning. Douglas isn't too shabby. BTW, look at the forward lean Brassard has on those boots. Must be for a reason.

 

[geepers]

Alright! Since you are entertained, I'll add on. To demonstrate this concept, I'll track how a variant peculates to a level of non-truth that you might more easily accept. I often use mogul skis which kind of stand out this day and age. Therefore, talking about mogul skiing often comes up while riding the lift with folks, and incredibly often I hear the statement, "mogul skiing is too hard on the knees." They aren't talking about zipper line skiing. They are merely talking about going into the moguls. Now, do you believe that merely skiing in the moguls, the simplest way possible, is too hard on the knees? Lots and lots of folks do. If you give up trying to ski a direct line, and you don't worry about going fast, then it's kind of a brain dead notion to people of a certain level that skiing in the moguls can easily be done without anything hurting long term or short term. The real statement they should be saying is, "I'm not good enough to ski moguls.", but their ego doesn't allow that, and they need to invent some reason to make it ok for them to suck.

I do it too. There's skiing like this below which I don't think I would ever try to do. My reasoning is that I don't want to die. I still believe it's an irresponsible pursuit, but maybe I just suck. (It keeps getting more amazing by the end.)

Wasn't so much entertained as in need of a snack whilst I watched you 3 fairways over from the one we were playing. Really? Bump style preference somehow got extrapolated into commentary on your lifestyle choices?

If someone says they don't do bumps because <insert explanation here> if it's a fit 25 y/o whose just been shredding the park then it's probably an excuse. If it's someone with a hip replacement then it's probably fair enough. There's no one size fits all.

 

[geepers]

If you open your ankles like that on a tough line and get that far back, you're out.

View attachment 47321

OTOH he didn't. He just skied on. But I do like "ifs" - we can "if" up whatever scenario suits our argument.

If the CoM overtakes the BoS when a bump rears up at the skier it may not end well.