Feedback

[L&AirC]

Here's some feedback I have received about my skiing performance in the gates:

1) You're skiing a flat ski.
2) You have too much weight on your inside ski
3) You need to get higher edge angles
4) Your legs are the same length at the apex of the turn as at transition, so you don't have the ability to flex and extend to absorb. Your transition looks perfect. Extend your legs in the belly of the turn. Not 100% but out quite a bit. Keep it dynamic and always extending or flexing.

Which do you think made a difference to me? All came from race coaches.

#4 changed my skiing in and out of the gates.

1-3 were accurate but told me what they saw and not what I needed to do. As a coach, I should have picked up on what would fix 1-3 but I was hearing and not seeing. No matter how much weight I had on the outside ski, or how high an edge angle I had, or making sure my two skis were outside my upper body, the results were the same.

After hearing #4, I not only felt I was skiing better, but felt more confident and even though moving faster, I felt safer.

Granted, once I started doing this, I had to go through everything else to put those things back in order because I was focusing on extending my legs. Once I was good with extending them, the rest (pole swing, not squaring to skis etc) all fell into place.

Food for thought on giving feedback.

Ken

 

[Kneale Brownson]

Were all four presented together, or did you get them each individually in that order?

 

[L&AirC]

Were all four presented together, or did you get them each individually in that order?

All individually at different times across a couple weeks. None were present when the others were giving me feedback.

 

[karlo]

Your legs are the same length at the apex of the turn as at transition, so you don't have the ability to flex and extend to absorb. Your transition looks perfect. Extend your legs in the belly of the turn. Not 100% but out quite a bit. Keep it dynamic and always extending or flexing.

This one is really good. There is a clear statement of a problem. Then there is a prescription. Furthermore, the prescription starts by stating what is right, at what point of the turn, giving one a reference point from which to act. Then, it states what to do from that point. Very nice.

What are the experience level, backgrounds, and qualifications of the four coaches?

 

[L&AirC]

This one is really good. There is a clear statement of a problem. Then there is a prescription. Furthermore, the prescription starts by stating what is right, at what point of the turn, giving one a reference point from which to act. Then, it states what to do from that point. Very nice.

What are the experience level, backgrounds, and qualifications of the four coaches?

All with 30 plus years.
#1 was a USSA level 200
#2 is a USSA Level 200 and PSIA 2
#3 is a USSA Level 200 and PSIA 3
#4 is a USSA Level 200 and PSIA 3

I could be that because they were talking to a coach, the assumed I would understand right away and didn't need further explanation. The sad part is, I've gone over this with my athletes and this is something I look for in them.

I would also like to point out, that especially #2-4, I think the world of them and they are great coaches. I love working with them and have learned a ton from them. It just hit me as funny that as soon as I heard #4, I knew exactly what I needed to do and did it.

I guess I should make it a point to get some video of myself now and again.

 

[Muleski]

Did you think of posting in the race forum, where a few more coaches might see it? Would be curious to compare the comments. Just curious.

 

[L&AirC]

Did you think of posting in the race forum, where a few more coaches might see it? Would be curious to compare the comments. Just curious.

I thought the racing forum was about racing and not so much about performance improvement. I see plenty of race coaches post in this thread and is why I chose it.

Whether instructing or coaching, the effect is the same.

 

[Muleski]

I was thinking both, as I know a few fairly exceptional coaches who don't post on this forum. Presume the don't check it much. Was just an idea to broaden the input. Just noticed that you're both an instructor and coach, so you don't need my advice!
Cheers!

 

[L&AirC]

I was thinking both, as I know a few fairly exceptional coaches who don't post on this forum. Presume the don't check it much. Was just an idea to broaden the input. Just noticed that you're both an instructor and coach, so you don't need my advice!
Cheers!

If I didn't need advice, I would have been the one telling someone else to extend their legs

 

[L&AirC]

I put a link to this post in racing so we don't have to keep up with two threads on the same subject.

 

[PTskier]

1-3 were accurate but told me what they saw and not what I needed to do.

Very important point.

Effective coaching needs to give the student the motivation for the change--why it applies to them. The coach needs to tell the student the purpose of the change, what it's correcting, and how to do it. Feedback is essential so the change is performed correctly. Imperfect practice makes...you know what. The new or corrected movements need to be combined back into the skier's total skiing.

 

[razie]

I reckon these are common as far as feedback in gates goes. Most describe a problem and not a solution, which is one kind of coaching. In a normal coaching scenario, one might start with say 1 and if you don't figure it out on your own in a couple runs, more information and even direct instruction should be added - that would be proper "decision training", that's what I would likely do.

One common shortcoming in all 4 is that there was no questioning (at least you didn't include it, if there was). Nobody asked you "the problem is Y... what do you think you can do to fix Y?".

As to the value of the feedback, It depends... If the result of 4 was to also cure 1 and 3, i.e. result in long leg and short leg at apex. Or was it just to get you moving up and down... and not have a string leg at the apex but rather at the bottom of the turn, resulting in you likely jamming the skis and botxhing the release, grinding the turn and getting later and later... Likely a bigger problem than the one you started with.

2. Is a good one. It kind'a tells you how to fix as well: lift the inside foot. But the coach didn't check your understanding by questioning either and maybe the source was you leaning in or again not enough angles or something else...

1 and 3 on their own are not enough. The coach should observe you and see if the issue is legs too long too early, or no angulation, counter etc and guide you towards the right solution.

Sometimes a tactics change is needed, to allow you to improve technique - sounds backwards, but if you keep going straight at the gates, you'll never be able to use technique effectively etc.

Another common shortcoming across the 4 is that the feedback did not include any external cue that you could use and, being in gates, there's tons of very effective external cues, from shinning to touching to moving this way or that way in relation to the gate etc.

Next time you get this feedback, ask: "so what do I do, coach?" This simple question will likely unlock a lot more value than the feedback itself.

Cheers

P.S. if you have the opportunity, work with a 300. I am very curious if their feedback would include those... although I guess it could vary from coach to coach.

 

[Mike King]

Next time you get this feedback, ask: "so what do I do, coach?"

Perhaps another way to say this is to ask how do you do what the coach (or instructor) is asking. There's a lot of description of your skiing or description of more ideal skiing, but fewer coaches or instructors identify how to change the movement patterns to achieve more ideal skiing.

Mike

 

[Average Joe]

Effective instruction (coaching) should always focus on the movements that lead to the outcome.

1-3 described the result, 4 described a likely cause AND adjustments that would improve the outcome.

And, the words used that originate from coaching and instructing manuals aren't always appropriate, depending on students age and ability.
Take flexión, for example - this one gets a lot of mileage in the manuals and clinics. As such those who are deeply involved in the sport have learned what it is, have probably demonstrated it in a clinic and passed a test question or two. But will a young athlete know what it means right away? Or should we be prepared to use less clinical descriptives when appropriate?
If the description of the "feeling" is not immediately understood, the student won't be able to apply the drill in a meaningful way.
Small incremental changes to the movements produce changes that seem small to the observer at first, but feel substantial. These lead to motivated students - they work harder and stay longer.
Then, "all of a sudden," big things can happen.

 

[JESinstr]

Although not stated specifically, all the above discussion goes directly to the concept of Frame of Reference. A crucial concept for a successful teacher to possess and master.

 

[James]

1) You're skiing a flat ski.

I'm curious as to how you interpreted this or if more info was given about it when it was said. Like when, where etc. It's not literally true or you'd never make a turn.

 

[BGreen]

This is why I like video. It gets everyone on the same page.

 

[L&AirC]

I'm curious as to how you interpreted this or if more info was given about it when it was said. Like when, where etc. It's not literally true or you'd never make a turn.

It wasn't meant as literal. It was meant more along the lines of too flat for what I was doing, or said the opposite way, not a high enough edge angle. This came through by the motions he was making with his hands.