Flexion and extension patterns

[Chris V.]

At the risk of stepping into a hornet's nest...

In one of the recent MA request threads, there were some responses seemingly critical of advice I had given. Not to dwell on that. But I think it raised a legitimate issue, and this is actually one that has been the subject of some difference of approach among the trainers at our mountain. So, I would solicit opinions of the experts here. Most simply stated, the question would be:

What do you advocate as the most functional pattern of flexion and extension through the turn cycle?

I'll hazard a few observations:

o Personally, I think that there's room for more than one pattern, with variation being appropriate depending on the size and shape of turn that is the goal, on terrain, on snow conditions, and on the skiing situation, for example racing versus recreational all mountain skiing. A versatile skier should be able to do them all.

o Video clips of World Cup racers show considerable variation, with large differences between disciplines, e.g. slalom vs. GS.

o Not everyone is trying to be a World Cup racer. Compare video of PSIA demonstration skiers such as Jonathan Ballou. It's a different goal. Both types of skier are great skiers. They just look different, and are aiming to do different things.

o It's never just about full body flexion and extension. Unless you're making a straight run with no turns, you really need to be thinking about the flexion and extension of each leg independently. Long leg short leg.

o While in the shaping phase of a dynamic turn, you need long leg short leg. Then somehow you have to get both skis flat and both legs the same length at the transition. This can be by shortening the long leg, or lengthening the short leg, or some combination of the two. All work, more or less.

o With all of this in mind, what's the best development pathway for the skier who isn't yet at the expert level?

 

[Erik Timmerman]

I for one favor more of a retraction style turn vs. extension in virtually every instance. The one exception that comes to mind is at the start of a very flat race course where you'd want more of a skating move.

 

[Kneale Brownson]

Transition from long left leg in a turn to the right to a long right leg in a turn to the left involves shortening the left leg and lengthening the right.

 

[LiquidFeet]

....
o It's never just about full body flexion and extension. Unless you're making a straight run with no turns, you really need to be thinking about the flexion and extension of each leg independently. Long leg short leg.

o While in the shaping phase of a dynamic turn, you need long leg short leg. Then somehow you have to get both skis flat and both legs the same length at the transition. This can be by shortening the long leg, or lengthening the short leg, or some combination of the two. All work, more or less.

o With all of this in mind, what's the best development pathway for the skier who isn't yet at the expert level?

You're asking an interesting question, interesting because it has lots of assumptions embedded in it.

assumption #1: There are different ways to make competent turns.
assumption #2: Describing how the legs are lengthened & shortened will identify these different turns.
assumption #3: One of those turns is the key to expert skiing.
assumption #4: Other turns are learned along the way and dominate non-expert skiing.

Maybe the discussion won't be a hornet's nest, but it might if people disagree with any of these assumptions. It also might get confusing if people say flex/extend and don't identify whether or not they are talking about two legs flexing and extending together. "Flexion" doesn't mean much unless we know what's being flexed, and when, which you are asking people to address. I hope they do.

Some here may believe all good turns are made the same way, even wedge turns, and there is no significant difference between beginner, intermediate, and expert turns. I am not one of those. In my experience, versatility is real. So I am very interested in what people say. Thanks for coming up with such a good question.

 

[François Pugh]

I think it's important not to be trapped into one particular move, like say an up move for every turn. Old outside leg fexion and old inside leg extension have their place. Down and up unweighting have their place, as does a fully weighted transitions. Once you have the total package together, you are basically adjusting your path, including your vertical distance from the snow via a smooth combination of movements. For the engineers and mathematicians it's like discovering vector calculus - no more tedious components.

 

[Mendieta]

At the risk of stepping into a hornet's nest...

In one of the recent MA request threads, there were some responses seemingly critical of advice I had given. Not to dwell on that. But I think it raised a legitimate issue, and this is actually one that has been the subject of some difference of approach among the trainers at our mountain. So, I would solicit opinions of the experts here. Most simply stated, the question would be:

What do you advocate as the most functional pattern of flexion and extension through the turn cycle?

I'll hazard a few observations:

o Personally, I think that there's room for more than one pattern, with variation being appropriate depending on the size and shape of turn that is the goal, on terrain, on snow conditions, and on the skiing situation, for example racing versus recreational all mountain skiing. A versatile skier should be able to do them all.

o Video clips of World Cup racers show considerable variation, with large differences between disciplines, e.g. slalom vs. GS.

o Not everyone is trying to be a World Cup racer. Compare video of PSIA demonstration skiers such as Jonathan Ballou. It's a different goal. Both types of skier are great skiers. They just look different, and are aiming to do different things.

o It's never just about full body flexion and extension. Unless you're making a straight run with no turns, you really need to be thinking about the flexion and extension of each leg independently. Long leg short leg.

o While in the shaping phase of a dynamic turn, you need long leg short leg. Then somehow you have to get both skis flat and both legs the same length at the transition. This can be by shortening the long leg, or lengthening the short leg, or some combination of the two. All work, more or less.

o With all of this in mind, what's the best development pathway for the skier who isn't yet at the expert level?

You're asking an interesting question, interesting because it has lots of assumptions embedded in it.

assumption #1: There are different ways to make competent turns.
assumption #2: Describing how the legs are lengthened & shortened will identify these different turns.
assumption #3: One of those turns is the key to expert skiing.
assumption #4: Other turns are learned along the way and dominate non-expert skiing.

Maybe the discussion won't be a hornet's nest, but it might if people disagree with any of these assumptions. It also might get confusing if people say flex/extend and don't identify whether or not they are talking about two legs flexing and extending together. "Flexion" doesn't mean much unless we know what's being flexed, and when, which you are asking people to address. I hope they do.

Some here may believe all good turns are made the same way, even wedge turns, and there is no significant difference between beginner, intermediate, and expert turns. I am not one of those. In my experience, versatility is real. So I am very interested in what people say. Thanks for coming up with such a good question.

I think it's important not to be trapped into one particular move, like say an up move for every turn. Old outside leg fexion and old inside leg extension have their place. Down and up unweighting have their place, as does a fully weighted transitions. Once you have the total package together, you are basically adjusting your path, including your vertical distance from the snow via a smooth combination of movements. For the engineers and mathematicians it's like discovering vector calculus - no more tedious components.

I like how all three of you are pointing to the fact that there us no "one size fits all" answer (even though the rethorical question in the OP would suggest otherwise, but I take that as an artistic license, given the rest if the OP).

I am no expert so I am not opining, but I'll mention that a week ago I took two lessons focused on carving. Just improving my timing for flexion/extension made a huge impact, on the spot. We talked a lot about pressure distribution along the turn, always keeping some flex in case you encounter a bump. See? That's another dimension. In 3D snow, flexion-extension has to do with absorbing terrain. And that can be expert skiing (not in my case).

Incidentally, I believe our best discussions in the ski school forum are the few that don't fall into easy formulas to fix all your skiing. But focus on different tools for our tool boxes. Mine is still mostly empty, so I appreciate learning, especially when I'm not on the hill and I can still learn, which makes me a little happier.

 

[Mike King]

What works in deep unonsolidated or manky snow is different than what’s fast in a gs or slalom course. That being said, if the goal is better ski performance, then one needs to be careful that the extension move doesn’t become a push the ski move.

It’s very interesting to look at the differences in movements of the Italian, Austrian and Australian demo teams (to pick 3). Yes there is more than one way to skin a cat. What should matter is ski performance and intent.

 

[JESinstr]

At the risk of stepping into a hornet's nest...

Most simply stated, the question would be:

What do you advocate as the most functional pattern of flexion and extension through the turn cycle?

To begin, Let's take this "elevator" to the ground floor. The operative term, as you stated, is "turn cycle". This implies a circular path.

-> A circular path (turn cycle) has to be created, nurtured and maintained and is accomplished by tipping the ski on edge and creating a COM to BOS relationship which manages the progressive bending of the ski along its length. IMO, this relationship requires the skier to change his/her method of balance from a heel-roll-to-toe methodology to a thru-the-arch methodology where the arch pillars are the ball of the foot (behind the big toe and on the inside of the foot) and the heel. This methodology is supported by boot construction resulting in forward pressure into the tongue as we flex DOWN through the arch.

-> We have 2 ways to put the ski on edge. We can incline relative to gravity or we can flex our ankles, knees and hip joints that allow for angulation of the lower body parts. Inclination can only go so far and is more dependent on velocity than angulation. With velocity, a skier can initiate a turn by inclinating in anticipation of future turning forces being built. However, as velocity increases, the resultant turning forces will require the ski to obtain higher edge angles (to maintain the circular path) than inclination alone will support.

-> When it comes to angulation, I am in the bicycling camp. Short leg, long leg...... Sort leg, Shorter leg.... Short Leg, Strong leg.... however you want to embrace it starts with "Short Leg" and is the way to go IMO. In fact, I have integrated this into my beginner classes with great success. When the beginning student (low velocity) begins their turn with a conscious effort to "soften" the inside leg (while steering the outside), weight (mass) transfer to the outside ski happens laterally at the pelvis and is a result of the inside ski getting shorter not by purposely standing on the outside ski.

-> So there are tons of inclination/angulation combinations that a skier can use and be successful....to a point. In the end, it is velocity and the rate at which we create turning force which determines what combination we use and eventually what works best.

 

[Chris V.]

You're asking an interesting question, interesting because it has lots of assumptions embedded in it.

assumption #1: There are different ways to make competent turns.
assumption #2: Describing how the legs are lengthened & shortened will identify these different turns.
assumption #3: One of those turns is the key to expert skiing.
assumption #4: Other turns are learned along the way and dominate non-expert skiing.

Maybe the discussion won't be a hornet's nest, but it might if people disagree with any of these assumptions. It also might get confusing if people say flex/extend and don't identify whether or not they are talking about two legs flexing and extending together. "Flexion" doesn't mean much unless we know what's being flexed, and when, which you are asking people to address. I hope they do.

Some here may believe all good turns are made the same way, even wedge turns, and there is no significant difference between beginner, intermediate, and expert turns. I am not one of those. In my experience, versatility is real. So I am very interested in what people say. Thanks for coming up with such a good question.

In posing the basic question--What do you advocate as the most functional pattern of flexion and extension through the turn cycle?--I wasn't assuming anything. But I did then reveal certain opinions or conclusions that I had come to. We agree in our endorsement of versatility. Maybe the more important question is the second one I posed--What's the best development pathway for the skier who isn't yet at the expert level? Or to put it another way, what should be the most-used, "go-to" turn style?

 

[Jamt]

Many turns types exists, and you can screw them all up. Skiing around thinking you are a great skier just because you use retraction is not true if e.g. that retraction turn makes you static for 30% of the turn.

 

[markojp]

What's the best development pathway for the skier who isn't yet at the expert level? Or to put it another way, what should be the most-used, "go-to" turn style?

Yes. All of them. Intent determines the turn. Expert skiing is about developing the skill sets, experience, and time on skis to choose according to slope angle, terrain, surface, and snow condtion variation. Expert skills access expert tactics resulting in strong, purposely driven outcomes. Start pressing on the intensity, and eventually bobbles and mistakes will happen. Experts adjust and recover. Sometimes they still fall. It's never seamless, but the best make it appear so.

 

[LiquidFeet]

Another way of approaching the issue might be to identify what most intermediates use as their go-to flexion-extension pattern. With that information one could then identify which alternative flexion-extension pattern would open up for them the most potential for skiing more terrain and conditions safely and competently.

But...
Is it safe to say that most individuals skiing at the intermediate level use only one turn mechanism?
Is it safe to say that almost all of these intermediates use the same one turn mechanism?
Is it safe to say that this favored intermediate turn is best described by referring to flexion and extension?

 

[François Pugh]

In posing the basic question--What do you advocate as the most functional pattern of flexion and extension through the turn cycle?--I wasn't assuming anything. But I did then reveal certain opinions or conclusions that I had come to. We agree in our endorsement of versatility. Maybe the more important question is the second one I posed--What's the best development pathway for the skier who isn't yet at the expert level? Or to put it another way, what should be the most-used, "go-to" turn style?

The other ones, i.e. the ones they haven't been using, will teach them the most about their skiing.

 

[Doby Man]

“What do you advocate as the most functional pattern of flexion and extension through the turn cycle?”

The most functional pattern of flexion/extension is the one that keeps your CoM over the BoS where you want it to be. AKA balance and stacking. I don’t believe that it is the actual mechanics of the motor patterns such as the distribution of flex angles that do not change at all but rather the DIRT (duration, intensity, rhythm, timing) used to describe the changes that motor patterns see that are based on intent such as turn shape/size and speed control (carving vs skidding).


“With all of this in mind, what's the best development pathway for the skier who isn't yet at the expert level?”

Anyone who wishes to break out of the advanced intermediate rut and wants to produce clean and dynamic carved turns may want to consider turning their learned concept of skiing upside down onto its head. 95% of skiers at this level have been taught and hard-wired to manipulate their skis with gross motor patterns of the upper and mid body (torso/hips) which has gotten them far but is now deeply ingrained. All the years and strife of becoming an advanced intermediate simply gets you to the beginning stage of learning to ski with the feet and lead the turn from the feet, something that cannot be done without a disciplined upper body.

However, the instruction industry at large seems to be slow at recognizing the full potential of the modern carving SL ski that comes from how the ski itself is manipulated as a leading factor in performance outcome. How a ski is articulated with tipping and pressure distribution from the foot’s relationship with the boot (boot pressure) becomes primary over what we are doing with the upper body which should be ingrained intuitively and out of the way at this point. If it isn’t, we are not yet and advanced intermediate ready to move to the next stage. Consistently equal tipping and equal bending of equally directed skis is the best and easiest indicator of higher level modern carving skills for which many basic fundamental skills must already be in place.

Yet, instructors very rarely look at or discuss what the ski itself is doing and is the equivalent of a skipper trying to sail a ship without any focus on the sails whatsoever or a pilot trying to fly a plane without manipulating the wings. Instead, they are trying to steer the boat/plane by moving weight/passengers around the hull/fuselage to cause the structure to turn. Not very accurate and responsive if you ask me. Would you get on a boat or plane with this skipper or pilot? Or would you rather live to ski another day? Then why get in an advanced lesson that does the same thing?

 

[markojp]

I'm teaching a group of adult beginners. I missed one session because of a family emergency. The next week I spent the lesson undoing large body movements and got them back onto the 'ski from the feet' program. They all commented that it was physically much easier. IMHO, everyone teaching needs to work with first timers no matter no matter how long you've taught or coached. It keeps you sharp and distills every thought you have about skiing.

 

[François Pugh]

However, the instruction industry at large seems to be slow at recognizing the full potential of the modern carving SL ski that comes from how the ski itself is manipulated as a leading factor in performance outcome. How a ski is articulated with tipping and pressure distribution...

Really slow it seems; Warren Witherell had this figured out in 1972.

 

[JESinstr]

Yes. All of them. Intent determines the turn.

Another way of approaching the issue might be to identify what most intermediates use as their go-to flexion-extension pattern. With that information one could then identify which alternative flexion-extension pattern would open up for them the most potential for skiing more terrain and conditions safely and competently.

But...
Is it safe to say that most individuals skiing at the intermediate level use only one turn mechanism?
Is it safe to say that almost all of these intermediates use the same one turn mechanism?
Is it safe to say that this favored intermediate turn is best described by referring to flexion and extension?

@markojp while I agree with your "intent" statement, It is important to note that an appropriate skill set be a prerequisite.

@LiquidFeet I would say Yes to #1 and #2. The reason is that regardless of their intent, they lack the skill set to complete a turn and revert to a bracing movement pattern against the pull of gravity that gets ingrained overtime.

As to #3, I would say no unless a consensus is formed that bracing (inclination and extension of the outside leg through the heel) is a valid form of extension within the context of turn creation.

 

[Chris V.]

Another way of approaching the issue might be to identify what most intermediates use as their go-to flexion-extension pattern. With that information one could then identify which alternative flexion-extension pattern would open up for them the most potential for skiing more terrain and conditions safely and competently.

But...
Is it safe to say that most individuals skiing at the intermediate level use only one turn mechanism?
Is it safe to say that almost all of these intermediates use the same one turn mechanism?
Is it safe to say that this favored intermediate turn is best described by referring to flexion and extension?

Most intermediate skiers use some variation of the same turning mechanism. Their flexion and extension pattern is necessary to describe this mechanism, but that alone doesn't fully describe the mechanism.

The typical intermediate mechanism for initiating a turn consists of an abrupt extension directed to the outside of the new turn, accompanied by an abrupt twisting of the full legs, or of the legs and the feet in the same direction. This leg turning is not of the kind that would produce strong early edge angles. The motion often appears as a small hop. It's a type of stem. There is often a sequential movement of the legs, with the new outside ski moving first, resulting in a small wedge at initiation--a classic stem. In other cases, the skis remain parallel, but there is still a deliberate, abrupt movement of weight onto the new outside ski accompanied by the abrupt extension. The result is a turn that starts in a skid and has a tight radius at the top, thereafter washing out into a longer radius, or into a nearly straight traverse. After the initiation phase, the skier's body is fairly static, with little change to the degree of flexion in the shaping phase.

There are at least of couple of alternative flexion-extension patterns in which this skier could be trained. Each would be a huge improvement. (In combination with changes to other aspects of movement patterns, of course.)

 

[Chris V.]

95% of skiers at this level have been taught and hard-wired to manipulate their skis with gross motor patterns of the upper and mid body (torso/hips) which has gotten them far but is now deeply ingrained. All the years and strife of becoming an advanced intermediate simply gets you to the beginning stage of learning to ski with the feet and lead the turn from the feet, something that cannot be done without a disciplined upper body.

However, the instruction industry at large seems to be slow at recognizing the full potential of the modern carving SL ski that comes from how the ski itself is manipulated as a leading factor in performance outcome. ...Yet, instructors very rarely look at or discuss what the ski itself is doing....

Very well put. I believe we're slowly coming around, though there are plenty of instructors who have yet to understand where the focus should lie.

My own teaching approach increasingly centers on first getting the skier into excellent balance and posture. I want the student to be very good at skiing a straight line before even discussing turning. Then discover that as a result everything else becomes much easier. With modern skis, it takes very little leg movement to start some kind of a turn, and there are multiple ways of doing it.

Ask your students--why do skis turn? Very few can answer this. Even fairly advanced students may not have it entirely right. Shouldn't students have a clear concept of why their instructor is asking them to do certain things, and of the mechanism through which they will create the desired outcome?

 

[PTskier]

Chris, I disagree with your initial premise. There is no need for different basic movement patterns for different snow conditions. 95% of the movements can be the same for all snow and terrain conditions. OK, maybe 93%. The difference can be as minor as most of the weight on the outside foot for packed snow vs. equal weight for deep snow. That’s about it.

Retraction/absorption turns handle every condition except jumping over an obstruction. Or just jumping for the joy of it.