Focuses/takeaways from training in New Zealand

[Skisailor]

Skisailor, what in particular do you not like about how Jonathan Ballou, Reilly McGlashan, JF Beaulieu, and Tom Gellie ski?

I very much admire what they can do. It's not a type of skiing that I particularly enjoy. But I can understand the allure. And that's great for those who want to pursue those skills to the degree which allows that kind of skiing. I totally understand and respect it. There IS more than one way to ski.

And it's not really that I don't "like" how they ski. It's fine with me if they want to ski that way. But my perspective is as an instructor of recreational skiers who come to a (very) big mountain, ski 20 or fewer days a year, may or may not be in shape - but even if they are, are probably not acclimated to the elevation, etc. etc. The goals of the Level 8-9s I teach? NO one is clamoring to learn to ski like this. They want me to open up new terrain to them. They want to feel more comfortable and more confident going to places on the mountain that they ski past now. They want me to open up the mountain world and the mountain experience for them to ski with the physical strength and stamina they currently have and can immediately bring to bear. And most of all - they want it to be less effortful! They want to be able to ski a big mountain all day long without feeling the fatigue that leads to injury or has them in the bar at 2 pm.

So when I see our professional organization following down this particular rabbit hole, with very few even questioning the direction we seem to be moving in, it gives me pause. And I do not believe it serves our clients well in the larger sense.

I think that the way Jonathan, JF, Eric, Reilly and the rest ski is certainly a very dynamic energetic technique that is enabled to a significant extent by the particular amazing skills, reflexes, muscular strength and abilities of these elite skiers, but that it does not translate as easily as other techniques for allowing the average recreational skier to ski all over a big mountain without fatigue. I also think about skiing history with regard to the particular edge/pressure/rotary part of it. Rotary has been out before. Then it was back. Why??

But it is SO much more than that. So much of what I read on this forum and experience in clinics is much more muscularly effortful than the techniques I am working on and am familiar with.

I don't want to derail this thread any further but thanks for asking LF.

 

[Average Joe]

I've watched the Rookie Academy videos, and individual videos from their team over the past few years, and I'm thankful that their collaborative efforts to advance the sport forward.
A healthy progression of technique is important; otherwise we stagnate and participation declines.
And, it's a lot more fun!

 

[4ster]

More generally, the loss of skiing versatility - the very idea that there is one best way

I would say that these guys are all extremely versatile skiers & can ski as hard or easy as they like in all conditions & terrain. I am also sure that they can blend all the ingredients in a variety of different recipes depending on the situation. To use a Music analogy, (@Steve) you need to learn the scales before you can effortlessly play improvisational jazz.

As someone else who has also been around long enough to see things come full circle a few times, (i have always landed on the edge/pressure side of the coin) I kind of see where you’re coming from.

There is a difference between the theoretical and the practical.

Or put another way, “you need to ski the easy stuff hard, before you can ski the hard stuff easy”.

 

[NZRob]

Skisailor, what in particular do you not like about how Jonathan Ballou, Reilly McGlashan, JF Beaulieu, and Tom Gellie ski?

I don't think she said that. She just said that she doesn't think there is necessarily one best way to ski. Which I agree with....not that I have any significant instructing or ski-theory credentials to back that up with!

 

[Skisailor]

I would say that these guys are all extremely versatile skiers & can ski as hard or easy as they like in all conditions & terrain. I am also sure that they can blend all the ingredients in a variety of different recipes depending on the situation. To use a Music analogy, (@Steve) you need to learn the scales before you can effortlessly play improvisational jazz.

As someone else who has also been around long enough to see things come full circle a few times, (i have always landed on the edge/pressure side of the coin) I kind of see where you’re coming from.

There is a difference between the theoretical and the practical.

Or put another way, “you need to ski the easy stuff hard, before you can ski the hard stuff easy”.
View attachment 53113

I am absolutely sure that these guys are extremely versatile and can take that technique into terrain I couldn't dream of using it in.

But that's kind of the point. And I'm an instructor with 150 days/year on the mountain.

With regard to your music analogy, I agree that you need to learn the scales to play music. But I disagree that you need to first have the skills of a concert pianist with the Philadelphia Orchestra before you can competently and effortlessly play the piano to your heart's content.

 

[markojp]

Or put another way, “you need to ski the easy stuff hard, before you can ski the hard stuff easy”.

Oh, I am so stealing that! Excellent!

 

[dj61]

Looks like Harald Harb has gained some influence in ski instruction.

 

[LiquidFeet]

@mike_m, you said: "As you start downhill, displace the tails wide to actually face the sides of the trail in the shaping phase. Tails "tick tock" out wide from planted tips that travel very little. (Another new focus that sounds weird, but actually works brilliantly.)"

@mike_m, getting back to my question #2 upthread about the words in blue above, I think I have finally figured out what you are talking about. You are talking about the elusive "brushed carve." I know this one. I started focusing intentionally on this - at different speeds and radii - last year. This type of turn can provide a slow, not-so-dynamic, non-athletic way of doing turns using the flex-to-release approach you are describing, without using muscular, active rotation of the skis.

How-to? -- Initiate a carved turn with a release of the new inside ski and allow the body to move over the skis, as has already been described. Allow the CoM will move across the skis to the inside of the new turn. But do not establish sufficient platform angle for a carve on the outside ski.

Without that platform angle, the outside ski's tail won't grip. But because of the release with CoM moving over the skis, the tip will grip. The non-gripping tail will displace on its own through the whole turn. There is no need to "push" the tail out to create this displacement, nor to muscularly rotate the skis to make it happen. The displacement happens naturally simply because the tail doesn't hold. This turn offers speed control due to the displacement of that tail, in comparison to arc-to-arc carved turns.

Important: no muscular rotary input is required; there is no pivot. There is no proactive femur rotation. But people who don't know about this turn mechanism will insist that the skier must be muscularly rotating the skis into the turn to get that displacement. Not so!

There were numerous argumentative threads about this type of turn on Epic in the past. Lots of instructors don't like the term "brushed carve" because of where it originated. I don't think PSIA has come up with an alternative term for this type turn.

Have I finally got it right this time?

 

[mdf]

don't like the term "brushed carve"

I don't like the term because it is sophistry. "Only carves are good turns. All our turns are good. Therefore this non-carving turn must be a type of carve."
The fact that the turn is performed with the same movements as a carve does not make it one.
I prefer the completely non-standard "drifted turn".

Also, I think that typically the whole ski drifts, but the tail drifts more.

 

[Rod9301]

@mike_m, you said: "As you start downhill, displace the tails wide to actually face the sides of the trail in the shaping phase. Tails "tick tock" out wide from planted tips that travel very little. (Another new focus that sounds weird, but actually works brilliantly.)"

@mike_m, getting back to my question #2 upthread about the words in blue above, I think I have finally figured out what you are talking about. You are talking about the elusive "brushed carve." I know this one. I started focusing intentionally on getting it to happen - at different speeds and radii - last year. This type of turn can provide a slow, not-so-dynamic, non-athletic way of doing turns using the flex-to-release approach you are describing, without using muscular, active rotation of the skis.

How-to? -- Initiate a carved turn with a release of the new inside ski and allow the body to move over the skis, as has already been described. Allow the CoM will move across the skis to the inside of the new turn. But do not establish sufficient platform angle for a carve on the outside ski. (We can discuss "platform angle" later if you affirm that I've got this right.)

Without that platform angle, the outside ski's tail won't grip. But because of the release with CoM moving over the skis, the tip will grip. The non-gripping tail will displace on its own through the whole turn. There is no need to "push" the tail out to create this displacement, nor to muscularly rotate the skis to make it happen. The displacement happens naturally simply because the tail doesn't hold. This turn offers speed control due to the displacement of that tail, in comparison to arc-to-arc carved turns.

Important: no muscular rotary input is required; there is no pivot. There is no proactive femur rotation. But people who don't know about this turn mechanism will insist that the skier must be muscularly rotating the skis into the turn to get that displacement. Not so!

There were numerous argumentative threads about this type of turn on Epic in the past. Lots of instructors don't like the term "brushed carve" because of where it originated. I don't think PSIA has come up with an alternative term for this type turn.

Have I finally got it right this time?

You did get it almost right, except that the twot does not displace more than the tip.
They both slide sideways equally.

 

[LiquidFeet]

You did get it almost right, except that the twot does not displace more than the tip.
They both slide sideways equally.

When tips and tails slide/displace equally, that's got to be a diagonal sideslip. I don't think that was what Mike was talking about.

....Also, I think that typically the whole ski drifts, but the tail drifts more.

Whether the tip displaces some or not... turns are different, but I think Mike did say the tip holds. Can't wait to get out onto snow to remind myself just exactly how much slippage the tip has in these turns. The difference in slippage between tip and tail is not something I have focused on in the past.

 

[Rod9301]

When tips and tails slide/displace equally, that's got to be a diagonal sideslip. I don't think that was what Mike was talking about.


Whether the tip displaces some or not... turns are different, but I think Mike did say the tip holds. Can't wait to get out onto snow to check just exactly how much slippage the tip has in these turns,

No, you tip inside ski a lot, but riding the outside ankle. Great short turns with speed control.

If your ego ego allows it, look at hh's videos

 

[Uke]

mdf,

For me that fact that the same movements produce different outcomes is precisely why I make the statement that every turn I ever make is a carve (carve as a verb) rather than give the impression that 'thin line in the snow' outcome carve (carve as a noun) is somehow a different way of skiing. As I have expressed before it seems less productive to use outcomes to define skiing rather than inputs.
uke

 

[John Nedzel]

Hi, John,

JF had a very cool description. "The outside ski is the rider; the inside ski is the decider."

While we are supported by the tipped outside ski and centripetal force is pushing back against it as it glides ahead, the inside helps us effectively match the slope of the hill as we lift that thigh, effectively "shortening" that leg. It helps keep our joints functionally aligned if that leg, and the inside half of our body, is diagonally uphill and ahead, while the outside half of our body is lower and behind. It also is the initiator of the new turn in transition, as the old outside foot is relaxed and tipped (ideally, right under us and next to the old outside foot), and becomes the new inside foot.

If I may, let me copy a bit of my initial post:

"As the skis start downhill, immediately focus on the inside half of the body. Start by sliding the new inside foot back (you can add a lift of the inside tail to help tip you forward). This inside-foot slide back continues up the body into lifting the inside thigh/hip and the entire inside half of the body pulling diagonally ahead (the outside half of the body is down and back; the outside pole tip can even glide along the snow toward the back of the outside binding to ensure functional angulation).

· During the shaping phase, feel the uphill edge of the inside ski pressing into the snow and matching the path of the outside ski. Gently press the uphill side of the inside boot along the sixth-toe area into the snow to increase the feeling of "two footedness." (Another new one for me.) The result is better balance on both feet and both skis feeling connected to the snow with responsive ankles. In addition, excess pressure is not imposed onto the outside ski (all extremities are relaxed and supple; the core should be engaged)."

Hope that helped.

Best!
Mike

Thanks for the additional detail Mike. It makes sense to me.
I do have one more question, was anything said about which part of the inside ski should be engaged in each of the turn phases as was said for the outside ski?

I believe the engagement of the inside ski should flow in reverse of what was said for the outside ski but rarel, if ever, do I hear the inside ski spoken about in that manner.

Thanks again for the time you are putting into these topics.

 

[Monster]

mdf,

For me that fact that the same movements produce different outcomes is precisely why I make the statement that every turn I ever make is a carve (carve as a verb) rather than give the impression that 'thin line in the snow' outcome carve (carve as a noun) is somehow a different way of skiing. As I have expressed before it seems less productive to use outcomes to define skiing rather than inputs.
uke

Disclaimer: speaking now only to my personal experience and fully appreciating the possibility that others' experiences may vary.

Not different ways of skiing? For me they are.

On the same surface, if in one turn my edge has broken loose and is sliding laterally, and in another it hasn't and isn't, I'm either doing something different in the turn or at the start of it. I can't get the different outcomes with the exact same body mechanics everywhere in the turn - something has to be different somewhere. It's possible to feather between skid of varying degrees and full hook-up on and off anywhere in a turn, even several times, but I have to do it. It's fully conscious decision making and means moving the body to achieve. It's also possible in some section of a turn with skidding edges to be in the same body position as one while holding a clean edge; however, something else has or is happening to make the change - different input.

Are outcomes less productive as definitions? In a slarved, skidded, brushed, feathered turn - whatever language you prefer - the net effect by virtue of friction is braking, not the case in a turn on a cleanly tracking edge. To me, that's an important difference and is the main reason I choose one over the other - speed control is productive in the moment.

 

[Uke]

Monster,

Wow, I had sort of started to think of you as something of a troll on this forum or at least a contrarian, and then you post this wonderful response to my post. I owe you a fuller response than I can make at this time so I'll get back to you later, just wanted to thank you.

uke

 

[Monster]

Looks can be deceiving

 

[Doby Man]

Yes but the opposite is not true. I never ice skated and took it up 5 years ago. So hard at first. Haven't skated since then, and went to the rink again this morning. Man I was bad. Actually a good thing for an instructor to help with understanding how students feel. I wanted to quit. Go home. Never skate again. I hated being so bad at something. But I stuck to it for an hour plus. Got better. I'll be doing it regularly until skiing starts. I certainly understood how beginning skiers take one lesson and never go back again though.

@Steve, you already have the skills to do it. You just have to transfer them over. That crazy skate thing you do in the lift line is very similar yet more complex and challenging compared to that of a casual speed skate stride. I, we, glide down the street as if cruising a green run. Once you get through a certain phase of familiarization with skates, your alpine skills will start to integrate into what you are doing and you will have a quick jump ahead in ability maybe around second season. The familiarity of a full cuff, hard plastic, 3 buckle boot and a long stable speedskate wheel frame would accelerate that transfer.

 

[Doby Man]

I don't know why that last post from Steve has Mike_M's name there. Must have messed up a multiquote. A bit retarded this evening.

PS: Skisailor. I feel your pain. Perhaps a more reassuring way to think about it is if one sees ski instruction as guiding folks to maximize efficiency. If finding the best way to let the forces of gravity and the design of the equipment work in the most harmonious way possible is our goal, there likely will be a consistency of approach to achieving this if those factors are accurately understood. (Which I believe is underpinning the consistency of approach that seems to be happening.)

@mike_m, well stated to skisailor above and a great synopsis on your access to what I might consider the pinnacle of the technical freeskiing and current developmental vibe in the industry today. I also read your thread about your last camp as well. Both well written, high value posts to those seeking to keep professionally abreast as well as for those less connected.

I think the context of dichotomy that skisailor may need to reach in regards to substantiating such a position is in the anatomical methodology of the skier vs the mechanics of the ski. There are specific and certain mechanical outcomes or, absolutes, of the ski that are factors that must be achieved in order to complete a successful turn regardless of the technical, tactical and terrain based circumstances. If the ski does not accomplish a certain ideal pressure and tipping “scheme” in any particular circumstance, it will fail in meeting its intent. These “mechanics” of the ski are the factors directly related to the physics of ski output that are universal and, therefore, expounded upon as fact through a consensus of highly accomplished skiers such as the rookie academy trainers. The (anatomical) methodology used to achieve these mechanics, however, are going to have variables based on the uniqueness of an individual’s biomechanics, neurobiomechanics, intellectual conception and emotive style. However, those variables are going flux within a limited corredor if they are going to be used to target and achieve successful mechanics of the ski. While these variables must be represented in the developmental process, so should the mechanical absolutes which are the elements that are at the top of both the developmental and performance hierarchy. When we look at the skill pyramid, in any discipline, the further we reach the top in performance, the more specific and limited the technical options become.

 

[Skisailor]

I don't like the term because it is sophistry. "Only carves are good turns. All our turns are good. Therefore this non-carving turn must be a type of carve."
The fact that the turn is performed with the same movements as a carve does not make it one.
I prefer the completely non-standard "drifted turn".

Also, I think that typically the whole ski drifts, but the tail drifts more.

Just love this post. My sentiments exactly.

Drifted turn is a nice descriptive phrase. I use it on occasion. But for me, it is one kind of steered turn - any combination of edging and rotation that cause the tail to displace more than the tip. It can be a very flat ski with lots of rotation, or very edgy with just a dash of rotation (which is still not carving). And everything in between on a continuum.

And no - the fact of rotation does not imply a muscular active pivot of the skis. It could. If that's what we want and need for a particular turn. But it it's not necessarily the case for all steered turns. We do ski on a slippery slanted surface after all and we can let gravity help us create and/or facilitate the rotation we desire if we want to.

IMHO - carving is carving. Tail follows tip in the same precise track with no displacement. You are either carving or you're not. You can't be a little bit pregnant.