Skisailor,
What is your definition of the word dogma. I presented my def (which is basically the dictionary def) to provide clarity in my post as I thought that our usage of the term would differ. How should I interpret your use of the word.
I'll also admit the part of my reaction to the word is that is that it most often used in a negative context to disparage the information referred to as dogmatic. I can't think of how I would use the term in a positive way, or even neutral in my mind.
uke
ps Yeah, jamt is back, this means ski season in near and we will maybe get a peek at some of the more scientifically based research on skiing.
About the non-carved turns. Earlier in the thread there was a discussion about brushed turns. It was argued that brushed turns are like carved turns but that the tails are laterally sliding as compared to the tips. In my experience it is the other way around. In "brushed" turns the tails are carving but the tips are not.
There are many ways the ski can slide laterally and that is fine. But it is not what I would call brushed carving.@Jamt -
Let me add maybe a different way of looking at t.
It's not so much whether the tip is creating a trench or barely skimming the snow surface, but rather whether there is any lateral displacement of the edges (directly sideways if we lose the edge grip - hopefully not) or via adding rotation in a steered turn to match our intent (hopefully yes).
So I see one bright line - either the ski (trench or not) is traveling along its length from tip to tail (carving) or it is doing something else. And that other thing happens because there is some degree of lateral displacement of the edges (hopefully in an expertly steered turn).
Turns can also be partly carved and partly steered or slipped. A stivot is the perfect example. Practicing turns that we start by steering the top then fully engaging the edges to carve the second half - or carving the start then adding rotation for the finish, add incredible versatility - particularly to a skier's off piste toolbox, IMHO.
Edited to add - being aft at the end of turns does not work well for me personally because it makes it much harder to create those kinds of versatile - do anything at any moment - kinds of turns.
Yes, it is used to get a tighter turn. Partly because a larger portion of the ski has a larger steering angle, and partly becuase it slows you down.jamt,
Thanks, this is a conformation for me for a lot of what I see, feel and teach. I think and refer to it as the ski tracking more forward than sideways.
As to your comment about the tip of the ski slipping. Does this have anything to do with a ski in the transition phase seeming to self steer a tighter arc?
uke
This is a tricky one. I think that when the "trench" is first created there is no trench in the aft part of the ski so at this point it has no trench to follow. This means that the tips will engage more than the tails, with a more bent ski in the fore part. This pushes you aft, and you need to meet this force by beeing fore. It is more about moving forward early in the turn than beeing forward. As the turn, trench and angles progress you can move aft for a cleaner turn.This is an interesting nugget (and at this stage it’s worth mining the thread for all we can get!) and I agree with you. I’ve attributed this to the progressive nature of the tipping of the outside ski which engages the tail of the ski more and more as the turn progresses and as the pressure moves aft. But I’d be interested in your thoughts as to the mechanism.
Depends on the definition of what a brushed carve is. IMO a brushed carve leaves tracks that look carved. Not all of the turns you describe will do that.I call your theory, and raise you with experience. In my experience: I can make a "brushed" carve turn with the tips sliding more than the tails, with the tails sliding more than the tips and with the tips and tails sliding equally; I can also vary what part of the ski slides more; I can do this at any point in the turn.
However, I prefer to make arc-2-arc turns with the tips cleanly and sharply cutting into the snow to start a clean trench.
....Depends on the definition of what a brushed carve is. IMO a brushed carve leaves tracks that look carved. Not all of the turns you describe will do that....
I do agree that the word dogma is often seen to have negative connotations. So maybe that was a poor choice. I tend to think that it can be negative but isn't necessarily so. But let's not get hung up on the word and get to the meat.
What I do see is a shift in ideas about how fore-aft pressure should be managed in a ski turn.
Did it come down from "on high"? Apparently - from the D team and National.
Is it now an accepted best practice by the trainers? Yes. It is taught in required trainings to the rank n file instructors (without any real explanation for why this would be an improvement) and is necessary for progress in certifications - so it does have an element of forced necessity. .
Lastly, has there been any meaningful questioning of the "new" concepts at any level that I am aware of? No.
None of that is necessarily bad - but it can potentially be. In any case, it's always good, in my view, to be open to trying things out in the name of versatility.
The proof is in the pudding. And the pudding for me is - can I ski all of the terrain and conditions a big mountain has to offer and do it without fatigue? Movement patterns that are more efficient without sacrificing effectiveness in achieving that personal goal are the ones I gravitate towards.
Skisailor,
Interesting how background can affect how we look at things
From my viewpoint the change didn't come down from above recently. It has been working its way up for the past 20 years and is finally getting the acceptance and distribution that it deserves. The change in where we stand on our foot has been accepted by much of the training community because they have found that it does indeed work as advertised and produces a more stable platform to work from as well as being more efficient.
As to your feeling that the new stuff hasn't been questioned. It's been questioned (and dismissed as wrong at times) for over 20 years and is still being questioned at least where I am. As I understand it there was a major discussion when the fundamentals were being developed over whether the one about pressure along the length of the ski should include directing the pressure toward the balls of the feet.
To my eye, someone who changes where they stand to move more in line with being centered, does a better job at meeting the standards of the cert process.
It's a shame that the why behind the change hasn't been communicated to you properly. Too many times trainers just pass on what they receive in their clinics without understanding why themselves. For too many it's just parroting the seasons catch phrase such as 'ball, wall, fall' or 'topple into the turn'.
uke
About the versatility. If you can make it down a rutted SL course with varying degrees of brushing, carving, pivoting etc. you also have a very effective turn to use in the back country. It is probably easier because your goal is not to go as fast as possible.
From my viewpoint the change didn't come down from above recently. It has been working its way up for the past 20 years and is finally getting the acceptance and distribution that it deserves.
I often tell my students that no matter how good you are, there's always someone better who can help you improve if you want to. To me the true expert is someone who realizes how much more there is to learn!