I hear the words “turn shape” thrown around a lot on this thread, and many other threads, yet have not heard anyone explain exactly what they are talking about. What "turn shape" really means, “to me”, is turn depth and the degree of turn reached. They are all “shaped” the same way (just look at the tracks of a goods skier) and are only different as to their length and depth. Yes, some racers make “J” shaped turns and mogul skiers do shape their turns around the bumps but that is more about “line” than turn shape. Turn size is more about rhythm and timing and not about shape. The key to making or “shaping” turns with maximum depth or degree of turn is to create as much lateral displacement between our center of mass and base of support (CoM/BoS), within the same size turn, as possible. The keys to that are higher tipping under an more stabley directed CoM while letting go of everything in between. This “letting go” is allowing with looseness and mobility the key movements of CoM/BoS separation which are flexion, extension, rotation, angulation and inclination.
While there is a lot of talk about letting the path of the ski vs the path of the CoM create and develop counter, we can also let the path of the ski, it’s mechanical output of a carving edge, create “all” the movements of separation that occurs between the CoM and BoS to include flexion, extension, angulation and inclination. Focussing on all these separate movements at once is not an easy feat and, perhaps one not ever actually met. If we instead focus on only a stable and well directed center of mass (our momentum) and our base of support (platform management) we can then allow the independent actions of these two separate loci of control to create all the above movements that occur in between them. When we let the path of the CoM and the path of the BoS and their forces work against each other, things can happen in a ski motored, automated fashion. Yes, we ski into counter allowing the ski itself to rotate our femurs to create that counter, but we also can use our passing through the virtual bump (GFR) to create flexion and extension that occurs under a vertically stable CoM. We can allow the changing slope of the ski itself, relative to the CoM/BoS vector (CBV), to create the passive dorsi and plantar flexion of a loose ankle following that slope of the ski. Therefore, the more degree of turn we reach in each turn, the more the slope of the ski changes relative to the CBV and the more dorsi and plantar flexion is required to remain over the center of the ski. We can also allow the longer path of the BoS to create the inclination that occurs between that and the CoM as well as allowing that inclination in turn entry “turn into” angulation as the path of the BoS travels under the CoM in turn completion. When our directives are limited to platform management at the feet and ankles and maintaining a quiet and stable CoM, we no longer need to be in charge of these five critical separational movements. When we allow the path of the ski to create all these movements, we are then free to let the circumstances of the turn itself to choose the duration, intensity, rate and timing of all of our flexion, extension, rotation, inclination and angulation. Viola! Everything is measured correctly, inherently. We are then also using the potentially powerful mechanical output of the ski to motor those efforts in order to ski more efficiently.
When we take instruction that considers the separational movements of flexion, extension, rotation, angulation and inclination as actively direct inputs based on visual output instead of the "kinetic output" based “systemic inputs” of fundamental movements, we are disallowing the ski to take that initiative for us and are ingraining that disallowment into a technical plateau based on a faulty developmental frame of reference. It makes the skier as the kinetic leader rather than the ski itself such as what I contend we observe from expert skiing. Along with all the other input directives a student typically receives in addition to these five facets of separational movement as direct inputs, it is no wonder that so many people conclude that skiing is a “non-intuitive” sport. It isn’t the sport that is non-intuitive, it is the path of dev chosen that is either intuitive or not intuitive. Coaching advanced skiers through a CoM/BoS focus is a much more athletic oriented, streamlined and intuitive process that recognizes the skier’s diverse biomechanical and intellectual individuality and teaches us to ski from the feet up. Good skiing elicits power from the ski, not the body. Good skiing elicits timing from the ski, not skier intent. Much conventional instruction, not all, yet much of what is facilitated here, still focuses on the more visually applicable and technically shallow perspective of applying direct inputs to achieve a certain visual output or aesthetic that does not greatly correspond with the output of the ski. To me, this is ignoring the actual complexity required to make things happen assuming that it can all be handled by skier intent. A complexity of which need not be handled intellectually at all and, instead, through training the body to respond appropriately.That said, I don't have a problem with teaching beginners and intermediates from a more simple and obvious upper body frame of reference. It is just that, at some points along the way, the developmental frame of reference changes with skill level.
Degree of turn diagram from one of the best sites out there, your ski coach.com:
