Yep, interesting interview. Heard it previously on Tom Gellie's podcast.
Jurij Franco makes a similar point re robots in the podcast - see @James post above.
Altho... how much anticipation does this little guy do?
-
For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.
lateral weight shift vs rocking the ski fore-aft
- Thread starter LiquidFeet
- Start date
Yep, interesting interview. Heard it previously on Tom Gellie's podcast.
Jurij Franco makes a similar point re robots in the podcast - see @James post above.
Altho... how much anticipation does this little guy do?
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2015
- Posts
- 24,928
Well just blurt out anything with energy during your 15 minutes on the hill. If you want to make a different type of turn, and extend the transition flat, fine. Claiming all the diagrams are wrong, interesting. What exactly is wrong? The second guy doesn't really do that. Who knows what "their manuals" said.
When "physics" is mentioned that's often a clue that things might go off the rails.
The "physics" that's just wrong is saying you have to stay flat and go sideways across the hill in transition until "you have something to push off". It's called using momentum, using the energy from the previous turn, or...just falling. Tons of people do it knowing nothing.
Maybe they never watched the Ted Ligety NY Times video? He's pushing on the little toe side of the inside before edge change so it's quicker changing. We talked about that even years before that on epic.
From the vid:
"If you just dive inside, you're just falling."
I think tbe phrase "falling into the future" is a good phrase. Quite descriptive and prescriptive.
All of skiing involves falling somehow.
The key part from the vid:
"...rather than moving your center of gravity inside and hoping, [laughs], hoping, that something comes back at you..."
( The second guy is much better. He emphasizes it's "a split second". Wait, whst about the physics?
So, the issue here is the NZ Team has no hope?
Beginner's have little or no hope, (unless they're very young), that the skis will turn them. Novices have no hope on steep, for them, terrain that if they commit downhill, their skis will come around and catch them. So, they do everything possible to avoid that. They get very creative. You will do something to turn. You will not release and commit. It's not natural. We have no hope. We have to learn to trust it. The less hope you have, the more defensive you become.
What turns us is the skis pushing on the snow. How exactly this happens doesn't really matter, though it'll have consequences. So, if one is "just falling", essentially weightless, and then the skis are out to the side and push, you will turn. You could jump 75 meters in the air, land on your edges and... hope "something will come back at you." Eg, you'll turn. If snow conditions are right, like a world cup downhill course, you'll land and turn. No need for a flat ski section and waiting.
At some point, we go from one set of edges to the other. Our body goes from uphill to downhill, or maybe side to side. Modern equipment has made this much easier. Fifty - sixty years ago it required a lot of work to go from one side of the skis to the other. Modern equipment makes it so we can do less and less. We can actually get way in front of our equipment and hope it will come back at us and it usually does.
Some skiers with hope.
Photo Ron LeMaster
Bode Miller, "just" falling into the future hoping something will come back in time to make the red gate.
Not much time to get the work done. No time for the NZ pause.
Even the NZ guy has to go from one side to the other. What's the point of the pause? I don't get it. Maybe @Mike King will explain.
Attachments
Well, you can argue the wording with the NZSIA. I note that they seemed to have the biggest number of attendees of all the nations that had their on snow workshop posted. (Of course that could be down to selective editing...)
One of the other big skier issues (in addition to basic fore/aft balance) I see on the hill is moving inside too soon, with resultant weight on the inside ski and loss of grip of the outside. I'm sure Shiffron, Bode, Hirscher, etc, know very well how where they should be positioned at any time - the general public not so much. If people were as inside riding a bicycle as they often are on skis there'd be a lot more skin removed from knees every day of summer.
Not sure when you learnt to do pure carving turns (or attempted to get more ski performance when doing them). I'm guessing it was probably a while back. For me it was very recent - like last season. I have vivid memories of the occasional times when I tipped into a turn and the outside ski carried straight on! It's disconcerting having to play catch with the inside leg, doubly so at speed heading into the trees on the side. Thankfully that didn't happen this season despite ramping up the ski performance.
This is where I think the NZ idea is aimed. From transition into the early part of the turn there's not a lot of centripetal force to balance against. Once the ski is on edge and with a little weight on it, it will begin to turn and then forces to balance against will build. If we move inside too early then there's a chance:
1. The ski could go straight on
2. We could put weight on the inside ski and lose outside ski performance.
Note in the still images you have posted:
1. Bode's outside ski is already on edge in the 1st frame
2. In Shiffron's case all the interesting bits happen between frame 2 and 3 so we've missed what happened.
3. With the NZ guy, his inside ski is in the air in images 2 and 3 so we can be pretty certain he's not inside.
On straight skis, the transition was all about moving the center of mass inside. On shaped skis, the issue is to get the bend in the ski. If you move the CoM inside too quickly, you may lose contact and pressure on the ski. The key is to move with the ski through edge change while the ankles and (more importantly) the lower leg tip the skis. As the edge is created, it creates a platform to accept pressure from the turn. And as the pressure builds, with the CoM remaining over the ski, the ski bends.
Of course, if you are a world class world cup athlete with 10's of thousands of hours training, you may be able to short change the process. And while it is great to look at those pictures of WC racers doing incredible things, the other 99.9% of us who don't have that level of skill or athleticism need to take advantage of movement patterns that work for mere mortals. Even so, you will see the elements described in the first paragraph in most WC skiing, more obvious in slalom than in GS.
Mike
Of course, if you are a world class world cup athlete with 10's of thousands of hours training, you may be able to short change the process. And while it is great to look at those pictures of WC racers doing incredible things, the other 99.9% of us who don't have that level of skill or athleticism need to take advantage of movement patterns that work for mere mortals. Even so, you will see the elements described in the first paragraph in most WC skiing, more obvious in slalom than in GS.
Mike
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2015
- Posts
- 24,928
^ So why don't the NZ guys just say that? Instead of couching it in all sorts of bs pseudo scientific talk?
Of those who do, and get it, moving inside too soon is corrected. I do it all the time when switching to long radius skis. Even if I've been on them for hours. My default move is for a slalom radius response, so sometimes I forget I'm on on a 21-26m radius. Oh well. You correct the next turn.
If you move inside too soon, you learn. Almost every racer does it prob once between two runs in gs. Everyone does it. It's not a big deal.
So, the NZ technique is to prevent going inside too soon? You made that up or you're getting it from some NZ Team source? That's not what the guy is claiming. He's talking about physics and the turn diagrams being "wrong". We're not sure what diagrams they are. Now, to be fair, maybe they presented this inside. Do you know?
It's fine to develop this hold onto transition longer if you want. Just don't give us bs physics reasons and reasons in general that are plain wrong. But, this is odd- he demos a high performance turn with training wheels? That guy is not skiing at public speeds. So this general public problem of weighting the inside ski isn't really covered, is it?
1) Yes, and he's still in transition. The old outside ski still isn't fully released. So, no flat spot, he's getting on edge asap.
2) Yes, we don't have the in between. Extrapolate. Her new outside ski goes from negative 15-20 deg edge angle, to plus 45-50. In one frame. There's no time for a flat spot.
3)
The NZ guy: one could be in the image 4 position by prob image 2 or between 2 and 3 if they wanted to. He was going pretty fast. Meaning, you could have moved inside more and flexed the inside leg. But he's doing something else. That's fine. Just don't try to sell us a crock.
Maybe the real issue is people not balancing on the outside ski.
Of those who do, and get it, moving inside too soon is corrected. I do it all the time when switching to long radius skis. Even if I've been on them for hours. My default move is for a slalom radius response, so sometimes I forget I'm on on a 21-26m radius. Oh well. You correct the next turn.
If you move inside too soon, you learn. Almost every racer does it prob once between two runs in gs. Everyone does it. It's not a big deal.
So, the NZ technique is to prevent going inside too soon? You made that up or you're getting it from some NZ Team source? That's not what the guy is claiming. He's talking about physics and the turn diagrams being "wrong". We're not sure what diagrams they are. Now, to be fair, maybe they presented this inside. Do you know?
It's fine to develop this hold onto transition longer if you want. Just don't give us bs physics reasons and reasons in general that are plain wrong. But, this is odd- he demos a high performance turn with training wheels? That guy is not skiing at public speeds. So this general public problem of weighting the inside ski isn't really covered, is it?
1) Yes, and he's still in transition. The old outside ski still isn't fully released. So, no flat spot, he's getting on edge asap.
2) Yes, we don't have the in between. Extrapolate. Her new outside ski goes from negative 15-20 deg edge angle, to plus 45-50. In one frame. There's no time for a flat spot.
3)
The NZ guy: one could be in the image 4 position by prob image 2 or between 2 and 3 if they wanted to. He was going pretty fast. Meaning, you could have moved inside more and flexed the inside leg. But he's doing something else. That's fine. Just don't try to sell us a crock.
Take it up with the NZSIA. For myself, apart from the occasional appeal to the "universal laws of nature", I didn't see too much that was too out of wack. Do you care to be specific?
Yes. Which requires a platform on which to balance.
- Create a platform
- Create grip using leg activity
- Complete weight shift to the new outside ski.
Which is written on the screen in big letters at 5:10.
Maybe you do. Plenty of people don't learn. Which is strange given most of those same people do an ok job of getting around a corner on a bicycle/motorcycle. Perhaps it's because on skis we have a choice. (Or most people don't lean their bikes over very far.)
I'm terribly sorry. I didn't realise the words "This is where I think the NZ idea is aimed" implied absolute certainty. In future I'll use something like "Just a wild thought".
Which diagram do you think he means?
Is there any other S shaped CoM/BoS diagram?
I'm beginning to wonder if you watched the same clip as me.
1. He's Bode Miller. Most successful USA male ski racer of all time. I'm sure he's really quick from edge to edge. So fast he's already on the new edge of the outside ski so we've missed it. He is already creating a platform.
BTW do you throw your outside arm up like that? Do you think the rest of us should so that when we're doing a few carves on the piste?
2. Since we are being so scientifically precise... we have to interpolate - not extrapolate - between frames 2 and 3. (We'd extrapolate after frame 3 because that's the difference between interpolation and extrapolation.) One of the things we also need to interpolate is ski pivoting as they've gone from ~8 o'clock to nearly 6 o'clock between frames 2 and 3.
3. Did you watch this part on Completion Phase?
Paraphrasing around the 3 min mark...
How we control and then release the pressure at the end of the turn...Needs to be some kind of softening (flexion movement - bend through ankles/knees/hips) in order to control that pressure and allow the skier to flow into the next turn.
With accompanying hand gestures.
Yep. Get the ski on edge with the lower legs. Keep the tip and tail engaged so the tilted ski bends. As forces build increase inclination (CoM more and more inside) and angulation at the hip.
Well, that's my wild guess at what should happen. There's other stuff like extending the new outside leg and balancing on the outside ski and keeping eye on the ball through the swing and ...
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2015
- Posts
- 24,928
Thanks for the detailed response.
No reason to apologize. I thought perchance you read some of their material. Or were DXing and listening to the Bulgarian shortwave broadcast. That's what that tower is for. Your original phrase is far superior. Don't go trashing your thoughts.
Interpolate- yes, good.
Well, maybe not. I looked it up. Looks like either is good. Extrapolate might actually be better in this instance since there's no specific values. However, your use of interpolate seems good too. Feel free to call in a grammarian.
-----------------------------------------
"Extrapolation is an estimation of a value based on extending a known sequence of values or facts beyond the area that is certainly known. In a general sense, to extrapolate is to infer something that is not explicitly stated from existing information."
"Interpolation is an estimation of a value within two known values in a sequence of values. Polynomial interpolation is a method of estimating values between known data points. When graphical datacontains a gap, but data is available on either side of the gap or at a few specific points within the gap, interpolation allows us to estimate the values within the gap."
-------------------------------------
https://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/extrapolation-and-interpolation
Your video started at 6:30. That's what I watched. You presented it as talking about a delay part in transition relevant to this conversation. I watched the relevant parts. Then, spurred on by the uniforms, had a good rant.
NZ1 explained. I learned we have to use physics instead of hope, and inferred the NZ Team has no hope in a skiing sense. Falling is outside physics apparently. At least he didn't go all General Relativity on us, or I couldn't follow.
No. See above. I'm beginning to think the whole presentation in the middle is now all backtracked?
Who knows what's in a NZ manual. I can guess. He said "our manuals". They're worldwide now? He's in NZ, everything is upside down. He babbled about perfect geometric curves, French Curves, symmetry. Wtf. "Sweet as mate."
I watched the first video you posted. I quoted him, I didn't quote the physics part. Here it is. (This takes forever to transcribe on a phone btw.) Wait2 -doesn't physics involve geometry, and like curves? Possibly even perfect ones.
At 6:30 -
"[Clients/Instructors/Students]
They got this idea that at the top of the turn, as you went into initiation, you had to dive your center of gravity into the new turn. But if we go back for a second...But we've got to use physics. If you just dive inside, you're just falling.
We need to move in such a way that we keep our CoG up, above our base of support. So that we can move, with our legs. That creates a platform... Because we are travelling the snow pushes back, and because the snow is pushing back your CoG has to move inside. In order to balance [?] the forces.
Rather than...moving your center of gravity inside and hoping, [laughs], hoping, that something comes back at you..."
My point is, the whole basis for this is not what he says. You can do it, but you do not have to.
You can have a platform from the transition. Sure, it will have little pressure, but it builds. You do not need to "wait". You do not need to be a worldcup skier to do this.
You don't need a platform to get inside- push you inside, as he says.
That's what I'm saying. That's the big part actually.
Now, I might go watch the rest of the video. Writing with one finger sucks.
Point B: If the point is for normal skiers, why demo it at 45 mph? (Esp given your dislike of using wcup skiers,) At which point btw, with his level, he could easily have been upside down shortly after transition. No flat spot needed.
If people are skiing with those type of forces in their few carves, sure it happens. Watch a junior race. (Wait, why "a few carves" -Then they're tired and have lunch?)
That's a result of the release of force from the previous turn and body going the other way. Yes, both in the very little gs I've done but now it happens usually on steeper terrain of mixed snow. Though often I think it's because I've left the arm behind before transition. So a mistake. But yes, it requires getting it into position usually quickly.
Ligety used to intentionally do it to counter I think, but it's low, not high.
It's not that uncommon. We're not talkiing Bode speeds.
I'm trying to understand your skiers difficulties.
Seems to be:
Skiers "can't get inside" , this technique of delayed transition gives them a platform to push off. This will help people.
Is this what you're saying?
Ok, those people already have a quite delayed transition, thus have any platform they want, and in the cases you're talking about it's still not working. So, now they push the outside foot? Since they've "got to use physics"? Whst changes to make them better with this??
I'm confused what you're saying by this.
That was in redponse to talking about moving in too quickly sometimes and learning to modify the timing.
What is the issue? They're moving in too fast, they're not moving in, they're balanced on the inside foot? What?
Last edited:
From the discussion on this thread, I resolve to make enjoyable skiing turns on snow using many combinations of lateral weight shift, as well as rocking the ski fore and aft.
Why?
Because there is a movement best suited to every situation, and no one movement answers the needs of any specific situation.
nuff said!
Why?
Because there is a movement best suited to every situation, and no one movement answers the needs of any specific situation.
nuff said!
Thanks for the detailed response.
No reason to apologize. I thought perchance you read some of their material. Or were DXing and listening to the Bulgarian shortwave broadcast. That's what that tower is for. Your original phrase is far superior. Don't go trashing your thoughts.
Interpolate- yes, good.
Well, maybe not. I looked it up. Looks like either is good. Extrapolate might actually be better in this instance since there's no specific values. However, your use of interpolate seems good too. Feel free to call in a grammarian.
-----------------------------------------
"Extrapolation is an estimation of a value based on extending a known sequence of values or facts beyond the area that is certainly known. In a general sense, to extrapolate is to infer something that is not explicitly stated from existing information."
"Interpolation is an estimation of a value within two known values in a sequence of values. Polynomial interpolation is a method of estimating values between known data points. When graphical datacontains a gap, but data is available on either side of the gap or at a few specific points within the gap, interpolation allows us to estimate the values within the gap."
-------------------------------------
https://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/extrapolation-and-interpolation
Your video started at 6:30. That's what I watched. You presented it as talking about a delay part in transition relevant to this conversation. I watched the relevant parts. Then, spurred on by the uniforms, had a good rant.
NZ1 explained. I learned we have to use physics instead of hope, and inferred the NZ Team has no hope in a skiing sense. Falling is outside physics apparently. At least he didn't go all General Relativity on us, or I couldn't follow.
No. See above. I'm beginning to think the whole presentation in the middle is now all backtracked?
Who knows what's in a NZ manual. I can guess. He said "our manuals". They're worldwide now? He's in NZ, everything is upside down. He babbled about perfect geometric curves, French Curves, symmetry. Wtf. "Sweet as mate."
I watched the first video you posted. I quoted him, I didn't quote the physics part. Here it is. (This takes forever to transcribe on a phone btw.) Wait2 -doesn't physics involve geometry, and like curves? Possibly even perfect ones.
At 6:30 -
"[Clients/Instructors/Students]
They got this idea that at the top of the turn, as you went into initiation, you had to dive your center of gravity into the new turn. But if we go back for a second...But we've got to use physics. If you just dive inside, you're just falling.
We need to move in such a way that we keep our CoG up, above our base of support. So that we can move, with our legs. That creates a platform... Because we are travelling the snow pushes back, and because the snow is pushing back your CoG has to move inside. In order to balance [?] the forces.
Rather than...moving your center of gravity inside and hoping, [laughs], hoping, that something comes back at you..."
My point is, the whole basis for this is not what he says. You can do it, but you do not have to.
You can have a platform from the transition. Sure, it will have little pressure, but it builds. You do not need to "wait". You do not need to be a worldcup skier to do this.
You don't need a platform to get inside- push you inside, as he says.
That's what I'm saying. That's the big part actually.
Now, I might go watch the rest of the video. Writing with one finger sucks.
Point B: If the point is for normal skiers, why demo it at 45 mph? (Esp given your dislike of using wcup skiers,) At which point btw, with his level, he could easily have been upside down shortly after transition. No flat spot needed.
If people are skiing with those type of forces in their few carves, sure it happens. Watch a junior race. (Wait, why "a few carves" -Then they're tired and have lunch?)
That's a result of the release of force from the previous turn and body going the other way. Yes, both in the very little gs I've done but now it happens usually on steeper terrain of mixed snow. Though often I think it's because I've left the arm behind before transition. So a mistake. But yes, it requires getting it into position usually quickly.
Ligety used to intentionally do it to counter I think, but it's low, not high.
It's not that uncommon. We're not talkiing Bode speeds.
I'm trying to understand your skiers difficulties.
Seems to be:
Skiers "can't get inside" , this technique of delayed transition gives them a platform to push off. This will help people.
Is this what you're saying?
Ok, those people already have a quite delayed transition, thus have any platform they want, and in the cases you're talking about it's still not working. So, now they push the outside foot? Since they've "got to use physics"? Whst changes to make them better with this??
I'm confused what you're saying by this.
That was in redponse to talking about moving in too quickly sometimes and learning to modify the timing.
What is the issue? They're moving in too fast, they're not moving in, they're balanced on the inside foot? What?
Yep, it's the antipodeans - Oz and NZ (and Sth Amex I suppose) are all upside down. Can't help but ski mirror image S.
The way I see it...
Many skiers, right on up to candidates for CSIA L3 (from what I've seen), have an issue with moving inside too soon. Moving inside in this context is CoM inclining inside more than required to balance the centripetal force. The resultant problems:
1. May not establish an outside ski platform to balance against. That's the new outside ski engaged with the snow along the whole edge and a platform angle (Ron le Master definition) less than 90 degrees. If not established, the outside ski is likely to lose grip as the forces increase through the turn. Now, even for a rec skier all this happens pretty quickly. But the quicker the CoM moves inside the more rapidly the lower body (ankles/knees) has to move to maintain platform angle.
Slowing the inclination allows more time to establish the platform.
2. May have weight on the inside ski. That's less than optimal (PSIA fundamental about directing pressure to the outside ski...) Could wait a bit for the forces to catch up and then continue to flex the inside leg. But start/stop/start is a tough ask. Another generalisation: Always be moving in or moving out. Being patient at the top of the turn, fractionally delaying/slowing moving the CoM inside means the movement in, the inclination as forces build, has a better chance of being continuous.
I think of it like absorbing too quickly. Once the leg suspension is used up there's nothing in reserve.
Now, is this really no movement of the upper body for some small period of time? Well, certainly, I've done drills that lengthen transition by a ski length or 2 aimed at ensuring weight is literally on top of the new outside ski. As with anything it happens faster with proficiency, there's a margin of error because we are bipedal and there's more than one way to bell the cat.
Bit of pedantic-ness:
It's interpolation because we have information about the body positions at the beginning - frame 2. And at the end - frame 3. So we interpolate between those 2 boundaries. If we were attempting to predict what happened at (unshown) frame 4 then we would be extrapolating beyond our previous data points.
That is certainly the distinction between interpolate and extrapolate for a mathematical function. Whether it carries over into general English usage (where it is, after all, a metaphor) is an open question.
I not sure what Geepers is saying but there is certainly a moment of both static and dynamic unbalance at the initiation of a carved turn.
Moving the body to an unbalanced position so that it is well stacked as the ski bites is essential and this is why it is hard to turn skidders into carvers.
At a much higher lever, no racer wants to extend the turn, they want to get on the edges as early as possible and get full engagement before the fall line.
I agree there is a fraction where patience is required but strategies like loading the LTE are all about getting the carve going before the fall line.
Moving the body to an unbalanced position so that it is well stacked as the ski bites is essential and this is why it is hard to turn skidders into carvers.
At a much higher lever, no racer wants to extend the turn, they want to get on the edges as early as possible and get full engagement before the fall line.
I agree there is a fraction where patience is required but strategies like loading the LTE are all about getting the carve going before the fall line.
I don’t understand what you are saying; what is unbalanced? And why is it necessary to be unbalanced to be stacked?
Yep, it's the antipodeans - Oz and NZ (and Sth Amex I suppose) are all upside down. Can't help but ski mirror image S.
The way I see it...
Many skiers, right on up to candidates for CSIA L3 (from what I've seen), have an issue with moving inside too soon. Moving inside in this context is CoM inclining inside more than required to balance the centripetal force. The resultant problems:
1. May not establish an outside ski platform to balance against. That's the new outside ski engaged with the snow along the whole edge and a platform angle (Ron le Master definition) less than 90 degrees. If not established, the outside ski is likely to lose grip as the forces increase through the turn. Now, even for a rec skier all this happens pretty quickly. But the quicker the CoM moves inside the more rapidly the lower body (ankles/knees) has to move to maintain platform angle.
Slowing the inclination allows more time to establish the platform.
This is likely true but I think the more common deficiency is that the skidding results from a push of the legs rather than a failure to establish a platform that can accept the pressure. I think this often occurs because the skier believes they need to send their mass inside the turn, so to propel the mass to move in, they extend their legs. If they instead allowed the knees to move in first and the feet to travel out the body can follow later with the result that 1) the platform has been established that can accept pressure and 2) the body is angulated rather than simply inclined.
One way to look at unbalance is to imagine what would happen if all motion was instantaneously stopped so that dynamic forces are not in play.
In a static unbalance situation, you would fall over.
Dynamic unbalance is more complicated but the concept is the same.
There is a moment in time where you are not in static balance and if some dynamic forces don't kick in soon you are going to fall over.
The reason you need to do unbalanced stuff is so you are in the right place when the ski starts to turn under you.
We all experience that "moment of doubt" when you do all the stuff required to initiate a turn but the ski has not started to respond yet.
That is when you move to accept the forces that are soon coming, the forces that will bring you back in balance.
Ski in the future.
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2015
- Posts
- 24,928
I suspect that in a general sense extrapolate is the one we want. Mainly because we're attempting to determine a movement that is somewhat unknown, and the whole process is not necessarily a continous one. Perhap's in math there's complicated functions that describe discontinuities yet maintain a curve? Then would interpolate make sense?
I guess, the question is, would extrapolate be used for a quantum stuation, as everything is a probability?
I'm way off the bell curve of my knowledge now.
Or just cut the whole top off. Who actually makes round turns in slalom
other than the flats or flushes? Everything is cut off.
I think you really nailed it with this post-
I remember last year skiing with a couple guys who recently graduated college. They'd raced D1 for four years. Their whole life skiing was racing. What stood out massively in how they freeskied was the enormous inclination they would use at the top of the turn. Just seeing it you'd say it was way too much, there's no way you could pull that off. It's a huge risk entering a turn like that, and at a good speed. It was nothing to them, fun excercise. Turn after turn on pitch like that.
One of the parents was there. Asked me half seriously, "Will I ever be able to ski like that?"
I laughed and said no, I'd never get there either. They could certainly get a lot better, but to do that would take years. Years that were sort of passed? He laughs, "Well it cost us enough for that."
There's an age where learning to take such risks is not a big deal. Plus the strength and flexibility to deal with the forces that come back. There's certsinly other areas those guys needed to improve on. Bumps for instance.
On the other hand we have people apparently moving in too quickly. So, what to do?
@geepers , what are the effects, symptoms of said people. You detailed them, but it's really sort of general. What are these skiers looking to improve on? What is really the deficiency overall?
This is where the psia standard for railroaf tracks is way too low. The task is not that much out of the fall line, really only involves mostly the lower legs. That should be level 1. Higher levels should have to do turns much further across the fall line in a limited trail width, not narrow, but saw two lane road size. A steep green or easy blue pitch. To do that you have to anticipate, and move your body into the future. If you don't anticipate and start early, you'll never carve before the side of the trail and have to twist the skis. I'm not talking big speed here. You can also do it on flatter stuff at slower speeds. Then angulation is really important or you'll fall over.
What I'm constantly amazed at, is I practice stuff like that all the time. Just going from one place to another on flat trails. That's fun. There's so much involved. Yet, many, many never do. It's just like a task that almost doesn't relate to skiing. They have to go and make a special practice of it. But, they could be in the gym so to speak without going, just changing normal activities a tiny bit.
Edit -just saw your last post. Even better.
I remember a few years ago when I demoed an Apex boot. I had been pretty surprised by it, expecting the worst. Oddly, it wasn't comfortsble.
So I go on a very familiar trail with a bit of a pitch. The intent was turns nearish right angles to the fall line. On the first one I moved downhill, and nothing happened. No response from the ski. For a split second I thought crap! I'm going to superman and face plant. Somehow, I got out of it without s faceplant, and I didn't do that type of turn again.
Well we're getting somewhere now. In the Ron LeMaster interview on Global Skiing podcast he talks of Mermeer's view that as instructors we talk about movements all the time, but not what we want the ski to do.
In this instance, do we not just want them to edge the ski and create the platform? And to do this early. Then maintain pressure on that ski.
Yes, a push. This is the possible problem with talking so much about pressuring a platform, and extending the transition to do that. I see people pushing it to get it down now.
Last edited:
@James get what down now? Just for clarification on my part...
Hmm, I'm working to puzzle this out. By way of disclosure, I'm a PSIA level 2 working on my 3. My medium radius turns are at the level 3 standard according to national team members and very old-time examiners who also coach race and my high performance dynamic short turns are close. There are times when I really work on delaying edge change to get the ski more under me that it feels dangerous -- is that what you'd say was unbalanced? Most of the time, I don't feel unbalanced, but perhaps it is the amount of repetition I've had that I've become accustomed to the feelings and sensations? I do think that I ski with anticipation.
Mike
Yep, it's the antipodeans - Oz and NZ (and Sth Amex I suppose) are all upside down. Can't help but ski mirror image S.
The way I see it...
Many skiers, right on up to candidates for CSIA L3 (from what I've seen), have an issue with moving inside too soon. Moving inside in this context is CoM inclining inside more than required to balance the centripetal force.
PSIA L3 candidates as well.
Well, I'd say I see an awful lot of Level 3 instructors who do so as well.
