If the aim is cloning Patrick Bätz may be best to add to that list many 100+ day seasons of diligent development and probably a few years of back to back north/south seasons for good measure.
-
For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.
Lower body motion
- Thread starter Seldomski
- Start date
If the aim is cloning Patrick Bätz may be best to add to that list many 100+ day seasons of diligent development and probably a few years of back to back north/south seasons for good measure.
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2015
- Posts
- 6,358
I see this energetic snap to his flex and extend vs. what looks like energy robbing dampness that we see one some of these videos. That same snap is in Valentina and in Richi Berger. In the video that was posted earlier this year of Richi Berger doing those really quick carved short turns there is so much flex and extend that is perfectly timed and really keeps the whole thing going.
Snap - great word choice.
That knees-up snap makes the turn.
Thread Starter
TS
Interesting observation. I think @Erik Timmerman and @LiquidFeet are pulling at the same thread here.
For developing skier doing short turns, the up down/vertical motion helps to reduce the force at the end of the turn as well as encourage toppling into the next one. This is for a more 'smeary' short turn that may be lacking some carving at the top. This style turn is not 'bad.' I would rather take that style turn into the moguls vs what Baetz is doing in the video in the original post. But, I'm nowhere near Baetz level obviously -- lol! Maybe he can survive in the bumps with a 'very carved' short turn.
What Baetz is doing in the video in the original post is a bit different. He is not trying to set an edge or manage an edge set at the end of the turn. Instead, he is flowing from turn to turn with edging happening very early in the turn, right at completion of the prior turn with no smearing. His vertical motion / knee flexion is required to allow the ski to snap around at turn completion without launching him straight up. He also is crossing over the skis as this happens. The path traced by the skis is creating a virtual bump that he has to manage. His legs are doing what they need to do to keep the body in the right spot relative to the skis. And as mentioned in prior posts, he is very efficient in this, not dissipating much if any power from the skis as he flexes.
So I think as you get more lateral displacement of the skis relative to the body in the short turn (ie a very carved short turn vs smeared), the flexion is still happening, but the timing and reason for doing it change a bit. You move the legs to try to maintain a light touch on the skis everywhere but at the apex (when skis are at max angle). You can see him reach a bit with his new outside ski at the top of the turn (after toppling) to get it biting very early.
Edit to add: I'm not an instructor, just a student posting my thoughts so someone smarter can correct them.
Bumps. Either mogul fields/lines, or bump tracks in terrain parks / skiercross courses. Focus is to keep hips and upper body stable as snow and legs undulate beneath. Then tranlate that range of motion to the flats.
I really like this guy’s carved turns compared to most at this level and I’ll tell you why. First, he is clean, clean, clean, His alignment is clean, his skis are clean and his movements are as clean as Swiss clockwork. Very efficient, very dynamic, incredible separation and an intense level of carving control of both skis. Most of his skill is hidden under the shell of the boot. He is creating the energy of a mogul skier but on flat terrain which, alone, speaks to the level of the manipulation of forces that he commands. He is using that energy to create a separation that is as fluid as the power he evokes from the turn. There is no flavor of kool aid that can describe this technique. It is what it is, pure and simple. I love his arm swing, which, to me, says he is so independent between his upper and lower that he can truly use it all as one unit.
An interesting discussion here and in particular, about the skier’s comments:
"But if you are at the beginning of your short turns you need that vertical movement to build up the right lines and to get easier separation."
This comment means to me a substantial amount of flexion that we maintain throughout the entire turn cycle otherwise referred to as “stance flexion”, etc., and it is basically chosen at the beginning of a turn set of a chosen type of turn. His reference to “vertical movement” is not a vertical movement within each turn but rather just once to set that stance flexion for the following turn set. For a technical freeskier, a “turn set” is typically considered an uninterrupted set of turns using the same rhythm. A race course has turn sets that are separated with off-set turns, new fall lines and rhythm changes.
"As more dynamic it gets as less vertical movement you need."
The way I understand this is that vertical and lateral separation (of the CoM & BoS) are proportionally determinant to each other in that, the more you use one, the less you will have available of the other. Imagine the CoM and BoS as two soccer balls attached by a two foot cord. If you want the bottom soccer ball to reach the furthest from side to side, the top soccer ball must be kept as low as possible. If you want the top soccer ball to separate vertically (up & down) as much as possible, the lower ball must be kept directly under the top ball. Respectively, if a skier wants to achieve maximum lateral displacement of the BoS for high performance carved turns, the CoM must be kept as low as possible w/little if any vertical movement. If a skier wants to achieve maximum vertical separation for high performance moguls, there must be almost zero lateral displacement (direct line) of the BoS. In both cases I am referring to the BoS as moving vertically and laterally, not the CoM as it maintains a steady flight path down the hill in both respects.
I agree very much that a mogul and a virtual bump from high performance carving create similar flexion patterns and timing where the feet are moving up and down over the mogul or virtual bump. It helps to be able to imagine the relative vertical axis that the CoM and BoS operate on. They can both move independently along this axis. Similar to vertical and lateral separation mentioned above, vertical movements of the CoM and BoS, individually, are proportionally determinant to each other as the two soccer balls will collide somewhere along their relative vertical axis. The more you use one, the less you will have of the other. These are the choices that need to be made: what to do with your soccer balls. If we can further imagine the three dimensional matrix that is the relationship between the CoM and BoS as they move in the sagittal, frontal and transverse planes working both with and against each other in open and closed chain status, that is all the physics we really need to know in order to understand skiing at its most eloquent level of necessity.
An interesting discussion here and in particular, about the skier’s comments:
"But if you are at the beginning of your short turns you need that vertical movement to build up the right lines and to get easier separation."
This comment means to me a substantial amount of flexion that we maintain throughout the entire turn cycle otherwise referred to as “stance flexion”, etc., and it is basically chosen at the beginning of a turn set of a chosen type of turn. His reference to “vertical movement” is not a vertical movement within each turn but rather just once to set that stance flexion for the following turn set. For a technical freeskier, a “turn set” is typically considered an uninterrupted set of turns using the same rhythm. A race course has turn sets that are separated with off-set turns, new fall lines and rhythm changes.
"As more dynamic it gets as less vertical movement you need."
The way I understand this is that vertical and lateral separation (of the CoM & BoS) are proportionally determinant to each other in that, the more you use one, the less you will have available of the other. Imagine the CoM and BoS as two soccer balls attached by a two foot cord. If you want the bottom soccer ball to reach the furthest from side to side, the top soccer ball must be kept as low as possible. If you want the top soccer ball to separate vertically (up & down) as much as possible, the lower ball must be kept directly under the top ball. Respectively, if a skier wants to achieve maximum lateral displacement of the BoS for high performance carved turns, the CoM must be kept as low as possible w/little if any vertical movement. If a skier wants to achieve maximum vertical separation for high performance moguls, there must be almost zero lateral displacement (direct line) of the BoS. In both cases I am referring to the BoS as moving vertically and laterally, not the CoM as it maintains a steady flight path down the hill in both respects.
I agree very much that a mogul and a virtual bump from high performance carving create similar flexion patterns and timing where the feet are moving up and down over the mogul or virtual bump. It helps to be able to imagine the relative vertical axis that the CoM and BoS operate on. They can both move independently along this axis. Similar to vertical and lateral separation mentioned above, vertical movements of the CoM and BoS, individually, are proportionally determinant to each other as the two soccer balls will collide somewhere along their relative vertical axis. The more you use one, the less you will have of the other. These are the choices that need to be made: what to do with your soccer balls. If we can further imagine the three dimensional matrix that is the relationship between the CoM and BoS as they move in the sagittal, frontal and transverse planes working both with and against each other in open and closed chain status, that is all the physics we really need to know in order to understand skiing at its most eloquent level of necessity.
Brilliant.
Implied but not directly addressed: Your degree of lateral separation is dependent on how fast you go and how rapidly your direction changes. You can't just decide to ski with maximum horizontal movement and still be noodling down the greens.
There IS a move where you -accelerate- on run-outs using maximum snap horizontal movement. I believe Josh was posting about it ~20 years ago; he used to win some event or other that had a sub-green runout.
There is also an inline skate version of it - parallel turn acceleration - and given @Seldomski s inline hobby and this thread I totally expected to hear about him practicing it.
Thread Starter
TS
I am much worse at skating than you give me credit for
. You can skate right down a green run on skis and get some more edge angle that way. Basically you are falling forward and pushing off the new outside ski right after transition, actively pushing down the hill. But that's not really noodling anymore. Is that what you are talking about?Thanks @Sledhead for your insight. Seems so simple when you think about it. You have to stay vertically stacked in moguls to absorb the terrain. If you want really large angles on flat terrain, you need to let the skis displace horizontally so they can be at that angle - then stay low at transition to get back to those large angles quickly.
Yes, except *both* skis/skates. If you have underpush on skates, you can do it on SL skis.
Like this (except not quite - it has taken me years to unlearn that jerky ankle opening on the outside edge push)
I take your and @Fuller s point about not noodling
