Practice

[john petersen]

There is some study out there too, that is finding a distinction between skills and ability. You guys are touching on this....dancing all around it, too....

I have not read up on it...but they say that you have a certain amount of ability to work with...its what god gave ya.....You can work the skills and improve technique and perfect some of those skills, but you will only get so far.

I dont like this line of thinking....Im more of a Walter Mitty type......going by glorified ideals on the chairlift up and then working like crazy to achieve those ideals. I dont like to imagine a glass ceiling, end of improvement, limited achievement.
but, it may explain in part why the Mikealas and ligetys and Millers and Mahers and Ericksons ect have been able to achieve such heights.

more on this later..., but engaging in the best practice time you can....really working on technique and, like Liquid says, allowing yourself to look foolish on the slopes once in a while to really push a movement to its limits is necessary. (I dont mind being the clown out there, either...."What the heck is that guy doing?" is fine with me!)

I also work on stuff all the time in lessons....its all good.....whatever my guests are working on must be relevant....it is skiing after all...wedge turns, bring em on...christies, rr tracks, slips, backwards, 180s, 360s, half pipe, woods, steep stuff...yeah...lets go.

This forum is nice too, as it is open minded and curious. exploring a concept or idea or opinion is encouraged. We
have explored many ideas here to some interesting and deep conclusions...

Understanding an idea or concept fully really helps when you on the slopes...it keeps some of the gremlins away, you know?

JP

 

[Mendieta]

Thanks @LiquidFeet for the great response. I agree with everything you said so well. I think for the non local vacation skier ie. 10-20 days per season will only take you so far and then a plateau develops. I've been lucky to have had some great instruction along the way, am pretty athletic, and 44 yrs old so I think these factors helped me get where I am at now. But, the competitor in me really wants to keep the progression going and it seems clear that I need to significantly increase my days on snow in the coming years to reach my goals. Thanks again!

It is very likely that you hit, not a wall, but the upper level of the ski development. It seem to me that the scale of learning is logarithmic. If it takes a day from level 1 to 2, and a week to get to level 4, but getting out of 6 takes perhaps a hundred? Fifty? And it keeps getting harder. Each level it takes longer.

The way I see it, there are different goals for different people. In my case, I started as an adult, and I know I will never be an elite skier. I couldn't care less. I want to improve so I can explore more of the mountain. And, the main reason I want to ski as frequently as possible, is the fact that I absolutely love skiing. The mountain, the community, clicking those skis, making those turns, it's all magic.

To be sure, I care about skiing better, which is why I am a member of this great community. Since I joined, at the beginning of this season, I made a quantum leap in my skiing, because I was hooked up with the right instructors, the right equipment, and I learned a lot from you guys, most of who are well more advanced than I am.

It's all about the mountain for me

 

[BornToSki683]

Never say never

 

[john petersen]

upon further investigation....

just to add to the distinction regarding skills and abilities as it relates to good practice methods........

I wondered if abilities (and hoped this was the case) were developmental. and it seems they are. Though still very much what we bring to the table genetically skills acquisition through lessons or experience or coaching will help the way abilities develop through childhood in a sense. It seems from what I read that we can continue to develop abilities through skill acquisition....though the proportions of skill acquisition far outweigh any ability development.....(my assumption)

This is why the great athletes are able to develop and acquire on such a high level....they seem to be predisposed to be ABLE to do it....
I have not looked too deeply into the list of abilities yet but will follow up on that and other elements of the topic that seem important......

This is encouraging!....there is hope for us all!

Jp

 

[François Pugh]

Proper nurture allows nature to develop to its full potential, but not beyond one's natural potential. There are no three foot tall players in the NBA; there are no 110 lb DH globe winners, etc. However, it's been said, "Anybody can become an expert skier." I disagree, not quite anyone, but the genetic bar is set pretty low, and most people could get there with proper practice. Maybe you won't make it to the upper echelon's of the worldcup - that requires unusually good reflexes, strength, endurance, etc., but you likely can become a very good skier.

 

[Mike King]

Part of the discussion seems to have morphed into the whole 10,000 hours assertion forwarded by Malcolm Gladwell. There's no doubt that repetition is part of mastery, but I think that the point of the article I posted a link to was that repetition (or practice) can be structured to be far more effective than it might otherwise be. In other words, two individuals, both with 5,000 hours of practice, might have far different levels of mastery based on what they did in those 5,000. Let's just look at the headings from that article:

1. The art of practicing is finding a process for repetition without boredom
2. The best processes speed up the cycle of frustration and recovery
3. Breaking things down into small steps isn't enough. Make them smaller
4. No process works without a coach who deeply understands the goal

It might make some sense to think about these in the reverse order. The practice process needs to be guided by a coach. The coach is responsible to the student to help them achieve the goal. They are also responsible to help the student understand when they are getting it and when they are not. Back to our two individuals with 5,000 hours of practice, one guided by a competent coach and the other either not or less frequently, who do you think (everything else held constant) is closer to mastery?
Practice has to work not on the whole but on the details as well. So, in skiing, we need to work toward mastery of the five fundamentals as well as their integration and interrelationship. If all you try to do is ski the bumps, you probably aren't going to make as much progress as if you attempt to work on initiating the turn in the bumps at the limit of your absorption. Focusing on the minutae matters. It is one of the factors that has differentiated Mikeala Schiffrin from the rest of the pack.

You also have to push yourself and allow yourself to fail. If all of your practice is comfortable, then you aren't exploring and developing mastery. Or understanding.

All of this practice can be boring. But repetition is a key to mastery. So, you've got to find a process of practice that continually engages you to get to mastery.

Sure, there is a large amount of work that's necessary to get to mastery in skiing. My point in posting the original article was that smart practice will get you there sooner than just a bunch of work.

Mike

 

[Nancy Hummel]

Part of the discussion seems to have morphed into the whole 10,000 hours assertion forwarded by Malcolm Gladwell. There's no doubt that repetition is part of mastery, but I think that the point of the article I posted a link to was that repetition (or practice) can be structured to be far more effective than it might otherwise be. In other words, two individuals, both with 5,000 hours of practice, might have far different levels of mastery based on what they did in those 5,000. Let's just look at the headings from that article:

1. The art of practicing is finding a process for repetition without boredom
2. The best processes speed up the cycle of frustration and recovery
3. Breaking things down into small steps isn't enough. Make them smaller
4. No process works without a coach who deeply understands the goal

It might make some sense to think about these in the reverse order. The practice process needs to be guided by a coach. The coach is responsible to the student to help them achieve the goal. They are also responsible to help the student understand when they are getting it and when they are not. Back to our two individuals with 5,000 hours of practice, one guided by a competent coach and the other either not or less frequently, who do you think (everything else held constant) is closer to mastery?

Practice has to work not on the whole but on the details as well. So, in skiing, we need to work toward mastery of the five fundamentals as well as their integration and interrelationship. If all you try to do is ski the bumps, you probably aren't going to make as much progress as if you attempt to work on initiating the turn in the bumps at the limit of your absorption. Focusing on the minutae matters. It is one of the factors that has differentiated Mikeala Schiffrin from the rest of the pack.

You also have to push yourself and allow yourself to fail. If all of your practice is comfortable, then you aren't exploring and developing mastery. Or understanding.

All of this practice can be boring. But repetition is a key to mastery. So, you've got to find a process of practice that continually engages you to get to mastery.

Sure, there is a large amount of work that's necessary to get to mastery in skiing. My point in posting the original article was that smart practice will get you there sooner than just a bunch of work.

Mike

I agree with all of your points. With regard to the statement about mastering the five fundamentals, I would take it a step further and state that we need to master the movement patterns that allow us to generate the ski performance we want.

I hear too many people talking about their goal of getting pressure to the outside ski and have no idea of what it means, why they want it and what they need to do it other than they heard a demo team member say it. Mastery involves learning and understanding of the biomechanics and physics and the movements that cause the desired ski performance. Much of this is routinely ignored.

 

[Uke]

So the 5 fundamentals are dependent on movement patterns that are even more fundamental?

uke

 

[graham418]

Remember your inner Po
“Never forget Grasshopper, that, at the most, the teacher can give you fifteen percent of the art. The rest you have to get for yourself through practise and hard work. I can show you the path but I can not walk it for you.”

 

[LiquidFeet]

So the 5 fundamentals are dependent on movement patterns that are even more fundamental? uke

The five fundamentals are an analytical approach for evaluating a skier's skills. They function without reference to turn mechanics. Each is a generality related to watching a skier from a different plane of action.

viewing the skier from the side
--does the skier move feet and body relative to each other in order to direct pressure fore-aft along the length of the skis?
--does the skier smooth out underfoot pressure by flexing and extending?

viewing the skier from overhead
--does the skier control the skis' and upper body's rotation independently of each other?

viewing the skier from the front
--does the skier control edging using both inclination and angulation?
--does the skier do whatever is needed to direct pressure to the outside ski?

Those five fundamentals do not address how to make short radius turns on steepish ice that maximize grip and enables a round turn, nor how to make turns that control downhill speed on a steep trail with 8 inches of heavy fresh snow over large mature bumps, nor do they tell you when to face the trees between turns and when to face downhill. But turn mechanics do. Technical turn mechanics tell you specifically how to make particular turns in particular circumstances.

So comparing those five fundamentals to the mechanics of how-to-make-turns is comparing apples and refrigerators. The word "fundamental" is amorphous.

 

[BornToSki683]

So the 5 fundamentals are dependent on movement patterns that are even more fundamental?

uke

In my opinion that PSIA 5 fundamentals do not represent meaningful technique. They do not contain hardly any information about movements to use, nor tactics for decision making for how to use them. They started out as so called "skills" and skills are totally different then technique. It can be useful to develop skills, but these skills are devoid of actual "technique", in and of themselves. When PSIA updated the skills concept to 5 "fundamentals", instead of 4 skills, they gave a few hints towards some important objectives...such as directing pressure to the outside ski...., which is an objective above and beyond the 4 skills they like to talk about. But still yet many missing objectives....and again...devoid of technique for how to go about accomplishing those objectives. Many people within PSIA teach additional details, techniques and objectives, but its not standardized or codified as official PSIA details, so you can get different information depending on who you talk to.

So yes...the 5 fundamentals are not the be all, end all of how to talk about skiing. They do provide some common frames of reference and language to use to discussing skiing, and probably many other sports could use the same 5 fundamentals with little variation, but if you want to know the movements specific to skiing and objectives derived from those movements, then you need to dig deeper into technique which is not spelled out at all by by the 5 fundamentals.

This gets back to what I was saying earlier about 10,000 hours needing to be guided by sound technique. You can talk about the 5 fundamentals, but there are innumerable ways to mix and match those fundamentals in the "wrong" way.

 

[T-Square]

The 5 fundamentals are nothing more than a tool for instructors to use. They help us focus on the client's movements. Then we use our knowledge of skiing skills, our client's wishes and expectations, and other factors to formulate a lesson plan.

 

[markojp]

5 fundamentals is a framework, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[john petersen]

The Fundamentals was also intentionally left pretty vague. I think what they were after when they redefined the Skills Concept was something that had staying power. Ski styles evolve with equipment changes so the application of skills tends to morph and vary a bit.....but the fundamentals should hold up for a while......

If you want a short answer or guide to perfect concepts and techniques, good luck finding one!

you guys make some great points to ponder here! Ill be re reading this page especially, several times......

JP

 

[Mendieta]

Part of the discussion seems to have morphed into the whole 10,000 hours assertion forwarded by Malcolm Gladwell. There's no doubt that repetition is part of mastery, but I think that the point of the article I posted a link to was that repetition (or practice) can be structured to be far more effective than it might otherwise be. In other words, two individuals, both with 5,000 hours of practice, might have far different levels of mastery based on what they did in those 5,000. Let's just look at the headings from that article:

1. The art of practicing is finding a process for repetition without boredom
2. The best processes speed up the cycle of frustration and recovery
3. Breaking things down into small steps isn't enough. Make them smaller
4. No process works without a coach who deeply understands the goal

It might make some sense to think about these in the reverse order. The practice process needs to be guided by a coach. The coach is responsible to the student to help them achieve the goal. They are also responsible to help the student understand when they are getting it and when they are not. Back to our two individuals with 5,000 hours of practice, one guided by a competent coach and the other either not or less frequently, who do you think (everything else held constant) is closer to mastery?
Practice has to work not on the whole but on the details as well. So, in skiing, we need to work toward mastery of the five fundamentals as well as their integration and interrelationship. If all you try to do is ski the bumps, you probably aren't going to make as much progress as if you attempt to work on initiating the turn in the bumps at the limit of your absorption. Focusing on the minutae matters. It is one of the factors that has differentiated Mikeala Schiffrin from the rest of the pack.

You also have to push yourself and allow yourself to fail. If all of your practice is comfortable, then you aren't exploring and developing mastery. Or understanding.

All of this practice can be boring. But repetition is a key to mastery. So, you've got to find a process of practice that continually engages you to get to mastery.

Sure, there is a large amount of work that's necessary to get to mastery in skiing. My point in posting the original article was that smart practice will get you there sooner than just a bunch of work.

Mike

Great post Mike, thank you for bringing us back to the topic! To me, one of the no-brainers, in order to optimize practice results, is periodic use of a coach/instructor, as you highlighted (text highlight in the quotes is mine ). The coach will work with you on items 1-3.

The other big thing IMHO, though not the topic of the OP, but a recurrent discussion in the thread: it is all about trying to be the best you can be, given all your constraints (practice time, age, physical limitations, etc).

 

[JESinstr]

The Fundamentals was also intentionally left pretty vague. I think what they were after when they redefined the Skills Concept was something that had staying power. Ski styles evolve with equipment changes so the application of skills tends to morph and vary a bit.....but the fundamentals should hold up for a while......

If you want a short answer or guide to perfect concepts and techniques, good luck finding one!

you guys make some great points to ponder here! Ill be re reading this page especially, several times......

JP

JP
I get your drift but I don't know if vague is the right word... IMO they are, just as skiing is, dynamic.

If you are addressing the ability turn, the application of the fundamentals dynamically changes as a turn develops and velocity increases.
This happens because the force against which we align changes (beginning at transition) from one that pulls you down toward the center of the earth (gravity) to one that pushes up from the ski's edge (Centripetal). To complicate matters, Centripetal force is the one that needs to be developed by the skier vis a vis edging and pressure management (bending of the ski). If velocity wains or the bending process "breaks", it goes away and you return to the mechanics of gravitational balance as the default.

 

[BornToSki683]

The five skiing fundamentals are simply incomplete. They ARE vague. I don't know if that was intentional or not. You can read the five fundamentals over and over again...and the accompanying book that came with it...until you're green in the face, and you will not learn many important concepts and movements of ski technique needed to ski well. Totally correct and/or totally incorrect ways to ski can be well explained and defined in terms of the current five fundamentals, so there is no guarantee whatsoever about learning how to ski well by adhering to that loosey goosey "framework", without more information to get more specific.

As it relates to this thread...if you try to spend 10,000 hours practicing based on the PSIA five fundamentals alone...there are innumerable ways to do things wrongly, practicing in the wrong way and grooving in exactly the wrong muscle memory without some further instruction of some kind to clarify more specifically the movements that need to be mastered.

How did PSIA get there historically is something like this, give or take...

1. First they had a system that was based on very exact forms and progressions. Very precise, and very constraining.
2. Then later they came up with centerline, which provided alternative stepping stone paths to the same end goal, a bit less constraining.
3. Eventually they decided even that was too constraining...the idea of progressions was to them, "yuck", so they came up with the skills concept which simply identified 4 skills that are all blended together during skiing and basically pulled many specifics out of it. Yes Vague. This left open a very wide palette of possibilities for instructors, much less constraining but unfortunately no guarantee whatsoever of good technique being taught. Many instructors continued to teach old ideas from the old days on their own because they knew it was needed. Well some of the old ideas were good some not. Ski design changed substantially somewhere along the line during this period also. Good thing for the open ended and vague 4 skills concept, instructors were free to adapt what they teach, but alas, no central standardization over what instructors adapted to and no guarantee whatsoever that what they were teaching was accurate or good. Many memes grew under the table, not documented by PSIA, but present everywhere when you talked to PSIA pros. But not consistently, how could they be, they weren't documented or codified. I'm not sure they were agreed upon pretty much ever. In my opinion, this period of the 4 skills concept also created a generation of ski instructors that think and teach very literally... twist your skis to turn, while pushing on them and edging them and don't forget to balance. Those are the 4 documented skills after all. They started treating those skills as "fundamental movements" and taught them as if they themselves are the technique involved in skiing. In my view this got PSIA way off the reservation. A few old timers still understand more technique from the old days and some with race backgrounds also still taught many important concepts and techniques, but under the radar of the official PSIA 4 skills mantra.
4. Most recently they updated to the five fundamentals. It seems they have begun to get more specific about a few things, which they have been realizing the 4 skills concept had forgotten about. Things such as "direct pressure to the outside ski". YAY. They even mention the word "angulation"....gasp! The five fundamentals are less vague then the 4 skills concept was, but still humongously incomplete, and thus overly vague in my view, but at this point I do not think that is their intention I think the are trying to figure out how to be less vague without being too constraining...and unfortunately there is most likely not universal agreement about how skiing works either...so...probably just politically correct and easier to keep it vague. The five fundamentals are still quite vague, maybe less then before, but not much less.

But unfortunately that vagueness is borderline useless and in many cases downright destructive if willing minds spend 10,000 hours practicing the "wrong" stuff without even knowing it. Better make sure you have a good coach telling you what to do before you practice 10,000 hours on it. That's all I'm saying. The idea of just focusing on the five fundamentals for 10,000 hours isn't going to get you there and could potentially ruin you.

 

[Mike King]

The five skiing fundamentals are simply incomplete. They ARE vague. I don't know if that was intentional or not. You can read the five fundamentals over and over again...and the accompanying book that came with it...until you're green in the face, and you will not learn many important concepts and movements of ski technique needed to ski well. Totally correct and/or totally incorrect ways to ski can be well explained and defined in terms of the current five fundamentals, so there is no guarantee whatsoever about learning how to ski well by adhering to that loosey goosey "framework", without more information to get more specific.

As it relates to this thread...if you try to spend 10,000 hours practicing based on the PSIA five fundamentals alone...there are innumerable ways to do things wrongly, practicing in the wrong way and grooving in exactly the wrong muscle memory without some further instruction of some kind to clarify more specifically the movements that need to be mastered.

How did PSIA get there historically is something like this, give or take...

1. First they had a system that was based on very exact forms and progressions. Very precise, and very constraining.
2. Then later they came up with centerline, which provided alternative stepping stone paths to the same end goal, a bit less constraining.
3. Eventually they decided even that was too constraining...the idea of progressions was to them, "yuck", so they came up with the skills concept which simply identified 4 skills that are all blended together during skiing and basically pulled many specifics out of it. Yes Vague. This left open a very wide palette of possibilities for instructors, much less constraining but unfortunately no guarantee whatsoever of good technique being taught. Many instructors continued to teach old ideas from the old days on their own because they knew it was needed. Well some of the old ideas were good some not. Ski design changed substantially somewhere along the line during this period also. Good thing for the open ended and vague 4 skills concept, instructors were free to adapt what they teach, but alas, no central standardization over what instructors adapted to and no guarantee whatsoever that what they were teaching was accurate or good. Many memes grew under the table, not documented by PSIA, but present everywhere when you talked to PSIA pros. But not consistently, how could they be, they weren't documented or codified. I'm not sure they were agreed upon pretty much ever. In my opinion, this period of the 4 skills concept also created a generation of ski instructors that think and teach very literally... twist your skis to turn, while pushing on them and edging them and don't forget to balance. Those are the 4 documented skills after all. They started treating those skills as "fundamental movements" and taught them as if they themselves are the technique involved in skiing. In my view this got PSIA way off the reservation. A few old timers still understand more technique from the old days and some with race backgrounds also still taught many important concepts and techniques, but under the radar of the official PSIA 4 skills mantra.
4. Most recently they updated to the five fundamentals. It seems they have begun to get more specific about a few things, which they have been realizing the 4 skills concept had forgotten about. Things such as "direct pressure to the outside ski". YAY. They even mention the word "angulation"....gasp! The five fundamentals are less vague then the 4 skills concept was, but still humongously incomplete, and thus overly vague in my view, but at this point I do not think that is their intention I think the are trying to figure out how to be less vague without being too constraining...and unfortunately there is most likely not universal agreement about how skiing works either...so...probably just politically correct and easier to keep it vague. The five fundamentals are still quite vague, maybe less then before, but not much less.

But unfortunately that vagueness is borderline useless and in many cases downright destructive if willing minds spend 10,000 hours practicing the "wrong" stuff without even knowing it. Better make sure you have a good coach telling you what to do before you practice 10,000 hours on it. That's all I'm saying. The idea of just focusing on the five fundamentals for 10,000 hours isn't going to get you there and could potentially ruin you.

Got it, BTS, you don't like PSIA. Go back to item 4 in the original article -- a competent coach who understands the goal.

I do not think that the five fundamentals describe how to ski. They are elements that are useful in describing ski performance. They are highly interdependent. PSIA, IMO, has gone down a bit of a rabbit hole in asking for movement analysis to isolate a fundamental, particularly at level 2. That being said, the teaching models of the national systems I am familiar with (New Zealand, Canada, Austria, Swiss, Czech) use these elements in one form or another to describe elements of ski performance.

The fundamentals also do not describe how to create those outcomes. Take fore/aft balance, for example. I believe the statement is something like "control the relationship of the center of mass to the base of support along the length of the ski." It doesn't say what the result should be. It doesn't say how to do so. Practicing in this fundamental realm will have the student identify the movement patterns that lead to differing outcomes in fore/aft balance. If you flex the ankles without moving any other joint, what happens to the relationship of the CoM to the BoS? And what's the resulting ski performance? Where do you want to be in what phase of the turn? What's the duration, intensity, rate, and timing of the movements needed to achieve that dynamic result? And how is this fundamental affected by the other fundamentals?

Gaining mastery is also about gaining versatility. You've got to explore the limits to gain versatility.

Mike

 

[markojp]

BTS, respectfully, you're reading a chapter list with the expectation of individual words and passages. PSIA is whatever you chose to make of it. If all you say is true, then people like Eric and Jonathan must be seriously misguided skiers and coaches. What IMHO opinion psia IS trying to do is help instructors break down movements that lead to effective (and provide guidelines for good MA to understand less effective) movements. Great coaching in any system doesn't rely strictly on progressions.

What I've enjoyed about PSIA is that I've always had a pretty long leash in incorporating a lifetime of non-PSIA experience into my sessions. No relatively experienced instructor is going to focus on the 5 fundamentals to the exclusion of all else. I just spent a day with a national team member (teley) on alpine gear. We talked about and played with squaring up and the 'what', 'why', and 'when'. None of the day's content is specifically addressed in any PSIA manual. Sure, I know it's a race world topic and saw some nice info in a spanish site about this.

You're looking for the details and find the 'how' lacking. Fair enough. In my experience, it's been for us as individuals/coaches/trainers/contributors to figure out and share, and yes, I do think PSIA could do a better job in sharing this, but what I read into your post is more of a blanket condemnation of the organization. Perhaps I'm wrong about that. Speaking only for myself, I've had too many useful interactions with national and divisional staff to toss the baby out with the bathwater, but I also know and happily use other tubs as well.

 

[BornToSki683]

Got it, BTS, you don't like PSIA.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I did not ever say that I don't like PSIA. As of now I am a card carrying member. Just pointing out the history as I have understood it...and the vagueness as it relates to 10,000 hours of practice. someone earlier mentioned something about spending more time practicing the five fundamentals and my only point is...that is not enough.

I do not think that the five fundamentals describe how to ski. They are elements that are useful in describing ski performance. They are highly interdependent.

Agreed. Its jut a language. Unfortunately I feel many well intentioned PSIA ski instructors think of it as actual technique. If that is not the actual technique...then when and where does PSIA specify technique? maybe they simply don't. Perhaps that is what we are talking about..should technique be taught?

PSIA, IMO, has gone down a bit of a rabbit hole in asking for movement analysis to isolate a fundamental, particularly at level 2.

down the rabbit hole? How so?

That being said, the teaching models of the national systems I am familiar with (New Zealand, Canada, Austria, Swiss, Czech) use these elements in one form or another to describe elements of ski performance.

Sure thing..its just a language to talk about it. And nothing wrong with that language. its the ambiguity of ski technique that is the problem.

The fundamentals also do not describe how to create those outcomes. Take fore/aft balance, for example. I believe the statement is something like "control the relationship of the center of mass to the base of support along the length of the ski." It doesn't say what the result should be. It doesn't say how to do so.

Exactamundo. Not specified. Nothing about when or how...only kind of the "what". Awareness of fore-aft balance and the way it effects pressure on the ski but absolutely zilch about when or why you would want to effect change fore-aft for what purpose and how you would go about doing it.

Practicing in this fundamental realm will have the student identify the movement patterns that lead to differing outcomes in fore/aft balance.

what movement patterns? They haven't been specified.

If you flex the ankles without moving any other joint, what happens to the relationship of the CoM to the BoS? And what's the resulting ski performance? Where do you want to be in what phase of the turn? What's the duration, intensity, rate, and timing of the movements needed to achieve that dynamic result? And how is this fundamental affected by the other fundamentals?

all great questions and so typical of current gen PSIA instructors to ask a bunch of questions like that without providing any answers or solutions about it. The inference is that skiers are not supposed to be taught actual technique, they are supposed to just figure it out on their own through experimentation and awareness that changing the CoM/BoS relationship will effect pressure under different parts of the ski, so they are just so supposed to figure out on their own when is the best time to do thing and how to go about doing it. Its the non-technique approach I guess?