Retraction Turns - how do you use this phrase?

[Rod9301]

To do a flex to release transition dues not require strength, and to get centered again all you needed is to pull the feet back, again no strength required

 

[LiquidFeet]

I think there are several ways to make the weight transfer occur. Flexion may be one of them, so is extension, moving the com over the inside ski is one as well. One thing we need to remember, extension doesn't neccesarily cause an up move. You can extend lateraly and not cause the com to move up. I also am not of the thinking that an upward movement of the com is a bad movement, unlike many at this time.
I look at it in terms of the outcomes described in the description ot the performance turn. I also look at in terms of what gives the skier the most opportunity to be successful in the outcomes they are looking to achieve. So looking at the description of the turn there are 2 goals a bit at odds in the performsnce turn. Those are moving forward and staying low. Staying low through trasition will put you in a position that requires imense strength to also be moving forward at the appropriate time. Also moving forward usually requires and extension at the knee while continuing to flex the ankle and hip. This makes it very hard to stay low as it usually results in the com moving upward. So 2 outcomes. What do you do? Depending on the athlete you either have to chose or you may be lucky enough to have an athlete that can pull off both. In most cases though you will not. So you have to decide what is most important. I would, looking at this description, say that the forward movement is more important that staying low for most athletes. Until they develop the strentgh to pull off the low position. The main reason I say this is that it really comes down to strength to stay low through transition and most athletes just don't have the strength to achieve the result they are looking for when staying low. Remember I am talking about athletes at this point not the general skiing public. The general skiing public might have 10%, this includes instructors as well, of people that can pull this off. This is the main reason I think that this idea of flexion or being low through transition isn't the best option for the majority of the ski instruction and coaching.

I didn't know this transfer of weight could be so complicated. Oh wait, yes I did .

Extension can happen after something else causes weight transfer/release. It needs to happen before the fall line to keep that new outside ski in solid contact with the snow at the top of the turn. But that's not a release/weight transfer movement.

Extending the new outside leg can also work to accomplish release/weight transfer all by itself. In the article Sasha covers this in a second type of turn he calls an Extension Turn. But when extension of the new outside leg is used as the release move to cause the weight transfer, it happens when the body is still low in support of the old turn's edge angles. The early extension-as-release inevitably raises the body up. So that's out for this turn since the turn is described in the article as a stay-low turn. Plus, it's covered in the Extension Turn.

Your third option, moving the upper body over the old inside ski, certainly will work to move weight to it, but do you think Sasha would coach his world cup skiers to do that? We need to coach our beginner skiers to NOT do that, and we have to coach our lower intermediate skiers to STOP doing it. Are you suggesting that Sasha is assuming that this is the release used in this "Performance Turn"?

Release in a stay-low turn is easy and uncomplicated if the skier simply flexes the weight-bearing leg. That flexing of a single leg keeps the body low through transition as this turn's description requires. Flexion immediately lessens the weight-bearing role of that leg/foot/ski. The other leg/foot/ski takes the weight just released (it has to go somewhere) and the transfer is done.

This movement is so simple, so assumed by Sasha (or the writers communicating his thoughts to readers), that it fails to get mentioned in the article. This absence can lead readers to think that moving forward (how this is accomplished is not described) and extending the new outside leg accomplishes the release/transfer. Such a shame.

 

[Loki1]

This movement is so simple, so assumed by Sasha (or the writers communicating his thoughts to readers), that it fails to get mentioned in the article. This absence can lead readers to think that moving forward (how this is accomplished is not described) and extending the new outside leg accomplishes the release/transfer. Such a shame.

Release and transfer are 2 different movements. But again I'm not going to get into the same old argument that has been hashed over here a thousand times. Believe what you will, but I think if you actually went out and skied it more you would understand that the movements you are describing are not causing the effects you are describing. Also I find it interesting that you are essentially saying that the writers and Sasha and they are wrong to leave this out rather than to think maybe they just don't feel its important in skiing. It's also interesting that at the fall symposium Ron LeMaster mentioned, and the other world cup coaches in the room agreed, that flexion or retraction turns are used mostly when there has been a mistake and the racer is looking to recover. They are not the go to turn transition. Makes you wonder why they woudl say something like that doesn't it?

 

[LiquidFeet]

Release and transfer are 2 different movements. But again I'm not going to get into the same old argument that has been hashed over here a thousand times. ....

Loki, c'mon. Are you saying that when a skier releases the weight-bearing ski, the weight doesn't transfer? It has to go somewhere.

1. When the skier releases the old outside ski of its job of holding the skier's "weight," that weight may get airborne, or nearly so. Meaning, there may be a float, before the skier's weight "lands" on the new outside ski. But for this "Performance Turn" the article says:
"it allows skiers to distribute pressure more uniformly throughout the turn; pressure doesn’t build greatly at one point in the turn."
I understand this to mean there is no float.

2. The skier can progressively flex the old outside leg such that the weight on that ski stays there as the CoM moves downhill over that ski. This would be a "weighted release." Yes, in such a release, the skier needs to do something different to transfer the weight to the new outside ski after flexing the old outside leg. A "weighted release" is psychologically difficult to do, as it calls for the skier to allow their body to move downhill over the old outside ski and balance temporarily on that ski's little toe edge. Sasha says this turn is the target turn for recreational skiers. Are you suggesting that Sasha is calling for this to be taught to intermediates?

3. The skier can flex the old outside leg and allow the weight to simultaneously transfer to the new outside leg. That flexion can involve lightening the ski, lifting its tail, or lifting the whole ski. If you are claiming that weight doesn't transfer when any one of these happens, then where does it go?

 

[LiquidFeet]

One more thing. Here's another quote from that "Performance Turn" portion of that article.
"Coming out of the shaping phase, the racer actively transfers weight, taking the momentum from the outside ski laterally onto the inside ski (new outside ski)."

This and the rest of the section about this particular turn tells me Sasha is neither talking about a float nor a weighted release. He means the skier does something, some body movement (intentionally left unspecified), to actively move weight from the old outside ski and onto the new outside ski. Flexing the old outside leg will do this without raising the body upward. He, or Ellen Post Foster and Matt Boyd, just won't say this.

Why does the article avoid saying this? I think it's politics.

 

[LiquidFeet]

No one wants to be associated with flexing to release, or at least not in words, in print or online.

 

[Rod9301]

No one wants to be associated with flexing to release, or at least not in words, in print or online.

I do

 

[Mike King]

I believe that there are a lot of advantages to the flex to release/stay low transition. But that doesn't mean that there is no high performance skiing amongst those that practice an extension turn:

 

[Rod9301]

I believe that there are a lot of advantages to the flex to release/stay low transition. But that doesn't mean that there is no high performance skiing amongst those that practice an extension turn:

Ok, wet know that. Every ski school in the world teaches extendv to release because it's easier?
Or tradition?

Doesn't mean it's better

 

[Tim Hodgson]

My guess is that every ski school in the world teaches most every type of release.

The type of release which is taught is dependent upon the abilty level of the student.

After a period of staying low to release, once they get upright and wall walking, "extend to release" is what babies do to walk.

It is what adults do when they walk.

Thus, extend to release is a well know movement pattern which may be transferred to skiing.

At least in PSIA, we take advantage of this known movement pattern by employing "teach to transfer."

Other types of edge release movement patterns are taught later as the student progresses.

However, the importance of being able to transfer what you learn in one context to an entirely new one cannot be overstated.

 

[LiquidFeet]

No one wants to be associated with flexing to release, or at least not in words, in print or online.

I did not intend to post this sentence. It was just sitting there unposted when I closed down my session. Darn. I must have hit the button without realizing it. Let me redo that post. This is what I would have said had I realized I was hitting "post reply."

I'm suggesting that the article doesn't mention flexing to release for political reasons because no one high up in PSIA wants to officially promote flex-to-release right now, even though it's becoming the more current way of thinking inside the organization. So they avoid the words, while talking around it.

I recently asked one of my examiners who had participated in my LII cert teaching exam a question related to this topic. I took that exam oh maybe 6-7 years ago. At that point in the past "extend-to-release" was the thing all my PSIA trainers were promoting. So in my teaching exam that's what I focused on, even though in real life I preferred flex-to-release as my go-to turn in most situations, and it's the one I taught regularly at the mountain. I passed.

So the question I asked him this December was if I were to take the same exam today and if I focused on flex-to-release, would I have trouble passing because of that? He said no. And then I asked, had I done that back when I took the exam, with him as one of the examiners, would I have had trouble passing? He said yes. This guy knows what's going on, and I trust him. I said thank you and walked away confirmed in my understanding of how things are changing in PSIA, slowly.

 

[Mike King]

@LiquidFeet , when did you take your exam? In the era of straight skis?

 

[François Pugh]

@LiquidFeet , when did you take your exam? In the era of straight skis?

LOL, I will let @LiquidFeet answer that one, but I think it was much more recent than that. IIRC, she just seems more experienced and advanced because she has studied and worked hard.

Sadly I believe she is correct; change is slow, and the reason for a strong preference of the release is simple tradition, kind of like cutting the top of the roast before you cook it because your mother did because your grandmother did, but your grandmother did it because her pot was too small.

I know of at least one teaching system that heavily favours flexing the old outside leg to release the turn, that seems to work for a lot of folks. However, the head honcho of that system, it seems to me, is so derogatory of anything or anyone that is not 100 percent behind him and so critical of other approaches that it is having a trouble catching on.

I am so glad I am able to ski how I want to at any given time without worrying that if I experiment with weight too far forward and too far backwards and vary weight from forward to aft instead of always centering my force just ahead of my heel, I might damage the habit I am trying to build and fail my level IV test or whatever. I admit that when I started to learn mogul skiing I was afraid learning flat ski skiing might ruin my carving skills, but I've been able to compartmentalize it pretty well.

 

[LiquidFeet]

Compartmentalization rocks.
@Mike King, I know you're kidding.
I'm in the east. You are out west. There be differences.
I speak from my experience, which is not like yours.
But when Ellen Post Foster and Matt Boyd are involved, I understand they speak for us all.

 

[LiquidFeet]

....So you have to decide what is most important. I would, looking at this description, say that the forward movement is more important that staying low for most athletes. Until they develop the strentgh to pull off the low position. The main reason I say this is that it really comes down to strength to stay low through transition and most athletes just don't have the strength to achieve the result they are looking for when staying low. Remember I am talking about athletes at this point not the general skiing public. The general skiing public might have 10%, this includes instructors as well, of people that can pull this off. This is the main reason I think that this idea of flexion or being low through transition isn't the best option for the majority of the ski instruction and coaching.

Loki, I haven't responded to this idea that staying low in transition requires premium strength. If so, then Sasha, who is targeting this turn to the general public and says the skier stays low, is making a mistake. Recreational skiers who travel to ski for two vacation weeks a year are not expected to be super strong.

But I'm not strong and I typically stay low in transition. When I am in a turn with notable ski-snow edge angles and I flex that old outside leg, my body moves over to the other side of that old outside ski while I stay low. No strength is needed; my body moves pretty fast and vroom I'm in the next turn on new edges, extending that new outside leg to keep it locked on the snow, up there above the fall line. My head and shoulders have not moved up higher.

But I will admit that flexibility is required to keep the legs bent as the body moves across the skis and as the edges change. Some recreational skiers lack the flexibility. The leveling of the pressure distribution through the turn, which Sasha mentions, deletes any need for strength and athleticism that could creep in.

Without a "pounce" at apex, the sensation of doing leg presses and squats from turn start to finish is gone. I can testify to this being the case even when making fast carved turns where notable forces can build up. Timing and body movement precision can always take the place of brute strength in skiing, with good results, as long as one is not watching the clock.

 

[Tony S]

I kind of liked the incisiveness of the original short version.

I did not intend to post this sentence. It was just sitting there unposted when I closed down my session. Darn. I must have hit the button without realizing it. Let me redo that post. This is what I would have said had I realized I was hitting "post reply."

I'm suggesting that the article doesn't mention flexing to release for political reasons because no one high up in PSIA wants to officially promote flex-to-release right now, even though it's becoming the more current way of thinking inside the organization. So they avoid the words, while talking around it.

I recently asked one of my examiners who had participated in my LII cert teaching exam a question related to this topic. I took that exam oh maybe 6-7 years ago. At that point in the past "extend-to-release" was the thing all my PSIA trainers were promoting. So in my teaching exam that's what I focused on, even though in real life I preferred flex-to-release as my go-to turn in most situations, and it's the one I taught regularly at the mountain. I passed.

So the question I asked him this December was if I were to take the same exam today and if I focused on flex-to-release, would I have trouble passing because of that? He said no. And then I asked, had I done that back when I took the exam, with him as one of the examiners, would I have had trouble passing? He said yes. This guy knows what's going on, and I trust him. I said thank you and walked away confirmed in my understanding of how things are changing in PSIA, slowly.

 

[LiquidFeet]

...moderataphobia

 

[geepers]

Angulate first. Inclination is the "last ditch" measure to continue tipping the skis. If you think incline first, you "over-commit" the upper body into the center of the turn too early in the turn. This movement actually REDUCES the pressure on the ski edges and kills getting early edge engagement in the top half of the turn.

Bit off-topic.... I'm not so sure this angulate 1st is the right way / only way of skiing. For these reasons:

1. Angulating 1st is just as likely to result in putting the body inside too soon. At the top of the turn there's not yet a lot of centripetal force to balance against so to stay balanced would require either some support from the inside ski or leaning the upper body out of the turn. Further, doing that at the top of the turn is likely to require lateral angulation at the hips as there's not much separation is not a very strong position.

2. I'm not sure about everyone else but I have great difficulty changing my inclination after I've committed my body to a particular trajectory at transition. Maybe there is some way to do it but seems to me when I set up to balance predominantly on the outside ski against a particular amount of centripetal force for the speed and turn radius then I don't have a ready means of increasing that inclination. I can however increase angulation through the turn to increase edge angle and move mass lower whilst maintaining platform angle for grip.

Here's just one example of a skier clearly doing the inclination thing before the angulation. (Yep, there's a danger in taking turns of one racer as a general rule but I see similar things in plenty of other high quality skiers.)

I keep thinking that, with the body committed to a certain trajectory providing a certain amount of inclination at the apex - that inclination is at 1st increasing as our skis move away from us - we'd then keep increasing angulation through the turn until it's time for the next one. There's some angulation at the top of the turn, mostly from knees/femurs, and we increase it progressively from bending at the hips as we get separation. That way we're in a strong position as the GRF propels us across the hill and we can use angulation to maintain grip and tighten the turn radius.

 

[Tony S]

Bit off-topic.... I'm not so sure this angulate 1st is the right way / only way of skiing. For these reasons:

1. Angulating 1st is just as likely to result in putting the body inside too soon. At the top of the turn there's not yet a lot of centripetal force to balance against so to stay balanced would require either some support from the inside ski or leaning the upper body out of the turn. Further, doing that at the top of the turn is likely to require lateral angulation at the hips as there's not much separation is not a very strong position.

2. I'm not sure about everyone else but I have great difficulty changing my inclination after I've committed my body to a particular trajectory at transition. Maybe there is some way to do it but seems to me when I set up to balance predominantly on the outside ski against a particular amount of centripetal force for the speed and turn radius then I don't have a ready means of increasing that inclination. I can however increase angulation through the turn to increase edge angle and move mass lower whilst maintaining platform angle for grip.

Here's just one example of a skier clearly doing the inclination thing before the angulation. (Yep, there's a danger in taking turns of one racer as a general rule but I see similar things in plenty of other high quality skiers.)

I keep thinking that, with the body committed to a certain trajectory providing a certain amount of inclination at the apex - that inclination is at 1st increasing as our skis move away from us - we'd then keep increasing angulation through the turn until it's time for the next one. There's some angulation at the top of the turn, mostly from knees/femurs, and we increase it progressively from bending at the hips as we get separation. That way we're in a strong position as the GRF propels us across the hill and we can use angulation to maintain grip and tighten the turn radius.

I actually think that clip proves Noodler's point about early engagement. She doesn't have much there, and what she does have is gained by way of hopping onto the top of a speeding train car with perfect balance. It's an impressive trick but not something I want to count on pulling off consistently on my own skiing.

 

[Mike King]

The high level race coaches I've skied with in Aspen (yes, former Olympians) say incline first, then angulate. At least a couple of demo team members concur.

Personally, I think that expert skiing is about being able to do it multiple ways. Your mileage may vary. Try it both ways. See if you can master it, then compare.

Mike