• For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.

Skiing Styles

Monique

bounceswoosh
Skier
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
10,561
Location
Colorado

Scruffy

Making fresh tracks
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 16, 2015
Posts
2,429
Location
Upstate NY
Yeah, but that's still determined by physics. EVERYTHING in the physical world is determined by physics. :huh: We're clearly talking past each other.

Physics explains the physical world based on the parameters one is expressing. Physics tells me I can boil water at 212 degrees at sea level. If I wish to use less calories to boil water, I simply go higher. I get to choose. Physics doesn't determine my will.
 

Monique

bounceswoosh
Skier
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
10,561
Location
Colorado
Sure.
 

jimtransition

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Nov 15, 2016
Posts
473
Location
Niseko/Queenstown
Yeah, but that's still determined by physics. EVERYTHING in the physical world is determined by physics. :huh: We're clearly talking past each other.

But who is to say what is 'the objectively best' way to ski, the most 'efficient' way to ski is in a straight line, standing up, you wouldn't use any energy. Just because it can be described by physics, does not mean that you can say objectively what is better or worse. That is viewed through the subjective lense of experience. All competitive disciplines of skiing apart from racing are judged, ie subjective, every event each different rider typically receives a variety of scores from different judges, they rarely agree. If it was so objectively clear, wouldn't these professional judges all give the same score?
 

jimtransition

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Nov 15, 2016
Posts
473
Location
Niseko/Queenstown
I have opinions on where you should ski, what you should ski on, what you should wear, and what I like to ski the most.

But on ski technique I post up the most objective truth possible, in most cases it is un-debatable. Something that is based on physics should have no opinion on what should be done. There are only people who are right and then there are those that have opinions. Unless I am proven objectively wrong about something I saying about ski technique then I am right. It also gives anyone else the right to objectify someone else's subjective ski technique opinion.

Skiing is science, no you do not need to use number or equations, but it just comes down to we are moving in physical world and in the end there is only one right answer. How to get to those right answer I would agree is subjective.

And is always the case, just because an idea is blindingly right, does nt mean there will not be detractors. So unless you ski in fantasy land where the laws of physics do not apply, why do you feel like trying to discredit me? People have been ignoring science for decades, when its some know it asshole telling you that you are wrong(AKA ME) I guess its even easier to ignore. In the end it does nt matter if I say it, If you say it, if someone random joe says, the truth about skiing is right because its right, and it has nothing to do with who is saying it.

In what way am I trying to discredit you? You attacked the point I made and called me unqualified (lol) to comment in this thread, in contrast all I have repeatedly said is that ski technique is a subjective idea.
 

Monique

bounceswoosh
Skier
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
10,561
Location
Colorado
Here's a question. Does a ski instructor ever give guidance that is NOT related to making the student more efficient?

I'm not sure that just standing straight up could be called efficient, because the amount of energy required not to crash is so high that most of us probably couldn't manage it. It takes a lot of effort to hold still against those forces.

I do believe that there is such a thing as personal style. But I also believe that within a given approach (carving vs smearing powder; zipper line vs big wide arcs on bumps; hop turns down a crusty couloir), the best possible version of that approach is the most efficient. Which I would say means that in the best possible scenario, your own body and movements aren't interfering with your intent. I think that's the closest I've come so far to expressing what I mean by efficient.
 

jimtransition

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Nov 15, 2016
Posts
473
Location
Niseko/Queenstown
Here's a question. Does a ski instructor ever give guidance that is NOT related to making the student more efficient?

I'm not sure that just standing straight up could be called efficient, because the amount of energy required not to crash is so high that most of us probably couldn't manage it. It takes a lot of effort to hold still against those forces.

I do believe that there is such a thing as personal style. But I also believe that within a given approach (carving vs smearing powder; zipper line vs big wide arcs on bumps; hop turns down a crusty couloir), the best possible version of that approach is the most efficient. Which I would say means that in the best possible scenario, your own body and movements aren't interfering with your intent. I think that's the closest I've come so far to expressing what I mean by efficient.

Going straight exerts no forces other than your bodyweight and friction, turning creates extra forces, and is thus less efficient. Is going straight a subjectively better way to get down the hill? No, but it is the most 'objectively' efficient.

Carving hard uses more force than skidding, so yes, I teach people to be less efficient in the sense that they will exert more muscular force going down the runl. They will however be using the design of the ski better, and might possibly enjoy their turns more, or go faster in the race course. Do you see how many times you said 'I believe' there? Do you still think you are expressing universal objective truths, or your own subjective opinions?
 

markojp

mtn rep for the gear on my feet
Industry Insider
Instructor
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
6,605
Location
PNW aka SEA
Here's a question. Does a ski instructor ever give guidance that is NOT related to making the student more efficient?

Sure! We talk tactics, fool around with terrain because it feels cool, and sometimes how to relax enough (breath) to have fun with things, skiing switch, etc...Play! Recreation = re-creation... :)
 
Last edited:

mdf

entering the Big Couloir
Skier
Team Gathermeister
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
7,220
Location
Boston Suburbs
I'm going to have to go with Scruffy here. Skiing is not a fully constrained problem, so physics does not fully determine the best way to ski.

Sure "style" can sometimes be an excuse for deficient technique, but within good technique there is plenty of room for individual choice. Are you agressive or languid and relaxed? Do you take the most direct line or bounce off every available pile? Do you ski the lanes between trees or ski a line of trees, turning around each one? Do you go for the maximum or minimum practical edge angle?
 

Monique

bounceswoosh
Skier
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
10,561
Location
Colorado
So thought and choice, for instance, are subsets of physics?

If you're saying that thought and choice are determined by chemistry, then I'm saying they're determined by physics.
 

pais alto

me encanta el país alto
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 11, 2015
Posts
1,937
Location
If you're saying that thought and choice are determined by chemistry, then I'm saying they're determined by physics.

:doh: I'm saying that they aren't determined by physics, and that physics doesn't determine everything. But you seem determined to argue the point into meaninglessness, and I am disinterested, put off, and otherwise engaged so as far as I'm concerned you are welcome to your belief.
 

Monique

bounceswoosh
Skier
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
10,561
Location
Colorado
:doh: I'm saying that they aren't determined by physics, and that physics doesn't determine everything. But you seem determined to argue the point into meaninglessness, and I am disinterested, put off, and otherwise engaged so as far as I'm concerned you are welcome to your belief.

I kinda ... okay, sure. I also agree that this discussion isn't going anywhere. I don't actually think we disagree as much as it seems like we do, but it's not fun anymore. I would be happy to buy you or anyone in this convo a beer at some point and we can just talk about how much stoke we have about skiing.
 

Philpug

Notorious P.U.G.
Admin
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Posts
42,624
Location
Reno, eNVy
I kinda ... okay, sure. I also agree that this discussion isn't going anywhere. I don't actually think we disagree as much as it seems like we do, but it's not fun anymore. I would be happy to buy you or anyone in this convo a beer at some point and we can just talk about how much stoke we have about skiing.
I hve been watching the thread and I am coming to the same conclusion. The same point is being made over and over by the same people just with more emphesis. There has been a bit of baiting and there has been a few pointed barbs that really didn't add anything. I don't think really anything can be said that hasn't been so I will keeping an eye here and maybe its time we move on.
 

CalG

Out on the slopes
Pass Pulled
Joined
Feb 5, 2017
Posts
1,962
Location
Vt
Steins skiing was the objectively most correct skiing for 1952....its silly to think though that as equipment changed that what technique was objectively correct did not.

wanting to ski like Stein today is a truly a pointless endeavor unless you want to emulated a style that worked best and 50 era gear, if you want to emulated him, because that is what you want to do then go for it, no one is stopping you.


Style is timeless.
Eriksen skied with modern equipment also, he skied with different technique when he did. But his style remained.... Timeless....

It is the small differences that set us each apart as unique. Choosing to categorize these differences as efficiency defects is narrow thinking. I do not see them that way way at all. Style is personalization that returns the maximum enjoyment or meaning to the individual.
A bulldozer can be a beautiful piece of machinery.

The world is not formed to please anyone's image of anything. There are so many great ways to ski, and they are ever evolving. "Efficiency" need not be everyone's goal. Fresh air and exercise is enough.

Style is the art of life. Renoir and Picasso had different styles. Both made art.


But hey! It's the internet. A mile wide and an inch deep.
 

Uncle-A

In the words of Paul Simon "You can call me Al"
Skier
Joined
Dec 22, 2015
Posts
10,894
Location
NJ
Style is timeless.
Eriksen skied with modern equipment also, he skied with different technique when he did. But his style remained.... Timeless....

But hey! It's the internet. A mile wide and an inch deep.
I would like to see video of Erikson ski on the wide skis of today. I can under stand him skiing on shape skis but I want to see him on wide skis.
 

CalG

Out on the slopes
Pass Pulled
Joined
Feb 5, 2017
Posts
1,962
Location
Vt
I would like to see video of Erikson ski on the wide skis of today. I can under stand him skiing on shape skis but I want to see him on wide skis.
I'm sure he would love to honor your request..... In spirit at least.
 

Uncle-A

In the words of Paul Simon "You can call me Al"
Skier
Joined
Dec 22, 2015
Posts
10,894
Location
NJ
I'm sure he would love to honor your request..... In spirit at least.
Your are the one that said he skied on modern equipment, did you see that yourself or did you see a video?
 

at_nyc

Getting off the lift
Pass Pulled
Joined
Mar 8, 2016
Posts
646
As a physicist in my former life, I'm going to jump in:

1) Chemistry is NOT a subset of physics. Chemistry is defined as a science dealing with systems large enough the individual physical process is NOT the dominant factor. Instead, the system that is a collection of individual physical systems has unique behavior that's described by...chemistry! (biology isn't a subset of chemistry either)

That said, this argument is pretty tangential to the skiing style discussion.

2) Physics can both describe and determines how objects move. Because fundamentally physics determines how things moves, if you do understand physics, you can then describe any movement with principle of physics.

This also have very little to do with skiing style

3) As someone posted, two racers can take 2 different path and reach the bottom at the same time, there're often times more than one way to achieve a result. Physics allows that. Any time you have more than one factors, you can have more than one solutions. Any multi-variable equation can have more than one solution: the same number of solution as the number of variables. That's not even physics. That's high school math.

So, skiing being a multi-variable physics problem, there will be more than one way to ski that're equally efficient!

But before we conclude styles are different way of skiing, keep in mind also even the goal of skiing are not unique. Some people ski to be at the bottom the quickest (racers), at any cost. Others to gain the maximum height & hang time (freestylers). Still others to minimize the stress to the joints, sacrificing speed and distance (old geezers).

And we haven't even start to take into account of physiological difference of human bodies yet.
 
Last edited:

Sponsor

Staff online

Top