Teaching Turn Initiation to Upper Int. & Advanced Skiers

[Wendy]

The other three focused on a flex-to-release, a flexion turn, with no intentional focus on the new outside ski/foot/leg. The groups were mostly in bowls and other above-tree-line terrain. For them the way to start a turn was to flex/shorten the new inside leg, and let the outside leg follow. No talk of extension during initiation or through the top of the turn at all.
.

This. Like others posting on here, I too have had lessons with experienced L3 instructors giving different advice or so much techno-babble that it became confusing, frustrating, and, at worst, demoralizing. Way too many movements to think about, way more than the mind-body can absorb in a lesson (or two, or three).

Then, this year, I took 2 privates from at Alta from someone who offered an extraordinarily simple way to turn, in steep ungroomed terrain, that worked. There was no focus on tipping, rotating femurs, or pole plants. Just flex and release. Let the skis do the work. We progressed from Ballroom to Backside to High Traverse. We did synchronized turns. On some firm groomers, we incorporated ankle tipping into a carve. The whole experience was liberating and JOYFUL.

It was liberating to have 2 lessons in which I learned some simple tactics for navigating tough terrain that I can’t access (readily,anyway) in the East. It was also serendipitous that my instructor’s daughter (who grew up at Alta) is a member of my extended family. It was joyful to ski terrain that had previously frustrated me,and to do it with a huge grin on my face.

During our time together, we discussed PSIA methods and I talked about my confusion over the plethora of methods I was taught. She shared with me that her particular method was not in the PSIA manual.

I taught as an L1 instructor for 2 seasons then gave it up due to confusion and frustration when our school’s technical director would babble on. I felt like I wasn’t getting what I needed to get to the next level, and therefore couldn’t communicate it to my students. This was particularly jarring since my “regular job” was as a classroom teacher, where I felt I had expertise and multiple means of communicating a complex subject, by meeting students where they were.

But unfortunately I was not taught this in PSIA.

So I totally relate to the OP and her question. However, it speaks volumes that there are such a huge variety of responses.

Next season, I’ll go back to Alta and do a few lessons again with my instructor and gain more confidence without the mental confusion. Skiing is supposed to be FUN.

 

[David Chan]

This. Like others posting on here, I too have had lessons with experienced L3 instructors giving different advice or so much techno-babble that it became confusing, frustrating, and, at worst, demoralizing. Way too many movements to think about, way more than the mind-body can absorb in a lesson (or two, or three).

Then, this year, I took 2 privates from at Alta from someone who offered an extraordinarily simple way to turn, in steep ungroomed terrain, that worked. There was no focus on tipping, rotating femurs, or pole plants. Just flex and release. Let the skis do the work. We progressed from Ballroom to Backside to High Traverse. We did synchronized turns. On some firm groomers, we incorporated ankle tipping into a carve. The whole experience was liberating and JOYFUL.

It was liberating to have 2 lessons in which I learned some simple tactics for navigating tough terrain that I can’t access (readily,anyway) in the East. It was also serendipitous that my instructor’s daughter (who grew up at Alta) is a member of my extended family. It was joyful to ski terrain that had previously frustrated me,and to do it with a huge grin on my face.

During our time together, we discussed PSIA methods and I talked about my confusion over the plethora of methods I was taught. She shared with me that her particular method was not in the PSIA manual.

I taught as an L1 instructor for 2 seasons then gave it up due to confusion and frustration when our school’s technical director would babble on. I felt like I wasn’t getting what I needed to get to the next level, and therefore couldn’t communicate it to my students. This was particularly jarring since my “regular job” was as a classroom teacher, where I felt I had expertise and multiple means of communicating a complex subject, by meeting students where they were.

But unfortunately I was not taught this in PSIA.

So I totally relate to the OP and her question. However, it speaks volumes that there are such a huge variety of responses.

Next season, I’ll go back to Alta and do a few lessons again with my instructor and gain more confidence without the mental confusion. Skiing is supposed to be FUN.

Would you share the name of your instructor?

Re your experience with teaching skiing, so sorry to hear your experience. I’ve heard many experiences like this. Too many.

Hopefully this is slowly changing. There has been a pretty strong effort in recent years to get PSIA divisions more in line and language simplified. There has also been an effort to get more training in people skills. Unfortunately there is a lot of history and old school attitude to overcome, along with the organization is pretty large and changing direction for a large entity takes time.

 

[HardDaysNight]

If you went for a golf lesson with a PGA pro and he told you: to hit a solid, straight shot I want you to strike the ball in the center of a square club face with a correct path and angle of attack; to hit the ball farther increase your clubhead speed, you wouldn’t disagree. Similarly, PSIA’s five fundamentals are unexceptionable. Neither answers the obvious question a student would have - how exactly do I do that?

Bob Barnes on Epic once said, paraphrasing, that there was no one in PSIA responsible for writing a detailed, how to manual and he didn’t think there should be. First, it was the job of the individual ski school directors to determine and train the methodology they chose; second, it would be impossible to achieve any sort of consensus at a national level and it would be divisive to try. Based on years of reading opinions in various forums the latter point seems certain!

Of course high level instructors have individually written their own takes on how things work and what movements should be taught. That’s probably all we can hope for.

Speaking for myself I don’t subscribe to the “million ways to ski well” philosophy. Really good skiers look much more similar to each other than different, they use the same movement patterns in a predictable sequence to make their skis behave the way they want. These can and should be taught to learners thereby saving them a lot of time and trouble.

 

[Suzski]

Seems you can be as book smart as you want but unless you 'can do it/ski it" demo it, I'm wondering how can you teach it?
I find over analyzing can quickly muck up a lesson.

Good point. There also are those who can "do it/ski it" but can't teach it - either because they are naturally gifted and haven't had to go through the intensive learning/analysis process that others have, or because they simply are not good teachers. I spent 35 years swimming competitively at national/international levels but I wouldn't have a clue how to teach a beginner to swim.

 

[mister moose]

Speaking for myself I don’t subscribe to the “million ways to ski well” philosophy. Really good skiers look much more similar to each other than different, they use the same movement patterns in a predictable sequence to make their skis behave the way they want. These can and should be taught to learners thereby saving them a lot of time and trouble.

Good in theory, but you need to account for differences in joint construction, bone curvature, musculature, response rates, ingrained patterns, equipment. We simply aren't all alike, and the ability to all ski exactly the same just isn't going to happen. I'm not sure I want that to happen, how boring. While it may be true that there can be a theoretical, movement pattern that is deigned to be ideal, that's going to remain a very elusive goal. Learning is inefficient - you have to adapt the instruction to how your body works, and by how your mind interpreted the instructions. Even with perfect instruction there does not exist perfect learning.

And then the ski gods move the goal posts, and the "proper way to ski" changes.

 

[Bad Bob]

This thread is going to be around for a while.

There are so many ways to initiate a turn and so many different reasons to select one. It comes down to the 6" between your ears not an Associations sanction. 60 years ago instructors either complained or applauded PSIA and its Divisions for giving explicit definitions, ski technique dogma was born in this country. Wonder how much of the debate was caused by just not understanding the words of others while trying to explain the same thing?

Consider some of the classic technique fights of the past: rotation - counter rotation. Up unweighting - down unweighting. cross over - cross under. All of these were about how to initiate a turn. Were a lot of these proponents trying to say the same thing and getting lost.

Was taught by one of the first SSD's I worked for to, 'develop a dozen ways to say the same thing, because some student will need the 12th one to understand what you are saying' (he was also an attorney). That has not changed, and is perhaps one of the secret ingredients of teaching of anything.

You can initiate a turn with extreme rotation or extreme counter rotation, neither of which are particularly efficient today or taught much thank God; but you can do it. Both of them were officially taught at one time or another by the way, and are still taught today in a reduced form; what is upper-lower body separation (anticipation)?

A personal rant a bit off of the topic. Available terrain has to determine part of the teaching progression. If all you have to work with is steeper terrain after you leave the beginners area, you best be teaching some fall line skiing no matter what you choose to call it. If you have some nice blue cruiser, the oyster opens up, you have a lot more options.

 

[JESinstr]

If you went for a golf lesson with a PGA pro and he told you: to hit a solid, straight shot I want you to strike the ball in the center of a square club face with a correct path and angle of attack; to hit the ball farther increase your clubhead speed, you wouldn’t disagree. Similarly, PSIA’s five fundamentals are unexceptionable. Neither answers the obvious question a student would have - how exactly do I do that?

Bob Barnes on Epic once said, paraphrasing, that there was no one in PSIA responsible for writing a detailed, how to manual and he didn’t think there should be. First, it was the job of the individual ski school directors to determine and train the methodology they chose; second, it would be impossible to achieve any sort of consensus at a national level and it would be divisive to try. Based on years of reading opinions in various forums the latter point seems certain!

Of course high level instructors have individually written their own takes on how things work and what movements should be taught. That’s probably all we can hope for.

Speaking for myself I don’t subscribe to the “million ways to ski well” philosophy. Really good skiers look much more similar to each other than different, they use the same movement patterns in a predictable sequence to make their skis behave the way they want. These can and should be taught to learners thereby saving them a lot of time and trouble.

HDN,
I agree with you that good golfers and skiers use similar movement patterns. Maybe a better term is effective movement patterns. But there are differences. Just look at the variety of swing patterns amongst the pros let alone, putting techniques. Look at Bubba, Dustin, Furyk for example. But they all have one thing in common and that is the development of proper dynamic balance and timing. Without that your building a house of cards.

If you throw a newbie out on the slopes,chances are extremely high that they will not learn to properly dynamically balance so as to fully utilize the functional design of the ski. Yet, I see many instructors bypassing the all important process of teaching balance. They assume that once a student has made a straight run, a sufficient capability to properly balance exists. In most cases it doesn't. So when we move on to teaching turns, the com is all over the place.

I use the 5 fundamentals as a verification tool being that, as the instructor, I am in the observation Frame of Reference. I can see if what I asked the student to is producing the results that the fundamental calls for. For me, it has been a great enhancement to program.

 

[David Chan]

Really good skiers look much more similar to each other than different, they use the same movement patterns in a predictable sequence to make their skis behave the way they want.

Similarly, PSIA’s five fundamentals are unexceptionable. Neither answers the obvious question a student would have - how exactly do I do that?

In a way you have just validated PSIA's shift to the "Five Fundamentals" focus.

If you read the early articles and reasons for creating them, They wanted to put in simple words (I am not sure how well they did this part) and in a short statement, what things happen in all good skiing (regardless of level, intensity, etc) The "how" was not included because the "how" would vary depending on where in the development, the specific skier was. This is why there is a difference on how we teach a beginner, vs an advanced skier, but a beginner skier if making proper movements would exhibit all these traits of a good skier. Maybe not on steep terrain, and maybe not as dynamically but the 5 fundamentals would be there.

There is very little of how to do this because of what several people have already mentioned, differences in body makeup, shape, fitness, strength, mental state, etc. That's where a good instructor, comes in. We use the frame work of the "steps outlined" to guide us through what makes sense but hopefully as this begins to be disseminated to the ranks, some of the teaching will also evolve to match this goal.

Teaching a weight shift/extension to the new outside ski, to someone that is still trying to learn to balance on a sliding platform makes more sense than trying to take the weight off one foot before they have learned to balance against the other foot. As they learn to balance against the new outside ski and trust that it will hold them up (now moving into the advanced zone) then we can count on the client to be able to stand or establish balance on the new outside ski/leg, while flexing or taking weight off the new inside ski.

 

[Wendy]

Would you share the name of your instructor?

Re your experience with teaching skiing, so sorry to hear your experience. I’ve heard many experiences like this. Too many.

Hopefully this is slowly changing. There has been a pretty strong effort in recent years to get PSIA divisions more in line and language simplified. There has also been an effort to get more training in people skills. Unfortunately there is a lot of history and old school attitude to overcome, along with the organization is pretty large and changing direction for a large entity takes time.

The L3 instructor at Alta is a 30-year veteran named Eva Nieminski. She grew up skiing in Europe. Her husband Andrjez is also a 30-year L3 instructor there.

Since I am resigning from my classroom teaching job in June, and will have more time next year, I am pondering returning to instructing. I’ve heard my local bump has a new technical director. As a public school teacher, I am well-acquainted with bureaucracy and the ponderous path towards effective change. I am lucky that the ski school director keeps asking me to return, and, I got on well with other instructors....it was just the overly technical jargon and self-satisfied arrogance of the technical director that turned me away.

 

[Nancy Hummel]

In my opinion and experience, there are many good skiers but fewer good teachers.

There are many L3 and some examiner level instructors who really do not have a solid understanding of the biomechanics of skiing and how to convey that to others.

There are many L3 and some examiners who are hot skiers and who regurgitate the current "theme of the year". In RM, we went from the "Wall" a few years ago to "directing pressure to the outside ski" for the past couple of years. Many of the long time instructors have seen themes come and go.

Bob Barnes is one of the few people who knows what he is talking about, skis it and can convey it to others.

I have said many times in other posts - there is much "WHAT TO DO" but not enough "HOW TO DO IT.".

Instructors must also realize who their audience is. Dissecting turning mechanics at happy hour with other instructors is much different than teaching it to recreational skiers who ski 1 week a year.

It can be done! I have experienced it and I work very hard to do it.

 

[HardDaysNight]

In a way you have just validated PSIA's shift to the "Five Fundamentals" focus.

I think the five fundamentals focus is entirely valid and, as @JESinstr points out, a valuable verification tool. It just doesn’t explain to a student what actually to do!

Absent anomalies beyond the normal range of anatomical and physiological variation, I don’t think appeals to individual differences as an excuse not to teach proper skiing movement patterns have any validity although, obviously, the range and intensity of such movements will vary by age, fitness, flexibility, strength, etc.

 

[David Chan]

Absent anomalies beyond the normal range of anatomical and physiological variation, I don’t think appeals to individual differences as an excuse not to teach proper skiing movement patterns

Totally agree. Even with these differences, still no excuse to not teach proper skiing movement. Just that how you get there, may take a different path.

 

[Suzski]

Yes, I see I did get @David Chan and @David Chaus confused. And there it is, on page 118, just as David Chan posted. I did miss it. I missed the whole chapter. PSIA does provide a step by step description of a basic parallel turn in this manual. As David pointed out, the PSIA promoted initiation is to:
--Flatten both skis (doesn't say how).
--Extend the new outside leg to move the CoM across the skis (doesn't say that this will actually flatten both skis).
--Doesn't say to do this extension to get the new outside ski weighted and onto its new edge so it will start the turn, but that's what it has to mean.
--Flex the new inside leg and rotate that new inside ski to keep up (match) the now-turning outside ski.


This is definitely an extension initiation, since so much of the top of the turn depends on lengthening that new outside leg.
@Suzski, is this the information about turn initiation you were looking for?

Yes! This is what we were discussing/wondering about. The other issue (that I was afraid to broach) was how to teach separation - more specifically, how to move a skier away from having his/her shoulders and hips (especially hips) square to the skis. But that might be a separate topic (i.e., firestorm).

 

[Suzski]

Yes! This is what we were discussing/wondering about. The other issue (that I was afraid to broach) was how to teach separation - more specifically, how to move a skier away from having his/her shoulders and hips (especially hips) square to the skis. But that might be best as a separate topic (i.e., firestorm).

 

[Nancy Hummel]

Yes! This is what we were discussing/wondering about. The other issue (that I was afraid to broach) was how to teach separation - more specifically, how to move a skier away from having his/her shoulders and hips (especially hips) square to the skis. But that might be a separate topic (i.e., firestorm).

Suzski, separation is a result of movement patterns. This is an oversimplified explanation but if you start with a centered stance, release your edges, turn or tip your legs, separation will happen.

 

[Steve]

As Nancy said. Separation is the result of moving things below your hips and not moving things above them (or moving them less.)

 

[LiquidFeet]

Teaching separation to adult skiers is difficult.
Their hips turn with their feet, and everything above the hips does what the hips do.
But it's worth teaching, despite the difficulty.
I wish PSIA would push instructors to teach it in the first day beginner lesson.
Short FDB lessons in the east (1.5 to 2 hours) often do not provide enough time for that, regrettably.

 

[Skisailor]

Teaching separation to adult skiers is difficult.
Their hips turn with their feet, and everything above the hips does what the hips do.
But it's worth teaching, despite the difficulty.
I wish PSIA would push instructors to teach it in the first day beginner lesson.
Short FDB lessons in the east (1.5 to 2 hours) often do not provide enough time for that, regrettably.

I agree that separation should be taught earlier - in the beginner lessons.

When teaching beginners, as soon as they begin making those very first wedge turns, I immediately introduce the concept of separation, but I have to admit, there are only a very few instructors in our ski school who do this. In the meantime, we end up producing hoards of lower intermediate skiers whose whole body rotates in the direction of the skis with every turn - something which we then have to work on changing later on.

Is it femur rotation in the hip socket?? Heck no - not yet. But I introduce beginners in that very first lesson to the concept that in expert skiing, the upper body is doing something different from the lower body. Most pick it up pretty quickly - with the separation happening somewhere in the spinal column. And maybe some of the more timid beginners are really only keeping their heads facing downhill while the rest of the body turns. But it's a start! I would much rather focus on this critical skill first before worrying about getting them parallel.

 

[Nancy Hummel]

Teaching separation to adult skiers is difficult.
Their hips turn with their feet, and everything above the hips does what the hips do.
But it's worth teaching, despite the difficulty.
I wish PSIA would push instructors to teach it in the first day beginner lesson.
Short FDB lessons in the east (1.5 to 2 hours) often do not provide enough time for that, regrettably.

I agree that 1.5 to 2 hour lessons are not enough time for a first day beginner lesson.

 

[LiquidFeet]

I agree that 1.5 to 2 hour lessons are not enough time for a first day beginner lesson.

Agree. It's just the way it is.

Those clueless beginners assume they will be able to "ski" after that initial lesson. This puts pressure on instructors to give them something that will allow them to turn left and right and come to a stop on terrain labelled green accessed by the easiest lift next to the beginner area, all in 1.5 hours. In rental boots that don't fit. In a group lesson of up to 8 people. On dysfunctional beginner terrain carved out of limited overall acreage, when most of the flat areas near the base lodge have gone to condos because that's fast money to the shareholders.

What could possibly go wrong?