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

Mendieta

Master of Snowplow
SkiTalk Tester
Contributor
Joined
Aug 17, 2016
Posts
4,905
Location
SF Bay Area, CA, USA
Bob, as an Examiner, do you feel that the Infinity Move (there, I called it that! but I still prefer Foot-Squirt™) is in sync with the Demo Team's Five Fundamentals? OK, two part question, is it in sync with the words that they use, and is it in sync with what they actually teach and practice?

Can I add a similar question? How does the foot-squirt / X-Move translate to powder skiing? Thanks in advance!
 

KevinF

Gathermeister-New England
Team Gathermeister
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
3,345
Location
New England
It still amazes me how many instructors and coaches have looked at the Infinity Move animation and said something like "that's obvious--I've always known that"--and then proceeded to teach something that completely contradicts it!

Really? While I'm not an instructor, the thing I notice that's most 'obvious' about the "infinity move" is how visually obvious it is when somebody does it. The moment of transition "looks" completely different between practitioners of the Infinity Move and those who don't utilize it.

And the number of people I see who practice it is a pretty small percentage.
 

Josh Matta

Skiing the powder
Pass Pulled
Joined
Dec 21, 2015
Posts
4,123
Equal weight distribution vs mostly the outside ski, less edging, more subtle ankle movements?

well all of those even they were true would not change this fact.



Skis will always travel further than you body, so the X move is always there assuming your powder turns are offensive in nature, and not defensive in nature.
 

Mendieta

Master of Snowplow
SkiTalk Tester
Contributor
Joined
Aug 17, 2016
Posts
4,905
Location
SF Bay Area, CA, USA
well all of those even they were true would not change this fact.



Skis will always travel further than you body, so the X move is always there assuming your powder turns are offensive in nature, and not defensive in nature.

Thanks, Josh, I am not sure you agree or not with the above, I thought they were true (not said by me but by instructors, either directly to me or in web videos). But I see your point in any case, and it makes sense.
 

markojp

mtn rep for the gear on my feet
Industry Insider
Instructor
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
6,604
Location
PNW aka SEA
Bob, as an Examiner, do you feel that the Infinity Move (there, I called it that! but I still prefer Foot-Squirt™) is in sync with the Demo Team's Five Fundamentals? OK, two part question, is it in sync with the words that they use, and is it in sync with what they actually teach and practice?

Can't and won't speak for Bob, but imho, this safely and well within the descriptors of the 5 fundamentals.
 

James

Out There
Instructor
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Posts
24,453
Can I add a similar question? How does the foot-squirt / X-Move translate to powder skiing? Thanks in advance!

Makes it nearly effortless where there's some pitch.

It's really the same thing whether you're doing it very slowly on a flatish groomer or on a good pitch with powder. It's just the amount of movement is different and the speed of movement is different because you're going faster and the distance the body travels is greater because of pitch. (And scarier).

What makes the turn nearly effortless is you've let your body cross over - go down slope, as your feet go out to the side. This act requires some effort but it's more planing, timing, and a leap of faith. - letting yourself go downhill in front of your skis. But if you do it, the skis will be light at the begining of the turn and will come right around. -yes that requires some effort but very little in untracked powder.

(I agree with Josh in that all those things you mentioned are not necessarily true. But that's another subject.)

Thing is, you can't get to the transition and say "oh it's time for the infinity move". That's too late. You have to be thinking about this as you're in the turn -already moving out of it. So looking ahead and drawing in your mind the next turn really helps.

One thing to think about- while skiing, where in your line or you at neutral? Neutral being the point where any less edge angle and skis will slip. Lets say were making equal turns inside a fixed width of trail. Often we get to near the side when we start the new turn. We've gone way past the middle of the corridor without finishing the turn.

If you concentrate on finishing the turn- skiing into neutral, likely you'll be in position you want. Skiing into neutral involves body movement and edges, but I find it's prinarily body. (You could be edge neutral by tipping with body uphill and you'll have to stem to make the turn). When you start linking the turns it does feel like a pendulum as Amy discovered,

One drill that's fun. Make railroad tracks inside a fixed width trail. This forces you to start movements early. You can't get close to the side and start the new turn. You don't have enough space for the skis to arc. You'll be forced to pivot the skis.
 
Last edited:

James

Out There
Instructor
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Posts
24,453
Here's one. Go to 3:30. Absolutely no infinity move in Christina's powder skiing. Pivots off tails to turn so must sit back. So much work!
 
Thread Starter
TS
Bob Barnes

Bob Barnes

Out on the slopes
Instructor
Contributor
Joined
Nov 8, 2015
Posts
97
Location
Aspen, Colorado
Eric--please don't get me started on the so-called "5 Fundamentals." (I really don't have enough time!)

Ahh, shoot...too late! I have tried for two years to figure out some way that the "five fundamentals" are anything more or more useful than just a potentially confusing and limiting restatement of the venerable Skills Concept. The intention behind them was good, I think, and to be fair, many people have adopted the terminology and use it effectively--it depends on the understanding of the teacher or clinician. But as a standalone "thing," I think they may represent both unnecessary complexity and--ironically--over-simplification at the same time.

Breaking the Skills Concept's "pressure control" into the three discrete planes of motion that it has always comprised (fore-aft, lateral, and "up-down") is hardly a new contribution to the body of understanding--and may distract from understanding the global, continuous, and simultaneous 3-dimensional relationship of the body and the feet. Does a unicyclist think of three separate movements, or does a unicyclist just "balance"?

I find it curious that the Five Fundamentals describe controlling "the relationship of the center of mass to the base of support" only in the context of fore-aft pressure regulation. In fact, that relationship (CM and BoS) is the basis for regulation of fore-aft pressure (Fundamental #1), lateral pressure (Fundamental #2), and overall magnitude of pressure (Fundamental #5). In other words, that simple relationship is the basis for Pressure Control, which is why the Skills Concept did not need to separate it into three "fundamental" separate movements. (It is pertinent to the question, though, that The Infinity Move describes only this simple relationship of the CM and the Base of Support--and nothing more.)

Another curiosity about the Five Fundamentals is that they address the effects of the dynamic forces of the turn and "ski/snow interaction" only in the context of Fundamental #5--regulating the overall magnitude of pressure. Of course, in fact, the external forces of the turn (and of gravity) play equally into all three "pressure" fundamentals. Note the different language of the 5th fundamental, describing "regulation" of the magnitude of pressure, rather than "control," as in the other four fundamentals. I've heard explanations that this choice of wording was intentional, to reflect that the magnitude of pressure is not entirely under our control and depends on the external forces of the turn as well as our movements. That is true, of course, but it is also true that the dynamics of the turn affect fore-aft and lateral pressure just as much. That they saw a distinction here may suggest perhaps a fundamental misunderstanding by the framers of the Five F's.

Stating that we "direct" pressure toward the outside ski, while perhaps not (usually) inaccurate, has caused more misunderstanding and more of what I call "negative movements" (movements of anything in the direction away from the turn--errors in most high performance offensive turns) as a result of that misunderstanding than anything else. The fact is that we move our bodies toward the inside of the turn--away from the outside ski--but only as much as is required for balance on the outside ski against the forces of the turn (usually). Supporters of the Five Fundamentals language typically argue that it doesn't mean that you should necessarily make an active movement toward the outside of the turn--and I suspect that the framers of the language would agree that that is not what they meant--but to me (and many others), the word "direct" does imply some sort of active, muscular movement toward the outside ski. It has certainly led more than a few people astray, at least. The intention may have been accurate, but the wording is (in my opinion) unfortunate and potentially misleading.

Yes, we move in such a way that, most of the time, in many conditions, we end up balanced primarily on the outside ski. The skill of managing lateral balance and foot-to-foot pressure is a critical skill--but it is no more a "fundamental" need to "direct" pressure to the outside ski in skiing--usually--than it is to intentionally "direct" pressure to the outside wheels in a car. It's going to go there, usually, but I've never heard anyone recommend that "everyone lean to the right so I can turn the car left...."

And--regarding the Infinity Move--as I've often suggested, we balance not only in 3 dimensions, but in the 4th dimension of time as well. That is to say, we move "now" in the transition so that we will be in balance later when we reestablish pressure at the beginning of the pressure/shaping/control/carving phase (yes, typically on the outside ski). And what will be "forward" later in the belly of the turn, will be somewhat "lateral" (off to your side--down the hill) in the transition. The three discrete planes of motion of the three "pressure fundamentals" may not necessarily conflict with these more wholistic and 4d thoughts--but they hardly shed light on them either, and they don't lend themselves easily, it seems, to "big picture" understanding.

Limiting rotary movements to only the (admittedly important) "legs rotating separate from the upper body" not only doesn't clarify the distinction between "independent leg rotation" of the legs in the hip sockets (once known as the "fulcrum mechanism") and other types of "upper-lower body separation," but it also ignores the skill of managing the other significant rotational principles of upper body rotation and counter-rotation and blocking pole plants. While upper body rotation is surely often an error, it is also a very important skill to develop, manage, and use situationally. And it is the primary rotary principle of spinning jumps (helicopters, etc) and half-pipe maneuvers.

Stating that edge angle is controlled by a "combination of inclination and angulation," while certainly true, tells us nothing new. At the same time, it suggests that edging movements result entirely from lateral movement (inclination and angulation), when the Infinity Move animation shows that the movements in the transition that will result in inclination later in the upcoming shaping phase...are fore-aft movements! (That is one of the the cool paradoxes that the Infinity Move illustrates--that getting skis tipped and engaged cleanly in the shaping phase relies on accurate fore-aft movements in the transition--allowing the feet to move out toward the outside of the new turn--and that keeping out of the "back seat" in the shaping phase is the result not only of fore-aft movements but of lateral movements (to the side--down the hill) in the transition phase. So, viewed in four dimensions (as we must), "tipping" is at least partially a fore-aft movement, and "getting forward" is a lateral movement! Fit that paradox into the Five Fundamentals, if you can!

(Again, these paradoxical conclusions become increasingly obvious the more complete the turn is--the more the skier's direction, the skis' direction, and "downhill" become three different directions--any of which could be considered "forward." To take it to the extreme, "forward down the hill" is actually "backward" if you're traveling up the hill. The more we keep turns to the fall line and don't complete them, the less this all matters. Could this explain why so many instructors prefer not to complete turns, and why so many skiers who perform adequately on gentle terrain struggle to link complete, offensive gliding turns on the steeps?)

There are so many exceptions to the "simple rules" of the Five Fundamentals--both situational exceptions and cases where time or reference frames blur the clear cause-effect relationships that the Fundamentals express. As noted, a movement "now" may have a very different and important effect "later." Similarly, the same movements can have completely different effects on the skis depending on the orientation of the body. When standing vertically (perpendicular to the snow), for example, fore-aft movements of the legs at the hips will affect fore-aft pressure, and rotational movements of the legs will turn the skis. Lie down on your side on the snow, though, and the same fore-aft hip motion will make your skis point in different directions, while rotational movements of your femurs in the hip sockets will affect pressure along the length of the skis. The effects of these movements literally reverse when your body is vertical vs. horizontal, and they blend along a spectrum in the real world of varying degrees of inclination in ski turns.

So, while I can work with them, I don't think that identifying "the five fundamentals" has moved PSIA forward (pardon the pun), and may have moved us a step back. How they actually work, of course, depends on who is describing them, how they describe them, and more importantly, how they teach and implement them. There is nothing inherently or completely wrong about them. But for the most part, they don't tell anyone what to "do" ("direct pressure along the length of the ski" doesn't say anything about where, or when, or what part of the "length of the ski" should get the pressure when). The Skills Concept didn't do that either, of course--and was widely criticized for that--but the "Center Line Model" filled in the gap brilliantly, and the Five Fundamentals are a step backward from that, in my opinion. To the extent that the Five Fundamentals DO tell us "what to do," they have caused problems, mostly from mistranslation and misunderstanding. As noted, "direct pressure to the outside ski" is not only commonly translated into wrong movements, but even when it isn't, it fails to tie the specific technique to any particular purpose or intent. Because of that, it makes things like White Pass Turns, inside ski turns, and two-footed powder turns--situational exceptions to the "rule"--seem like mistakes.

I may have made the Five Fundamentals concept sound worse here than I really think it is. Really, it's just words, and their meaning is subject to the translation of the speaker and the listener/reader. I can work with them, and I do it all the time, training instructors to be fluent in them and to pass their certification exams. But I don't have to like them! And I don't, personally, find them enlightening or revealing of any important "truth." I do find that they require more explanation than I think they should, and that without explanation, they often lead people astray.

To your question, Eric, I don't think the Five Fundamentals necessarily conflict with The Infinity Move, at all. But on their own, they are too limiting, too simplistic, and (literally) too three dimensional to adequately embrace the whole four-dimensional "gestalt" of The Infinity Move. The Infinity Move is both ultimately simplified and stripped of all unnecessary components, and completely whole at the same time. Unlike the Five Fundamentals, The Infinity Move does not describe ANY body part movements whatsoever (as neither the center of mass nor the "balance point" are parts of your body). It is more fundamental than any specific movement. It is the underlying principle that movements are intended to support, and we must question any movement that disrupts the principle unnecessarily. (Situational needs often require that we disrupt this motion, of course.) It is the outcome that Tom "PhysicsMan" of EpicSki described long ago as the mathematically "perfect turn" (the path of the feet and the path of the body are "continuous in all their derivatives"--that is to say, in simplest terms, they are maximally smooth--in both time and space--with minimal "jerkiness").

The infinity Move is the math, and the measure. It's up to the skier to define the movements!

That's all for now. There's plenty to discuss. It doesn't get any simpler than The Infinity Move--and yet, all of the answers are there.

Happy Holidays, everyone!

Best regards,
Bob Barnes
 
Last edited:

Nancy Hummel

Ski more, talk less.
Instructor
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Jan 10, 2016
Posts
1,036
Location
Snowmass
In every clinic I have been in this season, everyone, including the clinic leaders, seems to be working on "directing pressure to the outside ski".

When I inquired, how do you do this, I have heard various answers with some variation of "move your body to the new outside ski" but no one really has a good explanation of how or why.

Many people interpret "direct" pressure to mean step on or push on the ski which has many undesireable consequences.

Great explanation, Bob!
 
Thread Starter
TS
Bob Barnes

Bob Barnes

Out on the slopes
Instructor
Contributor
Joined
Nov 8, 2015
Posts
97
Location
Aspen, Colorado
Thanks, Nancy. Yep--that's what I'm saying! Whether it's actually "wrong" or not, its interpretation and implementation is, very often, very wrong.

Best,
Bob
 

James

Out There
Instructor
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Posts
24,453
Thanks for the post Bob! Great to have you back.

The inclination and angulation statement for edging causes much angst. First we have to argue what it is. Plus, technically it's really just inclination of the lower leg that matters to the ski. Angulation allows more lower leg inclination but the ski base only sees action from the leg.

Just another yes/no please explain. Like pictographs on your clothes for washing instructions- words would be better.
 

Chris V.

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Mar 25, 2016
Posts
1,366
Location
Truckee
If you concentrate on finishing the turn- skiing into neutral, likely you'll be in position you want.
"Finishing the turn" is one of those phrases that embodies a crucial concept, but that doesn't in itself furnish an adequate explanation--one that instructors express all the time, but the meaning of which they all too often don't make understandable to students. Restating it as "skiing into neutral" is already an improvement. I want to remember that one, and I'd like to hear it said more often. Instructors need to respect the fact that students don't have the same background as they have, that buzzwords are often meaningless to students, and that the teaching of any skiing skill needs to be broken down into its fundamental body part movements and sensations.
 

Chris V.

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Mar 25, 2016
Posts
1,366
Location
Truckee
Ahh, shoot...too late! I have tried for two years to figure out some way that the "five fundamentals" are anything more or more useful than just a potentially confusing and limiting restatement of the venerable Skills Concept.
The Five Fundamentals are not something that I would likely find it useful to discuss with most students. The Skills Concept is a lot more approachable in that respect. The Five Fundamentals are one useful way of organizing thinking about skiing, but to my mind are scarcely the only good way of doing so. Five relatively short phrases will never tell you everything you need to know about the sport. I'm not going to load them up with excessive expectations.
 

Tricia

The Velvet Hammer
Admin
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Posts
27,298
Location
Reno
Stating that we "direct" pressure toward the outside ski, while perhaps not (usually) inaccurate, has caused more misunderstanding and more of what I call "negative movements" (movements of anything in the direction away from the turn--errors in most high performance offensive turns) as a result of that misunderstanding than anything else. The fact is that we move our bodies toward the inside of the turn--away from the outside ski--but only as much as is required for balance on the outside ski against the forces of the turn (usually). Supporters of the Five Fundamentals language typically argue that it doesn't mean that you should necessarily make an active movement toward the outside of the turn--and I suspect that the framers of the language would agree that that is not what they meant--but to me (and many others), the word "direct" does imply some sort of active, muscular movement toward the outside ski. It has certainly led more than a few people astray, at least. The intention may have been accurate, but the wording is (in my opinion) unfortunate and potentially misleading.
This is giving me something to think about and work on.
 
Thread Starter
TS
Bob Barnes

Bob Barnes

Out on the slopes
Instructor
Contributor
Joined
Nov 8, 2015
Posts
97
Location
Aspen, Colorado
The Five Fundamentals are not something that I would likely find it useful to discuss with most students. The Skills Concept is a lot more approachable in that respect. The Five Fundamentals are one useful way of organizing thinking about skiing, but to my mind are scarcely the only good way of doing so. Five relatively short phrases will never tell you everything you need to know about the sport. I'm not going to load them up with excessive expectations.

And perhaps that is the problem, Chris. Whether they are a "useful way of organizing thinking about skiing" or not, they have often been presented as much, much more than that. I think they "try" to do too much. Those who use them for what they are, like yourself, can take what's helpful and leave the rest. But for those who have higher expectations and hopes, I'm not convinced that the Five Fundamentals has advanced our thinking or understanding. It's kind of an "emperor with no clothes" (and I'm not referring to the President Elect here).

For what it's worth, I don't think anyone would tell you that the Five Fundamentals were meant to replace the Skills Concept. Far from it--they were intended to supplement it, to stand on the foundation of the Skills Concept and go where the Skills Concept never intended to go.

Here's a little history, for those who haven't followed the evolution of American ski instruction. The Skills Concept arose in the 1970's as a complete reversal from the rigidly defined "national techniques" and "final forms" that preceded it. Rather than defining a specific technique as an end itself, it provided the neutral background to understand and describe all techniques and movement blends--good, bad, ugly, effective, ineffective, or otherwise--in terms of three broad, overlapping skills groups of "rotary, edging, and pressure control." It was simple, universal, and brilliant. But the Skills Concept's universal strength was also its shortcoming. Encompassing every possible movement, movement pattern, and blend, for any intent, anywhere, any time, it gives no indication of what "good" skiing is. Intentionally neutral, it lets us explain anything, but gives no help as to how best to do it. It does not illuminate a belief system as to what are "good" movements, and does not help distinguish between "good skiing" and bad skiing.

That was the point, of course. As an analysis tool, unbiased is better. But as an instruction tool and marketing tool, we (American instructors) needed to define our belief system, at a time when most skiing nations proudly stood by their unique "national techniques." People who take lessons, typically, want to know what is "right" and "wrong," what movements are good, and what movements aren't. The Skills Concept by itself did not go there.

Enter the Center Line Model, in the 1980's. It took the Skills Concept and organized the spectrum of movement possibilities according to purpose or intent. Pure-carving, braking, or steering a precise and efficient line of the skier's choosing--each of these (and many more) intents demands a different blend of movements and expression of skills, and the Center Line Model attempted to describe these movements in terms of effective/ineffective and efficient/ineffecient. It organized the Skills Concept, graphically mapping out both "linear learning" and "lateral learning" pathways within the undefined myriad of possibilities. If you wanted to know how to make a particular type of turn--what movements to make, and not to make--we had a tool now that explained how to do it. It was a beautiful model, in my opinion.

But the Center Line Model, created only to supplement the Skills Concept, instead brought the common misperception of trying to replace it. The "Center Line movement blend" was intended only as a reference point on a spectrum of possibilities, where all skills (rotary, edging, and pressure control) and movements blend together as needed to shape precise, offensive turns. But it was too commonly perceived as a "final form" that defined the only "correct" way to ski. So we had the Skills Concept, which didn't define any particular way to ski, and the Center Line, that was wrongly perceived as a rigidly defined return to "final forms," and people got confused.

Perhaps it was a naming problem. "Center Line" naturally brought focus to the "center" of the spectrum, when it was really meant to embrace the entire spectrum and serve as a road map to help navigate the field of skiing movements, and to assist instructors in tying specific techniques to varying intents and purposes. Perhaps a different name might have lessened the confusion.

In any case, the Model was a true breakthrough, with the potential to advance understanding and to serve as a useful tool for instructors. It failed, due to widespread misunderstanding (in my opinion), and was superseded by the somewhat "dumbed down," but brilliantly versatile "Stepping Stones" model. Less a skiing technical model and more of a model for developing unique teaching progressions for each individual student, Stepping Stones was a valid attempt to embrace still the flexibility and student-centered, outcome-based ideals that have been a hallmark of American instruction since the Skills Concept, while still recognizing that "good skiing" is a common goal, and that it has certain defining fundamental principles.

But again, with the Center Line Model dead and buried and all traces erased from our Technical Manuals, we lacked a definition of those defining fundamental principles of good skiing. The pendulum took another swing, and that is where the Five Fundamentals came in. They were intended to describe certain fundamental beliefs and preferences for certain movements and ski performance outcomes, as an expression of our "national belief" about "good skiing." They were intended to do what the Center Line Model tried to do--to supplement the Skills Concept with practical, usable information about what to do to make "good turns."

It was an honorable attempt, but in my opinion, it missed the mark. Both too vague and open in some areas, and too restrictive and limiting in others, it fails at its intended task mostly because it tries to define technique without first defining the outcome, purpose, or intent that that specific technique serves (and without explicitly acknowledging that other valid purposes and intents also exist, and may require different movements). With skiing encompassing an incredibly diverse spectrum of intents, purposes, and preferences--from technical icy race courses to the freestyle park to "big mountain" powder skiing to railed out g-force-junkie carving, from moguls to going fast to just trying to survive to the bottom--it is never going to work to just define "the technique" of "good skiing." The Five Fundamentals recognizes that--which is why it is intentionally vague in places to allow for versatility--and yet its specificity (direct pressure to the outside ski, rotary movements from the legs only) limits its versatility and leaves open the potential for some "good skiing" to conflict with the "Fundamentals." It tries to do too much, and ends up doing too little. For some, it is the vagueness that is the problem. For others, it is the limitations of its specificity.

For sure, you cannot "please 'em all, all the time." I honor the intent behind the Five Fundamentals. But I don't think they've lived up to that intent.

---

Regardless of anyone's personal like or dislike of the Five Fundamentals, I think it is unfair to judge them as to their direct usefulness to students. That was never their intent. Nor was it the intent of the Skills Concept, The Center Line, or the Stepping Stones models (or the CAP model, CSP [Comfort-Stretch-Panic] model, the Guest-Centered Teaching model, or almost any other teaching or technical model). These models are tools for instructors to use to help provide for the needs of their students. Except for the truly curious student who likes to know what lies behind the instructor's decision-making process, these models should remain in the background, underlying the lesson, but not actually "being" the lesson. We do not "teach the Five Fundamentals," or the Skills Concept. We may teach with them, as they help determine the content and pathway of the lesson. They should help us find the road--but they are not the destination.

Best regards,
Bob
 
Last edited:
Thread Starter
TS
Bob Barnes

Bob Barnes

Out on the slopes
Instructor
Contributor
Joined
Nov 8, 2015
Posts
97
Location
Aspen, Colorado
Speaking of which (and returning to the topic of the thread), I would argue that the Infinity Move, unlike the Five Fundamentals or other teaching and technical models, IS the destination (or at least, it is A worthy destination, arguably one of many). It illustrates the outcome that will result when we get all the movements right.

Best regards,
Bob
 

Mendieta

Master of Snowplow
SkiTalk Tester
Contributor
Joined
Aug 17, 2016
Posts
4,905
Location
SF Bay Area, CA, USA
Speaking of which (and returning to the topic of the thread), I would argue that the Infinity Move, unlike the Five Fundamentals or other teaching and technical models, IS the destination (or at least, it is A worthy destination, arguably one of many). It illustrates the outcome that will result when we get all the movements right.

Best regards,
Bob

Funny that you say that, because I've been concluding that, lately. I am an intermediate with only dozens of days of ski life. My last lesson, this past weekend, was simply centered on that: focusing on the outcome. In my case, turn shape. There are certain movements needed to achieve that, and hardpack is different from wet powder, but ultimately, my immediate goal is rounder terms in both. Next, the move :)

Students are smarter and more resourceful than we tend to think. If we show them the goal (in this case I am the student, but it doesn't matter), they'll find ways of getting there. We can, and we should, show how to achieve the goal. The problem really arises when we put the cart in front of the horse, and the means to achieve a goal ... become goals themselves.
 

Sponsor

Top