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