LiquidFeet, (my account quoting still isn't working)
This was in the bumps. I couldn't see the stiffness. I felt like the skier could have done better A&E, but that was about it. Sometimes the skier would blow up, but had very stable upper body and hands, great posture, nice form. I didn't hear anything else, besides that was better, or that was a little stiff again.
There are some threads going on right now that focus on doing MA. It is in that spirit that I am shaping my questions this way. Plus I am simply curious.
"Too rigid" should mean there's a functional disadvantage going on, just as there would be a disadvantage is the skier were a floppy rag doll.
Had this skier done "better A&E" (meaning deeper flexing?), what goodness would that have brought to his bump run?
In other words, was the point of loosening up obvious?
I'm assuming not blowing up would be point no.1 (guess I'm answering that question myself). Would there have been more advantages?
But was it obvious to you that not falling would result from less rigidity/loosening up?
Being told to loosen up can work if the skier knows what the prize is. Being told to loosen up without that focus might not produce the desired results.
Being told to increase A&E is more a more specific directive. Would that have helped this skier not blow up?
I'd enjoy hearing what people think. I have not had much success telling clients to "loosen up." So I try to be more specific, or to use indirect means to get them to shed their rigidity. But then my clients are intermediates, novices, and beginners, not advanced skiers.