Toppling and balance.

[stevo]

Eh, it's starting to get a bit useful, tbh. Like I want to know when after transition is hip angulation halal to start using?

what does halal mean?

In my view of the world, hip angulation is an act of balance management. Some people use it as a primary ski tipping and edging engine. I do not, so take this comment in light of that. As a balance management action, hip angulation can be used in micro doses very very early, frankly from the very first initiation of the turn. It will develop over time during the turn as the need arises. But my view of it is that its primary function is that of counter balancing . It's balance management. this is part of what makes it possible to allow your CoM to cross over without letting it topple out of balance to the inside. By counter balancing you can gently lower your CoM into the inside of the turn. See my earlier post about the bowling ball analogy.

 

[LuliTheYounger]

Sure, sounds great, but still balance is balance. If you are out of balance you are out of balance. the fact that you are moving just makes it dynamic. you can dynamically move, walk, run, ski and many other things without going out of balance. You can alternatively go in and out of balance, which is just that...going in and out of balance. Going in and out of balance is not "dynamic balance", that is "part time" balance. And sure we do many activities in part time balance. I have covered this already above, not sure if you read it or not, and maybe we simply don't agree about what it means to be in dynamic balance, that's fine too...but if you are out of balance for part of the turn, that is simply NOT in balance of any kind including dynamic balance...particularly when ski performance will likely be compromised. You can call whatever you want as "dynamic balance", it starts to become a word salad debate at some point; but if your definition of dynamic balance is to go in and out of balance intentionally, then that is too low of a bar to set for high quality skiing, balance in skiing needs to be better then that. Whatever word choice you want to use for that.

If you are able to adjust what you are doing so that as you move and the external forces are changing, etc..and you are able at each moment to remain in balance, or close to it...that would be something more like dynamic balance. If you push yourself out of balance because you feel you have to...then you will have to recover your balance back later..and in between..you will be out of balance. Pushing yourself into the turn, toppling yourself into the turn, these things compromise your balance. Being in balance is not an on or off switch. You can be closer to it or further from it. Toppling and pushing, take you away from it. At some point if someone is deliberately making balance-destroying movements, I will have to say that they are not in good dynamic balance according to my definition of what that word means.

The fetishization of "balance" is a misguided premise.

 

[markojp]

The fetishization of "balance" is a misguided premise.

... and I'd rather ski anyhow.

 

[tsaldana11]

#1 There is no simple way to explain or understand something very complex.
#2 If something is not making sense to you and the way you ski, it may be because you are fundamentally not at the level to learn the lesson you are trying to learn. I will comment more on this at the end. I am going to assume you ARE ready to learn the skills you are trying to learn.
#3 Stop thinking about the hips moving into the inside of the turn, falling into the turn, etc. It does not work that way. Start thinking about REACHING further out with your skis. This reach is initiated in the TRANSITION when edge pressure is light. In one of Deb Armstrong's videos she was talking to a US ski team athlete about edge angles, and he specifically mentioned "reaching" further and further out and just having supreme confident the skis would hold. Watch World Cup skiers in Slalom. Specifically look at the gates set on FLAT parts of a course, if there are any. Those gates will not be as far across the fall line. The center of mass of the skiers on those sorts of turns barely move side to side across the fall line at all. The skis are 30" out to the left...then 30" to the right, while the skiers hips are going straight down the hill. So exactly how on earth are their hips falling to the inside of the turn? They are NOT AT ALL. It is their skis that are moving, reaching, relative to the skiers center of mass. All high level race turns are like this. You want the center of mass to move AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE, which means the skis must move out as far as possible. So again, start thinking and feeling your legs reaching, and forget about this whole toppling idea. It is just plain nonsense.
#4 If you "reach" farther out, there are two possible outcomes. A - You will end up on your inside ski and lose the outside edge, possible falling. B - you will develop higher edge angles and rip turns like an FIS skier.
#5 For most, when we "reach" really far out the former is the result because we are lacking some very challenging advanced fundamentals. Two weeks ago I took a high speed fall because I was skiing sloppy, and on a pitch too steep for my current high edge angle carving skills. I got aggressive laying into a turn. I really reached out, and the skis never had a prayer of holding. My inside ski was flatter than my outside (A-framing too much early in the turn). A flatter inside ski takes weight off the outside ski while simultaneously adding no turning force. I slid about 100 yards at 30+ mph on my hip/side. It forced me to go back to work on some fundamentals, and realize my inside ski awareness with my left leg was a big problem. This soon led to a major breakthrough for me. More on that below.
#5 The most critical advanced fundamental is inside ski awareness, and the ability to adjust BOTH your ski angles dynamically AND independently at the same time. Your inside ski is not along for a ride. In fact, for high performance high edge angle turns, your inside ski is the control system in the early, most critical part of the turn.
#6 To develop inside ski awareness and control, do Garlands, One Ski Skiing (Watch Burke Mountain Academy One Ski Drill), and then make good carved turns on a very easy/mild slope FEELING your inside ski inclination. You MUST develop the feel of dorsiflexing your inside ankle joint while driving your inside (leading) knee towards the inside of the turn (not up or forward!) to increase your inside ski edge angle. You should spend a lot of time on very easy slopes without too much pitch, just cranking turns. Build up a lot of speed, and then burn off speed as you crank high edge angle turns. You should be able to drag your inside hand without going out of position. It does not work the other way. If you can not do FIS level turns on a very flat slope, there is ZERO chance of doing them on a steeper slope. You develop the skills on easy slopes, they build the pitch while holding that form/feeling/skill set.
#7 The other advanced fundamental is the low transition. I see very very few skiers out on the hill actually do a low transition. Watch Triggerboy62's "How to CARVE LOW" to understand this better. It is one of the best explanations of the importance of the low transitions that I have found. I was at Mammoth recently, and watched some of the Jr. FIS program skiers free-skiing. Even many of them were getting lazy and not doing a consistent low transition. This is probably because it is exhausting to ski that way all the time. But this is absolutely a mandatory skill. When you are cranking a high edge angle turn, your DH/loaded leg is barely bent. Call this stacked, call it strong, whatever. It has to be in that strong position because if you bend it any more, it will collapse under the massive load. So your loaded leg is actually quite TALL in the turn, but it is inclined perpendicular for your ski bases. Skiers who rip high edge angle turns are not short....they are TALL....but they are so inclined that they LOOK low. So..... what needs to happen in transition? If you maintain this strong and tall leg position, all that energy will go into "pop" and your center of mass will bet pushed up way too much. You will push your body up. This is the old way of skiing. This un-weights everything, most importantly your skis, and makes your transition SLOW SLOW SLOW. So what you have to learn is to get SHORTER in transition. It is almost the opposite of what us older skiers learned in the 80s. In transition, your should look like you are sitting in a chair...both legs bent about 90 degrees. This is physically very hard, and technically very hard as you are in a bad position that you must very quickly recover from. But when you start to do the low transition you will be shocked at two things. #1 how quick you can go from edge to edge and #2 how it facilitates reaching further out with the skis. The whole problem with "patience" and having to wait for the skiis to initiate a carve pretty much goes out the window when you learn a low transition. You will immediately start developing edging forces. This is a big part of what makes developing early high edge angles possible.

Putting it all together, if you do not do a low transition, you really can not "reach out" to quickly create high edge angles. And if you do not have good inside ski awareness and control, creating a early high edge angle will likely just lead to a bigger crash. So, in the name of safety, learn inside ski awareness. Then learn the low transition. Then you can start to REACH more.

Now, lets take it a further level. Just recently, I learned something that I should have understood months ago. But why didn't I? I was not ready to learn the lesson. Specifically, I thought I understood how important the inside ski was. The reality was, I did not have a clue. It was not until I learned the low transition, and started really working hard on inside ski awareness that I discovered how the inside ski actually controls the outside ski edge angle. You hear lots of coaches talk about shortening the inside leg, and driving the inside knee so as to create high edge angles. But this is very misleading. I have not heard A SINGLE coach actually tell you HOW to shorten your inside leg. You are left to think that you just pull it up using your hip flexors, and then your body will just "fall" into higher edge angles. It does not work that way at all. It was not till I started developing the ability to adjust both edge angles at the same time that I had an "ah ha" moment. I have terrible inside ski feel on my left turns (I am right leg dominant) but pretty good inside ski feel on my right turns, where my inside ski is my right leg. I noticed that if I tried to incline my inside right ski (on a right turn) to a higher edge angle, then it did something strange. It basically "stretched" my inside leg/boot inside and forward and inclining my whole body AND the outside ski, while maintaining a stable balanced and highly loaded position. Total "ahha!" moment. The realization was that you do NOT "drive you knee" or "shorten your inside leg" using your leg muscles. YOU SHORTEN YOUR INSIDE LEG BY CARVING THE SKI AWAY FROM (MORE THAN) YOUR OUTSIDE SKI WHICH THEN PUSHES YOUR LEG INTO A SHORTER POSITION WITH MORE INSIDE SKI LEAD! This then cranks up your OUTSIDE SKI EDGE ANGLE. This is how the inside ski is the "control" for your outside edge angle. This is what I meant by "being ready to learn a lesson" I though I was ready to understand inside ski shortening, but I WAS NOT. My skiing was not at a level where I could understand the context of the technique. I did not have the dynamic edge control, motor control and feel to drive my inside ski to higher edge angles. I still don't with my left ski. And because I was not able to do that, my attempts to increase edge angles by shortening the inside leg just created more problems like that crash I described. I was not using the right technique to shorten my inside leg because I literally did not have the motor control to tip my ski in that way. Do slow Garlands and you will see what I mean. You may find, like me, that it is very hard to incline your non-dominant inside ski and maintain equilibrium dynamic balance. Either you fall into the hill, or the skis over edge and come under you.

So, if you are having hard time understanding certain concepts as they relate to your skiing, it may be because you are lacking some fundamentals and motor control skills that you do not even know you are lacking. This creates a tactile disconnect, and the results of some techniques may not be what you expect them to be. Pointers that people give you will not work, because you are not able to actually do the technique properly. You need to find that missing piece and fix it.

So BT, read your detailed post. In order to rip those edges at high angles, after leaning com into the turn and inside ski on edge, outside leg goes out, then knee and hip flex (drop) at the same time, while inside leg is at an angle?

 

[snowtravel]

I watched the toppling video, and am fairly certain he's right: don't disconnect from your feet.

(Some of the best advice I've ever heard.)

 

[stevo]

The fetishization of "balance" is a misguided premise.

That's an interesting way of saying you don't believe balance is an important part of skiing. Misguided premise? What is utterly misguided is dismissing the importance of balance in skiing.

Obviously I completely disagree with everything about your statement above. Balance is one of the most important skills in skiing.

 

[snowtravel]

That's an interesting way of saying you don't believe balance is an important part of skiing. Misguided premise? What is utterly misguided is dismissing the importance of balance in skiing.

Obviously I completely disagree with everything about your statement above. Balance is one of the most important skills in skiing.

The fetishization comment is pretty weird all right. Do we need to look up the definition of a "fetish?"

Arguably, apart from understanding snow, apparel, equipment, lifts—and the implications of cliffs, other folks, large objects and the like—the only skill that matters is balance.

I mean, if you can balance on skis in your preferred terrain and conditions then life is good.

(And if not, well....)

 

[LuliTheYounger]

That's an interesting way of saying you don't believe balance is an important part of skiing. Misguided premise? What is utterly misguided is dismissing the importance of balance in skiing.

Obviously I completely disagree with everything about your statement above. Balance is one of the most important skills in skiing.

Eh. I think it's interesting that you project your fear onto other people. Balance is useful at times, but chasing static balance at the cost of everything else is a terminally intermediate approach; it's a fear-based framework that's comfortable psychologically but not particularly useful in terms of developing technique.

The thing I chase above balance is agency. I want to be able to make thoughtful decisions about what skills to use in a situation and use them as they're useful; I would rather control my experience vs. letting the experience control me.

If I tallied the numbers, I conservatively topple about 2,000 times a week. By your definition of balance, that's going "out of balance" 2,000 times a week – and I would completely agree that it's out of balance, because it is, truthfully. I've heard people call it everything from toppling to throwing yourself to allowing a fall, etc etc. Resisting the fact that it's out of balance is fear based rather than agency based, at least in my head; I try to lean into (haha) the fact that it is what it is.

The thing is that after doing it somewhere around 100,000 times in a year, it's an extremely controlled motion. It's drilled to h-e-double-hockey-sticks and back. I can do it when I want and I turn it off when I want. There's no real fear in it now; it's just a motion that I have a very strong sense of agency over. Was it scary to chuck myself at the ground at first? Absolutely. Was working through the fear in order to get ownership over the technique and add an effective new motion to the arsenal useful? For my situation, I think so. (In part because I do not like listening to my coach yell at me for wasting her time, lol, and I cannot deny that she is scarier than most new skills.) Your personal balance in that equation may differ. That's fine; it's just a different experience.

I don't mean terminal intermediate as a diss, btw – I know it sounds like it, but I coach beginners here and there, and this is an incredibly common thing to struggle with. Many people are working with a deep well of anxiety – sometimes one that only really appears when we're asking them to do something totally novel and also deeply bizarre with their bodies. I'm still super impressed that they choose to come out and do their best with us – but the reality is that the fear stands between them and developing more meaningful control over their skills.

 

[stevo]

Eh. I think it's interesting that you project your fear onto other people.

You lost me there. What fear do you think I am projecting?

Balance is useful at times, but chasing static balance

Who said anything about “static” balance. You have an incorrect understanding of what I have said about dynamic balance it would seem and in my opinion an incorrect opinion about what dynamic balance is.

at the cost of everything else is a terminally intermediate approach;

I think throwing balance out the window is what leads to mediocre skiing. But it’s also all relative.

it's a fear-based framework that's comfortable psychologically but not particularly useful in terms of developing technique.

again please explain what fear you are talking about.

The thing I chase above balance is agency. I want to be able to make thoughtful decisions about what skills to use in a situation and use them as they're useful; I would rather control my experience vs. letting the experience control me.

however when you go out of balance is exactly when you will lose some control. Sure you have agency to give up control if you wish; knock yourself out.

If I tallied the numbers, I conservatively topple about 2,000 times a week. By your definition of balance, that's going "out of balance" 2,000 times a week – and I would completely agree that it's out of balance, because it is, truthfully.

Glad to hear you agree with me

I've heard people call it everything from toppling to throwing yourself to allowing a fall, etc etc. Resisting the fact that it's out of balance is fear based rather than agency based, at least in my head; I try to lean into (haha) the fact that it is what it is.

there is no fear that has absolutely nothing to do with anything here.

The thing is that after doing it somewhere around 100,000 times in a year, it's an extremely controlled motion. It's drilled to h-e-double-hockey-sticks and back. I can do it when I want and I turn it off when I want. There's no real fear in it now; it's just a motion that I have a very strong sense of agency over. Was it scary to chuck myself at the ground at first? Absolutely. Was working through the fear in order to get ownership over the technique and add an effective new motion to the arsenal useful? For my situation, I think so. (In part because I do not like listening to my coach yell at me for wasting her time, lol, and I cannot deny that she is scarier than most new skills.) Your personal balance in that equation may differ. That's fine; it's just a different experience.

I’m glad to hear you have overcome your fear of falling. If you are going out of balance between every turn then you have compromised ski performance. I hope someday you will consider the possibility to move dynamically through your turns without compromising your balance and ski performance.

I don't mean terminal intermediate as a diss, btw – I know it sounds like it, but I coach beginners here and there, and this is an incredibly common thing to struggle with. Many people are working with a deep well of anxiety –

alright but don’t project that experience onto me it’s completely off base.

sometimes one that only really appears when we're asking them to do something totally novel and also deeply bizarre with their bodies. I'm still super impressed that they choose to come out and do their best with us – but the reality is that the fear stands between them and developing more meaningful control over their skills.

I said numerous posts ago already that I could see the term “topple” being effective for the case if a skier they can’t move across whether from fear or other blockages in their technique that may be preventing them from doing it. It could be an interesting stepping stone concept.

however as a long term meme it is problematic because it encourages sloppy out of balance skiing. Your reaction here is a classic example of someone that quite possibly is perfectly capable of moving on to higher levels of balance and refinement that will come only when you realize that toppling out of balance is in fact the intermediate move and while it may have gotten you to move more dynamically then you allegedly were a long time ago; apparently it had also motivated and inspired you to ski very much OUT of dynamic balance. I encourage you to explore balance further

 

[geepers]

dynamic balance

That term is basically meaningless unless both the speaker and audience have a common understanding of what it means.

As an example if I told my wife, who ski techno-babble averse, that she needed to work on her dynamic balance it would be both pointless and counter-productive. It would be merely pointless if mentioned to my intermediate ski buddies.

Suspect that if the topplers and dynamic balancers sat down together and actually worked out what each meant by their terms everyone would be in violent agreement. More or less. And we could stop the thread. Which would be no fun - sorry for suggesting it.

 

[snowtravel]

One way to shed light on the argument lies in the distinction between "balance" as verb versus noun. Even though in English it can be either, people often use it exclusively in one sense or the other.

Thinking of balance as a quality or quantity tends to make it static by definition: "equilibrium." Conceptualized as a verb, "balance" implies a process or actions that establish or maintain equilibrium.

So is "balance" is an essential skill or a problematic crutch, and is "out of balance" a good thing? Semantics might suggest more common ground than what's apparent here.

 

[LuliTheYounger]

You lost me there. What fear do you think I am projecting?

My view about "dynamic balance" is that many people are throwing this term around referring to going in and out of balance dynamically....which is not dynamic balance, that is dynamic imbalance. In my view static balance means you are in balance and you are not moving or the enviornment is not changing, it's a static state...and in balance. Dynamic balance is maintaining balance even though the the externals are changing. Meaning you are constantly adjusting your own state so that as the externals are changing you continually are in balance. Or at least striving to be, some people are better at this than others. Let's say maintaining as close to in balance as your skills can do, even while there are a lot of dynamically changing factors.

In your first post on the topic (seen above) you argue that dynamic balance is in reaction to external forces. This is a reactive framework, not a proactive one. I've only ever seen this framework in people who are pushing their abilities by reacting to the mountain and cannot add another layer of skills yet. Many of these people have a fear of being momentarily out of control and are not able to progress because of it. If you're competent at every skill and just enjoy being reactive, that's fine. I don't personally value that type of skiing, and I think it presents limitations, but we can absolutely go our separate ways on that.

If you are able to adjust what you are doing so that as you move and the external forces are changing, etc..and you are able at each moment to remain in balance, or close to it...that would be something more like dynamic balance. If you push yourself out of balance because you feel you have to...then you will have to recover your balance back later..and in between..you will be out of balance. Pushing yourself into the turn, toppling yourself into the turn, these things compromise your balance. Being in balance is not an on or off switch. You can be closer to it or further from it. Toppling and pushing, take you away from it. At some point if someone is deliberately making balance-destroying movements, I will have to say that they are not in good dynamic balance according to my definition of what that word means.

Would also look at this one, where you say that people are doing "balance-destroying movements" if they push or topple. I mean, yeah, if you define dynamic balance as simply being reactive. This is not an approach to skiing that will drive athleticism or proactive agency, though.

however when you go out of balance is exactly when you will lose some control. Sure you have agency to give up control if you wish; knock yourself out.

I mean, again, this is where I think it's a fear-based reaction and something you're projecting. I am going out of balance by your definition of never doing anything other proactively – but I'm creating control rather than losing it.

 

[LuliTheYounger]

I hope everyone reads my thoughts on the topic of proactive athleticism as a screed against why you shouldn't sign your kid up for preschool gymnastics, btw – a single whip hucked into the foam pit at age 8 can do psychological damage that will lead them to chasing that high for the rest of their lives.

 

[LuliTheYounger]

That term is basically meaningless unless both the speaker and audience have a common understanding of what it means.

As an example if I told my wife, who ski techno-babble averse, that she needed to work on her dynamic balance it would be both pointless and counter-productive. It would be merely pointless if mentioned to my intermediate ski buddies.

Suspect that if the topplers and dynamic balancers sat down together and actually worked out what each meant by their terms everyone would be in violent agreement. More or less. And we could stop the thread. Which would be no fun - sorry for suggesting it.

Would you believe me if I said that my race season ended on Saturday and I'm already bored out of my gourd?

One way to shed light on the argument lies in the distinction between "balance" as verb versus noun. Even though in English it can be either, people often use it exclusively in one sense or the other.

Thinking of balance as a quality or quantity tends to make it static by definition: "equilibrium." Conceptualized as a verb, "balance" implies a process or actions that establish or maintain equilibrium.

So is "balance" is an essential skill or a problematic crutch, and is "out of balance" a good thing? Semantics might suggest more common ground than what's apparent here.

Fair point for sure! I totally value balance as a verb, and I think I'm less interested in balance as a noun. Balance as a noun to me is overly static and passive; if you're standing up or sitting you are "in balance" but not really "balancing" in an athletic sense I think. I also tend to over-emphasize the out-of-balance aspect in this area, to be honest, because I felt totally scammed as a beginner toppler when my coaches would fail to warn me that it would feel like that. To some extent I think that saying it's purely in balance obfuscates the experience, even if it feels very balanced once you're comfortable with it. Useful in the coaching sense, though; maybe less so in this context.

 

[stevo]

In your first post on the topic (seen above) you argue that dynamic balance is in reaction to external forces. This is a reactive framework, not a proactive one. I've only ever seen this framework in people who are pushing their abilities by reacting to the mountain and cannot add another layer of skills yet. Many of these people have a fear of being momentarily out of control and are not able to progress because of it. If you're competent at every skill and just enjoy being reactive, that's fine. I don't personally value that type of skiing, and I think it presents limitations, but we can absolutely go our separate ways on that.



Would also look at this one, where you say that people are doing "balance-destroying movements" if they push or topple. I mean, yeah, if you define dynamic balance as simply being reactive. This is not an approach to skiing that will drive athleticism or proactive agency, though.



I mean, again, this is where I think it's a fear-based reaction and something you're projecting. I am going out of balance by your definition of never doing anything other proactively – but I'm creating control rather than losing it.

I think you are the one projecting ideas about fear. I have not inferred anything nor said any such thing. Achieving better dynamic balance is not about avoiding falling down, it is about attaining better ski performance. Yes of course in response to external forces, you do all manner of ski related movements in response to external forces. It’s your choice to do it out of balance. Another choice is to do it in balance which results superior ski performance. This is enabling, not limiting.

 

[stevo]

One way to shed light on the argument lies in the distinction between "balance" as verb versus noun. Even though in English it can be either, people often use it exclusively in one sense or the other.

Thinking of balance as a quality or quantity tends to make it static by definition: "equilibrium." Conceptualized as a verb, "balance" implies a process or actions that establish or maintain equilibrium.

So is "balance" is an essential skill or a problematic crutch, and is "out of balance" a good thing? Semantics might suggest more common ground than what's apparent here.

most definitely and I elaborated on this in depth earlier in the thread. You can do things which keep you closer to good states of balance or you can do things that take you away from it. Balanced skiing is a constant work in progress. A verb.

I have already said a lot about why out of balance skiing compromises ski performance. This is something that probably has to be experienced in order to be understood.

 

[stevo]

One way to shed light on the argument lies in the distinction between "balance" as verb versus noun. Even though in English it can be either, people often use it exclusively in one sense or the other.

Thinking of balance as a quality or quantity tends to make it static by definition: "equilibrium." Conceptualized as a verb, "balance" implies a process or actions that establish or maintain equilibrium.

So is "balance" is an essential skill or a problematic crutch, and is "out of balance" a good thing? Semantics might suggest more common ground than what's apparent here.

after putting more thought into this I think there is no escaping the fact that balance as a verb (or maybe better let’s call it “balancing”) and balance as a noun are both relevant and important in skiing. Balance is achieved by balancing. And both are needed to ski well.

Note that I view balance as not being an on or off switch. There are shades of gray. You can be absolutely perfect static or dynamic balance. But that is also an ideal and it very well may be that during skiing and other balance intensive activities that we are nearly always in the process of “balancing” in order to try to be as close to perfect balance as possible, even if we are or aren’t ever completely there 100%. Grey area.

During ski turns at any moment in time we could be close to the balance point or we could be far from it. We could be moving away from it or moving towards it. We could be moving away from it or towards it quickly or slowly. We could be making proactive movements to attempt to stay as close to a balance ideal as possible, dynamically, meaning that as external forces and factors are changing we are also continually making movements proactively to prevent runaway imbalance, to remain close to the balance point, even over time as that balance point may be changing dynamically. This is dynamic balance. To be in balance means to actually be as close to in perfect balance as possible over time as things are changing. That requires “balancing” skills.

I am more or less just repeating what I already said earlier in the thread.

If you endeavor to throw or topple yourself out of balance intentionally, that is not an act of balancing. That is an act of imbalancing. And if done so flagrantly I will definitely label that as out of balance skiing because if are too far away from balance the noun, too often, due to imbalancing efforts (the verb) then it is destructive to ski performance. It doesn’t matter if you never fall down because you always catch yourself later in the turn, if you spent a significant portion of the turn too far out of balance then it was destructive to performance. Additionally, the actions often required to catch yourself from being out of balance and avoid actually falling down can also end up being destructive to ski performance and sometimes cause injury.

top end ski performance comes from top end balancing skills and generally it is possible to retain very high levels of actual balance the noun from moment to moment by making proactive movements as the dynamic nature of ski turns progresses.

anyway I really am just repeating myself now. Both the noun and the verb matter imho

 

[oldschoolskier]

I've been on this site and it previous versions for over well over 10 years.

This discussion comes up every year in different forms and verbiage to describe the actions and how they are achieved. In the shortest simplest terms: turn, transition, turn, transition or wt, un-wt, wt, un-wt.

What is interesting is the flavor of month (thread) language being used to describe the actions. Actions haven't change just the words and the arguments (meant to say discussions) begin.

Can't wait to see what next season brings

 

[JESinstr]

^^^^^^
With all due respect and as much as I too have a KISS philosophy for teaching, there has been significant changes to "actions taken" when it comes to the process of carving thanks to the continuing evolution of the shaped ski concept, particularly when it comes to velocity and intensity. IMO the major universal change in teaching methodology is the sequencing of skills in that we no longer use a rotary first action but rather edging and pressure management first.

Shaped skis have allowed us to "ramp up" the process of turning straight line travel into circular travel (aka Carving) and so all this "talk" is trying to address how we get the body to configure and support this newly available, intense environment for the vast community of recreational skiers. I was just out at the Cottonwoods in Utah and the number of steep groomers is amazing. I found myself doing a lot of "playing around" with many of the "thought" inputs from this and other threads.

IMO, at the heart of all "descriptive language" is the handling of velocity and resultant forces. I find myself changing technique in order to address the "DIRT" (Duration, Intensity, Rate and Timing) of the anticipated forces to come and what I want to get out of the carving process. The choice of transition technique (retraction vs extension) is a perfect example.

As to Toppling. I am still in the camp that toppling is not a proactive move. On a 60+ degree slope I can understand why some feel themselves "toppling" into the turn, but I describe it more as a "free fall" to the inside the turn but that "feeling" comes as a result of my feet moving out and away to engagement vs a projection of my upper body.

 

[Rod9301]

60 percent you mean, right?