@Mike King, if PSIA is not "all about extension," why is it embedded in all the descriptions of how to teach turns in the back of the current PSIA Alpine Technical Manual?
In every turn description the new inside leg/ski is taxed with keeping up with and/or coordinating with and/or matching what's happening with the new outside ski. The outside leg and ski is the dominant focus.
Instruction is to do something with the new outside leg/ski first and foremost. The book explicitly says to extend the leg to push the CoM over the skis into the new turn and thusly to edge the skis, while working the new inside ski and its leg to keep it matched to what the outside ski is doing.
This is in essence the description of how to initiate an extension turn, aka an extend-to-release turn, a cross-over turn.
My beef is with the manual promoting one kind of initiation and one only. If they had chosen to promote flexion as a second more advanced way to teach initiation, they'd need to admit there's something different between wedge turns and advanced turns.
If they had chosen to promote two ways to initiate turns, then teaching both at the wedge and wedge christie stage would need to be addressed, which most likely would have caused trouble in the ranks.
Thread drift isn't a bad thing. Really, these threads exist mostly so we can have wide-ranging discussions, which may lead in unpredictable directions.
The subject of the current PSIA system, or lack thereof, is a thing that some of us have debated in past threads. Taking the Alpine Technical Manual as a jumping-off point, in my opinion its statements about turn transition techniques are wishy-washy. Extend the new outside leg a little, flex the new inside leg a little. A person could apply that advice in many ways. There's a big spectrum of styles between the extremes of full retraction and full extension.
The ATM has dual purposes. First, to describe the elements of good skiing. To that end, the ATM breaks skiing down into fundamental elements. It accurately explains how these elements can be combined to create good skiing--but doesn't say much about precisely what the mix should be in various situations. This allows for individual stylistic choices. Not all great skiers ski exactly the same way. The second purpose of the ATM is to be a guide for creating learning pathways. Here is where it could be considered weak, but that isn't a weakness unique to the one publication.
Recognize that instructors don't obtain direction on crafting lesson plans and learning pathway strategies exclusively, or even primarily, from the ATM. Anyway, it's little more than an executive summary of technique. If it went into sustantial detail of the array of technique options available in a variety of situations, it could easily be twice as many pages. A greater focus on MOVEMENTS, rather than just the basic skills (BREP) would fill a lot of space. There are other complementary publications, of course. But the main source of guidance that instructors receive is through formal and informal training from their resort staff, and in PSIA educational events.
It has been my experience that these training channels do not promote any single, consistent learning progression. Instead, they give individual instructors a lot of leeway to fashion their own lesson plans, perhaps following their individual opinions as to what is most effective.
The benefit of this is that it serves the PSIA's declared student-centered teaching model. Instructors are able to take students as they find them, build on their existing strengths, whatever they may be, and respond directly to students' lesson goals, which might be a specific technique focus, or might be ability to ski particular terrain or snow conditions.
The down side is that this doesn't furnish any solid framework for delivering lessons that are consistent with one another, and that furnish students a rational progression toward high level skills, over a sequence of lessons that may be widely separated in time and take place at different resorts.
I absolutely agree that fundamental diversity is a great objective. Achieving this will give a skier the tools to reach competence and excellence in a variety of situations--be it recreational groomer skiing, a race course, natural moguls, steeps, "crud," or on and on.
BUT--the plain fact is that 99.9% of ski school students come to lessons skiing somewhere between the first timer and lower advanced level. So, my opinion, wouldn't it make sense for ski schools to focus on initially teaching these students ONE style, that they can practice consistently, in which they can have consistent lessons, and that they can master before moving on and confusing themselves with big stylistic variations? Building good movement patterns takes a lot of repetition. A LOT. Shouldn't the way ski schools are organized promote this?
Also, elephant in the room, as others have recently said, the technique of a lot of instructors ain't that strong. I'm no Jonathan Ballou, I'll say right up front. So wouldn't those instructors also benefit from being trained in a single, consistent style? And from learning how most effectively to teach that style? (And it could be that a few of the TRAINERS out there aren't quite the hot stuff they think they are!)
For PSIA to become more focused on a consistent lesson framework would no doubt require a knock-down, drag-out fight between some strong personalities with sharply differing views. As recent discussions here have demonstrated, there is no universal consensus among knowledgeable ski industry veterans and excellent skiers as to the optimal baseline technique.
Ideally, I think room should be made for competing schools. Each could then adopt its own teaching model. Students could make their own choices of school and teaching model. In most industries, competition promotes excellence and value.
The current scenario of resorts having local monopolies on teaching doesn't promote this. On the other hand, there's no reason that every ski hill should be beholden to the PSIA to handle certification and prescribe teaching theory. It's kind of the lazy way out.
//RANT//
You roped me in. I was going to mention Crossover/Under the other day, but there had been terminology wars in the past about this subject in both Epic and this Forum, so I kept quiet. But, I agree with Karl.
