-
For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.
35
- Thread starter Uke
- Start date
Fun post Uke! Thanks!
.
4ster,
I think that a lot of the success that I have had comes from the fact that so often my lesson is the first time the student has ever had the idea of an active inside foot presented and it produces a lot o Wow moments.
uke
I think that a lot of the success that I have had comes from the fact that so often my lesson is the first time the student has ever had the idea of an active inside foot presented and it produces a lot o Wow moments.
uke
Been a bit since the last post, been distracted by life.
A word or two about words.
How often have we seen a discussion disrupted because two people have different definitions/interpretations of the same word or phrase. I know I have seen pages of back and forth on this and other discussion boards because a word brings one thing to mind for one group of people and something different to others. We need to be aware that everyone doesn't think the same or have the same context as we do. Just recently ther was a lot of back and forth about just what a 'ski turn' meant. Be flexible and don't let the words get in the way and try to understand the concepts behind the words even if its not your concept.
The meaning of words can change over time. When I started 'skid' was defined as the tail of the ski undergoing greater displacement than the tip. Now many apply the word to any sideways displacement of the ski. Any arc that didn't leave one or two thin lines on the snow was a 'skidded turn'. By that definition 99% of all turns are skidded. Interestingly 'skid' has over time became more and more of a negative term and other words like 'brushed' or 'drifted' were used to describe the arcs that didn't produce the thin lines. Couldn't some of the best turns out there be described as 'arced sideslips'
Many have very rigid definitions for some words. 'Carve' for some was only when you produced the thin lines on the snow. Their mantra was 'You're either carving or you're not'. This definition was based on the outcome. I and some others use the word in a broader context based on the input and intent of the skier. The same inputs can produce different outcomes depending on speed, steepness, snow conditions and the type of ski on your foot. For me any time the ski is tracking more forward than sideways, carving is happening.
On a personal note. I long ago eliminated the word 'push' from my teaching. I did this because of the outcome produced by most students when they 'push' the skis and also because I became aware the I never 'pushed' my skis. I also minimize the use of the word 'turn', preferring to talk about 'arcs' and 'going left and going right'.
Anyway a lot of words about words. Hope in makes some sort of sense,
uke
A word or two about words.
How often have we seen a discussion disrupted because two people have different definitions/interpretations of the same word or phrase. I know I have seen pages of back and forth on this and other discussion boards because a word brings one thing to mind for one group of people and something different to others. We need to be aware that everyone doesn't think the same or have the same context as we do. Just recently ther was a lot of back and forth about just what a 'ski turn' meant. Be flexible and don't let the words get in the way and try to understand the concepts behind the words even if its not your concept.
The meaning of words can change over time. When I started 'skid' was defined as the tail of the ski undergoing greater displacement than the tip. Now many apply the word to any sideways displacement of the ski. Any arc that didn't leave one or two thin lines on the snow was a 'skidded turn'. By that definition 99% of all turns are skidded. Interestingly 'skid' has over time became more and more of a negative term and other words like 'brushed' or 'drifted' were used to describe the arcs that didn't produce the thin lines. Couldn't some of the best turns out there be described as 'arced sideslips'
Many have very rigid definitions for some words. 'Carve' for some was only when you produced the thin lines on the snow. Their mantra was 'You're either carving or you're not'. This definition was based on the outcome. I and some others use the word in a broader context based on the input and intent of the skier. The same inputs can produce different outcomes depending on speed, steepness, snow conditions and the type of ski on your foot. For me any time the ski is tracking more forward than sideways, carving is happening.
On a personal note. I long ago eliminated the word 'push' from my teaching. I did this because of the outcome produced by most students when they 'push' the skis and also because I became aware the I never 'pushed' my skis. I also minimize the use of the word 'turn', preferring to talk about 'arcs' and 'going left and going right'.
Anyway a lot of words about words. Hope in makes some sort of sense,
uke
Same here,
I would always tell my students that they can push with their poles but as for skis they can stand, tip, press against, twist, slide, skid & slip on them, but please don't push them.
I cringe every time I here an instructor teaching a wedge in a first timer lesson telling his students to push the tails out
.
I enjoy all your posts, @Uke. Keep them coming! Yes, many hot discussions about ski technique go off the rails because we don't coordinate our usage of terminology. Definitions are fluid, and such fluidity gets in the way of communication.
But the above definition of carving bothers me. "More forward" encompasses many things. I can imagine a "forward sideslip" that has more forward movement than downhill. Surely you don't mean you think of that as carving? Maybe you mean the forward movement needs to be caused by the tip producing a groove, a thin track, with the rest of the ski not staying in the groove.
"Arc-to-arc carving," the kind of turn that leaves thin tracks, surely falls under your definition of carving. But learner attempts at arc-to-arc carving can easily fail. The failure happens when the tail or the whole ski moves sideways, thickening up those tracks. I think the case of the learner matters when we choose a definition of this term.
Thick tracks can happen because the skier rotates the ski against the snow, breaking it out of any thin track it might have produced. The pivot point of that rotation can be anywhere on the ski. Thick tracks can also happen when the skier does not position the CoM in the right spot relative to the BoS to achieve a sufficient platform angle for the ski to create and stay in a groove. Skiers who know how to do "arc-to-arc carving" can perform both of those thick-track turn options with intent.
Do you embrace both of these fat-track type turns as "carving," assuming the skis are moving forward more than sideways? Surely not. I think this is the problem with a loose definition of carving. It embraces too much, and will surely be misleading for learners who want to do the thing people admire that's called "carving."
When I want to refer to thin-track turns, I like saying "carving" instead of "arc-to-arc carving." Fewer syllables.
Your thoughts?
Last edited:
LF,
First, a bit of a disclaimer. I seldom use the words carve or carving in my teaching. Its one of the words that can get in the way of teaching people to ski, and that is what I am doing, teaching efficient use of the tool to go where you want to go. The better you get at using the ski as it is designed to be used the closer you come to the ideal of the thin tracks. I have over the years had several students make "you're teaching us to carve aren't you' type statements.
I came up with this definition of carving back on Epic. It was in response to the 'only thin lines count' outcome based definition being pushed by many. At the time it was in part a push back to take the definition to the extreme in the other direction. It is also tied into my input based use of the word. I can employ the same movements and vary the DIRT of them and produce a range of outcomes from thin tracks to trenches to narrow smeared tracks. I can also make the same movements and DIRT and produce a different outcome if the surface is soft groomed as opposed to scraped hard pack.
Carve is a verb, an action. We stick ing on the end and we have a noun, a thing. Many use the thin tracks as the thing. I'm using the snow surface interaction as the thing.
If I remember right the race community in the US tried using the word 'arcing' to refer to the thin line outcome and carving to refer to the other outcomes that came from the inputs that the athlete was giving to the ski.
Specific to your post. No, I don't think of a forward side slip as carving because it is a traverse rather than a curve path down the hill. I also wouldn't call a locked edge traverse carving. Yes, I do call the wide grooves, I think of them as trenches, carved. Again, for me the skiers input is the defining factor not the visible outcome. What do you call the trenches left by a high skill skier on a soft surface?
Don't know if any of this ramble answers any of your questions or just makes more. Sometimes words get in the way of understanding as much as they can lead to it.
uke
First, a bit of a disclaimer. I seldom use the words carve or carving in my teaching. Its one of the words that can get in the way of teaching people to ski, and that is what I am doing, teaching efficient use of the tool to go where you want to go. The better you get at using the ski as it is designed to be used the closer you come to the ideal of the thin tracks. I have over the years had several students make "you're teaching us to carve aren't you' type statements.
I came up with this definition of carving back on Epic. It was in response to the 'only thin lines count' outcome based definition being pushed by many. At the time it was in part a push back to take the definition to the extreme in the other direction. It is also tied into my input based use of the word. I can employ the same movements and vary the DIRT of them and produce a range of outcomes from thin tracks to trenches to narrow smeared tracks. I can also make the same movements and DIRT and produce a different outcome if the surface is soft groomed as opposed to scraped hard pack.
Carve is a verb, an action. We stick ing on the end and we have a noun, a thing. Many use the thin tracks as the thing. I'm using the snow surface interaction as the thing.
If I remember right the race community in the US tried using the word 'arcing' to refer to the thin line outcome and carving to refer to the other outcomes that came from the inputs that the athlete was giving to the ski.
Specific to your post. No, I don't think of a forward side slip as carving because it is a traverse rather than a curve path down the hill. I also wouldn't call a locked edge traverse carving. Yes, I do call the wide grooves, I think of them as trenches, carved. Again, for me the skiers input is the defining factor not the visible outcome. What do you call the trenches left by a high skill skier on a soft surface?
Don't know if any of this ramble answers any of your questions or just makes more. Sometimes words get in the way of understanding as much as they can lead to it.
uke
Uke, If you are who I think that you are, I heard ride and guide ski from you many years ago. I still use the ride and guide and release methods but only as a correction to a misunderstanding by a student. For a long time I pretty much taught the way that you have laid out here but noticed that although the students did great in my lesson, the real lesson I was trying to teach did not stick in most situations. I was getting my students unstuck and they progressed rapidly but ultimately progressed along the defensive skiing lines. I now teach more along the lines of balance enhancements and the concepts around control. I call it good skiing by default. Can't mess it up. The releases usually happen automatically without the need to mention the skis. If release is not automatic, I will resort to the methods you presented or diagnose alignment and fit issues.
I find teaching along the lines of balance, control and expected outcome to be far more difficult but longer lasting. I am playing more in the guided discovery phycological end of things which is touchy, requires agreement , and cooperation from the student. I find about 80-90% are game for this type of teaching. The remainder, have their own ideas about what is right/wrong and a specific idea about what they need and how they want it. Usually some quick fix for some issue more complicated than they realize. I do my best in that situation to give they what they want. Not necessarily what I think they need.
My change in method is still only producing about 20-40% with lasting changes but its better than next to nothing.
Lately I have been taking an off snow/on snow approach with melding man, machine and altered states of reality to imprint muscle memory that can then be taken to snow. I can't discuss a lot of the details and development is still in it's infancy. Results have be phenomenal. Taking someone to snow whom already has the muscle memory of dynamic balance, ankle flexion and upper and lower body separation and zero bad habits. It produces some baffling results. Like a skier with PSIA level III techniques that is really in the WOW zone to go down a western black diamond slope. It also produces skiers whom cannot fall back on inefficient defensive techniques because they lack the inefficient skill movement patterns. They can be scared shtless and skiing good techniques. Good techniques are their default method. Currently working on ways of introducing terrain as the problems I have been running into are totally foreign and bizarre.
What it does produce is extremely high retention rates. This whole adventure is currently not mature enough for everyone to take advantage of it. results also vary considerably for people whom already ski. Generally already skiers progress more slowly than never ever's to upper level skiing.
I find teaching along the lines of balance, control and expected outcome to be far more difficult but longer lasting. I am playing more in the guided discovery phycological end of things which is touchy, requires agreement , and cooperation from the student. I find about 80-90% are game for this type of teaching. The remainder, have their own ideas about what is right/wrong and a specific idea about what they need and how they want it. Usually some quick fix for some issue more complicated than they realize. I do my best in that situation to give they what they want. Not necessarily what I think they need.
My change in method is still only producing about 20-40% with lasting changes but its better than next to nothing.
Lately I have been taking an off snow/on snow approach with melding man, machine and altered states of reality to imprint muscle memory that can then be taken to snow. I can't discuss a lot of the details and development is still in it's infancy. Results have be phenomenal. Taking someone to snow whom already has the muscle memory of dynamic balance, ankle flexion and upper and lower body separation and zero bad habits. It produces some baffling results. Like a skier with PSIA level III techniques that is really in the WOW zone to go down a western black diamond slope. It also produces skiers whom cannot fall back on inefficient defensive techniques because they lack the inefficient skill movement patterns. They can be scared shtless and skiing good techniques. Good techniques are their default method. Currently working on ways of introducing terrain as the problems I have been running into are totally foreign and bizarre.
What it does produce is extremely high retention rates. This whole adventure is currently not mature enough for everyone to take advantage of it. results also vary considerably for people whom already ski. Generally already skiers progress more slowly than never ever's to upper level skiing.
A little more on the subject of words or word in this case.
A few seasons ago there came down from on high a new word used to describe the transition from going left to going right. That word was topple. At the end of one turn a skier will topple across the skis into the new turn.
Now my understanding of the word topple is a passive falling of an upright object due to the effects of gravity and my reaction to hearing the word used to describe what happens in the transition between turns was "I don't have time to topple". Basically, that is still my position on the word. Add to that the fact that in my world view the idea that if you release the outside ski at the end of an arc gravity will cause you to topple across the skis to the other side is just wrong. Gravity does not work that way, it accelerates your mass toward the center of the earth and that is all it does. I get to the other side of the skis because the path taken by my body and that of my feet are different. The quickness of the transition is dependent on just how much those pathways diverge and most of the transitions I make happen much quicker than can be accounted for by the action of gravity. Also, once you are going 20mph the ground reaction force I can generate from my momentum is greater than gravity.
Just between us, I think that the word was picked to avoid using the word fall. It had been popular over the years to talk about skiing as a controlled fall down the hill and ski turns as 'fall and catch' thing, But, 'fall' has negative connotations in respect to skiing so a less negative word was sought. Personally, fall for me involves an unwanted encounter with the snow surface. Skiing for me is much more akin to flying, and its powered flight not gliding.
So, that is my probably lone voice in the wilderness on the word topple.
uke
A few seasons ago there came down from on high a new word used to describe the transition from going left to going right. That word was topple. At the end of one turn a skier will topple across the skis into the new turn.
Now my understanding of the word topple is a passive falling of an upright object due to the effects of gravity and my reaction to hearing the word used to describe what happens in the transition between turns was "I don't have time to topple". Basically, that is still my position on the word. Add to that the fact that in my world view the idea that if you release the outside ski at the end of an arc gravity will cause you to topple across the skis to the other side is just wrong. Gravity does not work that way, it accelerates your mass toward the center of the earth and that is all it does. I get to the other side of the skis because the path taken by my body and that of my feet are different. The quickness of the transition is dependent on just how much those pathways diverge and most of the transitions I make happen much quicker than can be accounted for by the action of gravity. Also, once you are going 20mph the ground reaction force I can generate from my momentum is greater than gravity.
Just between us, I think that the word was picked to avoid using the word fall. It had been popular over the years to talk about skiing as a controlled fall down the hill and ski turns as 'fall and catch' thing, But, 'fall' has negative connotations in respect to skiing so a less negative word was sought. Personally, fall for me involves an unwanted encounter with the snow surface. Skiing for me is much more akin to flying, and its powered flight not gliding.
So, that is my probably lone voice in the wilderness on the word topple.
uke
Paid close attention to this transition/toppling topic this past Oz season. Largely due to an issue in own skiing development and the numerous lectures of Tom Gellie on this and related topics.
I think Paul Lorenz makes a good point at 3:30. "...as flexing to release will cause the CoM to topple quickly into the turn"
As far as I understand it at this point I wouldn't restrict transitioning to just the effects of gravity. I see it as applying to everything that we use to we move our body from inside the old turn to inside the new turn. So there is not only gravity but "centrifugal" inertia and relative motion of the BoS and CoM.
For a quick transition we want to harness all these factors. The quicker we can get our BoS and CoM on different trajectories then the quicker we can stop gravity inhibiting our lateral rotation when we are still inside the old turn and begin helping as we move inside the new turn. We allow our torso to be "flung" off the merry-go-round of the old turn and keep our feet/skis on the old turn for a fraction of a second longer. We... ah... fall/tilt/teeter/totter/capsize/spill/unhorse/collapse/move/stumble/pitch/overbalance/plummet/dive/eject/defenestrate.... Maybe "topple" is a pretty good word for it?
Different words for different people, different cues for different people. The way you describe it, you clearly get it, the movement pattern that I think the "topplers" are trying to instill. The last of your quoted sentences is the key. This is what developing skiers too often resist. Whatever you call it, it's primarily a result of a letting go of centripetal force, and giving in to momentum sending body mass where it wants to go. Gravity plays a much lesser part, if you're skiing dynamically.
To me, the word "toppling" brings to mind the fact that a skier needs to move smartly from being inclined into the old turn, to being inclined into the new turn. And specifically, the shins go from being angled laterally one direction to being angled laterally the other direction.
@Uke I was working on toppling yesterday, my first day of the season on snow. What I found was that if all you did was flex to release, the transition was relatively slow. As you noted and as is coached by Tom Gellie, the speed comes from disengaging the upper body from the arc while keeping the feet and lower body on the arc. That brings a lot of speed to the transition.
But there is a role for gravity, it seems to me. Most of the force in the transition with the upper/lower body separation comes, it seems to me, from momentum. But if you are going to create higher edge angles, at some point you have to embrace gravity and allow it to pull your body toward the center of the earth so that you've got sufficient inclination to create that high edge angle. That is, lateral movement has to transition to the falling.
I don't have this yet. It's something I'm working on.
Mike
But there is a role for gravity, it seems to me. Most of the force in the transition with the upper/lower body separation comes, it seems to me, from momentum. But if you are going to create higher edge angles, at some point you have to embrace gravity and allow it to pull your body toward the center of the earth so that you've got sufficient inclination to create that high edge angle. That is, lateral movement has to transition to the falling.
I don't have this yet. It's something I'm working on.
Mike
@Uke, I was looking for this blog post but couldn't find it on Tuesday. Here it is. See how Tom Gellie says gravity can play a role!
how-to-create-larger-edge-angle
how-to-create-larger-edge-angle
My last post prompted a lot of response so I'll try to respond to a few of the points brought up, probably in several different posts.
First, on Mike King's point. There is no doubt that the increase of edge angle after the new arc has been established is greatly dependent on the effects of gravity. The flexing/shortening of the inside leg allows gravity to move the com closer to the snow surface and hence increase the edge angle. On caveat is that there must be some pressure on that inside ski or all the flexing/shortening will do is lift the ski from the snow surface. My disagreement with the use of the word topple is that it is applied to the early stages of the transition and in 'flexing the outside leg starts the body toppling into the new turn'. If the skier has their hip to the snow as in several photos gravity is actually working against the moving of the com over the skis in the earliest part of the transition. With my understanding of how the world works (physics) only momentum and vaulting will account for the first half of the transition providing the necessary 'up and across' needed to get into an new arc. I don't fall into the new turn. In high energy turns I am thrust/flung across the skis into the new arc and in lower energy turns I move genteelly/slide across into the new arc. No falling involved.
As an aside here the generally accepted definition of the word topple is an object falling over due to being top heavy. So toppling can't happen until the com is past the vertical line that defines the action of gravity and even then the sensation that I feel isn't one of falling but of being driven further into the turn.
On another thread Pierre mentioned that his body is moving more across the hill as it moves across the skis rather than down the hill and I agree that this is happening in all but the shortest turns. Momentum is the prime driver of ski transitions. We just have to establish different vectors for the momentum of the com and the bos.
In looking at the other posts I kind of feel that I also covered most of what Chris V and geepers commented on so maybe this one post will be enough.
Finally, use the word topple if you want. I will understand what you are talking about.
uke
First, on Mike King's point. There is no doubt that the increase of edge angle after the new arc has been established is greatly dependent on the effects of gravity. The flexing/shortening of the inside leg allows gravity to move the com closer to the snow surface and hence increase the edge angle. On caveat is that there must be some pressure on that inside ski or all the flexing/shortening will do is lift the ski from the snow surface. My disagreement with the use of the word topple is that it is applied to the early stages of the transition and in 'flexing the outside leg starts the body toppling into the new turn'. If the skier has their hip to the snow as in several photos gravity is actually working against the moving of the com over the skis in the earliest part of the transition. With my understanding of how the world works (physics) only momentum and vaulting will account for the first half of the transition providing the necessary 'up and across' needed to get into an new arc. I don't fall into the new turn. In high energy turns I am thrust/flung across the skis into the new arc and in lower energy turns I move genteelly/slide across into the new arc. No falling involved.
As an aside here the generally accepted definition of the word topple is an object falling over due to being top heavy. So toppling can't happen until the com is past the vertical line that defines the action of gravity and even then the sensation that I feel isn't one of falling but of being driven further into the turn.
On another thread Pierre mentioned that his body is moving more across the hill as it moves across the skis rather than down the hill and I agree that this is happening in all but the shortest turns. Momentum is the prime driver of ski transitions. We just have to establish different vectors for the momentum of the com and the bos.
In looking at the other posts I kind of feel that I also covered most of what Chris V and geepers commented on so maybe this one post will be enough.
Finally, use the word topple if you want. I will understand what you are talking about.
uke
Several points here right on the money (IMHO).
The bit about inside leg shortening to get more inclination puzzled me most of last season exactly as you described. Without weight on the inside leg all that is going to happen is the inside ski is going to come off the ground! Yet we are supposed to be predominantly balanced on the outside ski.
(Hopefully that won't be misunderstood - of course I shorten the inside leg. But it only allows a certain angle to be generated. The issue is getting beyond that. Appreciate that for others YMMV.)
Tom Gellie describes the combination of gravity and centripetal forces as "perceived gravity". Basically if you were standing in a plane and felt G increase you couldn't tell if the pilot had merely pulled back the stick to start a loop or was in a tight but well co-ordinated turn, without looking out the window. The perceived gravity would still be through the feet and that would feel like 'down'.
For skiers he also describes what he calls "outside heavy" where there is more mass on the outside of the turn than inside it in terms of the line of perceived gravity. I think the word 'topple' then fits well.
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2015
- Posts
- 2,338
Others have a problem with the word toppling or even falling.
It could be thought instead as not resisting the natural forces that are happening.
Your body crosses over and inclines naturally due to all of the forces acting on it and your allowance for it to do so by careful movements.
You encourage, allow, don't resist, the feet swapping sides while the body :ahem: falls to the other side of them.
It could be thought instead as not resisting the natural forces that are happening.
Your body crosses over and inclines naturally due to all of the forces acting on it and your allowance for it to do so by careful movements.
You encourage, allow, don't resist, the feet swapping sides while the body :ahem: falls to the other side of them.
Sponsor
Staff online
-
dbostedoAsst. Gathermeister -
PhilpugNotorious P.U.G. -
Jim KenneyTravel Correspondent
Members online
- S.H.
- Jack skis
- chip inderhol
- dovski
- wooglin
- Mike King
- BLiP
- Spnole
- freeskier1961
- dbostedo
- jmeb
- smick
- raisingarizona
- tball
- Even_Stevens
- tomahawkins
- GregK
- sabotabbster
- Yepow
- Philpug
- Spoorosew
- PaganSkier
- BigSlick
- tazdevl
- GB_Ski
- SCWVA
- Cheizz
- NE1
- Miker
- RachelV
- butleri
- jt10000
- Ogg
- Gina D
- az29okg
- MOMENTinTime
- Robxjd
- Johnny V.
- AlpsSkidad
- Jim Kenney
- Don in Morrison
- Royal
- Jim McDonald
- Mendieta
- SKI-3PO
- arildGFB
- Jms990
- HardDaysNight
- johnb
- KingGrump