35

[Prosper]

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.

I think this has been discussed in other threads but what’s the difference between the body crossing over the skis vs the feet crossing under the body? If there is a difference, what are the advantages and disadvantages of each?

 

[LiquidFeet]

I think this has been discussed in other threads but what’s the difference between the body crossing over the skis vs the feet crossing under the body? If there is a difference, what are the advantages and disadvantages of each?

The difference between cross-over and cross-under can be physical (usual use of the terms) or conceptual.

Cross-over, when the term is describing a physical initiation process, happens when the skier lengthens the uphill/new outside leg to propel the upper body over the skis. The skier gets visibly taller between turns, and feels the body toppling over the skis and downhill on their other side. This sensation can be quite dramatic.

Cross-under, when it's describing a physical initiation process, happens when the skier shortens/flexes the downhill/new inside leg to release the old turn. The whole skier as a unit tilts downhill, resulting in the upper body "toppling" and the skis tipping onto downhill edges. The skier stays visibly short between turns, and feels the toppling as before.

But those two terms can be used to describe conceptually different ways of looking at turn mechanics. The conceptual approach to cross-over and cross-under involves the frame of reference the skier chooses to use.

If the skier conceives of the skis/feet as a frame of reference, then the upper body is understood as moving in reference to the skis. The body moves over or across the skis at initiation. When this conceptual model is used, then in both the two physical cases above, the upper body moves across the skis and topples.

If the skier considers the upper body/CoM as the frame of reference, with the feet/skis moving in a sideways figure eight below, then in both physical initiations above the feet are thought of as moving around under a conceptually stable upper body. The skier makes turns by moving the feet around under the body, not by moving the body over the skis. When the skier releases the turn, the body is conceived of as simply staying on the path its momentum demands, and does not seem to cross over or topple, no matter which leg does what. I think this is why some people say they don't sense any toppling when they look like they should be sensing it.

I'm thinking confusion or disagreements about toppling happens when people switch frames of reference in the middle of a conversation.

 

[Prosper]

The difference between cross-over and cross-under can be physical (usual use of the terms) or conceptual.

Cross-over, when the term is describing a physical initiation process, happens when the skier lengthens the uphill/new outside leg to propel the upper body over the skis. The skier gets visibly taller between turns, and feels the body toppling over the skis and downhill on their other side. This sensation can be quite dramatic.

Cross-under, when it's describing a physical initiation process, happens when the skier shortens/flexes the downhill/new inside leg to release the old turn. The whole skier as a unit tilts downhill, resulting in the upper body "toppling" and the skis tipping onto downhill edges. The skier stays visibly short between turns, and feels the toppling as before.

But those two terms can be used to describe conceptually different ways of looking at turn mechanics. The conceptual approach to cross-over and cross-under involves the frame of reference the skier chooses to use.

If the skier conceives of the skis/feet as a frame of reference, then the upper body is understood as moving in reference to the skis. The body moves over or across the skis at initiation. When this conceptual model is used, then in both the two physical cases above, the upper body moves across the skis and topples.

If the skier considers the upper body/CoM as the frame of reference, with the feet/skis moving in a sideways figure eight below, then in both physical initiations above the feet are thought of as moving around under a conceptually stable upper body. The skier makes turns by moving the feet around under the body, not by moving the body over the skis. When the skier releases the turn, the body is conceived of as simply staying on the path its momentum demands, and does not seem to cross over or topple, no matter which leg does what. I think this is why some people say they don't sense any toppling when they look like they should be sensing it.

I'm thinking confusion or disagreements about toppling happens when people switch frames of reference in the middle of a conversation.

Thanks for the explanation. It seems like cross-over results in up and down movements of the torso. I've been instructed to focus on keeping my head under an imaginary ceiling and decrease up and down movements. Probably had some significant up and down in my skiing so I've been working on retraction or cross-under movements. In what situations would a cross-over movement be preferred? Sorry for the thread drift.

 

[Mike King]

Thanks for the explanation. It seems like cross-over results in up and down movements of the torso. I've been instructed to focus on keeping my head under an imaginary ceiling and decrease up and down movements. Probably had some significant up and down in my skiing so I've been working on retraction or cross-under movements. In what situations would a cross-over movement be preferred? Sorry for the thread drift.

GS.

 

[LiquidFeet]

Thanks for the explanation. It seems like cross-over results in up and down movements of the torso. I've been instructed to focus on keeping my head under an imaginary ceiling and decrease up and down movements. Probably had some significant up and down in my skiing so I've been working on retraction or cross-under movements. In what situations would a cross-over movement be preferred? Sorry for the thread drift.

Cross-over (extending the new outside leg to push the torso across the skis) is taught to novice skiers because it's effective in getting the CoM across the skis, easy to perform, and doesn't involve letting go of that secure-feeling platform under the old outside ski. But it has its disadvantages on steeper terrain as skiers move away from low pitch runs and gain speed. Learning to stay low through transition, which requires flexing the new inside leg to release the old turn, is a worthy enterprise. You can use some version of that release in any turn, anywhere.

 

[geepers]

The difference between cross-over and cross-under can be physical (usual use of the terms) or conceptual.

Cross-over, when the term is describing a physical initiation process, happens when the skier lengthens the uphill/new outside leg to propel the upper body over the skis. The skier gets visibly taller between turns, and feels the body toppling over the skis and downhill on their other side. This sensation can be quite dramatic.

Cross-under, when it's describing a physical initiation process, happens when the skier shortens/flexes the downhill/new inside leg to release the old turn. The whole skier as a unit tilts downhill, resulting in the upper body "toppling" and the skis tipping onto downhill edges. The skier stays visibly short between turns, and feels the toppling as before.

But those two terms can be used to describe conceptually different ways of looking at turn mechanics. The conceptual approach to cross-over and cross-under involves the frame of reference the skier chooses to use.

If the skier conceives of the skis/feet as a frame of reference, then the upper body is understood as moving in reference to the skis. The body moves over or across the skis at initiation. When this conceptual model is used, then in both the two physical cases above, the upper body moves across the skis and topples.

If the skier considers the upper body/CoM as the frame of reference, with the feet/skis moving in a sideways figure eight below, then in both physical initiations above the feet are thought of as moving around under a conceptually stable upper body. The skier makes turns by moving the feet around under the body, not by moving the body over the skis. When the skier releases the turn, the body is conceived of as simply staying on the path its momentum demands, and does not seem to cross over or topple, no matter which leg does what. I think this is why some people say they don't sense any toppling when they look like they should be sensing it.

I'm thinking confusion or disagreements about toppling happens when people switch frames of reference in the middle of a conversation.

The two methods to initiate (extend new outside leg, flex old outside leg) are fine. There's a 3rd way. Which is to get outside heavy (Tom Gellie definition) through increased angulation late in the turn or release at the hips whilst maintaining the edges of the current turn. The body and feet are on converging paths and will exchange positions. If the legs are held comparatively long then the body has to rise to get over the feet. If the legs are flexed then the body stays low.

For snow boarders it's the primary means of transition since they don't have inside/outside leg.

And of course the methods may be combined or movements occur in such close sequence it is not easy to see what is happening.

On the frame of ref idea - intriguing idea. Although I wonder if it may have more to do with the rapidity of transition. A slow and stately exit and entry turn to turn provides a very different experience from a lightning fast one.

 

[Pierre]

Cross-over (extending the new outside leg to push the torso across the skis) is taught to novice skiers because it's effective in getting the CoM across the skis, easy to perform, and doesn't involve letting go of that secure-feeling platform under the old outside ski. But it has its disadvantages on steeper terrain as skiers move away from low pitch runs and gain speed. Learning to stay low through transition, which requires flexing the new inside leg to release the old turn, is a worthy enterprise. You can use some version of that release in any turn, anywhere.

I rather like your simple definitions. I my mind cross over/under overlap and are completely blurred. Certainly in my own clinics and teachings I try to stay away from such academic subjects and cross over/under. No matter what I do, I think in four dimensions, then try to explain things in two or three dimensions where everyone else things. Sometimes I can confuse more than help. The dimension of time makes everything quantum, abstract, dynamic and exciting. Great for research in taking this sport forward but not so great in teaching a 13 year old. I do better at it than most instructors but not at the level I would like to be.

 

[Steve]

That is classic Gellie @geepers You can also slightly raise the new outside shoulder at transition.
I've long felt that I don't do an ILE or an OLR. Yes the legs change length, but it's not the thing I do to start a transition. The transition just happens from a combination of the forces and movements that I make, some with the shoulders. ::Blashpemy::

 

[Pierre]

In what situations would a cross-over movement be preferred? Sorry for the thread drift.

It is the preferred method for gawking and conversation because you remain tall and are connecting to your surroundings more than paying attention.

 

[JESinstr]

That is classic Gellie @geepers You can also slightly raise the new outside shoulder at transition.
I've long felt that I don't do an ILE or an OLR. Yes the legs change length, but it's not the thing I do to start a transition. The transition just happens from a combination of the forces and movements that I make, some with the shoulders. ::Blashpemy::

Take a look at this clip of Shiffrin. In just 30 seconds (from 14 seconds to 44) and 2 turns, she lays out all that has been discussed above.


At 14 sec. she begins a classic ILE transition, releasing the outside ski using a forward inside leg extension onto the old inside ski (continuing the turn) and actively moving her old outside ski and hips forward. But because of the dynamics/intensity/reaction to the moment, ILE is halted in favor of a float, lifting of the outside shoulder and increasing angulation (17 sec) as @Steve and @geepers points out.

The 2nd turn out to 44sec is classic retraction.

@Prosper when it comes to cross over/under I believe it is dependent on ski contact with the ground. If the skis are floating in transition, they are usually being directed under the torso. If the edges remain in solid contact with the surface during transition, then the torso needs to cross over the skis. I think dynamics and intensity of the turn play more of a dictatorial role than technique when it comes to X over/under.

To this point, because Shiffrin exited ILE for a float condition we can debate if this turn resulted in a cross over or cross under. The reality is that it doesn't matter, she most likely won.

 

[LiquidFeet]

That is classic Gellie @geepers You can also slightly raise the new outside shoulder at transition....

An awesome move. Big payload from a tiny movement. Or raise the whole arm up and back like Mikaela. Wheee!

 

[Mike King]

Take a look at this clip of Shiffrin. In just 30 seconds (from 14 seconds to 44) and 2 turns, she lays out all that has been discussed above.


At 14 sec. she begins a classic ILE transition, releasing the outside ski using a forward inside leg extension onto the old inside ski (continuing the turn) and actively moving her old outside ski and hips forward. But because of the dynamics/intensity/reaction to the moment, ILE is halted in favor of a float, lifting of the outside shoulder and increasing angulation (17 sec) as @Steve and @geepers points out.

The 2nd turn out to 44sec is classic retraction.

@Prosper when it comes to cross over/under I believe it is dependent on ski contact with the ground. If the skis are floating in transition, they are usually being directed under the torso. If the edges remain in solid contact with the surface during transition, then the torso needs to cross over the skis. I think dynamics and intensity of the turn play more of a dictatorial role than technique when it comes to X over/under.

To this point, because Shiffrin exited ILE for a float condition we can debate if this turn resulted in a cross over or cross under. The reality is that it doesn't matter, she most likely won.

@JESinstr, one thing to consider in Mikeala's turns there is just how much flexion she has in the hip and knee. It would be pretty much impossible, if not dangerous to the health of her joints, to cross under from that position. So she has to rise somewhat to be able to transition.

All that being said, there are performance implications of crossing under versus crossing over. It seems to be a topic of almost religious proportions anymore. While I've been thoroughly indoctrinated into the crossing under camp, I watch the skiing of the Italians and often the Austrians who definitely rise in transition yet still see not only great ski performance, but World Cup wins. I'd like to see more discussion of the benefits of crossing over.

Mike

 

[Pierre]

To this point, because Shiffrin exited ILE for a float condition we can debate if this turn resulted in a cross over or cross under. The reality is that it doesn't matter, she most likely won.

This pretty much sums up where I am at. I have an ILE interrupted by a float in the turn transition. This results in a grey area around Cross over/under for sure.
The float is necessary because the center of mass is not directed early towards the inside of the new turn with the ILE. There is a time element necessary for the skis to change edge and new outside ski edge engagement to occur. Once the new outside ski is engaged, the center of mass can be redirected into the new turn. Angulation increases during the float phase because the skis are going out but there is no real pressure. Once the skis start to converge on the direction the center of mass is floating, the outside ski increases pressures very quickly. Delayed redirection of the center of mass into the new turn, until after edge change, conserves more kinetic energy to pressure the skis before the fall line. You don't give up the energy by toppling the center of mass into the new turn before of during edge change. Once she pressures the new outside ski, resumption of an OLE will take full advantage of the extra energy for angular acceleration. Angular acceleration is like an ice skater bringing their arms in to increase spin. More or less what you see her doing. The swing set effect. She is pumping the turn like its a swing set. Toppling the center of mass early is like relaxing the legs and letting them flop just before the top of the back swing on a swing set. Sure you can keep the swing going but you loose a bunch of energy you could have put into the downswing. A slight delay on leg extension until the swing just starts its downswing is much more powerful.

Shiffrin's intended outcome is different than mine so the movement timing is slightly different. She delay's the float and extension just a bit longer than I do, in order to adjust line and drive the center of mass towards the gate. My objective is to get the center of mass to flow further across the fall line in a shorter turn and keep the turn forces and speed more manageable. Her delayed OLE drives the center of mass forward along a slicing ski. My earlier OLE lofts the center of mass more across the slope. I am probably less than half her speed and eat up half the vertical that she does per turn. I use more of the timing she is using, along with a longer float, on green flat groomers to pump the turns and drastically accelerate for way more power in my turns. Great fun if the slope is not crowded.

 

[JESinstr]

This pretty much sums up where I am at. I have an ILE interrupted by a float in the turn transition. This results in a grey area around Cross over/under for sure.

Here's a good drill for you.

 

[JESinstr]

@JESinstr, one thing to consider in Mikeala's turns there is just how much flexion she has in the hip and knee. It would be pretty much impossible, if not dangerous to the health of her joints, to cross under from that position. So she has to rise somewhat to be able to transition.

All that being said, there are performance implications of crossing under versus crossing over. It seems to be a topic of almost religious proportions anymore. While I've been thoroughly indoctrinated into the crossing under camp, I watch the skiing of the Italians and often the Austrians who definitely rise in transition yet still see not only great ski performance, but World Cup wins. I'd like to see more discussion of the benefits of crossing over.

Mike

Agree on flexion comment.

I don't think we need to be "in camps" on this. A truly versatile skier needs a number of tools in the bag.

 

[Pierre]

That's a good drill similar to javelin turns. In this case the drill uses a cross over fully extended outside leg. This drill focuses on early balance/weight/pressure transfer. There is no early push of the center of mass into the new turn, there is a float period during which she skis into angulation rather than excessive inclination. All good stuff. My real transformation and real first upset apple cart after getting my level 3 occurred because of an article that Robin Barnes wrote in 32 Degrees, Winter of 2011 issue. Let you leg assert themselves.

 

[geepers]

Cross-over (extending the new outside leg to push the torso across the skis) is taught to novice skiers because it's effective in getting the CoM across the skis, easy to perform, and doesn't involve letting go of that secure-feeling platform under the old outside ski. But it has its disadvantages on steeper terrain as skiers move away from low pitch runs and gain speed. Learning to stay low through transition, which requires flexing the new inside leg to release the old turn, is a worthy enterprise. You can use some version of that release in any turn, anywhere.

Linking extension with the word 'novice' grates. There's simply too much high performance skiing out there - think the Italian JAM team, Daniella, Austrians, Swiss, various WC skiers (at time) - where there's visible extension through transition.

OTOH I agree with the comments on advantages on steeper terrain.

 

[LiquidFeet]

Linking extension with the word 'novice' grates. There's simply too much high performance skiing out there - think the Italian JAM team, Daniella, Austrians, Swiss, various WC skiers (at time) - where there's visible extension through transition.

@geepers you haven't taught beginners, or novices. You don't have the experience of trying to help some confused adult trying to get more control in their turns by teaching them a better initiation strategy. Extending that new outside leg with the intention of pushing the upper body over the skis is not scary because the skier trades one platform almost immediately for another. Never letting go of a secure platform gives the frightened skier a sense of safety, and the new turn happens cleanly. Such skiers can learn flex-to-release later.

Flexing the new inside leg to allow momentum to carry the upper body over the skis is scary to such skiers because the flexing momentarily removes the old platform without replacing it. As that solid platform below the outside ski is lost, the skier feels the upper body toppling over. That feels like falling and failure. The skier thinks balance and all things good are being thrown away. There are teaching tricks that can bypass this problem, but the direct approach to teaching flex-to-release doesn't work so well with beginner adults and novices - IME. I hope others chime in with good ways to do it. I'd welcome that thread drift.

Had you spent time teaching such things you might not cringe as much when extension is mentioned in the same sentence as beginners and novices. We were all beginners and novices once. And such skiers form a large percentage of the clients buying lessons.

 

[geepers]

@geepers you haven't taught beginners, or novices. You don't have the experience of trying to help some confused adult trying to get more control in their turns by teaching them a better initiation strategy. Extending that new outside leg with the intention of pushing the upper body over the skis is not scary because the skier trades one platform almost immediately for another. Never letting go of a secure platform gives the frightened skier a sense of safety, and the new turn happens cleanly. Such skiers can learn flex-to-release later.

Flexing the new inside leg to allow momentum to carry the upper body over the skis is scary to such skiers because the flexing momentarily removes the old platform without replacing it. As that solid platform below the outside ski is lost, the skier feels the upper body toppling over. That feels like falling and failure. The skier thinks balance and all things good are being thrown away. There are teaching tricks that can bypass this problem, but the direct approach to teaching flex-to-release doesn't work so well with beginner adults and novices - IME. I hope others chime in with good ways to do it. I'd welcome that thread drift.

Had you spent time teaching such things you might not cringe as much when extension is mentioned in the same sentence as beginners and novices. We were all beginners and novices once. And such skiers form a large percentage of the clients buying lessons.

Yes, all true. It's the implication that it is a less worthy form of transitioning that I have an issue with. That isn't apparently what you meant, just the way I perceived it. (Mea culpa - text posting is an imperfect means of communications.)

It would be interesting to hear thoughts on how to teach flex to transition to less accomplished skiers. In Australia I look at my intermediate ski buddies and we don't go there.

 

[Prosper]

Thanks for the replies. Are there instances where transition starts with a small cross over movement (ILE) and is finished with a cross under or retraction movement? If so, in what situations would it be beneficial to use the combo of the two movements?