Anyone here always ski on one foot like Lito Flores?

[Skisailor]

I am going to take this thread off the rails for a moment .

First, am tired of people continually using racing stills, vids and legend status to support their positions. Racers do what they have to do to get to the finish line in the shortest amount of time, PERIOD. Sure there is a lot to learn and skills to build from the techniques developed in racing but ski racers are a small minority compared to the general skiing population and more importantly, the vast majority of the recreational skiers don't strive for the precision levels that racers, by definition, need to obtain.

Couldn’t agree more.

Nor do recreational skiers train 24/7 to be able to complete a run that lasts less than 2 minutes. Of course I agree that there are things to learn that filter down from racing technique but I sure wish more of our discussions could focus on real world every day recreational skiers with their typically average physical capabilities.

After all, it is possible to teach ski technique that will allow mere mortals to ski dynamically all over a big mountain from first chair to last without the need for thighs of steel, hair trigger reflexes, or extraordinary balance skills.

Isn’t that what we instructors spend more of our time trying to do?

 

[razie]

Fully agree. In the end turn mechanics do matter in a series of turns. But I do not believe inside ski tipping is some magic move that will give you sound turn mechanics all of a sudden. I've tried countless of things in the gates and this does not make you faster all of a sudden, that is my experience at least.

I guess we have different believes about the inside though. If I don't get the inside out of the way, the outside will simply take it with it.

No, certainly, no one specific "thing" is a cure for bad skiing... and in general, there is no magic in skiing, just hard work ... well, there is the "phantom" move, which I saw taught at my L3 training recently, but that was at low-performance. I think that at a high-performance, the flattening or untipping part of it is very important - which is the exact same movement, but earlier... but I'm not going to discuss this specific further, this subject tends to be sensitive, there are strong opinions and it and those discussions tend to degenerate

Either way, as far as I'm concerned, I find that a focus on foot tipping and specifically inside foot tipping is the best cure for hip-dumping and getting skiers to focus on skiing with the feet, which is a critical ingredient of great skiing.

 

[James]

It’s likely that “tipping” the inside foot leads one to shorten the inside leg, which leads to more edge angle on the outside ski. Beyond some point, it’s at the least awkward, if not impossible, to get high edge angle on the outside ski with the inside nearly flat.

If one is linking turns, you can’t just ski with the feet and ignore the movement of the body. It’s popular to go on about the “little muscles” that control skiing, but neglecting dealing with the big mass has big consequences. Like failure to go into the new turn smoothly.

 

[razie]

If one is linking turns, you can’t just ski with the feet and ignore the movement of the body. It’s popular to go on about the “little muscles” that control skiing, but neglecting dealing with the big mass has big consequences. Like failure to go into the new turn smoothly.

Nah, totally. The feet form the foundation for the body to drive the turn. But I think the focus on the "little muscles" is the right one, as most skiers tend to throw the body around, for a quick reward... and the result often resembles someone running on stilts (even if some get fast at it, it ain't pretty)... but you're right, that focus should not cause one to neglect the upper body control.


We can think of skiing as controlling the big mass with specific impulses, generated by organizing the lower body in the right configuration at the right time. Gravity keeps pulling the mass down the hill, we just need to support it / guide it and get out of the way...

 

[James]

Nah, totally. The feet form the foundation for the body to drive the turn. But I think the focus on the "little muscles" is the right one, as most skiers tend throw the body around, for a quick reward... and the result often resembles someone running on stilts (even if some get fast at it, it ain't pretty)...

Stilt skiers must do both.

 

[razie]

Anyways. I don't suppose anyone here (or even "out there") is suggesting to ignore either the lower or the upper body...? That'd be weird...

 

[bbbradley]

Great stuff here, I am now moving into the consciously incompetent phase of ski technique.

I honestly don't know the L/R balance % throughout an entire turn, i do know it varies for the way I ski, the hill condition, the type of turn, and who/what I am chasing (a friend, the clock, or my wife). I can also add, "no battle plan survives contact with the enemy." Meaning, every turn might have an ideal strategy at ski tip, but in the midst of the turn you have a hill that changes constantly and you need to adjust. My ski coach used to tell me, your technique isn't always sound, but you just know how to go fast, so he'd always adjust coaching based on not wanting to slow me down. As a racer, a fast and ugly finish is better than slow and pretty in my book.

I try to adapt my skiing to the current techniques, but I'm not 100% sure, given I don't have an active coaching program. I do know I was a decently competitive NCAA D1 racer in the past, and can on occasion still make a few good turns in a race course. I've been dabbling more with increasing the racing calendar, including some Masters race to complement the beer league. I've taken delivery of a new pair of 188/30M skis and am hoping to get a chance to break them in this week.

Reading through this thread gave me lots to think about as I try to adjust to the skis, last time I was on anything longer than a 170cm was...IDK...15 years ago? Longer? I'll be working on pressuring skis, testing how much L/R balance to use, and a host of other things.

 

[razie]

I do know I was a decently competitive NCAA D1 racer in the past

So back when, you were not focused on the outside ski?

 

[bbbradley]

So back when, you were not focused on the outside ski?

Not sure what you mean by that, can you explain?

 

[oldschoolskier]

Stilt skiers must do both.

@James you actually made a good point about balance. Hope most pickup on its importance.

With proper balance it doesn’t matter, one ski, two skis, inside, outside, both or stilts.

 

[vindibona1]

We all have our own ideas, that is the beauty of the sport!

One of the things that I think would be good to acknowledge would be that "knowing" is *not* UNDERSTANDING. I think the beauty of a forum like this is trying to develop an understanding of what we know, or think we know. IMO, sometimes our lack of understanding often hinders us in analyzing, processing, and possibly correcting the variables in a situation. One of the things I strive to do as an instructor is not only bringing"knowledge" to my students- of what but an understanding of how and why it all fits together so they can take their knowledge beyond the lesson.

One can argue how the inside ski functions (or at least how we perceive it to function), but one thing that I see far too regularly: That the inside ski function is often ignored and often taught to be dragged along like a lame appendage [If not, why is the Christie still needed to be taught?]. And perhaps it's my newbie status to this forum, but the one thing I haven't seen discussed yet is MOVEMENT SEQUENCE. As an instructor I've found that the order in which muscles/movements fire are critical (and often produced out-of-order) as they often dictate the variables of what the movements are... to help unravel stuff that isn't working well from previously acquired habits that inhibit a skier's progress. If we don't recognize the critical and inseparable role that movement sequence plays, do we really understand?

 

[Noodler]

One of the things that I think would be good to acknowledge would be that "knowing" is *not* UNDERSTANDING. I think the beauty of a forum like this is trying to develop an understanding of what we know, or think we know. IMO, sometimes our lack of understanding often hinders us in analyzing, processing, and possibly correcting the variables in a situation. One of the things I strive to do as an instructor is not only bringing"knowledge" to my students- of what but an understanding of how and why it all fits together so they can take their knowledge beyond the lesson.

One can argue how the inside ski functions (or at least how we perceive it to function), but one thing that I see far too regularly: That the inside ski function is often ignored and often taught to be dragged along like a lame appendage [If not, why is the Christie still needed to be taught?]. And perhaps it's my newbie status to this forum, but the one thing I haven't seen discussed yet is MOVEMENT SEQUENCE. As an instructor I've found that the order in which muscles/movements fire are critical (and often produced out-of-order) as they often dictate the variables of what the movements are... to help unravel stuff that isn't working well from previously acquired habits that inhibit a skier's progress. If we don't recognize the critical and inseparable role that movement sequence plays, do we really understand?

To that end, what I see often is that the desired outcomes are presented without providing the required inputs (movements) that will result in the desired outcomes.

 

[vindibona1]

To that end, what I see often is that the desired outcomes are presented without providing the required inputs (movements) that will result in the desired outcomes.

A GREAT question for discussion, Noodler...

Aside from teaching skiing, I teach instrumental music and am a semi-professional musician (complete with Music Ed degree). Here's the thing... I've found that both in skiing and in music, throwing down mechanics in search of the result/outcome isn't nearly as effective as teaching what the outcome should be (look like/soundlike). Often just knowing what you're going after in itself breeds proper mechanics. So many similes/metaphors between skiing and music, but I'll resist.

Here's my approach to teaching skiing, but I'm going to keep it down to the skeleton aspects of the approach...
TURN SHAPE is the most important thing. You control the turn shape. The turn shape controls the speed. Teaching how the turn shape controls speed leads to teaching mechanics and the skier to finding them naturally. It's not unlike me asking you to sing "The Star Spangled Banner". Your brain knows what it should sound like and your vocal equipment seeks to produce those sounds. Now, most of us would probably require some coaching to get the best sound we could produce- but you get the picture. If you have no idea what the Banner sounds like, then you're likely to need a second lesson to learn it. Thus the mechanics are hampered in search of the concept of the missing outcome.

Once we understand what to do (turn shape) we then can work on the mechanics of how to do it. The other way around is inefficient because it takes multiple steps for the skier to achieve understanding. In teaching turn shape first, it often prevents or dissuades proper mechanics. If I need the student to learn to turn up the hill, is it more efficient and effective to utilize the inside ski for guiding, while ALLOWING the pressure to go to the inside ski? Or, will a "rotary push-off" initiation allow better, more precise guidance in the designated turn shape? I strongly believe in the former (of course guiding the student to understand how to achieve pressure on the outside).

But back to your statement... when the desired outcomes are presented and the movements to achieve them are not... that's just bad teaching.

 

[Steve]

I agree, but also have seen simple mechanics suggestions create better turnshape.

For example coaching an intermediate student to move their weight early to the new "power" ski (as I often call the Outside ski) has worked wonders in many lessons for me.

I've had students (young adults in this case) say "wow, it just got so much easier to ski from just doing that."

 

[Steve]

@vindibona1 kind of like showing a different fingering on the piano.

But I do agree with you that in order to improvise jazz for example, you have had to listened to a lot of jazz first to know what it sounds like. So in order to ski you have to have some idea of what it looks like.

However to me, not a strong visual learner, knowing what to do is often needed.

 

[Noodler]

A GREAT question for discussion, Noodler...

Aside from teaching skiing, I teach instrumental music and am a semi-professional musician (complete with Music Ed degree). Here's the thing... I've found that both in skiing and in music, throwing down mechanics in search of the result/outcome isn't nearly as effective as teaching what the outcome should be (look like/soundlike). Often just knowing what you're going after in itself breeds proper mechanics. So many similes/metaphors between skiing and music, but I'll resist.

Here's my approach to teaching skiing, but I'm going to keep it down to the skeleton aspects of the approach...
TURN SHAPE is the most important thing. You control the turn shape. The turn shape controls the speed. Teaching how the turn shape controls speed leads to teaching mechanics and the skier to finding them naturally. It's not unlike me asking you to sing "The Star Spangled Banner". Your brain knows what it should sound like and your vocal equipment seeks to produce those sounds. Now, most of us would probably require some coaching to get the best sound we could produce- but you get the picture. If you have no idea what the Banner sounds like, then you're likely to need a second lesson to learn it. Thus the mechanics are hampered in search of the concept of the missing outcome.

Once we understand what to do (turn shape) we then can work on the mechanics of how to do it. The other way around is inefficient because it takes multiple steps for the skier to achieve understanding. In teaching turn shape first, it often prevents or dissuades proper mechanics. If I need the student to learn to turn up the hill, is it more efficient and effective to utilize the inside ski for guiding, while ALLOWING the pressure to go to the inside ski? Or, will a "rotary push-off" initiation allow better, more precise guidance in the designated turn shape? I strongly believe in the former (of course guiding the student to understand how to achieve pressure on the outside).

But back to your statement... when the desired outcomes are presented and the movements to achieve them are not... that's just bad teaching.

We'll have to agree to disagree then.

I doubt there are many other sports that are more foreign to the "dry land" human experience than skiing. What comes "naturally" to most skiers who ski without proper instruction are a lot of very poor movements that don't get the job done.

The easy example is how to properly apply pressure to the tip of a ski. The "dry land" experience of a human is telling them that the natural thing to do is to either press down on the balls of their feet (thus opening the ankles) or drive their knees forward. Neither of these "natural" movements are most effective at achieving the desired outcome.

 

[Steve]

One of the things that I think would be good to acknowledge would be that "knowing" is *not* UNDERSTANDING.

"DO NOT believe anything you read on the Internet! Question everything. Challenge, experiment, test, explore, and seek Understanding, because knowledge alone is worth nothing at all. You can "know" anything, true or false. As Benjamin Bloom pointed out in his Taxonomy of the Cognitive Domain, "knowledge" is only the very lowest rung on the ladder of cognitive activity. It does not require any level of mental processing beyond rote memorization. No need for comprehension. It might be right, it might be wrong."

From an email @Bob Barnes sent me years ago.

 

[Skisailor]

I love love love an emphasis on explaining the “whys” to students. If they understand why we are trying for something they can be more creative with how to make it happen in their own body.

BUT - I am very flexible with the order of things. It’s dependent on so many factors. We always get to the “why, but while sometimes it’s better to start with why and then how, it might also be better to tell someone - just do it because I said so - for now. Then they feel the mechanics working, as @Steve said, and we later go into why it works. It depends on the student, the lesson goals, available terrain etc.

 

[LiquidFeet]

....sometimes it’s better to start with why and then how, it might also be better to tell someone - just do it because I said so - for now. Then they feel the mechanics working, as @Steve said, and we later go into why it works.....

I LOVE this.

 

[vindibona1]

We'll have to agree to disagree then.

I doubt there are many other sports that are more foreign to the "dry land" human experience than skiing. What comes "naturally" to most skiers who ski without proper instruction are a lot of very poor movements that don't get the job done.

The easy example is how to properly apply pressure to the tip of a ski. The "dry land" experience of a human is telling them that the natural thing to do is to either press down on the balls of their feet (thus opening the ankles) or drive their knees forward. Neither of these "natural" movements are most effective at achieving the desired outcome.

I dunno... I think we're talking about two different things. I don't disagree with the above at all. Nothing replaces good instruction. But good instruction MUST be GOOD, lest there be elements in the mechanics that have to be unlearned. And the most annoying and maddening thing I find as an instructor is having to get a student to unlearn a bad habit, movement or sequence that he was TAUGHT by someone else. And trust me, there are some in my own organization that I want to shake the living daylights out of based on what they teach in their lessons. Unfortunately, I have to just bear it and deal with un-teaching bad concepts and mechanics- both when I get their students down the road. But I remain adamant, that the turn shape is the central and most important thing you can teach a skier. Different levels have different goals, dynamics requiring different approaches to turn shape, due to different dynamics, different needs for speed control, but whether a beginner or racer the core element that we all use is how we shape the turn. While taken with a grain of salt, there is the old adage "Form follows function".