Deb Armstrong: A critical look at the PSIA Technical Model

[stevo]

IMHO an instructor should not need to know or care what the long term objectives of the learner are. Teach ski fundamentals, if the learner requests a particular thing to focus on and asks for it, then great! But the teacher should simply be teaching sound fundamentals of skiing...it's entirely up to the learner about what they will do with new knowledge or abilities learned from an instructor. They could race or not. maybe later they will, maybe not. Maybe they will just ski with their kids, maybe they will eventually try big mountain all mountain skiing in the toughest terrain. Doesn't matter, fundamentals are still the same IMHO.

The open question which doesn't seem to meet universal agreement here is whether the fundamentals that racers are using represent the same fundamentals as for high end all mountain skiing. I say yes, but some people seem to say no.

 

[geepers]

This doesn't ring true to me for skiing.

It's true for every field of human activity. And skiing is not the only activity in which there may no immediate goal such as win the game. Ever won a SCUBA dive?

Ppl have goals ranging from becoming world champ/richest person on the planet/world dictator right through vague notions of wanting to be a bit better. Others only do an activity to help pass the time and see no reason whatsoever to improve beyond their current competency.

If the desire as an instructor or coach is to turn some-one into world champ (or even club champ) and they aren't into that goal then said instructor/coach is just wasting everyone's time.

Typically ppl don't seek out professional assistance unless there's some gap between current situation and where they want to be. (Not a hard rule - have heard of ppl going to ski lessons, 'cause life partner wanted them to.)

MHO job no. 1 is find out the student/client/athlete's goals. And that may require helping them formulate and express the goals.

Take business coaching as an example. Most would assume that business owners want a better business to make more money. Not true. Certainly some want that. However the majority want to get more free time and reduce stress. Very different things.

Keep in mind my response was to some-one who suggested that I shudda picked the scary dude who would have presumably taken me further and faster. But none of that was relevant to my goals and situation.

 

[geepers]

IMHO an instructor should not need to know or care what the long term objectives of the learner are.

Best of luck with that.

The open question which doesn't seem to meet universal agreement here is whether the fundamentals that racers are using represent the same fundamentals as for high end all mountain skiing. I say yes, but some people seem to say no.

Ok. Take the PSIA 5 fundamentals. And/or the CSIA 3 skills (or the earlier 4 Tech Ref Points or the even earlier 5 skills). What, exactly, disagrees with the fundamentals that racers use?

For that matter where are the fundamentals that racers use written down? Do all racers use these in the same way?

 

[markojp]

Man, this is a miserable little thread... just when you think there's a pony under the poo, more gets shovelled on.

 

[stevo]

Ok. Take the PSIA 5 fundamentals. And/or the CSIA 3 skills (or the earlier 4 Tech Ref Points or the even earlier 5 skills). What, exactly, disagrees with the fundamentals that racers use?

Uhmm they don't "disagree". As explained several times earlier in this thread, the PSIA 5 "skills" are just that...skills. skill development is definitely an important part of learning to ski...for both recreational skiing and racing. IMHO skills alone are not sufficient you also need at least equal doses of technique and tactics. Or as Deb said, "more technical meat"

For that matter where are the fundamentals that racers use

proof is in the pudding

 

[mdf]

Typically ppl don't seek out professional assistance unless there's some gap between current situation and where they want to be.

I take a Taos ski week lesson every year, but I don't have articulated goals. I do it because historically it has been fun and improved my skiing. But the dreaded "what do you want to work on this week?" No idea.

I did have one week where in the middle of a run I had a flash of insight and said to the instructor, "my hands seem weird. would you pay special attention to them and tell me what is going on?"

(Well that, and I want to cut lines and be shown good terrain.)

 

[markojp]

Stevo, ok, instructors suck. In my world and experience, your view is myopic. My experience of the 'how' is more along the lines of what Alan Veth shares in Deb's videos. Can everyone on our staff rip beautiful arcs? No. Can some absolutely work magic with a group of 6 year olds that ski maybe 15 days a year and create life long skiers? Yes. Can they take a frightened, unathletic adult and introduce them to a sport that often changes that guest's world? Yep. Are some of our staff adult learners who just really love the sport, and because of their day job experiences, are great communicators and make great instructors for much of the general lesson seeking public? Yes. My job is to help them do just that.

I've got friends and colleagues who merely teach 'fundamentals', but add words/ideas you've omitted: 'blend', and D.I.R.T. I've got waaay too many friends in this biz that have extensive race and race coaching backgrounds who can absolutely do everything on your must have checklist to possibly lump them and an entire organization in one single atmospheric blob of incompetence and mayhem. You know what they're not?Argumentative for argument's sake. You know what they are? People with passion and joy who love to share and pay it forward who can most certainly tip up and arc a ski.... and lead trips, or tour, or telemark, or snowboard, or simply hang out and talk about the world and amazing ideas and experiences in it. They're addressing everything you think they 'can't ' or 'don't'.

This is where you might justifiably accuse me of doing my own chest beating dance while watching my shadow on the wall of my cave, and tell me I don't know you. You're right. I don't. I do know this. From what you've written here, I'd have trouble hiring you even if you had WC starts. )Alan, on the other hand....) There's nothing posted here that evidences you're contributing anything on the hill to help make instructors better, or help others in the ski instruction world become more well rounded, versatile, skiers and instructors. Are you being the change you'd like to see in the organization you clearly care enough to write multiple posts about? I hope so. And if you are, I'd love to hear about it. Maybe even learn something to use to help out folks on our own hill or in our division. Share your better path forward. You've told all about the 'what' and 'why'.... now tell us the 'how' you teach/coach an adult learner the joy of arcing, or coach running gates, and how that will enhance and amplify their ski experience.

Maybe I'm wrong about you. I sincerely hope so, and if so, I apologize. But in the meantime, it begs to be asked. What did you personally experience that took you down the black and white dead end super highway of 'us' vs. 'them'? Deb's doing the do... are you?)

 

[stevo]

Mark I think you are jumping to some conclusions beyond what I have said. I never said “instructors suck”. Calm down. There is no us vs them. You are projecting that on the discussion and onto me. We are discussing Deb’s video here which does make a small criticism about lack of technical meat at the organizational level. I have never said once that all instructors suck or are inferior. Yes I think the race community aspires to a higher level of technical expertise

all of the things you mentioned that well trained instructors do is good and useful and true. But still some technical meat is missing, and for like the 11th time, I acknowledge fully that some small subset of instructors have in their own initiative learned this technical meat and they are out there too!! Perhaps you are even one of them.

I can’t really apologize for sharing my insights and thoughts in these issues even if there is some criticism. Do you feel Psia should be beyond reproach? Do you feel anyone expressing a different view other then Psia is great should not be able to work as a ski instructor!?!? I think that is short sighted and I think you may be reading way too much in between the lines from what I have said.

and yes I think i deserve an apology for your assault on my character now but whatever

 

[TheApprentice]

Can some absolutely work magic with a group of 6 year olds that ski maybe 15 days a year and create life long skiers? Yes. Can they take a frightened, unathletic adult and introduce them to a sport that often changes that guest's world? Yep. Are some of our staff adult learners who just really love the sport, and because of their day job experiences, are great communicators and make great instructors for much of the general lesson seeking public? Yes.

I think you're kind of misrepresenting @stevo and my arguments a little here. What we're saying is that the people teaching the instructors are the ones who should be held to higher standards, hence the courses and whatnot. Because then they can produce higher quality instructors who then produce higher quality students, and grow the sport even more. I've never said that level 1 instructors (often teens and adults who genuinely love skiing, like you said) need to be able to outski me in a course. But the level 3-4s who often become facilitators for said lvl1-2-3 attempts? Yes, they absolutely should be able to ski a course with some composure. Again, they don't have to ski it at a fis or even club level. Just show that they have enough understanding of the fundamentals to use them in a high stress environment where your line is dictated for you. Sure, those who've never skied a course will have some trouble, but that's why it's a week long course, not just one test day. Or, better yet: offer more improvement courses instead of having to wait for a certification session twice a year.

Edit: Alternatively make the higher levels of instruction require being coach certified as well, and vice versa. It is in csia as far as I know. Though the cscf lvl 3, which is required for the csia lvl 4, had the course requirement removed after the csia and cscf merged. Crazy how that works eh?

 

[stevo]

I take a Taos ski week lesson every year, but I don't have articulated goals. I do it because historically it has been fun and improved my skiing. But the dreaded "what do you want to work on this week?" No idea.

and you’re a well informed guest. Most guests want to get “better”, whatever the means.

I remember once I had this guy show up with his kid for a private and he was very explicit that he couldn’t get his kid to tip his feet, the kid was actually a pretty good little skier and the dad was obviously driving him hard but not getting results in that area.

We worked on it and the next day he was sending me text messages like OMG I can’t believe how well he’s skiing now. Ok great I’m sure most of you have had similar experiences and sometimes they know the thing they want to improve but don’t know how to get there. That is great when they do it lets us get real focused real quick yea? More often then not they aren’t they well informed and they just want to get better and enjoy the day.

My earlier comment had more to do about long range goals such as win races or make the college ski team, or pass a Psia exam or whatever. Those kinds of goals are beyond the scope of a typical ski lesson and venture more Into the area of longer term coaching which is unusual for most instructors to be able to do, quick note I know some like mark must be doing it and they will shortly tell us so, but overall I think that it’s rare for instructors to be in a situation of long term coaching. Their focus understandably should be on MA, identify area to focus on area of ski improvement, hope to see a little something learned and keep it fun. That’s just the reality that most of time that’s all the time you get. Not to say that learning about some of their long range dreams and goals may not also be interesting and useful and might even influence your approach. And it will definitely help to “connect” with the student mentally and emotionally, but really 99% of the time an instructor can readily spot skiing deficiencies that could be worked on for a day or days or even a whole season without any regard to long term goal planning and coached development.

 

[martyg]

In general - and what I have heard ski instructors and racing coaches discuss - for racing, the end result of speed is the goal (obviously); whereas for ski instruction, control and efficiency is the goal.

This speaks to a chunk of it. However post Level 7 skiers I find that USSA execution is more applicable. Same fundamentals for a different outcome. There is also the political dynamic of both PSIA and USSA fighting for a very small slice of pie.

 

[stevo]

It comes down to carving. Carving is more efficient, including for speed control. But ironically once you know how to control your speed through carving, including as slow as a snail, it becomes much easier to ski at a fairly high speed as you wish and completely in control, with a wide spectrum of speed options in between. Carve mastery is essential to expert level skiing.

If you don’t care about expert level skiing then don’t worry about it. maybe. The vast majority of skiers on the mountain will never become expert skiers so there is always that too. But I personally believe we see two trends on the mountain which contribute to accidents and injuries. One are people without proper carving skills but because carving ski tech, tipping their skis on edge and going like a runaway freight train. But the even more common problem I see are skiers with zero carving skills not even enough to do the first thing in just mentioned, they are skiing on relatively flat skis and doing a lot of fanning their skis from this side to that on relatively flat skis and a whole lot of skidding but they have gotten comfortable with allowing their skis to be flat enough that they are also hauling down the fall line like a runaway freight train and have little ability to change the direction they are going due to poor carving skills.

So in my view carving is essential for expert skiing yes but also it should be essential for lower levels to. But admittedly this is a difficult thing to teach at lower levels while also getting speed control so that is the dilemma

 

[markojp]

and you’re a well informed guest. Most guests want to get “better”, whatever the means.

I remember once I had this guy show up with his kid for a private and he was very explicit that he couldn’t get his kid to tip his feet, the kid was actually a pretty good little skier and the dad was obviously driving him hard but not getting results in that area.

We worked on it and the next day he was sending me text messages like OMG I can’t believe how well he’s skiing now. Ok great I’m sure most of you have had similar experiences and sometimes they know the thing they want to improve but don’t know how to get there. That is great when they do it lets us get real focused real quick yea? More often then not they aren’t they well informed and they just want to get better and enjoy the day.

My earlier comment had more to do about long range goals such as win races or make the college ski team, or pass a Psia exam or whatever. Those kinds of goals are beyond the scope of a typical ski lesson and venture more Into the area of longer term coaching which is unusual for most instructors to be able to do, quick note I know some like mark must be doing it and they will shortly tell us so, but overall I think that it’s rare for instructors to be in a situation of long term coaching. Their focus understandably should be on MA, identify area to focus on area of ski improvement, hope to see a little something learned and keep it fun. That’s just the reality that most of time that’s all the time you get. Not to say that learning about some of their long range dreams and goals may not also be interesting and useful and might even influence your approach. And it will definitely help to “connect” with the student mentally and emotionally, but really 99% of the time an instructor can readily spot skiing deficiencies that could be worked on for a day or days or even a whole season without any regard to long term goal planning and coached development.

Yes, I am. This is the last time I'll mention it.

And I agree... many guests don't know what's needed to 'get better', but the right additional questions might help find a way forward. "Where do you aspire to ski? What do you notice when you see skiing that inspires you? etc.... "

Now do I have things I wish PSIA addressed more clearly, and yes, better? Sure. I wish more Ed Staff had boot fitting/alignment evaluation skill. Yes, more in depth technical video content would be lovely. Deb's are great, and Alan Veth's bits are great to share... WC guy who also trains ski school staff. Perfect! A publication would be nice, but our own book shelf is full of old how to manuals. Some continue to speak and inform. Others gather dust. Is there sometimes a disconnect between 'pretty' and 'effective' skiing? No doubt. In the end, PSIA provides a basic, bullet pointed framework for a very large, decentralized*, national organization that covers everthing from tiny mom and pop schools to major destination corporate owned resort conglomerates. Racing's goals and audience are both much smaller and more focused. Go fast, win. Go slow, lose. Pay to play. Love that some of us have had the good fortune to have an extensive race background. It just makes the toolbox bigger.

* exams are rapidly becoming much more standard through the organization. That said, yes, i see prep vids from different divisions that I have questions about... so be it. If there's an opportunity to ask the people in the vid, I'll take it. In the meantime, there's plenty of solid material to draw from out there.

 

[geepers]

proof is in the pudding

I asked for the recipe or at least which cookbook it was written in, not a second helping.

I take a Taos ski week lesson every year, but I don't have articulated goals. I do it because historically it has been fun and improved my skiing. But the dreaded "what do you want to work on this week?" No idea.

Fun - what's fun for you on skis?

Improve in what way: Ski with more performance? Fall less often? Get less worn out?

 

[stevo]

I asked for the recipe or at least which cookbook it was written in, not a second helping.

Well that is an interesting point, but consider this...

PSIA is an organization that exists for the purpose of education, standarization and credentials. As such, yes their standards need to be documented. Their methods, including technical materials need to absolutely be documented. And in fact they have done exactly that. According to me and some others...with not quite enough technical meat, perhaps under funded in the carving dept......but still they have in fact attempted to do what I am saying. In fact the only reason PSIA exists at all, is for those express reasons...to educate, standardize and offer credentials.

Racing world is not an educational world. A high level FIS coach once commented to me that it's totally different in their inner circles and what their actual mission and agenda is, is not to educate. it is to produce winners! You don't go around printing and publishing your trade secret playbook at any level for all the competition to to learn from you. You hold your cards close to your chest and attempt to produce top quality skiers that will hopefully win races in a very competitive environment. They may have internal localized materials of course. They are highly motivated to produce the finest skiers possible because there is no wishy washy goal...the skier has to navigate challenging courses and win.

so there is no reason whatsoever to hope that the racing world will ever produce the kinds of materials that PSIA produces and nor should they.

you ask this question I think only to create yet another argument and continue to ignore the obvious results,. The racing world, through whatever means they are using, produces many many carve-centric skiers that are typically at a higher level of technical skiing ability. the proof is in the pudding. You can choose to ignore them if you wish, but I feel this is short sighted and you're missing out.

 

[geepers]

Racing world is not an educational world. A high level FIS coach once commented to me that it's totally different in their inner circles and what their actual mission and agenda is, is not to educate. it is to produce winners! You don't go around printing and publishing your trade secret playbook at any level for all the competition to to learn from you. You hold your cards close to your chest and attempt to produce top quality skiers that will hopefully win races in a very competitive environment. They may have internal localized materials of course. They are highly motivated to produce the finest skiers possible because there is no wishy washy goal...the skier has to navigate challenging courses and win.

And the obvious issue is...

you ask this question I think only to create yet another argument and continue to ignore the obvious results,. The racing world, through whatever means they are using, produces many many carve-centric skiers that are typically at a higher level of technical skiing ability. the proof is in the pudding. You can choose to ignore them if you wish, but I feel this is short sighted and you're missing out.

No doubt if we start with a bunch of highly athletic types who spend every waking moment on a physical activity they are going to get pretty good at it.

Then we watch a bunch of not-so-athletically talented and not so immaculately prepared ppl run a race course and the picture isn't nearly as clear.


But all this is beside the point. Both the PSIA and the CSIA have lots of folk who are ex-racers. So why, specifically, do you think technical input from ski racing is being ignored?

 

[Erik Timmerman]

Just back to the OP for a minute (because I only just watched the video yesterday). I'm sorta with Deb in not loving the 5 fundamentals, but I don't see how her version really helps. I mean BERP worked just fine and the new fundamentals are overly wordy. But I don't see going from 5 fundamentals to 15 or whatever she has as an improvement! I think that if you pick the 5 fundamentals as little boxes, you can slide her 15 down into them. And then three of the five fundamentals are basically balance.

The important thing about the fundamentals to me is how they are going to be used scoring an exam. Anyone who looks at the score card (candidate or trainer) should be able to understand what the examiner saw through those fundamentals and be able to figure out the next steps.

 

[stevo]

No doubt if we start with a bunch of highly athletic types who spend every waking moment on a physical activity they are going to get pretty good at it.

Sorry but you're still missing the point about the missing technical meat. Has nothing to do with high athleticism or talent...those things do matter for which ones end up winning however.

Then we watch a bunch of not-so-athletically talented and not so immaculately prepared ppl run a race course and the picture isn't nearly as clear.

I think you are over estimating the difficulty of a race course. We're not talking about winning of course, that takes talent, altheticism, a lot of training of course (which the un-athletic can also do), but anyway, we're not talking about producing winners, we're talking about producing skiers that use the same technique as racers..a small percantage of which end up winners.

But all this is beside the point. Both the PSIA and the CSIA have lots of folk who are ex-racers. So why, specifically, do you think technical input from ski racing is being ignored?

Geepers, this is my last response to you. You are just going in circles now. This has all been explained earlier in the thread, please go back and read it from star to end, if you truly want to understand my POV better. I don't think you really do, you just appear to want to argue endleesly.

i have already stated numerous times that there are some folks within PSIA, CSIA and other ski instruction organizations that have taken their own initiative to learn, understand and perform to a decent degree of competence what the racers are doing. I have not ever said otherwise. Nobody disputes that. Now just make that more mainstream as part of the curriculum, more official, more widespread adoption and understanding of what the racers are doing. You will have my vote!

 

[geepers]

I think you are over estimating the difficulty of a race course. We're not talking about winning of course, that takes talent, altheticism, a lot of training of course (which the un-athletic can also do), but anyway, we're not talking about producing winners, we're talking about producing skiers that use the same technique as racers..a small percantage of which end up winners.

Beer league races still have a winner. Not sure the technical model demo-ed at many of those events is the one to copy and yet they have race training.

Geepers, this is my last response to you. You are just going in circles now. This has all been explained earlier in the thread, please go back and read it from star to end, if you truly want to understand my POV better. I don't think you really do, you just appear to want to argue endleesly.

Have tried to find out something specific but apart from requiring a timed run through gates there doesn't seem to be anything.

We've posted past each other enough. So, yes, time to wrap this up.

 

[stevo]

This just in from Deb....