Deb Armstrong: A critical look at the PSIA Technical Model

[James]

Ski Racing skill/technique does not automatically translate into zipperline moguls. Nor the opposite. Though Donny does make a good case skiing with Travis Ganong, he’s from Maine.

 

[locknload]

Ski Racing skill/technique does not automatically translate into zipperline moguls. Nor the opposite. Though Donny does make a good case skiing with Travis Ganong, he’s from Maine.

Now THIS is entertaining! That straight-line at the end there had me terrified. Maine accent cracks me up!

I know Deb is talking about a racing turn being the archetype, but I like her simple framework. Some of this PSIA jargon is too much and it's not simple, understandable language. A good framework like she pops up in her video of the fundamentals of strong skiing (race or otherwise) is much more accessible for the masses to learn from. For you guys who live in this PSIA world, and love to geek out on it..I'm sure its great. The best instruction I ever had was at Momentum camp in Whistler with former World Cup Canadian mogul skiers:

1. Ski from the feet up and from foot to foot
2. You can move your skis forward and back underneath you (using the entire ski) depending on what you are trying to do and where you are in your turn
3. You can carve the skis by laying them on edge and change the edge angles to accomplish your tactic
4. You can absorb and extend to adjust to changes/undulations in the terrain, but the goal is to stay centered on the skis and in a powerful, balanced position.

Obviously the magic is in the HOW you do all that...but having a simple understanding of the way you accomplish the mechanics of skiing was like a light bulb going off for me. In all my earlier years of ski instructions, no instructor ever started with that framework. From there, you have organizing framework to assess which of those items you do well and which need work and then you move out on drills and skill development to get stronger.

 

[Tony S]

What Maine accent?

 

[François Pugh]

Deb Armstrong YT on PSIA

I found this post to be interesting. As and Ex-Racer and coach, I've had some instructors tell me that I ski really well, but that it's "Racer style" and not what instructors teach or aspire to. To each his own, and I take no offense, but why is there a disconnect between examples of the highest level of technical execution of the fundamentals by racers and what instructors use as models of excellence?

Well obviously the instructors are using the wrong models.
Why do they do so? Maybe because of misconceptions, but also due to safety concerns. They don't want their students to be arcing down the hill at reckless speeds.

The misconception is that Racing turns ONLY involve pure carved arced turns. It involves every possible thing you can do with your skis to accomplish your goal. Have a look at your local race course after the teams done practicing on it. You will see plenty of polished surface from skis going sideways across it. It's just that the one aspect of a pure-carved arced turn is what stands out as a difference from what their student's need to keep them safe.

I agree with Deb, the fundamentals are there and good racers have it. So do some good skiers who have never raced.

 

[fatbob]

I watch some of those Donny clips between my fingers as I can't believe it's more than a matter of time before something goes Tuesdays In The Snow up and he shreds some ligaments. Plus at what stage does he become a role model for less talented bros and kids.

Anyway fun sponge over. I really like the idea of all instructors getting down to a consistent core of fundamentals as mentioned above without trying to layer on proprietary terminology or "special sauce" ways of thinking. The simpler skiing is made to be, the better the chance of making lifelong learners. And if it's not too many things to jam up headspace, the better the chances a student will learn to " feel" what is happening and be able to self experiment with the variables.

 

[wnyskier]

I find it fascinating that many non-racers are under the impression that "skiing like a racer" involves only making pure edge-lock turns and uncontrolled acceleration. The end result of making such turns is that the skiers velocity continues to increase until the skier reaches a point where they can either not make the next turn or cannot physically withstand the resulting forces. Also, many race courses are set such that the skiers are required to redirect their skis in order to make turns that are tighter than is possible using the sidecut / flex characteristics of the skis alone. So yes, in ski racing there is speed control to manage velocity and direction, much like F1 cars need brakes and steering in addition to a throttle pedal in order to navigate turns on a race track.

The accomplished racer - and skier - has many options to control speed and direction beyond the edge-lock turn. I would go further and posit that learning a skill set that provides any skier at any level of experience the ability to control speed and direction will result in greater safety for the skier and those sharing the hill with them. This is why Deb is advocating for a racing derived set of fundamental skills to be the basis for an instructional philosophy.

 

[Brian Finch]

I find it fascinating that many non-racers are under the impression that "skiing like a racer" involves only making pure edge-lock turns and uncontrolled acceleration. The end result of making such turns is that the skiers velocity continues to increase until the skier reaches a point where they can either not make the next turn or cannot physically withstand the resulting forces. Also, many race courses are set such that the skiers are required to redirect their skis in order to make turns that are tighter than is possible using the sidecut / flex characteristics of the skis alone. So yes, in ski racing there is speed control to manage velocity and direction, much like F1 cars need brakes and steering in addition to a throttle pedal in order to navigate turns on a race track.

The accomplished racer - and skier - has many options to control speed and direction beyond the edge-lock turn. I would go further and posit that learning a skill set that provides any skier at any level of experience the ability to control speed and direction will result in greater safety for the skier and those sharing the hill with them. This is why Deb is advocating for a racing derived set of fundamental skills to be the basis for an instructional philosophy.

It's very interesting and Americanized that the turn has morphed into a edge locked model. I certainly have not sorted out speed control for myself, but that's really my aim in my development. I find it curious, the non-'Merican's utilize concepts of short turns (speed controlled, brushed, short swing, pivoted) vs carving. My contemporary thoughts are that advanced skiing is more tactical than technical.

*carving does have aspects of speed control. I was recently at a US team dev talk where Per Lundstam was sharing GPS data that a racer on 30 meter skis closes the radius down to 7-8m at or about the apex of the turn in modern GS.

 

[KevinF]

I find it fascinating that many non-racers are under the impression that "skiing like a racer" involves only making pure edge-lock turns and uncontrolled acceleration. The end result of making such turns is that the skiers velocity continues to increase until the skier reaches a point where they can either not make the next turn or cannot physically withstand the resulting forces. Also, many race courses are set such that the skiers are required to redirect their skis in order to make turns that are tighter than is possible using the sidecut / flex characteristics of the skis alone. So yes, in ski racing there is speed control to manage velocity and direction, much like F1 cars need brakes and steering in addition to a throttle pedal in order to navigate turns on a race track.

The accomplished racer - and skier - has many options to control speed and direction beyond the edge-lock turn. I would go further and posit that learning a skill set that provides any skier at any level of experience the ability to control speed and direction will result in greater safety for the skier and those sharing the hill with them. This is why Deb is advocating for a racing derived set of fundamental skills to be the basis for an instructional philosophy.

I've never read Warren Witherall's book "How The Racers Ski", but I have always attributed "how the racers ski" to two fundamentals:

1. The skis turn the skier
2. Ski a slow enough line as fast as you can

The second idea -- as demonstrated by a lot of threads here over the years -- is mis-understood by many as there's a misinterpretation that "as fast as you can" implies some sort of objective "fast".

The degree to which those two goals can be achieved is highly dependent on your technical ability, and obviously more time on snow, more training, etc. will allow for a higher percentage of time that you can achieve those goals.

But there's nothing about the mindset behind "how a racer skis" that's not achievable by anybody. You can get a wedge turning beginner to embrace the "slow line".

 

[fatbob]

The second idea -- as demonstrated by a lot of threads here over the years -- is mis-understood by many as there's a misinterpretation that "as fast as you can" implies some sort of objective "fast".

That's one thing I find most frustrating about piste skiing with friends. They'll often piss off fast to the end of the run and be waiting around while I'm doing many more turns and as as result feel like I'm holding them up. This usually has nothing to do with relative ability though some less experienced mates can use speed over technique. I just don't find pistes and going fast on them per se that interesting whereas they can get down them fast and safely so why not?

 

[Dave Marshak]

But there's nothing about the mindset behind "how a racer skis" that's not achievable by anybody. You can get a wedge turning beginner to embrace the "slow line".

This^^^^^
When I was doing beginner lessons on straight skis, the goal was a gliding wedge turn with minimal edge pressure and speed control from turn shape more than skidding. From there it was pretty easy to advance to a skidded parallel turn and then a carved turn as lateral balance skills developed. Once you had the carved turn it was just a matter of adding speed. pressure and edging to create more dynamic turns, but you had to start with the edge locked carve first. That progression still wotks.

After we got shape skis, we could often skip wedge turns to teach direct to parallel, but the first carved turn on the easiest green trail away from the beginner area scared the snot out of most of them. We had to teach them to skid before we took them on the chairlift.

dm

 

[Dave Marshak]

It's very interesting and Americanized that the turn has morphed into a edge locked model.... My contemporary thoughts are that advanced skiing is more tactical than technical.

This^^^^^
Carving is the easy skill. Tactics are the expert part.

dm

 

[Lauren]

What got me into this was the OP's comment that an instructor told him that he "aspired" to something less than a dynamic race turn, and that he implied that the OP could do race turns but not speed control carved instructor turns. That seems ridiculous to me.

I interpreted OP's comment pretty differently...I didn't read anything about aspiring to something less than a dynamic race turn, and I didn't read any implication that the OP could do race turns but "not speed control carved instructor turns". I read the comment and interpreted it to be about "style"...not technique. Style being the little differences in skiing you notice when you're riding up a lift and watching the trail below you. If you were only watching racers and instructors on the trail below skiing in their "normal" fashion, most of the time it would be pretty obvious of who is who (of course there are exceptions). This isn't to say that one "style" is superior to the other...just different.

My contemporary thoughts are that advanced skiing is more tactical than technical.

This explains perfectly everything I was thinking about the original question in the thread:

why is there a disconnect between examples of the highest level of technical execution of the fundamentals by racers and what instructors use as models of excellence?

I don't see it as a disconnect. I think the fundamentals ARE the same for all disciplines in skiing, but advanced tactics are what separates a freerider riding spines in AK from a World Cup racer.

 

[KingGrump]

My contemporary thoughts are that advanced skiing is more tactical than technical.

Especially off piste.

 

[Nancy Hummel]

Most people that show up for lessons where I work want to be able to go anywhere in the mountain at the speed they choose. They want to be able to ski bumps, crud and steeps. I often take people in the Nastar course. There are great things that come of doing that.

The key is exploring movement patterns and helping them learn to ski anything from a flat ski to a clean carve and to help them understand what works where.

There is much to emulate from many types of skiers.

 

[Seldomski]

There is much to emulate from many types of skiers.

Yes! You are missing out if you don't borrow tactics and technique from racers, freestyle, freeride, and ...?

 

[fatbob]

I interpreted OP's comment pretty differently...I didn't read anything about aspiring to something less than a dynamic race turn, and I didn't read any implication that the OP could do race turns but "not speed control carved instructor turns". I read the comment and interpreted it to be about "style"...not technique.

I suspect this thread is one of those things where everyone is ultimately in agreement but saying it in different ways so it looks like confusing disagreement, probably apt given the premise of the thread.

I can easily see an instructor saying "racer turns are no good to me because I want to demo something slower, clearer and more attainable". That wouldn't be saying racer turns are wrong or less skilled or whatever.

I guess there is an interesting A/B study that could be done. Take 2 groups of never evers of equal athleticism. Put one through a week of traditional ski instruction and another through "race modelled" aspirational instruction and see where they end up after a week. I suspect for more athletic groups the latter approach might give further progress, but reverse with decreasing athleticism. They have to be never evers though because otherwise they are contaminated by prior experience good or bad. That would be cool fo Deb to do as a proof.

 

[4ster]

I did watch Debs video start to finish & l am in her camp that the basics of good ski technique come from racing. I am inclined to watch & learn more from Mikaela Shiffrin shredding a SL course than watching tech/demo skiers laying down big angle arcs on perfect packed powder groomers.

To each his own, and I take no offense, but why is there a disconnect between examples of the highest level of technical execution of the fundamentals by racers and what instructors use as models of excellence?

Did the instructor explain what instructors use as “models of excellence”? I keep wanting to say or add something to this thread but I’m not sure what it is that I want to say . I was in the ski instructor game for a long time & always looked to racers when it came to technique.

Whether it’s racing, moguls, park & pipe, freeride, freestyle or whatever, I have encountered one dimensional skiers in all aspects, even at high levels.
As @Nancy Hummel says:

Most people that show up for lessons where I work want to be able to go anywhere in the mountain at the speed they choose. They want to be able to ski bumps, crud and steeps. I often take people in the Nastar course. There are great things that come of doing that.

It is the instructors job to develop basic technique & fundamentals to the point that they can then guide the skier to adapt & apply it to any given situation.

 

[Dave Marshak]

I guess there is an interesting A/B study that could be done. Take 2 groups of never evers of equal athleticism. Put one through a week of traditional ski instruction and another through "race modelled" aspirational instruction and see where they end up after a week.

Except both groups would start the same. Recreational skiing technique has been based on racing at least since Warren Witherall wrote How The Racers Ski in 1972, or maybe from the 1950's when Georges Joubert wrote Technique Moderne. Recreational technique is just low energy racing, and racing is recreational technique turned up to 11. Beginners learn skills that remain useful and effective regardless of how far they progress.

dm

 

[wnyskier]

Did the instructor explain what instructors use as “models of excellence”? I keep wanting to say or add something to this thread but I’m not sure what it is that I want to say . I was in the ski instructor game for a long time & always looked to racers when it came to technique.

Nope. I asked, Reilly? Paully? Richie? Harald? Plake? Marcus? He couldn't name a person or execution of a specific set of skills.

Did he play golf? Yes. Who did he aspire to play like? Tiger in his prime. Why? Perfect execution of the fundamentals........ So why not racers?

 

[wnyskier]

My contemporary thoughts are that advanced skiing is more tactical than technical.

Tactical application of technical fundamentals. The bigger the technical toolbox the more tactical options are available to the skier.