Deb Armstrong: A critical look at the PSIA Technical Model

[fatbob]

What's Tim done wrong?

Deb's list is certainly a word soup so she needs to work on getting it punchier if she wants universal adoption.

 

[Jerez]

Punchy abstractions and diagrams work when you are talking to the already initiated. But students need concrete concepts they can apply. Like giving a lecture but only reading the outline notes.

Perhaps I am wrong but it seems to me that Deb was talking about talking to student skiers. She was also talking to the large, at least in her observation, number of instructors who still need it too.

There was a time when I would have balked at her notion that mere recreational skiers should learn the fundamental principals that a ski racer learns. I would have said, "but I don't want to go fast and I don't want to ski groomers. I dont need that for trees and steeps." But would have been wrong.

When my husband was injured and we were relegated to groomers on doctors orders, I learned to ski them. Not like a real racer mind you, but a whole lot closer and so able ro recognize what it is. And now I see how that relates to and informs much better control and efficiency everywhere on the mountain.

 

[markojp]

Deb seems pretty clear in her understanding of the 'vagueness' of the PSIA fundamentals... PSIA doesn't dictate a 'how', which given the size and geographical breadth of the membership, makes sense.

Many here are more hardwired for the 'how'. Personally, I'm glad that I have agency over this, and don't need to follow a rote prescription. This is where creativity happens.

Ironically, during the cert process, many if not most write out strict progressions for everything, then miss opportunities on exam day to take advantage of the slope, conditions, or even what they're seeing in the group, and miss the forest 'fore the trees. Versatility should happen both in one's skiing and teaching. It's more 'jazz' than marching music. The 'what' is pretty clear and in the right order in my mind. The how can be addressed more locally acknowledging the differences in terrain etc... in each division... the 'why' though might be more usefully articulated.

All that said, the SL pyramid is super clear and concise. Deb's list is, well, a list. It's looooong. Imagine having to regurgitate all that during an exam lesson, or a less experienced instructor mistakenly trying to verbalize it with a client. It works for Deb because of her depth of experience, and understanding that learning happens over time with directed mileage and using language and tasks/chalkenges her clients understand and can make actionable.

Edit: the 'how' is what makes Deb's videos such a great resource!

 

[Seldomski]

I think a graphic like the SL pyramid could help instructors teach. Something concise that you have on a card to show to students. If they really want to, take a picture of it with a phone.

I can get lost in the word soup between lessons. I've seen the s, c and z shapes drawn on snow (many times), but those do something different vs a graphic showing the elements/foundation of good skiing. Something to help students build a framework on.

 

[Tony S]

What's Tim done wrong?

I noticed that too.

 

[James]

Once upon a time ski school was very integrated with racing. Or, to put it another way, the majority of instructors had done some racing. Look no further than Taos for the remnants of this. Alain Veth the Technical Director of the ski school, former French National Team and pro circuit racer. That was a long time ago, but it’s still ingrained.

Are they teaching full on edge carves to ski very steep bumps? No, because it’s not appropriate. However, you might go through that on the groomers, and even do rail road tracks.

But what does he do in Deb’s video, high speed carves? No, wedge turns. Fundamentals. This whole false dichotomy people are constructing here makes no sense. Also, if you have not learned to control speed with line, learn it now. You can never ski with flow without it.


Greatest slalom skier in history, training. High speed? No, fundamentals. This can apply to just about everyone who skis parallel. It’s too bad it’s not longer.

 

[markojp]

I think a graphic like the SL pyramid could help instructors teach. Something concise that you have on a card to show to students. If they really want to, take a picture of it with a phone.

I can get lost in the word soup between lessons. I've seen the s, c and z shapes drawn on snow (many times), but those do something different vs a graphic showing the elements/foundation of good skiing. Something to help students build a framework on.

Interestingly enough, the skills and fundamentals model does as well.

Turn shapes drawings, word soup, and understanding are on the instructor AND the student. When leading clinics, I always ask for feedback on:

1. Are the words (the what, why, and how) and meaning clear,
Y or N?

2. Is the demo clear, Y or N?

3. If I get chatty, I give them a code word... could be 'cheeseburger', or, 'time for fries!', etc... to mention. Into the weeds discussion, etc... happens on the chair. Gotta keep it moving!

 

[JESinstr]

Punchy abstractions and diagrams work when you are talking to the already initiated. But students need concrete concepts they can apply.

So it is really important that you can support those concepts with real life examples of the physical feelings they should expect. For example..

With beginners and implementing centered dynamic balance. I first quickly explain the difference between static and dynamic balance and to get them to understand why we have to change their ingrained heel and toe locomotion methodology to a centered, through the arch methodology. The example I give is entering a moving walkway at the airport. Their brain continues to sense forward movement, but the mechanics of locomotion stop and there is a "confusing" rebalancing that takes place. Most can relate to that experience.

What is interesting to me is that the "Frequent Fliers" (already initiated) as well as the occasional traveler make this momentary transition and fail to consider why they felt what they did. It was just a momentary reaction to an unbalanced situation and life goes on obla dee obla da. Unfortunately, in skiing the imbalance potential is not momentary.

 

[JESinstr]

@James it seems to me there are two topics, at least, that are present in this thread. First is Deb Armstrong's video, which besides setting the World Cup as an ideal for identifying and mastering technique, seems to suggest a return to an old PSIA teaching model: the centerline. Next is a discussion differentiation between skidded and edge locked ski performance. This is the segment that I think I could contribute to.

To me, the issue isn't edge locked versus skidded, it is rather the fifth fundamental in PSIA's model: regulate the pressure created by the ski/snow interface. That fundamental is not easy to understand, but what I've started to understand it to mean is the ability manipulate the timing and magnitude of pressure in the ski turn. What WC skiers do so well is change the timing and magnitude of pressure to send their mass in a direction that they chose. They do it in a manner that preserves potential energy so that they can preserve their line, their speed, and convert that potential energy into speed through the course.

Sean Warman's video above shows this but states it in different words.

In my opinion, the fifth fundamental is the one that differentiates advanced from expert skiers.

So, how do you achieve the fifth fundamental? The other 4 plus tactics plus environment plus equipment.

Mike

Welcome back!
Here's how IMO

It has to do with what end of each skill's spectrum we are teaching from.

If we teach edging skills from the sliding end of the spectrum (traditional approach) how and when does the skier gain the ability to experience what solid grip feels like? If we effectively use the preset edge characteristics of the wedge configuration to provide grip, then regulating it and "giving in" to the sliding side of the spectrum is a whole lot easier than trying to fight your way to the edge lock end.

With Pressure skills I have found that what is actually critical is the pressure release side of the spectrum and how starting from that end of the spectrum is critical to the ability to stay center balanced.

 

[Seldomski]

Turn shapes drawings, word soup, and understanding are on the instructor AND the student.

Agree. My comment on word soup is not about just one instructor. It's about trying to unify different words from multiple instructors. I take a lot of lessons from many different schools - at least compared to most people I know who ski.

I do communicate in lessons if I get lost. Meanwhile I'm also trying to unify or contrast a bunch of different words from multiple places.

If there was some sort of PSIA graphic to help organize the thoughts, I think it could be beneficial. Especially for those newer to the sport.

 

[James]

Geez, give Deb some credit. Her diagram is for her, not the students. Most will never see it. It’s more an operating outline for her.

 

[Tony S]

Geez, give Deb some credit. Her diagram is for her, not the students. Most will never see it. It’s more an operating outline for her.

Yeah. I eavesdropped on one of her lessons last year at Taos, very briefly. Not a statistically valid sample but certainly random enough. She was engaging her class with great directness and specificity. She was being anything but abstract.

 

[KingGrump]

I eavesdropped on one of her lessons last year at Taos, very briefly.

Was it a lesson or an instructor clinic?

 

[Tony S]

Was it a lesson or an instructor clinic?

Yup

 

[markojp]

Geez, give Deb some credit. Her diagram is for her, not the students. Most will never see it. It’s more an operating outline for her.

Absolutely. My comment was more about how it's interpreted. Deb's awesome!

 

[stevo]

Deb was right on point. What she was basically talking about was technique as opposed to skills. She called them timeless principles that she was herself using and teaching notwithstanding the fact that Psia gave no guidance in this regard. Technique and skills are two different things, both important. IMHO psia abandoned commitment to technique due to lack of consensus about what represents the best technique. There is widespread belief that racing technique should be different from recreational technique and I think that is flat out wrong. There are in fact numerous core timeless principles that apply to all skiing; and learning opposing technique will create movement patterns and muscle memory that will hold a skier back from reaching true potential. Racing technique does not always mean fast. That is where skills come in to blend various skills while applying technique such that speed control is achieved or speed enhancement as you wish. It’s also a product of tactics, such as line choice. Psia gives little guidance on technique now but there are many old memes and ideas circulating around that instructors teach on their own initiative. Sometimes good and sometimes not. Many times they are tricks and techniques for short term gains which present movement patterns and eventually muscle memory that will cap a skier at intermediate or low advanced level for maybe all their life.

she is absolutely spot on! Kudos to her for going out on a limb with this.

psia unfortunately will have a hard time as an organization agreeing to any set of techniques or convincing their memebers to use it. Would take decades.

i admire Deb’s motivation and effort but the reality is that we should probably accept Psia for it currently is, a skills based organization and if you want good technique then research your instructor and make sure they are one of the ones that go beyond the manual to teach the kinds of core principles Deb was talking about. They are out there.

 

[JESinstr]

i admire Deb’s motivation and effort but the reality is that we should probably accept Psia for it currently is, a skills based organization and if you want good technique then research your instructor and make sure they are one of the ones that go beyond the manual to teach the kinds of core principles Deb was talking about. They are out there.

Good post! But IMO, the reality is that skill implementation and technique, in large part, is driven by velocity and what is (or will be) the force of record with which we will have to work.

A beginner at low velocity and in a wedge is mainly working with gravity and needs to move mass to (over) the inside edge of the new outside ski in order to establish and maintain grip. Same goes for parallel technique. At low speed there is little or no Centripetal force to support a move of the COM to the inside.

An advanced skier at speed and available Centripetal potential will have two options.
1. The "get over it" technique in which the skier moves forward and over the outside edge of the old inside ski and then rolls onto the new inside edge of that same ski (the new downhill ski).
2. The retraction technique in which the skier retracts the skis and floats them under over and up on edge which simultaneously positions the COM inside of the turn.

Don't have enough bytes to get into Bump Technique, LOL.

So maintaining a Skills focus is fundamental IMO. I do think it is unfortunate that sometimes the onus is put on the customer to know (or think they know) what they want when it should be the instructor that is versed in the building of skills and implementation into various techniques.

 

[stevo]

You have written a few different things which you think might be considered as “technique”. They are very specific and situational. Deb mentioned a list of things which are more specific then the five Psia skills and yet not nearly as specific as what you are suggesting here. They are more general then what you are suggesting yet more specific then Psia’s directionless 5 skills.

First you teach children the alphabet, grammar comes a few years later. Learning to write and compose papers of thought comes even later then that.

skills and technique are not mutually exclusive. They are both important. But learning skill development does not automatically lead to good technique through experimentation.

The problem Deb explains is not about the order in how things are taught, it is lack of technical messaging by Psia and lack of understanding by many of its members about the end goals and how to get there over time. Lack of a clear true path from beginner techniques to high level skiing particularly if they ingrained certain movement patterns over years without realizing that one day they would need to undo some of it. Yes at higher levels of skiing it becomes more and more specific situationally.

Anyway clearly many have embraced the skills only approach or at the very least have absolved Psia of any responsibility for guidance toward good ski techniques, but that is the technical meat that is missing. The members are left to figure it out on their own. Some do and some don’t. And not consistently.

is the model result to be a skier using cross under or retraction style transitions? I’m not so sure that is the case, that is very very specific. But let’s hypothesize that Psia determined that is a good end model to arrive at for high end skiing all over the mountain. What is the path to get there? What are the specific body movement patterns that will be needed to get there? What muscle engagements get there? What specific blending of the 5 skills will make it happen? The vast majority of Psia members don’t have any idea the answers to those questions. And they should know and have the ability to find out from Psia.

additionally if skiers will need to walk before they can run, then what are the exact known movement patterns which will be in conflict between walking and running? When is the appropriate time in a skier’s progression to transition them to the higher end movement patterns and muscle engagements? Many folks in Psia have thought about these things on their own and for example determined on their own how and when to transition from say skiing in a wedge to skiing parallel. Opinions differ. Psia is silent on the matter.

in my opinion that is because there was not consensus. Some favored direct to parallel with their own reasons, some favored other approaches with their known reasons. How to make the skis more parallel? You don’t just shout “make French fries” until the leaner figures it out in their own. There are specific body movements, muscle engagements, feels from the ski, balance goals, etc that will lead to skiing French fry turns. Psia does not appear to know what those are or at least does not codify it in the materials

 

[JESinstr]

WoW! Clearly you are passionate about this subject and I think we are in the same church but might be sitting in different pews.

The problem Deb explains is not about the order in how things are taught, it is lack of technical messaging by Psia and lack of understanding by many of its members about the end goals and how to get there over time. Lack of a clear true path from beginner techniques to high level skiing particularly if they ingrained certain movement patterns over years without realizing that one day they would need to undo some of it. Yes at higher levels of skiing it becomes more and more specific situationally.
Anyway clearly many have embraced the skills only approach or at the very least have absolved Psia of any responsibility for guidance toward good ski techniques, but that is the technical meat that is missing. The members are left to figure it out on their own. Some do and some don’t. And not consistently.

The answer to this IMO, is that skiing is made up of 2 activities. Going straight and converting straight into circles. Other than teaching a new technique to dynamically manage fore and aft balance, we don't need to teach straight. The conversion of straight into circles IS the single thread that spans beginner to expert and the advent of shaped skis has given this continuum a fighting chance. It requires a shift from rotary first to edging and pressure management first, but you are right that I see no clear leadership from PSIA on this. As stated in my post above, the skill wild card in all of this is velocity and its effect on dynamic lateral balance.

is the model result to be a skier using cross under or retraction style transitions? I’m not so sure that is the case, that is very very specific. But let’s hypothesize that Psia determined that is a good end model to arrive at for high end skiing all over the mountain. What is the path to get there? What are the specific body movement patterns that will be needed to get there? What muscle engagements get there? What specific blending of the 5 skills will make it happen? The vast majority of Psia members don’t have any idea the answers to those questions. And they should know and have the ability to find out from Psia.

So based on my position that the goal is to learn a process that uses the ski to turn straight into circles aka Carving, and acknowledging that there are left and right versions, then how that transition happens is wide open based on velocity, surface conditions and slope.

additionally if skiers will need to walk before they can run, then what are the exact known movement patterns which will be in conflict between walking and running? When is the appropriate time in a skier’s progression to transition them to the higher end movement patterns and muscle engagements? Many folks in Psia have thought about these things on their own and for example determined on their own how and when to transition from say skiing in a wedge to skiing parallel. Opinions differ. Psia is silent on the matter.

Contrary to your metaphor, it's ironic that the fundamental skill for skiers is to learn to change from a walk/run dynamic balance methodology to a centered balance one but I digress.

Again, I point to my belief that that implementation of "higher end movement patterns" is dependent on the transition from gravity based lateral balance to Centripetal balance which is governed by velocity, surface conditions and slope.

in my opinion that is because there was not consensus. Some favored direct to parallel with their own reasons, some favored other approaches with their known reasons. How to make the skis more parallel? You don’t just shout “make French fries” until the leaner figures it out in their own. There are specific body movements, muscle engagements, feels from the ski, balance goals, etc that will lead to skiing French fry turns. Psia does not appear to know what those are or at least does not codify it in the materials

Before you can make the skis more parallel you need to build the ability to execute the 5 fundamentals of which #3 is key because it is what allows the ski to convert straight into circles.

Skiing is simple, it's not that complex, but it can easily become complicated.

 

[Bad Bob]

@JESinstr "Skiing is simple, it's not that complex, but it can easily become complicated."

Can we get a big AMEN to that one!