Inside leg in carving

markojp

mtn rep for the gear on my feet
Industry Insider
Instructor
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
5,134
Location
PNW aka SEA
I guess there isn't much that separates "nuance" from gobbledygook then...

Well, it was inevitable that a good thread found its proverbial and literal page 4.
 

razie

Sir Shiftsalot
Skier
Joined
Jan 18, 2016
Posts
1,385
Location
Ontario
Razie, I am not sure you understood a thing he said!:rolleyes:
Fair enough, the wording is heavy, but I went back and read again.

The first part is reasonable, with the exaggeration of the V to get the H, that part is reasonable.

It's after that that it is going off the beaten path a lot though, that's what I was reacting to.

Coming to this from the racing side, whenever I see anyone recommending weighting the inside ski on purpose, raises an eyebrow and here, not only is that recommended, it then goes into an entire weird relationship and outcome/inputs cause/effect that make no sense.

10% is about the weight of the relaxed leg. So recommending 10% weight without relaxing the leg makes no sense.

Stand up and then weigh the left leg from 50% down to 10%. If there is a way to do that from low down the chain, without relaxing the left leg, as indicated there, I would like to know. Then put your hip down. If there is a way to do that without shortening that leg, I would like to know.

So it's nonsense to say either of those things.

To have the inside leg tip, without relaxing it, well, you really can't.

To have the snow pressure reduce the leg length, as a result of tipping only, without relaxing that leg, again nonsense.

To say that weighting the inside leg at large angles will keep it back without the skier doing anything, again nonsense: the knee bend pushes the boot forward and then any weight application will push it even more forward - you know, the "natural shuffle", enshrined into"the wall".

The reference to driving the chain top down is out of context and unexplained - whose instructions is he referring to - it must be the shortening of the leg, (which is way down the chain) and too say this is what drives tipping that foot is putting the cart before the horse.

Foot activation is always at the bottom of the chain, which is why he correctly does first.

I did like for instance that part with choosing dirt below, but then references to moving the COM on top of BOS directly contradicts the driving the chain bottom up.

So other than a few jabs at you know what, I still don't see much there that makes sense... and I can list more things that don't make sense.

References to equal ski tipping and equal ski bending indicate he is not skiing at high edge angles or with performance and needing pressure to tell you what the foot is doing, is weird.

So, if anything, I would turn what Mark said around and say that if you really wanted to, you could read something useful in there, but that doesn't mean it's there...

All in all, if you remove the fluff and jabs at everything else, you get the idea that all you do is tip the feet equally and everything else sorts itself out. Which, if it didn't add the pressure and weird cause effect like the snow simply shortening the leg for you, I could have possibly actually liked, as a cue... but then it went onto trying to justify it as cause effect and blew it.

Here's one reason this makes no sense, from the trenches: any weight or pressure on the inside will simply slow down angle creation.
 
Last edited:

Skitechniek

Getting off the lift
Skier
Joined
Jun 10, 2019
Posts
241
Location
Europe
Why are these discussions so difficult? :doh:
Not everyone thinks the same way about skiing. So what? Lots of stuff we all say (and yes that includes me), no matter your views on skiing, are blatantly inaccurate or even wrong. Lots of it are just coaching queues that apparently have worked for someone and therefor have some merit. And if you found the coach that works for you, then I'm only happy for you. Doesn't mean it works for everyone or that what you have been told is OBJECTIVELY true.

That being said, logically speaking it can never be true that inside leg bending is the root cause of edge angle. For this statement to be true two other premises would have to be true as well, namely:
1) There would have to be 1 on 1 correlation between vertical seperation of the legs and edge angle, which there is not. You can find hundreds of pictures of skiers with varying vertical seperation even though the edge angle is the same. Even in the world cup you can see difference between skiers like Murisier and de Aliprandini and Ryding who ski with relatively little vertical seperation and someone like let's say Zampa who has quite a lot of vertical seperation. The edge angles however do not differ that much.
2) You would have accept the premise of the inside leg having most of the weight on it during a turn. You can only lower your CoM from the bottom of the kinetic chain if that CoM is your BoS. If I am completely standing on the outside and I am bending the inside, nothing will happen. Just stand on one leg in your living room and bend the leg that is not on the ground. Nothing happens with your CoM in relationship to the ground. If you do this your 'free' leg is going up, your CoM is not going down. Why would this be any different for skiing?

Furthermore, saying that tipping the inside leg when it's not relaxed is not possible is 100% inaccurate. There is even research that shows eccentric en concentric loads in the inside leg (in WC athletes) and isometric loads on the outside legs. Heck, to merely stand you need some sort of muscle tension. So muscles per definition have some tension. So how are we going to define relaxed then?

What I find problematic is keeping the inside leg too stiff. If you don't allow the inside leg to bend, it is going to make life harder for you. Then you are resisting the edge angle so to speak. But that is not the same as saying the inside leg is what causes edge angle.

This is the problem with ski teaching or even teaching in general when there is no objective test to measure skill. Lots of different views and lack of objective testing grounds makes a very good breeding ground for polarizing discussions. Just listen to everybody, try everything and see what sticks. Never get too stuck up in your own paradigm.
 
Last edited:

Sledhead

Booting up
Skier
Joined
Sep 30, 2021
Posts
7
Location
New York, US
Trippin on shrooms and gobbledygook! … tough crowd! I've got plenty more where that came from. Razie, I read what you wrote and wish to thank you for your thoughtful response to my post. I have read a bunch of your contributions to this section of the forum which are all fantastic whether I agree. I also appreciate the humor. Even at my expense, I find it a worthy expenditure. As well, I always appreciate the existence of opposing views which has often been a driving factor for many of my conclusions. That is because I am more focused on what we can do better than on what is already successful for which I feel there is also plenty of that. Not quite sure how you are able to do an MA on my skiing through my writing, a skill I have yet to acquire. I am always willing to share my proof of concept to anyone that would like to meet me on the slope to continue such a conversation against the backdrop of actual skiing. Short of that opportunity, I would only ask someone bringing forth an opposing viewpoint to simply state what their opposing concept is, whether it is attached to an overriding technical or developmental model, what are the associated patterns, how they are derived, their cues, what is the expected outcome in regards to the relationship between the CoM and BoS and final outcome expected with ski to snow interaction. That is, if they exist. It is one of those things that, if they are not there, then they are not there. This is how I do movement analysis and it just also happens to work the same way for the analysis of other proposed concepts and how well thought out they are. May I ask you if you have a technical and, or a developmental model that you can summarize in a paragraph or two? While I may not be so sure how to respond to what you wrote, perhaps I could respond to what your actual position is. When there is time, I also like to include in discussions how I coach something regarding drills, progressions, correct form cues, exaggeration and integration patterns and modified techniques, some of which I have posted here, somewhere.

I really do hate to sound so laboriously technical, but we really are discussing the melding of biomechanics, physics and engineering where there is a lot of work in maintaining context parameters within such an endless expanse of possible inclusions of thought. Not to mention in an online forum. Being specific takes the legs out of the semantical misinterpretations plaguing these forums. Regardless of that, I do understand how too many compound-complex sentences in a row is going to sound like gobbledygook to some. Those are not my intended audience. To just throw out a naked claim and watch it become immediately annihilated is one thing, however, backing it up in writing and fully owning it as a piece of one's own model is another. Owning it on snow, perhaps even a bit more. Shouldn’t everyone putting in an effort to read these posts be empowered with the information with which they can self determine their own efficacy of the suggestions themselves? Having stated that, I should further clarify some of the context that this technique’s turn intent is pure carving short turns for advanced skiers with performance boots, a performance fit, short radius carving skis and an interest in laying it over like a ski racer in an effortlessly rhythmic fashion.

When we are comparing high performance skiers skiing the same lines, the first thing we typically notice and compare is the output of the ski. How much tipping, how much bending, how much steering angle, how much rebound, how much deflection across the fall line … Not so much the small variances in their movements above the ski as they can so easily be more related to individual variations in anatomy, equipment, etc. It is my experience that “dropping” the hips into “each” turn, at least the way you explain sitting in a chair, forces the skier to have to “lift” it back up to be able to do it again for the next turn. Because we are accessing gravity to drop the hips with every turn, we are then left with nothing with which to return the CoM to reset that movement other than from sheer physical effort. While I do “drop” into my flexion stance for a following set of turns, and adjust the depth of flexion based on the speed and radius of the turn, the only other flexion I experience after that is from the ground up just like I would for terrain absorption of moguls. See: “The Most Important Move in Skiing” which explains exactly what I am talking about with clear descriptions, demos and graphics. It describes the two forms of vertical separation: top-down and bottom-up as well as the advantages and disadvantages of each. Here I suggest we use the forcefully turning ski to create extension of the BoS and ground force for its return flexion instead of gravity for flexion and muscular effort for the extension needed to “reset”. Absorbing ground reaction force the same way we absorb bumps. What I suggest is a fully flexed stance where the BoS moves away from the CoM and then back towards it. When our timing is correct, the CoM is suspended by the forces of the turn, not the forces of the skier. For me, one version is far more effortless than the other. A lot of it depends whether we are working with and against simple gravity or with and against the ground reaction produced by the converging paths of the CoM and BoS colliding on their relative vertical access.

I am fully aware that this concept of DIRT flowing from the feet on up the chain and the differences it will produce in whether a movement is an “onerously” active input or an effortlessly passive output goes against the grain of a lot of thinking in the snow sports ski pro industry. You are not alone in that camp from which I am often confronted with similarly defensive tones. While not intentional, the concept presumably invalidates or at least undermines many tips, concepts and instructions that are dominant in this space. Otherwise, I may not have bothered to post it. I actually believe that direct movement applications are fine for teaching beginners and intermediates but is something that will cause a typical advanced intermediate plateau if this “upside down” frame of reference is allowed to continue. This is where all these individual body part movement instructions fail to produce the systemically applied movements that “I” see from the skiers I would hope to emulate. Our brain actually responds much better to our chain of movement through the relationship between the CoM and BoS rather than a collection of individual movements that must be managed accordingly. When we lose our balance, our instinct is to move our CoM, BoS or both and not to flex, extend or rotate some specific body part. It is this “instinct” that represents a huge shortcut in advanced ski development. An advanced intermediate and up has already achieved the ability to limit their focus to only the CoM and BoS, hence allowing all movements that occur between the two to be automated with the duration, intensity, rate and timing prescribed by the forces of the turn itself rather than trying to control things with what is typically referenced as a rather complicated set of inputs. Direct inputs must timmed and magnitude regulated by the skier while passive outputs come with their own timing and regulation of magnitude. With this technique, always being stacked means never having to submit to turn pressure that results in large muscle contractions.

The main reason why we want our movements and initiatives to emanate from the ground up is based on how the human kinetic chain works for a skier in particular. There is an open end and closed end to this chain. The top is the open end and the bottom end, at the ground, is the closed end (short the open chain transition period and a different conversation). When we work from the closed end to the open end, it is like using a whip where our wrist initiates an input at the handle (base/foundation) that radiates (DIRT) along the rope (chain) resulting in the snap at the other end. Our musculoskeletal system/human kinetic chain also operates in a similar directional fashion. For skiing, our “whip” handle is at the feet. However, if we were to use this chain in the other direction, open end to closed end, we are then taking the other end of the whip in our hands. What this does is to reduce flow by segmenting the turncycle with abrupt closure of the chain of movement at the ground. Sending our DIRT towards the open end allows any imperfections in our movement to dissipate freely without the same ongoing consequences from running poorly chosen DIRT into the ground. A failure to crack that whip is like the failure to get that ski deflection across the fall line.

How DIRT flows in certain directions in other applications can be confusing when we look at our throwing arm or tennis, bat and golf swings whereby the movement starts with the larger anatomy and works its way down to smaller anatomy. From spine to shoulder to elbow then to the wrist. Here, the spine is the “closed” end and the wrist is the “open” end in terms of the direction DIRT flows along that chain. For me, the entire chain of movement and its flowing attributes (dirt) is initiated at the ankles, my only direct input for most of my skiing and allowing everything that occurs between the CoM and BoS as, for the most part, effortless and automated. I like to think of it in terms of the difference between “managing” the relationship between the CoM and BoS and, instead, “delegating” that relationship. While the manager works to make sure everything is pushed and pulled into place, the delegator is merely aligning the powers that already exist to produce a specific outcome. For us computer nerds, it is like analyzing and controlling the metadata vs the data.

Just a note about the biomechanics of equal tipping and vertical separation. The status of equal tipping expires once vertical separation has been maximized and surpassed within the alignment available from the skier’s frame. Ski racers commonly surpass the available vertical separation during what is considered the “belly” of the turn (turn phase 2.5). After the turn has fully developed in this context, there is no need for equal tipping as most of the turn has been completed and they are soon headed back the other way to flat for transition. In other words, we can only equally tip up to a certain stance width. It is generally based on a skier’s height and Hirscher is only 5”8”. It is that and because he tips equally that he achieves and surpasses max vertical separation available to him as quickly as he does. The belly of the turn is typically when most photos of ski racers are taken as they illustrate the most dynamic part of the turn
 

dbostedo

Asst. Gathermeister
Moderator
Joined
Feb 9, 2016
Posts
11,043
Location
Nor. Virginia, USA
I don't know if there's even agreement about what a leg is anymore, let alone what the appropriate usage is.
Getting back on topic a bit... in reading the last several posts, some of which goes over my head or beyond my knowledge base (I'm not an instructor or expert skier), one small thought occurred to me...

It seems like some folks are referring to softening/relaxing the inside leg, and bending the inside leg, and I think are meaning the same thing but coming at it in different ways. I think the same motion and weight transfer and COM movement could be described with either.

I.e. someone said there is always tension in the leg, so you're not really relaxing.... sure but I think "relaxing" to "let" the leg flex versus telling someone to "bend" it could both work the same, depending on the skier and understanding.

Is there any real difference between instructing someone to flex or bend their inside leg, versus relax to soften their inside leg, if the understanding of where their weight should be, and COM should move to, is the same?
 
Last edited:

razie

Sir Shiftsalot
Skier
Joined
Jan 18, 2016
Posts
1,385
Location
Ontario
@Sledhead fair enough - Im glad for you not taking offense, I am told that my humour can be abrasive at times, but keeping an open mind is important.
:beercheer:

I can't think through the entire new post now, will do.

My thoughts are quite simple. The most important thing in performance skiing, since the body is alread moving down the slope, is taking the old outside / new inside leg out of the way. Flex, relax, bend, shorten, tip, put in the pocket, unmount and carry on the shoulder, whatever.

So as we end the previous turn, the long and strong outside leg must disappear. In fast slalom turns, the release is a fast and violent process, in giant turns, it can be more gradual. Point is that old long strong leg disappears to let the body flow down into the next turn. If there's any delay, the body stalls and the slalom turns are no longer possible, the skier must hop up and over.

The tipping aspect is related to the speed: if you don't tip it as fast as the hips move down the hill, the hip gets into the new turn first and that's called hip dumping, with the A frame and all that. Usually tipping both feet equally is the goal, although as you go towards hip to snow, it's almost impossible to keep them at the same angle.



So - how do we take this high performance goal into teaching advanced noobs? By focusing on the components: flex/shorten and tip. If you focus on weighting it, that's counterproductive and does not even work for the most of the turn, especially as the performance ramps up.

That's the crux of it. Most skiers that I admire generally even lift that new inside ski going into the new turn and put it down towards the apex.

Cheers
 
Last edited:

Skitechniek

Getting off the lift
Skier
Joined
Jun 10, 2019
Posts
241
Location
Europe
2) You would have TO accept the premise of the inside leg having most of the weight on it during a turn. You can only lower your CoM from the bottom of the kinetic chain if that CoM is ON your BoS. If I am completely standing on the outside and I am bending the inside, nothing will happen. Just stand on one leg in your living room and bend the leg that is not on the ground. Nothing happens with your CoM in relationship to the ground. If you do this your 'free' leg is going up, your CoM is not going down. Why would this be any different for skiing?
I see I accidentally left out two words in my last post which made the post quite hard to read imo. The words are in bold.
@Sledhead

My thoughts are quite simple. The most important thing in performance skiing, since the body is alread moving down the slope, is taking the inside leg out of the way. Flex, relax, bend, shorten, tip, put in the pocket, unmount and carry on the shoulder, whatever.
I like the unmount and carry on your shoulder option! :roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:
 

James

Out There
Instructor
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Posts
15,816
Not on the shoulder, but some unmounted and some not functional.

All top down.

 

Rod9301

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Jan 11, 2016
Posts
1,743
Why are these discussions so difficult? :doh:
Not everyone thinks the same way about skiing. So what? Lots of stuff we all say (and yes that includes me), no matter your views on skiing, are blatantly inaccurate or even wrong. Lots of it are just coaching queues that apparently have worked for someone and therefor have some merit. And if you found the coach that works for you, then I'm only happy for you. Doesn't mean it works for everyone or that what you have been told is OBJECTIVELY true.

That being said, logically speaking it can never be true that inside leg bending is the root cause of edge angle. For this statement to be true two other premises would have to be true as well, namely:
1) There would have to be 1 on 1 correlation between vertical seperation of the legs and edge angle, which there is not. You can find hundreds of pictures of skiers with varying vertical seperation even though the edge angle is the same. Even in the world cup you can see difference between skiers like Murisier and de Aliprandini and Ryding who ski with relatively little vertical seperation and someone like let's say Zampa who has quite a lot of vertical seperation. The edge angles however do not differ that much.
2) You would have accept the premise of the inside leg having most of the weight on it during a turn. You can only lower your CoM from the bottom of the kinetic chain if that CoM is your BoS. If I am completely standing on the outside and I am bending the inside, nothing will happen. Just stand on one leg in your living room and bend the leg that is not on the ground. Nothing happens with your CoM in relationship to the ground. If you do this your 'free' leg is going up, your CoM is not going down. Why would this be any different for skiing?

Furthermore, saying that tipping the inside leg when it's not relaxed is not possible is 100% inaccurate. There is even research that shows eccentric en concentric loads in the inside leg (in WC athletes) and isometric loads on the outside legs. Heck, to merely stand you need some sort of muscle tension. So muscles per definition have some tension. So how are we going to define relaxed then?

What I find problematic is keeping the inside leg too stiff. If you don't allow the inside leg to bend, it is going to make life harder for you. Then you are resisting the edge angle so to speak. But that is not the same as saying the inside leg is what causes edge angle.

This is the problem with ski teaching or even teaching in general when there is no objective test to measure skill. Lots of different views and lack of objective testing grounds makes a very good breeding ground for polarizing discussions. Just listen to everybody, try everything and see what sticks. Never get too stuck up in your own paradigm.
It's not possible for two skiers to have the same edge angle and different vertical separation, unless one skis with a narrow stance and the other with a wide stance. Geometry
 

Skitechniek

Getting off the lift
Skier
Joined
Jun 10, 2019
Posts
241
Location
Europe
It's not possible for two skiers to have the same edge angle and different vertical separation, unless one skis with a narrow stance and the other with a wide stance. Geometry
You are disregarding convergence and divergence due to differences in pressure and ski path during a turn. So I beg to differ.
Look at Kili Weibel vs. let's say Paul Lorenz. Weibel stands relatively wide at turn entry vs. Lorenz who stands with the feet relatively close together. Both have more or less equal vertical separation.

Or look at these 2 pictures of Hirscher:
Hirscher 1.jpg

Hirscher 2.jpg

Hirscher has more edge angle in the slalom turn where his vertical separation is far less than in the gs turn. In the slalom turn the inside boot is below his outside knee, whil in the gs turn the inside boot is at outside knee height.

Or look at these two clips:

Last turn of the first clip I enter the turn quite narrow and end up with a lot of vertical separation. Last turn of the second clip I enter the turn quite wide and end up with very little vertical seperation.

How wide you stand at the beginning of a turn is quite irrelevant imho. Your model of geometry would only work if pressure was a constant, which it is not.
 

dbostedo

Asst. Gathermeister
Moderator
Joined
Feb 9, 2016
Posts
11,043
Location
Nor. Virginia, USA
How wide you stand at the beginning of a turn is quite irrelevant imho. Your model of geometry would only work if pressure was a constant, which it is not.
I'm not sure if that was the implication, though I see how it can be read that way. I thought the implication was more that vertical and horizontal separation go together, for a given edge angle.

You can't have more vertical separation for a given edge angle without having more horizontal separation - which I think the Hirscher pics sort of show. I don't think it's necessarily about the "beginning of the turn".

Not that's not perfect either, because legs aren't like 2x4s, and can flex and twist and contort in various ways... but at a basic geometry level, it should be correct.
 
Last edited:

Skitechniek

Getting off the lift
Skier
Joined
Jun 10, 2019
Posts
241
Location
Europe
I'm not sure if that was the implication, though I see how it can be read that way. I thought the implication was more that vertical and horizontal separation go together, along with edge angle.

You can't have more vertical separation for a given edge angle without having more horizontal separation - which I think the Hirscher pics sort of show. I don't think it's necessarily about the "beginning of the turn".

Not that's not perfect either, because legs aren't like 2x4s, and can flex and twist and contort in various ways... but at a basic geometry level, it should be correct.
Isn't that what I said too? How you interpreted it is what I got out of it too. What did I say differently?
When I said 'how wide you stand at the beginning of a turn' I meant horizontal separation. So what I meant to say is that there is no correlation between horizontal separation and vertical separation. That whole concept doesn't fly.

If that would be the case, then how could any PMTS skier achieve any sort of edge angle?

Separation.jpg


EDIT:
So to summarize:
What I am saying is that I believe that where your ski's are pointed at the beginning of a turn and the difference in pressure between outside and inside ski is far more relevant for vertical separation than how much horizontal separation there is at the beginning of a turn. Skiing 90/10 weight distribution vs. 60/40 will probably have more impact on vertical separation than horizontal stance width.
 
Last edited:

Sanity

Getting on the lift
Skier
Joined
Jan 6, 2020
Posts
256
Location
New York
After perusing this thread, what's clear to me is that Sledhead writes longer posts than Razie. That's not easy to do. Kudos.
 

TheApprentice

Connoisseur of High Edge Angles
Skier
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Posts
29
This is the problem with ski teaching or even teaching in general when there is no objective test to measure skill.
FIS should make it illegal to ski unless you've taken part in this gigantic race that ranks everyone who wants to ski from worst to best. That should solve the problem
 
Top