Inside leg in carving

dbostedo

Asst. Gathermeister
Moderator
Joined
Feb 9, 2016
Posts
11,018
Location
Nor. Virginia, USA
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?

View attachment 155054

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.
I think I'm saying we're talking past each other.... the prior comment about geometry was using a simple model, that had nothing to do with pressure or the dynamics of a turn. It was simply this:

1642110941343.png


I don't believe @Rod9301 was getting at anything deeper... simple geometry says you take a stance of a certain width and tip it over, and you get a certain horizontal and vertical separation. That's the only reason to mention the starting stance - because the simple geometry view is that that determines the separations. So to paraphrase the original comment, "It's not possible for two skiers to have the same edge angle and different vertical separation, unless they also have different horizontal separation."

(@Rod9301 - my apologies if I'm mischaracterizing what you said. I think this is what you were getting at.)


Changes to this in practice are because this isn't a very accurate model of a dynamic turn, or of someone's legs. What you're describing is well beyond a simple geometrical model, although I may argue that the skis really aren't at exactly the same edge angle through the various phases described (I need to think about/digest that more).
 

Noodler

Just call me Sir Turn-a-lot
Skier
Joined
Oct 4, 2017
Posts
4,709
Location
Denver, CO
I think I'm saying we're talking past each other.... the prior comment about geometry was using a simple model, that had nothing to do with pressure or the dynamics of a turn. It was simply this:

View attachment 155067

I don't believe @Rod9301 was getting at anything deeper... simple geometry says you take a stance of a certain width and tip it over, and you get a certain horizontal and vertical separation. That's the only reason to mention the starting stance - because the simple geometry view is that that determines the separations. So to paraphrase the original comment, "It's not possible for two skiers to have the same edge angle and different vertical separation, unless they also have different horizontal separation."

(@Rod9301 - my apologies if I'm mischaracterizing what you said. I think this is what you were getting at.)


Changes to this in practice are because this isn't a very accurate model of a dynamic turn, or of someone's legs. What you're describing is well beyond a simple geometrical model, although I may argue that the skis really aren't at exactly the same edge angle through the various phases described (I need to think about/digest that more).

This is simply not how it works and not how high level skiing is creating large vertical separation with zero dependence on what horizontal separation is present at any phase of the turn. When we're in Taos come ski a couple laps with me and we can talk about it and I'll show you exactly how it actually plays out with skiing movements, not static "pedestals". :)
 

dbostedo

Asst. Gathermeister
Moderator
Joined
Feb 9, 2016
Posts
11,018
Location
Nor. Virginia, USA
This is simply not how it works and not how high level skiing is creating large vertical separation with zero dependence on what horizontal separation is present at any phase of the turn. When we're in Taos come ski a couple laps with me and we can talk about it and I'll show you exactly how it actually plays out with skiing movements, not static "pedestals". :)
Just to be clear, I was not arguing that it's correct, just trying to explain what I think was said before.
 

geepers

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
May 12, 2018
Posts
2,787
Location
Australia
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

That assumes a FIS race would rank w->b. FIS also handle freestyle, cross country, jumping, speed skiing, grass skiing. And snow boarding.

OK - we'll rule out snow boarding and keep it to snow. And even if it was just alpine racing would still need to determine which - SL, GS, SG, DH - as a completely different ranking likely to occur.

Then there's the non-FIS type events like various tech championships and free riding.

Surely to work out the best skier we'd at least have to throw in some bumps (with aerials), a 70m jump, a 20k cross-country, a ski-cross, Corbet's. With style points awarded by a mix of free ride and tech championship judges...

Or maybe the winner can be decided by who has the biggest grin. In which case MH would be waaaay down the list.

And of course doing is not the same as teaching. :cool:
 
Last edited:

Mike B

Booting up
Skier
Joined
Jan 15, 2021
Posts
54
Location
Aspen, Co
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

Well written. I believe you used a word in one of your previous posts that was overlooked by many - ALLOW.
Cheers
 

geepers

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
May 12, 2018
Posts
2,787
Location
Australia
So who's better? Candide or Marcel? :roflmao:

Luckily it's much easier to work out who is a good coach. Or otherwise.

Ed Drake commentating on Ski Austria telecast of the Zauchensee Women's DH:

"Coaches... always fighting for a birds-eye view for the best on the course. Think a ladder is part of your coaching swiss army knife now. If you don't have a ladder you're not a real coach."

1642287003570.png
 
Top