Shiffrin free skiing

[Jamt]

I don't like the definition of carving beeing that every point on the ski follows the same path.
It never does.
The tip of the ski is on the surface, while the center part of the ski and the tail is down in the groove. On anything than super-hard ice there is a significant difference.
Also if I go fast on flatish skis and tip them too little the tip edge, center and tail will follow almost the same path. The skis will turn "carving like", but IMO it is not carving.
There is difference between skidding and skis drifting to the outside. I'd rather have a pivoted/ steering angle entry with no drifting to the outside than a clean entry with no-edge locked drift. Most SL entries have a significant angle at entry. If you don't believe me you can read Reid's PhD thesis where they actually measured it.
We could differentiate between edge locked carving and carving but I don't know.
Maybe I'm too elitist, but for the skiers I coach it is not ok to not have edge locked carving.
Carving is like porn, hard do define but when you see it you know.

 

[Average Joe]

This thread has veered a bit! Tom's commentary and visual analysis in the video demonstrates how there is no "early pressure" in these type of turns by high level skiers - and proves it showing the lack of tracks in the snow during transition.
To me, that's the crux of the discussion. Modern high level skiing is light in transition.
Old habits are just that- outdated. A video analysis of Ted Ligety describing how he turns a 35 meter GS ski in 2014 is......outdated.
"Early Pressure" can be a slippery concept. I personally don't coach it, in fact I actively discourage it. Toms video analysis proves why.

 

[François Pugh]

Actually the tracks prove that it's harder to make an impression on hard groomed corduroy with a flat ski than an edged one.
It's not about look Super Star has no early pressure in these turns, I need to ski with no early pressure. Super Star is pivoting these turns; I need to pivot. Superstar is not pivoting in these transition; I need to not pivot in transition. It's about understanding and being able to do it all and knowing when, why, and how. Start with how.

Form follows function; function follows intent. Pressure at the top of the turn increases speed down the hill - at a cost.

 

[markojp]

Probably fodder for another thread....

Dismantling unconscious biases in snowsports teaching and learning

Gaining a deeper sense of ourselves and our story, and by increasing our awareness and understanding of the existence of biases - which we ALL have - we can begin to dismantle these unconscious biases leading to better decisions, and better emotional intelligence, both as snowsport...

www.paralleldreams.co.uk

 

[Mike King]

Just curious, but do you ever do high(er) speed pivot slips down a bump line where your feet are predominantly traveling down the fall line? I don't know if I'd necessarily call it braking or defensive. Certainly not carving, but the point is that feet are still traveling with intention down the hill.

Bob would (and has) called it defensive. He has pointed out the difference between some WC mogul skiers who have a high degree of pivoting (braking) versus those who are bending the ski and carving (think Patrick Deneen).

Personally, I have no dog in this fight. Bob rightly points out that a pure carved turn exists only in theory and that all turns involve some degree of skidding. So what defines the difference? Intent. Here's the whole discussion:

 

[Sanity]

I'd rather have a pivoted/ steering angle entry with no drifting to the outside than a clean entry with no-edge locked drift.

I might be misinterpreting this part, but it seems it might be at odds with some other ideals I've heard. Just curious. In the other thread, Mike King stated an ideal about a turn where it's better to have a pivotless transition and smear the entire turn than it is to have a pivot in transition but carve the rest of the turn cleanly. I didn't argue about this, because I've heard people say this before, but it doesn't seem to me always to be a better outcome. Is this what you're talking about? I understand pivoting a ski with weight on it is not a great idea. But, by the time someone is floating through transition why would it be so important to give up a clean carve for 80% of the turn just to avoid redirecting the skis in the air? If you don't redirect the skis in the air, then that's more time you'll have pressure in the fall line which means going faster, So, when speed control is a big issue, they'll make up for that extra speed by smearing the entire turn, but then why is that such a great outcome? It seems that if someone has a loose definition of carving, and the objective is to carve the entire turn, then that would be a goal for "great" skiing. But, if you consider smearing all of your turn as not that great, then why give up having any clean carving for something that doesn't really add that much? To me outside of racing, subjectively, I think it often looks better to carve as much of the turn as you can cleanly, even if that means redirecting more in the air. Though, in direct mogul skiing, there is both redirection in the air and smearing of turns, which I think is great skiing, so no judgments, just curious.

 

[Jamt]

I might be misinterpreting this part, but it seems it might be at odds with some other ideals I've heard. Just curious. In the other thread, Mike King stated an ideal about a turn where it's better to have a pivotless transition and smear the entire turn than it is to have a pivot in transition but carve the rest of the turn cleanly. I didn't argue about this, because I've heard people say this before, but it doesn't seem to me always to be a better outcome. Is this what you're talking about? I understand pivoting a ski with weight on it is not a great idea. But, by the time someone is floating through transition why would it be so important to give up a clean carve for 80% of the turn just to avoid redirecting the skis in the air? If you don't redirect the skis in the air, then that's more time you'll have pressure in the fall line which means going faster, So, when speed control is a big issue, they'll make up for that extra speed by smearing the entire turn, but then why is that such a great outcome? It seems that if someone has a loose definition of carving, and the objective is to carve the entire turn, then that would be a goal for "great" skiing. But, if you consider smearing all of your turn as not that great, then why give up having any clean carving for something that doesn't really add that much? To me outside of racing, subjectively, I think it often looks better to carve as much of the turn as you can cleanly, even if that means redirecting more in the air. Though, in direct mogul skiing, there is both redirection in the air and smearing of turns, which I think is great skiing, so no judgments, just curious.

Thinking about my statment again I think I was not very clear. That was primarily about turns at high speed. I can enjoy and appreciate a smeared/brushed turn also, but that it is typically a slower turn with less energy. Less energy means less unweighted in transition. In that case I prefer a way of turning the ski by affecting how it interacts with the snow instead of pivoting a weighted ski.

 

[Sanity]

Thinking about my statment again I think I was not very clear. That was primarily about turns at high speed. I can enjoy and appreciate a smeared/brushed turn also, but that it is typically a slower turn with less energy. Less energy means less unweighted in transition. In that case I prefer a way of turning the ski by affecting how it interacts with the snow instead of pivoting a weighted ski.

I agree. If you're not unweighted, I don't like pivoting either.

 

[markojp]

IMHO, carving is carving, sliding is sliding, skidding is skidding. Strong skiers pick and choose depending on tactical/terrain/desired outcome considerations. There is pushing way from a ski*, which is defensive, and there is moving with the ski, which is skiing with intent (managing forces) and moving down the hill. Flow is flow... it can happen carving or sliding/skidding. Park and ride carvers don't have flow because most are back, in, edge locked, and very often with a hitch in transition. Mikaela has no hitch. It's smooth, seamless, and all about continuous 4d motion that is too often explained in 2d terminology when better reserved for 3d terminology... Mikaela's transitions side slipping as witnessed last summer at Timberline are also seamless, full of flow, speed control, moving her CoM down the hill with her BoS placed accurately below, and not fundamentally defensive.... a tactical, conscious choice. What's missing in the discussion, again IMHO, is the efficacy of movement WITH and USING gravity no matter the turn type.

* even here there's the exception of pumping for acceleration vs. pushing one's skis away laterally away from one's BoS.

 

[LiquidFeet]

Probably fodder for another thread....

Dismantling unconscious biases in snowsports teaching and learning

Gaining a deeper sense of ourselves and our story, and by increasing our awareness and understanding of the existence of biases - which we ALL have - we can begin to dismantle these unconscious biases leading to better decisions, and better emotional intelligence, both as snowsport...

www.paralleldreams.co.uk

Interesting reading. Do you know this guy?

 

[markojp]

Interesting reading. Do you know this guy?

No. Just thought it was interesting particularly in light of PSIA's new attention to people awareness and communication skills.

 

[James]

All of the WC skiers in the 2001 video learned and excelled using straight skis, then transitioned to shaped skis. Thank you Bode Miller, circa 1996-97.

Interesting to watch the same skiers in the race course, their turns look more modern! There's less time in a SL course for unnecessary movements, and you certainly don't want to spread your stance wider.
To be fair, warmup runs on a race hill on race day are different than what we are talking about, but nonetheless there has been a profound change in technique from the early days of shaped skis to today.

If you look at the 1998 Olympics, in slalom they were still using the straight skis. There is often a lot of check and pivot while unweighted. Interestingly, gs skis in the ‘98 Olympics were shaped. Though still probably in the mid 30 meter range, it’s a lot less than straight skis. By 2002 Olympics, slalom was on the short shaped ski.

Lindsey Vonn 2002 Olympics.
I think that video from Aspen 2001 posted shows the vestiges from the straight ski era, plus it’s a warmup exercise- an exercise possibly what they used to do on straights. As you see, when in the course, they skied differently.

There was a time period when slalom was really a mini gs, and the turns were largely fully carved like in gs of the period. Early 2000’s. However, the courses were different I believe, allowing for more of a fully carved turn. Those details are beyond me though, and people who know rarely come in this forum. But look at the brief clip of Lindsey’s slalom, and you get a sense of the space in the course.
I think, but don’t know, that by the time minimum ski length was set at 165 for men, courses had changed. That was prob for the 2004 season.

So it’s hard to completely separate technique with equipment from courses. They weren’t the same.

. this one seems a little unusual given that not many folk have experience in piloting Apollo Command Modules.

Nice find on re-entry. Control, “steering” of the CM capsule was basically by rotation along it’s axis from small thrusters and terrain braking, i.e. using the atmosphere.

Wikipedia———-
The Apollo command module reentered with the center of mass offset from the center line; this caused the capsule to assume an angled attitude through the air, providing lift that could be used for directional control. Reaction control system thrusters were used to steer the capsule by rotating the lift vector.
—————————-

 

[Racetiger]

While the Webster definition of “carve” includes “cut beef” but not “shredded pork”, a good butcher can do both.

 

[S.H.]

There was a time period when slalom was really a mini gs, and the turns were largely fully carved like in gs of the period. Early 2000’s. However, the courses were different I believe, allowing for more of a fully carved turn.

Trend in setting in the early-mid 2000s was to be closer to max distance in SL (i.e., 13m) so you could be closer to full arc - this was when Ligety was a podium threat in SL. In the 2010s and to now, trend is to be more in the 9-11m range, which makes full arc much harder to accomplish, especially in the <10m range. As we saw this year, trends were to be more direct, but still in the ~10m range for open gates.

Trends in course setting, not rule changes.

 

[James]

Trend in setting in the early-mid 2000s was to be closer to max distance in SL (i.e., 13m) so you could be closer to full arc - this was when Ligety was a podium threat in SL. In the 2010s and to now, trend is to be more in the 9-11m range, which makes full arc much harder to accomplish, especially in the <10m range. As we saw this year, trends were to be more direct, but still in the ~10m range for open gates.

What is the impetus behind this? I take it “they” didn’t want slalom to be a mini gs. But do the teams get together and decide this? I could imagine Ante Kostelic was not happy with full carving of slalom turns.

Just a horrible outfit. How to make Mikaela look like Bigfoot’s little sibling or a hole in the snow.

 

[markojp]

It's just skiing in a fur coat pretty much. She could also just use timex as well, but...

 

[James]

It's just skiing in a fur coat pretty much.

That would probably be fairly spectacular even in overcast light. It’s partially reflective and moves very differently. not like this dull black hole. Of course she would never hear the end of it for the rest of her career at least.

If Toyota goes black we may wish for Land Rover green again.

 

[markojp]

That would probably be fairly spectacular even in overcast light. It’s partially reflective and moves very differently. not like this dull black hole. Of course she would never hear the end of it for the rest of her career at least.

If Toyota goes black we may wish for Land Rover green again.

To keep it in perspective, I've only heard one complaint.

 

[geepers]

But you see at my age, I grew up watching Juels Bergman....goggle him

Was 13 when Neil, Buzz and Mike did their thing. Embarrassed to recall by the time Dave Scott drove moon buggy I made the statement "Seen one moon walk, seen them all." But back then the possibilities seemed limitless. And now...?? Flat earth societies all over the globe....

One thing I did recall was that dip into and out of the atmosphere on Apollo re-entry. Which is hard to work in to a ski turn entry angle metaphor. Except maybe as double edging drill...

Assuming by entry angle you mean the prediction problem, this discussion by Guy Dale is interesting. The other two also have something to say on the topic as well.

Control, “steering” of the CM capsule was basically by rotation along it’s axis from small thrusters and terrain braking, i.e. using the atmosphere.

Discussed in that vid about the 12 minute mark.

 

[LiquidFeet]

Was 13 when Neil, Buzz and Mike did their thing. Embarrassed to recall by the time Dave Scott drove moon buggy I made the statement "Seen one moon walk, seen them all." But back then the possibilities seemed limitless. And now...?? Flat earth societies all over the globe....

One thing I did recall was that dip into and out of the atmosphere on Apollo re-entry. Which is hard to work in to a ski turn entry angle metaphor. Except maybe as double edging drill...

Assuming by entry angle you mean the prediction problem, this discussion by Guy Dale is interesting. The other two also have something to say on the topic as well.





Discussed in that vid about the 12 minute mark.

Nice find.