Tom Gellie's Webinars are Well Worth It IMO

[geepers]

I guess one big disagreement might be with leg steering vs. fulcrum steering

New CSIA manuals offer plenty of options. Lower leg rotation, upper leg rotation, extended leg rotation, flexed leg rotation (more torque), hip rotation (in certain circumstances an acceptable tactical choice), blocking pole plant...

And this nice little bit...

 

[Captain Furious]

This guy has the best and EASIEST instructional videos I've ever seen. I just bought a 3 month subscription. I always considered myself a top notch mogul and powder skier b/c I grew up skiing with my feet close together and skiing at lower edge angles. Lots of femur rotation through the bumps. Anyway, I've NEVER figured out how to carve and with every ski instructor telling me to angulate and get my weight out on my outside ski, I ended up (not knowing it at the time) blocking myself from getting angulation with my edges. I watched his 1hr 10min video on teaching some newbie how to carve today. I went out, implemented what I said, and HOLY SHIT!!! I'm carving!!! Not just a little bit. A WHOLE lot of edge angulation. The idea of "toppling over" just clicked with me. I finally got it!!! Now I just need to get better and better at it. I'm going to watch more videos and start drilling this stuff. BTW, my legs are KILLING me. I worked muscles today carving that I've never worked skiing before. What a blast!

 

[Tim Hodgson]

Watching one now. And student is not a newbie, but a ski instructor:

The photo above is the student.

I am working on my bump skiing. Let us know what you think of Tom Gellie's bump teaching.

 

[Loki1]

PSIA wants the pivot point when "steering" a turn to be under the foot in the arch area. Think Bow Ties. In an exam, be sure you enforce the arch as your pivot point. The arch is a big deal for PSIA.

As an examiner I would whole heartedly disagree with this statement.

 

[Mike King]

As an examiner I would whole heartedly disagree with this statement.

@Loki1 I didn't think so either, but might you expand on that?

 

[LiquidFeet]

As an examiner I would whole heartedly disagree with this statement.

That's very good to hear. I mean this sincerely.

But... I only hear about the arch in the locker room and in clinics. I have not seen anything that matches what you say in the last alpine manual. Did I miss it? Do you have a reference online that confirms that PSIA doesn't privilege the arch as the pivot point for skis as they rotate? I hope there is one.

 

[Loki1]

That's very good to hear. I mean this sincerely.

But... I only hear about the arch in the locker room and in clinics. I have not seen anything that matches what you say in the last alpine manual. Did I miss it? Do you have a reference online that confirms that PSIA doesn't privilege the arch as the pivot point for skis as they rotate? I hope there is one.

From a biomechanics point of view, the arch is not the best pivot point to steer the ski. The ball of the foot is the best place to be balanced to pivot the ski.
From a ski design point of view, the arch will be aft of the center of the ski. If one where to think about the best place to pivot a tool, in most cases it would be from the center of the tool. Again in most cases. Most bindings are mounted so the toe piece is closest to the center go the ski. If one were to think about steering the ski, you would probably want to do it from the center of the ski; ie, the toe piece.
The thing we often hear from PSIA clinic leaders is that there is pressure over the whole of the foot through the whole of the turn. This is misunderstood to mean that we are to maintain pressure over the whole of the foot, centered on the arch, all of the time. If we simply look at skiing we would understand that this cannot be true if we are looking to be balanced at all times during the turn. When you look at a turn from start to finish we do have pressure over the whole of the foot through the whole of the turn, as an aggregate. However if we look at specific parts of the turn and what we are looking to accomplish at that point we will see our balance point moves depending on the desired outcome.
I do need to say. One of the biggest challenges as a clinician/examiner is to challenge our participants to seek out their own answers and to challenge those answers that are presented to them. I think this is the biggest challenge to those moving from level 2 to level 3. We need to stop looking for answers from PSIA and start to challenge and look for answers elsewhere. mostly from within. IMO most people fail at level 3 because they are looking to simply regurgitate information without actually understanding the information. In other words, they are approaching things like a high school history class. They want to know the dates they will be asked about and then simply memorize them so they can past the test. Instead of understanding why the events happened on the dates they did. We see this at exams all the time. We people that can ski a certain way but are unable to change and adapt on demand, as well as seeing great progressions but when asked further questions no understanding of why they did what they did.
Finally, one of the hardest parts of PSIA is that we do not have a national outcome like other nations do. PSIA understands there are many different outcomes desired by our students. We are not looking to create cookie cutter classes and outcomes. We are student centered and because of that we need to be able to find individualized solutions not prescribe predetermined training sessions. This is great for the student but very hard for the instructors. It requires much more knowledge and experience to be truly successful in putting our students on a path of learning. That is why there is a lot of frustration when moving from level 2 to level 3. We cannot simply give instructors a list of movements and when to perform them. It is all outcome based. There are no answers without outcomes.
I feel like I have highjacked this thread too much on this tangent. The thing I would suggest is that if you are in a clinic and what is being said doesn't sound right, challenge it. Be respectful and understand the timing and if it is appropriate, but challenge it during the clinic or after with the clinician. The other option is to go out and work through what was said and work with the clinician to understand things for your self. I often do this myself. I find things are said in a clinic and I ned time to think, and work through it, before I can respond and understand what is being asked of me in the clinic.

 

[LiquidFeet]

I recall that Tom Gellie has no problem with pivoting the ski from in front of the binding or under the heel. He talks about when to do these things, and he gets pretty specific. Tom definitely does not promote focusing most of one's weight on the ball-of-foot, even though this spot aligns with the running center of most skis.

@Loki, that was what I was addressing when I brought up the arch / bow-tie thing.

Tom said in one of his videos that he is not trying to help people reach some higher level of certification, he's trying to help them ski better (roughly paraphrased, but I have his specific words somewhere in my notes.) He must know he's coming up against institutional orthodoxies.

 

[Mike King]

@Loki1 I guess I need to go out and experiment. I've thought that the best place to pivot a ski from was under the heel. I guess I'll try it out today...

 

[JESinstr]

I'll let the above post for someone else to address.

In terms of traveling from Point A to Point B in a circular path (my def of a turn), pivoting is an act of ski redirection and does not necessarily imply that a "turn" will result.

One needs to contemplate that Rotary can invoke both good and bad outcomes and if the skier is untrained and is left to natural impulses, the odds of a good outcome (creating a circular path) are low. Same goes for this "Toppling" craze we seem to be into. I watched a group of "tic tocing" patrol members this weekend. From my Frame of Reference, they were "toppling" but not in a good way. Must be all that sled training that has infiltrated their skiing.

In terms of ski design, the center of the ski and the center of shape are at two different locations with the center of shape being located under the arch aka center of the foot and the center of the ski under the slip pad.

I find it curious that little is said about the boot's leveraging capability. Because of boot design, pressure and balance can be managed at the same time through the hinge complex (ankles, knees hips). Flexing of the hinge complex applies pressure from the lower leg into the cuff of the boot leveraging pressure to the center of the ski while allowing balance to remain through the arch.

 

[LiquidFeet]

....Because of boot design, pressure and balance can be managed at the same time through the hinge complex (ankles, knees hips). Flexing of the hinge complex applies pressure from the lower leg into the cuff of the boot leveraging pressure to the center of the ski while allowing balance to remain through the arch.

Yes!
...or at the back of the arch, which works for me.
Lever the cuff to press the shovel into the snow, stand on the back of the arch/front of the heel just below the tibia. Shovel and tail will both be loaded. Moving pressure front to back can happen by virtue of moving CoM fore and aft over the shin.

 

[Noodler]

Yes!
...or at the back of the arch, which works for me.
Lever the cuff to press the shovel into the snow, stand on the back of the arch/front of the heel just below the tibia. Shovel and tail will both be loaded. Moving pressure front to back can happen by virtue of moving CoM fore and aft over the shin.

And what actual body movements are you using to accomplish all of this?

This is my recurring concern about much of what is published in other "systems" and within the discussions on this forum. They lack the specific movements required to do the very things that are stated as "matter of fact". How do we "lever the cuff to press the shovel into the snow" for instance? How should I move my CoM fore and aft over the shin?

And yes, this is probably coming off as an obnoxious post, but you hit one of my "triggers". I believe that our discussions would be more meaningful if the specific movements involved aren't left for interpretation. I also think that my previous critique on Tom's toppling is what led to us getting a much better video that fully describes the movements involved.

 

[LiquidFeet]

And what actual body movements are you using to accomplish all of this?

This is my recurring concern about much of what is published in other "systems" and within the discussions on this forum. They lack the specific movements required to do the very things that are stated as "matter of fact". How do we "lever the cuff to press the shovel into the snow" for instance? How should I move my CoM fore and aft over the shin?

What "system" are you referring to? The post that you quoted doesn't reference any system.

Open (extend) and close (flex) the knee and the hip to get the CoM where you want it so that you get the desired pressure distribution under the ski.

--Stand taller, with CoM positioned farther forward, to focus the available pressure on the shovel (open knee). When the CoM hovers over the front of the ski, the shin presses harder on the cuff, and the boot levers the front of the ski downward.
--Stand lower, with CoM positioned farther back (close knee), to focus the available pressure towards the middle of the ski. When the CoM hovers over the foot instead over the front of the ski, the shin does less levering. One can fine tune this levering by moving the CoM fore-aft this way.
--Adjust hip (flex or extend) as needed to get the pressure where you want it.

If the skier can't feel where the under-ski pressure is going as they mess around with these openings and closings, this won't work. But neither will anything else.

Learning to do this is easier if one reduces the number of joints one's moving. Close the ankle and keep it closed (Tom even says this somewhere, but that's not why I'm saying it). Open and close the knee. Adjust the hip as necessary. Feel the pressure beneath the ski move fore-aft. When familiar, allow the ankle to open-close somewhat to enhance the fine-tuning.

Tom promotes opening and closing the hip while keeping the knee and ankle locked; this is his front-load and back-load thing. I want to get on snow and try this alternative way of moving under-ski pressure fore-aft. Tom's into levers and this way creates a much stronger lever.

 

[Noodler]

What "system" are you referring to? The post that you quoted doesn't reference any system.

Open (extend) and close (flex) the knee and the hip to get the CoM where you want it so that you get the desired pressure distribution under the ski.

--Stand taller, with CoM positioned farther forward, to focus the available pressure on the shovel (open knee). When the CoM hovers over the front of the ski, the shin presses harder on the cuff, and the boot levers the front of the ski downward.
--Stand lower, with CoM positioned farther back (close knee), to focus the available pressure towards the middle of the ski. When the CoM hovers over the foot instead over the front of the ski, the shin does less levering. One can fine tune this levering by moving the CoM fore-aft this way.
--Adjust hip (flex or extend) as needed to get the pressure where you want it.

If the skier can't feel where the under-ski pressure is going as they mess around with these openings and closings, this won't work. But neither will anything else.

Learning to do this is easier if one reduces the number of joints one's moving. Close the ankle and keep it closed (Tom even says this somewhere, but that's not why I'm saying it). Open and close the knee. Adjust the hip as necessary. Feel the pressure beneath the ski move fore-aft. When familiar, allow the ankle to open-close somewhat to enhance the fine-tuning.

Tom promotes opening and closing the hip while keeping the knee and ankle locked; this is his front-load and back-load thing. I want to get on snow and try this alternative way of moving under-ski pressure fore-aft.

I was referring to much of the PSIA materials I've read through (and some CSIA). Lots of high level concepts without a lot of specifics on how to move your body parts to achieve the goals.

Changing the amount of flexing and/or the angles of our joints isn't really going to get the job done when it comes to really managing your fore/aft at will. Also, there are direct contradictions to some of your examples. For instance I can be "low" with most of my joints quite "closed" and be forward or be aft; depending on the positioning of the joints in the stack and/or what part of the turn lifecycle I'm in. I know what you're getting at, but once again, referring to joints as opened or closed is only speaking to the "positions", not the movements. How we go about opening and closing those joints should not be assumed. There are right ways and not so good ways...

And I'm not challenging you (or anyone else) just to be snarky, but rather to continue the conversation that there are many "nuances" to how to actually accomplish much of what is taken for granted in a lot of these discussions. And to point out how often these technical discussions aren't actually referring to true body movements.

 

[bbinder]

I was referring to much of the PSIA materials I've read through (and some CSIA). Lots of high level concepts without a lot of specifics on how to move your body parts to achieve the goals.

Changing the amount of flexing and/or the angles of our joints isn't really going to get the job done when it comes to really managing your fore/aft at will. Also, there are direct contradictions to some of your examples. For instance I can be "low" with most of my joints quite "closed" and be forward or be aft; depending on the positioning of the joints in the stack and/or what part of the turn lifecycle I'm in. I know what you're getting at, but once again, referring to joints as opened or closed is only speaking to the "positions", not the movements. How we go about opening and closing those joints should not be assumed. There are right ways and not so good ways...

And I'm not challenging you (or anyone else) just to be snarky, but rather to continue the conversation that there are many "nuances" to how to actually accomplish much of what is taken for granted in a lot of these discussions. And to point out how often these technical discussions aren't actually referring to true body movements.

I'd like to play...

I can't speak to the PSIA or CSIA materials because I have not read them. I have, however, experienced a lot of ski instruction over the past 2-3 decades. And I assume that most, if not all, of that instruction was PSIA based. I will agree that there are many instructors out there who have told me a certain thing without telling me how to accomplish this thing. Or why. There also have been a good number of instructors that have given me coaching tips/pointers that has improved my ability to ski more efficiently (and subjectively better in that I can ski faster and in more difficult terrain for longer than I was able to do 15-20 years ago). While I have had some excellent coaching over the past 15 years, I have not had the opportunity to get coached over the course of an entire season (or more...) - I am sure that this type of coaching would allow me to dig deeper into movement patterns and such.

Some of the instruction that I have heard about (or witnessed) over the years probably is just the type of thing that pushes your buttons:
"Balance against your outside ski" YES, I want to, but what does this really mean, and how do I do it?
"Get inside your skis" Wait, what? How?
"Steer your skis" I have never really understood what this means
"Use the entire ski" I thought that I was using the entire ski
"Angulation/Inclination/Counter" - I never could grasp the difference between these. I mean, I know that they are different because everybody tells me that sometimes I should do one of them and sometimes I should never do it.
"Dive into danger" Why would I want to do that? (Interlude for a crude joke: Why do women develop wrinkles at the corners of their eyes at a younger age than men. From saying to their boyfriends: "you want me to do what?" Never mind...)
In none of the above examples is there any instruction/direction in how to achieve the stated goal(s).

Then there is the dabbling that I have done (without full commitment, to be fair) with learning systems that have you learn very specific movement patterns such as you are (I think) referring to. I have picked up some great pointers from these systems, but ultimately felt turned off by the often dogmatic approach (e.g., the teaching systems that imply that if you are not doing specific movements as described, then you cannot possibly learn how to ski).

Here is where Tom Gellie comes in (for me, at least). I had never heard of him and was skeptical when I first started reading this thread. But I figured that I had the time and a few dollars to spend and so I subscribed for this month to watch the videos. It is definitely a commitment to watch through them all (and I am only halfway through...). There is a lot of material, and there is a fair amount of overlap. My guess is that eventually Tom will organize these videos in a fashion that allows for more coherent watching. But here is the thing for me: for the first time, I am getting an understanding of the why/what/how of what I am doing on skis. Maybe it is the way my mind works (or where I am at in my path of learning to ski) , but I fell that he is giving details on movement patterns. And his explanations make sense in terms of the physical forces that are working for and against me when I ski. I have been able to get on the snow only for a few runs since I started watching, but I can tell that there is plenty for me to play with to improve my skiing. More importantly for me, I am gaining understanding in what is really happening when things go wrong. So I expect to get more than a few "Aha" moments as I play on the snow. So for me, it is his approach and method of explanation that makes it worthwhile.

Is he telling me to do anything that is radically different? Nah, I don't really think so. I pretty much think that there isn't anything really new or revolutionary in ski instruction. And there hasn't been for a long time. And, in my humble and possibly ignorant opinion, all the different teaching systems end up with the same end result.

I'll apologize in advance if anyone thinks that I have been snarky or condescending. I just felt the urge to put these thoughts down.

 

[Steve]

I'd like to play...

I can't speak to the PSIA or CSIA materials because I have not read them. I have, however, experienced a lot of ski instruction over the past 2-3 decades. And I assume that most, if not all, of that instruction was PSIA based. I will agree that there are many instructors out there who have told me a certain thing without telling me how to accomplish this thing. Or why. There also have been a good number of instructors that have given me coaching tips/pointers that has improved my ability to ski more efficiently (and subjectively better in that I can ski faster and in more difficult terrain for longer than I was able to do 15-20 years ago). While I have had some excellent coaching over the past 15 years, I have not had the opportunity to get coached over the course of an entire season (or more...) - I am sure that this type of coaching would allow me to dig deeper into movement patterns and such.

Some of the instruction that I have heard about (or witnessed) over the years probably is just the type of thing that pushes your buttons:
"Balance against your outside ski" YES, I want to, but what does this really mean, and how do I do it?
"Get inside your skis" Wait, what? How?
"Steer your skis" I have never really understood what this means
"Use the entire ski" I thought that I was using the entire ski
"Angulation/Inclination/Counter" - I never could grasp the difference between these. I mean, I know that they are different because everybody tells me that sometimes I should do one of them and sometimes I should never do it.
"Dive into danger" Why would I want to do that? (Interlude for a crude joke: Why do women develop wrinkles at the corners of their eyes at a younger age than men. From saying to their boyfriends: "you want me to do what?" Never mind...)
In none of the above examples is there any instruction/direction in how to achieve the stated goal(s).

Then there is the dabbling that I have done (without full commitment, to be fair) with learning systems that have you learn very specific movement patterns such as you are (I think) referring to. I have picked up some great pointers from these systems, but ultimately felt turned off by the often dogmatic approach (e.g., the teaching systems that imply that if you are not doing specific movements as described, then you cannot possibly learn how to ski).

Here is where Tom Gellie comes in (for me, at least). I had never heard of him and was skeptical when I first started reading this thread. But I figured that I had the time and a few dollars to spend and so I subscribed for this month to watch the videos. It is definitely a commitment to watch through them all (and I am only halfway through...). There is a lot of material, and there is a fair amount of overlap. My guess is that eventually Tom will organize these videos in a fashion that allows for more coherent watching. But here is the thing for me: for the first time, I am getting an understanding of the why/what/how of what I am doing on skis. Maybe it is the way my mind works (or where I am at in my path of learning to ski) , but I fell that he is giving details on movement patterns. And his explanations make sense in terms of the physical forces that are working for and against me when I ski. I have been able to get on the snow only for a few runs since I started watching, but I can tell that there is plenty for me to play with to improve my skiing. More importantly for me, I am gaining understanding in what is really happening when things go wrong. So I expect to get more than a few "Aha" moments as I play on the snow. So for me, it is his approach and method of explanation that makes it worthwhile.

Is he telling me to do anything that is radically different? Nah, I don't really think so. I pretty much think that there isn't anything really new or revolutionary in ski instruction. And there hasn't been for a long time. And, in my humble and possibly ignorant opinion, all the different teaching systems end up with the same end result.

I'll apologize in advance if anyone thinks that I have been snarky or condescending. I just felt the urge to put these thoughts down.

This is exactly how I feel about Gellie's videos. Where we differ is that I completely understood all of the terms you mention that weren't clear to you, and still didn't have a good picture of how to utilize them. Gellie did that for me.

The "I would never use those terms in a lesson" attitude is what's condescending. Guided discovery is cool, and very useful, but not in a vacuum.

I once had a trainer spend a few weeks with me basically refusing to explain anything, and believe me -- I asked. She'd determined that I overthink things and refused to go along with my analytical approach. After the third week I figured out what she was trying to get across to me through drills and guided discovery and told her. She said "yup." Well in my mind it was a bad use of time. Insulting in a way. Just tell me! Then help me discover. Or at least explain what a drill is supposed to do after doing it.

And I also agree that the dogmatic approaches are not very satisfying either, being a jazz musician I like to have the ability to improvise and mix and match. That said, I learned a lot more from Harb's books than from all the clinics I took, in some cases multi-day clinics.

Gellie is the best of both worlds. He teaches in depth and with clarity and purpose, but is not dogmatic.

 

[HardDaysNight]

I admit to being a dogmatic type. In my defense, I’m a middle European and was taught to ski as a young child in Austria by an intimidating blonde woman who, herself, was intimidated by the head of the ski school, a truly terrifying man. (Redeemed only by the fact that he got me selected for my first National team appointment.)

There is, however, much to be said for a systematic, disciplined progression in learning something as difficult as skiing. (At least it’s difficult to do really well.) Would you, as a jazz musician, have the ability to improvise and mix and match if you had not thoroughly mastered, not merely the basics of your musical craft, but the advanced principles that make such improvisation great and not discordant crap? I doubt it. Anyway, if that level of commitment is dogmatic then I’m guilty of it!

 

[Noodler]

Simple example of the "nuances" in movement discussion versus positions...

Let's take the "closing the ankle" instruction. Now if I asked a skier how they would "close their ankle" joint they might strike upon the idea of using dorsiflexion (raising their toes), but a lot of skiers will think that they can just push their knee forward to accomplish the task (that's their "dry land" brain in action). That might work for some because they'll "eventually" figure out that you cannot just push the knee forward on skis because the ski just slides forward. They'll realize they have to do something else and may try to keep their foot from sliding forward while they flex the knee. I don't think that the most effective and efficient way to close the ankle joint would naturally occur to most skiers "out in the wild". Those of you who frequent this forum probably already know I'm talking about using foot pull back, but even just stating "foot pull back" isn't specific enough movement instruction so that skiers will do it correctly. A good foot pull back movement is described by Tom in a few of his videos, but he doesn't usually call it "foot pull back", but he does describe the hamstring contraction/leg curling action necessary to do so.

So it's important in skiing instruction to be really, really clear about how to achieve the goals by specifying the movements. I really like many of the examples of "non-movement oriented" instruction @bbinder posted above. There are some real classics in there.

 

[Steve]

I admit to being a dogmatic type. In my defense, I’m a middle European and was taught to ski as a young child in Austria by an intimidating blonde woman who, herself, was intimidated by the head of the ski school, a truly terrifying man. (Redeemed only by the fact that he got me selected for my first National team appointment.)

There is, however, much to be said for a systematic, disciplined progression in learning something as difficult as skiing. (At least it’s difficult to do really well.) Would you, as a jazz musician, have the ability to improvise and mix and match if you had not thoroughly mastered, not merely the basics of your musical craft, but the advanced principles that make such improvisation great and not discordant crap? I doubt it. Anyway, if that level of commitment is dogmatic then I’m guilty of it!

I regret not being taught to ski in a systematic fashion, it's been a long, circuitous and difficult road for me. The bag of tricks, tips and "student centered" approach isn't very effective. I think PSIA is good for getting people to be intermediates, but not good for developing advanced skiers. I've always watched the race training groups with great envy.

As to jazz, it's quite different. Yes I played a lot of scales, arpeggios and deeply studied chord scales and harmonic theory. But you can get away with a lot more slop playing music than you can skiing a steep, icy trail, or through ungroomed snow, so as much as I love analogies, it doesn't hold up that well.

I can come to a difficult set of chord changes and play a few notes instead of a complex riff and still sound -- and feel good. I don't feel good in difficult terrain without the chops to ski it.

I have nothing but respect and admiration for people like you, but I started skiing at 36 years old, and didn't start really taking it seriously until I was 50. I'm 68 now and glad that I'm finally getting there, but oh how I wish I had more years left than I do.

 

[bbinder]

As someone who started playing bass guitar 6-7 years ago, I can chime in on the learning music vs learning skiing analogy. While I can accept what @Steve is saying about the analogy (due to accepting his apparent knowledge/expertise), I am not good enough (or educated enough) to fully understand why. I did have to learn to read music in bass clef when I took up the bass, but otherwise music theory was not emphasized in my journey. So I know that In Memory of Elizabeth Reed is in A Dorian, but I don’t know why. I can play the Dorian scale, but I don’t know how to construct a walking bass line in the scale (or even if I should). At this point in my life, I don’t have the patience or desire to sit down and study music theory. I am mostly content to learn how to play songs. But I am still bugged by the why and how. It is pretty much the same way with my skiing. I have been devoted enough to question instruction and technique over the years, and have benefited as a result. But skiing is recreation and escape for me, and I don’t have the desire to approach the sport in the way that @Noodler is suggesting. This, again, is where I am appreciating Tom Gellie’s approach. He is answering my ”why and how” questions and challenging my approach to skiing without totally deconstructing it. I am finally getting an appreciation for how the laws of physics have consequences on my skiing and how I can go about fixing certain things.

As for people just starting out in the sport, probably any approach will allow them to get their foot in the door. Where they go after being introduced to skiing will depend on their desire to learn and understand. Do they just want to learn how to play songs, or do they want to learn how the song is constructed? Do they want to work at it or play with it?