Why teaching the wedge doesn't work

[Eddy]

Who is BB anyway? Why is he considered an authority of skiing. No one out here in the Western Region has heard of him, must be a local hero for you Rocky Mt Boys. If as John states that BB really starts turns with active steering, he not describing a Perfect Turn, it is a PSIA turn and we all know what they look like. As you say, I have never seen BB ski, but I can guess what it looks like, just by the history and his descriptions of turns.

[Ott Gangl]

>>> No one out here in the Western Region has heard of him, <<<

Well, that doesn't speak well for the Western Region, does it?? (grin)

BTW, the majority of instructors and skiers in the US also don't know who HH is. That's sad in both cases.

....Ott

[John Mason]

Bob Barnes is an instructor at Copper Mountain very well respected over on Epic and is the author of the complete encyclopedia of skiing. He is one of their main coaches at their ski events and considered a complete skiing guru by most of the Epic community.

Bob is very good at verbal communication skills, remains polite even when he may disagree strongly with someone. He is a gentleman. I look forward to meeting him sometime.

Stroll on over to http://www.epicski.com if you want to get more of an idea.

I don't know if Bob skis with a subtle stem. He doesn't call it so much active steering as pointing the tips into the turn (which some may interpet sounds the same).

He likes the lift and tip the downhill ski style of turning and in many respects this is described in a very similar fashion to the phantom move. He also has a long history of posts sometimes in attack mode about the lift part of this move being misused. (which, of course it can be)

In my opinion after disecting it at length, his perfect turn description is a late transition. The slowing down of the movement of the CM down the hill that occurs naturally at the bottom of the turn, is the only momentum his movement pattern has to get the CM to cross the skis. This is talked of as a positive attribute of this turn over there. I look at it as a negative and a lack or acknowledging the need to keep the CM moving down the hill even though the turn is ending.

In any description of the two movement patterns I have tried over on epic, that compensates for this slowing down of the CM, that helps accelerate the CM to cross over the skis in such a fashion that the high part of the C of a new turn can be carved is shot down. Or, it's acknowledged then described back to me with attributes that don't match the effects of these two methods.

These two methods taught in PMTS are, as PMTS skiers are probably aware, the Super Phantom and the Weighted release. In both of these releases tipping occurs earlier than the fall line to help move the CM over the skis. In BB's classic perfect turn, the skis go flat at the fall line by removing pressure from the downhill ski then the tipping begins. In that turn, you would have to have some pointing going on to catch up with the delayed and slower CM cross-over. At least this is my reading of it.

I don't know if this is a reaction to how Bob skis or does not ski. I have never seen him ski. I'm only reacting to the physics that result from the descriptions provided and pondering if the bread and butter turns of PMTS are the way he skis or not. It could be the description he makes isn't what he really does. So, I'm just dropping it till the day I see a video of him skiing his idea of a "perfect turn" (which he also states there is not really such a thing as - and in a certain viewpoint it's just a certain type of efficient turn.) or I get see him ski on the hill. He is certainly a compendium of knowledge of the history of different turn styles and who came up with them. Just, this particullar turn style I can't jive his comments about it with my own experience of those turn styles.

This doesn't mean he doesn't know how to make these turns as I noted above.

I'll start a new thread to explore this further, but in a generic sense. It's not fair to bash another skier's skiing, especially when no one here has actually seen him ski. Even then we shouldn't bash. These other movement patterns get people down the hill. Just discuss the pros and cons and why you like or don't like that pattern so more learning occurs.

I first started getting the SP turn down this spring. Up to then I was really doing more of a two footed release. This summer at the PSIA camp I was at, the SP helped a ton. I also played with the weighted release (sometimes when I didn't intend). The PSIA folks were using other drills with some of the other skiers there that were stemming and skidding their entries. They didn't teach the SP solution to that. I was doing it correctly, but they didn't really seem to know how I was doing it. I did get a lot of coaching and worked on fore and aft balance through the turn and picking better lines through the gates. This was very helpful.

I'm still working on things. I wouldn't want people to judge my skiing in a negative light. I'll always be working on things. If I get satisfied then I probably need to go back and work on the basics again. This is the same in any sport. Just make observations and comments and be positive about it. Blanket comments are not fair. Some PSIA cert III's are also PMTS certs. There is no reason for a war.

Obviously the SP seems mis-understood at this point. There is a certain grace and ease that a PMTS skier has that really sticks out in medium radius and GS turns compared to the way most people seem to approach these turns. I think the SP movement patterns are a lot of the reason for this. I don't think people can then assume that no one does an SP movement pattern except for a PMTS skier. Certainly Lito and Eric and Rob teach this same thing. In reality the SP is really just the Phantom Move with attention paid to what the inside foot of the last turn is doing. It's to prevent mis-execution of the phantom move and to enhance it's effect.

But, enough of this thread. I shall start a new one on the biggest negative movement in skiing.

[Eddy]

Thanks John, BB sounds like a regular PSIA guy who is very nice to instructors and has a following, but that doesn't make him a credible ski technician. I?m trying to be polite, but if BB really advocates what you are describing, he would be eaten alive in the Tahoe snow.

Thanks, Ott, but we are doing very well without another PSIA guru out here in the Sierra. We have plenty of our own. We have good PSIA trainers, who make a whole lot more sense than Mr. BB. I have been skiing with Chris Fellows and Dave Manetter. In fact, Chris is very supportive of Harald?s work and so are Eric and Rob D., who do know how to ski.

[John Mason]

Eddy - Eric is one of the coaches with BB at Epic events. Yet, I tend to agree that Eski (as Eric is known over there) seems to approach things from a different perspective from what I read from the other coaches.

Do me a favor, just so I'm not nuts, go to http://www.epicski.com / forums /ski technique and you'll see an couple of year old thread on the perfect turn that I think MilesB bounced back to the present and read the description from BB.

What is your opinion of that style of turn. I have a 4 different turn type description up there as well and as best I could I put BB's turn as turn number 2 out of the 4.

Your bringing up Eric and Rob D which I find fascinating as many people put PMTS style movement patterns in a box and think you can't use them all mountain. This is done to diminish PMTS and shows lack of understanding. PMTS at its heart is about managing the flow of the CM over the skis with balance control originating in the feet. This need for good ski technique is present in any type of turn. How much you edge controls the turns effect. PMTS isn't about just generating pure carved turns. Eric and Rob teach the phantom move even in hop turns as the best way to align your body for the landing. They also totally advocate the early weight shift onto the upper ski's LTE. This is the key part that seems to be missing and radically different from BB's posts.

That was my reading of it. I was speculating on going to the ETU and asked the simple question (what got real hot question) "What style of teaching is done up there?". Boy did I get blasted from a lot of directions. The assumption was since I'm still in my 2nd year of skiing (aniversary is in March (75 days so far)) that whatever coach I got would be great for me. There seems to be no recognition that people make turns different ways and teach turns different ways.

I certainly see it in videos of how different people ski. You see it on the hill.

Anyway - there is no way to pick your coach. There is no recognition that differences exist. These differences are writting off as "style". I think some "style" differences can be core differences. Rusty thinks HH breaks people to make them think this way.

To me it's just simple observation and common sense.

That's not to say you can't pick up stuff from a coach from a different perspective. You certainly pick up good stuff from any acomplished skier. But I at least want the core mechanics of how to release and start a turn to at least be on the same wavelength.

So, give the Perfect Turn a read and tell me what you think.

[mechanic]

John,

Please check out the last two posts on page 5. I'm very interested in your response to those questions.

m

[Eddy]

Join you again next week, I'm out of the country until Oct 10th.

[BigE]

In my opinion after disecting it at length, his perfect turn description is a late transition. The slowing down of the movement of the CM down the hill that occurs naturally at the bottom of the turn, is the only momentum his movement pattern has to get the CM to cross the skis. This is talked of as a positive attribute of this turn over there. I look at it as a negative and a lack or acknowledging the need to keep the CM moving down the hill even though the turn is ending.

In any description of the two movement patterns I have tried over on epic, that compensates for this slowing down of the CM, that helps accelerate the CM to cross over the skis in such a fashion that the high part of the C of a new turn can be carved is shot down. Or, it's acknowledged then described back to me with attributes that don't match the effects of these two methods.

Where does anyone suggest that slowing the CM's cross-over is positive? You've got to be misreading something. Where do you see a lack of acknowledgment of the need to keep the CM moving downhill? Please provide the relevant thread and post if you can, I'll gladly try to help out.

What HAS been stated is that the EWS will disrupt the flow of the CM, and if you do require an EWS to get your CM moving AGAIN, then the error was at the end of the previous turn. That clearly acknowledges the need to keep the CM moving downhill.

In the following quote the "you that suggested this" is JM. BB wrote:

"But in the linked ski turns, the CM is already moving that way (you have suggested this yourself). Speaking of physics, remember that law that "an object in motion remains in constant motion" unless an external force acts on it? You're in motion. You're going the right direction. So any lateral force from an "early weight transfer" will only disrupt that! (Of course, since few skiers really do link their turns effectively, this may be a moot point. If you need to get your CM "falling" into the turn, then transferring your support foot to the uphill ski will provide a quick fix. The real solution lies back in the previous turn!)"

Please John, let it alone. Your bashing of the "straw men" you create out of others arguments ( intentional or otherwise ) does no one any good.

IMO, the concept of "early weight transfer" is a useful teaching tool, aimed at avoiding the stem. Weight transfer is "early" if weight is transferred before the direction change. If you twist the "new stance ski" to a new direction first (ie. stem it) before you transfer weight, the weight transfer would not be considered "early". I am at a loss to understand why it would be called early otherwise. I'd call it timely" if it did not impede the flow of the CM downhill. Perhaps you can shed some light on the word "early"?

I am reminded of a joke: An English to Russian computerised translator was being tested for Nato. The test was to input an English phrase, translate it to Russian, and translate that back to English, hopefully getting the same phrase out as was put in. If the input and output are the same, the translator is perfect: Input -- "The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak." Output -- "The vodka is good but the meat stinks."

John, I suspect that what may be happening is that when you are introduced to a notion that is not couched in the familiar PMTS nomenclature, which you seem to have a very good grasp, the notion gets translated into the PMTS language you know about (hopefully this translation succeeded). Then, when you try to explain it back into non-PMTS language, the reverse translation does not work so good. If I were you, I'd go to the ETU just to become a better "epic speaker"!

Cheers!

[John Mason]

Big E - could be semantics. I wish I knew. The EWS turn has no negativity to it done the way HH and Lito and Eric and Rob D teach it. This the most normal turn in the world. It's not a teaching drill. It's not a step. It does not slow down the CM but is the key to accelerating it.

It's precisely because of how this is described and viewed by many on Epic that I'm not sure it's understood.

But, as I mentioned before I'm going to try better in a new thread about CM and speed management as it relates to these to turns.

Obviously this is simple on the hill to see. If, however, I do exactly what is described in BB's perfect turn, I'll have a far from perfect turn. IMO

[John Mason]

John,

Which is more efficent the sp or the weighted release? Which is more versitle? Why do you like the sp over the weighted release?

m

Sorry I missed this.

They are both efficient. Both have active tipping before the fall line. Both establish a carve in the upper part of the turn.

Weighted release - carve is with the inside leg at the top of the new turn. The outside leg only starts to carve as the turn develops more speed and the weight settles more onto that ski.

SP release - carve is on the outside ski as soon as the ski flips to it's BTE as a result of the angles created by the CM agressive crossing over the skis

Weighted release is inherently a 2 ski on the snow approach

SP release is inherently a 1 ski on the snow approach

Both accomplish the accleration over the skis required for passive engagement at the top of the new turn.

I have seen weighted release described like BB's perfect turn. This is not the weighted released described in PMTS or by Lito in his soft weight shift turn. I used to think they were the same but they are not. (in the context of PMTS terminology)

The weighted release in PMTS is the Von Guenigen race turn.

[Ott Gangl]

>>>> We have good PSIA trainers, who make a whole lot more sense than Mr. BB.<<<

If you don't have Bob Barnes' book "The Complete Ecyclopedia of Skiing" third edition, which is sold out, in a couple of month his fourth edition of the book is coming out and you can order it from amazon.com and take a look. It is not a how-to book, it is a technical encyclopedia.

John, the 'perfect turn' you are hampering on is just 'a' turn that can be easily taught to skiers, it is the lite version of high end or racing turns, a turn that can be learned and performed by the average housewife or junior high kid, the lesson takers in America. BTW, I don't think it is a PSIA sanctioned turn, it is an Epicski Academy turn as I understnd it.

And I'm not sure that you know what a stem is. A stem is the INTENTIONAL displacement of the UPHILL ski by brushing the tail of that ski out and placing it on the inside edge while DOWNHILL SKI is still on the inside edge, thus momentarily having both skis on their inside edges.

There is also a dowhill stem, called ABSTEM, which was used just to set the inside edge of the downhill ski hard and rebound off of it to throw you into the turn. It was used in the 60s to get those long stiff skis to break lose and go into a prallel skid.

Nobody stems anymore, the vast majority of skiers on the hill ski parallel (stemming is not parallel skiing). Losing the edge of a ski so the tail slides out is not stemming, it is just losing the edge. Stemming has to be intentional.

Everyone is learning, and at the ETU they would look at your skiing and put you with a coach that will teach you what you don't know, and since it is a student centered teaching environment, you would also get what you wanted. But should you want to go with eski's group to zipperline steep icy moguls which abound in Stowe you have to be reasonably sure that can keep up with the group.

.....Ott

[BigE]

Obviously this is simple on the hill to see. If, however, I do exactly what is described in BB's perfect turn, I'll have a far from perfect turn. IMO

When I first read it, I wondered too. My language is CSIA based, so it's different too! I no longer think that his perfect turn is imperfect -- it's just an executive summary that tries to incorporate ALL good turns.

My stumbling block was the term "steered". No matter how I tried to understand him, I could not. I replaced that with "pivot" I could imagine the turn, and the pivoting was as much as was required to get the direction change prior to edge engagement. Then I imagined how I'd explain that portion in PMTS, and thought that I'd call it a "brushed carve", where the edge engagement happens later.

His measure of perfection was whether or not you can ski to "the goddess" to get a date. Since you really wanted to "go there" everything you do is to go in that direction.

There are other concepts that you find troubling, like weight shift. I do think your semantics are different -- the words are the same, but you're really not on the same page. The consequences of thinking that everythingbetween PMTS and PSIA styles is completely different is dangerous. Look at the HH's online ski lessons as an example.

Lesson 1 green is the drill "a thousand steps". It is an excellent example of the drill, as well as the notion of right-tip-right to go right!

BB's writing is this:

"The moment the speeds increase, and the natural balancing movement causes the CM to move a little farther in, that inside ski will flatten and roll to its other edge. Voila--the wedge is gone, and the wedge turn becomes a wedge christie, becomes a parallel turn!"

I do not see how that is remarkably different from lesson 2 green ( phantom wedge closure ).

The point I'm making is that some things look so very close I can't imagine broadbrushing these views to be in opposition at every level.

Nor can I say "This (insert technical move here) is what differentiates the two". From my perspective the difference is largely philosophical.

IMO, the dichotomy is that PMTS purports to have sufficient movements for all situtations, and that the movements are sufficient to allow a practitioner to become an expert. Others seem to think that restricting skiing to PMTS movements is unnecessary, and perhaps even detrimental.

IMO, the "technique skirmishes" in the "battle" are blown out of proportion.

[BigE]

deleted:accidental double post.

[John Mason]

yes - terms can confuse

A lot of the drills both viewpoints use. Thousand steps, javilin turn, etc have been around forever. It's when I come specifically to this turn their seems to be an actual divergence in technique.

I've often wondered how the PMTS turn with it's effortless engagement of the high C part of the turn is so rare on the hill. You see almost no one doing it. You also don't see many people doing it on teaching videos.

I agree with you that terms can throw people off. If Lito or HH or we say weight shift, Rusty might use a term "pressure" to describe the same action. For many the simple picture of "weight shift" implies a large gross movement. However if this weight shift is described with any hint of doing this before the fall line is crossed seems to be an actual different point of view. While a normal thing in PMTS skiing it certainly seems to be something that over on Epic many view as a real no no.

I described many different ways of describing the SP turn. Best I got was thats an inside/outside racing turn that creates a step. This just shows that I'm not communicating it correctly or its simply not a turn done, because there is no step to change direction at all.

Really, the best place to see this and perhaps translate is on HH's 2nd video minute 20. He goes nearly frame by frame. You see the LTE of the upper ski hook up, you see his CM accelerate across the skis because of this, you see the BTE of the new outside ski seamlessly and naturally engage for immediate carving of the very top of the new turn.

It's not like the descriptions coming back to me on Epic of what this "negative" step up would produce at all.

Like I said, I'll try again in a new post about CM movement mangement and how to deal with the slowing CM vector that occurs at the bottom of a normal turn and how the SP and weighted releases fixes this. The BB perfect turn with it's late engagement does not fix this IMO and requires railroad turn type angulations and tipping to engage at the top of the turn that are avoided with the more natural SP turn.

Anyone have a video link to someone demonstrating a BB style "perfect turn" movement pattern? That would help too. It's the only way to find out if this is semantics, inaccurate descriptions, or actual differences in technique.

The root of this still comes back to - over on Epic you'll often see statements that they all teach the same stuff. HH is just creating a marketing differentation that is not real. It's not a versitile way to ski (tell that to John CLendenon or Eric and Rob D.)

This little discussion about the SP turn gets to some of the root of those issues.

[John Mason]

If you don't have Bob Barnes' book "The Complete Ecyclopedia of Skiing" third edition, which is sold out, in a couple of month his fourth edition of the book is coming out and you can order it from amazon.com and take a look. It is not a how-to book, it is a technical encyclopedia.

You can actually still get it. Bob will burn you one as a PDF file and ship it to you. (He wasn't asking for any but I paid him 25 as I remember, but its been a number of months) It's quite good. As Ott says, it's not a technique manual. Technique is implied in many of the definitions, however. Obviously the terminology used, as BigE points out, is from a PSIA point of view. An example of this, Bob defines cross over and cross under as equivilant. I personally define them quite differently. So there is definatly a point of view in much of it that assumes a certain ski philosophy. As we have been going back and forth, this may just be jargon differences or functional or combination.

John, the 'perfect turn' you are hampering on is just 'a' turn that can be easily taught to skiers, it is the lite version of high end or racing turns, a turn that can be learned and performed by the average housewife or junior high kid, the lesson takers in America. BTW, I don't think it is a PSIA sanctioned turn, it is an Epicski Academy turn as I understnd it.

Yes, I agree with that. Bob's "perfect turn" basically and most similar to the two footed release taught in PMTS. That's a beginner turn though still useful in many situations at any level. I don't have a problem with the perfect turn as described. In the descriptions it differs from the two footed release in the active tip and point going on that would help engagement at the top of the turn. In this regard it's moving beyond the PMTS two footed release in trying to engage the top of the turn better. In a PMTS approach we would not do it as described. In PMTS we would skip this and move right to the SP turn to help upper turn engagement.

It's in the SP turn specifically where I am still confused. All aspects of it seem to provoke a negative reaction to it when I discuss it over on Epic. I like the perfect turn. I like the two footed release. I don't understand the assumption that the SP as taught by PMTS is a turn with negative movements. That's all.

And I'm not sure that you know what a stem is. A stem is the INTENTIONAL displacement of the UPHILL ski by brushing the tail of that ski out and placing it on the inside edge while DOWNHILL SKI is still on the inside edge, thus momentarily having both skis on their inside edges.

There is also a dowhill stem, called ABSTEM, which was used just to set the inside edge of the downhill ski hard and rebound off of it to throw you into the turn. It was used in the 60s to get those long stiff skis to break lose and go into a prallel skid.

Nobody stems anymore, the vast majority of skiers on the hill ski parallel (stemming is not parallel skiing). Losing the edge of a ski so the tail slides out is not stemming, it is just losing the edge. Stemming has to be intentional.

Stem, to me, and I may not be using the turn correctly, is rotation of a leg outside the normal following of the ski's natural arc. It is in the strictor sense turning the outside ski first creating an a-frame entry at the top of the turn. I am probably mis-using it. I am probably also throwing a pivot into the stem category as well. You can unweight and pivot and stay parallel. This is not strictly a stem. So I'm sure your're correct on my abuse of this term. My phrase "subtle stem" in regards to the perfect turn refers to the tipping and pointing action described at the beginning of the turn. Obviously if both skis stay parallel this is more of a needless smearing of the top of the turn than any type of stem. I'll be more careful.

Everyone is learning, and at the ETU they would look at your skiing and put you with a coach that will teach you what you don't know, and since it is a student centered teaching environment, you would also get what you wanted. But should you want to go with eski's group to zipperline steep icy moguls which abound in Stowe you have to be reasonably sure that can keep up with the group.

....Ott

ETU would no doubt be fun. I'm sure I would pick up a lot. I'm not "bashing" or trying to bash ETU. I would just rather take that time and dollars and not have a percentage of good stuff to keep and stuff to ignore as was suggested, but a larger percentage of stuff to keep. Until I see some video of the instructors involved I'm not going to chance it - certainly not while the simple SP style turn appears initially to be so mis-understood. I have had training with excellent instructors from PMTS and PSIA. All instructors are not equal. As Rusty Guy recommend you need to hook up with a mentor. I know all instructors at ETU are excellent, but they are not all equally capable and will not take the same approach to correcting error. (which at it's heart is what good coaching is)

Your comments on Eski are well taken. I'll be doing non-icy moguls again at a-basin in Janary. Icy stowe moguls in Stowe would not be the ideal place to hook up with a PMTS sytle instructor for me. I figured from what I read that Eski would be in that type of top level group. Thus my question on what other coaches teach what styles. What I got back is that styles don't matter and yes they all have different syles. That makes no sense to me. Those types of comments confirm by caution.

Ultimately this will work itself out once I see video or get a credible explanation as to why an EWS turn is not a super great and normal way to ski from the Gurus on Epic. It could be style, it could be terms, it could real functional differences. I could find out by going to ETU. But, I'd be shifting the beginning of my Colorado 2 week ski vacation to do it at great expense. So at this point I'll just go to Colorado. I can sort out this in a more casual meeting like at the "meet on the hill" event. I've not concluded anything. I have suspiscions at this point like Eddy is saying but no conclusions. I'm not willing to go as far as Eddy is yet.

(show me the video then I can tell) (point me to a link)