John Mason wrote: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.
Uhhh.... let's look at another example, from the online lessons --
http://www.harbskisystems.com/olg3.htm
Please take the time to read through this lesson. The downhill foot is called "the accelerator" and the "uphill foot" is called the brake. This is precisely why you are seeing this called a negative move -- uphill engagement is thought of as a braking action.
Here's a description using extremely "negative" language cues to consider. It may help you understand why some people disagree with the move.
That an "acceleration" of the CM across the skis occurs when the uphill edge is engaged is from the inverted pendulum effect -- the CM is already moving downhill, so
when the brake is applied, it stops the feet from moving downhill, and if you let the CM continue on it's path, the pendulum effect will help you fall into the turn. And IMO, this negative is exactly the kind of negative that the "perfect turn" model does not allow.
Another difference in language that I've seen you , JM, state is that the perfect turn is more passive:
here is a quote from this online lesson:
http://www.harbskisystems.com/olb2.htm
"Be passive with the stance ski - do not attempt to edge or steer it with the stance foot."
What's up? How can the "perfect turn" be more passive than that? The term passive stance ski is all over the online lessons -- even the black level ones. Am I now misunderstanding the word "passive"? That would be absurd.