Why teaching the wedge doesn't work

[milesb]

Here are a couple that illustrate this turn pretty well:
http://www.websurd.com/epic2004/video/esa1.wmv (rob sogard)

http://www.websurd.com/epic2004/video/esa02.wmv (weems)

Note that not all the turns are the "perfect turns", see if you can tell which ones fit Barnes' definition.

[John Mason]

1st one has more of an upweighting pivot action to it
2nd one is more of a carve to carve approach

both are 2 ski type turns rather than 1 ski style

weems, especially in the 2nd one, shows a stance too wide for a SP style turn to work

neither of these look close to what I would characterize as a PMTS style SP or weighted release turn

In my mind, without question, weems turns are closer to what Bob Barnes was describing. (in that much of Bob's comments only make sense with a wider stance) Weems turns flow much better. As over on Epic where I paraphrased the turn styles weems is doing a good type 2 turn.

At least that's my opinion from a quick look at these.

[John Mason]

the first skier is closer to Bob Barnes description in his middle run than his 1st and last run

I'd be interested in Eddie's comments when he gets back. I don't think he'd think these illustrate high level skiing. I think these are the normal "guide the skis" style of skiing he is saying is stereotypical of most skiers at that end of that food chain.

The skis are not being ridden at the top of the turn but steered is the best way I can describe what I'm seeing as there is almost no weight on either ski at the transition with either skier. The skis are being guided till "landing" rather than being ridden in this high part of the turn.

They do not have the look of a PMTS style skier at all.

This may be fine for most out there. Many may not like the way a PMTS skier looks when they ski. But as far as it being the same just miscommunicated - not. These are not close visually.

(hobbit, you don't look anything like this when you ski - the difference is stark)

[Curious]

"Thousand steps, javilin turn, etc have been around forever."

So John Mason,

As a student of the sport for a grand total of 75 days on snow, how would you know this? Something's fishy .....

Do you know how to wrap your "long thongs" so they "X" behind your boots? Don't you think it created much more total elegance when the demoing a lovely turn du jour of "projection circulaire" .......

HH and BB and AF and OG all know....

[John Mason]

Hi Sunrise - (like the handle)

My son, that took me skiing my first time out March 2003 at Breckenridge, just noticed another difference.

BTW he agrees these are nothing like what he has seen PMTS skiers do.

The other difference he noted is that in these videos the skiers are most extended in their legs at transition and shortest in the turns. A PMTS skier is exactly the oppisite. They are shortest at transition and most extended in the turn. To his eye he says their kicking their turns out as they bob up and down. I had him look again and I said though they look like that, you can see them guiding their skis better than a kickout style at the tops of the turns but your're correct that they are unweighting their skis at this point of the turn.

Sunrise, March 2003 to the present. 75 days total. 1 out of 4 days were under instructions. 1/2 with PSIA at Mt Hood and 1/2 with PMTS instructors. As far as skis, all I personally have experience on is the new shaped skis. I have skied with friends that have skied for decades. That's where I learned about things like the javalin turn and thousand steps, etc. We played with all these on the slopes. You can also read about them and I have a number of varied instruction books.

My son is telling me stop yelling at silly people and lets play racquetball. He has been trouncing everyone at College so time to remind him who taught him how to play . (I hope)

[Curious]

Who's "Sunrise?"

[John Mason]

I don't know who sunrise is - must be 1/2timers. (Sunrise was the end post with a camp question I was about to comment on - I got my replys to who, confused - see - halftimers.)

My son beat me racquetball - probably because I was thinking about another stereotypical difference between the skiers MilesB put up style wise and the typical PMTS skier.

Especially in the 2nd video in the body of the turn where the turn forces are highest, the skier is exhibiting an a-frame because of the stance. In a PMTS style turn, the skier's legs are not angulated at the knee and the edging comes from the body being in a C shape more in the midsection than in the legs. The legs are left in a skeletally strong alignment.

So, differences so far are:

1. Stance - PMTS is narrower
2. Balance - PMTS is more on the outside ski
3. Body height - PMTS - body remains more consistant in height over the surface
4. Edging - PMTS - more from shape of whole body rather than with the legs - ie - ankles are not tipped in relation to the angle of the shins - same with knees
5. top of turn - PMTS - carved with weight on the outside ski from top of the turn vs steered/guided with very little pressure

People can ski how they want, but my questions as to is what PMTS is teaching just marketing hype or structural differences are, in absence of other video, beginning to be answered.

Note to Curious - great comment on the old one ski skiing thread you pulled up. I could not do any of the one ski drills till I was aligned, since I, like most of the population is not neutral at all from a skiing perspective.

Speculative question:

How can sincere people arrive at those style of turns and think they are to be desired?

proposition: Watching WC skiers and interpeting what they think they are seeing while at the same time ignoring the attributes above that these interpetations bring to day to day skiing. A world cup skier also has edging via body alignment rather than playing with ankle angles.

Harald is a former WC skier. Any thoughts? This is just a curious speculation on my part.

[John Mason]

A sample pic that illustrates some of the prior post.

http://www.harbskisystems.com/carver.htm

Look at diana in the top pic with the carvers. Note how the feet, ankles, shins, are all stacked up. There is no a-frame. Note the reverse C shape to your body. This is coming from the mid-section, not the legs. The legs are still in a strong position. This is the classic PMTS style position in turns.

This looks and is totally different then what was in the videos.

[milesb]

the first skier is closer to Bob Barnes description in his middle run than his 1st and last run

Very good, John! You identified the right turns.
I have no idea if these guys look like this all the time, BTW. I'm pretty sure they were teaching that "perfect turn" in the Academy, maybe someone who went can verify that. I would be very surprised if either of those guys were not capable of carving the very top of the turn on that slope (it's a pretty steep groomed slope), I just don't think they were demoing that. Maybe they felt it was beyond the capabilities of the students? But in any event, I just thought it was a good example of what I thought that turn would look like.

[John Mason]

You comments bring up the danger in judging a ski movie like this.

Weems has been around. He can probably ski whatever style he wants. He is clearly in a weak a-frame wide stance in this shot. Who knows, maybe he was showing what not to do.

This doesn't mean he can't do a PMTS style turn. There is no context.

And, also, if they think this is what WC skiers do, then maybe this is the desired outcome they are looking for. They may think what I think is good is bad.

I have some video of me from last december where I look a lot like these guys. In my own mind this was a problem to work out of. But that was my perspective on things. They may not look at any of this as being wrong.

This illustrates my concern about style of coaching that started the giant thread on epic.

I broached this whole idea nearly a year ago on Epic. What turn is the teaching goal? Bottom line was they thought the question was invalid. Yet, you know they teach with a goal in mind, otherwise how can you teach someone.

Whatever.

My goal is the smooth, efficient, strong, PMTS style turn where the turns are generated mostly with balance changes originating in the feet. Perhaps in a student directed setting these coaches could help me at a venue like the ETU. But, I'd want to make sure they could at least demo these turns myself before I'd put money and time into that. But having them be critical of the SP turn and come back with incorrect descriptions of same, does not increase my confidence.

I'm gonna find some more pics to link to that contrast what the videos show. To bad HH only has dial-up. I'd love his comments.

(edited for spelling a grammer - my general caveat - I never correct it all)

[Ott Gangl]

John, since you have video of yourself skiing, why don't you put up a link to it, I'd be interested.

....Ott

[Curious]

"proposition: Watching WC skiers and interpeting what they think they are seeing while at the same time ignoring the attributes above that these interpetations bring to day to day skiing. A world cup skier also has edging via body alignment rather than playing with ankle angles. "

John, help me out. I have no idea what this means.

[*skier_j]

Do you honestly believe that the 2 video clips MilesB put up depict "poor" or "low level" skiing?

If I have the proper interpretation of your comments---

I am speechless!

[BigE]

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.

[Ott Gangl]

skier-j , you have to read John's posts as entertainment, not as real knowledge. He reads a lot of books and takes out of them what suits him and tries to fashion a picture in his mind of what skiers should look like and if they don't he thinks they ski bad.

How he thinks Weems and especially Sogard can't ski anything in any condition is beyond me. I have tried to correct him when he uses terminology wrongly and support him when he gets it rigt, but as a judge of skiing there he is on thin icy, so to speak.

I'm not sure how he thinks that skiers with such deficiant technique ski the hairy stuff at ski areas and have done so for at least 75 years.

So just shake your head when some of these folks preach that their way is the only way to heaven. I have never seen such minutia (except physicsman ) discussed about skiing, it isn't rocket science after all and skiers ski great with all kind of techniques. One style does not fit all...

Sorry John, but you go way too deep into disecting moves, there is no need for that. You seem to think that up-unweighting is bad, that angulation is bad, that ankles and knees have to be stacked, that steering is bad, drifting is bad, that turns should be carved early, etc. etc. . It really doesn't matter as long as the skier can make it work and is comfortable and secure in the way they ski, why try to change them.

...Ott