Why teaching the wedge doesn't work

[BigE]

At the bottom of the turn both the upper and lower ski are carving. They are not sliding sideways as in a side slip drill. They are sliding along their lengths. In this case, when you remove weight from the downhill ski and tip it, the upper ski, if you don't have pressure on it at that point, will flop flat and slide sideways. You don't want sliding sideways down the hill to occur. You want to hold that edge as a fulcrum so the tipping of the downhill ski works better. Only when the CM has gone over the skis will that new stance ski change edges to it's BTE.

Passive in that the BTE on the new stance ski engages passively. Positive in that the new stance ski is established early on it's LTE before the fall line has been crossed. (and it was already on it's LTE at that point anyway)

I am glad to hear that my sophistry would be correct. Although stating that the new stance ski establishes and edge early on LTE is "positive" is just an arbitrary label. My sophistry would suggest why the passivity can be considered positive, and very athletic.

The key points are that the uphill LTE is the fulcrum. While the skier waits patiently for the uphill ski to roll to BTE, the CM crosses over the fulcrum -- His CM is the end of the upside down pendulum anchored at the LTE of the uphill ski. How quickly does the CM move across? That is determined by three things: the original velocity of the CM in the downhill direction, the amount of bite of the brake creating the fulcrum, and the speed at which the stance leg collapses/is tipped.

IMO, an "expert skier" can perform these moves very very quickly. But what key feature remains once you distill these moves to their bare essence? What remains is the CM crossing over the skis.

It is certainly true that one measure of athleticism is the degree to which an athlete lets their CM become "off balance" as well as their ability to recover from being "off balance". Consequently, a strong fast movement of the CM across the skis will require a quick recovery, and will be quite athletic, regardless of the uphill ski attitude being "passive".

And IMO, the PMTS progression focusses specifically on the movement of the CM across the skis and down that fall line. IMO, that is it's greatest strength.

What seems to be at issue at Epic, is whether the movement patterns are in some sense optimal, and in another sense within everyone's grasp.

IMO, what matters is whether or not the skiing public will enjoy skiing like that. Others suggest that WC racers ski like that, so it's best. Sure they do, but they do a whole lot more than just that too....

So, in the end, my opinion of PMTS is that it's a fine way to learn to ski. I also think It's also not for everyone. Why? Not everyone will allow their CM to go sufficiently off balance for their skis to do the work. Nor will many folks let themselves go "fast enough". Those psychological factors have not been addressed. (And some folks have balance issues, that don't let them traverse on one leg.) The presence of the wedge turn in the ATS clearly addresses these types of skiers. That's not even considered bus-loads of unmotivated beginner kids squeezing into limited terrain.

So, I obviously disagree that teaching the wedge cannot work.

[John Mason]

I should have said why teaching the wedge works worse than it used to. There was a time when it might have even been appropriate. Never having skied on non-shape skis I don't have a feel for this.

Those are good comments. I don't look at this as an athletic move, but a patient move that allows the body fallling over the skis (the passive component) to engage the top of the new turn. Without the LTE helping you can still do a variety of PMTS style turns. If your body is more down the hill than the skis are pointing (normal) and the skis are flat you'll have a gentle two footed release into the new turn. Depending on how you mix these two extremes you can create whatever style of release you want at transition from quick engaging carve to smooth balanced smear.

The video, by contrast, appears to my eye as a less patient approach, where the person is "driving" their skis more than riding them.

Because of this, the energy expenditure (athletism?) of the non-pmts style turns posted looks higher to me than the PMTS style turn.

I've played around with the wide stance style carving, and I find it also much more difficult to keep the turning radiuses of the two skis aligned. The inner ski needs to carve a tighter arc when weighted like the video. So you must either press it's tip in more to get it curved a tad more, or forcibly keep it in place.

In a PMTS turn, with it's narrower stance, the inside ski is more gliding over the snow with very little pressure. Thus you don't have to fight it.

The above is of course doubly true in terrain like bumps and crud.

I'd much rather do the much less athletic PMTS style turns.

I can see why people might class PMTS style turns as more athletic in that they do require a much finer sense of balance and proper boot alignment. Some may class that as athletisim. Perhaps it is. In my use of athletism, I'm looking at the effort expended more than the ability to balance. I can easily see how people would view this the other way as it took a long time for me to get that level of balance developed. (can you ever finish getting better at balance?)

[BigE]

I should have said why teaching the wedge works worse than it used to. There was a time when it might have even been appropriate. Never having skied on non-shape skis I don't have a feel for this.

Those are good comments. I don't look at this as an athletic move, but a patient move that allows the body fallling over the skis (the passive component) to engage the top of the new turn. Without the LTE helping you can still do a variety of PMTS style turns. If your body is more down the hill than the skis are pointing (normal) and the skis are flat you'll have a gentle two footed release into the new turn. Depending on how you mix these two extremes you can create whatever style of release you want at transition from quick engaging carve to smooth balanced smear.

The video, by contrast, appears to my eye as a less patient approach, where the person is "driving" their skis more than riding them.

Because of this, the energy expenditure (athletism?) of the non-pmts style turns posted looks higher to me than the PMTS style turn.

I've played around with the wide stance style carving, and I find it also much more difficult to keep the turning radiuses of the two skis aligned. The inner ski needs to carve a tighter arc when weighted like the video. So you must either press it's tip in more to get it curved a tad more, or forcibly keep it in place.

In a PMTS turn, with it's narrower stance, the inside ski is more gliding over the snow with very little pressure. Thus you don't have to fight it.

The above is of course doubly true in terrain like bumps and crud.

I'd much rather do the much less athletic PMTS style turns.

I'd say easier styled ones.

I lost a long answer to this.

Short answer: wedge works for those that are especially fearful and not athletic. Not athletic in the sense that they are unwilling to ski at the speeds required and unwilling to allow the CM to fall inside. It's more than just an equipment issue.

What you need to see is a PMTS skier and a PSIA skier following each other in exactly the same track. Two runs with two leaders. That would be very interesting to see. The posted videos have their own intent -- their own line etc. Personally, I'd really like to see a PMTS skier create short radius low edge angle turns like those posted.

Of course, a direct comparison on video won't ever happen, as it is destined to be a "lose-lose situation".

Narrow stance in moguls/crud is normal. Watch any good moguls skier. That's what I was taught, and it wasn't PMTS that did it... the instructor knew nothing of PMTS.

The wider stance Ron Lemaster suggests is happening today, is just wider than it used to be. You can see many examples of the wide stance in this presentation:

http://www.wbskitraining.com/resources/ ... 1-2004.pdf

[SkierSynergy]

The wider stance Ron Lemaster suggests is happening today, is just wider than it used to be. You can see many examples of the wide stance in this presentation:

http://www.wbskitraining.com/resources/ ... 1-2004.pdf

Actually I don't think there is much of a disagreement on the issue of stance width as proposed in PMTS and LeMaster's presentation. Nor do any of the pictures in the presentation show a really wide horizontal stance.

If I understand LeMaster's description, the higher inclination DURING the turn that he sees in racers these days necessitates more seperation of the skis through greater flexion of the inside leg. and that flexion can only be done (in abscence of greater dorsiflexion on the inside ankle) if there is some forward seperation of the inside foot (he argued this in the "pulling the foot back" topic on Epic).

If this is correct, he is claiming that there is greater VERTICAL seperation of the feet DURING the turns because of the high angles involved. However, that is not necessarily to say there is a horizontally wide stance. The example shots in the presentation are consistent with this interpretation and so is his article last year in Ski Racing describing the difference between vertical and horizontal seperation. At most, two or three examples in the presentation have a lateral stance just wider than thier hips. They are all in GS. Most show a natural stance width or narrower -- especially in slalom.

He does use the term "lateral seperation," but if you look at his other article and the argument that he seems to be making in the slides of the presentation, I don't think this can be directly equated with "horizontal seperation."

Of course this distinction was written about by Harald years ago and is a standard distinction in PMTS.

[John Mason]

Short answer: wedge works for those that are especially fearful and not athletic. Not athletic in the sense that they are unwilling to ski at the speeds required and unwilling to allow the CM to fall inside. It's more than just an equipment issue.

*************PMTS and Scared Beginners****************

Sure, but in PMTS you don't start with anything threatening to a scared beginner. But, you also do not go down the hill for a while at the beginning either. A PMTS student might wonder why they can't just ski down the hill like all the wedgers that started when they did and are already making runs.

In PMTS you start with non-slope drills, first in boots, then with boots and skis. Then you go up the bunny slope. Then you work on traverses and basic edge skills. Then you work on garlands with the two footed release. Nothing crosses the fall line at this stage.

You gradually have the student point more downhill but still doing garlands till they are eventually pointing fully down hill.

This develops at the student's pace.

Not scary at all. The two footed release results in a very gentle turn. Only the bottom of the turn is carved in any fashion at this stage.

**************** PMTS Myths *********************

Those seem to be the two biggest myths of people being critical of PMTS.

1. That it is only pure carving and thus not appropriate to beginners.

2. That it's lack of emphasis on active rotation components and blended skills relegates it to a very narrow range of real life applicablity on the slopes. (there is blending which it seems most people don't understand)

***************BigE's Interesting Question**********************

BigE, you asked how a PMTS skier would look with Low edge angle short radius turns. Good question since short radius turns work best with high edge angles.

You may have hit upon why those turns in the video look so different. You could, of course, use even more tipping of the free foot with a flatter ski and almost turn in place to smear any type of short radius turn. But if you want to have the skis working for you better, wouldn't you want higher edge angles as the turn radius gets shorter?

In my own skiing the higher the edge angle the tighter the turn. Tip more and the turn tightens. Why would you want low edge angles in a short radius turn (other than if you want to smear and control speed that way). Is this desireable? I'm not sure what you mean or if I'm understanding the point your trying to make.

Even in railroad turns where your body is not inclined enough to provide the tipping/edging you still tip more for a tighter railroad turn. In the PMTS approach a railroad turn is focused and created by C shape of the body rather than pointing the knees in so that it is more transferrable to the turn.

In a hockey stop or turn with that component you twist on flat skis. A hockey stop is the epitome of the short radius turn with low edge angles (or the PMTS equivalant where the stance ski is held flat and you put the tip of the free foot in the snow and tip to LTE which can be used in a hockey stop rather than the traditional kick out).

Please explain what you mean with low edge angles in a short radius turns.

Thanks!

********** On PMTS being the same as non-PMTS stuff *************

This was my own observation from being at the PSIA race camp. There are things that are the same and things that are different.

A lot of my posting on Epic was to try to ferret out the discrepriancies in the perfect turn from what is taught in PMTS since in some respects they are similar, but in the details they start to diverge (as the video makes very clear too).

Good ski movements are good ski movements wherever they originate. PMTS skiers are not the only ones with good ski movements or a functional stance in moguls. Glad we agree. My point was otherwise though. When you have people learning the non-functional stance that is a bit wide driving the skis rather than riding them, this becomes habit to the way they ski. When a person like this runs in to a crud part of a run or bumps, they are less equiped to handle it than a skier that has a more functional stance all the time as a matter of habit.

********** note to SkierSynergy ****************

Hi Jay - welcome to the longest thread known to man! Hood looks much better on the cam than last year at this time. Should I come out? You've skied TONS more than I. Any constructive comments on the videos milesB posted many pages ago? (if you don't want to touch it with a 10 foot pole I understand )

[John Mason]

Nice PDF from LeMasters

Contrary to what Jay said, but also the same, the skiers in his presentation show both wide stance and narrow stance. Some, indeed are wide at transition. It's about 50/50 in the examples shown.

Yet

Page 19 shows (notice how bent the ski is) that even in the widest of stances (in this case vertical (who knows where it was in transition)) the pressure is maybe 95/5 on the outside ski. The leg that is bent to get out of the way cannot hold much pressure on it and doesn't. The inside leg is skeletally weak in this very bent position.

This is where I wonder where people take the race technique of some skiers and then mis-adapt it. They are grabbing onto the wide stance shown in some of the examples but adaptiing it to a poor 2 footed carving technique (as shown in the videos). Are they focusing on the vertical seperation in the turn and interpeting it as lateral seperation and thus something to emulate as Jay suggested while ignoring the many examples in this slide show that show the oppisite (are narrow in transition)?

What works for an athletic wonder at transition as a wide stance, if you adopt that, you would then have consequences if that alone is lifted out of context. Walk normally in sand or snow. See where your tracks are. Measure the distance. Hang from a chinup bar. See where your legs dangle. Either of these methods will give you your functional stance. It's not feet together, but it's much more narrow than the vids posted earlier.

If your wider than this, you make balance shifts harder to make. In Bode Miller's case, this required athletism works. For most people it creates weaker overall skiing. But taking the wide stance of some racers at transition and not taking the one ski weighted style seems goofy to me.

I personally prefer the subtle balance shifts afforded by the functional stance.

And - ok - I'm a novice skier again about to annoy everyone when I see a logical contradiction like wide stance of a non super athlete used as a technique to emulate while not emulating that same athlete's one ski bias or recognizing the negative effects of a stance that is non-functionally too wide for mainline ski technique.

(BTW - in the wide stance at transition skiers in Ron's presentation, the stance actually narrows somewhat in the skiers doing it as the turn develops and becomes more narrow laterally while it increases vertically. This swing in of the lower leg may help move the body into the new turn, which may be why some racers find this advantageous, especially if its weighted and in the snow at that point. Any thoughts as to the positives of this move for the 1/2 of skiers that showed a wide stance at transition in Ron's presentation? )

[BigE]

Short answer: wedge works for those that are especially fearful and not athletic. Not athletic in the sense that they are unwilling to ski at the speeds required and unwilling to allow the CM to fall inside. It's more than just an equipment issue.

*************PMTS and Scared Beginners****************

Sure, but in PMTS you don't start with anything threatening to a scared beginner. But, you also do not go down the hill for a while at the beginning either. A PMTS student might wonder why they can't just ski down the hill like all the wedgers that started when they did and are already making runs.

In PMTS you start with non-slope drills, first in boots, then with boots and skis. Then you go up the bunny slope. Then you work on traverses and basic edge skills. Then you work on garlands with the two footed release. Nothing crosses the fall line at this stage.

You gradually have the student point more downhill but still doing garlands till they are eventually pointing fully down hill.

This develops at the student's pace.

Not scary at all. The two footed release results in a very gentle turn. Only the bottom of the turn is carved in any fashion at this stage.

See http://www.psia-w.org/ins/pdf/PSIA_Alpi ... 1guide.pdf

The wedge ain't first either!

BigE, you asked how a PMTS skier would look with Low edge angle short radius turns. Good question since short radius turns work best with high edge angles.

Best in what sense?

You may have hit upon why those turns in the video look so different. You could, of course, use even more tipping of the free foot with a flatter ski and almost turn in place to smear any type of short radius turn. But if you want to have the skis working for you better, wouldn't you want higher edge angles as the turn radius gets shorter?

So, you think that low edge angle turns are bad? One measure of athleticism I am using it this: Athleticism is measured by the athletes willingness to go off-balance (ie. move CM into the turn) and their ability to recover from being off-balance.

There are many reasons why a SR low-edge angle turn would be considered useful, among them is that high edge angles are not immediately available to learning skiers, and possibly never available to those that lack a certain level of athleticism as defined above.

However, it is not just lousy athletes that won't make high edge angles, even racers will use a low edge angle turns to correct their line. I can imagine many needs to change the direction that the skis are pointing quickly, without my CM going far inside.
[/quote]

In my own skiing the higher the edge angle the tighter the turn. Tip more and the turn tightens. Why would you want low edge angles in a short radius turn (other than if you want to smear and control speed that way). Is this desireable?

Yes, very desireable.

Very steep narrow chutes are a very good example. Cross over at 40 degrees pitch? High edge angles? No, even Lito says that attempting to use high edge angles is a bad thing on the steeps. Short radius, low edge angles work great.

Short radius low edge angles at low speeds on gentle terrain work great too. Low speeds just won't support the high edge angle -- you'll fall over.

I'm not sure what you mean or if I'm understanding the point your trying to make.

The point I am making is that when you compare the postings to your mental model, they don't jive. Why? Because the skiers goal was far different than the goals that created your mental mode. Your ideal turn has much higher edge angles.

What I find offensive, is classifying that mental image as "better skiing", and those that do not use that model as "lousy skiers". That is my point. FYI, the second skier was the PSIA technical director that created the document I linked to in this post. I assure you he is not a "lousy skier" and would bet the farm that he is more than capable of using a high edge angle in his turns when he desires.

Please explain what you mean with low edge angles in a short radius turns.

I think I have. Watch the posted videos again. A picture says a thousand words.

********** On PMTS being the same as non-PMTS stuff *************

This was my own observation from being at the PSIA race camp. There are things that are the same and things that are different.

A lot of my posting on Epic was to try to ferret out the discrepriancies in the perfect turn from what is taught in PMTS since in some respects they are similar, but in the details they start to diverge (as the video makes very clear too).

Good ski movements are good ski movements wherever they originate. PMTS skiers are not the only ones with good ski movements or a functional stance in moguls. Glad we agree. My point was otherwise though. When you have people learning the non-functional stance that is a bit wide driving the skis rather than riding them, this becomes habit to the way they ski. When a person like this runs in to a crud part of a run or bumps, they are less equiped to handle it than a skier that has a more functional stance all the time as a matter of habit.

The fallacy in the above is called "equivocation": making one word have two different meanings.

In particular, equivocation of the word "functional", with reference to stance width...

A narrow stance is more "functional" in the moguls/crud/power -- albeit for different reasons on each terrain.

It is not the stance width that I have when I hang from a bar. That is the "functional" stance I have on the groomed.

The term "functional" describes a different stance width dependent on application. Hence the equivocation -- functional meaning narrow being applied everywhere as a "good thing".

It would be nice to simplify skiing such that one stance width is always "right", but that is simply not the case. The more one uses that same stance width for all purposes, the less optimally they ski on average -- if I tune a stance width for moguls, it is ONLY in the moguls that such a stance width is best.

[BigE]

And - ok - I'm a novice skier again about to annoy everyone when I see a logical contradiction like wide stance of a non super athlete used as a technique to emulate while not emulating that same athlete's one ski bias or recognizing the negative effects of a stance that is non-functionally too wide for mainline ski technique.

(BTW - in the wide stance at transition skiers in Ron's presentation, the stance actually narrows somewhat in the skiers doing it as the turn develops and becomes more narrow laterally while it increases vertically. This swing in of the lower leg may help move the body into the new turn, which may be why some racers find this advantageous, especially if its weighted and in the snow at that point. Any thoughts as to the positives of this move for the 1/2 of skiers that showed a wide stance at transition in Ron's presentation? )

John, just go skiing -- all will become clear when you are doing it for yourself. I have to stop this kibitzing. Oh, and don't forget that in Ron Lemasters presentation the slide that stated active leg steering is still dominant, although lower steering angles are being used. Check BB's encyclopedia for the term "steering angle". I'd bet it's in there.

I have to stop posting on this thread. It's too much a time eater. Good luck John, have fun skiing!

[John Mason]

Thanks for that link. I've not been able to find this material on-line before.

Sure, they teach the functional athletic stance, then promptly start developing habits against it by Skier Level 2 Step 5.

I don't see the value of introducing that whole wedge to parallel sequence largely because of the above contradiction.

I presume we'll agree to disagree on that.

The a-frame stance shown in the video that your describing as what was desireable for low angle low radius turns, would be a stage a wedge taught person would work through in a PMTS setting.

You're correct, I would not think that turn would be desireable.

I presume we'll continue to disagree on that.

You are telling me that they were doing this turn to demonstrate low edge angle short radius turns. You're stating that they could do high edge radius turns with the best of them. I would doubt it without seeing a video. I would believe they would exhibit the same negative attributes of the turns in this video. They would have active guiding of the skis at the top of the turns, a stance that is too wide, would be carving on 2 skis, and a late transition to the new stance ski.

On this we may or may not continue to disagree. But lacking other evidence that would be my opinion. I cannot conceive at this time of the skiers in the video being able to execute a PMTS style turn, even if they wanted to because of their ingrained habits.

Thanks again for that link to the PSIA book with a sample progression (even though I know many hate that word). It illustrates quite well for me where the problems remain as compared to the more efficient for the student DTP PMTS method. It's an absolutly super wrap-up to the premise of this post.

Whether you can illustrate that those skiers in the video can ski in a PMTS style or not, the intermediate a-frame style turns they are illustrating are often the end result of people taught in the progression illustrated in the alpine manual. Like the PM I got (thus the person does not want to be identified) that has seen some of these skiers ski in real life said: "They ski like ski instructors".

After seeing the alpine PSIA instructor book link, it all makes perfect sense.

[BigE]

You are telling me that they were doing this turn to demonstrate low edge angle short radius turns. You're stating that they could do high edge radius turns with the best of them. I would doubt it without seeing a video.

I am speachless that you have the audacity to suggest that the PSIA technical director cannot do a high edge angle turn. You are entitled to your opinions, no matter how stupid they make you look.

I will stop banging my head against the brick wall. There is just no reasoning possible.

Good bye John.

[John Mason]

[quote="BigE]
I am speachless that you have the audacity to suggest that the PSIA technical director cannot do a high edge angle turn. [/quote]

In an effort to save your head from being banged, you left out the important rest of the quote. I have no doubt they can do a high edge angle turn. Style wise, I do doubt it would look or be anything like a PMTS style skier does it.

And - that's ok. They may prefer that style of turn.

Remember, the beginning premise was proposed many times to me over on epic that HH teaches the same stuff and results in the same turns, it's just a marketing gig.

I have not been presented any evidence that this is true yet.

So far I am still concluding and everyon agrees with this, that the DTP progression HH for beginners is not being done much or taught in the PSIA world. The ski instructor pdf file you sent shows that as well if the eyes on the hill didn't confirm it already.

The other general disagreement is, forget the beginner progressions, the end result is the same. They all ski the same way.

I have not been presented with any evidence that this is true either.

Of course there are exceptions. Chris Fellows is on the nat demo team as Eddie pointed out and skis with movement patterns that are like PMTS. So does Lito, so does Eric and Rob d also as Eddie pointed out.

It's ok if there is a style difference. There are logical reasons to pursue one style over the other? Are they the same? Sure doesn't look like it so far to me. Not even close.

That certainly doesn't mean that the "ski instructor" style of turn won't do low angle, high angle, moguls and crud, etc. I'm not saying that.

I am saying that, if I'm going to be just as sterotypical here as others are of PMTS, that the ski instructor turn will have a guided entry and late transition and a wider than required stance in many different situations.

So, don't bang your head. Show me some good skiing by these guys. Not the type of skiing that was posted by milesb.

[Ott Gangl]

John, now I believe that HH REALLY should reign you in before you embarass yourself and in turn him even more in front of the skiing world.

Please consider what you are saying about some of the top skier in the country.

Really, John...

....Ott

[*skier_j]

All I can do right now is sit here slack jaw-ed in utter amazement at what John is saying!!!

[John Mason]

Ott - they can ski how they want.

I just would not expect them to look like a PMTS skier or to be executing their turns in the same manner.

I'm not saying there aren't "top skiers".

Are you actually - Ott and BigE - saying the styles and methods of turn movements are the same?

If not, then recognize that the styles are different. It's ok for me to prefer one style to the other. Otherwise, what are we arguing about?

Why would this insult anyone? I would imagine, if the styles are different, they like their style and wouldn't like to turn in the PMTS style.

[NNN]

John, once again, your posts come across as you think you are the authority on all things skiing. Your posts come across as though you will not stop until everyone says, "Yes, John you are right". Your posts come across as critical of skiers who are very skilled, knowlegeable and talented. I don't understand why you continue to do this. There are so many people on this forum and Epic who share their knowledge and love of skiing with others and who are willing to help less experienced skiers like yourself improve. However, it is no fun to try and teach someone who thinks they know everything.