Why teaching the wedge doesn't work

PMTS Forum

Postby I have a vision » Tue Sep 28, 2004 9:28 pm

Get real,
Eldora, where ever that is, would be grateful without him, permanently.
I have a vision
 

Postby Ott Gangl » Wed Sep 29, 2004 6:38 am

People, on both sides, there is no need to bash each other, just do your own thing...

....Ott
Ott Gangl
 
Posts: 451
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 3:16 pm
Location: Ohio, USA via Bavaria

Seriously

Postby John Mason » Wed Sep 29, 2004 10:45 am

If the obnoxious guest is Rusty since the posts attack in the same fashion as he has on Epic, I really think he would enjoy a camp. The instructor camp lets you pick any of 4 choices of clinics so you can make the camp be useful for what your looking for. The V1 movement software is one of the clinics and Nolo on Epic was asking if that's something useful for use at the Bear camps. He could evaluate that software and see how it works.

I'm sure many of the people coming to this camp are all levels of PSIA cert people and Rusty could discuss and understand better what the PMTS approach is about from an instructor perspective.

If the obnoxious guest is not Rusty, whomever this person is should still go if they are really interested in the nuts and bolts of it.

I know I've bashed in the past. I think my more recent postings here and on Epic try to define the difference and to understand the different approaches people take to skiing. As Harald (I got that right Ott) points out lots of people at the top ski with PMTS style movements because it's the way high level skiers ski.

I was looking at the national demo team member's web site that Harald referenced and they have a link to a bunch of V1 videos for instruction purposes. It starts off with a racer as an example that is clearly doing the phantom move aggressively with each turn.

The fact that Harald and team brought these movement patterns that have been used by racers for years and came up with a progressive system to teach this to beginners on shaped skis is the beauty of PMTS.

Bob Barnes lift and tip "perfect turn" is pretty close, but without the early weight shift mixed with that, has missed an key aspect of the bread and butter turn. At least that is my reading of it as he has multiple posts describing that as a step up the hill and as a negative movement.

I'd love to ski with Bob sometime to see how he skis and he can see how I ski and compare thoughts and movement analysis.

So whomever you are mr obnoxious guest - avail yourself of actual PMTS instruction, not some observations and conclusions drawn watching a particular cert at your hill.
John Mason
 
Posts: 1050
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 10:52 pm
Location: Lafayette, Indiana, USA

Postby BigE » Wed Sep 29, 2004 11:46 am

For those that want to read about it:

http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.ph ... rfect+turn

He does not "miss a key aspect", he does address it.

And quite unfavourably I might add.
BigE
 
Posts: 1519
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 11:42 am
Location: Toronto, Canada

Postby piggyslayer » Wed Sep 29, 2004 12:56 pm

BigE, Are you referring to phantom weight transition being classified as "negative". I never understood why is that. Does anyone else think of these movements are ?negative??

To me, releasing the stance foot and transferring the weight to the uphill ski does not move the CM back, in fact this is done so that the CM moves forward into next turn.

It is interesting that the two different threads (this and Harb Carver prep for Bumps thread) end up discussing the same issue! I have posted similar reply to this one in the other thread before BigE posted the link to Epic in this thread.
Piggy Slayer
let the piggy breathe
piggyslayer
 
Posts: 320
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2003 9:27 pm
Location: New Jersey

Yes - that's one of the posts I was referring too

Postby John Mason » Wed Sep 29, 2004 1:55 pm

Yes - that was one of the posts I was referring to, but there are many others.

There have even been statements that there isn't enough strength to hold a turn on the LTE of the inside leg. (that was RG not BB) (how have racers for years been doing linked turns on a single leg as a drill if this has ever been true)

That's why I'd like to see Bob ski sometime. I'm thinking, based on what I read that it's not a bad turn, Bob's perfect turn, in that the release and transistion of the turn are created by removing pressure from what we call the stance leg.

It's the other things that I read that are ok with him that make me curious to see what his turns actually look like:

1. Talking against an early weight shift showing there is either a communication gap about what we mean or he has never done this type of turn correctly to understand what we mean.
2. Being generally against the idea of one ski balance and more of a use both legs all the time guy
3. No problem with a wide stance and the wedge
4. The belief with graphics to demonstrate it that there will always be a stem entry to a turn at slow speeds

When you mix these up you see a style that you see a lot on the hill, and it works, just not as efficiently or best for all conditions as the normal PMTS style turn.

A wide stance will typically result in a cross-under rather than a cross-over style of turn which is worse for speed control in the steeps. In Bob's dictionary he does not diferentiate between the cross over/cross under style of turns but equates them indicating he may not realize the true nature of a cross over turn.

A wide stance is also bad in crud and bumps since each ski will have a mind of it's own. (Chris Fellows on his North American Training site has a lot of work on one ski balance with videos. It does not look like one ski balance is that important in Mr. Barnes technique.)

By definition a wide stance will keep weight and pressure on both skis which eliminates the pumping/walking action our legs are designed for resulting in higher levels of fatigue.

By not doing early weight shift it reduces the rebound and speed with which the CM goes into the next turn and also makes it easier to stem the entry if one were prone to that bad habit.

Anyway - Bob is no doubt an excellent skier, but I would expect the difference in perceptions of proper ski technique to be visible in the turns.

Or, he might be one of those people like the Gorrila turn guy that says one thing but skis another.

Time to pull out the V1 software and see!
John Mason
 
Posts: 1050
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 10:52 pm
Location: Lafayette, Indiana, USA

It can be a negative move

Postby John Mason » Wed Sep 29, 2004 2:13 pm

It can be a negative move if you step and stand on the inside foot at the bottom of the turn.

So it could just be a mis-understanding on how the SP initiates.
John Mason
 
Posts: 1050
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 10:52 pm
Location: Lafayette, Indiana, USA

Postby BigE » Wed Sep 29, 2004 2:17 pm

piggyslayer wrote:BigE, Are you referring to phantom weight transition being classified as "negative". I never understood why is that. Does anyone else think of these movements are ?negative??

To me, releasing the stance foot and transferring the weight to the uphill ski does not move the CM back, in fact this is done so that the CM moves forward into next turn.

It is interesting that the two different threads (this and Harb Carver prep for Bumps thread) end up discussing the same issue! I have posted similar reply to this one in the other thread before BigE posted the link to Epic in this thread.


Some skiers will step up onto the uphill ski when they lift the downhill ski. That is the negative movement, as it is away fromt the intended direction.

So, if you re-read the linked post, you'll see that the key aspect is release and tipping onto the new edge by the downhill ski. According to the link, the weight transfer is something that "just happens" when you release and tip. There is no explicit movement required to create this weight transfer.

Perhaps that is more the difference? More later.
BigE
 
Posts: 1519
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 11:42 am
Location: Toronto, Canada

Here is why

Postby John Mason » Wed Sep 29, 2004 3:03 pm

Here is why I don't think some people mis-understand this type of turn:

When the weight transfer just happens by releasing the downhill ski and tipping it, your inside ski (upper ski) can be pretty sloppy and people will pivot it into the new turn (an error).

But, if when you release by removing your weight on the downhill ski early - and that's the key word early - and take the resulting pressure on your inside ski, it will actually be carving a bit before the release occurs. This way your stance foot is already weighted at the top of the turn so will carve and engage better in the high c part of the turn.

In Bob's description the weight transfer is more gradual and the stance ski will engage much farther into the turn as the turn forces increase rather than in the high c part of the turn.

Either turn works fine.

BUT!! - if your stance is two wide you can never experience this type of turn as it won't work. If your inside ski/uphill ski is a large distance from your outside/downhill ski, when you do this active and early weight shift it would totally mess up your balance.

So this is another indication that people trying this that don't get it and denigrate this type of turn, may have a stance that is needlessly wide.
John Mason
 
Posts: 1050
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 10:52 pm
Location: Lafayette, Indiana, USA

Postby jclayton » Wed Sep 29, 2004 3:56 pm

That thread on Epic should be prescribed for insomniacs . I thought you were supposed to turn with your feet not your intellect . The language was well handled but even more soporific than a dictionary .

What is the connection for the Demo Team videos ?
skinut ,among other things
User avatar
jclayton
 
Posts: 1019
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 12:37 pm
Location: mallorca ,spain

Postby Ott Gangl » Wed Sep 29, 2004 5:01 pm

>>>>1. Talking against an early weight shift showing there is either a communication gap about what we mean or he has never done this type of turn correctly to understand what we mean.<<<

BigE has it right. What Bob Barnes and the PSIA calls negative is that if one does as it is desribed here, weight has to be shifted uphill. I'll explain:

As I read John's description I see in my mind "release the weight from the downhill ski and shift it to LTE of the uphill ski' where I could stay for an instant or for a second or for seveveral seconds as I'm BALANCED over that LTE of the uphill ski. And THAT what Bob Barnes sees as a negative movement since to be BALANCED over the LTE of the uphill ski necessarily requires the center of mass to move over that ski.

I suspect what you are talking about is never to balance over that LTE of the uphill ski but rather when you release the weight on the downhill ski you are out of balance and could not stay on the LTE for three seconds because you would fall over. So as your center mass moves toward the inside of the new turn edge change must instantaniously take place in order to have something underfoot, and that is the engaged edge of that ski.

No one here makes it clear that you cannot linger on the LTE of the uphill ski without the negative movement of shifting weight uphill over that ski in order to avoid falling over. So in the furutre when you talk about that just explain that removing the weight from the downhill ski of the finishing turns put the weight MOMENTARILY of the LTE of the uphill ski and puts the body out of balance MOMENTARILY as the center mass moves downhill and until the ski edge engages.

And don't fret, Bob Barnes, like Harald Harb is a superb skier.

....Ott
Ott Gangl
 
Posts: 451
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 3:16 pm
Location: Ohio, USA via Bavaria

Postby Eddy » Wed Sep 29, 2004 6:02 pm

Shifting to the LTE, is not a body shift toward uphill.

Otto, what BB and the rest of the PSIA boys find negative is everything they don?t understand about skiing, which is huge, so why is anyone surprised they think what people talk about here is negative. They don?t get it. Yet, they say that they model their skiing after the world cup (they wish) which is exactly what transfer to LTE is all about and it comes from WC. Anyway over here, we could care less how or what they find negative, who wants to ski the way they do? I don?t.

You can think anything you want about BB's skiing, but one thing it is not, is like Harald's! I don't think it's a compliment to Harald when you call BB and HH superb, in the same breath.
Eddy
 

Postby Ott Gangl » Wed Sep 29, 2004 7:00 pm

>>>Shifting to the LTE, is not a body shift toward uphill<<<

Isn't that what I said? If it is not, please explain to me how you get weight on the LTE of that ski if it is NOT just a reduction of weight on the other ski and an imediate roll onto the new edge. As I explained above, to sustain weight on the LTE of the uphill ski without imediate edge change you have to shift your body uphill, if instead you just lighten the downhill ski WITHOUT shifting your weight over the uphill ski you MUST IMIDITELY roll onto the new inside edge.

I've seen both HH and BB ski and neither one skis better than the other, slightly different but not better or worse...there are many skiers who ski at that caliber.

....Ott
Ott Gangl
 
Posts: 451
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 3:16 pm
Location: Ohio, USA via Bavaria

Ott - your correct

Postby John Mason » Wed Sep 29, 2004 8:53 pm

Your correct Ott. If you stay on the LTE ultimatly you'll be into a negative movement. But, the key little point in the extended Super Phantom style of turn, where you can be on the LTE more than an instant, is that the turn is still occuring. You can shift to the LTE at the bottom of the turn while the turn forces are still happening. You can put all the pressure you want on that ski because you were and still are uphill from the ski in the turn. That locks that LTE in the snow so that when you do tip the now free foot, you'll just propell yourself over the skis because that locked in and carving LTE acts like a brake. (look at minute 20 and about 10 -30 secons on Harolds 2nd video - it shows this precisely) It's like a slingshot.

What's missing in the wrong understanding of this turn is often people from that camp do not believe your LTE of your inside foot can or should hold all of a turns skiing forces even for an instant. They think that foot will flatten from the pressure. If thats true than the dynamic nature of the SP turn can't happen. I think that's one of the problems in people understanding this turn.

You really can go to the LTE and stand on it without being negative because your still in your old turn at that point. (how long you want to be in this state 1 second, 1/100 of a second, is really up to you - the key is to lock and be carving on the LTE then tip the free foot which can be virtually similtaneous)
Last edited by John Mason on Wed Sep 29, 2004 9:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
John Mason
 
Posts: 1050
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 10:52 pm
Location: Lafayette, Indiana, USA

Question for Eddy

Postby John Mason » Wed Sep 29, 2004 8:57 pm

Eddy wrote:Shifting to the LTE, is not a body shift toward uphill.

Otto, what BB and the rest of the PSIA boys find negative is everything they don?t understand about skiing, which is huge, so why is anyone surprised they think what people talk about here is negative. They don?t get it. Yet, they say that they model their skiing after the world cup (they wish) which is exactly what transfer to LTE is all about and it comes from WC. Anyway over here, we could care less how or what they find negative, who wants to ski the way they do? I don?t.

You can think anything you want about BB's skiing, but one thing it is not, is like Harald's! I don't think it's a compliment to Harald when you call BB and HH superb, in the same breath.


Just curious since you seem to have direct knowledge on this. Many of Bob's comments on Epic only make sense to me if he skis with a stance that is two wide without much concept of one ski balance. Is that true in your opinion?

If not, since you disparaged his sking compared to HH, rather than disparage someone, can you be specific in what aspects of HH's skiing is different and better? This could be helpful for me since Bob thinks he and HH ski the same way technique wise (even though Bob doesn't like the SP turn). Since Bob is at the top of the PSIA ski methodology and Harald is at the top of the PMTS methodology - what is the end result of those styles of skiing from a technique standpoint. This would help me understand where Bob is coming from. ('cause I try to be nice to everyone)
John Mason
 
Posts: 1050
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 10:52 pm
Location: Lafayette, Indiana, USA

PreviousNext

Return to Primary Movements Teaching System

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests