Functional vertical seperation

Here are some of the best threads moved here for easier finding. (note - threads here are closed)

Postby HeluvaSkier » Sun Nov 06, 2005 10:54 pm

Harald, I am new here, previously a lurker, but I decided to register so I wouldn't be a lurker any longer. I started reading here mostly out of curiosity (no I haven't read your books yet, but the most recent one is intriging to me).

Now I am assuming that the pictures are designed to tie race technique to PMTS by means of a functional stance. I have two additons to input into this idea. I agree that a functional stance is important. In racing it provides you the balance and control that you need through the course. What would you say that each of these skiers is doing in transition (make an educated guess, no one "really" knows since they aren't a sequence or video)? The main thing I would focus on is what changes in their stance width... if anything, and how significant of a change it is.

The second, and possibly more important point to note, is that not every skier is doing the exact same thing with their upper body and pelvis. This is something that we have disussed a lot recently on epic (yes I'm one of "them"). Mainly the focus has been the use of (and to what extent) or lack of counter in turns that ski racers are making. I have watched you more recent videos of you skiing and there is a significant amount of upper body counter in your turns. This isn't a bad thing, since they are pretty sick turns, but is one place I would note a difference between the teachings of racing 8 years ago and what direction race coaching is heading in recently.

Of course, the main goal of any instruction (in my opinion) is to add to your repitoire of skills, which is why I am here. A lot of what is here - especially dealing with functional stance seems common to me. As a racer however I do not allow my stance to significantly close as I move through the turn transition. I have noticed that in PMTS this is not a concern, based on the functional stance arguement. When in a race course, is there a point where keeping your functional stance through the transition actually slows down your transition (meaning too much time taken between turns - causing the racer to become late)? There is a lot more to the equation than what your stance is in transition (fore/aft position, movement forward or down the fall line etc), but I am very interested in your thoughts on the subject.

Later

GREG
Discipline is the refining fire by which talent becomes ability.

www.youtube.com/c/heluvaskier
User avatar
HeluvaSkier
 
Posts: 1479
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2005 7:29 pm
Location: Western New York

question on your question

Postby John Mason » Mon Nov 07, 2005 1:08 am

Heluvaskier - is your question how far does the horizontal difference on the snow seperation change to wide through transistion? In these pictures the horizontal seperation between the legs is nil while the horizontal seperation of the tracks on the snow is pretty large. These shots exhibit vertical seperation of the legs which results in horizontal seperation between the skis because of the angle of the turn.

Or - put another way - the legs in this shot are actually quite narrow. Is your question as this turn ends and the skier enters neutral over the skis at transition how wide apart are the skis? I don't understand your time-delay question and it's relation to stance width. I'm thinking it assumes that if you are narrow at the top of the turn then you have little ablity to push off making the next turn's entry slow. But that only means the new turn was 'late' and the skier didn't use the energy from the last turn. So a clarification question is what about width at transition makes a transition slow or fast - why would it matter?

The second question seems to be where does counter come into skiing these days. Obviously in the pictures there is lots of counter-balance. The actual amount of counter being used varies considerably to some to none between these skiers. (counter-balance lots - hips pointing to the outside of the turn to increase edging (counter) not the same between examples shown)

There was a post on Epic showing Bode as an example of not so much counter when by my eye it was about 20plus degrees of counter. The discussion focused on where his shoulders were pointing rather than where his hips were pointing in relation to the skis.

Interesting questions.

Question for HeluvaSkier - in your view of these pics do you agree that the skiers are about at narrow as they can be in their stance width? Many skiers I see (non-wc types) that race these days exhibit a wider stance (in the sense of in shots like these they will have a triangle shape not a direct line), are not as one footed in their pressure as the skiers in these shots, and have no counter or are actually even anti-counter (strong steering rather than edging to get the turn done)?

One more paraphrase: you accept that these shots are exhibiting a very narrow stance - what is the width of that stance at transition for these skiers likely to be

and

What is the use of counter on today's wc

If I'm not understanding your questions please clarify. Thanks for posting btw. I'm skiing Holiday Valley in January for 4 to 5 days if you want to get together for some turns.

HH - those pics look pretty much the same as your posting icon
John Mason
 
Posts: 1050
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 10:52 pm
Location: Lafayette, Indiana, USA

Sorry about the length of this post

Postby Harald » Mon Nov 07, 2005 2:01 pm

Heluvaskier, the last thing I want to do is discourage anyone from participating on our forum, I want to encourage you to participate and keep an open mind, so you can energize your skiing and fulfill your motivations with efficient movements.


To answer your questions (John asked you the questions I would also like answered) so I don?t have to repeat myself or the responses that are already up on the forum. I want to be specific, to the point and clear in answering your questions. My first question then, to you is, have you read my recent posts? Particularly in the last two months, about stance width, movements relevant to skier level and ability? I also don?t understand your question about the slowing through transition. Slowing has to do with resisting the forces. If the forces are not available extension of the uphill inside leg of the old turn is necessary to move the CG into the turn. This is a slow transition and inefficient.

We eliminate that move early on in the PMTS program. I see this movement hanging on in almost all the Masters racers, instructors and young ski racers on the slopes. So what gives? Are the kids, masters, etc., not understanding or are they being taught inefficient movements?

I will begin by commenting that stance width is an individual situation based on numerous factors. Everyone is looking for the easy answer, and the answer I hear and see the most these days on the slopes from coaches and instructors is, ?place your feet hip or shoulder width?. Do I disagree with this coaching, yes?

The issue surrounding skiing stagnation is the lack of attaining balance and maintaining balance. A normal or narrow stance is not the issue for most skiers. When I see a need for working on a slightly wider stance, it is not because I want them to ski in a wide stance. I make the, ?stand wider? recommendation for those who are locking their feet together and blocking their vertical separation. I let the feet fall where they may in transition; I have them increase the vertical separation as they drop into the turn. I have numerous approaches I use to increase body lean angle and vertical separation. My new book will unlock the secrets of creating high edge and body angles. We use these technique in our camp coaching already.

Emphasis on wide stance, which is the traditional approach and has been around for the last seven or eight years, doesn?t lead to high edge angles, it leads to stagnation. If it worked we'd have more elegant skiers on the slopes.

Short story: Last year at this time I took some runs with Eric Schlopy, I skied ahead on one run, for him to see the transition. When we stopped he commented, ?I never believed anyone could get to such high angles with such a narrow stance. Now Eric has a narrow stance, my response was, ?A narrow stance does not impede high edge angles, what impedes high edge angles is lack of balance.?

Michael Von Gruenigen was asked ?How wide do you try to stand? His answer was with a demonstration, standing on the slope, he let his DH ski dangle, then he set it on the snow. He responded, ?This is how wide I leave my feet on the snow.?

From this example I am not imposing a predetermined stance width that everyone should use, it is one approach, there are many. Every skier has their own needs for balance and therefore stance width should be based on the energy generated in the turn and by the rebound from the bent ski, and energy stored by the body and the skier?s ability to use that energy in transition. Why is it that rather than focusing on important aspects of skiing like these everyone is paranoid about stance width?


Any teaching involving stance widths I introduce, are based on the ability of the skier to balance, create energy and use energy to transition. In my estimation there are far too many junior racers, Masters Racers, and recreational skiers skiing with a stance that is holding them from optimizing their skiing ability and development.

Diana, my partner, skis with a narrow stance, judging by most remarks made to her by coaches. Yet, she skis faster than all the Masters Women and she sets the fastest overall time in many races, besting very competent men Masters Racers, including men who are in the thirty to forty year age group. She was not a racer in her youth, she has no background in racing and she has no time to train. She beats all the women who have in many cases college careers in skiing and many men who used to be FIS racers. How does one explain this? Many will say she had hidden talent. This is not the answer, as many skiers have hidden talent, but never achieve what Diana has achieved. When I met her she did not show skiing talent. She was mediocre, yet Fully certified in PSIA. She did not know how to balance, reenter, counter or counter balance. Four years of coaching yielded a fastest run overall at the Copper GS race, including men. A year later she beat all the men at the Schaller Cup, at Winter Park, a difficult full length GS. Diana still has no race background and limited training opportunities compared to her competitors. She yearns for training, especially when she sees all the other Masters out on the race slopes training during the season.

I attribute her success to her determination and excellent skiing technique. How did she acquire this technique? She learned how to ski race by using PMTS techniques and she did it with maybe three days per season of coaching. Diana is now also, one of the best technical ski coaches in the business. She is a better coach then many of my colleagues who I coached with at the FIS and National Team level for over twenty years.

Often a pendulum swings too far in one direction; the wide stance pendulum is pegged in the wrong direction. Why does this happen? It happens because the coaches? education is limited and has no direction. The last twenty years the same director was in place at US Coaches education. Very little real education was achieved. The same situation exists in TTS techniques.

There is a dangerous trend in TTS to relate WC skiing positions from photos into techniques. When I demonstrate WC photos, I relate techniques of PMTS demonstrated by the WC skiers to the same achievable skiing situations for a learning skier, for their level.

The WC photos I demonstrate always demonstrate the essence of needs for a developing skier, balance over the inside edge of the stance ski. I also point out that the inside ski is tipped and the leg is bend under the body. These are movements that we use to strengthen a skiers technique and balance. How many coaches still focus on driving the outside knee without any emphasis on the tipping the inside ski, almost all? Inside ski tipping movements bring the CG inside the turn, balance is maintained on the outside ski, this is most important.

PSIA says that its techniques are techniques used by WC skiers. This is a ridicules statement. When a TTS author or skier uses a WC skier caught in a very wide stance to support their teaching methods applied to their intermediate skiers, I shudder.

The WC skier knows how to balance, get pressure to the inside edge, transition with the forces of the turn and hold balance to the inside edge. Intermediate skiers do not. The forces and circumstances for the intermediate are completely different. The techniques of the WC skier are not applicable.

I never say PMTS skiers should ski the way WC (world cup) skiers look. I say that PMTS techniques and movements develop a skier to ski with the proficiency of a WC skier. In the process of learning these movements, balancing needs and balance experience will be varied, the stance can be different and the upper body is different, especially relative to the same position during the arc as a WC skier.

To say you are teaching the same technique used by WC skiers is ridicules, it can?t be, if it were, you would have to be teaching a WC skier or someone with world cup capabilities. In PMTS we teach the fundamentals of balance used by WC skiers. This is not semantics, this is the difference between, ?understanding what a skier needs to move quickly through the ranks from intermediate, to advanced, to expert? and ?not understanding the dynamics of the sport.?

Teaching a wide stance to an intermediate skier means, they are excluded from the essence of the sport, which are balance, effortless transfers from turn energy. What an instructor who teachs wide stance does is send a skier through a long program of up movements, push offs and ski pivoting. This is not up for discussion, as I see it everyday on the slopes and in my camps. If one don?t recognize it on the slopes and if instructors don?t recognize the damage of these techniques, I can only feel bad for them and worst for your students.

More later on countered hips and counter balancing, two themes that are fully developed in my new book. If you look at the WC photo links I posted, you will see different approaches to counter balancing by different successful racers. These differences are not different techniques, they are responses to the skis? positions relative to the radius in the turns. You will often see the same respones by recreational skiers.
"Maximum Skiing information, Minimum BS
Harald
 
Posts: 1181
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 10:36 pm
Location: Dumont

Postby A.L.E » Mon Nov 07, 2005 5:12 pm

It's interesting to be on this PMTS learning journey, one of the things that attracted me originally to the system was asthetics. The view of exaggerated wide stance skiers on the mountain left me nonplussed. I had had numerous lessons where similar feet positions were encouraged. At my protestations the instructor would typically ask me to stand stationary with my feet together and proceed to pull me over off balance. "Get them apart and lets try again shall we ?". "Yeah, yeah I get the message", and off we would go.

Having only had a single day of PMTS alignment/instruction, I have gathered much of my impressions of PMTS from reading the books whereby I had formed a view that PMTS was pretty much all about a very narrow stance.

That initial view was challenged sometime ago by a couple of vidoes of HH on SkierSynergy's web site where Harald's stance making medium radius turns is considerably wider than shown within the Books. These current discussions, particularly the post above, have also given me a far clearer view of where PMTS is going to take me.

It is now obvious that Books 1&2 has the student in a very narrow stance as part of the learning of balance and the PMTS movements. The opening up somewhat of a skiers stance is part of the "final" phase of the skier gaining the ability to achieve very high edge angles. The movements of the feet will be no different from what I have learned in beginning of PMTS with Book 2 and the fundamental balancing skills learnt early will be my solid base for developing those angles.

My week in Fernie this season with the Aussie Harb instructors (not forgetting local Max Sherwood) will be the next stage of this PMTS journey. It cannot come quickly enough.

No snow here in Sydney today. :(
User avatar
A.L.E
 
Posts: 406
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 12:18 am
Location: sydney australia

well said

Postby Harald » Mon Nov 07, 2005 7:21 pm

Amen and thank you, too bad instructors don?t read and absorb as well as you do.

By the way, Max will be here with us next week. We are holding a training week for PMTS trainers and Harb Ski Systems instructors.

Diana and I will be at Fernie for the March week, hope to see you there..
"Maximum Skiing information, Minimum BS
Harald
 
Posts: 1181
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 10:36 pm
Location: Dumont

Postby A.L.E » Mon Nov 07, 2005 8:41 pm

I skied with Max and he is certainly capable of very high edge angles, given that he is an ex-racer and Canadian National race coach that seems logical I guess.

Peter Stone has been brushing up on his racing stuff this season in Oz, I suspect so that he can keep up with Max in Fernie.

Unfortunately I will miss your Fernie visit by a few weeks, I'm there in the 1st week. Planning on a camp to the US in 2007 as well as a possible race camp next June, Max would be a good coach for that week at Mt Hood.

If you remember say Hi to Max from Ian & Lisa from OZ.
User avatar
A.L.E
 
Posts: 406
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 12:18 am
Location: sydney australia

Postby HeluvaSkier » Mon Nov 07, 2005 10:52 pm

I understand that the how PMTS teaches is to use a functional stance that in theory (and in practice as I have observed in the videos of PMTS skiers) narrows in the transition. I have watched video of Harald (sorry but it is the best skiing I have to go by) from what I am assuming his picture (the one that he posts with) was taken from. The turns are very good. The reason that I bring up the narrowing of the stance in transition, and the question of whether it is commonplace on the WC (or in ski racing in general) is that if you are narrowing your stance you are bringing your new outside ski (assuming in transition) farther down the fall line than if you maintained a wider stance and higher line (assuming in a race course).

A lot of recent ski racing that I have watched displays a disctinct separation between (no offense) the younger guys and the older guys. Without seeing who is who, you can usually tell. If you need proof of this watch the 2003 US nationals men's SL. Compare Chip Knights run with Cochran's run. Both had fairly quick runs (top 5 - i think with Cochran winning), but there was a significant difference in their skiing. Knight uses more of a finctional stance as PMTS teaches from what I can remember, and Cochran was very "new school" keeping nearly the same stance through the entire course - meaning he used a function stance in the turns but rarely closed it up very much in transition.

Racers in general will always use a functional stance regardless of who you look at on the WC. Very few WC'ers will be using too wide of a stance, because they know better. The real question at hand is, if the separation in transition should exist or not. In terms of racing its gives you more stability and "options" when transitioning. With a closed stance in transition, yes you move into the next turn very smoothly, but if you need to set up for the next turn early (thinking in SL) you have no options at all other than to get on that outside ski and hope you can carve it around.

I will agree that too wide of a stance is detrimental to the learning process, but it seems to me that once at a higher level with your skiing that sticking to a stance that closes at every transition actually hinders what you can do with the next turn. I am certain that this has been covered in other threads, so instead of telling the same story over again point me in the right direction. I have tried to search recent discussions out but I am certain that I have missed a few... plus I don't always have the time to read every detail of every discussion since they can get VERY in depth.

My comment regarding the transition was regarding your options as far as movement is concerned if you adopt a narrow stance in transition. Is it possible/common for skiers to drift into the back seat if they are not employing proper forward movements (yes I know your teaching takes care of that potentially). Clearly in all of the videos that I have seen with Harald skiing (the ones in a red and white coat) he is not drifting back and is always moving forward. I would expect nothing less... but it is clearly apparent that in transition you have one option... and that is to carve into/through your next turn.

Now on to the upper body. In Harald's photo and the sequences and videos (that I think were shot about the same time) there is significant counter ebing used. The shoulders and pelvis aren't facing the direction of the turn very often. Technically there is nothing wrong with that. Iw ould argue however, that while it is one skill used in racing recently, it is not the only skill used in ski racing. In fact there are a lot of interesting things going on with skier's upper bodies in those photos. Each is using a different amount of counter in their skiing, and with some it is even non-existent. I am very curious what you feel the application of counter or lack of it is to modern ski racing.

I know stance is a big thing in PMTS and a lot of its ideas are focused on it... or at least people get caught up on stance. Usually, unelss it is causing a problem, stance will take care of itself. Upper body and its manipulation is a huge part of skiing and working on stance only will never help a skier master its use. Just to let you know, I am not an instructor, or a coach, not trained in teaching anything other than how to tie your shoes, but I am a ski racer.

Let me know what you think.

Later

GREG
Discipline is the refining fire by which talent becomes ability.

www.youtube.com/c/heluvaskier
User avatar
HeluvaSkier
 
Posts: 1479
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2005 7:29 pm
Location: Western New York

Stance Width

Postby Mike C » Mon Nov 07, 2005 11:18 pm

I have had the stance width debate more times than I care to. My normal stance is a "functionally narrow" stance (at neutral) that does not inhibit, but aids in efficient movement patterns. It changes as the need dictates. I have been amazed when someone suggests widening my stance (a "neutral" stance), but cannot tell me why. When I'm training other instructors and they make that observation of a student or instructor, I simply ask them "what efficient movements is that person's stance inhibiting?" That is the problem when people don't understand movements vs. platforms. It's always interesting to see people who advocate "wide stance" without purpose then not being able to achieve high edge angles, particularly those required in racing. They many times end up in a ''park and ride". That's not to be dogmatic and say that it's the stance, usually the lack of knowledge of movements replaced by the cure all of the wide stance.

One of the common explanations I hear from race coaches (which I am) is that the wide stance is faster in transition since it allows the quicker movement of the knees and rotating them towards the next turn. They believe that retraction of the inside leg, aka vertical separation, is too slow and dropping the hip in is passe'. I won't even begin to debate the myriad of biomechanically incorrect assumptions and errors that even lead up to these conclusions, that could be another 10 threads. But it's clear to see that many times the stance issue is one that is really more about physical appearance and that persons belief of good technique, rather than the actual reality of what is happening with a particular skier. That is the difference between using movement analysis to assess a skier and using "dogma".

When I discussed the knee rotation / stance issue with one coach I was working with, He believes that rotating the knees will put the skis on edge and so there is no need to emphasize the movements of the feet since they have to be incorporated in this style of "knee steering". I simply lifted one leg, rotated the knee (femur rotation in the hip socket) and asked how much edge angle I just created and whether that movement would cause more or less carve at the top of the turn. He had no answer. As you could imagine, the stance issue was somewhat moot at that point as neither of us had 6 hours to try to change everything he thought about skiing. That's where many people are in the stance issue and why something so simple ends up being so drawn out and never ending. It's not the stance as much as the concepts under the surface. The stance is simply the catch phrase.

As Goldylocks once said, "this one is too narrow, this one is too wide, but this one is just right for me".
Mike C
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 11:47 pm
Location: Wisconsin

Postby Mike C » Mon Nov 07, 2005 11:51 pm

HeluvaSkier wrote:
The real question at hand is, if the separation in transition should exist or not. In terms of racing its gives you more stability and "options" when transitioning. With a closed stance in transition, yes you move into the next turn very smoothly, but if you need to set up for the next turn early (thinking in SL) you have no options at all other than to get on that outside ski and hope you can carve it around.

I will agree that too wide of a stance is detrimental to the learning process, but it seems to me that once at a higher level with your skiing that sticking to a stance that closes at every transition actually hinders what you can do with the next turn.


Greg,

What is funtionally wide and what is functionally narrow? How much separates the two? You state functionally wide as if there is no narrowing occuring in transition. High level skiers and racers can have a couple of feet between big toes (vertical separation) at the apex of the turn. I don't know anyone using a 2 foot wide "functional" stance at transition, hence some closing of that gap is bound to occur.

If the answer to my second question is maybe 6", what in the heck are we talking about then?

You describe both the wide and narrow stance as functional but then state that the narrow stance limits or hinders options. That is not a functional stance.

In order to understand what you are looking for, you must be able to answer:

1) How does a wider stance create more stability, if at all, and is that a result of a stance or movements?

2) What are the additional "options" you believe a wider stance gives you? Is that a result of movement inconsistancies or inefficient movements?

If you read the discussion I had with a race coach in my previous post about why he advocates a wide stance and those are the types of options you are talking about, then we will need to leave stance width and get on to the real movement issues.

Mike
Mike C
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 11:47 pm
Location: Wisconsin

My opinion still counts

Postby Heyoka » Tue Nov 08, 2005 1:30 am

That's right. HH doesn't want us to look like WC racers, he only wants us to ski with the proficiency of WC racers. It's been that way since day 1.

Also, let's be sure we're not arguing here. We don't argue here, it's a waste of time. Helluva, if you don't dig this stuff, then hit the road. Matter of fact, we'll Gong you. But don't be coming around here and debating. What no one gets, is that we don't give a sheet. We found something we like, no love, we're sticking with it. We don't care if you approve or not.

Then, you just can't show up and take on Harald. That don't work either. Harald shouldn't have to waste time, answering anything else but PMTS stuff. That's why we're here. Harald is kind enough to give us his time, what he writes helps us. He only has so much time. If you don't dig PMTS, don't hang here. If you're gonna hang, don't be sideways.

There's a place where you can debate about ski technique till the cows come home. It's called epicski.com. This aint that. We don't debate ski technique here. Yeah sure, every now and then I'll bring up the stuff like with Dranow. But that's not this.

The agenda 'round here is clear and simple. We aim to get better at PMTS, nothing but PMTS. 10-4

Now I'm gonna step aside.
Last edited by Heyoka on Tue Nov 08, 2005 1:51 am, edited 3 times in total.
Heyoka
 
Posts: 213
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 7:06 am
Location: Hole in the Sky

Postby RadRab » Tue Nov 08, 2005 7:29 am

Bs"D
I'm really suppossed to be re-retired, but had to post this in leaving.
Heyoka! what happenned to you man?! I know you mean well, but...Helluvaskier wasn't just arguing.

I really think that he asked legitamate questions, not with the intention of finding legitamate fault with PMTS, but with - still unconvinced - sincere, deisre to come to understand what would be superior for his use.
He asked based on what he sees, or personally perceives, in Harald, the World Cup, and his own experience and theories. He has also admitted that his interest is in racing, not just free skiing, and theorizes that maybe there would be a difference in advise.
He has a preliminary opinion, but the questions are real for him, and he has clearly not decided a conclusion. He ends with: "What do you think?", not "Take that you fools".
You can't ask for more than that in a prospective PMTS adherent. And, as far as Harald and his time go, I think that he wouldn't mind if all questions were put in terms no less than these, and probably also knows that such skiers/questioners are indeed his potential good students.
So, TAKE YOUR FRIEKIN QUAALUDES, ok big buddy?
RadRab
 

no problem here

Postby John Mason » Tue Nov 08, 2005 8:50 am

I'm the moderator and I like the whole tenor of this discussion. Hellava's fine.

I'm just really enjoying reading the posts by so many knowledgable and experienced race coaches in one thread.

Mike C's comments really put things in perspective. There is a trend in new think to widen the stance with no purpose. What I take HH meaning about widening to a functional stance for someone like Heyoka is that you can't do veritical seperation if your boots are going to hang up on each other. When Paul does bumps etc, he is not getting angles that require vertical seperation. But when you need to have independent leg action that type of locked together stance won't allow it.

That example of the instructor having the student widen the stance then pushing on the shoulder of the student to demonstrate why a wider stance is great in a lateral push off sport like raquetball. In fact, I did that very example with one of my employees today to introduce her to the proper racquetball stance for most effiecient abilty to induce movement in any direction. This is wider than shoulder width and knees bent and balance on the balls of your feet. Pushing on the shoulder shows how stable this position is. What the H?ll does this have to do with learning to ski!!! Stability over balance to what purpose?

One of the things I can see is if pointing the knees into the turn is what you want to do for edging then being wider allowing for that movement pattern might be a plus. I see people coming down the slopes with this wide knee pointed style a lot. But often their CM remains between their skis. This looks entirely different coming down the hill. But, the knee angulation this induces can increase the chance of knee injury as is overall a very weak skeletal position.

When I was at snowcrest last year they had a PSIA III cert demoing on the deck. This is specifically what he was teaching people. Widen the stance (not a little but shoulder width like) and point with the knees to turn. He had just come back from some sort of national conference and described this as the main thing being taught at the conference. So I guess this is what people are talking about for race type skiing, yet I don't actually see much of this in WC skiers pictures.

Anyway - great discussion. PMTS does not teach anything like was being taught on the deck. The PSIA III cert stemmed all of his turns on there btw. I got on it and just did my thing and he called the store owner over and said look at that (I was actually parallel and not stemming and getting angles) and the owner told him I had only been skiing a year but HH was my coach. I wasn't doing what the PSIA III cert was teaching but he liked the results he was seeing.

I was bike riding this weekend on a ride with a gal that skis a lot. I described how I ski and she said that's how she skis too but she arrived at it naturally. - Stand and Balance mainly on the outside ski while removing pressure and laterally tipping the inside ski. That core of natural skiing is what PMTS is all about 'beit self discovered or taught. That's a ton different than a wide stance and knee pointing for creating and managing turns.
John Mason
 
Posts: 1050
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 10:52 pm
Location: Lafayette, Indiana, USA

Postby HeluvaSkier » Tue Nov 08, 2005 9:46 am

Thank you for the replies. Just to note, I did not come here to argue with anyone. I would prefer not to get hung up on the stance issue any longer. In my original thinking I was assuming a transition similar to what Rick pointed out with the cross through. If you use a cross under without the pivot would naturally not close up your stance? Would it matter?

Anyhow, I am really more interested in the upper body comments and when, how and why to employ various "techniques."

Later

GREG
Discipline is the refining fire by which talent becomes ability.

www.youtube.com/c/heluvaskier
User avatar
HeluvaSkier
 
Posts: 1479
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2005 7:29 pm
Location: Western New York


Return to Classic Threads

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron