Benni Raich

[BigE]

I gave you my definition of redirection.

That ought to be enough.

[Max_501]

I gave you my definition of redirection.

That ought to be enough.

Fair enough. So based on that I'm guessing you see Benni redirecting but Rocco is not.

[BigE]

Right now, I'm going to bed. Good night.

[jclayton]

This question interests me .

It appears that because the skis change direction in mid air they are being conciously re-directed ( twisted if you like )

The actual physics ( from a previous post by Harald ) is that the skis are turning because after release the control of the upper and midsection of the body combined with the downhill momentum causes the skis to turn .

I.e. if the upper body was leaning up hill the skis would throw the skier directly uphill and he would lose control ( eg- the spectacular photos of Eric Schlopy a couple of seasons ago ) .

So in a way Big -E is correct in that the "unwinding" of the body causes the skis to "re-direct" . It`s a nice thought but skis carving in the air can , I think , be discarded .

Thus the turning of the skis in the air is a result of " unwinding " but the tipping motions and hip control allow the skis to follow their natural path . Adding any conscious ( active as against passive ) twisting motion would cause loss of this control . Precisely what Harald talks about ( I forget exactly which post but it wasn't long ago )

I can't see any leg twsting component at all in the video of Rocca . Balance , upper body control , tipping , weighted releases and perfect "phantom moves " definitely . For me one of the best and aesthetically pleasing slalom runs I have seen . ( It does look like the terrain wasn't as difficult as in the Raich video )

The feeling I get , the rare times it comes together , is that the skis ARE carving in the air .

[Max_501]

I think one of the issues is with the word 'redirection' as it implies that the skier is doing something other than the typical carving movements to turn the skis.

If you are a student and a coach tells you to redirect the skis what are you likely to do?

[h.harb]

Max501 has it absolutely right. If we don?t convey the exact words that we are trying to teach, accurately; the student will get the wrong message.

As Max501 goes on to say, in this particular example, the student will try to redirect the skis, if the coach uses the words or example of a WC skier doing it, (e.g. look this WC skier is redirecting) or if he tells his athlete that he should be redirecting his skis, it?s a mistake.

Just because; due to physics, (energy, momentum and forces) redirect is a natural consequence of releasing quickly, especially with the huge loads and speeds that WC skier produce, it doesn?t mean it should or needs be taught or mentioned. In fact, most racers don?t know how to control ?release redirection?, so it isn?t well controlled.

The skiers at the WC level are trying to stop, reduce and control the energy that redirects the skis, that?s the intent. I don?t understand this mania about proving skis are redirecting; that?s not the issue, the issue is that many instructors are telling skiers they should redirect the skis, because they falsely believe WC skiers are trying to redirect the skis. That?s just poor understanding of skiing.


Why is there so much talk about what we should not do, when clearly there is so much that should be done that works? A coach, to be effective needs to know:
? the intent,
? the actions of the forces
? and the physics of skiing
? and the technique to make things work properly

If the coach doesn?t understand these actions and principles, he will misguide and mislead his athletes with inaccurate statements of movement.

[Kiwi]

BigE

I have been following the two points you have been pushing and I must make the following observations.

1. Max501 is correct to pressure you on what you mean by ?redirection?. We need a common lexicon so we can communicate and positively concur or criticise. PMTS provides this and will, I am positive, continue to do so. PMTS is the first system IMO to ensure commonly understood precise definitions are used. This was both long overdue and skiers will be the better for it.

The reason I no longer bother with the Epic site is that a large number of the threads are incomprehensible both grammatically and technically. In part this is because there is no universal understanding of what is being espoused. In the final analysis, the people on the Epic site, in my opinion, can only end up frustrated and confused!!

2. If you honestly believe that the majority of skiers want, and are happy to learn a wedge Christie, in order to ski down a green slope ?top to bottom?, you must be joking. There is no fun or potential in that?only destroyed aspirations. Moreover, it seems to me that the risk of injury is also hightened. [ Ken I am with you and HH on this point 100 percent. ]

Further I find this attitude so deceptive and misleading if you were to go public with it the ramifications would be both severe and swift.

HH you technical explanation is as always illuminating and appreciated.

[BigE]

BigE

I have been following the two points you have been pushing and I must make the following observations.

1. Max501 is correct to pressure you on what you mean by ?redirection?. We need a common lexicon so we can communicate and positively concur or criticise. PMTS provides this and will, I am positive, continue to do so. PMTS is the first system IMO to ensure commonly understood precise definitions are used. This was both long overdue and skiers will be the better for it.

I don't see any problem with the term redirection. I'm not the one using it in a non-standard way.

Should I be using a word that connotes precisely what movment patterns Benni is making? But, since I'm not Benni, I really cannot tell you exactly how he did it. I've made my guess, but of what value is it really?

So in my lexicon, it's redirection. Which carries zero movement pattern information with it, because it'd be presumptuous of me to say more.

2. If you honestly believe that the majority of skiers want, and are happy to learn a wedge Christie, in order to ski down a green slope ?top to bottom?, you must be joking. There is no fun or potential in that?only destroyed aspirations. Moreover, it seems to me that the risk of injury is also hightened. [ Ken I am with you and HH on this point 100 percent. ]

Further I find this attitude so deceptive and misleading if you were to go public with it the ramifications would be both severe and swift.

Tell that to my ski school director. This is not something I made up. It
is something that all 300 instructors were taught, during pre-season training. The summary: "FUN comes first. If the student happens to learn something, that is a bonus."

[stikki987]

The summary: "FUN comes first. If the student happens to learn something, that is a bonus."

The teacher (skiing, or anything else for that matter) that says that is one who is not confident in their ability to teach.

Students hire instructors to...wait for it.... instruct them. If they wanted fun they'd hire a clown.

[BigE]

Like I said: That was from pre-season instructor training. Those were the official words from above.

It also happens to be reflected in the Mission Statement of the CSIA:

To provide a vibrant mountain experience.

How do you see that statement says teaching skiing is the primary focus?

It's simply not. To compare CSIA with PMTS is absurd. The mission of the two organizations are completely different.

[h.harb]

Sorry, I screwed up, I read it too quickly,

I though Big E was comparing the likeness of CSIA to PSIA (not PMTS)

So here is the revision:

Exactly right Big E, the missions (of CSIA and PSIA) are exactly the same, low productive value, high on the hype.

So when does the message get across that it?s not working? Does the return rate from lessons have to drop to 1 in 10 that come back to skiing?

It seems it does and they still might not get it.

[jclayton]

Why does fun and skill have to be mutually exclusive .

As an ex -teacher the best lessons ,where the students learnt the most , were the ones which were well prepared and clear and done with a bit of humour and understanding of the problems .

The lesson which were all fun were cop outs to cover lack of preparation .

PMTS is well presented , clear and one gets the sensation of finally understanding . For all the people in the classes I have seen it has been fun and an extemely "vibrant mountain experience"

Basic educational precepts

Structured classes done in a humane , understanding way were successful and appreciated by the students . Some I came up to me years later to say how they enjoyed their classes

[h.harb]

Jeremy, it?s all based on low expectations of students. After awhile they think they only get students who can?t learn. If you are a CSIA or PSIA instructor and you teach what they train you to teach for years and you never see any real progress, you become a cheerleader, rather than an effective instructor.
Let?s face it, when you see PMTS in action there are immediate, tangible, observable, lasting results .
Even those at to top of these organizations realize they can?t keep skiers in the sport, so the tactics have to change to what they think is the sure solution ?let?s show them how to have fun? when did skiing become fun when the instructor had to become an entertainer with a bunch of platitudes? If I want that kind of fun; I?ll watch Seinfeld or go to a comedy club.

[milesb]

Why not hire strippers to teach?

[BigE]

Excellent idea, miles!