I figured you had to be at the magic age number from some other comments about lift fee prices.
I wish I got into skiing earlier. I started at 48. The thought of skiing always scared me, but my son (21) got me to try it last March.
I think there are functional differences between what is taught. But, if a person is happy with their results, why should I get them to change. I have not been exposed to that many teachers, but I have talked to a lot of friends that ski and skied with them this year and some of these friends have have skied for years. Some of these friends are "terminal intermediates". They ski and wear their knees out because they were taught and do turn mainly with outside leg steering actions. On the other hand some of my ski friends are not "terminal intermediates" and use some variation of ski tipping to turn.
I do think that not all teaching systems or methods are the same or as productive. Technique has changed over the years. The ones that use tipping to turn from any source seem the most effective on the new ski designs.
I have two family members that will take a lot of convincing to ski again because of their discomfort and impression that skiing is hard work. They were taught what in this country is most common at the resort based schools to wedge and turn by pressing the big toe of their outside ski. When I brought this up at Epic lots of people, PSIA people, said that was a bad instructor. But this is normal first instruction from what I have seen.
What HH has brought to the table, and I don't know how unique it is, is a way of going direct to parallel from the very first turns in a safe and easy way. I was skeptical of this till I went skiing with a client friend of mine that is not that athletic (at all) and has big alignment issues and not much in the way of balancing skills. HH had him doing his first parallel turns in the first 1/2 hour. It would have been easier if my friend didn't have so many counter productive habits to unlearn.
I think this acceptance of a wedge based progression by most of the schools in this country is what drives HH batty. I'm not sure its not a legitimate critisizm. Perhaps HH can relate the story in his own words about how the national demo team was split up and they did comparisons with real 1st time students following what he recommened vs what is normally taught. After the first of this where the HH side of the fence group was doing far better, they swapped students. Basically this objective test showed the strength of a PMTS style approach even back then with new students. Even though this was effective and demonstrated as such, PSIA still does not endorse a methodology. Yet even though they don't endorse a methodology, the bad, less effective methodology is the one most taught and at many resort based schools PMTS instructors or PSIA direct to parallel instructors can not follow those methods in a group lesson without being in trouble. I think all these things are what creates the "conflict".
As you have said and HH says to, he did not invent the movements being taught. What HH teaches is very similar to what Lito teaches in his book. It's very similar to what I was taught at Race Camp last summer. In all three cases, we were taught to tip to turn. All three places emphsize a narrow stance and alternate leg skiing. Bob Barnes is very similar in what he teaches to PMTS in his "perfect turn" description. He differs in views on stance and recommends outside leg steering to "shape" the turn.
It's the approach to beginners where everything has big differences from what I have seen. At the higher levels there is more overlap then people on either side would like to think. In HH's methods he focuses strongly on the philosophical idea of what is the best "external cue" to give the student. By having good external cues people can better self coach themselves when they are out practicing on their own as well as pick up the movement easier. While put your weight on the outside ski, vs lift and tip the inside ski may result in the same movement, both Bob Barnes and HH and Lito come down on the lift and tip being better as that encourages the body to fall towards that side. The idea of putting weight on the outside ski may make many people actual move the body towards that outside ski, which results in the CM moving up the hill.
But for some people, in their place in their turns, maybe they are collapsing both legs so need the thought stand on that outside leg more.
So, I agree with much of your post, but I do still see some problems with how the majority of ski instruction appears to be taught in this country. It does not get people to parallel until after many levels and leaves many habits to unlearn. If it's not the majority then I'm misinformed. It just seems like the majority from what I have been exposed to. But I've only done this for just over a year. So, what do I know.
I'm getting the impression this gap in ski instruction is not just here in the USA.
I picked up an English ski magazine a few months ago. It had a feature article about the value of ski instruction by interviewing progressing students and summerizing their lesson experience. In one gal's case, she went over some things she was taught mainly about body position in relation to turns. The gal spoke a lot of using leg steering to initiate turns. She ended her writeup with a comment about "now if my knees just didn't hurt so much after a few hours I could ski more". I guess the idea of tipping to turn is not universal yet.
Oh, that 3% comment got me in trouble too. But it's interesting, a recent Epic ski post sites a study that only 3 % of people on the hill actually even EVER carve their turns. That pretty much matches what I see on the hill. Most people are not students of skiing trying to improve. The vast majority are casual skiers that have not even had a lesson of any kind. Doesn't take that much work to get to the upper echolons of skiing.
Now within that top few percent, the range of skiing and room for improvement is still enormous. So when a SCSA says they are in the top 3% they are being accurate, but that still doesn't mean they are good or have arrived or anything like that. I know I'm my worst critic. I'm very hard on myself. So even if I'm better than most of the mediocroty I see on the hill, I still have years of improvement to go.
That's why I'm so sad all the snow is melting
(but that's what carvers are for - but I don't have 3000 foot verticals around my neighborhood to play in)
Well - there is a long and rambling post - but Ott..
Those are very interesting shots and illustrative of how things have changed. It looks like in the earlier ones you really have to be extreme to get an edge. You aren't working near as hard by the last one. (I like that animated gif)
I hope this post explains better my own opinions on the subject and defines the controversy as I understand it at this point.