 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Look here. Don't think you can get a better system of grading.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
It's no good having the most finely grained classification if people can't judge their ability accurately. I can look back at runs where I think I was poo-poo hot (any video footage doesn't necessarily tell the same tale) and, if I'm honest, runs in similar circumstances where I was absolute cr@p. Having more levels isn't going to help me judge my ability.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
laundryman, Nope. but it's a start. On SCGB holidays, there's the dreaded grading given out by the reps/guides. That goes back to the Club, so that they know about your ability next time you take a Club holiday. It seems to work. I've not seen a better system of grading. Good ski schools give out something similar - but the Club system is generally publically accessible as some sort of universal measure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Nick Zotov, not too keen on either the terminology (advanced intermediate? cough...) or the general impression I'm left with that the so-called advanced intermediate is closer to being the complete skier than he is to his beginnings - which is nonsense. On a scale of 1 to 10 I would put the AI as described at around level 2 to 3!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Zotov, To expand on my last post, easiski said elsewhere that the difference between her - a BASI 1 with equivalence - and a World Cup skier or leading freestyler is at least as much as between her and a beginner. And I can think of a number of Alps-resident 6 year olds that would qualify under the "expert on and off piste" categorisation according to the Ski Club's description of skills needed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The SCGB grading is a good one.
However, when I skied with a SCGB rep in Utah last year he mistook the ability to ski fast and stay upright with being able to ski!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
a better start place may be to ask who cares? why's there a need to categorise?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
PG, Have to agree with that (though maybe a 4  )
All these scales do seem to compress the upper levels into a very small space. For example Mrs H is a very good skier and is a qualified instructor, which I guess makes her a 10 on the S&R scale. I am probably a better skier than she is (hope she doesn't read this ot there'll be trouble  ) and I will ski pretty much anywhere in any conditions. I would however rate myself somewhere mid scale, I ski better than a whole lot of people, but there are a _whole lot_ who ski much better than me. I spent a lot of time skiing with various instructors (all high end ones) who range from extremely good (if I ever ski that well I'll be happy) to outrageously good (the Warren Miller video (they really were!), ex FIS/WC, top of the ski school) types, and also just saw lots of people skiing crazy lines extremely well.
I also drew the line when the Extremely Canadian coach said on looking at skiing Bushrat on Blackcomb, "if you miss the turn, I'll rugby tackle you so you don't go off the cliff!" - other people I skied with had no problem with this! 
Besides I think it's pretty hard to grade yourself, and fit yourself into a profile. The Dave Murray Camp coaches had it right, they didn't bother asking people to put themselves in groups, they just stood everyone at the top of the mountain and watched them ski down before putting them in a group - this resulted in a few bruised egos 
If you have to have a scale, the ski club guide is better in that it seperates on and off piste.
Last edited by snowHeads are a friendly bunch. on Tue 17-05-05 9:48; edited 3 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
ise, the only reason I care is that stupid systems like this often result in people having a grossly inaccurate opinion of their own ability - which can be dangerous, both for them and me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| PG wrote: |
| ise, the only reason I care is that stupid systems like this often result in people having a grossly inaccurate opinion of their own ability - which can be dangerous, both for them and me. |
exactly, so we should ban them 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
Nick Zotov, the SCGB grading system, like the S&R one, still loads the bottom end with levels to flatter egos by apparrent rapid advancement, and is just as flawed. The only difference is the piste/off-piste split, which may or may not be helpful. The last 3 SCGB holidays I've been on, I was graded Purple+, Gold-, and Gold, and I'm a decent holiday skier, but I see other holiday skiers who are better than me all the time, and the true experts like instructors are on a different level altogether.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
Nick Zotov, my comment wasn't aimed specifically at the SCGB system. I think the point you make is valid and in-line with mine: that others need to judge your ability on some scale. That's one of the reasons we go back to the same outfit for instruction time after time. They know exactly what each of has to work on from the first minute of the first lesson.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
I Think they are both different, but both acceptable. I can put myself firmly in a category on each scale which surely is the purpose of having a scale. Intermediate on piste in SCGB, & 6 in the S&R
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| ise wrote: |
| PG wrote: |
| ise, the only reason I care is that stupid systems like this often result in people having a grossly inaccurate opinion of their own ability - which can be dangerous, both for them and me. |
exactly, so we should ban them |
Or rename them! Suggestions for the "Advanced Intermediate"? How about:
| Quote: |
| "Beginner Plus": Competent on reds even if you look absolutely terrible to the practised eye. You begin to realise just how inadequate you are as soon as the conditions are one degree less than perfect in terms of snow condition or visibility. You are generally speaking one of the most dangerous people on the piste - you think you've got the hang of it so end up skiing too fast and have far more near misses than total beginners as a result. You like to talk about your newly acquired off piste abilities as if thrashing through the snow within a couple of metres of the piste for a minute or two a day without falling over means you are an ace away from tackling your first couloir. |
Last edited by Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person on Tue 17-05-05 9:56; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
Thinking about it, I guess once again it's all about marketing on the S&R scale.
If you really are a level 10 (ie a professional) would you be buying skis from snow and rock? Probably not as you'd have some sort of deal with the manufacturers directly and not be wanting to pay full whack at S&R
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
stuarth, i have done the Murray camp quite a few times, and seem to remember they talk about levels 4, 5 and 6, with the majority of people in the 5 category. I suspect that most recreational skiers would fit in these three categories as far as they were concerned. Such a simple grading sysstem has never dampened my enjoyment of their camps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
To get started, here is the original S&R scale which actually, now i re-read it, isn't as bad as i remember:
Recreational
- You've skied at least a week, you've learned to turn, stop and ride the lifts
- You have at least 3 weeks under your belt. You can ski a slight wedge to basic parallel turns on green and blue runs. You still seek instruction, but aren't scared to venture off on your own. You are mastering the 'hockey stop'.
- You are reaching the 'intermediate plateau', you happily ski all blue and some red runs, but narrow pisted, especially icy ones, cause some difficulty. You have almost mastered speed control and stopping distances. Tough red runs are skied with caution, with style and control at a premium.
- Youve broken through the 'Plateau' and are now experiencing new feelings and sensations. You have the confidence to make smooth linked turns on most red runs. You have begun to appreciate the speed and excitement of skiing - it's a blast. Bumps are still a mystery.
Advanced
[list=5]
[*] You are not intimidated by red runs and can link parallel turns comfortably. You are perfecting your short radius turns on steeper terrain. On black runs you start your turns with a stem, and you are conscious not to rotate your upper body. You are happy making short turns down narrow 'Piste Basher' tracks. Slopeside powder presents no fears. You may be condisering a freeride ski.
[*] You can ski black runs in good conditions. You have mastered short turns and easy bumps, fresh lightweight powder is tackled without a second thought. You get frustrated when you can't find rhythm or control on steeper terrain or icier bumps. The techniques for crud and deep snow are still a mystery, but you are not going to let them beat you. You are aware when your skis need tuning.
[*] 80% of skiable terrain is well within your grasp but steep terrain, big bumps and difficult snow still challenge your skills. You consider professional instruction may be necessary to make further advances. You may own an avalanche transceiver and you look forward to skiing 'off piste' with a guide. High speeds still induce fear.
[/list]
Expert
[list=8]
[*] You can handle most bumps, difficult snow like crud and windpack sometimes gets te better of you. You know how to make carved turns, long or short, and ski 'short swing' turns like your instructor. You choose freeride, expert or race skis and demand stability at speed. You may have thought about taking your first steps in training to become a ski instructor. You'd like to polish your technique in the gates, bumps, ice, heavy powder or crud.
[*] You are an expert skier, comfortable skiing all conditions. You can ski a variety of lines through difficult bumps via the 'zip-line', over the tops and through the troughs. You know that without an intensive training programmme you will not ski at your best. You could be a level 10 but your fitness or your work restricts you.
[*] You are a sponsored skier or hold either an FIS or ISIA license
[/list]
Edit:
OK...I completely underestimated the popularity of this topic and how many people are here off season. I've never seen the SCGB one before. It's pretty good. Though once again the top end is compressed.
This S&R one is probably pre-carving skis.
Last edited by Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do. on Tue 17-05-05 10:15; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Agreeing with Nick Zotov, I think the SCGB scale is pretty good, and also has finer gradings than that published (I suppose reflecting the difficulty of self-assessment). As you go from level A up to B, you go through A+, A/B, A-. I also think that the levels applied are slightly easier than published - again possibly to avoid self-overgrading; e.g. saying that a silver should be "confident to safely negotiate all types of snow off piste including breakable crust and wind slab" is slightly overstating what I've seen in practice. Plakesays that the scheme still loads the bottom end and doesn't cover e.g. instructors. But on the whole that's not its intention - it does cover the vast majority of the amateurs who will be out on the slopes. To call that a flaw is the same as to lambast the Associate Board music grading scheme for not covering music academy students and professionals - Grade 8 is a stepping stone to those levels that have their own qualifications.
The main problem I see with the SCGB scale is that not a lot of people seem to know about it. Are there any other widely known schemes out there? I've seen many comments here that imply there's a popular scheme in the US. Can any of our US contributors comment?
In reply to ise's (typically non-combative  ) comment
| Quote: |
| a better start place may be to ask who cares? why's there a need to categorise? |
for the very sensible reason of trying to match skiers of similar ability when putting together groups for e.g. guided trips. You'll spoil your and everyone else's day when you find you're at a completely different level to the rest of the group. (I really do get tired of ise's and PG's continual sarciness - sure if you ski most you're going to be better than most of the rest of us, but one of the marks of expertise is not being so f***ing arrogant about it!)
I believe that SCGB reps are given more detailed specifications of the gradings than those published, but they're not published themselves. As I've been or skied with skiers at many of the SCGB off-piste levels in the last few years, I would say the finer gradings come out as:
R & R+ would be just getting their feet (and probably also heads, bums etc) wet in the off piste (don't really have anything to add to the web-site description)
S- would have troubles getting in more than a half-dozen turns in deep/rutted gently sloping snow before it fell apart,
S would have just about got that sorted,
S+ would be happy with those conditions to about a 25 degree slope (and lay confident smooth 'S'es in deep powder)
S/P would probably be starting to be unreliable above about a 35 degree slope.
P will get down most slopes up to 45degrees comfortably in average (non-icy) conditions, albeit not very fast, and be able safely to jump the occasional tight turns in those conditions.
P- would do so with fair caution and quite a lot of stops, and may be unreliable on jump turns
P+ would flow more and add some style to it
P/G would get rid of the stops on all but the most extreme slopes, but the tough stuff would still blow their style
Gold would ski the lot with good style (I'm probably not competent to assess, and certainly have not witnessed, the difference between G-/G/G+ - not even sure if the latter exists).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting that in order to be an expert according to S&R, you have to have watched all the ski movies. I have a huge amount of work to do here, as the only ones I've seen were in the (phenominally long) queue for the Attelas lifts in Verbier about 100 years ago (and they were ghastly). I'm not looking forward to hours in front of the TV watching people show off. Still, it's an easier way of progressing than learning to ski well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| GrahamN wrote: |
In reply to ise's (typically non-combative ) comment
| Quote: |
| a better start place may be to ask who cares? why's there a need to categorise? |
for the very sensible reason of trying to match skiers of similar ability when putting together groups for e.g. guided trips. You'll spoil your and everyone else's day when you find you're at a completely different level to the rest of the group. (I really do get tired of ise's and PG's continual sarciness - sure if you ski most you're going to be better than most of the rest of us, but one of the marks of expertise is not being so f***ing arrogant about it!)
|
I'd invite you to find any post by me or PG that's ever suggested we're especially talented skiers. Or, I can save you time by telling you there isn't one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ise, I think that GrahamN's point was not that you and PG spend your time boasting about how good you are, but that you sometimes appear patronising and inclined to sneer at skiers who are not in your respective leagues.
I'm not necessarily agreeing with him, just trying to help. 
Some sort of grading system is helpful for the 1 week a year, relatively inexperienced skier, to get roughly the right gear, and how else would outfits like SCGB grade their hols? The SCGB one looks reasonable; I would fall into one of two categories, and I'd have to decide whether I wanted a challenging hol or an easier one.
The trick with grading is not to have too many categories. In N.American ski hire places you have to put yourself into one of 3 categories, not usually too difficult. The proliferation of categories is presumably mainly manufacturer and retailer led, to convince you that you need to change your kit every year, as you progress.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Supermen Amongst Us
What % of mountain users do u feel constitute level 9/10 skiers (current S&R scale, not as i posted but as kuwait_ian's link near the top of the page)? I'm sure the vast majority are not, so it is not unreasonable to have a scale with finer distinctions at the low end, though i admit the s&r scale takes that too far. As stuarth alludes to, whatever scale we decide is best has to be relevant to most as well as reasonably representative of all levels.
richmond, and now with the internet you wont have to buy the videos from them to watch either.
Last edited by snowHeads are a friendly bunch. on Tue 17-05-05 10:39; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| richmond wrote: |
| ise, I think that GrahamN's point was not that you and PG spend your time boasting about how good you are, but that you sometimes appear patronising and inclined to sneer at skiers who are not in your respective leagues. |
That's not how I see ise's and PG's comments - what I think they are saying is that there is a very large gap between recreational skiers (of any experience) and 'professional' skiers (whether they be teachers, racers, etc). This, BTW, is an opinion I tend to agree with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's an American version from a Breckenridge instructor. Seems a bit slewed to the beginner end and possibly written pre-carvers ?
http://www.amenta.com/ski/skiknow.htm
And a simple 6 level grading for those who like to KISS
| Quote: |
Never-evers are just what the name implies, and the term normally sticks with them for the first three to five days on skis.
Beginners have about a week of instruction and can turn and stop more or less when they choose, but still rely on wedge turns.
Lower intermediates can link wedge turns and are beginning to make parallel turns.
Intermediates can negotiate any blue trail and can normally more-or-less parallel ski on the smooth stuff; they go back to survival rules when working their way down an expert trail, and definitely struggle in heavy powder and crud.
Advanced skiers can ski virtually any marked trail with carved turns, but are still intimidated by crud, deep heavy powder and super steeps.
Experts can always ski anything, anytime, anywhere. Real experts can always find challenges. These skiers are few and far between. |
Last edited by So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much  on Tue 17-05-05 10:51; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
GrahamN, you've entirely missed the point. I wrote that the marketing-oriented categorisation of skiers - by ski product companies in both cases cited above - is inappropriate and potentially misleading, and explained why. Counter the arguments if you wish.
richmond, the assumption that we are ourselves experts is entirely unfounded. I defy you to check through my 6,448 posts to date and find a single one that vaunts my abilities. On the contrary! However, having spent several months a season over the last seven years helping to organise or manage training sessions and races involving everything from Alpine 5 year olds to World Cup skiers and Olympic medallists, you do get a certain insight into the gulf between the leisure skier and those at the peak of achievement in this sport that most, quite understandably, do not.
Last edited by You know it makes sense. on Wed 18-05-05 20:48; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
I'd say that the average skier is an intermediate. Not halfway in skill between a novice and the best of the best. Just at the statistical mode of skiers. As with the SCGB anyone a bit above that would be...above average, maybe advanced intermediate, intermediate plus and below that early intermediate, intermediate minus, whatever. I'd say
| Quote: |
PG Quote:
"Beginner Plus": Competent on reds even if you look absolutely terrible to the practised eye. You begin to realise just how inadequate you are as soon as the conditions are one degree less than perfect in terms of snow condition or visibility. You are generally speaking one of the most dangerous people on the piste - you think you've got the hang of it so end up skiing too fast and have far more near misses than total beginners as a result. You like to talk about your newly acquired off piste abilities as if thrashing through the snow within a couple of metres of the piste for a minute or two a day without falling over means you are an ace away from tackling your first couloir.
|
could be regarded by some as being a little sneering?
However i would agree that the gulf between advanced intermediate and full-time alpine instructor or consistently good amateur racer/off-piste skier is at least as big as that between advanced intermediate and beginner, and that the difference between these guys/gals and world class skiers is that again.
Last edited by Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name: on Tue 17-05-05 11:09; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Quote: |
I really do get tired of ise's and PG's continual sarciness - sure if you ski most you're going to be better than most of the rest of us, but one of the marks of expertise is not being so f***ing arrogant about it!)
|
GrahamN, Hey chill babe  These two (especially the former) have always had an "edge" to their posts. OK feathers can be ruffled but overall it adds a bit of spice and personality to what can be an otherwise dull thread. I am sure that both would take time out to have a beer and show you round "their" respective mountains. If they give you a bit of slavver, then give them a bit back; I'm sure they both get a buzz from a good old debate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| slikedges wrote: |
| Quote: |
PG Quote:
"Beginner Plus": Competent on reds even if you look absolutely terrible to the practised eye. You begin to realise just how inadequate you are as soon as the conditions are one degree less than perfect in terms of snow condition or visibility. You are generally speaking one of the most dangerous people on the piste - you think you've got the hang of it so end up skiing too fast and have far more near misses than total beginners as a result. You like to talk about your newly acquired off piste abilities as if thrashing through the snow within a couple of metres of the piste for a minute or two a day without falling over means you are an ace away from tackling your first couloir.
|
could be regarded by some as being a little sneering? |
Sneering? Blimey, I don't think so. I think it is spot on! Describes me perfectly at some point in my skiing 'career', and currently describes a couple of people (not snowHeads!) I skied with last season who were full of their own abilities when talking in the bar, but were a serious threat to their own and others' safety.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
slikedges, I wrote that in complete sincerity. I believe that a considerable number of leisure skiers of a certain standard fall into that category. I have witnessed any number of accidents that befall people principally because of overconfidence. People may not be too happy about revising their opinions of their skills - but that doesn't make it any less true. The likes of skier gradings according to alleged ability as described in the S&R/Ski CLub systems can, in some cases contribute to overconfidence, in my opinion.
Consequently, whether people like it or not, my obvious blatant stereotype is a lot nearer to the truth then some would care to admit.
Last edited by Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see? on Tue 17-05-05 11:03; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
I think that description is carily accurate of quite a number of people that I know, and definitely of myself in the not too distant past (and some might say present!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
PG, rob@rar.org.uk, Ok, I can't deny the truth in your quote and I agree that the these gradings can lead to dangerous over-confidence but nevertheless they have a practical use. I just thought that in the context of your original post it did seem sneering.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
slikedges, if people's abilities were graded with a little more realism, there would be a lot less accidents on the slopes. As a result I am hardly concerned if my sense of humour doesn't appeal to all concerned. The end justifies the means.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm with rob@rar.org.uk; PG's quote applies all day long in most resorts I've been to. Two of the limitations of the scales is that you are obliged to rank yourself (subjective, moi...?) and it doesn't really take into account attitude. I've skied with technically quite good skiers who, through injury or age, had lost their nerve and were therefore much worse than they should have been. I've skied with a lot of PG's overconfident "Beginner Plus" skiers, and just occasionally I've skied with a skier who had an accurate estimate of his or her own abilities and skied quickly and confidently but considerately and made the most of their ability.
I'm as guilty as anyone in thinking "I skied that quite well", but if I saw a tape I'd probably take up curling instead...
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
As mentioned earlier, the main problem that I have is that most of the grading systems combine piste with off piste skills. I'll ski any piste, but when it comes to off piste I'm definitely in the beginner category.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| michael stocking wrote: |
| I'm as guilty as anyone in thinking "I skied that quite well", but if I saw a tape I'd probably take up curling instead... |
know the feeling 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
