 Poster: A snowHead
|
| veeeight wrote: |
| So in the haste to reload bullets everyone has ignored Fastman's statement that the outside ski arcs a sharper turn than the inside? |
No, we've been pondering this situation for ages during this thread. But you probably hadn't noticed because you're only listening to yourself and blankly refuse to accept any alternative viewpoint. Fastman also said:-
| Fastman wrote: |
Bob, I don't debate your contention that applying rotary force to an arcing ski can potentially direct higher load to the tips and reduce turn radius. Heck, I'd better not, as it's one of the applications I claim for Waist Steering. |
He was just pointing out that there's more than 1 explanation of how the inside and outside skis can make the turn. None of which will fit into your previous observations regarding a perfect RR turn.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
uktrailmonster, to be fair, I think v8 has recently been conceding points (though without explicit acknowledgement of previous error and amidst the usual bombast), viz:
| Quote: |
| The simple answer would be that mathematically, I agree that circles are either parallel, or identical |
Shortly followed by:
| Quote: |
| I'm conviced that diverging and converging tracks are made in the snow as a result of identical arcs (if you park and ride) |
If we could just get rid of the redundant "if you park and ride", that would be further progress. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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'd also be good if he could concede converging or diverging tracks mean converging or diverging of the stance and converging or diverging tips.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
chappies this is getting to be a bit of a witch hunt.. So maybe the guy didnt quite get the maths or initially misunderstood the definitions discussed... he does seem to be (in his own way) accepting some of the mathematical absolutes. Lets move on and concentrate on the practical aspects of what happens and what steering elements are important to carve clean turns whilst keeping the skis from doing ugly inefficient things.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| veeeight wrote: |
We NEVER ski like that in real life - the two hip sockets are describing a sinusoidal pattern, parallel with the ski tracks.
Consider the hips sockets (or knee joints if you like) as the centres of the two sine wave tracks being left by the skis, and suddenly perfectly parallel, identical carved arc to arc ski tracks are possible.
PS: Think railway tracks. Do you really consider that the inside track in a curve has a smaller radius than the outside track, or that the railway tracks are parallel? |
I think this is the post that later led to the "witch hunt". There are several incorrect statements in the above that the "witch" has been defending defiantly for the last 10 pages or so. So to summarise:-
1/ Your hip sockets do not represent the centres of the two tracks.
2/ The 2 tracks cannot be perfectly parallel and identical.
3/ Railway tracks really do have an inside track with a smaller radius than the outside.
I'm more than happy (as is everyone else) to consider arcs of the same radius diverging and converging. I'm also more than happy to consider parallel tracks with a tighter inside radius. But if we start with the above incorrect model, our conclusions are going to be wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
uktrailmonster, I agree. The young gentleman in question must now hold his hand up to his heretical error before we can allow him to move on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PJSki, how 'young' is veeeight? He comes over with unusual gravitas for one tender in years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hurtle, I don't think that "gravitas" is quite the right word myself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Hurtle, gravitas? You don't have to be old to be both pompous and arrogant, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
laundryman, PJSki, now, now, toujours la politesse! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
...and wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
By the way lads, to get rid of inner ski tip lead,
PULL THE INNER SKI BACK WITH YOUR LEG. Done.
Next Question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
skimottaret,
Agree..and what I suggested a few pages back...
Over and done with... move on, IMV
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Martin Bell wrote: |
| veeeight wrote: |
So in the haste to reload bullets everyone has ignored Fastman's statement that the outside ski arcs a sharper turn than the inside?
|
Only because it had already been covered a couple of pages ago:
| Martin Bell wrote: |
3. Or you can even carve tracks where the outer radius is smaller (because of greater weighting of the outside ski), in which case divergence/convergence, and/or inside ski steering, become even more necessary. |
|
Ah! We've just done some drills, inspired by this thread, with some racers, where the task was to load the outside ski to bend it into a tighter radius, whilst still maintaining a clean line on the inner ski................... more on this later.
Last edited by You know it makes sense. on Wed 23-04-08 1:51; 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:
|
| Sideshow_Bob wrote: |
| It'd also be good if he could concede converging or diverging tracks mean converging or diverging of the stance and converging or diverging tips. |
Well, this ain't going to happen at the moment, as I've been watching many many racers today who are proving quite the opposite. By working the ski (as opposed to park and ride) and maintaining the correct pressure buildup on the inner ski, it is quite possible to bend the outer ski to match (parallel for want of a better word) the inner ski getting rid of the diverging track than is present on identical arcs.
However, the skill level required to do this is extremely high, in this situation there are no diverging skis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
You want a further concession? The hip sockets as the centres of the arc was my erroneous and clumsy attempt at trying to point out that two arcs need not share a common centre.
Think of the two windscreen wipers on your car. Same arm length, same blades, different pivots. One arc will be wiping inside the other at one portion of the screen, there even may be a portion where the two arcs appear to be parallel. Now, if, magically, you could move the base of the wiper arms along with the arc as the wipers wiped (the windscreen is giant by now), the period where the arcs will be parallel will be elongated. But just because one arc is inside the other, you wouldn't say that one had a smaller radius than the other? (can't ever recall my wipers crashing into each other neither).
There have just as many people flip flopping between their beliefs, plus the fact that there are about 5 different arguments happening on this thread, but I have to say that this bozo hasn't had to resort to any name calling, nor insults, not engage in any sort of malice type witchhunts that have brought our some ugliness in this thread. Even though I have been extremely frustrated at some of the non-lateral and inability to think out of the box thinking displayed by some (eg: just because one arc is inside the other, it doesn't automatically mean that the inner one has a smaller radius).
As time has progressed, I have been shown to be correct about ankles (I accept that MB has a completely different viewpoint), applying pressure early (with respect to the skiing), and I fully expect this to come about in time too (about the skiing).
Got to buzz off again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Do you accept that two arcs can be parallel (no converging and diverging, with the inside arc being tighter) or identical (diverging and converging) but not identical and parallel?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| veeeight wrote: |
| plus the fact that there are about 5 different arguments happening on this thread |
This more than anything has been the source of the discourse with people have putting forward arguments for subtly different standpoints.
What was the question again ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Apologies if this has already been covered (please point me in the right direction)....but what exactly is wrong with having "Inner ski tip lead"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Elizabeth B, nothing wrong with having some tip lead, but you can have too much
hope that helps
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Elizabeth B, This was my bad and the post should have been titled "excessive" tip lead. some tip lead is a natural occurrence but loads of tip lead is a problem in its own right or a symptom of underlying problems.
PJSki, This is the mathematical point he doesnt agree with or get. But skiing in the real world on a flat grippy Green piste making virtually parallel RR 25 metre arc sections isnt terribly difficult and can be done without divergence using small continual adjustments IMO.
Will you concede that this is possible?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arno, thanks. So why do we have 17 pages trying to eliminate it 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Elizabeth B, As a moderator can you change the title to "getting rid of excessive inner ski tip lead" i would have done about 16 pages ago but dont know how to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| veeeight wrote: |
| Sideshow_Bob wrote: |
| It'd also be good if he could concede converging or diverging tracks mean converging or diverging of the stance and converging or diverging tips. |
Well, this ain't going to happen at the moment, as I've been watching many many racers today who are proving quite the opposite. By working the ski (as opposed to park and ride) and maintaining the correct pressure buildup on the inner ski, it is quite possible to bend the outer ski to match (parallel for want of a better word) the inner ski getting rid of the diverging track than is present on identical arcs.
However, the skill level required to do this is extremely high, in this situation there are no diverging skis. |
I agree that would work for the start of the turn, where the otherwise identical arcs would be diverging. But then they would converge even more rapidly at the end of the turn. Oh and they wouldn't be identical arcs anymore as you have now manipulated the outer arc in an effort to keep it parallel. You need to think all this through a bit more.
And you haven't actually addressed Bob's issue above about how diverging / converging tracks relate to stance and relative ski position.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| veeeight wrote: |
You want a further concession? The hip sockets as the centres of the arc was my erroneous and clumsy attempt at trying to point out that two arcs need not share a common centre.
Think of the two windscreen wipers on your car. Same arm length, same blades, different pivots. One arc will be wiping inside the other at one portion of the screen, there even may be a portion where the two arcs appear to be parallel. Now, if, magically, you could move the base of the wiper arms along with the arc as the wipers wiped (the windscreen is giant by now), the period where the arcs will be parallel will be elongated. But just because one arc is inside the other, you wouldn't say that one had a smaller radius than the other? (can't ever recall my wipers crashing into each other neither).
There have just as many people flip flopping between their beliefs, plus the fact that there are about 5 different arguments happening on this thread, but I have to say that this bozo hasn't had to resort to any name calling, nor insults, not engage in any sort of malice type witchhunts that have brought our some ugliness in this thread. Even though I have been extremely frustrated at some of the non-lateral and inability to think out of the box thinking displayed by some (eg: just because one arc is inside the other, it doesn't automatically mean that the inner one has a smaller radius).
As time has progressed, I have been shown to be correct about ankles (I accept that MB has a completely different viewpoint), applying pressure early (with respect to the skiing), and I fully expect this to come about in time too (about the skiing).
Got to buzz off again. |
You started off well here, but quickly drifted into yet another complete crock of waffly bollux. It's true that some people have adjusted their views during the course of this thread, as they have carefully listened to each viewpoint. But you seem incapable of understanding the most basic mathematical constraints and just resort to ludicrous analogies in a vain effort to prove that you are 100% correct in your theories. So don't be too surprised when people are critical. Remember that thinking laterally and out of the box is not the same as talking a load of bollux and expecting people to believe in it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| veeeight wrote: |
Even though I have been extremely frustrated at some of the non-lateral and inability to think out of the box thinking displayed by some (eg: just because one arc is inside the other, it doesn't automatically mean that the inner one has a smaller radius).
|
On a more objective note, I think pretty much everyone in this debate understands this point perfectly well. Who do you think doesn't? The point remains that if the inside arc is of equal or larger radius than the outside arc, then the skis, stance, etc will have to diverge and converge. You will also be limited in how far you can turn before the skis either cross or diverge terminally (assuming you continued carving arcs of this nature). If on the other hand the tracks were in fact parallel throughout the turn, that would automatically mean that the inside radius was smaller. These are simple geometrical facts, which it would be good for you to understand. Then you would hopefully be able to relate your ski technique (the part I have no doubt you do understand) to these simple facts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
skimottaret, done.
For future reference, you edit the original post and can change the title then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have been asked by "MichaelA" (a long-term and well-respected contributor to Epic) to put up his "take" on this. (For some reason he was unable to establish a Snowheads account.) The following words and images are his:
Basically...I think V8 is contemplating the idea of Hip Mechanics correctly but is mis-applying his visualized outcome.
The "NoHipRotation.gif" model shows what happens if a pair of straight legs are rotated in a perfect circle without moving the pelvis. Since both Hip Sockets remain in the same location the two radii are the same - and they diverge, then converge as was described a billion times in the thread.
The "ExtremeHipRotation.Gif" shows what I think is in the mind of V8. In this model the "Pelvis" is treated in an extreme way - the inside "Leg" overlays the outside "Leg" at all times because the inside-Hip is constantly being moved. (Note this is not intended to model actual Hip Mechanics - just to exaggerate the concept to a point of easy clarity.)
In this model the inside leg *draws* an arc (circle) that from the Inside-HIP always measures the same which might lead an unsuspecting person to think the radius is the same for both legs. It is not. If you look, you'll see that the inside-leg actually pivots about the Hip Socket of the Outside leg in this model. In the real world the pivot point is probably moved closer to the outside Hip socket however it is done.
Of course, this is just a guess at what V8 might be thinking.
This Hip-movement-changes-radius idea also fails when we consider that the actual center of the arc/circle/etc for both skis is generally *way* further inside the turn and nowhere near the skier himself. While two skis are tracking a pair of arcs the amorphous object (skier) standing on them has nothing to do with where the center of those pressed-in arcs/circles/etc are in a given moment.
---
I'm of the opinion that any skier making highly accurate carved arcs is doing something with one or both skis to achieve a tighter radius on the inside ski than the outside ski. One area of consideration driven by the very Hip Mechanics that V8 describes is the effect of 'Pelvic Narrowing' that occurs when we rotate the Pelvis away from the direction of travel.
If the skier's boots are perfectly aligned so that the skis are "flat' to the snow when both legs hang straight down from the Hip sockets - then what happens if the skis remain at that distance apart and the Pelvis rotates? I suspect one or both skis must *tip inward* since the lateral distance between Hip Sockets becomes less. If a skier is focused on 'standing firmly' on the outside ski when carving then it's likely the inside ski is the one that gets all the tipping (from the narrowing pelvis due to counter developing).
In this way the inside ski can tip LESS than the outside ski without the skier doing anything to actually tip it intentionally and creates an automatic divergence and convergence.. The effectiveness of this would depend on when the skier's Pelvis is 'square' to the path of travel and when most countered.
Another potential culprit shows up in every 'transition'. Here, the Pelvis MUST square up (at least briefly) as the skier relinquishes old counter and starts creating new counter for the new turn. If the skis are sufficiently close together at this moment then the wider Pelvis would tips both skis outward and initiate divergence (assuming parallel legs). As 'counter' reaches its maximum (just past Apex) this might put both skis further apart than the effective lateral distance between Hip Sockets - causing convergence to begin.
In the end I think it's a pretty complicated mix of possibilities and suspect there are many potential ways to achieve the inside ski tracing a slightly tighter radius than the outside ski, or to create the diverging/converging process.
Just some rambling thoughts at a late hour...
.ma
http://www.snowmediazone.com/the_zone/showphoto.php/photo/11956/ppuser/481
http://www.snowmediazone.com/the_zone/showphoto.php/photo/11955/ppuser/481
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
skimottaret,
| Quote: |
PJSki, This is the mathematical point he doesnt agree with or get. But skiing in the real world on a flat grippy Green piste making virtually parallel RR 25 metre arc sections isnt terribly difficult and can be done without divergence using small continual adjustments IMO.
Will you concede that this is possible? |
I don't need to concede that because I've never said it wasn't possible. 'Virtually parallel, being the operative phrase, of course. But all the way through this thread the young man has used terms such as 'perfect parallel' and 'identical radii', thus describing the impossible. He has also endeavored to back up his views with some of the most ridicules analogies I have ever heard. The kind of stuff a 12-year-old should be able to dismiss as false proofs with only the most rudimentary knowledge of geometry!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
I promised myself I wouldn't do this, but there's too much on this page to avoid responding any more. Interesting post from MichaelA - addressing points which have not been addressed much so far (the HOW do you get stuff to work, rather than WHAT is happening), as we've unfortunately not been able to get beyond the WHAT (and you can't answer the question until you know what question is being asked). It does come firmly down on "our" side on the "what" though - although doesn't quite grab the bull by the horns. Yes the "ExtremeHipRotation.Gif" shows a situation very similar to V8's runners example, although here with the "rope", ie. the legs, equal to or longer that the radius of curvature of the described tracks. Those tracks are very clearly concentric circles, with a common centre of rotation/curvature, which is where the leg from the inner ski passes through/under the stationary hip. The outer hip is the centre of rotation for the outer ski, but the inner hip is NOT that for the inner ski.
| MichaelA wrote: |
| I'm of the opinion that any skier making highly accurate carved arcs is doing something with one or both skis to achieve a tighter radius on the inside ski than the outside ski. |
Exactly, and exactly what we've been saying for well over a week now. Once that principle is established, we can get beyond this ridiculous logjam and discuss the more interesting aspects that Michael has been addressing.
It should also be restated - as it has been several times since Martin Bell kindly provided the link to PhysicsMan's spreadsheet, that there may well be sections in a non-parallel track where the outer track has a tighter radius than the inner, but during that time the skis will be progressively converging (or diverging progressively less, if starting with a scissored position). This is balanced by other sections of the track where the inner ski IS at a tighter radius - and that may be long periods of not very different, as in PhysicsMan's model, or very much tighter as in the case of a small pivot. Despite the repeated assertions that this will "mess with your head", it does nothing of the sort - except possibly for V8.
| veeeight wrote: |
Think of the two windscreen wipers on your car. Same arm length, same blades, different pivots. One arc will be wiping inside the other at one portion of the screen, there even may be a portion where the two arcs appear to be parallel. Now, if, magically, you could move the base of the wiper arms along with the arc as the wipers wiped (the windscreen is giant by now), the period where the arcs will be parallel will be elongated. But just because one arc is inside the other, you wouldn't say that one had a smaller radius than the other? (can't ever recall my wipers crashing into each other neither).
|
Whether or not this is "waffly bollux" I do think it is highly illuminating. What it most clearly shows is V8 has little understanding of what "parallel" means. As has been explained many times, from about page 4 onwards (now over a week ago), parallel means that two lines have a constant minimum separation along their length. That separation is measured normal (aka perpendicular to, at 90 degrees to) the direction the curve is pointing at the time. In the windscreen wiper example, the tracks are identical with the same radius. At no time are the joints between the wipers and the blades travelling along parallel tracks, and that separation between the wiper struts, and the tracks they describe, is changing continuously. No amount of moving the base of the wiper arms is going to change that, unless you rotate the line joining those bases - in which case the wipers will no longer be tracing identical tracks. This entire argument has been about tracks being BOTH parallel and identical. And of course, the tracks cross, and the wipers don't hit each other, but if you tried tracing tracks like that on skis you would end up skiing facing your tails (assuming you started facing forwards), and one ski tip would have had to pass through your opposite leg to get there (maybe an argument in favour of blades ).
At one point V8 agreed that there may be an increase of the track separation near the apex of a turn (although this had to be combined with a value judgement - it's only something "good skiers" can do). This by definition means that the turn is not then parallel. But then he also wanted to ski without converging or diverging - which by definition must not change the separation of the tracks, so the turns must be parallel. Fine, different requirements result in different answers. The only person who appears to have a problem with that is V8. When it's clear that V8 has so little understanding of the terms he's using, it's unsurprising that the argument is extended.
| veeeight wrote: |
| There have just as many people flip flopping between their beliefs, plus the fact that there are about 5 different arguments happening on this thread, but I have to say that this bozo hasn't had to resort to any name calling, nor insults, not engage in any sort of malice type witchhunts that have brought our some ugliness in this thread. Even though I have been extremely frustrated at some of the non-lateral and inability to think out of the box thinking displayed by some (eg: just because one arc is inside the other, it doesn't automatically mean that the inner one has a smaller radius). |
You've been frustrated?  OK, I apologise for losing my temper, but I assure you the levels of frustration on this side are monumental. I don't think I've seen so much sophistry and doublespeak outside the pages of "1984". The only people who've changed their position on this ae those who've see the errors in your argument and started agreeing with Sideshow Bob, PJSki, me..... Any variations in argument have been to refute your changing arguments. We've considered perfectly happily circular paths, sinusoidal paths, parallel paths, converging and diverging tracks, pure carves, pressured skis, small pivots, calcuated variations in edge angles and angles of convergence/divergence, tip lead and lag, and tolerances (on which you've been notably silent - you do know what a tolerance is?). So which other boxes do you want us to think outside? The one labelled truth? I find it very interesting that every argument you've brought to the table has actually shown the exact opposite of what you intended (Fastman's post on the earlier thread, PhysicsMan's calculator, your identical curves sketch, your runners example, the video analysis showing clear non-parallelism - and no response to the request for information on how the "overall radius" was calculated - and finally the windscreen wipers). As soon as you see the argument's not going your way you drop it like a ton of bricks. It's also you who've been continually hung up on circular motion - we've repeatedly said that the arguments hold just as well for non-circular, is just easier to demonstrate/explain (particularly to non-mathematicians) when there are circles involved.
And you well know that the argument about pressure was not about "early pressure" but your half baked understanding of the mechanics of a turn - you may be right in that it's not desirable to get the skis pressured early in a turn, other coaches disagree, and it's certainly possible even if not desirable. And in the ankles argument I agreed with your contention (for recreational skiing, there's still clearly disagreement at WC level), but it took you posting a vid, as your description of what was going on was completely untenable. Misstating the opponent's position in an argument and then declaring your own victory over that position is sophistry, and may work on some people, but you should know by now that it won't work on us.
I fully expect V8 to address none of these points.
Damn, I'm now late for skiing again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Elizabeth B wrote: |
skimottaret, done.
For future reference, you edit the original post and can change the title then. |
merci 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Well said, GrahamN. Tis a shame the young man refuses to see reason on this issue. As a practitioner of techniques required to better scribe arcs in the snow with items of wintersports equipment known as skis, one would have thought this young gentleman would have at least some basic (and correct) knowledge of geometry. A sorry state of affairs, indeed, as his reputation now appears to be in tatters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
PJSki, way too personal, ease off. your continued use of "young man" and other name calling is patronising and not doing yourself any favours. V8 has contibuted a heck of a lot more than you have to snowheads and saying that someones reputation is in tatters due to him passionately and politely arguing his point on a single subject is ridiculous..
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
skimottaret, hear hear. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
PJSki, yeah very harsh. I'm sure most ski instructors don't understand the physics and maths in much detail, but it doesn't stop them being good at their jobs. V8 is winding people up (including myself) with his head in the sand approach to the real physics of what is happening, but nothing more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
uktrailmonster, indeed. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
uktrailmonster, I accept the fact I'm being harsh. But it's still the conclusion I've reached. We've been told that converging and diverging are bad and that smaller inside radius with 'make your skiing full apart'. So I'm wondering how an inflexible and dogmatic attitude can be a useful way of approaching ski teaching?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PJSki, now you are really talking rubbish. How you can make the extrapolation about how someone goes about discussing an esoteric subject online to assumptions on how they teach on the hill is a nonsense.
You might not like my comments but notice i didnt call you any names in order to bolster my point. Accepting that you are being harsh and apologising for bad behavior are a long way apart and tells me something about your character.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
skimottaret, actually no. While PJSki's earlier post was possibly a bit harsh, the last is right on the money. By being a blithering idiot on something he clearly doesn't understand, veeeight does his reputation immense harm, and brings his statements on other aspects that he clearly does know a lot more about (and about which he may be a lot more correct) into similar doubt - particularly when proclaimed with his characteristic overarching arrogance, and even more so when we can find quotes to contradict several of those statements from other highly respected ski professionals.
I also think that this kind of display brings discredit on ski instructing as a profession in general - threads like this don't grow out of thin air. I actually find that quite sad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GrahamN, sorry dont agree with that at all. being stubborn, arrogant, or inflexible or overly opinionated is one thing. You may feel he completely doesnt get something and is refusing to admit defeat. He believes he is onto something and trying at least to support his position with tangible examples, they may be wrong but he is keeping it civil. He may have his head in the sand but is at least trying to make a point. I dont agree with his maths but i keep an open mind when he is offering skiing related examples adn try to take something away from the arguement.
continually calling someone names like blithering idiot, young man, bozo etc does not add to the debate. You at least apologised for using such terms. If you made a mistake on a detailed skiing related debate i wouldnt call into question your abilities or how you go about your day to day job.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
