I don't think anyone here is arguing for pelvis or shoulder width this originated from talking about skiing with feet clamped together and why that was a poor technique with modern skis.
Ah but clamped together was poor technique with old skis as well. The ideal stance hasn't changed. Good skiing hasn't changed. @cameronphillips2000 thought he would have to relearn but he just has to carry on improving his 'old' technique. The advice he was given was not helpful.
The advice given was as we've concluded. The intervening page or so has been a dilly dally of misunderstanding what people mean by wide versus narrow.
To quote J2R today:
"So I would say that feet clamped together is too close, shoulder width too far apart, but hip width (as in running width, as Kenny points out) probably about right."
The advice that was given by rob@rar initially:
"@cameronphillips2000, being well balanced on your outside ski does not mean you will (or should) have a very narrow stance. A good place to start is feet which are hip width apart."
My own post:
"Isn't the point to stand in a natural stance, no overly wide or narrow (unless skiing bumps). That way you're going to be the most easily dynamic and bio mechanically efficient?
FWIW I used to ski with feet clamped together and still sort of miss it. It's quite beautiful as a style."
Quite where you felt people were going awry when we all seem to be in agreement is baffling.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
meh wrote:
Kenny wrote:
meh wrote:
I don't think anyone here is arguing for pelvis or shoulder width this originated from talking about skiing with feet clamped together and why that was a poor technique with modern skis.
Ah but clamped together was poor technique with old skis as well. The ideal stance hasn't changed. Good skiing hasn't changed. @cameronphillips2000 thought he would have to relearn but he just has to carry on improving his 'old' technique. The advice he was given was not helpful.
The advice given was as we've concluded. The intervening page or so has been a dilly dally of misunderstanding what people mean by wide versus narrow.
To quote J2R today:
"So I would say that feet clamped together is too close, shoulder width too far apart, but hip width (as in running width, as Kenny points out) probably about right."
The advice that was given by rob@rar initially:
"@cameronphillips2000, being well balanced on your outside ski does not mean you will (or should) have a very narrow stance. A good place to start is feet which are hip width apart."
My own post:
"Isn't the point to stand in a natural stance, no overly wide or narrow (unless skiing bumps). That way you're going to be the most easily dynamic and bio mechanically efficient?
FWIW I used to ski with feet clamped together and still sort of miss it. It's quite beautiful as a style."
Quite where you felt people were going awry when we all seem to be in agreement is baffling.
I'm a bear with a small brain and often miss things.
I maintained there is no new technique required for modern skis and stance width is just a part of it. So I strongly disagreed with the advice @cameronphillips2000 was given because he thinks he will have to relearn. What I suspect (and may be wrong) was he was told was to adopt a wider stance more two footed style. This was a bit of a fad when shaped skis first came out but was soon discarded. Unfortunately it still gets trotted out as 'modern technique required for modern equipment' so I think it worth flagging up even if he misunderstood the advice. I don't know from the posts whether anyone agrees with me because, as you say, the focus was mainly on stance width.
As an aside I pointed out most students and instructors are under the impression this is hip width. It isn't, it is wider than hip width. Too wide for most people and probably for the skier in the video as well. I suspect I am in a minority on this on.
Thank you for your patience.
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?
Skiing old straight skis uses the same fundamentals but with a quite different set of emphasises particularly at the recreational level. A lot more pivot steering, a lot more pressure on the ski tips to carve effectively and a lot more vigorous unweighting. Skiers may have achieved comparable angles in photographs but even race technique is quite different and you can see that if you compare WC skiers from the 80s and 90s to those skiing today in motion.
If you were a recreational skier in the 80s and 90s which is when I learnt to ski things are done really quite differently to get the best performance from modern skis. You can still ski though because the fundamentals haven't changed.
I don't think anyone here is arguing for pelvis or shoulder width this originated from talking about skiing with feet clamped together and why that was a poor technique with modern skis.
Ah but clamped together was poor technique with old skis as well. The ideal stance hasn't changed. Good skiing hasn't changed. @cameronphillips2000 thought he would have to relearn but he just has to carry on improving his 'old' technique. The advice he was given was not helpful.
The advice given was as we've concluded. The intervening page or so has been a dilly dally of misunderstanding what people mean by wide versus narrow.
To quote J2R today:
"So I would say that feet clamped together is too close, shoulder width too far apart, but hip width (as in running width, as Kenny points out) probably about right."
The advice that was given by rob@rar initially:
"@cameronphillips2000, being well balanced on your outside ski does not mean you will (or should) have a very narrow stance. A good place to start is feet which are hip width apart."
My own post:
"Isn't the point to stand in a natural stance, no overly wide or narrow (unless skiing bumps). That way you're going to be the most easily dynamic and bio mechanically efficient?
FWIW I used to ski with feet clamped together and still sort of miss it. It's quite beautiful as a style."
Quite where you felt people were going awry when we all seem to be in agreement is baffling.
I'm a bear with a small brain and often miss things.
I maintained there is no new technique required for modern skis and stance width is just a part of it. So I strongly disagreed with the advice @cameronphillips2000 was given because he thinks he will have to relearn. What I suspect (and may be wrong) was he was told was to adopt a wider stance more two footed style. This was a bit of a fad when shaped skis first came out but was soon discarded. Unfortunately it still gets trotted out as 'modern technique required for modern equipment' so I think it worth flagging up even if he misunderstood the advice. I don't know from the posts whether anyone agrees with me because, as you say, the focus was mainly on stance width.
As an aside I pointed out most students and instructors are under the impression this is hip width. It isn't, it is wider than hip width. Too wide for most people and probably for the skier in the video as well. I suspect I am in a minority on this on.
Thank you for your patience.
Oh BASI, what a rubbish video.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Word for word, what Kenny says - he may as well be me. And yes, I think there is a genuine issue - the BASI video shows skiing which I take to demonstrate what BASI are teaching as the kind of optimum distance between skis for short turns, which is certainly way wider than hip width. Maybe we all agree on here that hip width is the correct thing, but if so, I suspect we're all in a minority. (I have to say that BASI do seem to be an outlier in this - from videos I've seen and from observations on the slopes, I don't see any other national teaching systems going so wide).
If you were a recreational skier in the 80s and 90s which is when I learnt to ski things are done really quite differently to get the best performance from modern skis. You can still ski though because the fundamentals haven't changed.
I learned to ski at this time too. I agree with what you say - basic techniques are the same but the blend in them is quite different now (pivoting used to dominate with a bit of carving, now the reverse). That said, what I found interesting in the late 90s when I switched to shorter more shaped skis was that some pretty decent recreational skiers found it difficult to adjust to the new skis while I (and my mates with similar technique) found them an instant success. What I realised is that many pretty competent recreational skiers had never even really attempted to carve on old skinny skis - EVERYTHING was skidded to some extent. Whereas my mates and I used to try to carve as soon as we had enough room (a small minority of turns).
Back on the topic of stance width - I think it is (should be) and outcome not an input, wider at high edge angles, narrower at lower edge angles, including in pivoted turns. Skiers probably only need to be instructed on edge angles if the are artificially holding their feet together and blocking angulation. Does need to be said at times of course - often people THINK they are suing a lot of angulation when they are not (feels like a lot) and they can't really achieve more without letting their stance widen.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
jedster wrote:
Back on the topic of stance width - I think it is (should be) and outcome not an input, wider at high edge angles, narrower at lower edge angles, including in pivoted turns. Skiers probably only need to be instructed on edge angles if the are artificially holding their feet together and blocking angulation.
If you look at the photos Kenny posted above, they don't seem to me to necessarily show greater stance width at higher edge angles. Sure, the skis are further apart, but that's because the outside leg is extended and the inside leg is drawn up - that is, it's vertical separation you're seeing, not horizontal. The distance between the skiers' legs hasn't varied much with edge angle.
Where I'm coming from with this, I suppose, is that I don't really think hip width is what is being taught, I suspect rather wider is more common, and that the feet clamped together thing might be a bit of an exaggeration. That is, people might be being told they have a ridiculous old-fashioned feet-clamped-together style and encouraged to widen their stance, where what they have in fact is just a functional narrow stance which they would do well to hold on to. This has certainly happened to me in a couple of lessons. I learned to ski with carving skis and I've never had that Stein Eriksen feet together style (or, indeed, ability), I ski with my skis hip width apart. But I've been urged to get them wider in lessons. I have nodded and carried on as before.
I posted a video of a Korean skier called Chang Keun Kim earlier. Here's another. He seems to me to have a basic hip width stance which he doesn't need to modify much according to snow type and skiing style (a little wider on the GS, as observed earlier, but not grossly). This is the kind of stance width I'm talking about. If it's a handicap for him, I'd be prepared to live with the handicap:
If you look at the section starting at 0.53 seconds you can see his stance width is actually incredibly similar to the BASI guys above when performing similar skiing although the Korean guy is skiing faster. A lot of the rest looks like he is or should be skiing moguls. It'd be interesting to know how you feel what you see as too wide a stance in the BASI person is harming their skiing. Frankly I would expect some variation in precisely how wide people find natural.
For reference the BASI person skis moguls with his feet much closer together as 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.
To my eyes, the BASI guy has a lot more of an A-frame. And your point about the different stance in the moguls compared with elsewhere is sort of what I'm saying - he varies his stance width, the Korean guy doesn't so much. I'd rather not have to myself, as it makes things easier. When I go into soft snow, I don't need to change my stance width, not by much. That helps me, as it gives me one less thing to think about.
As regards how the wider stance is harming BASI-man's skiing, well, he will likely have more of a tendency to lose balance onto the inside ski in the turn, and he will have to move his centre of mass further to get onto the opposite set of edges, which will make it more difficult to carve the top of the turn and thus retain good speed control under more challenging (icier) snow conditions.
But I feel ridiculous criticising him, as he skis a thousand times better than I can . I feel like I'm being what the Americans call an 'armchair quarterback', or one of these people who lays into the performance of, say, the Chelsea strikers on a Saturday, as if they could do better themselves.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
@J2R,
I just don't think the difference is big enough to really worry about. Beyond nerdery for most people its about having fun. Peak efficiency and internet arguing isn't the ultimate goal.
As per the last couple of pages I don't think the claim that he has to move his CoM further is actually true. The distance between the two skis is the potential base of support. If you're mostly balanced on the outside ski your actual base of support is mostly centered over the outside ski. Thus with a wider stance you encounter and can move your weight onto the new outside ski earlier effectively moving the base of support more quickly which is the same as shifting the centre of mass. I'd argue your point is only true if the skis are being evenly weighted all the time. As yet no one has actually challenged my reasoning or presented their own. I agree that a wider stance might end up with weight moving to the inside ski but I'm not sure it's a given, see for example the same persons long turns. It's something that happens with vertical separation as well if you lose balance. In effect weight transfer onto the inside ski increases the base of support or shifts it radically when weight goes heavily onto the inside ski which can get quite dramatic at high edge angles on icy ground.
For visual illustration and grossly exaggerated :
Yellow is the "CoM". Green is where the majority of the weight is. A wider stance has a bigger effect if you change where the weight distribution is (e.g. by retracting the old outside ski and standing on the new outside ski). In this illustration the skier will be initially leaning to the right stood on the left ski so will get into a position where they can stand on the right hand leg effectively earlier. In reality the differences is a couple of inches so pales into comparison with a whole bunch of other stuff which effects the outcome much more.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
meh wrote:
Peak efficiency and internet arguing isn't the ultimate goal.
I would argue with that.
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.
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
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
meh wrote:
@J2R,
I just don't think the difference is big enough to really worry about. Beyond nerdery for most people its about having fun. Peak efficiency and internet arguing isn't the ultimate goal.
As per the last couple of pages I don't think the claim that he has to move his CoM further is actually true. The distance between the two skis is the potential base of support. If you're mostly balanced on the outside ski your actual base of support is mostly centered over the outside ski. Thus with a wider stance you encounter and can move your weight onto the new outside ski earlier effectively moving the base of support more quickly which is the same as shifting the centre of mass. I'd argue your point is only true if the skis are being evenly weighted all the time. As yet no one has actually challenged my reasoning or presented their own. I agree that a wider stance might end up with weight moving to the inside ski but I'm not sure it's a given, see for example the same persons long turns. It's something that happens with vertical separation as well if you lose balance. In effect weight transfer onto the inside ski increases the base of support or shifts it radically when weight goes heavily onto the inside ski which can get quite dramatic at high edge angles on icy ground.
For visual illustration and grossly exaggerated :
Yellow is the "CoM". Green is where the majority of the weight is. A wider stance has a bigger effect if you change where the weight distribution is (e.g. by retracting the old outside ski and standing on the new outside ski). In this illustration the skier will be initially leaning to the right stood on the left ski so will get into a position where they can stand on the right hand leg effectively earlier. In reality the differences is a couple of inches so pales into comparison with a whole bunch of other stuff which effects the outcome much more.
I have little knowledge of ski technique or instruction but, as a physicist, these drawings to seem a little odd. The only way you're going to have your centre of mass over the tips of your skis is by having a ten foot pint or, if you're female, a figure similar to that dreadful Katie Price woman I keep encountering on my TV when passing through room whilst my wife is watching some Big Brother crap.
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
* my spell checker has changed pint to pint for some reason in the post above.
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
It's done it again - I'll try one more time pint
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
My fault for not drawing the ground but that's supposed to be someones "legs" with a narrow and wide stance.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
knob?
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?
ok at what Marcel Hirscher is doing in terms of distance between skis
yep, jammed together
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
That separation is almost entirely vertical, as a result of pulling his inside knee up towards his chest. Actually, given that his outside thigh actually appears to be touching his inside boot, it's hard to see how he could bring his legs any closer together in this position.
Last edited by Then you can post your own questions or snow reports... on Tue 20-01-15 17:07; edited 1 time in total
After all it is free
After all it is free
meh wrote:
This is what my stance looks like anyway which I think is pretty much dead on my hip width:
Once again, we're in violent agreement. I wouldn't say there's anything wide about that at all. It's within the range I'd think of as hip width. I'd be a little bit narrower but not hugely so (and as I mentioned above, I have pretty narrow hips). I imagine that you might actually have your skis a little closer together than this while standing? Most people tend to A-frame slightly on this point in the turn, increasing the separation slightly. I certainly do, and if you took a shot of me at this point in the turn it wouldn't be completely representative of my typical stance width. (In my case it's something I'm trying to eradicate, but without success so far).
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.
meh wrote:
Skiing old straight skis uses the same fundamentals but with a quite different set of emphasises particularly at the recreational level. A lot more pivot steering, a lot more pressure on the ski tips to carve effectively and a lot more vigorous unweighting. Skiers may have achieved comparable angles in photographs but even race technique is quite different and you can see that if you compare WC skiers from the 80s and 90s to those skiing today in motion.
If you were a recreational skier in the 80s and 90s which is when I learnt to ski things are done really quite differently to get the best performance from modern skis. You can still ski though because the fundamentals haven't changed.
I agree with all of this.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
J2R,
think you may be constructing a strawman here - I can't believe instructors would tell someone with meh's stance to get his legs wider apart - looks very natural and neutral to me.
On a slightly related topic does anyone else ever do the following:
carving big fast turns on an empty piste which is a shade narrow for the purpose
towards the end of one turn you haven't shed as much speed via gravity as you would ideally like
the obvious option it to put a bit of pivot and edge check to shed speed - perfectly sound but a bit inelegant
But there is an alternative (the stance related bit!) - angulate harder taking you further up the hill but leaving you limited room to make the next turn and increasing the shape required in that next turn. To get a quick start onto this new carve I want to start it closer to the fall-line than parallel to the old turn. To do this I sometimes flatten the inside ski ( A frame) and allow it, unweighted, to drift inside the turn (legs widening) before tipping it onto a new inside edge and transferring weight onto it. It sort of cheats a sharper turn without any skidding.
Does that make any sense? I definitely put it in the tactics not technique bucket. You can achieve the same thing with a little pop and aerial pivot / edge transfer (remember doing this quite a lot on old skinny skis with massive radius) but that is a little more risky particularly if the piste is very firm.
I guess my point in all this is that there is a bunch of stuff you can do which is not textbook technique but is actually very functional. One of the things I like about skiing is blending a variety of techniques and tactics in response to the terrain, the snow, your mood etc. I don't think there is anything wrong with varying stance or even (whisper it) a-framing if you are doing it to achieve a particular end
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
oh and that great picture of Marcel Hirscher reveals a slight a frame doesn't it?
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.
jedster wrote:
J2R,
think you may be constructing a strawman here - I can't believe instructors would tell someone with meh's stance to get his legs wider apart - looks very natural and neutral to me.
I'd like to see his stance when just standing, as I mentioned (it may be narrower, I don't know). But I've certainly had instructors trying to get me to ski with my skis wider apart, and I don't have my feet clamped together. And I've certainly seen a wider stance than meh's being taught, albeit to beginner/intermediate skiers. No doubt there is much variation among instructors in this respect, though.
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
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
jedster wrote:
oh and that great picture of Marcel Hirscher reveals a slight a frame doesn't it?
Probably anatomically impossible to avoid, once you get into that position, with such high edge angles and strong upper body angulation. Fortunately it's a problem I've always been able to steer clear of.
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
Quote:
Probably anatomically impossible to avoid, once you get into that position, with such high edge angles and strong upper body angulation.
absolutely. but being a little mischievous, I'd say that this also required him to open his stance slightly - boot to thigh doesn't disprove this
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Try it out some time, see how it works. Post the photos on here and I'll take a look.
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
meh wrote:
If you look at the section starting at 0.53 seconds you can see his stance width is actually incredibly similar to the BASI guys above when performing similar skiing although the Korean guy is skiing faster. A lot of the rest looks like he is or should be skiing moguls. It'd be interesting to know how you feel what you see as too wide a stance in the BASI person is harming their skiing. Frankly I would expect some variation in precisely how wide people find natural.
For reference the BASI person skis moguls with his feet much closer together as well:
I'm an an internet warrior with no skills but because I am the kind of knobhead who says things like "ooh Ligety won't finish this set, it's too technical" I'll have a go. The short turns I would question because they don't actually match the description. Highly skilled pivoting skills but not the ski performance the wide stance salesman promised . His other short turn run (moguls) he in a narrower stance looks better to me.
These longs are something that would have been difficult on skinny straight skis back in the day. Wide stance is obviously the way to go. Or is it?
I had a few runs this morning on what may be described as 'modern' skis i.e 170 length 15.1m sidecut just to play around. In longer turns with the wider stance I found there was a point in the turn where the inside leg acted like the outrigger of a trimaran. I would either a) end up on the inside ski b) stop moving and 'park and ride' or c) finish the turn and start the next one earlier. In the clip above I suggest the skier would be able to achieve bigger edge angles with a narrower stance.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
J2R wrote:
meh wrote:
This is what my stance looks like anyway which I think is pretty much dead on my hip width:
Once again, we're in violent agreement. I wouldn't say there's anything wide about that at all. It's within the range I'd think of as hip width. I'd be a little bit narrower but not hugely so (and as I mentioned above, I have pretty narrow hips). I imagine that you might actually have your skis a little closer together than this while standing? Most people tend to A-frame slightly on this point in the turn, increasing the separation slightly. I certainly do, and if you took a shot of me at this point in the turn it wouldn't be completely representative of my typical stance width. (In my case it's something I'm trying to eradicate, but without success so far).
Yeah it's wide in comparison with how I used to ski. Sadly no pictures of that available!
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?
meh wrote:
J2R wrote:
meh wrote:
This is what my stance looks like anyway which I think is pretty much dead on my hip width:
Once again, we're in violent agreement. I wouldn't say there's anything wide about that at all. It's within the range I'd think of as hip width. I'd be a little bit narrower but not hugely so (and as I mentioned above, I have pretty narrow hips). I imagine that you might actually have your skis a little closer together than this while standing? Most people tend to A-frame slightly on this point in the turn, increasing the separation slightly. I certainly do, and if you took a shot of me at this point in the turn it wouldn't be completely representative of my typical stance width. (In my case it's something I'm trying to eradicate, but without success so far).
Yeah it's wide in comparison with how I used to ski. Sadly no pictures of that available!
It could be a shot of Scot Schmidt or Glen Plake; modern skiing pah, you're old skool my friend .
Don't be sorry, that first video is amazing!! Can't wait to pass my BASI 4 so I can teach in the company of those fine skiers.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Kenny wrote:
I don't want to pick on BASS so here is an example of a narrower more natural stance which looks great to me.
The skiers in your two videos are mostly the same (although I don't think PK, who has a notably wide stance, appears in the 2nd). Perhaps this illustrates the point that skiers vary their stance width slightly depending on what they are doing. I've skied for a few weeks with the guy in the 2nd video we see first skiing off-piste with a narrower than hip width stance - he skis wider than that on piste, typically hip width but perhaps a fraction wider.
After all it is free
After all it is free
@Kenny, yeah as I said a few posts ago the conversation has got confused about what people meant by narrow and wide.
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.
Here's another good example of what I think of as being a functional narrow-ish (hip-width) stance:
If I could ski like this I would feel I had made progress.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
@J2R,
Yeah - that's lovely skiing. Have to say that those piste conditions (pitch, width, emptiness and snow condition) were absolutely optimal. Not claiming I can ski to that standard but I could look pretty good on that!
FAQ
Poster: A snowHead
. I feel like I'm being what the Americans call an 'armchair quarterback', or one of these people who lays into the performance of, say, the Chelsea strikers on a Saturday, as if they could do better themselves.
. His other short turn run (moguls) he in a narrower stance looks better to me.
