 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
I saw a Club Med instructor ski off the edge of the chairlift loading point and land in the net! he was on his mobile and looking behind him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Just seen this thread. Frankly I'm a S**t one !
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Despite the occasional comment, however, there's still a fair bit of missing the two major points about a) having independent assessment b) having a scheme that's known about outside of  . The first point is addressed by SCGB - but it's just a shame it's not universal enough - hence my earlier (unanswered  ) questions about any consistent ski-school gradings.
Combining the SCGB scheme feeding into davidof's above for the top end seems a pretty good solution. I would say his "Advanced intermediate" matches a an SCGB grade of about P-, and his "Basic Advanced" is probably around an SCGB grade of P/G. It obviously shows a bit more of his own bias towards off-piste and touring - but I'm quite comfortable with that  . (FWIW I occasionally wander through the park, manfully withstanding the looks of complete derision from the assembled teenagers surveying my complete incompetence - a level I've more than happy with). Linking into the grade of route skied obviously gives a bit of an objective view, although we can still skirt around whether or not you should be attempting those types of routes. I suspect though that if you're not sure what grade of route you're doing/have done, then you're still very much in the realms of hiring guides - who should be able to give you that independent assessment.
On that scheme I'm somewhere between "Advanced Intermediate" and "Basic Advanced".
davidof, Is that route grading scheme universal? For example, it seems a different one to that used in the Chamonix tours guidebook I have, which uses D, VD, VD+, ED for grades of climbs involved and GS, VGS etc for the standard of skiing required.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
beanie1,
Where's the video camera when you need one 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| comprex wrote: |
| Martin Bell, If one accepts that skill levels above 9-ish involve extreme specialisation and training, how fine a grain does one need to use to select candidates for any given skills clinic, say? What I mean is, by that stage they've all demonstrated the ability to learn and to be present within their bodies to be able to learn well. So the skill scale should rather be called a 'what can we teach this person now' scale? |
You probably have to get away from numerical scales and look at what people want to learn. To take an example from "close to home", you might have an ex-World Cup Downhiller who happens to be at level 1 for railsliding. That is certainly something that you could teach to that person, the question is does he want to learn it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
How about this:
Beginner: You take lessons. You need to learn. You need lessons. You know you need them
Next level up: You don't take lessons, after all you can ski, and you're not going to waste your time. Anyway, you can ski fast, and that's the important thing. You need lessons.
Next level up: You take lessons. They help you improve your control and technique. You need them. You know they are worth it.
Next level up: You teach lessons professionally. You also learn. You need to learn. You know it's worth it.
Next: You ski competitively. You take lessons, but from people called "coaches", not "instructors". You continue to learn. You need to learn. You know it's worth it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GrahamN, Ihaven't had timeto read the whole thread as I'm currently in the UK dialling up at 28,800! I just want to say that I think you're being very unfair to both Ise and PG. Neither of them are any way "godlike" on their skis, and as I've taught both I think that's a fair assessment. However, both of them are pretty fair skiers and have the chance to ski a lot. More experience, but not necessarily better technique???????????
I didn't like the SCGB grading because if I'm a Grade 1 (equivalence etc....) and I only think I'm purple by that system then who's Gold? I don't ALWAYS ski the fall line, I don't ALWAYS ski fast and I certainly don't ALWAYS SKI HARD ALL DAY. I have no idea about Snow and Rock grades and neither will any other foreign based instructor.
On any given day in winter on any given piste (IMHO) about 80% of the skiers are actually very moderate/rough. In the summer the reverse is true. Most holiday skiers don't get a chance to see good skiers in action, and if they do are not able to tell the difference. Number of weeks skied + where + pistes you are happy on is the only way to judge it. Terms like intermediate and advanced are absolutely meaningless.
Sorry if you think this is sarcastic or big headed - it's not intended to be, but is a statement of fact. I have to say your comments about the two gentlemen, puts you in the category of very intermediate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
I think that the martial arts grading system could well be adapted to skiing. The coloured belts (grades 10th kyu up to 1st kyu) representng the primarily recreational skiers and then the black belts (1st dan upwards) representing those that want to take it further. We could all wear the hat of the colour to represent the grade that we are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
We could all wear the hat of the colour to represent the grade that we are.
|
Well you'd better tell Admin to sell different colours then! I'll have to change the one I've just bought  . Like the car (? forgot model), they come in any colour so long as it's black.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
There was me thinking Ray Zorro'd prefer kenjutsu.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Quote: |
us Island dwellers
|
How's the Austrian surf this summer, DB?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| easiski wrote: |
GrahamN, Ihaven't had timeto read the whole thread as I'm currently in the UK dialling up at 28,800! I just want to say that I think you're being very unfair to both Ise and PG. Neither of them are any way "godlike" on their skis, and as I've taught both I think that's a fair assessment.
.
.
.
Sorry if you think this is sarcastic or big headed - it's not intended to be, but is a statement of fact. I have to say your comments about the two gentlemen, puts you in the category of very intermediate. |
Sorry - but I think that's unfair, completely misinterpreting what I've said. My initial objection was to the following set of posts
| ise wrote: |
| a better start place may be to ask who cares? why's there a need to categorise? |
| 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. |
| ise wrote: |
| exactly, so we should ban them |
| PG wrote: |
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. |
|
...which completely misses the point that the SCGB gradings are given by leaders/instructors/guides - so are not primarily self-assessed, points made by Nick Zotov, laundryman (and myself), so are not geared to engender "a grossly inaccurate opinion of their own ability". My objection, in an aside to a post I was hoping made a substantive contribution to the discussion and in which I answered ise's "typically combative" 1st, was to the tone of their contributions (OK I missed the smilie in ise's 2nd, but the tone was set by then). I also know I was not the only one who found their comments unpleasant and unhelpful.
| Quote: |
| I'd invite you to find any post by me...that's ever suggested" |
ise or PG are "godlike" or "especially talented skiers", or accusation by me of them making any post claiming such talents.
| Quote: |
| I can save you time by telling you there isn't one. |
...but would it be such an insult if they were? What I did say was...
| Quote: |
| sure if you ski most you're going to be better than most of the rest of us |
| Quote: |
| Guys: "Expertise" should probably in this case be read as "experience of skiing with lots and lots of people over a arge number of days", rather than "Godlike skiing ability" - although I also suspect your denials also include a degree of false modesty. |
where of course "better than most" means "in the top 50%" and "us" could reasonably be taken to mean either s, or the collective British skiing population. Several s of course have the advantage over me of having skied with them, but I would be very surprised if those gentlemen were not in the best 25% - but in any case it's less their skiing ability than their knowledge that's the untapped resource here (despite more emollient soliciatation from e.g. slikedges: PG did then became a bit more forthcoming, with a reasoned explanation of his reluctance to contribute positively, although I disagree with his argument there). I did follow this up with one sarcy comment of my own which I later withdrew in response to ise's objection.
I explicitly agreed with PG's statement that there were 6yo double-golds in the Alps (I have no reason to doubt him, and have of course been well outclassed by local kids on several occasions myself), but then asked whether there was any scheme that assessed them beyond that - to which there was no answer. I also agreed, in response to PG's comment about "marketing-oriented categorisation of skiers...is inappropriate and potentially misleading", that I "don't think tying grading to equipment selection is really useful to anyone other than retailers trying to shift stock to newbies" (i.e. the S&R scale). I disagree strongly that the SCGB scheme is a marketing-oriented categorisation, designed to sell holidays (can't remember now who posted that point). The exact opposite actually - there have been holidays I would have been interested in I have not gone on either because the skiing level would not have been challenging enough, or was too challenging - i.e. the grading scheme explicitly limits the choice of trip you can/wish to go on. I can't find anything in any of ise's posts making any contribution to the discussion (and am completely mystified by his comment about ski recommendations and 10mins in a snowdome).
In contrast, davidof made an extremely useful contribution, producing what looks like a very good scale for assessment of higher level abilities. It would be nice to know if that was purely off the top of his head, or anything close to categorisations understood by his peers. One of the criteria he listed made me think more clearly about something I'm just starting to do - route and snow-condition assessment. Obviously, there've been the usual avalanche-awareness demonstrations/advice, but in future I'm going to make sure I get a bit more coaching from guides I hire about learning for myself how to assess potential routes down (or up) a mountain, and spot potential problems before hitting them, rather than being a primarily passive information absorber and follower of the guide.
FWIW - prior to this post I've written about 5 lines in this thread on the subject of this ridiculous tiff, one withdrawing two of those, and nearly a 100 on trying to address the subject under discussion.
I don't think I'm being unfair to them at all.
Disagreement about whether the criteria used by the SCGB are correct/useful is a separate and perfectly valid discussion. I believe the published criteria are there primarily for non/new members to self-assess prior to selecting a first holiday - that was certainly the main use I put it to (and I actually undergraded myself by a full grade on-piste and half a grade off). I would fully expect a BASI 1 (with or without etcs) to be a full gold - but I'm certainly not fit to judge. I have skied with some golds (on+off) who are clearly excellent, and some who I suspect have been "resting on their laurels" a bit. Politically it can be difficult to downgrade someone from gold, but it does happen! As I said above, I believe that club leaders have a more detailed set of criteria to judge against when making gradings - I think I've seen leaders going through some points weighting score-sheet, but I could be wrong, as of course I've never been party to such an exercise.
| Quote: |
Terms like intermediate and advanced are absolutely meaningless.
|
Agreed, unless everyone understands the same set of criteria to which those labels are attached, as I posted above. I actually needed to look back at the grading descriptions to see to which grades those labels are attached, and I've never heard a SCGB member describe their grading by anything other than the colour. Hence my repeated questions about whether there are any consistent ski-school gradings, and doubts about the usefulness of a -only scheme other than as a fun intellectual (?) exercise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| Quote: |
us Island dwellers
|
How's the Austrian surf this summer, DB? |
I think it's going to be the next big thing in Austria after wok racing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| GrahamN wrote: |
| ise wrote: |
| a better start place may be to ask who cares? why's there a need to categorise? |
|
A point that's not been answered in any reasonable way at all other than your own comments about assessing levels for course entry. In fact, my point's been rather neatly demonstrated by the apparent production of a local reverse engineered scheme. A concern that you just raised as well if I read your comments correctly.
I understand the BASI don't bother to ask what level you are on the Snow and Rock or SCGB scale prior to entering their systems or ask for much more than :
# Be able to ski parallel confidently, coping with a variety of conditions and have completed at least 16 weeks on snow.
# Be able to ski parallel confidently on black runs, making rhythmical turns close to the fall line at a steady pace.
# Be able to ski confidently and in control in off piste conditions.
# Have an understanding of Client care
| GrahamN wrote: |
| I also know I was not the only one who found their comments unpleasant and unhelpful. |
only apparently you were, whilst I'm not offended by comments apparently others were.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
tt
Last edited by You need to Login to know who's really who. on Thu 19-05-05 9:17; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
So I draw from all this:
1) never been on skis
2) has done some dry lessons or a ski weekend - can snowplough turn
3) has done a week - can do a basic swing
4) has done a few weeks - can do a poor parallel, and carve the end of turns and is controlled on blues
5) getting better at carving, still stemming a bit, can maintain form on blues and control on reds, can't do moguls properly
6) has learnt to carve most of the radius of the turn, but still skidding short ones too much, pretty much no stem, maintaining form on reds and control on blacks, learning moguls and off-piste
Then over to davidof
7) Advanced intermediate. Probably doing two weeks on snow per year. Can ski all on-piste slopes in a ski resort but avoids moguls and icy blacks and narrow tracks. Can't ski crust and has trouble in crud (cut up snow on or off-piste). Can ski spring snow and can link some turns in powder on fat skis. Could ski off-piste routes rated 1 and 2+ on spring snow or shallow powder. Can climb at 200+ meters per hour giving ability to do some basic ski touring.
8} I would then introduce Basic Advanced. Avoids breakable crust, medium to large moguls, complicated forest routes off piste. Competently skis routes rated 3+, can get down routes rated 4+ depending on snow conditions. Probably does 20+ days off-piste/ski touring per year and at least 30 days on snow. Can climb at 300m+ per hour giving the ability to tackle routes some distance from the top of ski lifts or do longer day tours or shorter multi-day tours. Possibly some technical errors in ski technique which would probably need some coaching to correct. Maybe doing club racing. May avoid certain disciplines: off-piste, park/pipe. May have taught on plastic and may have done a 1 week BASI introductory course.
9) Advanced - any two of the following
1. ski all conditions in control but extremely difficult snow (large moguls, breakable crust) would mean the skiing slower and their route choices are dictated by the surface.
2. grabs/360s in the park, able to huck and land small jumps
3. comptently skiing slopes rated 4 and above (long off-piste slopes or couloirs of 40 degrees possibly with sections of 45 degrees, forests. Can climb at 400m+ per hour.
Advanced Practioner on piste
i. Ability to perform basic ski techniques: snow plough, stem, parallel, carved turns and explain the mechanics to other skiers - Basi 3 level
Advanced Practioner off-piste
ii. may be a ski club group leader with a intermediate level ski, group management, cartography and mountain safety qualifications or may do 30,000 meters+ ski touring per year or 30 days+ off-piste per year with friends sharing some responsability for decision making
10) So for expert I would say any two of the below.
1. Skis/boards all snow conditions in control including breakable crust and moguls close or down the fall line
2. Ability to pull 720s or loops in the park
3. Passes Eurotest
4. Competently sking off-piste slopes rated 5.2 and above (extended passages of 45-50 degrees, passages over 50 degrees - possibly narrow). Can climb at 500m+ per hour
Expert Practioner on piste
i. ability to perform and communicate all ski/board techniques to other skiers - BASI 1/2 level
Expert Practioner off-piste
i. ability to manage a group in a mountain environment with the maximum safety given the regional conditions - expert at risk evaluation, route choices, group management, search and rescue
Expert level skiers probably started skiing as children, have done some competition and put in excess of 60 days on snow each season.
Expert level skiing may result in serious injury or death if a mistake is made.
Over to Kramer
11) - Advanced Professional - an excellent skier, probably one of about ten in resort at the same high(est) level. Competes at a national or international level with varying degrees of success, and/or has some degree of sponsorship. Does not make enough from competition/demonstration alone to support themselves, and needs another supplementary form of income.
12) - International competing professional - Usually the No1 in their local area, and generally a well known name. Is successful in international competition, or in demonstration. Makes a living from sponsorship, prize money, and appearance fees. Does not need a supplementary form of income.
Well done Actually not all that different from the old S&R scale I posted on page 1 of this thread (not the same as the one currently on the website), with the misleading labels, which have proved so objectionable to some here, removed. 
Edit:
And once again, this may not be useful to very good and experienced skiers but may be to those of us still at a stage where we want guidance on what the next small step and not giant leap is, other than to be told professional coaching and miles to go before we sleep. 
Last edited by Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do. on Thu 19-05-05 9:26; edited 4 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
GrahamN, as self-deprecation (with the emphasis on 'self') is a very British trait, reading back it seems most people were amused by the tongue-in-cheek "beginners plus" definition. Many of us have been there at some point, if we're being honest. Some probably still are! As for the two scales I was targeting - the fact that they were drawn up by employees adds to rather than detracts from the point that I was making. The majority of people who read the Ski Club "Grading Zone" on line will be be making self-assessments rather than first skiing with a guide themselves (which a large number will never do).
| Quote: |
(Ski Club 'Grading Zone')
Which colour are you?
Each holiday is designed to suit people with a particular level of experience so that you will ski with others of a similar ability. That way no one is left behind and no one is held back. Please establish your level of skiing before you choose when and where you wish to join us. This way you are sure to select the perfect holiday.
|
That seems pretty explicit to me, so we'll have to agree to differ with respect to the Ski Club system of evaluation, and its purpose. Most people would be encouraged to go on a holiday if their abilities are talked up somewhat, discouraged if they feel in any way inadequate. What highlighted this for me was the pairing of the term "Advanced Intermediate" with the definition of skills required - just a single step short of being an "Advanced" skier, which is plain daft.
| Quote: |
| I explicitly agreed with PG's statement that there were 6yo double-golds in the Alps (I have no reason to doubt him, and have of course been well outclassed by local kids on several occasions myself), but then asked whether there was any scheme that assessed them beyond that - to which there was no answer. |
I didn't bother responding because of what I thought were inappropriate remarks, but ok, this is more or less how it works for ski club kids in France. These children are receiving formal instruction from highly qualified full-time teachers - not just being 'guided' around the mountain by some quite accomplished skiers for a couple of weeks a year. Assessments - often tough ones! - take place every time they hit the slopes with their instructors, ie anything from 100 to 150 times a year as they get older. Mostly informal assessments, with the results appearing in black and white when they enter alpine or skiercross races, freestyle competitions, etc. Appraised internally so that training groups consist of children of similar ability. Points classifications from competitions in the various disciplines on a national scale until they reach the end of the Children II category (fourteen to fifteen years old), internationally (FIS points) thereafter. A gradual progression to either high level competition or at the very least, qualification as instructors - many achieving this with relative ease by their very early 20s.
The instruction includes dryland training off-season, ski-specific to hone all those qualities needed to become an expert all-rounder, not just a racer. Up to fifteen hours a week of physical training plus team and individual sports in school alone during term time. A 'mere' three hours or so during the season proper. A full month of training with the club (six days a week) during the summer holiday, glacier and dryland.
On snow the amount of time spent doing race training during the season changes as children progress, but even older kids spend many hours a week (with instruction) off piste, in the park, among the trees... even a morning of cross country skiing every so often. During the school term there are three skiing sessions a week, Monday, Wednesday and Friday half days, plus the weekend of course. During the two week Christmas holidays the only day off was Christmas Day. A full week on the glacier in October, two weeks for the Feb holiday, three at Easter. Plus the occasional two/three day course (ie speed skiing, off piste) during the term for selected kids. Plus days off for weekday racing, for those who have qualified.
So as an example, a Les Arcs club twelve year old in the Ski Study school section at Bourg has done the following over a twelve month period:
In season school week & w/ends, special courses : Approx 75 individual sessions on snow
In season holidays : Approx 36 individual sessions on snow
Off-season holidays: Approx 24 individual sessions on snow
Summer and autumn terms: Betwen 10 and 15 hours per week of mainly ski-specific cross-training
Ie more than four months on the mountain, all under instruction, plus dryland. Given that some of them are already skiing a couple of months a year by around six years old, and that the more intensive stuff starts at eleven, a lot of the club sixteen year olds you see around the resorts have actually had their skis on for nearly a fifth of their young lives. By the time they're twenty, that adds up to not far short of 1,500 days on the snow.
The elite do even more. By the time they reach lycee age (sixteen plus) the best kids qualify for the ski academies. In these you do all your studying and dryand training during the summer months, with the 'A' level equivalent studies being spread out over an extra year. Winter, Spring? Ski training and racing - nothing else at all.
So categorisation in accordance with a Ski Club style scale, is pretty pointless. This is done on a day by day basis by club, regional and national trainers, combined with results. They are far more all-round skiers than they once were - today the emphasis is on producing skiers at home anywhere on the snow, in any conditions. Bode Miller is a case in point, one of the first of a new generation of competition skiers of this type.
A bit longwinded, but there's rather a lot to describe. I hope that helps people to understand why there is such a gulf in skill/ability/fitness/mountain skills/awareness between many of the Ski Club 'double golds' and a big percentage of the formally trained locals, even youngsters. The thread was, after all, entitled "Just how good a skier do you think you are?", so I felt more perspective was needed than the limited grading systems under discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PG, Is there a cost implication to all this training. If you were paying commercial rates it would be horrendous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PG, Wow! Thanks for that. I must admit my choice of topic title was somewhat of a hook to catch the eye (very unfortunate mixed metaphor). I for one have been grateful for your insights into the obviously long and arduous path to reach even mere mediocrity in competitive skiing. But it was my intention to come up with a scale useful to the recreational skier. Not so that we can have an inflated opinion of ourselves and misjudge our skill and control with potentially dangerous results for all, but so we can have some guidance on where we are, what to aim for realistically, and to know when we have achieved that step also and can look to the next.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Some Brits don't arf set themselves up.
Anybody else smile when an all to do SCGB member purple heart or watever it is ("would be gold but a bit of schrapnel in the leg from the war you see") turns up thinking he's the biz only to get his ar#e handed to him on a plate by some Norwegian/Italian/French/Austrian (delete as applicable) skier who couldn't give a stuff about mickey mouse badges, or is it just me?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for that ise. Referring that back to the SCGB scale (because that's the one I know best), I would reckon that entry level would correspond roughly to a full purple (or possibly P-....but all dependent on the interpretation of "confidently") - with the addition of the client care criterion.
(BTW - FYI, I had a PM supporting my initial objection, the poster deciding not to go public for reasons that turned out to be 100% accurate).
Since we're playing nicely now ( ), do you know of any equivalence between anything we've been talking about and anything run by Swiss ski-schools, ski-clubs, mountain clubs etc?
PG - thanks, that's much more the kind of thing I was after. I agree that the SCGB site has a rather PR sheen to it that (clearly in some people's eyes) masks the meat underneath; I suspect they've had some marketing consultants in to try to shake off the worthy, boring image, but the results seem to be equally counter-productive. Which is why I put up some additional criteria based on my own observations. As I've said several times - I consider the actual labels attached to the specific grades completely irrelevant - and it looks as if it would be better to dump them and just stick with the simple colour labels. As I've also said above, I agree that the published criteria are geared to self-assessment, but also to some extent overstate the experience required at each levels - which are then replaced by club assessments once you've been on one of their holidays. However, as it looks like I'm not going to pursuade you af tha validity of this point, yes we'll have to agree to differ. I would probably have been less irritated by your rewriting, if it had come following a post like your last, rather than as an nearly-opening gambit - and I have friends who would certainly agree it once summed me up to a T (I hope I've now grown out of that - but still unashamedly push hard at the edges of my comfort zone a good proportion of the time).
| Quote: |
Mostly informal assessments, with the results appearing in black and white when they enter alpine or skiercross races, freestyle competitions |
So do those "black and white" results correspond to times/%ages over specific style courses, or some more all-round grading? OK I've just seen your "Points classifications from competitions in the various disciplines on a national scale" comment. Can you see any equivalent levels between that any anything we are familiar with: saying SCGB gold is equivalent to a French bronze (or paper, lace, wood, whatever) is perfectly reasonable if that's what it is! FYI, there was a race and mogul assessment in the Gold test, but I don't know what's done now they've ended formal tests, and it's not something I've needed to worry about yet. Again I'm not holding up the SCGB scale as the be-all and end-all - far from it, in that even a fair number of Brits don't know what the levels mean let alone the natives.
Maybe a more apt question is how do the locals assess their good friends the Parisians  (risky question -- considering comments in another thread - but I really would appreciate a mostly sensible reply) ?
The sole reason I'm still banging on about this is that I see that the benefit of such schemes is in reducing the danger element in skiing and avoiding expensive/tragic mistakes (very similar point to that just made by slikedges). If you have an accurate assessment of your abilities you can a) give a fair description of your capabilities to any instructor/guide you may be hiring and avoid ending up in an inappropriate group, b) when gleaning information from more experienced skiers assess whether you are up to the job, or just get yourself in trouble c) when offering advice to less experienced knowing relative abilities gives you more of a chance of knowing when to advise caution. Of course none of this replaces observations on the snow (although flattering conditions may lead to a false assessment even then to less experienced eyes - like mine!). For example if I'm talking to a local (or reading guide book) who tells me about this great/interesting/aesthetic route through the "Grand Fromage" or wherever, I may think "wow that's great, must do that", until I find he's a level 123 (out of 259), and I'm only a 15....at which point I just get the postcard...and another lesson! As another example, in the vanishingly unlikely event of being invited for a day's skiing with philingle  , I would know certainly to decline (but with equally certain regret). OK extreme example, and not a decision that actually requires assistance from any grading scheme - but if the ability difference is less yawning...? Similarly, I have a number of acquaintances who are also skiers, but with whom I've never been skiing. Would I be sensible planning a challenging holiday with them? I don't know, I've only got their accounts of their exploits, and they've only got mine (but in my case I can also give them an objective grading, but that's only useful if they understand what that means). But I'm repeating myself...again.
Last edited by Ski the Net with snowHeads  on Thu 19-05-05 10:33; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
slikedges, if ever I was to take up mountain climbing, I would prefer to grade my standard in line with the true experts, professional mountaineers, not with some artificially pitched 'realistically achievable' top level that would be bound to encourage me to think I was better than I really am. Skiing is a similarly dangerous sport, in a dangerous environment. Personally I have no desire to live in cloud cuckoo land. Such realism would/should in no way detract from obtaining proper guidance - on the contrary it is the only way to be sure you don't end up with an inflated opinion of your own abilities and misjudge your standards as a result. Understanding how far you've still got to progress should encourage the recreational skier to go for extra tuition, not put him/her off.
You shouldn't draw a line between leisure and competition/professional skiers when thinking about standards. Such a division would be purely artificial, and misleading. All it does it makes so-called 'purple' etc skiers think they are better than they really are.
Frosty the Snowman, club membership including all transport, race entries, instruction and annual ski pass around £300 p.a., less in the smaller resorts. The ski study sections at secondary school? Some insignificant figure, can't even remember, something like £50 a year - because they're state schools, skiing's part of the curriculum. Equipment's the only major cost - some is provided by the clubs, but you usually need several new pairs of race skis (1 x slalom/2 x GS/1 x superG) a year from 13/14 years up. Factory prices though, with the occasional free pair thrown in if your results are good, full sponsorship for winners.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Brit "I'm a purple heart nearly gold star, 6.34562 on the Snow and Rock scale and I can make these expert Salomon babies really turn you know." (in a sort of "I was Molly Sugdens Bridesmaid" tone of voice)
European Ski Teacher "Sorry? (thinks WTF) ski down there then, right very good stand over there you are in that group then."
Last edited by And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports. on Thu 19-05-05 10:21; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| PG wrote: |
| slikedges, if ever I was to take up mountain climbing, I would prefer to grade my standard in line with the true experts, professional mountaineers, not with some artificially pitched 'realistically achievable' top level that would be bound to encourage me to think I was better than I really am. |
In climbing every route you do is precisely graded though, in a way ski pistes just aren't. Even then there's lemmings throwing themselves at lines and getting up them in ways that reduce the skill required. So even there you have a difference between the guy that can turn up and flash a route and those that spend all day falling off it.
| GrahamN wrote: |
| (BTW - FYI, I had a PM supporting my initial objection, the poster deciding not to go public for reasons that turned out to be 100% accurate). |
we'll maybe just go on those who don't need anonymity though?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
DB, you can't say that, they'll be PM'ing each other about what a horrid man you are
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
ise, we could continue fighting, but I really am trying to play nicely....want one of my virtual maltesers? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
GrahamN, bet it's not your last one...
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
PG, shucks...I miscounted 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
eEvans, Thanks for that. I wish more of the less experienced snowHeads would speak up. Or maybe I'm alone here...
Perhaps I am showing my ignorance and naivety with all this but I'm just trying to learn and I think it's unhelpful for people just to say "look, all you need to know is you are cr@p and have a looong way to go". Of course it is important to know that it's a long way to the stars, but I think people know that, though the path has been made usefully explicit here. It's just that people need achievable targets...
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
slikedges, Most of the people I ski (inc me)with know that they are crap but are quite happy to be crap. We ski away safely and merrily all day, avoiding the really hard stuff, but taking it very steady if on moderate blacks or difficult reds. We are a danger to no one but have a huge laugh from start to finish. It all depends on what you want from skiing. How far you have to go depends on how far you want to go.
PG,
| Quote: |
if ever I was to take up mountain climbing, I would prefer to grade my standard in line with the true experts, professional mountaineers, not with some artificially pitched 'realistically achievable' top level that would be bound to encourage me to think I was better than I really am
|
In that case if you were to take up mountain climbing you would be crap
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
slikedges, you still haven't even begun to explain to me just how having a comprehensive appreciation of what a sport entails - its possibilities, its limits and dangers - can do anything other than help people to pinpoint their true ability and potential more accurately. Your "achievable targets" line in the sand is by definition arbitrary! No one in this thread has labelled any particular skier standard as being good, bad or different - they're just being described as steps along the way, with the length of the path being redefined, that's all. You might never be able to climb Everest, but you can get a fantastic sense of achievement by reaching base camp. You don't have to turn your back on the mountain and pretend you're on the summit - or if that's the only way you can work up the enthusiasm to give it a go in the first place, well.... it takes all sorts!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| slikedges wrote: |
It's just that people need achievable targets...
|
I agree, but all the scales referred to here all have intermediate steps so lots of achievable targets and a sense of progression. I can't see the problem with letting skiers know where they are on a realisitic scale, rather than letting them think they are near the top of an unrealistic scale. For me, the day I realised I wasn't a good skier was the day I decided to do something to improve. Up until that point I had been kidding myself that I was a reasonable recreational skier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Frosty the Snowman wrote: |
PG,
| Quote: |
if ever I was to take up mountain climbing, I would prefer to grade my standard in line with the true experts, professional mountaineers, not with some artificially pitched 'realistically achievable' top level that would be bound to encourage me to think I was better than I really am
|
In that case if you were to take up mountain climbing you would be crap |
Yep, no argument there! And knowing it might save my life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rob@rar.org.uk, I agree completely. Watch a really good skier ski off piste on a single tiny ski, because a girl in the group has broken hers, and the guide has swapped with her, and then realise just how far there is to go.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
- I confess to asking the good lady whether it was worth any more lessons, 30-ish hours later I know I was wrong. Roll on the snow , time for more lessons. .... (I know I am going to regret confessing to that on here )