 Poster: A snowHead
|
| Nick Zotov wrote: |
| davidof wrote: |
| .......Sorry was skiing yesterday so didn't get a chance to reply.......... |
I can do jealous :evil: |
Yes thought I'd better edit my post in the spirit of solidarity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
PG, It's still too long for my window setting 1024x768. Or don't you care anymore?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Quote: |
PG, It's still too long for my window setting 1024x768. Or don't you care anymore?
|
EVERYONE HAPPY NOW 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
PG, Thanks. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| GrahamN wrote: |
So...parcel handed on from one argumentative pedant to the next....  |
I think I'll pass. Although I've read your post several times the only thing I get from it is your desire to disagree with me. I can't actually find any substantive point where we disagree, but perhaps I'm just stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GrahamN........
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| rob@rar.org.uk wrote: |
| I can't actually find any substantive point where we disagree, but perhaps I'm just stupid. |
The utility (as opposed to desirability), or danger, of a scale that stops before "the pinnacle of achievement". It may be an academic argument (edit: and one I also am now bored with), but has clearly been getting in the way of sensible information exchange here.
What would have shut me up after about page 2 would have been a post like "I don't particularly like grading scales (for reasons A, B and C if you are particularly interested), and I don't like this one any more than scale that or the other, but the ESF/Arlberg/PSIA (delete as appropriate) grades like [link]this[/link]".
Last edited by You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net. on Fri 20-05-05 11:37; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GrahamN, I pretty much agree. I wanted help with a utilitarian scale for skiers of my unexceptional incompetence, but was interested in the perspective of those of unexceptional competence, to help the perfectionist in me create a scale that went to the top. In the end the pragmatist in me is happy with what we've got, largely thanks to davidof, and differences aside, PG's views and info on top-flight skiing and the long path to competitiveness was enlightening.
Last edited by Ski the Net with snowHeads  on Fri 20-05-05 11:54; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| GrahamN wrote: |
| rob@rar.org.uk wrote: |
| I can't actually find any substantive point where we disagree, but perhaps I'm just stupid. |
The utility (as opposed to desirability), or danger, of a scale that stops before "the pinnacle of achievement". It may be an academic argument (edit: and one I also am now bored with), but has clearly been getting in the way of sensible information exchange here.
What would have shut me up after about page 2 would have been a post like "I don't particularly like grading scales (for reasons A, B and C if you are particularly interested), and I don't like this one any more than scale that or the other, but the ESF/Arlberg/PSIA (delete as appropriate) grades like [link]this[/link]". |
Graham, throughout this thread you have been seeking opinion on possible level descriptors for very good skiers. All I've ever said is that if ability scales are going to be used they should include the kind of information that you are seeking. I fail to see where we disagree.
Unfortunately I'm not a good enough skier to comment on what those levels should say, for which I humbly apologise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| davidof wrote: |
Regarding the ski mountaineering grading scheme I mentioned. |
I had a quick skim back through this discussion and could not find your words. Could you provide any more details of this grading scheme please? Are there any examples, perhaps naming some routes with their grades.
Grading ski routes appears to be a challenging topic in its own right. It must consider different snow conditions: from deep soft snow, to sastrugi, to spring snow, and many more. Places I have skiied off-piste have been relatively easy on some occasions and extremely intimidating on others - just down to snow conditions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| GrahamN wrote: |
| What would have shut me up after about page 2 would have been a post like "I don't particularly like grading scales (for reasons A, B and C if you are particularly interested), and I don't like this one any more than scale that or the other, but the ESF/Arlberg/PSIA (delete as appropriate) grades like [link]this[/link]". |
I really doubt it would but we'll never know.
But why the hell should you define what people can and can't talk about and define what they're allowed to post?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
All interesting stuff (up to a point). However, anyone joining late should read only after removing belts, shoelaces and leaving sharp objects well away from the computer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Quote: |
| GrahamN recently wrote: What would have shut me up after about page 2 would have been a post like "I don't particularly like grading scales (for reasons A, B and C if you are particularly interested), and I don't like this one any more than scale that or the other, but the ESF/Arlberg/PSIA (delete as appropriate) grades like [link]this[/link]". |
| Quote: |
| Despite PG having already confirmed: but as I think that the concept of providing a framework which invariably encourages people to overrate their ability is at fault, it doesn't make a lot of sense to join in with a points scoring system of my own. |
| Quote: |
| as well as: I reckon only a professional instructor/coach - with no agenda - would be qualified to draw up a scale with any real meaning. |
So WTH? Oh damn, that was on page 2, not after it....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
I feel like Lord Palmerston on the Schleswig-Holstein question:
With respect to the history of Schleswig-Holstein, Lord Palmerston once proclaimed it to be so complicated that only three men had ever fully understood it—one being Prince Albert, who was dead; the second, a professor, who had become insane; the third, Palmerston himself, who had forgotten it.
Last edited by Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person on Fri 20-05-05 12:46; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
DB, would that it were simple, how suicidal are you on the ITV daytime TV standard suicidal scale?
Or where you trying to be funny? How funny was that on the new modified Morecambe and Wise corrected scale?
Or shall I propose I a new scale? I'll assume I'm really witty, so I'd be a 10 out of 10, your posts made me smile and were very funny, so I'll make you a 7 just to maintain the differential. blah blah blather etc etc , it's just filler now, the scale's basically working.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Since skiing/boarding, by all the posts above, cannot have empirical standards then it must have both subjective and objective standards from the point of the practicioner (Pr) and the observer (Ob)
Level 1:
Pr, . . . . . . . . . . . (fill gap as required) scared
Ob, It’s just a numpty on the baby slopes to be ignored or flattened
Level 2:
Pr, Coooool! . . . snowplow.
Ob, Irritating mobile chicane
Level 3:
Pr, ‘Parallel Turns’, I AM A GOD!
Ob, You’re crap.
Level 4:
Pr, buying a set of carving skis.
Ob, You’re fast, crap and noisy about it.
Level 5:
Pr, Why do I keep falling down?
Ob, You’re fast, crap, loud and off piste.
Level 6:
Pr, I wonder if I should take lessons?
Ob, You’re slower, still crap but quiet.
Level 7:
Pr, Oh, so thaaats why!
Ob, Where’d he go?
Level 8:
Pr, quiet smile
Ob, Who IS that God?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Ah....I was wondering why that argumentative pedant had been missing for so long. I guess you didn't like that malteser then!
| ise wrote: |
I really doubt it would but we'll never know.
|
ise, Posts: 2535
GrahamN, Posts: 121
pot....kettle....black... 
| Quote: |
But why the hell should you define what people can and can't talk about and define what they're allowed to post? |
In what way could my post have possibly been interpreted in such a way? All I said was what I was after, which in no way constrains anyone else's freedom of speech.
| rob@rar.org.uk wrote: |
| Graham, throughout this thread you have been seeking opinion on possible level descriptors for very good skiers. |
If I've been addressing those matters, it's primarily because of your and PG's objections to the S&R and SCGB scales stopping at the level of recreational skiing. Personally, I'm comfortable with the SCGB scale for myself at present, but davidof's contribution is pointing in the direction I'm starting to head, and so I'm interested. What I've actually been asking for throughout is any experience of equivalence between levels on different scales (witness my posts 1, 2, 3, 1st para of 4, last para of 5, 3rd para of 6, penultimate para of 10). ise's contribution about minimum levels to get on a BASI course was exactly the kind of thing - OK, so also heading towards the upper end.
And my whole point is that I don't expect s to be a "good enough skier to comment on what those levels should say" and I don't expect s to "draw up a scale with any real meaning" (but if they wish to...fine and dandy...bit of fun), but am trying to draw on the knowledge of those who have different experiences to me (...the whole point of a discussion forum) OF EXISTING SYSTEMS!
I'm beginning to understand how Paxman felt when Michael Howard was Home Secretary  (although I've only asked the same question seven times...now 8.....so far  ).
Masque 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| GrahamN wrote: |
| If I've been addressing those matters, it's primarily because of your and PG's objections to the S&R and SCGB scales stopping at the level of recreational skiing. |
I have not once referred to the SCGB scale. Do you think the S&R scale is a fair reflection of achievement and progression in skiing? I was under the impression that we agreed on its limitations.
| GrahamN wrote: |
| Personally, I'm comfortable with the SCGB scale for myself at present, but davidof's contribution is pointing in the direction I'm starting to head, and so I'm interested. What I've actually been asking for throughout is any experience of equivalence between levels on different scales (witness my posts 1, 2, 3, 1st para of 4, last para of 5, 3rd para of 6, penultimate para of 10). ise's contribution about minimum levels to get on a BASI course was exactly the kind of thing - OK, so also heading towards the upper end. |
That's just splitting hairs! I don't see why you continue to exaggerate the small (if any) differences between what we have said 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Aren't you boredsurfin yet?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rob@rar.org.uk, I think it's only fair that you let me in on any deal. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
The venerable indeed hallowed Slush and Rubble Ability Level Indicator has been denounced and lambasted in another thread. There is a clear and present need for a scale to end all scales, for a grand unifying scale of recreational skiing ability. But why stop there? Personally that would be the limit of my insight but we have here of incontrovertible ability, who could enlighten the rest of us (don't be shy, it's all good).
So can we, as the most broad-minded, open-armed and hip width-legged ski forum in town, do better than S&R. Can we produce a rational, honest but more importantly useful and representative ladder of ability?
The challenge is made
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Frosty the Snowman wrote: |
| The venerable indeed hallowed Slush and Rubble Ability Level Indicator has been denounced and lambasted in another thread. There is a clear and present need for a scale to end all scales, for a grand unifying scale of recreational skiing ability. |
If that clear and present need was presented cogently in anything above I missed it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Frosty the Snowman, That seems strangely familiar...
Ho-hum, not something that interests me though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| ise wrote: |
| Frosty the Snowman wrote: |
| The venerable indeed hallowed Slush and Rubble Ability Level Indicator has been denounced and lambasted in another thread. There is a clear and present need for a scale to end all scales, for a grand unifying scale of recreational skiing ability. |
If that clear and present need was presented cogently in anything above I missed it. |
I really did like Kramer's effort.
I think we need a catchy scale.
A scale of achievement, not skill.
A cumulative one.
So. I propose 'The Twelve Days of Skiing".
1 And a wallet full of monies
2. Two intact knees
And a wallet full of monies
3.
4.
5.
6.
7. Seven trees avoided
8. Eight mogul turns
Seven trees avoided
.
.
Help me out here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
rob@rar.org.uk, fine...comment withdrawn re SCGB scale as it refers to yourself. Also agree that S&R scale is very compressed towards the top end, so it's not the be all and end all. But whether we agree or disagree on whether the gradations within in it are sensible, that is irrelevant - if we do disagree (and I don't know that either) I've agreed to disagree about it..and I don't see why you are still trying to argue about it. As I said above
| Quote: |
| It may be an academic argument (edit: and one I also am now bored with), but has clearly been getting in the way of sensible information exchange here. |
...and still is despite my desperately trying to move on.
(I think we can safely assume that this argument is not the 5 minute taster but is the full half hour )
However, as my main objections to it's sole use are, a) self-assessment and b) as easiski said earlier...who in (e.g.) France gives a fig what it says I keep on repeating my interest in what other scales exist and what equivalences exist between them. Why is this question so hard to understand?
(9...how many did Paxo get up to?)
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
comprex, last one could be
12. Twelve FIS points
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Ray Zorro, I considered 12. Twelve months of BASI
meaning study of course. Yours is clearer.
In the interest of scansion:
12. Twelve racing points
Eleven months of BASI
. .
4. Four forums joined
Three mates sprayed
Two intact knees
And a wallet full of monies
?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
I was thinking of '5 weeks abroad' but then we'd have to change the intro to 'On the true scale of skiing I really did achieve'
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
comprex,
others could be
x feet of powder
y feet of air
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and a boarder in a fir tree. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| GrahamN wrote: |
| ... I don't see why you are still trying to argue about it ... |
For the principal reason that you were assigning arguments to me that I neither made nor support! As a secondary point I was trying to find some common ground between us, but you seemed to prefer reinforcing some pretty minor (or non-existent) differences. Perhaps we should stop this nonsense?
Last edited by You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net. on Fri 20-05-05 15:48; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| GrahamN wrote: |
Ah....I was wondering why that argumentative pedant had been missing for so long. I guess you didn't like that malteser then!
| ise wrote: |
I really doubt it would but we'll never know.
|
ise, Posts: 2535
GrahamN, Posts: 121
pot....kettle....black... |
And what percentage of your posts since joining in Dec are in this thread?
| GrahamN wrote: |
| Quote: |
But why the hell should you define what people can and can't talk about and define what they're allowed to post? |
In what way could my post have possibly been interpreted in such a way? All I said was what I was after, which in no way constrains anyone else's freedom of speech. |
Yes, I really think you don't see it at all, you harangue anyone that doesn't engage in a sterile and pointless discussion on exactly your terms and offer gratuitous insults to anyone who disagrees with you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
