 Poster: A snowHead
|
| skimottaret wrote: |
Im pretty sure Rookie Academy in NZ do a Masters Programme using great trainers from all around the world. Ask for Harry to get more info.....
You could do both seasons  |
There’s a solid crew of older dirt bags doing seasons from overseas in Nz - see a few regular faces every year.
Worth thinking about. No visa hassles, probably cheaper for digs if you avoid Queenstown and similar deal to the USA in terms of inbounds off piste. Easy to get around and explore different areas and lots and lots of back country although access isn’t easy
Getting a job at one of the clubbies would be an option - live on the mountain, regularly snowed in for private powder days.
Last edited by Poster: A snowHead on Tue 6-09-22 21:21; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| BobinCH wrote: |
How’s the US inbounds off piste different from Euro marked itineraries (secured but not pisted) which see a lot of traffic
Like Mont Gelé, Tortin or Vallon d’Arbi in Verbier? |
The issue with euro itineraries is there seems to be no real definition. Some places it's just an off-piste suggestion, in other places it's a highly controlled freeride zone. Even with mont gele it seems kind of a gray area, yes the itinerary routes are controlled but the rest of the mountain isn't? Or maybe there sufficient traffic for it to be considered safeish? I'd definitely want my avy gear.
On the other hand in Canada you have the likes of ozone https://images.app.goo.gl/sN6jvKqK16LPiamx7 and T1 south https://images.app.goo.gl/ALGXidaggaWTQ2bq8 at kicking horse Yes that whole area is avalanche controlled and you can ski any route you like down from the peak. The freeride zones/itineraries in Europe are just not on the same scale to the stuff you can get inbounds in n America. Plus there is no gray areas, if it's in the boundary it's controlled.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| boarder2020 wrote: |
| BobinCH wrote: |
How’s the US inbounds off piste different from Euro marked itineraries (secured but not pisted) which see a lot of traffic
Like Mont Gelé, Tortin or Vallon d’Arbi in Verbier? |
The issue with euro itineraries is there seems to be no real definition. Some places it's just an off-piste suggestion, in other places it's a highly controlled freeride zone. Even with mont gele it seems kind of a gray area, yes the itinerary routes are controlled but the rest of the mountain isn't? Or maybe there sufficient traffic for it to be considered safeish? I'd definitely want my avy gear.
|
I’ve only skied a few itineraries in Europe. They’re more like the un-pisted black runs in the States: it’s linear.
I got the impression free ride zones are more like the inbound off-piste in N. America, where you can go about every which way all over the side of the mountain until you reach a boundary rope.
The other aspect of skiing in N. America is you can ski off the side of the piste, or between pistes. Its avi safety is implied, as it’s within the resort boundary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
<shrug> to me, avalanche control is the one thing you can't ameliorate, hence I mentioned specifically that.
A separate issue is people worried that they may fall and hurt (but not kill) themselves so badly that they can't rely on patrols. That's also a risk for those same people riding alone in Europe even on piste, so moot here. Even so those hapless internet folk could just take a mobile phone and manage it carefully. They could consider using a VHF radio on the local emergency frequencies. Finally, a satellite phone or locator (PLB) will nail it if you're going out of mobile coverage alone.
None of that will save our hapless internet person from NARSAID in the parking lot.
You can't fix stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Quote: |
A separate issue is people worried that they may fall and hurt (but not kill) themselves so badly that they can't rely on patrols. That's also a risk for those same people riding alone in Europe even on piste, so moot here.
|
I'm pretty sure the stats for n American resorts show way more deaths and serious injuries happen on groomed runs than off piste - skier collisions or people going too fast losing control and then hitting a tree being the main culprits.
As you say phones are generally sufficient for contacting if incapacitated with an injury such as ACL/broken leg. I think most resorts have a contact number in case of such emergencies.
Of course accidents happen, but make conservative decisions and ski suitable terrain within your abilities and you probably experience more risk driving to and from the mountain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| eightbobnote wrote: |
@Glen Charman, the instructor courses are very expensive at the lower levels but the training will definitely improve your skiing. Lessons from experienced teachers always will and BASI et al are good teachers. A better idea might be a package of lessons spread over a season with time to ski in between. This argument has been had on here before but learning to teach helps considerably because you begin to understand your own skiing and can analyse it much better.
The top skiiers in the word don't train to be instructors but they will almost certainly have been part of a racing program when they were younger, or some other form of coaching. Cody Townsend used to be a top freeride skiier and he talks about growing up racing. There is a reason that the instructor systems internationally require a GS race of some kind and in Europe it's the Eurotest which is very difficult.
At the end of the day it's your money. |
The Eurotest’s main impact is to give the local boys an advantage. It’s equivalent to needing to do a certain time in an F1 car round Silverstone to teach people to drive ie totally irrelevant.
Racing forces good technique and most local talented skiers will have raced as kids hence the correlation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
ski suitable terrain within your abilities and you probably experience more risk driving to and from the mountain.
|
Or walking from the hotel/car park to the lift.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| BobinCH wrote: |
| eightbobnote wrote: |
@Glen Charman, the instructor courses are very expensive at the lower levels but the training will definitely improve your skiing. Lessons from experienced teachers always will and BASI et al are good teachers. A better idea might be a package of lessons spread over a season with time to ski in between. This argument has been had on here before but learning to teach helps considerably because you begin to understand your own skiing and can analyse it much better.
The top skiiers in the word don't train to be instructors but they will almost certainly have been part of a racing program when they were younger, or some other form of coaching. Cody Townsend used to be a top freeride skiier and he talks about growing up racing. There is a reason that the instructor systems internationally require a GS race of some kind and in Europe it's the Eurotest which is very difficult.
At the end of the day it's your money. |
The Eurotest’s main impact is to give the local boys an advantage. It’s equivalent to needing to do a certain time in an F1 car round Silverstone to teach people to drive ie totally irrelevant.
Racing forces good technique and most local talented skiers will have raced as kids hence the correlation. |
Yep it's not surprising some of the top freeriders start as kids in race programs. Who would have thought kids getting regular coaching teaching them good fundamentals that transfer to freeride wouldn't excel at it It will be interesting to see how this changes going forward, as back then race program was the only option for parents looking to give their kids structured ski coaching over a full season. Now a lot of kids are turning their noses up at race programs to join freeride clubs, so I expect we will see fewer with a race background making the transition.
Training to become a teacher is never going to be as good as being coached with a focus to improve performance. While there is likely some overlap, it's two completely different things. It's like expecting someone with an undergrad in biology and pgce to have a better understanding than someone with an MSc and PhD.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| boarder2020 wrote: |
Training to become a teacher is never going to be as good as being coached with a focus to improve performance. While there is likely some overlap, it's two completely different things. It's like expecting someone with an undergrad in biology and pgce to have a better understanding than someone with an MSc and PhD. |
I’m not surprised at your sentiment given your strong view AGAINST teaching. However, there’re not just “some overlap”. I’d say there’s A LOT of overlap! They’re far from “two completely different things” at all
You can’t teach well without “doing it” well. So any training in teaching (of “doing” something) always includes substantial training in the “doing well” part.
Are there some wasting of time in the pure “teaching” aspect? Likely. But I would say it’s minimal, especially at the lower level. Put another way, training to be a ski instructor involves a lot of training to be a good skier.
The objection against instructor course isn’t so much regarding the course but the cost of those courses. It boils down to what kind of personality the OP is. If he’s a mature adult who is confident to manage his own learning, he’s better off finding a good coach to work with. Instructor course are better for those who lacks motivation or discipline, typically young gap year kids. However, some adults still have difficulty in those area. It’s no shame to admit it and work with our own limitation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| abc wrote: |
| boarder2020 wrote: |
Training to become a teacher is never going to be as good as being coached with a focus to improve performance. While there is likely some overlap, it's two completely different things. It's like expecting someone with an undergrad in biology and pgce to have a better understanding than someone with an MSc and PhD. |
I’m not surprised at your sentiment given your strong view AGAINST teaching. However, there’re not just “some overlap”. I’d say there’s A LOT of overlap! They’re far from “two completely different things” at all
You can’t teach well without “doing it” well. So any training in teaching (of “doing” something) always includes substantial training in the “doing well” part.
Are there some wasting of time in the pure “teaching” aspect? Likely. But I would say it’s minimal, especially at the lower level. Put another way, training to be a ski instructor involves a lot of training to be a good skier.
The objection against instructor course isn’t so much regarding the course but the cost of those courses. It boils down to what kind of personality the OP is. If he’s a mature adult who is confident to manage his own learning, he’s better off finding a good coach to work with. Instructor course are better for those who lacks motivation or discipline, typically young gap year kids. However, some adults still have difficulty in those area. It’s no shame to admit it and work with our own limitation. |
Just get coaching and practice. Why waste time / money learning to teach people?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| abc wrote: |
| ... The objection against instructor course isn’t so much regarding the course but the cost of those courses. ... |
I don't think that's the argument which was articulated at all. It's not a point about expense, although obviously paying to learn how to teach kids to put their boots on... is a waste of money, if your goal is to be a better skier, so I think your argument doesn't work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| BobinCH wrote: |
| abc wrote: |
| boarder2020 wrote: |
Training to become a teacher is never going to be as good as being coached with a focus to improve performance. While there is likely some overlap, it's two completely different things. It's like expecting someone with an undergrad in biology and pgce to have a better understanding than someone with an MSc and PhD. |
I’m not surprised at your sentiment given your strong view AGAINST teaching. However, there’re not just “some overlap”. I’d say there’s A LOT of overlap! They’re far from “two completely different things” at all
You can’t teach well without “doing it” well. So any training in teaching (of “doing” something) always includes substantial training in the “doing well” part.
Are there some wasting of time in the pure “teaching” aspect? Likely. But I would say it’s minimal, especially at the lower level. Put another way, training to be a ski instructor involves a lot of training to be a good skier.
The objection against instructor course isn’t so much regarding the course but the cost of those courses. It boils down to what kind of personality the OP is. If he’s a mature adult who is confident to manage his own learning, he’s better off finding a good coach to work with. Instructor course are better for those who lacks motivation or discipline, typically young gap year kids. However, some adults still have difficulty in those area. It’s no shame to admit it and work with our own limitation. |
Just get coaching and practice. Why waste time / money learning to teach people? |
Teach is very good learning.
Learning to teach too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
If it's the only form of structured development available at a certain level then obviously an instructor course might be valuable. Incidentally anyone can sit Canadian L1 and L2 exam courses I believe much like anyone can turn up to BASI L1 exam course and get a few days development before the exam. You don't need to do the weeks of prep courses which are the really expensive bit.
The real benefit of being an instructor in N America though comes in on the job clinics where senior trainers within you ski school will take you out for free. Obviously within a work permit and a job these aren't really accessible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| BobinCH wrote: |
Just get coaching and practice. Why waste time / money learning to teach people? |
I don't want to labour the point, but in my own experience, and that of my wife before me, the instructor training worked much better than the many weeks of high-level lessons, clinics, workshops etc. that had gone before.
All else apart, the intensity of the course is so much more; there's no expectation from anyone that they're on holiday, so everyone's really focussed and committed to doing all the work before and after skiing as well as on the slopes. And nobody turns up hungover (more than once) or bunks off if they're feeling a bit under the weather. As such a week of instructor training probably crams in as much as two weeks of ski clinic.
The other major factor I found was that the level of understanding of the mechanics, and indeed the psychology, of skiing that's needed, even just at BASI2 level, really requires that you gain control and understanding of your own body to a much greater degree. It's not about learning what a student's body and mind is doing, but what your own is, so you can then successfully demonstrate why a certain change may be a good or a bad thing for them.
The 'learning to teach' thing is really a bit of a red herring in these discussions, as it's really quite a small part of the training. Yes, it's an important part, but to suggest that it's a waste of time ignores the fact that you're actually getting a hell of a lot more for your time and money in the first place.
And who here has never been asked for tips from friends and partners, or even been asked to teach them the basics? Not that many, I'd venture to suggest.
Oh, and I've no idea how to get a child's ski boot on, for whoever suggested that this was what we spend our time doing 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
@BobinCH, I'm well aware of that which is why there is a Eurotest i.e. a GS race: it would be too effective at keeping numbers down if it had to be a freestyle competition or FWT points.
@philwig, I don't think there are many courses like that. A friend of mine did a BASI L1/2 course and apart from the teaching parts of the exams (set by BASI) very little of his training was to do with teaching: the shadowing hours are for that. If you just want coaching it's good value if you're careful where you go.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| You don't need to do the weeks of prep courses which are the really expensive bit. |
Eh? No (edit: or maybe yes, as I'm actually agreeing with you) for BASI 1 and 2 there's no expectation that you'll have done anything else apart from the four days (L1) or eight (L2) of the actual course. Yes, for L2 there are performance courses offered to help get you to the standard if needed, which in this context (of improving your own skiing) are of course very relevant, but not required in any way.
The gap year courses, however, tend to assume a much lower starting point, plus they will include the teaching experience needed to get the full L2 qualification, so it will depend on the individual's own level whether these are worthwhile or not, hence my earlier suggestion of dipping into and out of an ongoing course, which IME is very much accepted by the Trainers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| abc wrote: |
| boarder2020 wrote: |
Training to become a teacher is never going to be as good as being coached with a focus to improve performance. While there is likely some overlap, it's two completely different things. It's like expecting someone with an undergrad in biology and pgce to have a better understanding than someone with an MSc and PhD. |
I’m not surprised at your sentiment given your strong view AGAINST teaching. However, there’re not just “some overlap”. I’d say there’s A LOT of overlap! They’re far from “two completely different things” at all
You can’t teach well without “doing it” well. So any training in teaching (of “doing” something) always includes substantial training in the “doing well” part.
Are there some wasting of time in the pure “teaching” aspect? Likely. But I would say it’s minimal, especially at the lower level. Put another way, training to be a ski instructor involves a lot of training to be a good skier.
The objection against instructor course isn’t so much regarding the course but the cost of those courses. It boils down to what kind of personality the OP is. If he’s a mature adult who is confident to manage his own learning, he’s better off finding a good coach to work with. Instructor course are better for those who lacks motivation or discipline, typically young gap year kids. However, some adults still have difficulty in those area. It’s no shame to admit it and work with our own limitation. |
I'm not against teaching. If you want to become a ski instructor by all means do an instructor course, it can be a fantastic career for the right person. Similarly, the fastest most efficient way to improve is hire a good instructor to teach you (how to ski, not how to to teach others to ski
I'm not sure the idea that people that lack motivation and discipline should go into teaching is a good one!
I've spent enough winters in hostels where there's a bunch of gap year kids. The kids on instructor courses improve way less than the kids with motivation to get out everyday and improve. While the instructor kids spend hours on piste practicing snow plows and drills the others are skiing challenging terrain everyday having way more fun. The kids that get some extra coaching on the side improve improve more than both groups (no surprise there).
The idea you have to be good to teach is laughable. You should see some of the level 1 instructors in Canada, not at all good! Similarly some of the best skiers make awful teachers. Skiing ability =/= good teacher and vice versa.
You even admit there is some wasted time in an instructor course (I'd argue there's a lot). So why not do a course focused on performance where there is zero wasted time?
Imagine going to a piano teacher and explaining your goal is to get better at playing piano. I bet 0 suggest training to become a piano teacher. Classic case of ski logic that makes zero sense in any other walk of life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Chaletbeauroc wrote: |
And who here has never been asked for tips from friends and partners, or even been asked to teach them the basics? Not that many, I'd venture to suggest.
|
My skiing speaks for itself and ensures I've never been asked
Getting back to the core discussion the only reason instructor courses are being discussed is because of the paucity of group performance courses as a universal. Sure Snoworks and Wozzer Smith etc exist but they aren't offerred week in week out at every resort. Even if you show for a group advanced lesson chances are there will be a couple of people who think advanced means almost parallel on blues and another 1 or 2 who have been skiing 20+ years dontcha know but don't "do" moguls or offpiste.
Best expert lesson I ever had (not) involved a chap and his late teens son who were definitely up for moguls etc. Having skied a fairly tame pitch of bumps off the bat as a level setter we waited while they floundered a bit then the son skied off through the woods in a huff and pissed off entirely. Dad unapologetically said " he does that" while the instructor showing more decency and care than the rest of us thought was warranted spent 30 mins tracking the kid down to ensure he was ok.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
@boarder2020, the point is that the easiest way to get regular training (as DotM has pointed out) is to sign up to one of the Gap courses. There just aren't many courses over the length of a season that are aimed at 'improving' for its own sake, plus some have a dubious standard.
You're right though that L1 instructors aren't particularly good. The gaps in between the levels aren't consistent: from BASI 2 -> 3 is the greatest. There are demo videos on the BASI site that show the standard and 4 is very good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
@boarder2020,
| Quote: |
Imagine going to a piano teacher and explaining your goal is to get better at playing piano. I bet 0 suggest training to become a piano teacher. Classic case of ski logic that makes zero sense in any other walk of life
|
Gosh, it must be over 10 years since I was shot down in flames on snowHeads for arguing this viewpoint. I was quite bruised (it probably put me off having a real ding-dong of an argument on social media ever again!) but my mind wasn't changed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Have you looked at Whistler? 20 years ago I did a season out there, one of the others had a tuition pass which allowed her to join off peak lessons (I think in-week, group lessons) as much as she wanted.
With Whistler being a controlled by the resort place it must have been through the company so give them a call and see if they still do so.
I went with a UK company that was supplying seasonaire accomodation. I doubt the company still exist but similar may still exist. They would rent houses and then sublet them, either for the season or just a month or 2. We had a 4 bed house with 8 of us in there. A mix of early 20s and a few early / mid 30s. There were several (10 or so) similar houses from a few companies which led to a decent community, Brits / Irish. Most people were just skiing / boarding, rather than working.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| boarder2020 wrote: |
The idea you have to be good to teach is laughable. You should see some of the level 1 instructors in Canada, not at all good! Similarly some of the best skiers make awful teachers. Skiing ability =/= good teacher and vice versa.
|
Just because SOME of the L1 ski with poor technique is no indication that all L1 skis poorly. Nor an indication the training was lacking. (Yes, if you say MAJORITY of L1 ski poorly, that would be a good argument. But that’s not what you wrote. And I doubt anyone would suggest that) Moreover, it’s only natural the better students would progress quickly to L2 so your sample pool is biased.
| Quote: |
I've spent enough winters in hostels where there's a bunch of gap year kids. The kids on instructor courses improve way less than the kids with motivation to get out everyday and improve. While the instructor kids spend hours on piste practicing snow plows and drills the others are skiing challenging terrain everyday having way more fun. The kids that get some extra coaching on the side improve improve more than both groups (no surprise there).
|
You’ve just nailed the reason why SOME of the L1’s don’t ski up to standard. If there aren’t quite a few who aren’t out everyday, they’re skipping some lessons and probably a lot of supervised practice sessions. That’s not the fault of the courses but the quality of the student.
If your example of poor outcome of gap year courses is unmotivated students, your argument of the course itself is irrelevant to the OP.
Last edited by After all it is free  on Wed 7-09-22 22:43; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
@abc, in my experience a lot of the Gap kids are posh Brits idling for a year at their parents' expense. Those who can't afford the Gap costs or are 'dirtbag'-type skiiers love the thing for its own sake and ski non-stop as a result.
The most motivated skiiers I've met were working their way through the BASI system: they wanted to work and instructing at the top level is decent money and better than a life as a plongeur. Others get to level 2 and drink most of their salary away and never find time to train. Chacun a son gout.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Hurtle, I'm trying to think of an example in anything else where becoming a teacher/instructor would be suggested for someone trying to improve their own ability. Am yet to think of one. It seems absolutely crazy to think it would be the most efficient way to improve, yet in the skiworld its accepted. Perhaps just because there's not a plethora of other paths? (I'm not saying become a teacher/instructor can't improve your understanding and ability, just it's crazy to think it's the most efficient way).
@abc, sorry perhaps I wasn't clear. I just used the term motivated to make it clear I wasn't just suggesting you get dramatically better over a season without trying. If you are not getting tuition you need to be willing to put in the time on snow, push yourself a bit, and actively try to improve. That said ime the average ski bum kid improves more than the average instructor course kid over the season. There are extremely motivated and completely unmotivated kids in both camps, but I'm trying to average it out. Hardly surprising to me, it's all well and good spending large amounts of time perfecting snow plows on mellow groomers, but nothing gets you better skiing varied challenging terrain than actually spending a lot of time skiing varied challenging terrain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| boarder2020 wrote: |
| It seems absolutely crazy to think it would be the most efficient way to improve, yet in the skiworld its accepted. Perhaps just because there's not a plethora of other paths? |
That had been pointed out several times in this thread!
For adults not growing up in snow country, there really haven’t been too many options to get structured instructions, supervised practices, basically a condensed pathway of what the racer kids went through. Instructor courses came the closest.
I wasn’t suggesting that pathway as the best. However, in the absent of other pathways, it’s one of the viable routes.
| Quote: |
| I'm not saying become a teacher/instructor can't improve your understanding and ability, just it's crazy to think it's the most efficient way). |
It’s not the most efficient way to get from beginner to advance skiers, I don’t think. However, I’ve taught both in classroom and on snow, I’ve found the teaching experience is unique in improving one’s own understanding.
Have you taught much?
Would I have made it to the math Olympic team by doing more exercise instead of tutoring lower class math of younger kids? Possibly. But I’m not sure. The deeper understanding I gain from teaching was unique, and it served me extremely well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
I wasn’t suggesting that pathway as the best. However, in the absent of other pathways, it’s one of the viable routes.
|
But there are other pathways. In fact the original post was asking about (and even named specific) performance based courses. There is also the ability to use private instructors on an ad hoc basis or string different short courses together.
Also the OP specifically said improve both on and off-piste. I don't know what percentage of instructor course time is spent off-piste, but I suspect it's pretty low.
| Quote: |
Have you taught much?
|
Not snow sports related. I had to teach undergrad courses during my PhD. I absolutely agree that it can help consolidate learning. Though I learned infinitely more from my undergrad course than I did from teaching(which seems obvious, but some of this thread seem to think the opposite is true).
The thing that I did learn from teaching is it's not something I enjoy nor naturally excel at. Gave me an appreciation that teaching needs a specific set of skills, and simply being good at something doesn't make a good teacher and vice versa.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| boarder2020 wrote: |
| ... It seems absolutely crazy to think it would be the most efficient way to improve, yet in the skiworld its accepted. ... |
I don't think it is accepted.
Some instructor types think that learning to be a low level instructor is better than taking lessons from an L4 instructor.
Which kind of begs the question of why those L4 instructors exist at all, and why their lessons are so bad they recommend you don't take them!
It may be an English only thing? In BC or Finland, if you can't ride, well you probably don't want to. People do the race club thing or rip the park until expert or bored.
No one learns to teach in order to learn to ride/ ski.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| boarder2020 wrote: |
Also the OP specifically said improve both on and off-piste. I don't know what percentage of instructor course time is spent off-piste, but I suspect it's pretty low.
|
Maybe so if the course is in the Alps? Definitely not true if it’s done in North America!
That said, if you were to take an off-piste clinic, you may very well find more than 1/2 of the course time were spend ON piste. Perhaps you would think one shouldn’t bother with any such course anyway?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| abc wrote: |
| boarder2020 wrote: |
Also the OP specifically said improve both on and off-piste. I don't know what percentage of instructor course time is spent off-piste, but I suspect it's pretty low.
|
Maybe so if the course is in the Alps? Definitely not true if it’s done in North America!
That said, if you were to take an off-piste clinic, you may very well find more than 1/2 of the course time were spend ON piste. Perhaps you would think one shouldn’t bother with any such course anyway? |
I'm skeptical most off piste training involves spending 50% of time on pistes, unless maybe a course aimed at complete off piste beginners. From what I've seen general ski school in n America does more time off piste than that from early intermediate level upwards. Of course if someone has a glaring underlying technical fault that is holding them back it might make sense to go back to a piste to iron that out.
At the end of the day there comes a point where you actually have to practice what you want to be good at. I have a friend who is a level 2 ski instructor in Canada, and has absolutely beautiful technique on piste. Get her on anything ungroomed and steep and she looks like it's her first week on snow. Of course some of it is confidence, but she doesn't seem to have the "survival skiing" skills to revert to, and generally struggles adapting to changing conditions underfoot as opposed to uniform piste.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| philwig wrote: |
It may be an English only thing? In BC or Finland, if you can't ride, well you probably don't want to. People do the race club thing or rip the park until expert or bored.
|
I think it's more an age thing, TBH. When you don't start skiing until later in life (I started in my 30s, for example) which of course is much more likely if you grow up in the UK or anywhere that skiing is not a normal part of life, you don't have the opportunity to learn organically as you describe (whether or not that's a good thing) so an alternative is needed, and once you've reached a certain standard there tends to be a bit of a wall, which for some people can become an almost insurmountable barrier.
| philwig wrote: |
No one learns to teach in order to learn to ride/ ski. |
But lots of people learn to teach in order to improve their skiing. You can argue that black is white as much as you like, but it's a fact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
well i dont know how ist the system with BASI or in Canada...but in Germany if you want to reach the highest level as Instructor (Staatlich Geprüft) , then YOU HAVE TO BE a better rider. Or maybe a "better" is not the wright word. You have to be one of the bests. You have to reach level 3 in Boarding (e.g.) which includes every aspect of boarding from snowpark tto freeride and also reca boarding, and you have to succeed in the 1st lever in Skiing and Cross Country or Telemark. Otherwise you have no chance at all.
So i think definitely you will improve your skills. But of course there are many other ways.
Of course if you
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| boarder2020 wrote: |
| abc wrote: |
| boarder2020 wrote: |
Also the OP specifically said improve both on and off-piste. I don't know what percentage of instructor course time is spent off-piste, but I suspect it's pretty low.
|
Maybe so if the course is in the Alps? Definitely not true if it’s done in North America!
That said, if you were to take an off-piste clinic, you may very well find more than 1/2 of the course time were spend ON piste. Perhaps you would think one shouldn’t bother with any such course anyway? |
I'm skeptical most off piste training involves spending 50% of time on pistes, unless maybe a course aimed at complete off piste beginners. From what I've seen general ski school in n America does more time off piste than that from early intermediate level upwards. Of course if someone has a glaring underlying technical fault that is holding them back it might make sense to go back to a piste to iron that out.
At the end of the day there comes a point where you actually have to practice what you want to be good at. I have a friend who is a level 2 ski instructor in Canada, and has absolutely beautiful technique on piste. Get her on anything ungroomed and steep and she looks like it's her first week on snow. Of course some of it is confidence, but she doesn't seem to have the "survival skiing" skills to revert to, and generally struggles adapting to changing conditions underfoot as opposed to uniform piste. |
You’re skeptical of something you’ve got no experience of! 
What you’re “seeing” are just what you want to see.
Yes, absolute most “off piste” courses spend more time on piste, working on techniques that are most applicable off-piste. (in North American, they’re never called “off piste”, they’re typically call mogul or powder courses) Once the student got the techniques nailed, they will go off-piste and found it no more different nor difficult than on. The same is even true of some “extreme” camps. They spend a lot of time on (steep, or narrow) piste to refine their technique till students are confident of their own skill. Then the actual off-piste part will be just application of techniques they’ve already mastered.
“Off piste skiing” is just skiing, albeit on uneven surfaces! It goes without saying there must be some “glaring underlying technical fault” if students can’t ski smoothly off-piste! That needs to be addressed. Otherwise it would only be “guided survival skiing” and the students will be no better off as soon as the instructor departs!
Don’t ever sign up for any off-piste clinic/camp yourself. You’ll be hugely disappointed. 
Last edited by You need to Login to know who's really who. on Thu 8-09-22 15:41; edited 3 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Can I just throw my tuppence in - JanetS and are both instructors, qualified under both CSIA and Snowsports England (for dry slope), and have fairly recently done both working and non-working seasons in the Alps.
Depending on your level of skiing good instructor courses can be very good at improving your understanding of skiing, but only about 50% of the time is spent on personal skiing skills. Once we started doing seasons, building on those skills we soon got to a considerably higher standard of personal skiing on all sorts of snow, including off-piste than our qualification level required. When we did a non-working season in Austria we did a week's course at the start of the season, using only our off-piste skis, even for the technical stuff to build our skills for the upcoming season. If I was to do another non-working season I would try to do the same, maybe with another specific off-piste week-long course in the middle of the season as well. Targeted instruction is much better than just learning for yourself, but you don't need it all the time. Learning from "better" skiers can be dangerous, as unless you already have the knowledge you can't always tell when they are talking dangly bits!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Chaletbeauroc wrote: |
| ... But lots of people learn to teach in order to improve their skiing. You can argue that black is white as much as you like, but it's a fact. |
I never said that lots of people don't do what you suggest, I said that it's not the most efficient way to learn skiing.
That's why ski instruction exists - to teach people to ski. Not to teach them to teach.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@abc, I've had friends do the non stop courses in fernie and the extremely Canadian steeps clinics in whistler. In both cases barely any time was spent on piste. But they were all competent skiers to begin with. For beginners, sure I can see why some extra time on piste can be beneficial.
In the case of my instructor friend above, I can't see how even more time on piste further improving her pretty flawless technique would improve her off piste level. Simply put she needs to get off piste more to improve it, like I say confidence is a big part.
Don't worry I have no need to ever sign up for instruction as I'm more than happy with my current level. Rather spend the money on a guide, which seems like a much more enjoyable day out!
| Quote: |
But lots of people learn to teach in order to improve their skiing. You can argue that black is white as much as you like, but it's a fact.
|
Nobody is saying doing an instructor course won't improve your skiing at all. Just that it's not the most efficient way. As @RobinS, points out only 50% of his instructor course was spent on personal ski skills. It's just not efficient as 100% coaching. Go and ask any top coach in any sport how to get better at said sport, not one will say do a coaching/instructor course.
| Quote: |
That's why ski instruction exists - to teach people to ski. Not to teach them to teach.
|
I can't believe we actually have to argue this point. Perhaps we can do better in the next Olympics if we just forget about training our athletes and send them on coaching/instructor courses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm with @Chaletbeauroc on this. I too learnt to ski in my 30s and as a 1 or 2 weeks a year holiday skier found improvement difficult without committing to several expensive (non holiday?) skiing trips. I embarked on a dry slope ski instructor qualification which also gave me access to free instruction from high quality instructors. My technique was taken apart and put back together, without my ingrained bad habits, as I learnt to demonstrate good posture and technique. It also gave me the opportunity to practice whenever I had the time.
Could I have gained this from spending a season on snow with some good instruction thrown in, almost certainly, but family and work commitments would not have allowed that sort of commitment. So yes you don't learn to teach to learn to ski you learn to teach to improve your skiing.
However, would I recommend a gap year instructor course, over a season with good regular instruction, NO, unless you intend to make a career of instruction. There is however something to be said for spending the season (or several weeks) with a group of people of similar age and love of skiing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Maybe too late, but here is my two cents:
- we did exactly this about 5 years ago
- we went to Whitewater in Canada, which is steep and deep. Looks small on the map, but it isn’t about piste skiing. You go to the top of the mountain and find your way down (i.e. in bounds off piste) so there are so many routes. Other places like revelstoke or fernie would offer similar but we liked the nearby town of Nelson.
- you doing need constant tuition to improve. Time on/in the snow is the biggest lever, and I suspect with the long courses it is that that has the biggest difference.
- We made friends who took us places we might not have gone that pushed us.
-Were I to do it again, I would probably throw in a handful of lessons over the season, but that’s it
- it’s nice having the independence of not being on a course every day. Many days we enjoyed the mountains in other ways: ski touring, snow shoeing; I tried snowboarding; avalanche course. We also explored the area a bit and went to other places too
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
although as it said, an instructor course will improve your own skills, if i had the opportunity for a gap year i would try to combine it with a instructor course, unless i was 101% sure that i want to go forward with a career as an instructor or in general to teach
during my course as a level 1 instructor, whicht was maybe 10-15 in total, there was 4-5 days that we had a really super dumb, but except a couple of power runs, we have to follow the course rules, and learn on piste, how you have to demonstrate the turns to novice boardes.
In this 3-4 days, we were probably the only boardes in the resort that we couldnt enjoy those powder days.
So i there is an opportunity for a gap season, then nope...maybe a skill improvement course for a week and thats all
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
