It's pretty simple the better the skier you are the more styles you can adopt and/or mimic. And the greater the toolbox you have at your disposal in any given terrain.
FWT and movie guys now send lines that in the 80s/ 90s would have been jump turned and park rats for whom skis are just an extension of their body can make any piste look like a run out. And guys like the BPS team are creating a whole new cult of technical skiing.
I think the best idea is to blend at least 4 elements for development - personal feel thinking about what's going on, personalised coaching or instruction, video study of model skiers, own video feedback and objective measurement like gates or rutlines or carv type stuff.
This is one of my favourite recent video drops featuring the ultimately in tight stances ( and some very straight skis) but absolutely effortless carving when turned on.
@Dave of the Marmottes,
Hang around something long enough and it all comes back full circle. Thanks for that
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, Yes, this is true, and certainly new technology has allowed new styles to develop; your example about it now being possible for an intermediate skier to go off-piste really emphasises the point I was making, that the way they've learnt to ski has not been required to change in order for them to progress. There isn't a "next new thing" to learn.
Something of a mantra in BASI and other teaching systems is that we never throw away any of the skills we learn early on, or to put it another way we try to never teach things, or in a way, that will impede more advanced learning later. No "bad habits" to unlearn.
@Peter S, that sort of bumps skiing never went away ...
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Chaletbeauroc wrote:
@BobinCH, Something of a mantra in BASI and other teaching systems is that we never throw away any of the skills we learn early on, or to put it another way we try to never teach things, or in a way, that will impede more advanced learning later. No "bad habits" to unlearn.
This is a real strength of the BASI system in my view. All skills and drills from day one are applicable to your skiing as you advance. I will talk quite a bit about this when teaching beginners, that the skills we are working on are important because they will all be used regardless of future ski level. I try and make that real for students by talking about my own skiing and pointing out how others are skiing so they can see how the skills are applied. I have even sometimes managed to get my daughter to demo how snowplough training is utilized in race training, which is really powerful to beginners working on this!
Put an intermediate skier on some DPS Wailers and they will be able to enjoy slopes they could never have skied on more traditional skis
Maybe that would have made all the difference for my never-to-be-repeated descent of La Grave, on ordinary piste skis.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
@Dave of the Marmottes, That video highlights a mogul technique that I have raised in the passed ie. Constant Lead Change, or "Switch" in old parlance, as you go through the moguls.
I had an old video by the Olympian Medallist Nelson Carmichael (Mogul Mastery), where "Switch" was very much an integral part of mogul technique. I thought it had died, until I saw recent videos from The States (including by Deb Armstrong), showing it is very much alive. It is not taught, as far as I know, anywhere else. Maybe it should be?
After all it is free
After all it is free
@Old Fartbag, most people never get to the point where it would be appropriate. But it certainly would be taught if one wants to learn how to zip line bumps.
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.
under a new name wrote:
@Old Fartbag, most people never get to the point where it would be appropriate.
While that is almost certainly correct, I am geeky enough to be interested. When I asked instructors on here about it, they will said that actively "switching", is not what you should be doing; it should happen naturally without being forced.
So it very much comes under the theme of this thread about differences in style.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Should have known when sliding over in the car park early this morning at 08:25 (as they open a lift at 08:30 in peak season) on the ice that maybe today's conditions were going to be tricky up the hill
Temps probably dropped to double figures overnight and there had been almost enough of a "dump" to cover the corduroy with 5mm of fresh, so one was lulled into a false sense of security by thinking there was enough grip to edge hard going for the edge angle & topple (lean) but I found myself loosing an edge at speed, then going backwards and somehow pulling off a good recovery, so enthusiasm was slightly dampened, but not enough for the next run where there was nearly a repeat performance right in front of @KenX,
After that, I dialled things down and skied "normally" and was interesting to hear how low the scores were.
With this thread still fresh in my mind, and observing all the various skiers on the hill when we came to the final run home, a steep black I committed to steep short edging carvs, and even then I was not pole planting nearly so much as I used to, it's almost as if gone are the days when the pole was often used at right angles to the body, let alone the old school style of planting the pole where you think you're going to turn, or words to that effect, again cue the instructors on here?
The next part of the game is to get my Scott Sleights (93) that I hardly ever use and see what scores I can get out of those All Mountain skis.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
Old Fartbag - My son is taught switching in France, although it's more as a result of tucking one knee behind the other. He's also taught a number of different techniques to ski moguls and to simplify things when talking to me he just calls them French, Canadian and Japanese technique. He switches between each from run to run depending upon conditions and what the coach asks of him, adjusting between pure carving, stivot turns and sliding depending upon what's called for. You have to learn all techniques, because conditions will mean one is more appropriate on any given day and also because what the judges want changes. Perrine Lafont went from unbeatable the year before the Olympics to struggling to get on the podium in Olympic year, despite skiing exactly the same if not better. The thing that changed was what the judges wanted.
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.
@doddsie, that makes total sense. But how does he know what the judges want?
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
Right now he's only young so it doesn't matter, just needs to learn them all. But at World Cup level it's quite obvious what style is in favour with the judges, unless you're Mikael Kingsbury and then you're in favour no matter what.
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
doddsie wrote:
Old Fartbag - My son is taught switching in France, although it's more as a result of tucking one knee behind the other. He's also taught a number of different techniques to ski moguls and to simplify things when talking to me he just calls them French, Canadian and Japanese technique. He switches between each from run to run depending upon conditions and what the coach asks of him, adjusting between pure carving, stivot turns and sliding depending upon what's called for. You have to learn all techniques, because conditions will mean one is more appropriate on any given day and also because what the judges want changes. Perrine Lafont went from unbeatable the year before the Olympics to struggling to get on the podium in Olympic year, despite skiing exactly the same if not better. The thing that changed was what the judges wanted.
Brilliant, thanks.
That ties in exactly with what is being discussed on this video
FWT and movie guys now send lines that in the 80s/ 90s would have been jump turned
No doubt the overall level is higher now. But as mentioned above judges criteria has also influenced things. FWT is arguably now more about "tricks" than big mountain Freeride lines. Also the venues arguably influence this somewhat.
It used to be lots of Freeride guys started off as ski racers. However, with the popularity of Freeride clubs and kids comps I think the future is probably more pure Freeride. Saying that the last women's ski event was won by a moguls skier.
@Weathercam, if you can't see the potential limitations and problems of carv I give up.
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
Weathercam wrote:
The next part of the game is to get my Scott Sleights (93) that I hardly ever use and see what scores I can get out of those All Mountain skis.
Surely the next step should be to work out if they're actually allowing you to ski better?
It's all very well to compare your scores on different skis and different days, but what would be much more interesting is an impartial view of whether the Carv gadget is genuinely useful as an improvement tool, meaning you'd need some external observation and feedback. And using it as a measure to test skis with is really pushing any credibility, and indeed one might argue is not really the best way to judge them. A ski that gives you the ability to get a higher score isn't necessarily the same ski that gives you most performance, least effort, more fun, or whatever most people would be looking for.
It's all starting to sound a bit "score for score's sake".
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Quote:
what would be much more interesting is an impartial view of whether the Carv gadget is genuinely useful as an improvement tool, meaning you'd need some external observation and feedback
Agree. That's really the test for carv. Does it actually improve performance?
However, you would really need to compare against someone not using carv, as you'd expect to see some improvements simply by time on snow.
My suspicion is someone using carv would likely improve more, but mostly through more focus/motivation than any magic feedback.
The question I have is how many people would actually get worse by using carv. So for example a skier is not forward enough due to poor ankle mobility. Carv tells them to shift weight forwards. So they accomplish this by skiing with their hands way in front of their body and a bit of hinging at the hips. Arguably they have gotten worse, although their score may have improved. I've seen it in the lab many times where a sprinter massively changes their mechanics to "cheat the system" reducing their braking forces to zero, but clearly running in a less overall beneficial way. Again, this will always be an issue when you are only measuring the end point force and ignoring all the body positioning of how that end point is achieved.
Quote:
And using it as a measure to test skis with is really pushing any credibility
Agree. If simply changing skis can change score that really questions the credibility and usefulness of carv.
Quote:
It's all starting to sound a bit "score for score's sake".
Yes, which is particularly problematic when there doesn't seem to be any hard evidence that score correlates with performance.
Fwiw I don't think carv is useless. In fact I think it has a lot of potential. Particularly in more experienced skiers with a bit more understanding of ski biomechanics or in conjunction with a human coach. But we have to be realistic and say there are limitations, as well as things that are just still unknown and need to be tested.
It would be interesting to know how many Olympic downhill skiers have ever even used any in boot pressure sensing.
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?
Old Fartbag wrote:
under a new name wrote:
@Old Fartbag, most people never get to the point where it would be appropriate.
While that is almost certainly correct, I am geeky enough to be interested. When I asked instructors on here about it, they will said that actively "switching", is not what you should be doing; it should happen naturally without being forced.
So it very much comes under the theme of this thread about differences in style.
Surely what she was doing was more of a drill? Or might be appropriate for very even bumps? What is develops is the ability to switch edges in an instant. In practice, in a normal, uneven, organic bump field you are going to switch in response to the bumps not at a constant pace?
Great skill and great to watch
It would be interesting to know how many Olympic downhill skiers have ever even used any in boot pressure sensing.
I think some Canadian national team members did some experiments.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
@Chaletbeauroc, I know I'm skiing on the piste way better than I did before, that's a total given, and that's down to Carv, simple.
For sure If I'd blown a load of dosh with Daren Turner, who is a mate, I'd probably would have improved.
Before I invested in piste skis all my skiing was on All Mountain / Freeride / Touring skis and whilst I tried to carve on those I was never getting the angle / topple / edge that I know I'm getting now, so I'm sort of curious if I can ski those now anywhere near what I do with my piste skis.
I skied 12 skis at the SIGB test using Carv and one ski stood out in the way it skied and the Carv score for that ski was the highest I've ever achieved, without Carv I would have said it was the best and the Carv score just confirmed that.
When you see ski test results published they often highlight where a ski excels so of course its possible that one ski is far better at edging over and above others due to its design etc and so Joe Average might be able to get a few more degrees edge control and that would then be reflected in higher scores, and I still can't beat that score I achieved though have consistently got near to it, so if I took that ski out again, I should improve my score?
Like I said to @boarder2020, and now to @Chaletbeauroc, you have not used it, nor do you know understand what the details of the metrics are yet you feel that you can criticise something that you have demonstrated that you have no real understanding of, like I said, it's like reviewing a movie when based on hearsay when you've not actually seen it.
There's no way my Blackcrows's Atris will ever achieve a high score but they will always put a smile on my face, and that's not really something I get from piste skiing.
Unfortunately, I'm just back from going up the Col du Granon to suss out the snow-pack relative to touring and it's dire, so looks like we're stuck with the Carv for the time being and XC.
Last edited by Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do. on Mon 6-02-23 17:00; edited 3 times in total
I like the idea of Carv as getting quick feedback on sensations that are "good" for your skiing, and sensations that are "bad" could be very useful. There are quite a few videos (promoted by Carv of course) of instructors working with a student and the scores improving as they incorporate the learning from different drills, which seems interesting.
But when I approached Carv to see if I could share devices with multiple people in order to be able to use it as a coaching tool they were not interested. Which seems odd. Why would they NOT want instructors to use it with their students? Surely that sort of give it a go approach would leave to more sales. That said I am not that unhappy I have decided to give it a miss as for sure my 16 year old daughter would beat me at that too! Seriously, I was interested in experimenting with her as I know our relative strengths and weaknesses very well, so it would have provided a good test bed for the effectiveness as a teaching tool. But not to be as I don't want to shell out for 2 Carv devices to run the experiment when Carv themselves are not interested in supporting it as a tool for instructors.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
beeryletcher wrote:
Quote:
Phil Smith is a great advocate of not "homogenising" ski technique - which produces a mountain full of pre programmed Robots. Embrace the individuality!
Above is the best thing to say. The best skiers can do either or more likely a blend of the 2 styles at any point on the spectrum. This will depend on steepness of slopes, which skis they have for the day, how bumpy, flat, soft, hard, icy, powdery the slopes are. It will also depend on speed, number of people of around, whether the turns are short and many or big and open or anything in between or a mix. It will depend on the skier's mood and what they feel like, or indeed how tired the legs may or may not be. Chances are it is not even a conscious decision - it will be instinctual.
It’s hard to disagree with this, IMO.
The more tools you have at your disposal, the better….and the more fun.
After all it is free
After all it is free
This is turning into a very interesting thread. To take a step back to the Interski video: did any of you have any favourite styles, and if you did, then why? I liked the Slovenians because their movement seemed minimalistic and efficient with no wasted energy. That appeals to me both aesthetically and from the point of view of that it would be easier to keep up for 8 hours a day on the slope. Whereas the Korean style struck me as wasteful of energy and showy.
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.
Weathercam wrote:
@Chaletbeauroc, I know I'm skiing on the piste way better than I did before, that's a total given, and that's down to Carv, simple.
Confirmation bias in action. It's like people that say taking vitamin tablet helped them recover from sickness much quicker. Maybe true, but without knowing the alternative you can never really know. (Which isn't to say carv hasn't helped).
Imo you were always going to get to a pretty good level of piste skiing fairly rapidly regardless. Anyone doing loads of off-piste at a good level with previously limited piste time and focus is absolutely primed to get good quick. Similarly to how some Olympic freestyles/mogul skiers transition to Freeride pretty quickly.
Perhaps you are short changing yourself a bit, the skills were already there from off piste and all it took was a bit of time and focus. Perhaps carv is really the difference maker. This is why we need a proper rct rather than n=1 speculative case studies.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Quote:
Whereas the Korean style struck me as wasteful of energy and showy.
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 skiing I aspire to is the pisteurs in France, generally with no poles because they often carry stuff - they just flow round the mountains with no fuss, looking like they were born on skis. Also impressive snowploughing straight down a slope with a big fat casualty on a sledge behind them.
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
In defence of both CARV and Weathercam, both his and my on-piste skiing have improved significantly since using the feedback from it (albeit the bar was set pretty low!)
It helps if you are reasonably in tune with what your body is feeding back to you re stance, pressure etc and, just like an instructor, it tries a variety of tips on the chairlift after each run in the hope that one of them will click with you, much in the same way an instructor will and not stick with a well-worn script
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
@greengriff, it's almost like there isnt an optimal technique, but many ways to successfully accomplish the task of skiing
As well as performance and efficiency we can also consider comfort and injury risk.
It would be interesting to compare the bodies of those using different techniques. For example Asians tend to have shorter femurs than Caucasians, does that influence it at all? Should we be prescribing different techniques for women to men, when they clearly have very different hip structure and are more prone to ACL injuries due to higher q-angle?
There are so many more questions than answers around this whole topic of technique.
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Weathercam wrote:
Like I said to @boarder2020, and now to @Chaletbeauroc, you have not used it, nor do you know understand what the details of the metrics are yet you feel that you can criticise something that you have demonstrated that you have no real understanding of, like I said, it's like reviewing a movie when based on hearsay when you've not actually seen it.
Sure, and you'll perhaps note that I've avoided criticising it on that basis - I've already said that I havent tried it and don't know enough about it. I'm interested to know if you've tried to use any objective way to measure actual improvement and see if this correlates with better scores on the device.
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
boarder2020 wrote:
@greengriff, it's almost like there isnt an optimal technique, but many ways to successfully accomplish the task of skiing
As well as performance and efficiency we can also consider comfort and injury risk.
It would be interesting to compare the bodies of those using different techniques. For example Asians tend to have shorter femurs than Caucasians, does that influence it at all? Should we be prescribing different techniques for women to men, when they clearly have very different hip structure and are more prone to ACL injuries due to higher q-angle?
There are so many more questions than answers around this whole topic of technique.
Fascinating points! Surely though, if not an 'optimal' technique, there is a 'window' or 'range' of stuff that objectively works better for a measurable goal (e.g. getting down a racecourse fastest, or skiing moguls without screwing up your knees)?
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
@Chaletbeauroc, nothing majorly objective, all be it one video that confirms to me at least that I'm skiing better, and then the OH and as above @KenX, confirming as much, but it's just how I feel, in terms of getting that angle and edge and getting more confident with the topple concept, though loosing that edge this morning dented that a wee bit, then there was falling over in the car-park and I've just literally gone over the handlebars in deep snow on the e-mtb, what a day
I'll see if I can screen grab some of the metrics/tuition pointers and the like.
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?
When I've done courses with Anglophone instructors, with video feedback, we have been videod from the waist down. On one course the 6 of us all had black salopettes but that wasn't a problem. It was a long time ago, in Tignes, early season. Some students were asking about pole planting and the instructor (a Scot, working for BASS but not normally based in Tignes, his name escapes me now. Dave somebody) was very reluctant to focus on it. He focussed relentlessly on what our skis were doing. I was tasked to ski very close behind him once and he could tell from the noise my skis made what I was doing wrong. He also put us all on snowblades for a morning, which was interesting. He made a point of NOT focussing on what our arms or shoulders were doing.
However, I also recall being shouted at in La Grave when I dropped my uphill arm (often shortly before I fell over......) and that's something I still tell myself sternly if I feel uncomfortable!
One instructor will find just the right way to get through to one pupil - who might need completely different cues and reminders to the next pupil. Few of us speak another language well enough to either give, or take, that sort of subtle communication.
It would be interesting to compare the bodies of those using different techniques. For example Asians tend to have shorter femurs than Caucasians, does that influence it at all? Should we be prescribing different techniques for women to men, when they clearly have very different hip structure and are more prone to ACL injuries due to higher q-angle?
As an instructor it's important to work out what's needed for any given person to improve. Yes, there are huge differences, so at a more advanced level we tend to tailor coaching to the individual, rather than just saying 'technique X is how to do it, learn that and you'll get better'. These discussions are rather esoteric, but can still be useful.
The various elite skiers seen or mentioned may indeed appear to have quite a varied bunch of techniques, but they're all pretty much trying to achieve the same thing, so it's a question of how they use the various tools at their disposal best to do so. Dialling it back to us mere mortals trying to learn better ways of skiing round the mountain there's usually a common starting point, e.g. a particular part of BASI's 'Central theme' and its various strands and threads that we can start with, then adapt to suit the individual, particularly if they've got an unusual physiology or, as is nearly always the case, particular strengths and weaknesses in their existing skiing.
There is no single best technique, and yes, I recall Phil Smith, as mentioned just now, making this point extensively, along with his 'tools in the toolbox' analogy, going back twenty years or more when I first did some courses with him (and Sally Chapman, his partner at the time, along with Brian Fearn, another BASI trainer who worked alongside them when they were 'The Ski Company').
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
jedster wrote:
Surely what she was doing was more of a drill? Or might be appropriate for very even bumps? What is develops is the ability to switch edges in an instant. In practice, in a normal, uneven, organic bump field you are going to switch in response to the bumps not at a constant pace?
Great skill and great to watch
I don't think it was a drill, or specifically for evenly spaced bumps, but a technique for skiing with your legs so close together. I've seen Deb Armstrong videos with the mogul coach in the clip above, skiing what he preaches in normal mogul fields.
@Dave of the Marmottes, That video highlights a mogul technique that I have raised in the passed ie. Constant Lead Change, or "Switch" in old parlance, as you go through the moguls.
I had an old video by the Olympian Medallist Nelson Carmichael (Mogul Mastery), where "Switch" was very much an integral part of mogul technique. I thought it had died, until I saw recent videos from The States (including by Deb Armstrong), showing it is very much alive. It is not taught, as far as I know, anywhere else. Maybe it should be?
But Olivia and Deb are both very clear in that video that lead change is a by product not an intent. It's hard to see because she is moving the lower legs so fast in the narrow drill that she isn't simply shuffling but the ease at which she widens out to a carve shows what is really going on.
It was a kinda flat piste drill of the movements she makes in seeded bumps (hence the segment on real world bumps vs competition). Competition bumps very definitely have a zipper line and her narrow stance directly relates to skiing that.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Dave of the Marmottes wrote:
Old Fartbag wrote:
@Dave of the Marmottes, That video highlights a mogul technique that I have raised in the passed ie. Constant Lead Change, or "Switch" in old parlance, as you go through the moguls.
I had an old video by the Olympian Medallist Nelson Carmichael (Mogul Mastery), where "Switch" was very much an integral part of mogul technique. I thought it had died, until I saw recent videos from The States (including by Deb Armstrong), showing it is very much alive. It is not taught, as far as I know, anywhere else. Maybe it should be?
But Olivia and Deb are both very clear in that video that lead change is a by product not an intent. It's hard to see because she is moving the lower legs so fast in the narrow drill that she isn't simply shuffling but the ease at which she widens out to a carve shows what is really going on.
It was a kinda flat piste drill of the movements she makes in seeded bumps (hence the segment on real world bumps vs competition). Competition bumps very definitely have a zipper line and her narrow stance directly relates to skiing that.
The mogul coach actually highlights that on normal GS style turns, it happens naturally (or as D.A says, "For Free")...but in tight mogul turns, with the skis together, you have to exaggerate the movement.
Though I am debating this - I am not expert enough to know if I'm correct.
After all it is free
After all it is free
zikomo wrote:
I like the idea of Carv as getting quick feedback on sensations that are "good" for your skiing, and sensations that are "bad" could be very useful. There are quite a few videos (promoted by Carv of course) of instructors working with a student and the scores improving as they incorporate the learning from different drills, which seems interesting.
But when I approached Carv to see if I could share devices with multiple people in order to be able to use it as a coaching tool they were not interested. Which seems odd. Why would they NOT want instructors to use it with their students? Surely that sort of give it a go approach would leave to more sales. That said I am not that unhappy I have decided to give it a miss as for sure my 16 year old daughter would beat me at that too! Seriously, I was interested in experimenting with her as I know our relative strengths and weaknesses very well, so it would have provided a good test bed for the effectiveness as a teaching tool. But not to be as I don't want to shell out for 2 Carv devices to run the experiment when Carv themselves are not interested in supporting it as a tool for instructors.
I think they probably see themselves as the digital replacement for instructors and with a value proposition that their sub is much less than paying for lessons. I think this is almost certainly wrong, left to their own devices individuals are more likely to try to game the system (albeit with teh intent that that is what better skiing is) rather than considering the whole picture. But I don't think Carv stand to make much money out of only selling one device to each instructor who then uses it with 100+ stdents.
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.
Dave of the Marmottes wrote:
Old Fartbag wrote:
@Dave of the Marmottes, That video highlights a mogul technique that I have raised in the passed ie. Constant Lead Change, or "Switch" in old parlance, as you go through the moguls.
I had an old video by the Olympian Medallist Nelson Carmichael (Mogul Mastery), where "Switch" was very much an integral part of mogul technique. I thought it had died, until I saw recent videos from The States (including by Deb Armstrong), showing it is very much alive. It is not taught, as far as I know, anywhere else. Maybe it should be?
But Olivia and Deb are both very clear in that video that lead change is a by product not an intent. It's hard to see because she is moving the lower legs so fast in the narrow drill that she isn't simply shuffling but the ease at which she widens out to a carve shows what is really going on.
It was a kinda flat piste drill of the movements she makes in seeded bumps (hence the segment on real world bumps vs competition). Competition bumps very definitely have a zipper line and her narrow stance directly relates to skiing that.
That's what I was getting at!
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Old Fartbag wrote:
jedster wrote:
Surely what she was doing was more of a drill? Or might be appropriate for very even bumps? What is develops is the ability to switch edges in an instant. In practice, in a normal, uneven, organic bump field you are going to switch in response to the bumps not at a constant pace?
Great skill and great to watch
I don't think it was a drill, or specifically for evenly spaced bumps, but a technique for skiing with your legs so close together. I've seen Deb Armstrong videos with the mogul coach in the clip above, skiing what he preaches in normal mogul fields.
I didn't mean the skiiing with legs together I meant the constant rhythmic lead switching
FAQ
Poster: A snowHead
