 Poster: A snowHead
|
| comprex wrote: |
| Whitegold wrote: |
One common theme about many SnowHeads is that they can rarely see the wood for the trees. |
Sloppy definitions make debate and therefore forums pointless.
Unclear, still:
Is 'defensive' also 'reactive'?
Is 'offensive' also 'anticipating and planning ahead'? |
Getting hung up on minor points, at the expense of the general thrust, is a mindnumbingly tedious exercise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| stoatsbrother wrote: |
easiski, I understand and agree with every word you say. 
Whitegold, Controversy is good. Assuming your view is correct and everyone else is wrong is not. And a thesis which shouts that no expert would ever use edge-checks to slow descent or deliberately use a braking element in turns must surely attract some criticism? Or do you buy the whole opening post? |
stoatsbrother, The article deliberately generalizes and simplifies to get a key point across to the reader in an easy-to-understand manner. That is fine. Academic debates, that experts should brake xx% of the time instead of 0%, indicates that the tone of the (commercial) text may not have been taken in their intended spirit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Whitegold, so do you believe the "general thrust" that "EXPERTS NEVER TURN TO SLOW DOWN! " or are you just looking for a chance to pick a fight? Fastman and easiski don't seem entirely sold, and other way way better skiers than me seem to be treading around this one... 
eedit: cross posted with you - but still would appreciate an answer. The word "NEVER" doesn't really admit any flexibility of interpretation. Substitute "RARELY" and I might be more sold...
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Interesting thread.
Although perhaps not an "expert" by some definitions (  ), I turn to slow down. Usually by turning uphill. Sometimes, I even skid to slow down.
That said, learning to move with intent into your direction of travel is important. For some, exaggerating the distinction is a vital step to learning. For them, the discussion of offensive/defensive may be helpful, I think. I also do think that there is a bit of US/Europe difference (especially between Colorado where Mike_M and I ski and Europe).
All of that said, I think that skiers of virtually every level can learn a lot from playing with moving in a way that is 100% "offensive" as defined in this conversation during their experimentation and/or learning times. Not that it's a "right" way to ski. But that we learn from skiing in that way and we can later apply that learning to more dynamic skiing situations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Whitegold wrote: |
| The article deliberately generalizes and simplifies to get a key point across to the reader in an easy-to-understand manner. |
But, whitegold, don't you see? By straying so far from reality in those generalizations and simplifications, he has done just the opposite. He's detracted attention from the key point he was trying to make, and focused it squarely on the inconsistencies. That's all some of us were trying to tell him, in response to his request for feedback.
I tried to point out to him that he can't say "experts never TURN to slow down" in one breath, then in the next explain how TURNING uphill is a good means of slowing down. Even the slowest of us will recognize that TURNING (that thing experts never do to slow down) is involved in TURNING uphill to slow down. That type of double talk is bound to cast doubt and discredit in the eyes of readers on all author suggestions that follow, regardless of how legitimate.
Mike M didn't get what we were trying to tell him, and just continued to attempt further explanation of the portion of the text we already understood and have no issue with. Expansion of technical options is always a good idea. Learning how to direct and flow with the skis, rather than fight them and the mountain tooth and nail, is a worthy objective. Unfortunately, because of the reasons I've pointed out, those gems kind of got lost in the rubble.
Strange, how people ask for feedback, then ignore and/or argue with it. Why bother asking?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
Strange, how people ask for feedback, then ignore and/or argue with it. Why bother asking?
|
Not strange. This thing call ego. It stops the intermediate from taking lessons, or "experts" to defend their position to the death.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Again, interesting feedback and much appreciated. I had no idea my post would elicit such passionate responses. Amazing how sliding down a hill on two sticks can do that! I can't answer all your posts, but would like to make a few general comments:
In this thread, as is often the case in ski lessons, semantics and misinterpretation of intent can be a problem. Because people understand terms and definitions in different ways, many discussions (and ski lessons!) are doomed to founder. Just see how many ways an instructor's well-meaning suggestion to "Get forward!" can be interpreted! Some of the posts above misinterpreted my intent quite dramatically. Perhaps it was a failure in my writing; perhaps it was a predisposition on the reader's part, but I was quite amazed at what some respondents thought I was advocating!
I believe my central thesis, that good skiers do not turn to slow down, is accurate. I have suggested they turn to maintain the speed they have chosen. A subtle differentiation, perhaps, but an important one, I think. Good skiers do, however, brake to slow down--if their line, tactics, or the terrain they are on do not allow them to maintain their chosen speed without doing so. The reason I emphasize this difference is that the key problem I have found in most developing skiers is that they confuse turning and braking and know no other way of getting down a hill other than employing constant defensive tactics: skidding, upper body rotation back up the hill, traversing, etc. As I said previously, knowledge of defensive tactics--how to brake/skid/pivot the tips uphill to slow down because of terrain or unexpected situations--are valid and vital skills. They are not, however, the primary intent of all skiing that I believe should be introduced to learning skiers as their default technique in skiing most runs--particularly the green, blue, and red ones where they will be spending the vast majority of their time. Since my focus in writing my original post was to address learning skiers who are attempting to build a good foundation, I think this approach has merit.
I do appreciate the constructive criticism of the style in which the post was written. I was not aware of the tone being offputting and will certainly revise those aspects that are problematic and get in the way of whatever value the underlying message may have. Far from considering myself a ski guru, I am constantly trying to watch, learn from, and pick the brains of skiers more accomplished than I. It is one of the aspects of sking I particularly enjoy. For instance, I just got back from training this summer at Treble Cone in New Zealand. Those of you who know it would agree, I think, that it is a challenging mountain to say the least! My coaches were Canadian, New Zealand, and BASI demo team members and examiners. Not a PSIA type to be seen. The emphasis of the training was turning to maintain speed and tactics for controlling our lines--to avoid the need for braking and defensive skiing. I found it very helpful.
In any case, thanks again for the input and suggestions!
Last edited by You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net. on Wed 10-10-07 14:58; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
abc, and it still appears to be happening... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| mike_m wrote: |
| I believe my central thesis, that good skiers do not turn to slow down, is accurate.... Good skiers do, however, brake to slow down |
As an intermediate skier, I'd really like to know how good skiers brake without turning? IME going straight down the fall line is not exactly conducive to braking... Now if you're saying not all turns need to be or should be intended to be braking manoeuvres and/or that there is more than one way to lose speed then you might have a point - but that's not what you've said!!! So the problem may not be with your thesis but your use of the English language... I still think your OP comes across as advocating your thesis as a universally-applicable technique in any and all conditions and that worries me
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
eng_ch, to the perception of thresholds thing,,, yep,,, it's a very individual commodity. As a coach I may try to tweak people past their fear barriers at times, but that is not my main line of attack in getting them skiing better. Everyone has different levels of fear tolerance, and once those barriers are breached a person can become completely performance debilitated, if not turned off from the sport. I find skill development in small steps, and on easy terrain, allows people to expand their abilities and confidence within what they perceive as a safe environment. Through this methodology skiers, regardless of their level of tolerance for fear, improve their abilities and elevate to new heights the speeds/terrain/situations that trigger fear. I don't wage major battle the individuals fear tolerance,,, I give them new tools that allow them to elevate their performance and enjoyment of the sport within the confines of their tolerance as it exists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Eng_ch: I think I understand your question. Let me see if I can clarify: In a hockey stop, we turn our skis sideways and skid. We are braking pure and simple. There is no turning going on. Many skiers use some degree of this technique when they feel they are going too fast: ending the circle of their turn soon after they head down the hill and gain more speed than they are comfortable with. Their default, defensive reaction at this point is to push their skis into some degree of skid to slow down. An alternative, and more efficient, means of keeping speed under control is to continue the circle of your turn and complete more of it, i.e., continue steering in a circle until the tips of your skis point up the hill. Skiing uphill for a moment or two slows you down without needing to brake. Try to go as fast as you can at this point and you're still going to lose speed! By doing this, you can pick the speed you wish to maintain simply by how much of the turn circle you choose to complete. The longer you choose to turn uphill, the more gravity will slow you down. The less of the circle you complete before turning the tips downhill again, the faster you will go. The circles can be any radius. On wide open, unpopulated pistes, you can choose to make larger, longer turns. On narrow, steep, or congested runs, a better choice may be tighter-radius turns. The radius is immaterial. Its how much of the circle you complete that's the key. Using gravity in this way has many benefits. It allows you to keep moving forward in control. It helps eliminate twisting, skidding, and braking movements that throw you out of balance and create a jerky rhythm and the dreaded "windshield-wiper" turn. Simply changing your intent from braking, to trying to trace a series of continuous circles in the snow, automatically creates flow and continuous rhythm. It's not the be-all and end-all of skiing, but it's a good foundation to start with.
Stoatsbrother and abs: Ego has nothing to do with anything here. This is not my personal concept. I feel no proprietary ownership. Many of the best coaches and trainers in the world have suggested this approach to me--that there is another way to get down a hill other than fighting it--and I have seen its value. Many, perhaps most, learning skiers are unaware of it and I felt it was worthwhile to pass it on. It seemed (and seems) a helpful thing to do. When members here requested clarification or misinterpreted certain points, I tried to clarify. I'm sorry you feel that this requires dismissal of me on a personal level.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| little tiger wrote: |
| FastMan wrote: |
| I don't wage major battle the individuals fear tolerance,,, I give them new tools that allow them to elevate their performance and enjoyment of the sport within the confines of their tolerance as it exists. |
and it works  |
Yes, it does. Telling people not to ski defensively,,, to ski offensively,,, to "go there",,, to stop the constant breaking,,, the fighting of the skis and the slope,,, is a futile exercise if fear is the reason these things are being done, and the skier does not have the necessary skills to do something different. Address the skills side of the equation, and the defensive stuff goes away on it's own.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
And I still say turning uphill to slow down, is turning to slow down,,, no matter how many times someone says it's not. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
brian
brian
Guest
|
So "EXPERTS NEVER TURN TO SLOW DOWN!" should actually say:
"Given plenty of room, a skier may choose to carve turns and use turn completion as their sole means of controlling speed."
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
mike_m, The issue here is you are just not listening to what several expert skiers here (not me - I am no expert - but I am probably part of your target market) say, that your "EXPERTS NEVER TURN TO SLOW DOWN!" is a misleading simplification and wrong...
The real question is why you continue to promote/defend such an idea in the teeth of reasoned argument ? You came here asking for feedbaack.
Or are Fastman. easiski and ssh wrong?
Why not substitute the word RARELY for NEVER?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Quote: |
Stoatsbrother and abs: Ego has nothing to do with anything here. This is not my personal concept. I feel no proprietary ownership. Many of the best coaches and trainers in the world have suggested this approach to me
|
Mike, I thought you were seeking feedback on your writing:
"After editing Steve's book ("Open Your Heart With Skiing"), he suggested I try my own hand at writing."
And I was commenting on THAT (the writing), not the concept.
So shouting "EXPERTS NEVER TURN TO SLOW DOWN!" is NOT good writing, according to many readers here. But you seem to be sticking to defending that statement. Whatever CONCEPT you believe, it's NOT coming across to the reader in your writing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
mike_m, you haven't understood my question at all, you've just repeated your OP! Maybe you should start by defining the word "turn" as you are using it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
stoatsbrother, I think there is method behind the madness.
I think the essence is to introduce the idea that speed management can be a continuous process without spikes of braking intent. Saying RARELY and allowing the student to wonder about that RARELY allows discontinuity and allows the student to wonder where to place that discontinuity.
An analogy might be piecewise continuous functions in analytic geometry. Fine, we've specified the limited set of exceptions, and how to deal with them. Now let's talk about the -perfectly- continuous chunks in between, and they must be perfectly continuous for our tools to work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
brian
brian
Guest
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
I'd say Comprex's second paragraph is a reasonable distillation. The third might be, but I have no idea!
Last edited by You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net. on Wed 10-10-07 19:29; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
comprex, I see your point - but it is twaddle to imply to an intermediate/advanced skier that if they use ever a turn to brake they are holding back their chances of improvement. I prefer Fastmans way of looking at things perhaps.
eng_ch, yep - it's head and brick wall time isn't it...
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
One final question (heads and brick walls don't appeal to me):
Fastman: Where did you get the idea that I discount fear in a leaning skier? Where did I ever say anything remotely like this? Of course fear is an impediment to improving and being comfortable on skis. Feeling secure and confident is vital when someone is trying to improve. So how does helping someone ski without feeling the need for constant braking impede this? If skiers can continue their turns and know they will slow down when their ski tips turn uphill, wouldn't this allow them to be more comfortable? No, this is not turning to slow down, this is turning to maintain a chosen speed without braking. Slowing down is a result of this action, it is not the intent of this action. The intent is to maintain a chosen speed. This simple distinction is huge in how a person skis. My trying to clarify this distinction has generated an amazing amount of anger. Why is beyond me. You, and others, seem to be rejecting the fundamental premise that I would bet underlies your own ski technique--turning to go to a destination and at a constant, chosen speed, rather then turning out of fear and to avoid going down the hill. I doubt very much that you are hitting the brakes every time you make a ski turn. Why do you so react so negatively when someone points this out and suggests a way for other, less-skilled skiers to do the same?
It is clear that you and most of the respondents to my post feel the thrust of its content and the way it was presented to be of little worth. Fair enough. I will think about and consider all your comments. I thank you for the time you have taken to read it and your replies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| mike_m wrote: |
| ...helping someone ski without feeling the need for constant braking ... |
AHA!!!!!!! Now we're getting somewhere! How about simply saying:
"You don't need to brake constantly when you're skiing because, if the conditions and gradient permit, if you just stay on the edge of your skis, the way they're made means you will eventually start to go uphill and lose speed automatically"
Which, I think, is a pretty accurate representation of what Easiski said to me last year
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| mike_m wrote: |
| I doubt very much that you are hitting the brakes every time you make a ski turn. Why do you so react so negatively when someone points this out and suggests a way for other, less-skilled skiers to do the same? |
I'm deffo in the "armchair" camp here, but as I said, my problem is with your use of the word "turn" when I suspect you mean "rotate, skid and apply pressure". ISTM that one is constantly "turning" in skiing - a carve is a turn, braquage is a turn, a hockey stop is sort of a turn - and the only times you are not turning are when you are heading straight down the fall-line, traversing or sideslipping (or a combination of the last two). Therefore, to suggest that you/an expert "never turns to slow down" is nonsensical because you *have* to turn in order to slow down. But you don't have to slow down when you turn. So your thesis is actually a bit A about T. In my very inexpert opinion
Last edited by You know it makes sense. on Wed 10-10-07 19:44; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
mike_m, It is my head hitting the brick wall... Why do you react so negatively when others point out the logical and practical flaws in your argument and your ways of communicating it? I like and fully take on board the idea of "offensive sking" (in the NFL/military sense - doesn't translate well in to European English by the way - we don't really use the word that way). But continuing that analogy, sometimes a running-back will make a cut rather than run smack into the defensive line.
In a tight couloir, track or piste you may have to brake without a completed turn to maintain the same speed against the continuing acceleration caused by gravity, which does not simply disappear when you reach your target speed. That ain't fear, it is good skiing, and the limitations imposed by the turning radius of the skis.
Back to Ron le Master perhaps for some basic biomechanics?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| eng_ch wrote: |
I'm deffo in the "armchair" camp here, but as I said, my problem is with your use of the word "turn" when I suspect you mean "rotate, skid and apply pressure". ISTM that one is constantly "turning" in skiing - a carve is a turn, braquage is a turn, a hockey stop is sort of a turn - |
Ironically, I think that mike_m means to use the word turn exactly as he does use it.
I think that he understands the word turn in a stricter sense than you do, to mean redirection of the CoM
and part of the exposition might be: "rotate, skid and apply pressure" does not a turn make,
So the OP might be finessed:
"Experts" might RSP to slow down but turns are for turning not slowing down from whatever speed was chosen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
mike_m, " The radius is immaterial. Its how much of the circle you complete that's the key. Using gravity in this way has many benefits. It allows you to keep moving forward in control. It helps eliminate twisting, skidding, and braking movements that throw you out of balance and create a jerky rhythm and the dreaded "windshield-wiper" turn. Simply changing your intent from braking, to trying to trace a series of continuous circles in the snow, automatically creates flow and continuous rhythm. It's not the be-all and end-all of skiing, but it's a good foundation to start with. "
Now we're getting down to it. the thing is that this sort of thing is 'normal' in terms of what we've been teaching in europe for a while. The type of skier I believe you're thinking about rarely has lessons as they throw themselves alarmingly and dangerously down a piste. Using the ski to do the work is not new - Ali Ross (the only ski teacher I would accord guru status to) was teaching me this in the early 70's. Of course we couldn't really do it then ..... OTOH I still think that the way you express it suggests that we should all be tearing down the piste being very aggressive. Now It may be that the word 'offensive' has a different connotation here ...
FastMan, "As a coach I may try to tweak people past their fear barriers at times, but that is not my main line of attack in getting them skiing better. Everyone has different levels of fear tolerance, and once those barriers are breached a person can become completely performance debilitated, if not turned off from the sport. I find skill development in small steps, and on easy terrain, allows people to expand their abilities and confidence within what they perceive as a safe environment. Through this methodology skiers, regardless of their level of tolerance for fear, improve their abilities and elevate to new heights the speeds/terrain/situations that trigger fear. I don't wage major battle the individuals fear tolerance,,, I give them new tools that allow them to elevate their performance and enjoyment of the sport within the confines of their tolerance as it exists. "
HEAR! HEAR!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
Ah the usual stuff, namely understanding and agreeing with FastMan and easiski, not understanding comprex and semi-understanding but getting bored with both the content and the tone of most of the other contributions, including the OP. No change there, then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
brian
brian
Guest
|
easiski, have you got the old Ali Ross tv series from Wengen in your collection ? I'd love to see that again.
The guru in action:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
I think Ali is still known as Ali "wobbly knee" Ross in some circles
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Frosty the Snowman wrote: |
| Agreed, a good turn is so much more fun than a good straight bit |
Or in other words,
one good turn deserves another 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One of the aspects of the "constant speed" that I think is a bit challenging is that we can't actually have a constant speed. We speed up in the fall line and slow as we turn uphill. There is a gathering and releasing of energy (felt in the form of pressure, usually). Learning to move into the fall line and with the turn is a big step for many skiers. Learning to manage pressure at the end of the turn to move into the next turn is another. Doing all of this without using unnecessary twisting and braking is in that mix, as well.
None of it is wrong, however. It's just different ways of accomplishing results and outcomes. The lower energy, gentle movement into the turn version is much more efficient for me, but often more scary for skiers. Not wrong. Just different.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what is it with level II certs who think they have something so important to say that they privately publish a book???
i have issues with the originality of thought. where might these ideas of offensive vs defensive originated? who first wrote about things such as intent?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Rusty, I'm surprised at you. Have you read Steve's book? If not, perhaps you should withhold dismissing it simply on the basis of Steve's paper bona fides. On that basis, Shakespeare's works are rubbish because he wasn't a college graduate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| mike_m wrote: |
One final question (heads and brick walls don't appeal to me):
Fastman: Where did you get the idea that I discount fear in a leaning skier? Where did I ever say anything remotely like this? |
Right, you didn't cover the topic at all, so I was expanding the discussion into an area of importance.
| Quote: |
| So how does helping someone ski without feeling the need for constant braking impede this? If skiers can continue their turns and know they will slow down when their ski tips turn uphill, wouldn't this allow them to be more comfortable? |
Yes and no. The goal of helping students learn to produce more consistent turn shapes and understand the relationship between how long they continue to turn across and up the falline, and the resultant speed, is a good and important one. But it's only a minor part of what they need to learn to truly improve. By turning uphill you're really only substituting one form of braking for another. The skier can make that substitution, yet still be left with the same fears of speed for lack of skills. They've merely substituted their tail tossing, skidding and edge checking on beginner/intermediate runs with turning uphill. So then where do you go? How do you get them more comfortable with the concept of NOT skidding, checking, or turning uphill on these moderately pitched groomers? That's where I was going with my comments.
| Quote: |
| If skiers can continue their turns and know they will slow down when their ski tips turn uphill, wouldn't this allow them to be more comfortable? No, this is not turning to slow down, this is turning to maintain a chosen speed without braking. Slowing down is a result of this action, it is not the intent of this action. The intent is to maintain a chosen speed. |
Oh for pity sake, mike, are you listening to yourself? Of course turning uphill is turning to slow down. That slow down is necessary to maintain the general slowness you're seeking. When your turn takes you into the falline you speed up. If the speed you hit during that falline acceleration period of the turn is OK with you, then ending the turn while perpendicular to the falline is fine. But, if during falline acceleration period you hit a speed you don't want to maintain you need to reduce that speed somehow. That's what turning uphill does. It's a braking tactic, pure and simple.
| Quote: |
| This simple distinction is huge in how a person skis. My trying to clarify this distinction has generated an amazing amount of anger. Why is beyond me. |
Not anger, mike. I have no emotional stake in this discussion. You asked for feedback, I and others responded. That's all. We're just as astounded that you keep trying to defend this silly "experts never turn to slow down" premise. We see you cutting your own throat with it, but obviously you're devoted to it, and will stick with it. That's fine. But as I read this thread, and see the reaction, that Dr. Phil expression pops into my head,,, "how's that workin for ya?"
| Quote: |
| It is clear that you and most of the respondents to my post feel the thrust of its content and the way it was presented to be of little worth. |
Not at all, Mike. I've said it before, there's legitimate and worthy aspects to what you're saying. Those messages would benefit learning skiers. Unfortunately, you obscure them in the shadow of a presentation containing glaring controversy. But like I said,,, if you're locked into that totalitarian perspective of turning, then have at it and good luck.
Last edited by Ski the Net with snowHeads  on Thu 11-10-07 6:05; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
