 Poster: A snowHead
|
ski, you cynical man, you 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Quote: |
but for a lot of people I think her heartfelt expression of what she feels is missing strikes a chord. Perhaps this is why at a more advanced level people start doing qualifications which carry instantly recognisable credibility.
|
I'm sorry I don't share that "missing chord". For one, some of us ski to relax, to be FREE, NOT to "achieve" a better grade. But perhaps, it's also because skiing is the WRONG activity for "grading"?
I don't dispute many adults feel the need to "measure", and it's even useful when applied to professionals such as ski instructors and guides. However, I just think skiing as an activity doesn't lend itself to easily distinguishable "levels" for the majority of weekend worriors.
So whatever "system" one creates "to measure" will likely be only applicable to a very narrow scope and not likely to be embraced by the majority of skiers. When 90% of the skiers don't apply themselves to the "system", it's essentially useless. And we're left with 90% of the skiing public being "intermediates" of various shade.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
| Quote: |
but for a lot of people I think her heartfelt expression of what she feels is missing strikes a chord. Perhaps this is why at a more advanced level people start doing qualifications which carry instantly recognisable credibility.
|
I'm sorry I don't share that "missing chord". For one, some of us ski to relax, to be FREE, NOT to "achieve" a better grade. But perhaps, it's also because skiing is the WRONG activity for "grading"?
I don't dispute many adults feel the need to "measure", and it's even useful when applied to professionals such as ski instructors and guides. However, I just think skiing as an activity doesn't lend itself to easily distinguishable "levels" for the majority of weekend worriors.
So whatever "system" one creates "to measure" will likely be only applicable to a very narrow scope and not likely to be embraced by the majority of skiers. When 90% of the skiers don't apply themselves to the "system", it's essentially useless. And we're left with 90% of the skiing public being "intermediates" of various shade. |
Humans don't care whether a ranking system is subjective or objective.
In an ideal world, all analysis would be 100% objective. In the real world they know, deep down, that is almost impossible for most things.
So, all they want is the best possible grading system to help them make sense of the world around them. If it is subjective, they don't care; as long as it is the best available to them at that particular time.
Whether you admit it or not, or whether you like it or not, or whether you realize it or not, the facts stand. Everyone ranks everything. Everyone benchmarks each other. Everyone rates themselves against everyone else.
C'est la vie.
Last edited by Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see? on Fri 13-07-07 15:14; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Its easy..you say, 'we are going to do this, drop down there and have a look at that' or some such..and people willl either fancy it or not.
They have a choice..say no, express reservations or say, 'I'm in' and then you do it with them or with out them. A lot of people ..who you have a goodish idea about anyway, will say I'll give it a bash and it works out fine. If you really go into these things with the idea of being the best, you aren't going to be much fun whether you are or aren't. Skiing is quite social and everyone wants to tell a good tale in the bar and enjoy everyones else's buzz even if you crack up at someone..it might be you...totally messing up a line..
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Quote: |
the facts stand. Everyone ranks everything. Everyone benchmarks each other. Everyone rates themselves against everyone else.
|
That's rubbish! There's no basis for such "fact" at all!
Everyone ranks SOMETHING, and some rank EVERYTHING. But not everone ranks everything.
For example, you don't rank all that well in your post count. There're some who's got thousands (and tens of thousands).
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
abc, to be pedantic (though bearing in mind that generalisations by definition cannot be too conditional) I'd agree that not everyone ranks everything, but all you need to do is look at the number of threads and posts on skiing improvement/lesson/levels/challenges, people who ski with better/worse skiers to know that skiing is something most rank whether they care to admit it or not
JT, ranking isn't necessarily about being the best, sometimes it's just about being where you are quite happily and comfortably
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
number of threads and posts on skiing improvement/lesson/levels/challenges
|
I do wish to "improve" but not necessarily against other skiers. It's to be able to get to (or get down?) terrain/condition that I otherwise can't handle. I don't see that as "ranking".
Hence my believe skiing isn't an activity particularly suited for "ranking".
A marathon, as an example, would be a perfect activity for ranking. You're either 1 second slower than me, or one hour faster!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
abc, you are vigorously objecting to ranking in skiing, but I think the view you profess is a minority one. I think for most people it is seeing someone cope with conditions/terrain better than they can ( =ski better than them) that informs them that better exists and spurs them to do better. Even when at the point where they're feeling like they can do it just as well, they'd still prefer to have a video or another set of eyes to confirm it. Anyway why should ranking marathon running be more acceptable?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Quote: |
why should ranking marathon running be more acceptable?
|
slikedges, I think that's where the misunderstanding is. It's no less acceptable to rank skiing than running. It's just a marathon is timed so the ranking is automatic and objective while what's consider "better" in skiing is to a degree subjective (except for a race course, that is).
Kind of like the difference between figure skating vs speed skating. Those who like to be "ranked" should simply engage in the latter instead of complaining about the lack of consistant "grading" in the former.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
abc, dunno, sounds to me like it's natural to rank, so ranking happens no matter whether it's easy or not. Can't see what's unacceptable about ranking marathon running either. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
slikedges, I'm sorry I wasn't very clear on that one. I meant to say there's nothing to do whether it's acceptable or not. Simply pointing out "ranking" of timed events are more "natural" than un-timed ones.
Therefore, complaining about the lack of ranking in un-timed events are somewhat pointless. Further more, I'm of the believe even if there're some artificial "systems" in ranking subjective sport such as skiing (or figure skating) is going to leave a large portion of the skiers/skaters out of the "rank", for they simply didn't bother to even participate in the ranking process.
Example, one objective way of ranking skiers is the race course. But what's the percentage of skiers ever bother to time themselves in a race course? Where do they fall in the scale of that "ranking system"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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, but the purpose of ranking for most is improvement in their arena, the recreational slope, not the artificial arena of a race course
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
slikedges, in your opening post, you ask WHY skiers need to rank themselves. Some of the "reasons" are useful (someone compatible to ski with) while others aren't particularly so (hiring equipemnts).
Megamum, on the other hand, express a desire to have some form of confirmation to her "progress on ski". I felt that's probably best done with a timed event such as a race course. Some may even argue time down a race course is indeed one of the best reflection of one's competence in the overall arena of skiing (which I'm not able to judge since I've not done much of it).
Skiing as a leasure activity has been around for many decades, I for one is NOT surprise we still do NOT have any other form of "ranking" besides time down a race course. For as long as you and I can safely descend a given slope, whether you did it "better" than me or not is not particularly relevant (to me).
But for those who find it relevant, I suppose you should feel free to come up with yet another system of ranking that you all will participate in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
abc, I think timed courses are irrelevant to the majority of leisure skiers, a system which is fit for the purpose of guiding and encouraging their progress on the slopes they commonly ski isn't
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Well then, like I said above, for those who needs it, you'll have to find your own "system". A system many other skiers don't participate in the process, the same reason many don't time themselves on a race course because they don't find it relevant.
So you're back to squrar one. You have a system but many you want to compare to aren't part of it! So now you again have no way of "ranking" those.
Any "ranking" system that's not an integral part of the activity (time, or win-loss in game type activities) aren't going to be widely adopted by the majority of the participants. And it's not going to be very useful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
slikedges, abc, Aren't you guys tired yet? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
It's still the middle of the day for me.
But yes, Hurtle, the subject is becoming rather tiresome.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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, a zillion systems already exist that every skier is already part of like it or not and that virtually every skier will use at some point to some extent - SCGB, snow and rock, PSIA, newgen, warren smith, phil smith etc etc. Even the ubiquitous beginner, early/mid/adv intermed, adv, expert, used by people who do and don't like ranking alike, just so's to describe a day in world of skiing to someone. Ranking is integral to everything you can be good or bad at, even if they're the only 2 ranks used! The real challenge is to find one fit for purpose that most are willing to agree definitions on. However, I kinda knew this thread might spend a little time on whether it's 'nice' to compare! 
Hurtle, no offence but most of your posts are nosey-parker commentaries on others, aren't you tired yet? BTW there are some good articles on forum posting behaviour on this Interwebby thingy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
slikedges, Gracious, you're a bit touchy, aren't you? But in any event, I admire your stamina, if not your sense of humour (or lack thereof.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| abc wrote: |
| Quote: |
number of threads and posts on skiing improvement/lesson/levels/challenges
|
I do wish to "improve" but not necessarily against other skiers. It's to be able to get to (or get down?) terrain/condition that I otherwise can't handle. I don't see that as "ranking".
|
Of course it is "ranking".
It is impossible to consider "getting better" at anything without a process of ranking. If you don't then you cannot know whether you have succeeded in improving or not, or even whether there is any "improving" possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| alex_heney wrote: |
| abc wrote: |
| Quote: |
number of threads and posts on skiing improvement/lesson/levels/challenges
|
I do wish to "improve" but not necessarily against other skiers. It's to be able to get to (or get down?) terrain/condition that I otherwise can't handle. I don't see that as "ranking".
|
Of course it is "ranking".
It is impossible to consider "getting better" at anything without a process of ranking. If you don't then you cannot know whether you have succeeded in improving or not, or even whether there is any "improving" possible. |
This is spot on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
alex_heney, last time I checked "ranking" has to do with comparison with other PEOPLE. Comparison with oneself isn't ranking, unless I mis-understand what the word means.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
abc, one fault in your earlier response to slikedges: CERTAINLY it is less acceptable to rank skiing than organized running because the participant in a timed marathon consents to be ranked. Similarly, a participant in a system lesson consents to be ranked. Without consent, it is an invasion of privacy.
alex_heney, in bed as well?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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'm with JT...
I used to care what level I thought I was...
On my personal 1-10 scale - which takes into account amount of time spent skiing each year, ratio of talk to activity vis a vis randonnee, avalanche and crevasse awareness and ability to earn a huge salary from my favourite pastime I am still struggling to get out of the low decimals. Think 0.01 or something like that.
The huge salary factor might be skewing the results a little however...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| comprex wrote: |
abc, one fault in your earlier response to slikedges: CERTAINLY it is less acceptable to rank skiing than organized running because the participant in a timed marathon consents to be ranked. Similarly, a participant in a system lesson consents to be ranked. Without consent, it is an invasion of privacy.
|
As usual, comprex, thought provoking. That's like if I had mentally undressed the stunning snowboarderess at MK this am.  I guess if she then found out she might be either offended or flattered, but there's certainly no law against it. Thought crimes are problematic for a multitude of reasons. For starters we have all sorts of thoughts some only half-formed entering and leaving our minds all the time - the thought alone doesn't imply opinion and certainly not intent.  In the case of ranking a skier, I do that automatically and often subconsciously anytime I see one - I think everybody does. One might call it an impression. Does it make a difference to him/her if I then go on to do it actively and consciously, or if I chat to a mate who doesn't know him/her about it? No, of course not. The potential for offence only arises if they get to know about it and don't like what you've said, whether 'cos you're fairly or unfairly unflattering, or they're oversensitive. I don't think ranking someone is an invasion of privacy, or is offensive in itself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
I am going to be Masqueish and pragmatical here, it's only the consequences of the thought that matter.
PS, I think you gave the game away
| slikedges wrote: |
| As usual, comprex, thought provoking. |
| Hurtle wrote: |
| slikedges, Gracious, you're a bit touchy, aren't you? But in any event, I admire your stamina, if not your sense of humour (or lack thereof.) |
How many posters in this thread do you think realise it is a venue for ranking them by posting skills?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
comprex, but see, now you're doing it, naturally, automatically...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| abc wrote: |
| alex_heney, last time I checked "ranking" has to do with comparison with other PEOPLE. Comparison with oneself isn't ranking, unless I mis-understand what the word means. |
I think you are focusing on one meaning of the word, when (as usual in English) it has more meanings or nuances than that.
I think ranking *can* be against your own previous situation.
Last edited by 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  on Sun 15-07-07 1:01; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
comprex, Anyhwere.
If you are aware of the possibility of being "better" or "worse" than you are now, then you are ranking yourself.
No matter what the activity or trait concerned is.
It may not be a formal grading, but it is still ranking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
alex_heney,
| Quote: |
If you are aware of the possibility of being "better" or "worse" than you are now, then you are ranking yourself.
No matter what the activity or trait concerned is.
It may not be a formal grading, but it is still ranking.
|
I agree, but doesn't a problem arise when you start to consider what "better" or "worse" actually is? You then have to seek some sort of objective test, don't you? And the objective test is gleaned from a grading of the activity in question and/or a ranking of the mass of people who perform the activity. In other words, I think that you cannot assess (perhaps this is a better word, if you don't want the competitive overtones of the word 'rank') your own abilities without placing them into the context of other people's abilities.
To go back to slikedges' original question, 1), 4) and 5) are important for me. As a gloss on 1), whilst I love skiing with people who are better (but not too much better) than I am - who doesn't? And it's a good way to learn - I don't know what makes me more anxious about skiing with people I don't know: either placing myself way outside my comfort zone; or boring the hell out of them by holding them back. Either way, my numptitude requires to be ranked, for the good of all concerned.
Erm, I think I may have forgotten why I felt moved to post this. This is obviously a Major Breach of Posting Etiquette, for which I apologize. I was thinking about posting skills which I personally value: clarity and brevity are probably top of the list and I guess I've just failed on both counts.  (Other skills I value, BTW, are humour, politeness, a light touch, absence of jargon or technobabble and a degree of sensitivity to other people's feelngs. I do not rate pedantry and wish I were not burdened with my own!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| comprex wrote: |
| abc, one fault in your earlier response to slikedges: CERTAINLY it is less acceptable to rank skiing than organized running because the participant in a timed marathon consents to be ranked. Similarly, a participant in a system lesson consents to be ranked. Without consent, it is an invasion of privacy. |
Tell that to Whitefold:
| Whitegold wrote: |
The reality is, humans rank everything. Consciously and subconsciously.
Everyone does it. Whether they admit it or not.
Ranking helps to inform us what is good, average or bad. It assists in making decisions.
Skiing is no different.
Grading a skier's ability is designed to assess their value to society and their status within the immediate group.
It gives a 'visual indicator' as to whether they have good, average or bad genes.
Consequently, an above-average skier will be a winner. They have high status. They have sound physical and mental skills. They, particularly men, will find it easier to attract friends and mate.
A below-average skier will be a loser. They have low status. They have questionable physical and mental skills. They, particularly men, will find it harder to attract friends and mate.
In short, rating skiers boils down to evolution. Survival of the fittest. |
Apparently, it's not only acceptable to him. Anyone who doesn't accept his "invasion of privacy" is a fool!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| slikedges wrote: |
| comprex, but see, now you're doing it, naturally, automatically... |
That it is automatic I'll grant you or the makeup, styling and fashion industries would expire overnight. However, anyone who has come any distance in life has encountered things they've just plain had to accept. This acceptance , in concordance with your thesis, may require learning.
If one has learnt to accept that they might be at any "relative level" to someone else, and I include skin colour, athletic skill, tackle size, sudoku solving times, then what is the possible relevance of "ranking" except a flash of ego?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
comprex,
Sorry, what is?
| Quote: |
If one has learnt to accept that they might be at any "relative level" to someone else, and I include skin colour, athletic skill, tackle size, sudoku solving times, then what is the possible relevance of "ranking" except a flash of ego?
|
I agree that you can rank all four of those things: but it is widely acceptable to rank the second and fourth without being deemed to be on an ego trip, whereas the person who 'ranks' himself superior in the other two departments is widely considered to be beyond the pale. By lumping athletic and mental agility skills in with the other two, are you saying that you disapprove of competitive sport? That seems to be your implication.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Hurtle, that's more or less the point I was labouring to get across. That skiing is NOT a competitive sport.
Therefore, ranking skiing is closer to ranking skin color than ranking sudoku solving times.
Though it clearly requires athletic ability, the goal of skiing isn't to be better, but to have fun. Getting better may be the means but not necessary the end in itself. Hence the saying "the best skier is the one with the bigger smile".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
abc, I agree with all of that, for the recreational skier. One of the many reasons I love skiing is that I can do it uncompetitively (though I am sometimes conscious of competing with myself, if you know what I mean). However, some recreational skiers indulge in competitive activity ie races, and there's nothing wrong with that. In any event, though, grading is required even for the recreational skier, to keep the "worse" skier safe and his "better" mates free from boredom. Don't you think?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Hurtle the thesis was that 'ranking' is automatic and natural for any activity, anywhere. If, as you say, ranking some things is beyond the pale, do we learn not to rank them or do we learn not to act on the consequences of the ranking?
Engagement in competitive sport is a granting of consent to be ranked. See above posts.
| Hurtle wrote: |
| In any event, though, grading is required even for the recreational skier, to keep the "worse" skier safe and his "better" mates free from boredom. Don't you think? |
As I've said, no. A thick skin or big ego shouldn't be a requirement for a returning skier.
Last edited by You'll need to Register first of course. on Sun 15-07-07 18:55; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
comprex,
| Quote: |
| the thesis was that 'ranking' is automatic and natural for any activity, anywhere |
Possibly so for an activity (though some people simply don't have a competitive streak and therefore do not 'rank' even automatically) but not for a state of existence: I am white and I most certainly do not rank myself above a person of colour.
| Quote: |
| If, as you say, ranking some things is beyond the pale, do we learn not to rank them |
Yes, it is incumbent upon us to learn this basic decency.
| Quote: |
Engagement in competitive sport is a granting of consent to be ranked.
|
I agree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
grading is required even for the recreational skier, to keep the "worse" skier safe and his "better" mates free from boredom. Don't you think?
|
Hurtle, minor change of wording: perhaps more "suitable" terrain for the skier?
Here's my example, I do not enjoy speed, due to my below average reflex. But I do enjoy doing bumps. Does that make me "worse" than the guy who beat me down the piste every time but fall to peices on bumps? Or me better than him?
We may both be "intermediate" (or even "advanced") so I can't say one is better than the other.
Nonetheless, when it comes to choosing groups to ski with, these two would NOT be very compatible as mates. He would get rather bored waiting for me at the bottom of the piste every time. And he may rightly hate me for taking him through a mile long field of bumps the size of VW!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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,
| Quote: |
Here's my example, I do not enjoy speed, due to my below average reflex. But I do enjoy doing bumps. Does that make me "worse" than the guy who beat me down the piste every time but fall to peices on bumps? Or me better than him?
|
Neither, you're not comparing like with like.
| Quote: |
We may both be "intermediate" (or even "advanced") so I can't say one is better than the other.
|
That's because the grading in question is something of a blunt instrument. You're possibly an advanced bumps skier and an intermediate piste skier. Or whatever - there must be an infinite number of variations in possible grading systems, there's another thread on this, isn't there?
| Quote: |
Nonetheless, when it comes to choosing groups to ski with, these two would NOT be very compatible as mates. He would get rather bored waiting for me at the bottom of the piste every time. And he may rightly hate me for taking him through a mile long field of bumps the size of VW!
|
True, but the nature of recreational skiing is that you have to take the rough with the smooth, to some extent. So you need to establish a grading which will be robust enough for you to ski together, even if he is struggling a bit on the bumps and you are struggling a bit on the piste. And if you can't find that common grading, then don't ski together!
Oh dear, this really is 'angels on the head of a pin' stuff, isn't it? I think I'd better get on with the ironing!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
Oh dear, this really is 'angels on the head of a pin' stuff, isn't it? I think I'd better get on with the ironing!
|
And where's my knitting kit?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
