 Poster: A snowHead
|
| Samerberg Sue wrote: |
| you attempted to condemn a whole system. |
Where did I say that? I talked specifically about one instructor, and I was careful to say absolutely nothing at all about the whole system (I don't even know what system that particular instructor is a part of). I have seen Megamum ski a few times and taught her on a couple of occasions and the last thing she needs is to be encouraged to push the tails of her skis out at the start of the turn (especially when the reason for this is 'elegance'), a point which she seems well aware of. She shouldn't be taught to do that even if it is part of a sequence of drills to look at the range of movements and stance you can have (which doesn't seem to be the case).
I reiterate, at no point was I trying to criticise the great nation of Austria or its very wonderful instructors. Simply the one instructor who Megamum ended up with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Samerberg Sue, with respect, I took the lesson not you. I have taken more than a fair number of lessons in the UK, Switzerland, France and Austria and I know the sort of instruction that attempts to teach me to ski according to modern technique. When I showed the instructor my best efforts at skiing according to every lesson I had taken thus far I was told fairly effectively told that I didn't want to be skiing like that and the 'old style' of skiing would be 'better' for me and there was a def. insinuation that this was due to my maturity!. There was no misunderstanding in my opinion. I could do what he wanted, but it was not the lesson that I wanted for the money that I spent, and I certainly didn't learn anything similar to what I have been taught in any other lesson that I have had. What I was shown and encouraged to do was entirely different. My kids, on the other hand, spent time with a younger instructor from the same school and reported that they had got on famously - I had no hesitation in booking for them again this year, but I am going to save my cash for my own lessons in France, where I have always been pleased with the techniques and approach that I have been shown.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
Megamum, You really should have stopped the lesson there and gone back to the office for another instructor or a refund . . . though the experience of skiing 'oldfartskool' will give you some additional sensory knowledge . . .if only to avoid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Samerberg Sue, if it was a non-Austrian school being criticised would you have been so critical of those comments?
Last edited by You need to Login to know who's really who. on Fri 21-12-12 15:02; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
My first two days ever skiing was in an Austrian ski school. The instructor's name was Walter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Masque, I've never quite known where I've stood if I am not being taught what I expect to learn. Esp. in a different country. I knew how I'd been taught in other countries, but as pointed out above there are more than one ski school method taught, for example I saw Wayne comment on another thread about differences that exist even within his experience of Italy. Having never had another lesson in Austria I didn't know whether this was a different in general Austrian methodology, and perhaps all skiing was taught there like that - in which case what right did I have to query it, or whether it was a one off instructor. As it was I took it as face value, discovered that these days I have sufficient control over my legs and skis to do something entirely different, and discovered that I knew suffient about how I should be skiing to know that I would forget every thing I'd been shown and go back to how I was before once the session finished. The cash was a right off which was a shame, but I had no idea whether to query the methodology on the basis of a single instructor, or whether it was just general Austrian method. The fact that the kids did OK makes me think it was the instructor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe he was teaching you to look silly on purpose. It's that "German sense of humour" I've heard so much about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
"However, I learned a different way to turn (and as we know all techniques have their place), and it certainly worked on ironing out any A frame that I may have developed and it also helped with my shoulder position. I also got down some of the steepest slopes that I've tackled with the new method. This was a good confidence boost as it meant that I could adapt to something different and, in my book, this meant that I am now in control of the skis"
Elston, Nah...doubt it! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Elston, yes I would - I have worked with the ESF as well as many BASI schools throughout my skiing career which goes back a very very long way. Whenever I see someone I think is trying to make capital out of a situation unfairly and I know something about the situation I would comment.
Megamum, you told me that your trip last year was your first to Austria, so where else have you had experience of Austrian ski schools?
BTW this is your reply to a question about your instruction with an instructor from the HM ski school:
http://snowheads.com/ski-forum/viewtopic.php?t=83330 - toward the bottom of the page
| Quote: |
.... We didn't have any problems with the HM ski school. They turned up on time, and were accommodating when the storm came through and most of the mountain was closed - they drove with us to a different lift so the kids could have their second lesson. The kids got the same instructor twice (which is what I hoped) and had a great time with him - they did some carving practice and then he took them for adventures off piste and through the trees as you may have read about in Minimum_1's trip report. FraserP and I were completely out-skied by our 76 yr old! instructor (apparently his 82 yr old sister also still skied Shocked !). However, I would have prefered some tips on carving rather than the turns that he taught us. However, I learned a different way to turn (and as we know all techniques have their place), and it certainly worked on ironing out any A frame that I may have developed and it also helped with my shoulder position. I also got down some of the steepest slopes that I've tackled with the new method. This was a good confidence boost as it meant that I could adapt to something different and, in my book, this meant that I am now in control of the skis. It has to be said that I went back to trying to carve after the lesson.
However, all in all we were quite happy with the lessons and tipped both instructors and I can see reason not to recommend the ski school to others. |
You were so unhappy with them that you tipped the instructor? Your subsequent comments also displayed a better understanding of why he got you to ski as he did! Perhaps you should review your review?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
Your subsequent comments also displayed a better understanding of why he got you to ski as he did!
|
Samerberg Sue, +1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Samerberg Sue, I did not read that and TBH I thought that your reaction was harsh and over the top.
Maybe there is more than meets the eye but based purely in response to what Megamum had said in her original post I thought what he said was a little bit tongue in cheek but not totally unreasonable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Samerberg Sue wrote: |
| Whenever I see someone I think is trying to make capital out of a situation unfairly and I know something about the situation I would comment. |
Who is trying to make capital out of the situation? What capital is there to be made?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Samerberg Sue, I don't see much difference in the two reviews. It was polite to tip him as it is all instructors - it would have to be a really bad, sullen, rude instructor, that didn't turn up on time before I wouldn't tip them. I am not in the business of slating a particular company by name if it is not necessary and so I tried to be positive in a thread reviewing that ski school about why he might have taught that way, but I still think I wasted my hard earned cash.
There was a reason why I specifically didn't mention the school name in this thread - I did not make the link here.
Yes, I learned a different way to turn, I guess it could help to iron out an A frame stance, but I am not aware that this is problem I have anyway and I am convinced that this was NOT WHY I was being taught it. It was def. indicated that at my 'age' this 'more elegant' method of turning was better for me. I would far sooner have instruction leading to better carving technique. I said in those comments that I adapted to the different method and that was a confidence boost, but I also said that above, I also said in both reports that I ditched the method the moment I had finished (so it couldn't have been much use), but there was no doubt in my mind that this is how he expected me to ski all the time. The methods that I was shown was appropriate to this thread hence me commenting on it.
Yes, I'd recommend the ski school to anyone wanting somewhere for their kids, and for adults if they don't mind that style of instruction - who am I to second guess what people want. They were on time, polite, flexible when we got a dose of bad weather, and on that basis there is a lot to recommend them. Also, just because I didn't learn what I wanted that this no reason to think that someone else would get the same treatment, so why not recommend them? What I didn't put in the first review is that I won't go back to them myself, but there was no need to put that.
It has to be said on SH I do get rather fed up with everyone jumping on the slightest comment that appears to slate their favoured resort, method, manufacturer, etc. I was very careful not to mention a name on this thread. It's a pity someone else meddled and did so.
Last edited by Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name: on Fri 21-12-12 16:51; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Samerberg Sue, If the Austrian ski school system is so perfect why do so many Austrian and German skiers ski like they are holding a 10 Euro note between their bum cheeks? Keeping it safe for the cheeky radlers?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
If you had a diet of nothing but heavily processed sausages and weak fizzy beer, you'd keep your buttocks clamped together as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| Megamum wrote: |
| [... there are more than one ski school method taught, for example I saw Wayne comment on another thread about differences that exist even within his experience of Italy. Having never had another lesson in Austria I didn't know whether this was a different in general Austrian methodology, and perhaps all skiing was taught there like that - in which case what right did I have to query it, or whether it was a one off instructor. |
In my experience there difference between individual instructors (good, bad or just different) is far greater than any perceived differences between how different nationalities teach. I don't think you can draw any conclusions about how graduates of one particular qualification system go about their teaching based on experience of one instructor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| galpinos wrote: |
Anyway, rob@rar, in your picture would you want your body to be more upright?
I often get critised that I lean over to get edge ange instead of rolling the ankles and driving the skis. I noticed your body was inclined and thought that the ideal would be a vertical body from the waist? |
For me the answer to that question is "it depends". Rather than focus on a particular body shape I think it's important to think about what are you trying to achieve in a particular context. Angulation (where the body is more upright than the legs are, although not necessarily vertical) helps to move your centre of mass to the outside of the turn to make it easier to balance on your outside ski while you create big edge angles. This is a good thing to do, but comes at the price of not having your skeleton all lined up (inclined so you have a 'stacked' position) so lots of angulation might make it more difficult to work with the very large forces that are generated in a, for example, fast long radius turn. So your angulation might be different in a short radius turn compared to a long radius turn. Couple of photos to illustrate that - the first is a short radius turn on a red piste, the second is a long radius turn (skiing much faster) on a blue piste. First photo has, for me at least, lots of angulation; second photo has some angulation, but is a more stacked position.
The body position will also vary depending on where in the turn you are. For a long radius turn you might begin the turn with an inclined position (but still balanced on the outside ski), but progressively move to an angulated position if, for example, you're trying to get around a GS gate. In a short radius turn you might want to have an angulated position very early in the turn.
To get back to the photo you (almost) quoted, from what I recall those was some long radius turns on fairly flat terrain so I probably wouldn't have used much angulation.
What I haven't mentioned is 'banking'. This is where you drop the inside shoulder so far to the inside of the turn that you end up standing too much on your inside ski so that the outside ski stops working for you effectively.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
| In my experience there difference between individual instructors (good, bad or just different) is far greater than any perceived differences between how different nationalities teach. I don't think you can draw any conclusions about how graduates of one particular qualification system go about their teaching based on experience of one instructor. |
This.
I had a lesson with flowa in Utah, in 2011, with a PSIA L4 instructor. Ask her how it went but it really wasn't money well spent.
Does it mean that I will never have a lesson with a PSIA? Is it the last time I have a lesson in the States? Absolutely not but I won't be requesting another lesson with that instructor.
Last edited by Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do. on Fri 21-12-12 17:30; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
rob@rar, Very few people talk about the snow consistency which is really the deciding factor in choosing a particular technique at any one time. That second pic shows you on what looks like delightfully grippy conditions. If that had been blown off wind crust you would not have been 'stacked'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Masque, yes, absolutely right. Snow conditions play a major part, as does terrain, visibility, weather, psychological state, the skis you're on, remnants of a hangover, whether you're trying to impress anyone, etc, etc.
I think those photos are from the Grand Motte glacier on the 29th of September a couple of years ago. Not a bad way to start the season!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Samerberg Sue, :blush: We are thinking about an Austrian week as a regular part of our calendar. Perhaps Tux, if we can find the right accommodation that works for us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
Masque, yes, absolutely right. Snow conditions play a major part, as does terrain, visibility, weather, psychological state, the skis you're on, remnants of a hangover, whether you're trying to impress anyone, etc, etc.
I think those photos are from the Grand Motte glacier on the 29th of September a couple of years ago. Not a bad way to start the season! |
Soooo... basically we're at the mercy of everything and that it's a bloody miracle we get down the hill at all 
I genuinely find it odd that in all these posts about technique the things we have no control over (unlike hangover etc.) are rarely if ever mentioned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| Quote: |
rob@rar wrote:
In my experience there difference between individual instructors (good, bad or just different) is far greater than any perceived differences between how different nationalities teach. I don't think you can draw any conclusions about how graduates of one particular qualification system go about their teaching based on experience of one instructor.
|
Absolutely, hence why I determined not to slate the whole ski school on the basis of my one session and why I put a positive slant on my initial report (I tend to be fair like that. In fact if folks on SH's realised the efforts I go to in order to be impartial and fair it would astonish many, and I often put up with many a truck of sh oi te being slung in my direction without reacting because of it - some folks (who have contributed this thread) ought to meet me before they judge me ). In this situation I stand by all the comments made both with my original report which I wrote with a huge degree of care in my original thread, where I said what needed to be said in a report like that so as not to do the whole ski school down. This thread enabled to report exactly what I had been taught and why I hadn't agreed with it without myself mentioning the ski school. I point out again that I was not the one that linked the two things together. IMO the two sets of comments stand in their own right. They were written for two different reasons and IMO neither is inaccurate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
| Samerberg Sue, :blush: We are thinking about an Austrian week as a regular part of our calendar. Perhaps Tux, if we can find the right accommodation that works for us. |
Let me know if you need any help with the negotiations - SaraJ is based in the valley and also knows a huge number of people as well as the best places to get the best bargains.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
| awf, thanks. I don't try to have an active glide phase at transition because I want to link my turns cleanly, and it's not something I teach other than in a couple of particular drills. In the photo you've annotated the distance when my skis are flat (the transition between the turns) is about the length of my skis, so there's no glide as such, just a roll from edge to edge. |
Agreed, and I allowed that the glide phase might be "a few metres". The reason I brought it in is that it's the only point where the distance between your skis is equal to stance width. It's the time where it's easiest for the instructor to form an impression of stance width.
At other points in the turn, one can have skis very part with a 10cm stance (i.e. a boot-width between the skis, e.g. Ligety pic above). I call that a narrow stance (at least every instructor I know calls that a narrow stance).
And my point is this: narrow stance (>10cm) does not restrict the range of edge angles you can achieve
My further point is: if you want a client to widen his/her stance, please don't tell them that it is to allow them to reach higher edge angles, because that's fibbing.
By the way, for avoidance of doubt, would you mind stating the actual distance between your inner ski edges when you are in a "hip-width" stance? I realise it varies from person to person, but I will assume you are about 5'10''...
Finally, just to be very truthful: boots together (yes, touching) in the glide (or transition if you prefer) does not at all impede getting massive angles in the turn. Just roll the new inside ankle first...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
awf, I think it's a mistake to say that because the likes of Ligety can achieve huge edge angles with a 'narrow' stance then it's not a concern if recreational skiers also have a narrow stance because they don't have any limitations on the edge angles they can achieve. In my experience that's not true, because a narrow stance is almost always accompanied by a restricted range in the "long leg/short leg" difference they are able to achieve. As a result they will either not be able to create big edge angles or if they do try they end up getting stuck on the inside ski. All well and good pointing to photos of ski gods like WC skiers but if the analogy breaks down for recreational skiers I think I need to find a different way of helping them to improve their skills.
Sometimes I will teach a wider stance, sometimes I will teach a narrower stance. It depends on the client and the context of what we are working on. Whatever the situation I will always say that hip width is a good neutral stance, but sometimes you might go a little wider and sometimes a little narrower on the basis that wider is good for stability and narrower is good for agility.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
The photo of Ted was put on to explain that a narrow stance doesn't mean that it is impossible to create big edge angles, which at the time was the way the discussion was going....it was also not put on to endorse a narrow stance, but maybe it's better explaining to people why they "are" falling on their inside ski rather than giving them the opportunity of even more support to balance on it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
AND . . . we're back to narrow stance, inner tip lead (curiously absent in the context) and bloody racing!
You numbnuts want to learn how to ski? Learn to Tango, go to Salsa dances or join a Zumba class . . . Skiing is all about SEX, it's in the hips and your ability to use them
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| gatecrasher wrote: |
| The photo of Ted was put on to explain that a narrow stance doesn't mean that it is impossible to create big edge angles, which at the time was the way the discussion was going... |
Exactly, and that's how the discussion continued to go....
| rob@rar wrote: |
What about this chap? Do you think his stance is so narrow that he is compromising his ability to create decent edge angles as well as making balance more difficult?
|
Answer: no, a narrow stance does not compromise one's ability to create decent edge angles (other than in the trivial sense that boots might touch if the feet are mismanaged).
BTW rob@rar, my utmost respect and thanks for your calm and measured interactions on this topic. I don't mean to criticise you, in case that's what it looks like, but rather the modern British ski establishment's obsessive sniping against narrow stance.
Yes, all instructors say "you should vary your stance to suit the conditions". And then, on piste, they insist on 25cm between the inside edges.
Another argument appears to be "it's too complicated for average punters to understand the limitations of narrow stance, so we'll just tell them it hurts their ability to get high edge angles". The problem is that once the punters realize that's not true, you've lost their trust...
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Just to try and get what "hip width" means straight again, I presume these people are in the natural "hip width" stance?
I would say that's about one boot-width between the inside edges.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| awf wrote: |
| rob@rar wrote: |
What about this chap? Do you think his stance is so narrow that he is compromising his ability to create decent edge angles as well as making balance more difficult?
|
Answer: no, a narrow stance does not compromise one's ability to create decent edge angles (other than in the trivial sense that boots might touch if the feet are mismanaged). |
Being the chap in question I can say with absolute certainty that my stance in that photo, which was what I tried to achieve all the time, DID inhibit decent edge angles. It also made it more difficult for me to use my legs independently.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| awf wrote: |
Just to try and get what "hip width" means straight again, I presume these people are in the natural "hip width" stance?
|
Generally yes, but the woman in flip-flops will ski like I used to in the 1980s, the woman on the right hand side will be called "John Wayne" while in ski lessons and the woman with pink sleeves is going to be tricky to teach.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
awf, more seriously, photos, discussions, static exercises like leaning against walls all have limited value when you are trying to help somebody improve their skiing. Ultimately you have to look at them skiing and decide if their stance (whether it be narrow, neutral or wide) is causing any limitations in their skiing and making it more difficult to acquire new or developed skills. In my experience, which I accept is limited as an instructor, skiers with an excessively narrow stance are limiting their ability to improve their skiing. This might include low edge angles (despite what is theoretically possible), a difficulty in using their legs independently, less stability when skiing fast. You look at the whole picture and try to find a way of improving it.
I also see problems with an excessively wide stance, just to prove I'm not 'narrowist'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After feedback last week during lessons and reading this thread I think I ski like John Wayne most of the time  I was told that whilst I ski with a stable position I should ski with my legs a bit closer together (he also made the point not skiing with my legs too close together). I was able to ski with my skis closer when I really focussed on doing this, but it didn't seem a natural position and as soon as I stopped thinking about it I reverted to a wider stance.
Any tips on what I can do to make a narrower stance feel more natural?
I've blamed it on having half my annual skiing time at Easter where I have to deal with big mounds of heavy slush and chopped up slopes - but I'm probably just looking for an excuse!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Keep giving yourself a score:
0 = boots touching
10 = boots impossibly wide apart
Aim for a score of 5 - or even 4.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hammerite, Some people ski wider because they have spent a long time in the plough stage and learnt through muscle memory that it gives them support, rather than pressuring the new outside ski to give support they hang on the inside ski a little through the turn, the way they get support is to keep a wider stance than is really necessary. I find chopped up & slush is easier with a slightly narrower stance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
