 Poster: A snowHead
|
JT, I believe in being positive and proud of one's achievements and abilities, and that doesn't sit well with a "I'm good enough to know I'm rubbish so you must be even more rubbish" sort of answer. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| easiski wrote: |
| slikedges, It's difficult to give a straightforward answer because there isn't one. I'd probably say something along the lines of "pretty fair". I would not want to EVER say I was a good skier - suppose you were a WC racer?? I wouldn't know. I don't like to fill in "expert" in the tick boxes either, but I know from experienced that when they say "advanced" it isn't! |
I'm pretty much the same. If asked as a dinner party I tend not to let on that I ski and teach 150+ days a year on advanced/expert terrain, as I find that people that ask me those sorts of questions normally either want to tell me how good they are, or argue about aspects of technique/snow/resorts/equipment/etc............. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| veeeight wrote: |
| easiski wrote: |
| slikedges, It's difficult to give a straightforward answer because there isn't one. I'd probably say something along the lines of "pretty fair". I would not want to EVER say I was a good skier - suppose you were a WC racer?? I wouldn't know. I don't like to fill in "expert" in the tick boxes either, but I know from experienced that when they say "advanced" it isn't! |
I'm pretty much the same. If asked as a dinner party I tend not to let on that I ski and teach 150+ days a year on advanced/expert terrain, as I find that people that ask me those sorts of questions normally either want to tell me how good they are, or argue about aspects of technique/snow/resorts/equipment/etc............. |
Your reason for not being straightforward and honest is perfectly reasonable. Of course it's also completely different from what others have been arguing including easiski in that quote!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
slikedges, the fact remains that JT has pretty much told you like it is. It's not a question of not being positive it's a question of telling the truth - if you took an average of ALL skiers ...... There is no reason to suppose that the person asking you the question is a holiday skier, they may be pro, you may be pro, or not .......... When you ski well enough to see how good the really good guys are, one doesn't even consider saying "good" unless you, yourslef are world class. It's not false modesty - in most cases it would be either genuine or the truth. OTOH this thread is all about (mostly men) who constantly tell everyone how good they are - and that's the point - if you need to, you aren't!
BTW I also find it incredibly tedious to be regaled with stories of daring decents, which is another thing that happens if they find out you're a ski pro. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
easiski,
| Quote: |
...one doesn't even consider saying "good" unless you, yourslef are world class...
|
This is the bit I don't agree with. I think you can consider yourself good at something without having to be good enough to be on telly, particularly if you're not a pro.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Hmm. I'll just re-enforce easiski, 's sentiments above, no matter how good you are or think you are, there is always somebody else that is better, from a particular point of view.
The better a skier you are, the more you realise that you've got so much further to go. As a CSIA L4 said to me recently, after spending $10,000's and 15 years getting his certification, "now I realise that I'm only just starting out on the path of discovering how to ski"............
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think it's just a way of telling people how difficult what one does is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
veeeight, BASI always used to say that after you got the Grade 1 your start learning to ski! I think to a degree that's true, but then we're not talking about holiday skiers in this case. You should post that on the "Let's play a game" thread!
slikedges, No - not difficult, but needing lots of practise and a realistic eye. You can only relate how good you think you are to what you consider good. This is from an email enquiry I got this morning for private lessons: "We’re both fairly competent skiers- have done about 20-30 weeks" This is a truthful declaration - they will be competent in all sits and all snows (I would think), but want to touch up or update or whatever to hone their skills.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
For what it's worth, I reckon there are really two issues when one tries to tell someone else how good a skier one is.....First, you really need to know how good they are expecting you to be!! If (hypothetically speaking because to carry it out would be madness) I were to join a group with a guide planning a days leaping down the couloirs of, say, Val d'Isere, other members of the group would need to know that I was pretty rubbish compared to people who should be planning to throw themselves down steep, narrow and rock-lined passeges. This would give them a chance to tell me to go away!! If I told them I was 'pretty competant' that would be a lie and they'd soon find this out!! On the other hand, joining a 'cruise the blues' day with a ski host, I could quite rightly say that I was 'pretty competant' without fear of looking too stupid because, on that sort of terrain I am.
Competance is always going to be relative to the task in hand. I would argue that "We’re both fairly competent skiers- have done about 20-30 weeks" is actually pretty meaningless because it doesn't tell the listener what thay are competant to do!!
Being 'good' or otherwise relates to the group with whom you ski or the skiing experience you have. I think the conversation normally runs along these lines. A: "Hello" B: "Hello, have you skied much before?" A: "Oh, about X weeks or so...". B then guesses how 'good' A is. A and B then ski together and A manages 10 linked turns in the fall-line of a red mogul field before falling. B thinks 'actually A is quite good (or quite bad) considering he or she has skied for X weeks.
I A had said "Actually, I've done three seasons and I've just finished an instructors course" B would have been disappointed to see A fall at all. Let alone head first down a fairly mild field of red moguls!!
If asked 'are you any good' I reckon it's best to qualify ones answer a bit to avoid the inevitable confusion!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If someone said to me that they were fairly competant, with 20-30 weeks, that would mean something to me...as a start-off point. And typically it would mean they'd struggle when the snow got difficult or steep. The'd look fine on flat piste bombing runs and wouldn't have a problem on most runs. Outside of their comfort zone, probably chopped up snow off a defined run, they'd start learning back as the turns didn't flow. Whether they enjoyed this excursion would tell you what stage next is for them...and that might be down to how adventurous or young and fit etc etc.... Typically, IMV.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
I'm an improving skier who has fun on the slopes. Some say I am an intermediate. (some say it as a compliment, some as an insult  )
Perceived: I think I'm having fun.
Actual: Does it look like I'm having fun?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
JT, I'm sure you can guess someone's standard of skiing from such a statement, but it is just a guess. I'd say most of the info comes from the level of experience. Surely the fact that you then suggest trying someone out on various types of terrain suggests that one can't really know how good they are?? I'd have thought that there'd be an enormous variation in standard after 20 - 30 weeks.
Wear The Fox Hat, couldn't agree more!! Is it possible that anyone who uses 'intermediate' as an insult may be a bit worried that they are one and wishes that they weren't??
|
|
|
|
|
|
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:
|
Damon,
There will be variations...thats why I used the word typical a lot.
I always have trouble with the word good in the context of skiing, to me its the most irrelevant term. Unless you can quantify it, it could mean good at 10 weeks, good at 150 weeks and there is no way in a million they mean the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Interestingly, I've just thought back to a private lesson four of us had with an excellent Evo II instructor in Val D in 2005. He didn't actually ask us how good we were, but took us up a green run (Madeline I think) and watched us ski. He then asked what we wanted to do and progressed from there...
Equally interestingly (and possibly to the detriment of my argument) he was very quickly able to rank us in terms of experience. I had thought that we all skiied to a similar standard, but there must have been some obvious diffences because he was spot on!!
JT, agreed!! There must be an average progression rate. I'd image the more time someone's skied, the greater the variation???
Last edited by Poster: A snowHead on Tue 2-01-07 13:31; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
slikedges, perhaps people are loath to use the word good in any place where they cannot be ABSOLUTELY certain that there is no one better watching?? I myself am extremely good when there's no one about but distinctly average at other times!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
slikedges, Im afraid I cannot equate the two activitites. I so often find myself wishing for good visibilty when skiing and other people pray for a white-out when I'm dancing!! Perhaps it's because I never ski drunk or dance sober?? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Damon, I'm afraid my performance at both is unaffected whether sober or drunk, my perception however is quite another matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The discussion apears to have spotted that it's an objective test applied subjectively.
That is, I'm a keen punter skiier and think I'm just OK, but not that good - as I know what I struggle with and am aware how good others really are.
Others in my annual group think I'm a very good skiier, because they never bother with lessons and so I can ski stuff they struggle with and have better style.
Anyone else who's any good will easily see how poor I am.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it's all relative innit? including, in this context, the terms "good", "not bad", "level 5", "intermediate" etc etc. but you tailor your response to who is asking. if it's someone who isn't a skier or hasn't skied much, i'll say that i'm better than most British holiday skiers but worse than almost all instructors. if it's an instructor asking, i'd be quite surprised if they said something like "are you any good?". you'd expect something more open-ended like "how much skiing have you done?"
if it's an experienced skier saying "are you any good?", depending on the circumstances i'd probably get the impression they were attempting some one-upmanship except if we were about to do a tricky descent. even then, there are better ways of putting it - ie "this is a 300m long, 40 degree couloir - are you comfortable with that?"
Last edited by After all it is free  on Tue 2-01-07 17:59; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| marc gledhill wrote: |
| Anyone else who's any good will easily see how poor I am. |
I can see how poor you are - you go home half way through holidays...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wear The Fox Hat, that's because I'm sot poor I can only afford a week 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
I'm a slow lower advanced backward intermediate improver with an improvement rate of 2.3 snowballs/min.
My fun factor is very complicated and determined by:
- hangover level (1-5)
- new snow depth
- wind speed (brussel sprout scale)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
Snowy, are those Canadian snowballs, or European ones? (some snowballs are inferior to others, not all scales are the same...)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
When I was having ski lessons about 35 years ago they would take everybody to a slope and make each person ski down in front the instructors who would then put you in the class they thought you should be in. Dont they do this any more? It saved all the rubbish of trying to say how good you .
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
easiski,
surely the right answer if someone asks you if you are a good skier is "well I've been a ski instructor for x years" - that gives the questioner a sense of how good you are without making any claims.
If people ask me then I tend to say "I'm OK, I worked a ski season after university".
It seems to me that both those answers are couteous in the sense that the allow someone to get a rough understanding of your level without making any grand claims.
If you were to say "pretty fair" to most people then they would like misread your ability by a long margin...
J
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
slikedges, actually, I don't want them to find out
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Damon, in his first post said pretty much what I was thinking when reading this thread. Any value judgement all depends on what standards people are judging against, and so depends on the context of the conversation. As when we were discussing grading schemes way back when (  ), the main importance of this kind of question is when trying to assess standards for booking courses or, less importantly IMHO, hire kit selection. The other reeeeally important circumstance is in trying to assess from talking with others whether a route/run you are contemplating is within your grasp: maybe it's not too serious if you're just starting out on reds and end up on one of those very dark reds that seem to show up in most resorts, bottle-out routes are generally available if you look hard enough, but if you've just dropped 1000m and come across a precipice you're not ready for you're up the provebial creek. Of course underselling yourself is safer than overselling, but I don't think it's going to result in particularly rewarding experiences on snow. And I think anyone who has an ISTD qualification should be a "good skier" by most people's definition - there are several worlds of difference between "Good" and "Dream" or "Perfect". NB "Good skier" does have a sort of technical meaning as well (which is a bit below what is being chewed over here), as the skiing side of a semi-official alpinists scale - levels above that are Very Good Skier and (sometimes) Extremely Good Skier, with the lower level as "Average Skier" (e.g. here and here).
In such circumstances I try and provide as much objective information as possible and a bit of context; i.e. number of days/weeks in the kind of terrain being considered - 10 weeks in a race course and 10 weeks in the back country end up with quite different ranges of experience and abilities - and also "am graded Z by the SCGB, if that's of any use to you" (although unfortunately it very rarely is), as that's an independent assessment of your ability/experience. The main problem with just quoting a simple weeks value is that people do progress at different rates, so I'm sure there are many people who've done 30 weeks who're less good than some who've done 10 - just because they're happy pootling around the pistes not pushing themselves (although of course the rider of "had lessons regularly" addresses that to some extent). Hence I try and provide some specific information on upper limits (e.g. something like "fairly happy up to WW degree couloirs in good conditions, unreliable above that", "done route/run A but not B, and only fell down once ", or "was X% behind so-and-so in competition Y", or "run out of steam skinning at more than ZZZ m/hr"). And of course all this information is only getting you into the right playground and to make sure you're signing up for the right thing - the guide/instructor should be able to make a better assessment before getting past any points of no return - but you're really screwed if you're in a small group and there's not a lot of flexibility for matching group members once you get started.
If it's some idle chat in the bar the answer could be "done a bit", "fairly competent" or "rubbish" depending on a) how interested you are in the conversation b) your own assessment of the company you're keeping.
No ideas what relevance this "fun" thing has to the question...we can all have fun in different ways. But FWIW the most rewarding week I've ever had was sufficiently strenuous I lost about a stone in weight that week, but was far from the most difficult skiing I've done.
Last edited by After all it is free on Tue 2-01-07 21:25; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
I think that there comes a time in your skiing career when your boundaries become expanded, and you suddenly realise that although last week, tearing down the blue run you were the bees knees, however this week, looking down at the powder field, you don't feel anywhere near as confident or competent.
It's like the black run thing. When we start, we all wonder how on earth people can ski the black runs so easily, a little later, you find that you've skied your first black, a little further on, and you can ski most black runs in good conditions competently, and so at this stage, by your earlier definition, you are a "good" skier, however with a little more exerience you start to realise that the colour of the run is almost irrelevant, and simultaneously, that you are merely a "competent" skier.
My experience has been that proficient skiers tend to describe themselves in terms of how much skiing they do when questioned, along the lines of "I'm ok, I manage to get away a few times a year", which tends to say a lot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The other next to useless description that people sometimes give (and by way of a generalisation, mostly Brits) - is the I ski Red Runs, I ski Black Runs thing.
In the main what they mean is that they manage to get down / survive a red/black run....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
)" ?
