 Poster: A snowHead
|
rob@rar, Indeed! I have earned a fair amount of praise for this skill. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Hurtle wrote: |
| rob@rar, Indeed! I have earned a fair amount of praise for this skill. |
Rather strangely of the three (skiding, rotating, edging) it's my weakest area, despite careering around the place with my ankles bolted together for way too much of my skiing career.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
"You can't carve if your legs are 4" apart"
Yes you can if the feet are vertically 12 inches apart.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
jimmjimm, meany 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
but doing this test.......it is 37 years I'm wrong?!?!? I have a strange body.....pleas tell me can be wrong the test.......I have t change also few several things in my teaching.....are you sure???? cause iff I understand well the test make a sense for me.....but not for my body???!!!!I'm maibe to tall and slimm??? cause apear like I have to ski like 25 years ago.......very narrow feet.....???
I'm not jocking....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remember "Hip Width" actually refers to hip bones not butt!!! Ask physio to point out reference points... you will find that is far narrower than many folks think it is
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
you will find that is far narrower than many folks think it is
|
snap....
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
VolklAttivaS5,
"how did people do skiddy turns in the lumpy stuff?" - we carved, we(I) didn't/don't do "skiddy" turns (in the main).
"Didn't the skis catch in that?" - why would they...1. we(I) were/are carving 2. we did/(I) have skill
"Old" style, "straight" skis weren't "straight". They had less, not no, sidecut. They'd carve perfectly well. If you knew how to make them do so. You know that's what (alpine) skis want to do?
Since I started skiing in 1970(1) - you tip 'em on an edge, apply weight and ...wooo... you carve. Easy as that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
"Old" style, "straight" skis weren't "straight". They had less, not no, sidecut. They'd carve perfectly well. If you knew how to make them do so. You know that's what (alpine) skis want to do?
|
Yes, I do know that "straight" skis had some side cut, not none at all. Obviously. And also that alpine skis are designed to make curves yes. I was using the term "straight skis" to mean they were a lot straighter than they are now, and when the term "straight skis" is used, most people know what that is referring to. Same as when people call them "old skinny skis" it's just a term people use not to be taken literally.
Glad you hear that you had the necessary skills that you needed/need 
| Quote: |
"Didn't the skis catch in that?" - why would they...1. we(I) were/are carving 2. we did/(I) have skill
|
If carving through, then no, why would they, but I can imagine that in thick heavy lumpy snow and whilst "skidding" the skis round as others have said that they used to do in days gone by, then that might be difficult. When I saw this chap trying to skid the skis round then he was having trouble in the thick lumpy snow. On a smooth piste it worked though for him. If you were carving through the snow as you said you were/are then no, it wouldn't pose you with difficulties same as when people carve/push through lumpy thick snow now on modern skis.
The reason I was asking these questions out of curiosity is that in the recent example I saw of the feet being right close together, every turn was skiddy and I didn't see the chap carve once. Obviously that is only one example of someone who skis in "old skool" style as labelled in rob@rar's example photo of himself and other people like yourself perhaps did things differently to him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
VolklAttivaS5, sowwy, waz bean cheeky. But "most" people probably aren't aware of that now. Honest. Or (most likely) they've forgotten.
Re your skier. I bet he was. He would in any circumstance, I'd wager.
For me, I would expect that my feet are normally closer together than most instructors would "default" teach but they're quite dynamic in separation. Dynamic being the important thing. I wouldn't awant them to be ever much more than shoulder apart (straight line downhill on very straight downhhill skis perhaps?), typically hip width in a traverse and anything between hip and locked together at the apex of the turn (locked together in bumps of course...)
Oh, and the carving through hasn't changed either - I think the current term is hip drive - get the skis set up early and let your weight and gravity bring you round.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
under a new name, I think hip drive is a bit more active than that... WS describes it as a figure of 8 motion through one turn to another and I can relate to that...as that is what it feels like to me...
It certainly drives the turns, IME.. but I found this naturally so I would think others would too...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JT, you're probably right. I'm having trouble describing it in my own head without having it there to remind me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
under a new name, it does indeed engage the skis earlier IME, which brings on a whole range of usefulness, especially in deeper heavier snow
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| JT wrote: |
| It certainly drives the turns, IME.. but I found this naturally so I would think others would too... |
From other stuff you've written, I think you may be a more intuitive skier than most.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
JT, yes, that notion makes perfect sense to me. I'm going to try to stay off groomers as much as possible next month, and see if I can put this thought into action consistently.
Last edited by Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person on Wed 11-02-09 16:26; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
laundryman,
The sensation to me is like a whoosh into the turn from the 'drive' so when the turns are linked you have this figure of 8 pelvic motion bewteen one turn and another...
I nailed it on-piste first and then applied it OP...it is subtle tho' and it isn't highly visiable, to my mind....upper body stays quiet
Maybe it needs a separate thread so as not to hijack this
good luck with it....
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
JT, are you talking "time warp" there?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
eng_ch, don't know..what is 'time warp'..?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| skimottaret wrote: |
| comprex, you should be able to feel one boot is flat and the other one is on an edge if too wide or too narrow when rocking side to side, being only on big toe one boot and little toe on other, keeping the knees the same distance apart.... |
Ah, but part of being adaptable in your stance width is to be able to adjust the timing and force of your edging actuation so that the edges -are- activated at the same time to (mostly) the same angles.
I think y'all's just stiff. ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JT, as in Rocky Horror, pelvic thrust and all that.... is that the sort of movement you're talking about with "hip drive", pushing the pelvis forward to help initiate a turn?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| laundryman wrote: |
| JT wrote: |
| It certainly drives the turns, IME.. but I found this naturally so I would think others would too... |
From other stuff you've written, I think you may be a more intuitive skier than most. |
Flawed sample methinks: lots of intuitive skiers on here, JT gets slapped down less than others, is all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
comprex, ISTM that JT is really pretty accomplished and I think he's said that he's had hardly any lessons. Of course, my view is based on how people describe their own skiing and where they've been so JT could be bigging himself up (but he doesn't come across that way to me) or there may be a lot of false modesty about. I'd back this particular hunch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
laundryman, me too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
comprex, the static "test" is just meant to highlight and illustrate what a true hip width position is. Not saying it wont or shouldnt change while out on the hill.
I personally got told over and over again that i should widen my stance as i "am a big guy and it will be more stable" and the result of that was a weakening of my stance, falling onto the inside edge, and crouching too lo, and outside ski breaking away.
now that i have slightly narrowed my stance to be more in line with a hip width as my starting point my skiing has improved quite a bit and is much more powerful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Isn't the most important point that your stance width should be appropriate for what you are doing at that moment in time? It should provide the correct amount of stability and agility for whatever turns you are doing, in/on whatever snow you are skiing. If you have a fixed width stance you're either very talented or you fall over a lot! For me about hip width is probably a good starting point, but it varies a good bit from that width.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
eng_ch, gotcha.... I was hoping a step wasn't involved and you have the idea...
The word 'drive' is better that 'sling' but the latter is more like the sensation.
comprex, I don't tend to participate much in technical stuff as it doesn't mostly matter that much to me...
I think that is why I don't get pulled up so much. I think it is better that you are happy with what you can do rather than talk about it too much...
That isn't to say that I don't care...just that I am not so interested in terms or what it is called..I am more intested in the motion which is why I tend to watch and copy if I can. Also, I might think that such and such a learning curve isn't relevant to me...so I can pick and choose what I want to do. I know where my weakness's are and also my strenghts. I am paying a bit more attention to thngs at this time as my biggest weakness atm is fitness..the skiing is not so much a problem, but technique does suffer when I am tired.
laundryman, never ever been anywhere near ski school which cost me about 5 years or so... and been catch-up time ever since.. ..but..and I have said this before... experience is a good teacher...and I have been in some big scrapes and you tend to remember those escapdes.
I think I am ok... could be better, could be worse but 45 degrees in marginal snow wouldn't worry me. I know where I can cope and all those escaped have taught me that.
It is a question of where you put your time in, IMV...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
As far as the OP is concerned..it varies for me.....and I don't much think too much abouit it...
Typically hip-width which equates around 6 inches at the boots..
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
| Isn't the most important point that your stance width should be appropriate for what you are doing at that moment in time? It should provide the correct amount of stability and agility for whatever turns you are doing, in/on whatever snow you are skiing. If you have a fixed width stance you're either very talented or you fall over a lot! For me about hip width is probably a good starting point, but it varies a good bit from that width. |
Yes, but current dogma is that wider is better and most people dont appreciate that hip width is probably actually much narrower than they think.
Fixed anything is not good, but i would say that for me an overly wide stance is more detrimental than a too narrow stance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
| Isn't the most important point that your stance width should be appropriate for what you are doing at that moment in time? It should provide the correct amount of stability and agility for whatever turns you are doing, in/on whatever snow you are skiing. If you have a fixed width stance you're either very talented or you fall over a lot! For me about hip width is probably a good starting point, but it varies a good bit from that width. |
I don't have a fixed stance, I was only talking about typical on piste carving medium/long radius turns. I always use a narrow stance for bumps and powder. Also adjust for snow conditions 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?
|
skimottaret, uktrailmonster, rob@rar, the element of the discussion I was particularly fascinated by is the click-click test. It is rather a test of proper boot cuff tilt and how tightly one does up the top buckle. 14 inches in my +3 boots buckled up *tight*, the above 40 in was in a different floppy boot with gobs of ankle room and a Booster strap instead of a top buckle.
JT, no criticism on any point. Just a notion that -other- intuitive skiers get slapped down for not using the phraseology and context of one of the accepted learning curves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
comprex,
I don't know about that... what makes them intuitive....non-schooled and therefore no choice but to improvise or oblivious to what you are trying to do...?
Obviously, not having a clue is not helpful... but then you'd do something about that, if it bothered you, I think
I must say, that I find this ski-school v non ski school dilemma quite fascinating...
Now, I don't expect many instructors to endorse it for obvious reasons, but do skiers of both pursuasions admit or accept what they may have missed out by going down one path or another. Personally, I accept that I would have technical 'issues' on the one hand but might have made gains on the other...
Sorry for the 2nd hijack..
I think a good starter for width is the natural hang of your legs... Now, if you have a fat ar$e or silly gait, then that will have an effect and probably dominate things and that can be why some women have a tendency to A-frame.... you have got a fat bum, luv..!!!!!
Also, I recall some people advocating a slightly bow-legged stance to engage the outside edges more effectively...but why would you want to adopt that gait..???
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| JT wrote: |
Now, if you have a fat ar$e or silly gait, then that will have an effect and probably dominate things and that can be why some women have a tendency to A-frame.... you have got a fat bum, luv..!!!!!
|
Fat back bottom does not change the size of the hip bones.... they are biological markers and not weight dependant
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Oh and some women tend to have A-frames as they have a large Q-angle.... (then again so do SOME men).... Again Q-angle is a biological fact... how one deals with it is another matter....
as long as the ski/snow interface interactions are good why would you get hung up in "How it looks" unless that is the only thing you understand.... and if a person initiates all turns with a heel push then does it matter if they have no A-frame? They are blessed with good biology and suffer from poor technical skills... one is a factor they have control over the other is not...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Is this one for the glossary?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| JT wrote: |
| Also, I recall some people advocating a slightly bow-legged stance to engage the outside edges more effectively...but why would you want to adopt that gait..??? |
I think it's more a training drill to avoid A-frame.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
comprex, You are indeed correct, the test assumes that cuff is in alignment with the lower leg and that the boot is done up tightly. It is just a quick and dirty practical example i was shown by a body mechanics expert and it emphasised for me that hip width can be pretty narrow at the feet.
Perhaps i should have added that you should check your alignment first. but that is a bit chicken and egg.
PS i am a big big fan of a very tight booster strap and softish upper buckle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Hurtle wrote: |
Is this one for the glossary? |
Q-ANGLE - aka Quadracepts Angle, the angle that the femur (thigh) makes with the knee joint. Overly large Q-Angles can cause problems for skiers manifesting in A-Framing or knock knees and these weak body positions can be injury prone. Problems with excessive Q-Angles can be minimised if the ski boots are fitted and properly aligned.
Women typically have larger Q-Angles than men due to wider hips.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
