Just how good a skier do you think you are?

A snowHead

As with some many others, my self-grading is based on a reluctance to visit the park and start to grab "phat air" (mainly for fear I'll get it wrong and hurt myself!). Not criticising the scale per se, you seem to have done a great job, but there does seem to be a lot of "freestyle" action around the mid point - perhaps reflecting your current preferences in terms of skiing?

A snowHead

I agree that it is realism, rather than trying to underplay skiers' acheivements. The two skiers I mentioned earlier in this thread genuinely thought they were good skiers. This assessment was on the basis that they were fast, felt they didn't need any more lessons (therefore they must be good) and weren't scared of 'steep' slopes. In reality they spent too much time out of control when speeding down blues or reds with just the occasional sideways skid to counter the effects of gravity, were badly in need of lessons, and would have been scared witless if they had to ski anything genuinely steep. No doubt when they are next in S&R they will place themselves quite highly on their 1-10 scale and buy yet another pair of skis which they are unable to use properly. If they understood and accepted their paucity of skills it would not be difficult to become better skiers, but while they continue to think they are good there is no chance they will improve.

When people ask me how good I am, I normally say "good enough to know I'm not very good". I wish some of the people I've seen skiing would take the same attitude.

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

You need to Login to know who's really who.

Oooh I feel better about myself, I fit quite nicely into that Advanced intermediate description. Thanks, davidof!

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

You'll need to Register first of course.

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

There are some very interesting ideas on this thread.

My summer sport is golf and there are some comparisons and analogies that spring to mind.

I do not think that a scale is necessarily flawed if it does not represent everyone at all levels. In most sports the truly advanced expert practitioner performs at a level that most of us can barely comprehend what the challenges are and they are often very different to our own challenges.

The golfing handiap system is probably a very good representation of the ability of most club golfers and although it is theoretically extendable to all levels of golf in reality top amateurs and professionals are judged by the tournaments they win, tours they play on or money they make.

Expert skiers if they feel the need to judge themselves probably do it on such things as FIS points, races won, Grade of couloir skied, new routes done, height of cliffs jumped, technical difficulty of jump done or whatever.

The problem for most of the rest of us is that most scales including several of the ones suggested above are highly subjective. I am a pretty average golfer (18hcp) and even at this level I have the occasional hole where I pull of a birdie sometimes on a 'tricky' hole. The equivalent in skiing is sometimes I get down a tricky red run and feel I have skied it well. In golf you always have the score card in your hand to know that this is not your normal standard. In skiing one often believes that this is your normal standard and then you get a shock next time when the light goes or the surface gets a bit firmer and you discover that this scratching around is in fact your normal level.

In reality I do not have any idea whether I have improved or deteriorated in the last five years nor do I have any means of communicating to other snow heads in an accurate way at what level I ski whereas to fellow golfers the fact that I enjoy a particular course and my handicap is 18 probably means something to the recipient of the information.

I think an objective scale of measuring ski ability would be useful both as a means of aiding communication and of measuring improvement or deerioration in ability. It would also probably aid recruitment to ski schools. I think wea re still a long way from that ideal.

After all it is free

nbt, the reason that the park and pipe start to come in at the intermediate level on my scale, is that I think that that is when you start to go there. You are correct that it does reflect my own personal skiing. I would make the park an optional discipline, but I still wanted to intergrate it into the scale, to give an idea of what should be achievable at any given level. The on and off-piste criteria I would consider compulsory.

davidof, I used to avoid the park, but now I feel it adds a whole different dimension to enjoying my skiing. It makes easier runs more fun, because you can go and use terrain just off the side, also the park is good in spring and slushy conditions.

Looking at your scale, I think that we agree that "Expert" implies a degree of knowledge of the mechanics of skiing, above and beyond that which is needed purely to ski down a slope. I also agree that there is a need for an "advanced" section between intermediate and expert. Looking at the criteria that you have put for advanced, that would seem to slot in nicely above the intermediate section.

PG,
I'd go for numerical rather than labels. However for the scale to be useful to the majority and not the elite I believe there should be more numbers between 1 and 4 on Kramer's scale. Whether there should be more numbers at the top, should depend more on whether it is possible to usefully define further distinct levels, than the necessity to gratuitously extend the scale, lest any level 7s (who rightly ought only be called level 4) think they are more than halfway in skill to a level 12.

Edit:

davidof,
Smoking!!!

I knew you'd come through. I think we can all go home now.

T Bar,
I like this and have stated it but much, much less eloquently:

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

davidof,

I like your scale. Can fit all the skiers I know into it easily.

Kramer,

I'm not a big fan of the park. Mainly because I know that to become good you have to be prepared to fall and get injured. And I just don't want to! I've seen expert skiers get some pretty nasty injuries in the park, that they would be extremely unlikely to get anywhere else on the mountain. I like getting air off moguls and in the "fun" terrain at the side of the piste, but because I don't practice in the park that area of my skiing is way behind every other area. Conversely I know some guys who can pull some awesome tricks in the park, but the rest of their skiing leaves a lot to be desired.

I also wonder whether the park is a male / female thing? You don't see many women in the park, skiers anyway, snowboarders are a bit different. Though you see plenty of women participating in other "expert" aspects of skiing - off-piste and racing.

snowHeads are a friendly bunch.

why the need to compare and class when skiing for recreation, only method to accurately grade is timed runs super g or otherwise

snow reports

slikedges, I think that there are plenty of skiers in all the groups of 1 to 6, it's just that many of them aren't english.

I would say that having more divisions at the lower levels is likely to be counterproductive, after all there are only four grades of piste. level one would be happy on greens, level two on blues, three on reds, four on blacks. Five would be itinerary runs, six pretty much anything on the mountain. I think that's about all you need to know to choose equipment, tuition groups, or skiing groups.

Kramer, I'd split that up a bit further,

level 1 controlled on Greens
level 2 controlled on Blues
level 3 controlled on Blues but can cope with Reds
level 4 controlled on Reds
level 5 controlled on Reds but can cope with Blacks
level 6 controlled on Blacks
level 7 Itineries/Some off Piste
level 8 go anywhere

this would make it easier to define the level of intermediate and advanced skiers for the purposes of instruction

You know it makes sense.

D G Orf, At last the voice of sense. For the purposes of ski groups, this just about fits the bill

Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:

Frosty, Yes but I've seen plenty of right plonkers that are apparently happy on reds and blacks. Trouble is the people they're sharing the piste with are decidedly unhappy.

A snowHead

PG, there are always plonkers, the ski instructors are out there to turn people from plonkers to skiers, the trouble is that many of the plonkers don't use instructors Laughing

A snowHead

D G Orf, So simple yet so good. Only I'd substitute "happy" with "controlled".

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

PG, If people are going to kid themselves that they are better than they are then surely it doesnt matter what grading is used.

You need to Login to know who's really who.

slikedges, your wish is my command Little Angel

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

Kramer's suggestion sounds eminently reasonable.

I made reasonably steady, if slow, progress from beginner to Kramer's level 4 (5 on a good day), but I've skied with a few really irritating so and so's who have been whizzing down reds and even easy blacks at the end of their first week, looking pretty good in some cases, but who can lose control/wipe out at any time on any piste and at any speed for no apparent reason and are a menace to one and all. I obviously hoped that they would break something (of their own). Where do you classify them? They'd be 'happy' on pretty much anything, but no-one else would. I don't suppose any grading system can cope with them.

You'll need to Register first of course.

D G Orf,

Kramer, Maybe time for a separate thread, but I still stand by the mode of skiers being between your levels 3 and 4, with the median being between 4 and 5. So for the skier on the Clapham or Claviere omnibus I'd like a scale to be able to define for him what he is now capable of, and compare it with what he had been capable of and what the next achievable step (not aspiring leap) might be for a steady progression. That's why I'm in favour of more levels. We don't need to use the term "intermediate" with the baggage it carries, just numbers. As far as the upper echelons go, I think davidof has sorted it.

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

Well from my own chart snowHead

I used to be a fast 8 but these days I vary between 5 and 7 depending on how I feel and the weather Cool

Ah the confidence of youth Embarassed

Sadly I've found that with age comes the fear of my own mortality Shocked

After all it is free

drawn from management speak:

1. unconsiciously incompetent;
2. consciously incompetent;
3. consciously competent;
4. unconsciously competent.

poma, yep that sums me up Laughing

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

snowHeads are a friendly bunch.

Any git who can ski (hard) breakable crust should be made to ski on 210cm straight skis. And if they can still do it, then they should be made to wear day glo all in ones so that the rest of us can feel superior in at least one way.

Apart from that I don't think Park stuff really counts for grading, a lot of good skiers never use them.

I think the ability to recover counts for a lot. A lot of good skiers ski in control but never push it. Expert skiers can ski pretty much everything because they have pushed it and consequently have a far better chance of recovering a situation when they inevitably get caught out by a patch of ice, variable snow conditions etc.

snow reports

D G Orf, Slikedges - Level 3 - Can Cope on reds but Uncontrolled ?

davidof,

You know it makes sense.

davidof, I'm alway ready for extra assistance in that area so if you come across any ladies prepared to show off their talents I would think seriously about paying for expert demonstrations of the art...

[edit] Perhaps we should continue this discussion under the Ski Vices thread over in "Equipment"...

Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:

davidof, Now whose going to admit to spending all their time in a half-pipe?

mesk1, Dunno. We're making this up as we go along and we're all so confused we no longer know if level 3 means advanced beginner or early advanced!

A snowHead

At what level can you light a fag and answer your mobile whilst on a drag lift?

A snowHead

Only Italian instructors can do that, in fact, I think it's mandatory.

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

No - ESF ones can too! (But I do think you have to be instructor level Laughing

)

You need to Login to know who's really who.

How do you know he wasn't Italian?

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

You'll need to Register first of course.

Because he spoke French? (OK I don't.) But it still ought to be in one of the levels.

Edit - Slikedges Laughing

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

maggi, French instructors would be completely humiliated if they were seen touching their towbar at any point during the ride.

Puzzled

After all it is free

PG, I'm certainly careful not to be seen touching my towbar at any point during a ride Laughing

I saw a French instructor on a mobile drop his sticks a couple of months ago, on an easy blue drag. He was being so cool he could hardly stand up. You should have seen the faces on the kids coming up behind, who picked them up for him!

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

I saw a French instructor ski backwards through a ski lift gate, in the dark, in the slush, dressed only in boots,skis, and boxers doing about 30 mph. Me and my mate turned and stared at each other with dropped jaws. Extremely impressive and undoubtably cool

Help!!

Just how good a skier do you think you are?

snowHeads Forum Index >>> The Piste