 Poster: A snowHead
|
Personally I like the fact that both tables show a rapid initial development. We'd all be put off if after a couple weeks if we'd failed to reach the opening level. Gaining confidence is an important part of skiing development, and while it may negatively cause some to go beyond their ability, it is a key part to making a progression for many others. I think that in skiing, along with many other sports, the better you get, the more you realise your own inadequacies and the higher level of proficiency of others.
It would seem that the majority of us fit inside the levels expressed by either S&R or SC (Mr Bell being an obvious exception and there are evidently others). As a cross section of the skiing fraternity, it would be interesting to know what percentage of our members are higher than gold or better than 1. I would hazard a guess that 99.5% of us would fit into the tables.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
PG, rob@rar.org.uk, Look guys, how difficult is it to understand this? I've said it several times already! I appreciate how long the journey to the top is. There are more levels defined at the bottom because that's where they're the most use. Most skiers are cr@p and they're the ones looking for the achievable target of a small step. There are less levels at the top because these levels are defined by performance rather than easily defined simple skills and achievements. Not because the numbers represent a linear scale. If it makes you feel any better, we could re-number the scale 1,2,3,4,5,6,8,12,25,50,500,5000.
PG, I don't appreciate
| Quote: |
you still haven't even begun to explain to me just how having a comprehensive appreciation of what a sport entails - its possibilities, its limits and dangers - can do anything other than help people to pinpoint their true ability and potential more accurately
|
or
| Quote: |
You might never be able to climb Everest, but you can get a fantastic sense of achievement by reaching base camp. You don't have to turn your back on the mountain and pretend you're on the summit - or if that's the only way you can work up the enthusiasm to give it a go in the first place, well.... it takes all sorts!
|
Nothing in my posts could lead you to conclude that those opinions apply to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
IS this the fastest growing thread ever. 6 Pages in two days 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Frosty the Snowman, if we had a scale which graded the rate that threads grew, would that make this a "gold"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Ray Zorro, I dont know if that would be a good idea . Do you think there would be arguments as to the gradings or their usefulness
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| slikedges wrote: |
PG, rob@rar.org.uk, Look guys, how difficult is it to understand this? I've said it several times already! I appreciate how long the journey to the top is. There are more levels defined at the bottom because that's where they're the most use. Most skiers are cr@p and they're the ones looking for the achievable target of a small step. There are less levels at the top because these levels are defined by performance rather than easily defined simple skills and achievements. Not because the numbers represent a linear scale. If it makes you feel any better, we could re-number the scale 1,2,3,4,5,6,8,12,25,50,500,5000.
|
I'm not disagreeing with you. I believe that if we are going to use scales of any kind there should be sufficient steps so that recreational skiers can see the progress they have made, and what the path is that lays before them. The only point I'm making is that whatever scale is used should not stop half-way up, possibly contributing to a false sense of acheivement. Is that a contentious point? It's not about saying "yah boo, you suck", it's just a true reflection of the range of ability from beginner to 'expert'.
I don't think numbers help (in my opinion the scale is logarithmic rather than linear), and 'abels such as intermediate just get in the way. Assign them colours, letters, squiggly symbols, whatever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
slikedges, except that you wrote:
| Quote: |
| I think it's unhelpful for people just to say "look, all you need to know is you are cr@p and have a looong way to go". Of course it is important to know that it's a long way to the stars, but I think people know that, though the path has been made usefully explicit here. It's just that people need achievable targets... |
even though 1) I for one had not suggested anyone was crap and 2) people don't know how far short of perfection they are if they are encouraged to believe otherwise and 3) having achievable targets is not compromised in the slightest by knowing how long the road is - unless "you" (ie "one", indefinite pronoun in the third person referring to unidentified or unspecified person or persons) fall into the category of those who are easily discouraged without believing that they are better than they really are..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
rob@rar.org.uk, said
I believe that if we are going to use scales of any kind there should be sufficient steps so that recreational skiers can see the progress they have made, and what the path is that lays before them. ... The only point I'm making is that whatever scale is used should not stop half-way up.
|
Personally, I don't think that the majority of recreational skiers really care that much. We all have our own personal goals, but many that I meet wouldn't be at all interested in knowing where they were on a numerical scale that goes all the way up to world cup winner. As long as the lessons and equipment are appropriate for the level expected, IMHO, I would suggest that that is what most people care 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.
|
Maybe we could use the same concept in sexual performance. No really, you see I'm thinking of including bumps and a speed test (as with skiing the speed test would be more difficult for the older participants).
Bottom line - Skiing is like sex. You don't have to be good at it to enjoy it. If you improve your technique you might reach more terrain and improve your (plural) enjoyment but don't get too hooked up about performance or you will kill the fun. It doesn't matter how good you are or how long you've been doing it there's always another trick and more to learn.
In fact skiing is easier as you can change your equipment for a more 'suitable' size.
Oh, just one last thing - don't forget to wear a helmet. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ray Zorro, which takes us full circle back to the original point I made, and the main reason I've been arguing this issue in the first place, that as long as people feel they are better than they really are (or couldn't care less either way), they will take unnecessary risks and place both themselves and others in danger.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Ray Zorro wrote: |
| Personally, I don't think that the majority of recreational skiers really care that much. |
I don't think that scales like this have much use (I did say in my previous post "IF we are going to use" them), but if people are going to use them surely it is better to give skiers the full picture rather than a partial picture? Or do we live in such a 'molly coddled' society that we shouldn't let people know they haven't reached the pinnacle of their chosen sport/recreation?
Last edited by snowHeads are a friendly bunch. on Thu 19-05-05 12:50; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Edited : Late and out of context
Last edited by And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports. on Thu 19-05-05 12:55; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PG,
1) You implied that by saying
| PG wrote: |
Or rename them! Suggestions for the "Advanced Intermediate"? How about:
"Beginner Plus": Competent on reds even if you look absolutely terrible to the practised eye. You begin to realise just how inadequate you are as soon as the conditions are one degree less than perfect in terms of snow condition or visibility. You are generally speaking one of the most dangerous people on the piste - you think you've got the hang of it so end up skiing too fast and have far more near misses than total beginners as a result. You like to talk about your newly acquired off piste abilities as if thrashing through the snow within a couple of metres of the piste for a minute or two a day without falling over means you are an ace away from tackling your first couloir.
|
2) Who is encouraging them to believe otherwise?
3) For the umpteenth time, we know how long the road is!! 
rob@rar.org.uk,
| Quote: |
I'm not disagreeing with you. I believe that if we are going to use scales of any kind there should be sufficient steps so that recreational skiers can see the progress they have made, and what the path is that lays before them. The only point I'm making is that whatever scale is used should not stop half-way up, possibly contributing to a false sense of acheivement. Is that a contentious point? It's not about saying "yah boo, you suck", it's just a true reflection of the range of ability from beginner to 'expert'.
I don't think numbers help (in my opinion the scale is logarithmic rather than linear), and 'abels such as intermediate just get in the way. Assign them colours, letters, squiggly symbols, whatever.
|
I agree with that. I've never argued for a scale that stops half-way up.
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 Thu 19-05-05 12:53; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| slikedges wrote: |
3) For the umpteenth time, we know how long the road is!!
|
Not if we use the S&R scale!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| slikedges wrote: |
PG,
1) You implied that by saying
| PG wrote: |
Or rename them! Suggestions for the "Advanced Intermediate"? How about:
"Beginner Plus": Competent on reds even if you look absolutely terrible to the practised eye. You begin to realise just how inadequate you are as soon as the conditions are one degree less than perfect in terms of snow condition or visibility. You are generally speaking one of the most dangerous people on the piste - you think you've got the hang of it so end up skiing too fast and have far more near misses than total beginners as a result. You like to talk about your newly acquired off piste abilities as if thrashing through the snow within a couple of metres of the piste for a minute or two a day without falling over means you are an ace away from tackling your first couloir.
|
|
As I said in an earlier post, this was a perfect description of me not so long ago. I thought I was good, and if I'd looked at the S&R scale it would have confirmed I was an advanced intermediate. At that stage I felt I didn't need any more lessons, and it was only a matter of time before I became an 'expert'. In reality I couldn't have been more wrong, and the only thing I would have become in time was a danger to myslef or others. Perhaps if I had seen some of the more realistic scales proposed in this thread I was have paused for thought, and realised just how mch learning I needed to do before I became competent enough to fulfill my skiing goals.
I don't think PG's tongue-in-cheek description is anything other than spot-on!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
rob@rar.org.uk,
| Quote: |
| Not if we use the S&R scale! |
True. It finishes with someone holding a FIS/ISIA licence only, rather than a WC skier. That's why we've done better. The point has been made though, that few of these people would be reading such a scale, and S&R have left it to common sense that there are going to be people better than that.
As far as PG's comment goes, as I said, I didn't take offence. It was a little sneering, yes, but funny and all too true. Nevertheless the implication is there.
Last edited by Poster: A snowHead on Thu 19-05-05 12:59; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| mesk1 wrote: |
| Edited : Late and out of context |
try and keep up 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
This is fun but I gotta go. I'll come back and read 3 new pages this evening.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| slikedges wrote: |
rob@rar.org.uk,
| Quote: |
| Not if we use the S&R scale! |
True. It finishes with someone holding a FIS/ISIA licence only, rather than a WC skier. That's why we've done better. The point has been made though, that few of these people would be reading such a scale, and S&R have left it to common sense that there are going to be people better than that. |
The problem that I have with the S&R scale is not that it finishes 'only' with a teaching qualification, but there are 8 steps from beginner to reasonably proficient recreational skier, then just another 2 to the highest standard they list. Clearly that is not a realistic proposition, and conveys entirely the wrong impression about learning and progression in skiing.
Last edited by You need to Login to know who's really who. on Thu 19-05-05 13:04; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| slikedges wrote: |
| This is fun but I gotta go. I'll come back and read 3 new pages this evening. |
Only 3 pages, when will you read the other 21?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
slikedges, 1) that's no more than an inevitable stage along the route to improvement, described tongue in cheek as well you know, while making it clear that it is potentially dangerous for others. Not even close to the value judgment you suggested at all. If you want to classify the type of skier described as "crap", that's your choice, and your words. 2) Anyone who sets up arbitrary maximum targets that could be mistaken for the maximum achievable. 3) How on earth can you (indefinite pronoun etc etc, see above ), if most skiers are led to believe gold Ski Club standards to be the epitomy of achievement!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| rob@rar.org.uk wrote: |
| slikedges wrote: |
rob@rar.org.uk,
| Quote: |
| Not if we use the S&R scale! |
True. It finishes with someone holding a FIS/ISIA licence only, rather than a WC skier. That's why we've done better. The point has been made though, that few of these people would be reading such a scale, and S&R have left it to common sense that there are going to be people better than that. |
The problem that I have with the S&R scale is not that it finishes 'only' with a teaching qualification, but there are 8 steps from beginner to reasonably proficient recreational skier, then just another 2 to the highest standard they list. Clearly that is not a realistic proposition, and conveys entirely the wrong impression about learning and progression in skiing. |
Right - But as I mentioned (a lot!) earlier, it does cover most people likely to buy skis from S&R, and really I'm sure that's S&R's priority, not some need to categorise skiers for anyone elses benefit.
Above (and probably including 10) you are likely to have some sort of deal with a supplier/maufacturer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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="Frosty the Snowman"]slikedges, Most of the people I ski (inc me)with know that they are crap but are quite happy to be crap. We ski away safely and merrily all day, avoiding the really hard stuff, but taking it very steady if on moderate blacks or difficult reds. How far you have to go depends on how far you want to go.
I am not entirely sure that I understand the intent of your post. Please excuse my support of slikededge and his initiative.
I can TOTALLY understand your sttatement about being comfortable with your skiing level. Please understand, I am some way behind you in experience , technique , awareness etc .
This post and the contributions of pg, ise. martin bell inter alia have given me more information than anything else I have been able to get from the public domain about 'skiing' ability. You would be entitled to say 'Your Problem' ... but quantifiable, if subjective, realism ( as opposed to "you have a long way to go" ), is something I have really appreciated.
pg in a moment of occasional  brilliance also pointed out the dangers of misplaced self-belief. I could understand if his assertion is a state of mind of all beginners ( less than c 8 weeks (?) ,misled by the non-sensical [sic] nonsense coming out of commercial organisations like SCGB and S & R. Vive les s
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
eEvans, Like most of my posts there is no intent and very little substance. I have no opinions on either side of this argument as it is not relevant to me or my skiing companions. We ski safely and have loads of fun. if there was a point it was that many skiers couldnt give a toss as to what grade or scale they ski at. All they are bothered about is having as much fun on holiday as possible with care and consideration for others. Oh yes I used the word crap as it had been used as a description by others.
SKI ON! as they say in fishing
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| eEvans wrote: |
This post and the contributions of pg, ise. martin bell inter alia have given me more information than anything else I have been able to get from the public domain about 'skiing' ability. You would be entitled to say 'Your Problem' ... but quantifiable, if subjective, realism ( as opposed to "you have a long way to go" ), is something I have really appreciated.
|
I have to say that wasn't my intention I fail to see the point of the exercise and none of the debate has convinced me of a point either. As I have commented before, I don't measure the quality of a ski day by how many km I skied, I don't measure a station by how many km there are. I don't particularly want to measure the people I ski with either, I'm exhilarated skiing with strong, competent skiers like rob@rar.org.uk at the EOSB but I don't need to see a certificate in the car park to verify if he's a level or 6 above me or not.
I also fail to see why not seeing the point of a grading system isn't an opinion some of us can easily respect or tolerate. In fact, what I really think is that it's a poseurs charter which is about the last thing we need, too many posts when put through any reductive analysis reduce to messages about the ability of the skier and whether they've been skiing more than the next guy whether they're wrapped in ski reviews, comments about jackets or weather reports.
I just know that'll go down like a lead balloon
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ise, I agree with your drift. I'm amazed by the quantity of posts in this thread! Do you include yourself in the bit about messages reducing to claims about the poster's ability? I'm sure I'm guilty of that from time-to-time. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
This thread is very funny, like watching a pantomime
Thank goodness we appreciate the important issues in life!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
eEvans, Dont sniff glue and type at the same time. Can you explain your last post (a little slower) as my head is hurting 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| eEvans wrote: |
| Just a thought , no reflection on yourself at all , but a little concerned this forum may be dominated by the cogniscenti only ? But it is a forum so volume counts ! |
That's exactly the problem, because too many posts already intimidate the non-cogniscenti, these sort of scales only make it worse. One of my main objections to them in fact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
(post edit) Thats a liitle clearer I think
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Frosty the Snowman,
I'm just laughing .. you and I are totally out of sync !
( For Others - I just sent him a pm to original response -- apologising for my poor ... uummmmh .. oh, who cares).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
ise, We disagree on this. I am the lowest form of skiing life on here as far as I can make out ( not something I enjoy). I have appreciated the input.
My being able to provide 'input' as opposed to leeching information is, obviously, somewhat limited. I will try , however comments like 'You don't understand, newbie' or famously ' I only take advice from experts' are rather exclusive comments .... No??
They are not your comments, and noone should think that there is any implied or inferred criticsm of ise
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Frosty the Snowman,
| Quote: |
Most of the people I ski (inc me)with know that they are crap but are quite happy to be crap. We ski away safely and merrily all day, avoiding the really hard stuff, but taking it very steady if on moderate blacks or difficult reds. We are a danger to no one but have a huge laugh from start to finish.
|
You could be describing my skiing group! Everytime I say I am going to do a lesson they say "No, don't do that! You'll get really good then you'll go off with the "good" group and they're boring old f@rts". So what's a girl to do? (Because they are....)
So I've just booked a lesson at Milton Keynes with Warren Smith. And I've told none of them
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This has been a very vibrant thread with some good "wholehearted" debating, but it does seem like a lot of hot air over a very small subject of which i have no interest. To keep me humoured, does anyone have any advice on how many Bombardino's I could have on a cold Wednesday afternoon and still get back to my chalet safely. I have now closed by eyes and can feel the richness difuse through my veins.................aahh
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
There is no category above SCGB gold because the ski club are concerned with recreational skiers. Although they organise a good number of purple/gold holidays, last season they only had two at full gold level, as far as I can remember. This obviously reflects demand. Obviously G+ skiers and above find their own challenges.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nice pic of Bellecote North face! I've skied slopes partly on the right edge of the photo (swank,swank), but anything else you'd have to be a step above gold. (PS there are easier ways down further right [left for the skier] that people do on the normal Tarrentaise off-piste circuit - I expect quite a few snowheads have done it. Great fun).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
.jpg)
