 Poster: A snowHead
|
Blimey, where do I start after all this? I like scales of any kind in skiing, never mind whose they are. I think this is because I'm a pretty cr*p skier (no, I really am!) - after about 9/10 weeks skiing I still lack confidence on what I perceive to be 'difficult' slopes, quite often my anticipation is much worse than the reality and I still think the worse of what could be round that corner. I stay in control at all times - literally, which means I go painfully slowly down steep slopes (yes, I know I'd ski better if I just let myself go a bit but I can't!  ).
So what I'm saying not very well is that for me, a scale is a big motivator - I can see how I might have been, say, a level 4 last year but this year I am definitely a level 5 and skiing slopes I wouldn't have done last year. I like to see that I have progressed up a scale, even if its only for my own benefit. The higher levels of scales mentioned here are beyond my comprehension but I like DG Orf's scale as that's what I relate to - I know I'm comfortable on reds and can ski blacks if I have to. The only problem with having a piste-related scale is that pistes of the same colour vary so much from resort-resort-country.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Cathy Coins, numerical scales are well enough, so long as you do not attempt to translate them into any language with meaning beyond those scales. I refer not only to the decision that your skiing is cr@p (and I've referred to mine that way not a month gone), but also terms such as 'intermediate' or 'expert'
Consider the quote from Mark Kac, speaking of Richard Feynman:
| Quote: |
| "There are two kinds of geniuses: the 'ordinary' and the 'magicians'. An ordinary genius is a fellow whom you and I would be just as good as, if we were only many times better. There is no mystery as to how his mind works. Once we understand what they've done, we feel certain that we, too, could have done it. It is different with the magicians. Even after we understand what they have done it is completely dark. |
Substitute 'expert' for 'genius' and what do you have? Uncertain 'intermediates' is what, as there is no way to define an upper limit to actually have an intermediate between upper and lower limits.
Use whatever scale you wish, if you really need to use a scale beyond booking lessons, but quit summing up your abilities in any one word.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
comprex, I thought the one word 'cr*p' was quite a good summation actually! 
Rest easy, I only use scales for my own benefit, as I stated above.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
I'M BACK
| rob@rar.org.uk wrote: |
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.
|
Very true, and I was hoping to address that.
DB, There were only 2 new pages  
PG,
1) You didn't use the word "crap" but you hardly meant that parody to be complimentary
2) & 3) I seem to have to keep saying this: I have never proposed an arbitrary endpoint. I have never agreed with the SCGB scale you refer to, which as you say has an arbitrary endpoint at Gold. I have always wished ideally to have a scale that goes all the way (see my last attempt using davidof's, Kramer's vision), so that as you say, learners can get some kind of perspective, even if the relevance to them will only ever be indirect.
But as many others here have already stated, these organisations are producing a scale for their own purposes, which do not include classifying skiers too skilled to be interested in them. Anyway, why are you so convinced that people who look at scales with arbitrary endpoints believe these are truly the pinnacle of achievement? Why do you think most people are that dumb?
You keep admonishing me for thinking that when you directed this
| PG wrote: |
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!
|
at me, I thought the word "you" was referring to me rather than to "one" (indefinite pronoun in the third person referring to unidentified or unspecified person or persons). Well I'm sure no-one else here would be able to see how I made that mistake either.
How many times should I tell you epitome is not spelt epitomy?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Quote: |
How many times should I tell you epitome is not spelt epitomy
|
none
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| slikedges wrote: |
Anyway, why are you so convinced that people who look at scales with arbitrary endpoints believe these are truly the pinnacle of achievement? Why do you think most people are that dumb?
|
Because they've been successfully badgered into considering themselves along the ski status scale of the offender and into forgetting about their own goals or forgetting to look around themselves to find those goals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And there was me thinking I was posting a little innocuous thought - didn't realise I was going to get told off for not having the correct goals! I'm sorry comprex, you may think skiing snowball's choice of terrain is a good goal. Well it isn't for me as I can tell you now, I would not wish to ski that, with or without panic!
I don't particularly want to have goals, I just want to improve my technique each time I go skiing so that I enjoy slopes that I thought were too hard previously and thus have more fun skiing. I find scales a bit of fun but that's all. I don't go round telling people, well I aim to be a level 7 on the S&R scale next year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Cathy Coins wrote: |
| I'm sorry comprex, you may think skiing snowball's choice of terrain is a good goal. Well it isn't for me as I can tell you now, I would not wish to ski that, with or without panic! |
You have learned the lesson! My goals (whatever they might be) aren't yours! Superb! What would you like to ski?
| Quote: |
I don't particularly want to have goals, I just want to improve my technique each time I go skiing so that I enjoy slopes that I thought were too hard previously. |
That's a goal there. Pesky things, every time you want something, they keep cropping up.
If I had a clapping smilie I'd use it. Well done.
EDIT: DO NOT READ INTO THIS POST. THERE IS NO SARCASM.
Last edited by You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net. on Thu 19-05-05 21:10; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
slikedges, That's just plain pathetic. A single typo from someone who never does a spellcheck is hardly the end of the world, but your interpretation of 'you' as being a personal criticism was an error, unjustified and caused confusion. As for the question of a scale, I've only been saying the same thing as rob throughout - I thought that was clear. And please don't tell me what I 'meant' by attempting to read between the lines of my comments. What has been a civilised discussion has now deteriorated for reasons that escape me completely. A shame.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
mesk1, the endpoint does. Yes. This is my belief. How far you are on the road to Miami matters not if you're trying to reach Calgary for a bit of skiing.
Cathy Coins, the finesse point is too complex to use irony or sarcasm. I apologise if you feel put upon, I was attempting to clarify my exposition not to judge yours. The more vague our goals, standards or scales of accomplishment thereof, the more we will loop around and snap at each other in a perpetual dogfight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh oh the intellectual supremecists are at it again 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
comprex, Sorry I edited before the reply, My question being 'that the scale is based on the personal Goal' ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
PG, I know it's pathetic but you know I'm just being sarcastic. I probably mis-spell all the time. I don't check either. If you need this explained, I'm just getting at you for labouring the "you" thing when you could have just said "I can see how you might have thought that, but it was unintentioned. Sorry you took offence." That would have been civilised. As for the question of scale, I think I had consistently been mindful of what rob said there, right from the beginning of this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Frosty the Snowman, shouldn't that read supremecysts?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
PG, that depends how quickly you worked out the three-dart finishes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Anyone lost the will to live yet?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
maggi, well, on a scale of 1 to 10...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[double post deleted]
Last edited by Ski the Net with snowHeads  on Thu 19-05-05 22:22; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| maggi wrote: |
| Anyone lost the will to live yet? |
Yes, ages ago.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
laundryman, Yes, but don't worry, I'm sure it'll be worth it when you get there!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
This may be raking over coals that are now trying to die quietly (and those losing the will to live should probably make a dash for the razor blades now), but I've been out this evening, so here goes anyway....
I have a similar sense of frustration to slikedges when rob@rar.org.uk says
| Quote: |
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? |
...and the similar views expressed thoughout this thread by e.g.
| PG wrote: |
2) Anyone who sets up arbitrary maximum targets that could be mistaken for the maximum achievable. 3) ...if most skiers are led to believe gold Ski Club standards to be the epitomy of achievement! |
I DON'T SEE A SINGLE POST anywhere in this thread that says reaching a 10 on the S&R scale or gold on SCGB's confers godhood on that skier.
Where we both disagree with rob and PG is that reaching the endpoint of a scale implies attainment of some kind of nirvana. They're missing the point that entry criteria into a paricular category are MINIMUM standards - there nothing about any maximum achievable, it's just that neither scale attempts to differentiate the many levels above that minimum - and the only people that have made such an assumption are those arguing against such scales. I really can't see why they are working so hard to make a point that NO-ONE has disagreed with. I think it's self evident that anyone getting to that level is experienced enough to know how much further off perfection is - and while I've met some SCGB golds who are fairly full of themselves none would call them for one minute perfect skiers. slikedges has been arguing for a single scale that goes all the way up, while all I've been asking for is anyone's experiences of equivalences, either parallel scales for greater breadth of understanding, or serial with one scale taking over as a previous one gives up. And it's precisely to find out what sets of criteria may be used in assessing those other scales, i.e. to get objective measures that "give skiers the full picture", to get information about things that we know we don't know, and even more that we suspect we don't know ( ), that seems to be so difficult. (No comments even about locals assessment of their Parisian friends - serious or otherwise)
Couple of examples to refute their basic objection to individual scales that have arbitrary endpoints. 1) Martial arts, as it's been mentioned above. I'm a martial arts ignoramus, so about all I know is that there's a bunch of coloured belts leading up to black (and endpoint), but I also know that black (i.e. 10/gold/expert/whatever) is just the end of the beginning and then there's all these dan things that take you up to most exalted grand master thingumyjig (or is it yoda).
2) Similarly, as I mentioned earlier, the Associated Board music exams go from grade 1 to 8. When I was a lowly grade 1 pianist (or even when I gave up at grade 6) I looked with immense admiration at the grade 8s (primarily because you could listen to them without wincing), but never for one minute thought that they were anything close to a concert pianist. The fact that 8 is the end point of that scale does nothing to obscure the fact that you can then go on to get a diploma, which is about the same time you've just qualified to actually attend music college and actually start the learning process towards some professional competency. When I got my grade 8 viola I was quite happy to leave it at that, full and happy in the knowledge that I was a moderately competent small town amateur orchestral player - with no aspirations to be anything more (other than in fantasy). The fact that I'd got to the end of a scale in no way implied there was nothing more for me to learn - as was painfully clear if ever I made the mistake of recording myself an playing it back (the musical equivalent of looking at your own skiing on video).
I'm surprised that
| rob@rar.org.uk wrote: |
| 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'. |
, as it was precisely at that stage that I started feeling lessons started becoming more relevant, but maybe the difference was that it was at that point I joined the SCGB and started skiing with leaders who were clearly far more competent than me or my friends, but still only skied a few weeks a year, so their standards were not in the unattainable realms of the demi-gods that are instructors ( ), or the guys you see in the extreme ski videos - i.e. the SCGB gave me realistically flawed role models and attainable goals!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| GrahamN wrote: |
| Where we both disagree with rob and PG is that reaching the endpoint of a scale implies attainment of some kind of nirvana. |
Not only have I not said that, but I don't even think it! All I've said is if ability scales are to be used (and I think they have limited use), they should indicate the full range of skiing ability. The only reason I think this is because those skiers who are a danger on piste because of an inflated sense of ability (eg, me, a few years ago) might think twice about whether they need to take some instruction to improve. A forlorn hope, perhaps, but one that I cling to.
| GrahamN wrote: |
| slikedges has been arguing for a single scale that goes all the way up, |
And not just slikedges, me too. That's all I've ever wanted from this thread!
| GrahamN wrote: |
| while all I've been asking for is anyone's experiences of equivalences, either parallel scales for greater breadth of understanding, or serial with one scale taking over as a previous one gives up. |
And I agree that would be useful as well.
| GrahamN wrote: |
I'm surprised that
| rob@rar.org.uk wrote: |
| 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'. |
, as it was precisely at that stage that I started feeling lessons started becoming more relevant |
At that point I was fortunate enough to become friends with a good BASI instructor who persuaded me to return to lessons. It was because of this that I rediscovered my passion for skiing, and I have continued with regular lessons since then. I think if I hadn't met Dave I would still be a one-week a year skier who thought I was better than average because I didn't really have any idea what a good skier was like. Instead I'm much more committed to my skiing (three or four weeks a year, with at least a week's instruction), and I now know that I'm not very good at all.
Graham, I think we're spending a lot of effort NOT disagreeing with each other!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Quote: |
| Where we both disagree with rob and PG is that reaching the endpoint of a scale implies attainment of some kind of nirvana. |
Jolly good. As I certainly didn't imply any such thing - in fact, virtually the opposite - we clearly agree. That's the end to that one then...
| Quote: |
| (No comments even about locals assessment of their Parisian friends - serious or otherwise) |
Can't see the point to that.
| Quote: |
| Couple of examples to refute their basic objection to individual scales that have arbitrary endpoints. |
My principle objection is to the labelling terminology which could lead to the mistaken conclusion that a skier is more accomplished than is in fact the case. I also feel that the Ski Club scale might be extended to make people more aware of the top end skills challenge. I do not object to the existence of scales per se, but think that an independent system devised by a professional body without an axe to grind would be more appropriate.
In martial arts the black belt is not an end point, as practitioners are aware. All are stages in the development of skills, with no connotations of standard whatsoever in the language used when belts are awarded. The same with the piano - I was never under the impression as I went through the Board's grades in a couple of musical fields that I was an 'intermediate', an 'expert', or anything else.
| rob@rar.org.uk wrote: |
| GrahamN wrote: |
| slikedges has been arguing for a single scale that goes all the way up, |
And not just slikedges, me too. That's all I've ever wanted from this thread!
| GrahamN wrote: |
| while all I've been asking for is anyone's experiences of equivalences, either parallel scales for greater breadth of understanding, or serial with one scale taking over as a previous one gives up. |
And I agree that would be useful as well. |
Rob - snap!
As I said at the outset, my main objection was to the pairing of potentially misleading titles such as 'Advanced Intermediate' or even 'Advanced', under the Ski Club system, with the skills described. To the possible commercial reasons behind encouraging people to think they are better than they really are. I felt it would be useful to express some concern over the possible consequences - overconfidence, the feeling that tuition is not needed, and potentially, accidents and injury. The bottom line is that the pistes are full of people who are a danger not only to themselves but to others, and the likes of the SCGB scale is just one facet of the education problem that could possibly be improved.
That said, there are plenty of other areas in much greater need of improvement, and I for one think we've laboured this particular topic for long enough. Time to move on - for me at least!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| GrahamN wrote: |
In contrast, davidof made an extremely useful contribution, producing what looks like a very good scale for assessment of higher level abilities. It would be nice to know if that was purely off the top of his head, or anything close to categorisations understood by his peers. |
Sorry was [busy doing paperwork] yesterday so didn't get a chance to reply.
I based it on what Kramer had written previously as well as the other posts but wanted to make it less focussed on any one discpline.
Regarding the ski mountaineering grading scheme I mentioned. The 1.x-5x scheme is becoming fairly widespread in France but other countries still have their own ways of doing things. It is based on climbing grades and like climbers ski mountaineers (aka ski tourers/off-piste skiers) like using it as a mark of what they can ski. It is useful to know whether you can partipate in an outing though. It makes more sense than Bon Skier, Tres Bon Skier, Tres Bon Skier Alpine which the French Alpine Club uses - as it tells you about the route not the skier. I will post some more info later.
I thought about people I ski with. As PG said earlier, the vast majority of serious skiers who were born in the alps are better than me technically so I wanted to see where I could fit in on such a grading scheme. That said of those serious skiers many professionals are better skiers than them although we begin to get some interesting overlap as some professional won't ski the big lines that the younger weekend (and with the 35 hour week, weekday) warriors are skiing (I assume professionals are very concerned about getting injured).
On the grading scheme I mentioned 4.x is where extreme skiing begins. Routes graded 4.3 only first began to be skied with the advent of better equipment such as plastic boots in the mid-60s. This is where some of the classic big-lines are, couloir Davin, couloir Spencer. I set the limit for expert skiers as 5.2 as many good skiers can now ski these classics with the advances in skis and boots and given the right conditions.
Last edited by Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person on Fri 20-05-05 8:58; 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?
|
|
Drip..... Drip..... Drip..... Drip..... Drip..... Drip..... Drip..... Drip..... Drip..... Drip..... Drip..... Drip..... Drip..... Drip..... Drip..... Drip...... Drip..... Drip.....Drip..... Drip..... Drip..... Drip..... Drip..... Drip.....Drip..... Drip..... Drip..... Drip..... Drip..... Drip..... Drip..... Drip..... Drip.....Drip..... Drip..... Drip..... Drip..... Drip..... Drip..... Drip..... Drip..... Drip..... Drip..... Drip..... Drip..... Drip..... Drip..... Drip..... Drip..... Drip..... Drip..... Drip..... Drip..... Drip..... Drip..... Drip..... Drip..... Drip..... Drip..... Drip..... Drip..... Drip..... Drip..... Drip..... CLUNK(razor falls from lifeless hand).
Last edited by Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see? on Fri 20-05-05 9:08; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
I said this on page 4!
| slikedges wrote: |
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.
|
And this on page 5!
| slikedges wrote: |
 So I draw from all this:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
Then over to  davidof
7)
8}
9)
10) So for expert I would say any two of the below.
1. Skis/boards all snow conditions in control including breakable crust and moguls close or down the fall line
2. Ability to pull 720s or loops in the park
3. Passes Eurotest
4. Competently sking off-piste slopes rated 5.2 and above (extended passages of 45-50 degrees, passages over 50 degrees - possibly narrow). Can climb at 500m+ per hour
Expert Practioner on piste
i. ability to perform and communicate all ski/board techniques to other skiers - BASI 1/2 level
Expert Practioner off-piste
i. ability to manage a group in a mountain environment with the maximum safety given the regional conditions - expert at risk evaluation, route choices, group management, search and rescue
Expert level skiers probably started skiing as children, have done some competition and put in excess of 60 days on snow each season.
Expert level skiing may result in serious injury or death if a mistake is made.
Over to Kramer
11) - Advanced Professional - an excellent skier, probably one of about ten in resort at the same high(est) level. Competes at a national or international level with varying degrees of success, and/or has some degree of sponsorship. Does not make enough from competition/demonstration alone to support themselves, and needs another supplementary form of income.
12) - International competing professional - Usually the No1 in their local area, and generally a well known name. Is successful in international competition, or in demonstration. Makes a living from sponsorship, prize money, and appearance fees. Does not need a supplementary form of income.
|
And this on page 6
| slikedges wrote: |
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.
|
Last edited by You need to Login to know who's really who. on Fri 20-05-05 9:15; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Frosty the Snowman, look - this is the argumentative pedants thread. You can always go and play elsewhere!
Oh, and put some spaces in between the "Drips" - or is that deliberate sabotage?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| davidof wrote: |
| .......Sorry was skiing yesterday so didn't get a chance to reply.......... |
I can do jealous 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
I could have sworn I'd just tried to clarify my original post that you disapproved of but that now you agree with by saying I've learnt a lesson 
Can't be me guv, apparently my command of the classic languages is suffering from slow oxidation... that rules me out. (PS I've just been watching the darts on Sky. Does that rule me out twice?)
I thought we were going for 10 pages and 5000 views to set a new record! 
