 Poster: A snowHead
|
| slikedges wrote: |
davidof,
Ski Tourers, Alpine Residents, Experienced Seasonaires
|
This means you. Your help would be gratefully received and much hung upon. ;-) :sH:[/quote]
I fit into three of those categories (as do a number of other sh) but none of them mean you are a good skier although obviously days on snow make a big difference.
This season I learned to appreciate moguls and hope to become more friendly with them next year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| PG wrote: |
| The whole drift of my argument here is that the majority of accidents on the slopes are the result of people having an inflated opinion of their own ability and skiing too fast or in the wrong place as a consequence. |
| Ken Lingwood wrote: |
I tend to pick a route ski it as fast as I can , if I fall go, back do it again.
No need to over complicate things. Ski it hard, ski it fast and try and do it on something that's just out of your comfort zone.
Oh, then get drunk. |
Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
Althouh I do agree with the last point
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
My wife has a fairly cutting grading system. I produced what I thought was a tasty run down some very steep off piste in Canada. My wife skied down to where I was and I asked her "how'd I look?" She replied "not as good as me!!!!!!" then cleared off 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
I think competition is a good way to sort the wheat from the chaff. Some people can ski fast and badly but can they make it all the way down a course like that? Maybe that is why the Eurotest is used for instructors? This is one of PG's favourite points, skiing the Eurotest doesn't make you a good instructor but any expert skier should be able to pass the test. The timed slalom is not entirely unlike skiing moguls or certain off-piste routes, you have to make turns where the gates are not where you want to. Skills that transfer to lots of other skiing - Flingle would no doubt tell us that he needed the same basic skills on the north face of the Aiguille.
My only comment on the grading systems I've seen so far is that they don't really speak to me. The S&R scheme seems more aimed at getting skiers to move up the food chain and sell gear (fair enough, they are a shop who aim to service skier's needs).
I think beyond intermediate many people begin to be drawn to a certain discipline: freestyle, carving, bumps, off-piste etc and the real experts are those who can do all with reasonable confidence. I wouldn't expect a racer to be good in the pipe but assuming he is not too old I would imagine he could get some air of the sides for example.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
To a certain extent I accept the point you're making, davidof, but does that mean that James "Young" Snowskisnow is a better skiier than for instance ise (and me!), since james finished third in the EOSB race? When we went off piste at the side of the Combes black run, I can show you photographic evidence of the only one of those mentioned in this post who fell 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| nbt wrote: |
| To a certain extent I accept the point you're making, davidof, but does that mean that James "Young" Snowskisnow is a better skiier than for instance ise (and me!), since james finished third in the EOSB race? |
The boy done well didn't he? Maybe he has potential?
ps
I should add that I don't really know what I'm talking about beyond the personal observation that people who can ski fast and in control are often good all round skiers.
Last edited by Then you can post your own questions or snow reports... on Tue 17-05-05 16:06; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
nbt, maybe not quite yet... but potentially! Remember virtually all of James' skiing to date has been on piste or in the park so he hasn't got used to the difference in technique yet, while Alpine-based racers davidof was mainly referring to spend a great deal of time away from the runs and switch from one to the other without thinking. Hannah for example has probably spent the best part of a month in total skiing off piste during the last season as part of normal training, and all on GS skis too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Well, here's my grading system, with apologies to S&R.
1: You’ve never skied before and are brand new to this exciting and challenging sport. You've seen Ski Sunday and thought it didn't look that hard. Every slope looks steep. Standing up is a challenge.
2: You are sometimes able to stop on the nursery slopes using the ‘snowplough’, sometimes you just pile into the rest of your class. You may be able to make some direction changes, but not in any predictable way. You have a collection of unusual bruises.
3: You are now mostly able to link left and right ‘snowplough’ turns. Sometimes one of the turns doesn't seem to work and you grind to a halt or accelerate down the fall line, before discovering why it's called the "fall" line. You may be exploring some of the easier blue runs on the mountain, or you may call it a day and head for a vin chaud.
4: Your skiing is becoming more manic, as you are now able to make controlled turns on all blue runs and think you can ski. Your ‘snowplough’ is a thing of the past (at least at the bar) and you are able to finish turns with your skis in a parallel position. It's also cool when you spray up snow if your mates faces.
Advanced
5: Hey, you're advanced now! You have begun to venture onto some of the easier red runs on the mountain and, while your turns are getting better and better with every run, you live in fear of ice. This may be frustrating you, so now is the time to spend a large sum of money on kit you don't need and won't help your skiing. Continue to shun instruction as your brother Gary knows all there is to know..
6: You are growing in confidence and now appreciate the speed and excitement of skiing. So much so that people are staring at you wide eyed as you barrel through groups of "slower" skiers. From others on the slopes you are learning interesting French phrases involving farmyard animals and doubtful parentage . You may be venturing onto black runs but only in your dreams. You had a look at one once and didn't fancy it. Nor did Gary.
7: You are now able to link confident parallel turns and are comfortable skiing on most black runs, but only when there is six inches of powder and a perfect base. And four genepis inside you after lunch. Steeper and icy slopes may cause you to lose your nerve completely and sit on the side of the slope crying, but you are still able to get to the bottom in one piece. Counselling is money well spent.
Expert
8: You are now able to ski all the pisted runs on the mountain as well as your brother Gary. You have mastered the steeps by closing your eyes, moguls by going round as many as possible and icy race pistes by avoiding the use of skis. You’ve watched all the ski movies and can drop all the right names into conversation at Dicks. No idea how they do that stuff, but you've seen it on the videos, so it can't be that hard. It will take time to master but you're going to Val for the weekend on a Stag do, so that should be enough time.
9: Off piste is no longer a struggle as you spend most of the time trying to find your skis and very little skiing. At this stage you may be considering some professional coaching, as you reckon you're easily as good as Jean Claude, the instructor from last year who definitely fancied your girlfriend.
10: You are sure you are a top-level skier who can ski the mountain in all terrain and conditions with great style and technique. Unfortunately that accident in Meribel the other week has meant that the doctor says you are unlikely to ever ski again. Your lawyer says you should be OK, as the woman you hit isn't going to press charges and her dog is going to make a full recovery.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
My grading system is as follows-
Worse than me.
Me.
Better than me.
Much better than me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
michael stocking, 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
I like both michael stockings and Kramers
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Mine is Kramer's +
I'll never be that good even if I moved to the Alps tomorrow and had lessons for ever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Laundryman wrote
| Quote: |
I can look back at runs where I think I was poo-poo hot (any video footage doesn't necessarily tell the same tale) and, if I'm honest, runs in similar circumstances where I was absolute cr@p. Having more levels isn't going to help me judge my ability.
|
How familiar that sounds. I think the big difference between recreational skiers (like me) and good skiers, is that the latter can consistently cope with conditions, whereas the rest of us can find ourselves ski-ing like idiots, when we encounter a problem, or have confidence undermined by poor visibility, or a bad fall, or whatever. The technique to cope adequately and consistently with everything takes a long time to acquire. Fitness and strength comes into it too, and because I am far from young, and not as strong as I was once, when asked to grade myself (e.g. for ski instruction holidays) I have always tended to under-estimate my ability, rather than risk being the one who holds everybody up. As a result I found myself once doing a course in Courchevel with people who were even worse than I was, and snowploughed down anything other than easy blues. I was cross with myself then, and although the day one "ski off" is embarassing and nerve wracking, it has to be a better way than self grading. I also know I am hopeless off-piste - and would like to do one of those SCGB beginner off-piste hols, were they not so expensive. I remember someone who runs charter boats in the Virgin Islands telling me that Americans always over-estimate their sailing skills and experience, and Brits tended to do the opposite. On a good day I am actually quite a good sailor, and not a bad navigator - but I know that when fatigued, and sea-sick, I can make elementary and dangerous mistakes. It's the same with ski ability! I would welcome a grading given by an experienced instructor, who had seen me in a range of conditions, so that I could confidently put it forward as an objective assessment of what I could manage on an "average" day. But to be useful, other people would need to be using a similar scale - does BASI have anything of the sort? Something a little kinder than PG's hilarious description, but as accurate....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
PG, I like this
| Quote: |
The vast majority of the better amateurs here, phillingle etc aside, are just the equivalent of dads kicking a ball around in the garden who can impress their kids by doing a bit of juggling and a couple of tricks, as compared to Ronaldo.
|
I fully understand your reticence to contribute to something you quite reasonably feel ought be discouraged. Lots of things are open to abuse and this is just one. I think that a grading system has its uses: to skiers to know they have improved or tell them what the next step is and let them aspire; as well as to retailers and ski schools. And I guess it's hit me that I don't understand the technical difference in ability between experts. Put it another way, I don't know when technical correction of flaws pretty much ends and training and experience is all that is left - getting the millimetres of placement and the milliseconds of angle and time right. I'm not that interested in distinctions based solely on timings because that to me is already stratospheric skiing beyond my comprehension.
Ray Zorro, No-one else would care except us  but certainly it seems a lot of us do care  . Personally while I only started this so we could reasonably rate ourselves when reviewing equipment (see above), now I realise, I actually don't know how to distinguish technically, as opposed to merely aesthetically, between my expert brethren. I really have no real insight or understanding! So now I'm trying to find out from others. Problem with that?
W.r.t. your second query,  . And is your funny pseudonym supposed to mean golden sunshine?
michael stocking, 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Like many of the participants in this thread, my feeling is that the traditional scales (including the version typically seen in the US) are too stretched out at the low end to be of much use for intermediate recreational skiers and above.
However, these same scales are absolutely wonderful for micro splitting the vast majority of people that show up at our ski school for lessons. If another instructor or supervisor asks me to teach a level N class (where N is between 1 and 6, and the rating has been assigned by the other instructor), I have a very, very good idea of what awaits me. This micro-grading in the lower levels also allows us to be reasonably consistent in lesson levels, so that a student working their way up in ability will experience smooth and predictable transitions in lesson content, terrain, etc. when they go from level N to N+1.
However, for people much above a low intermediate, the standard scales are quite poor (IMHO). They are poor for the mundane task of performing ski school splits, and they are poor w.r.t. allowing one skier to compare themself with others. The first deficit turns out to be not such a big deal because we get so few higher level students that it's easy to take a few extra minutes chatting or taking a run with such a person to ascertain their individual strengths and weaknesses, skiing history, etc.. In addition, the size of group lessons at these levels is usually much smaller than at lower levels, so even if there is a bit of a disparity in ability, operationally, it's easier to keep the group together yet still customize the content to the individuals in a particular group.
If asked what single question I ask to best determine the skiing ability of an intermediate or above stranger, I find that the statistical approach works quite well. I simply point to a run and ask something like, "When you skied that run (or something equivalent in your skiing history), would you say that you were in the top 10% of all skiers on that run, 25%, in the middle, or exactly where?" That usually elicits a pretty accurate self appraisal.
I find that a statistical approach even works for myself when I'm attending pro training sessions and have to decide which group to join. If I tell the organizer that of all instructors at my mountain, I'm in the upper 10% in verbiage and the lower 10% in ability, they know right where to place me. 
Tom / PM
PS (in edit) - BTW, it should be obvious, but when you ask for a percentile based assesment, it's critically important to specify the population under consideration. Specifically, answers to a question of the form, "Where do you (does he) rank in percentile among all skiers?", are much less accurate / useful / informative than questions where you specify the population more closely, e.g., "compared to all non-pros on Run X", "compared to everybody in your beer race league", or "compared to all Level-I instructors at your home ski school", etc. For example, anybody who takes one ski vacation per year and returns without broken bones is likely to be placed athletically in the upper 5% of all people known to their gardening neighbors, but are likely to be considered an abolute hack when compared to locals who ski every day. Different base populations, different estimates of ability.
PS #2 - I just realized that while an instructor can ask a student a percentile based question and usually get a meaningful answer (at least from adults), you NEVER see someone volunteering such a numerical self-assessment either in person or on the internet. In fact, it occurs to me that one person on Epic who once claimed that he was better than 97% of all skiers was mocked to scorn and is remembered mostly for this gaff. Perhaps percentile assessments hit a bit to close to home for comfort.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| slikedges wrote: |
Put it another way, I don't know when technical correction of flaws pretty much ends and training and experience is all that is left - getting the millimetres of placement and the milliseconds of angle and time right. I'm not that interested in distinctions based solely on timings because that to me is already stratospheric skiing beyond my comprehension.
|
The same applies as for beginners (and everyone else) to a large extent, except that the "ability" of the champion athlete is characterised by the optimum combination of most if not all of the following qualities, while the good amateur can get by on being reasonably proficient in just a few (alongside technique).
Strength, power, speed, agility, flexibility, coordination, balance, the ability to refocus after errors, technique/expertise, ski-specific fitness, mental toughness, positive attitude, anticipation, perfect equilibrium between confidence and caution, concentration, the ability to read the conditions and to be "at one" with the snow.
Pretty much the same as those that distinguish the champions of most sports from those that don't quite make it, and in skiing can mean not just a few milliseconds, but the difference between a nasty crash and the perfect run. Very rarely does a skier miss a gate through sheer bad luck. You should hear the club seniors coach giving some of our World and Europa Cup skiers a piece of his mind!
PS Physicsman, ref your edit #2, I am quite willing to admit that without a shadow of doubt I am a worse skier than 97% of all Savoie-born lifelong skiers, with apologies to any among the remaining 3% that I am probably libelling by making such a claim. My daughter would be quite prepared to testify to this if required.
Last edited by You need to Login to know who's really who. on Tue 17-05-05 18:42; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
I have been taking a one week ski holiday for the last 22 years. I am firmly on the intermediate plateau by the 3rd day of my annual 6 days on the piste I am again learning and hopefully improving. I usually end up feeling more confident and happier with my skiing ability each year.
BUT, one of the guys I go skiing with has skiied since he was 5 years old, has completed various Ski tours over the Alps, Has led various ski groups on holidays and is a good all round skier. I have followed him down 2 of 'the top 10 most difficult pistes in the Alps' with complete confidence in his knowledge of my abilities and therefore my ability to complete the run safely under his guidance and I have enjoyed the challenge and experience (after all isn't that why we ski?)
However, I would still consider myself to be an intermediate skier on any of the grading's that have gone before!
This recognition of my own ability's is something that has come with age and maturity and not from any list or grading table  .
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| boredsurfin wrote: |
However, I would still consider myself to be an intermediate skier on any of the grading's that have gone before!
This recognition of my own ability's is something that has come with age and maturity and not from any list or grading table
|
Sorry, I don't understand. You can match yourself to intermediate on any of the published gradings, or you simply consider yourself intermediate no matter what any grading says, but it has taken age and maturity on your part to arrive at this recognition?
As I opined further up this thread, ideally intermediate should refer to those near the statistical mode* of skiing skill, not those few experts who are half-way in skill to becoming Alpine Olympic stars or even BASI I.
* meaning that if of all the skiers in the world, 10% were level 1, 25% were level 2, 40% were level 3, 15% were level 4, 5% were level 5, 3% were level 7 and 2% were level 8, the commonest standard of skier or mode would be level 3.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For a beginner I would make the following distinctions-
1- Absolute beginner - Has never put on skis before, or close. Unable to ride lifts, turn, stop, or maintain any control.
2- Improving beginner - Is able to ride lifts, turn, stop, and control speed on easy slopes, loses it on anything more difficult. Usually in their second week, or has done a "learn to ski" course in the uk. This is the catagory that I feel is probably the most likely to run into problems.
3- Competent beginner - Is learning to ski all the runs in resort, although loses technique on the harder runs even in good conditions. Can maintain control in all conditions, and is safe at all times. Has never ventured more than a few meters "off-piste". Generally has four or five weeks skiing total experience.
If someone asks me how good I am, I tend to answer "intermediate", however this is a bit of a catch all. I'm not good enough to ski any terrain that I can see, but I am good enough to enjoy any terrain that I ski on. I'm proficient enough that I don't really bother with the colour of the piste, more if it gets me where I would like to go. I enjoy off-piste, however as it gets steeper then I get slower, and my technique gets worse. In the park, and freeriding, I can do easier jumps and half pipes with a modicum of style, however I can only ride fakie on less steep slopes. I consider myself intermediate because I still have a lot to learn in technique and in confidence. I would classify intermediate as follows-
4- Early intermediate - Able to ski any run on the mountain in good condition, loses technique in more challenging conditions. Beginning to venture off-piste, but finds it a struggle. Is safe and in control at all times. Starting to do some of the easier jumps in the park. Generally skis one to two weeks a year.
5- True intermediate - Able to safely ski any run on the mountain in all but the worst conditions, enjoys the easier off-piste in good conditions, but finds it hard going when conditions are poor. Can get good air, and usually land it. Can ride the pipe, but not with any style. Generally skis between three and six weeks a year.
6- Advanced intermediate - A very competent skier in all conditions, on and off piste. Still a holiday skier, and not a professional. Can ride the park and the pipe with style, attempting and landing simple tricks. May well have done a season or more in the past, or has been skiing regularly for more than four weeks a year (average) for more than ten years.
Some people that I've skied with (usually beginners or lower intermediates) have told me that I'm "expert", but to me this implies a level of skill, that others seek your advice and tuition, which I'm definitely not good enough to do. My friends may not be aware of my bad habits, but I definitely am! Following this logic, I would divide expert into the following three levels-
7- Professional - a good skier, in the top one percent in the resort, usually a resident, or local to the surrounding area. Usually works on the mountain in a professional capacity, and may hold a suitable professional qualification.
8- 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.
9- 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.
Last edited by Then you can post your own questions or snow reports... on Wed 18-05-05 0:01; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kramer, All seems pretty apt to me. There could conceivably be a category inbetween 6 & 7 that includes the likes of local youngsters still at school (say early teens up) who are members of an alpine ski club. And I'm not sure where you would fit the local club pre-teens of whom some (most) are at home on just about any terrain in any conditions - pipe, off-piste, bumps, skierx, gates. In the likes of the Paradiski area there's probably 400 pre-teen and teenage kids of that standard in the race clubs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
PG,
I agree with you. I would put myself somewhere between 6 and 7.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kramer, I have to say far far better than those used by the commercial folks.
Makes me feel a lot more comfortable being a 3 - and a 'Beginner' to boot on a 9/10 scale and seems to my inexperienced eyes to be a much better method of communicating ability to others when necessary than 'flattering' scales such as S&R ... now all you have to do tomorrow is get buy -in from the global ski organisations/companies .... if you finish by lunchtime you could of course work out an objective formula for classifying piste difficulty
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
probably 4, maybe edging 5 on kramer's scale. Fairly accurate descriptions
more or less the same o n the second version too
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| nbt wrote: |
| probably 4, maybe edging 5 on kramer's scale. Fairly accurate descriptions |
aggh wild horses wouldn't drag me into a park or pipe so that puts me about 4
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
PG, I agree with what you say, I made it up on the spur of the moment, and there does seem to be a gap between 6 and 7. For someone who is extremely competent, but not (yet?) a professional. Perhaps a catagory called "Local"? Or maybe "Competing amateur"? Or simply "Advanced", but not expert?
davidof, I would count the park and pipe as optional disciplines.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
nbt, I would be a solid five on my scale I think.
Frosty the Snowman, I think that a lot of the problem is that people go on holiday and have one weeks worth of lessons, and then get told that they're no longer a beginner, which doesn't hold true to me. When you learn to drive, passing your test is only the start of learning to be a confident and safe driver, and I think that skiing is similar in that it takes a fair bit of time, lessons, and experience to become competent. This year, someone who described themselves to me as an intermediate, because she could link stem turns, had to be coaxed by me down green runs in Val d'Isere, which illustrates to me what an abused term it is. From what you've said in other threads, I'm sure that you're a 4 anyway.
eEvans, I don't think that it is possible to come up with an objective scale for what is essentially a subjective experience.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Kramer, Nice descriptions and good effort, as you've tried to pin down the top end. What I don't like is that the average punter doesn't get above level 4 and I feel a scale should represent that part of the ability spectrum in more detail (say interspersing another 2/3 points up to that level) if it is to be helpful to them. I'd call 5 & 6 advanced as it's above the "average" level I think recreational skiers reach, but would agree with a 6.5 and the other definitions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
slikedges, what do you mean by the average punter, and how many weeks a year skiing do you see them doing?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
In the US, skiers nearer the upper end of the scale can compare each other's abilities via Nastar. (www.nastar.com) But of course this only defines their ability to carve effective turns on a smooth firm surface, it says nothing about their skills in off-piste or bumps, which often have little correlation to carving ability.
There used to be a similar scheme in Austria, called Wisbi ("Wie schnell bin Ich?"), don't know if it's still running.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Martin Bell, If one accepts that skill levels above 9-ish involve extreme specialisation and training, how fine a grain does one need to use to select candidates for any given skills clinic, say? What I mean is, by that stage they've all demonstrated the ability to learn and to be present within their bodies to be able to learn well. So the skill scale should rather be called a 'what can we teach this person now' scale?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Kramer, Just the statistical mode of ability for the skiers I see on an average slope. I have no idea how many weeks a year, but in order to progress beyond a certain level, I feel an attitude/aptitude thing takes pre-eminence, which is of course confounded in a couple of obvious ways by how many weeks a year one chooses to ski. Most people I see, imho, just do not seem to qualify for your level 5 category.
BTW how was the sailing?
Last edited by Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do. on Wed 18-05-05 7:55; edited 3 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Kramer wrote: |
| ..... This year, someone who described themselves to me as an intermediate, because she could link stem turns, had to be coaxed by me down green runs in Val d'Isere..... |
I take your point, but, to be fair to her, if it was Verte, green is a gross undergrading, from what I have seen a few years ago, in icy conditions, when it could be boiler plate ice with the odd thin clump of grainy snow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Kramer wrote: |
PG, I agree with what you say, I made it up on the spur of the moment, and there does seem to be a gap between 6 and 7. For someone who is extremely competent, but not (yet?) a professional. Perhaps a catagory called "Local"? Or maybe "Competing amateur"? Or simply "Advanced", but not expert?
|
"Advanced" might be the more inclusive term?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kramer, hear hear, a very realistic scale I think. IMO the vast majority of British holiday skiers would be a 4, with a sprinkling of 5's if they had skied all their lives. My only criticism (which you have already addressed!) is the inclusion of the freestyle element. I am somewhere between a 6 and 7 (a la beanie1) but frankly a 4/5 on your freestyle elements! My self-preservation instinct prevents me from even attempting anything other than a simple jump!
I would swuggest that the insertion of a level between 4 and 5, and one between 6 and 7, would be sensible, reulting in a 12 point scale where most recreational holiday skiers would be between 4 and 6. Your "true intermediate 5" level to me sounds more like an "advanced" recreational skier, but hell lets's face I'm splitting hairs, it's all subjective anyway
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
We all consider ourselves "good drivers" as I think laundryman? said further up this thread (too far up to check). This is because we get from A to B without causing any accidents, are adept at criticising other road users and what we do serves its purpose. But actually most of us have very little driving skill, knowledge of how a car handles or how to get the best from a car in difficult circumstances, despite all of us being very experienced. What proportion of us here have done the High Performance Course or some other substantive skid and speed handling course or even the advanced drivers/driving test? Yet we don't all label ourselves early intermediate drivers.
Why are we all so keen to denigrate what is the common standard of competence?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I see no element of denigration. Realism perhaps. An approach that might lead to less injuries both on the piste and on the roads, if we started to take ourselves a little less seriously. Who cares what the label is? The point is to get a realistic picture of our limitations and how far we still could progress, with practice and tuition.
It would be an excellent idea for us to reappraise our driving skills by liftng the bar somewhat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
