 Poster: A snowHead
|
We've been skiing 5 years, always done ski school, always been taught 'chest down the mountain' and the 'standard' stand-up-transfer-the-weight kind of thing.
Just back from a week with the Swiss ski school (level 4 of 6) and a young instructor, who bamboozled the whole group on day 1 by telling us to traverse with our chests in the direction of travel and turn with the help of a rotation from the hips and shoulders (using the outside arm to swing around) and turning the head to look to where we want to be.
Yikes!
My wife then moved to a different class (same level) on day 2, with a different, much older instructor, and was immediately chastised for turning by using rotation of the body!
Eh?
A friendly four-way confrontation on day 3 revealed an absolute generational gap in 'ski theory' that was left unresolved.
I actually tried to adopt the rotation and found it very comfortable once i'd adapted to the new body position - turns were faster and there is definitely a good rhythm to be had in swinging the arms, planting and linking turns together. It obviously works less well on steeper pistes with shorter turns.
My wife actually reverted to old-school, having had a bad afternoon and lost her way with the new technique.
Any thoughts, comments, ideas on where this has come from? Is it an 'established, new way'. Would it be silly to try and accommodate the new way for longer, slower turns but retain 'chest down the mountain' shorter turns? Does it matter?! Will this compromise our ability to learn and master more advanced technique?!
Yours, confused
R
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
"Swinging arms" sounds entirely wrong and stupid, not just a 'generational difference'.
| Quote: |
| it works less well on steeper pistes |
That answers your own question I think: It doesn't work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
maybe 'swing around' is slightly misleading - but as it was taught, the outside arm is definitely used to aid the momentum of the turn and we were encouraged to finish the turn with the now downhill arm well placed such that it was in the right position to make a plant for the next turn....
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
It's not a new technique, and I think would be called "old school" now. It's also I think referred to as opening the door, then skiing through it. It predates shaped skis. Personally I'd avoid it; the downside of unnecessary upper body movement is that (i) it's extra effort that you don't need; and (ii) to move the upper body one way requires a moment in the opposite direction in your lower body and skis, which can sometimes be the opposite of what you need them to be doing. For carving, the skis need no rotation to initiate the turn, so just pressuring them in the right way should bring them round, and you can let the lower body move around under the upper body (shoulders down the mountain style) thus getting a lot more efficient turn.
The fact that you found it comfortable and the turns faster is interesting; it suggests to me that you're not carving, but perhaps rotating and slipping the skis. This can be a useful technique, but it's not one I'd use commonly.
Rhythmic pole plants can be an important part of the turn though as they do provide a moment on the upper body and help with that rotation, particularly on the steeper stuff and short turns.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
In my experience of ski lessons in the UK, Switzerland, Austria and France (wow! I'm starting to get a few countries under my belt now LOL), there def. seems to be country to country variation, and also variation in the technique that comes across from instructors of various ages. France and the UK have been similar, Swiss seems much more regimented in their approach, and Austria different again. I think your thread title kind of sums it up, but I prefer the method that I've learned in UK/France. Though my kids with an initial background in the regimented Swiss teaching and then a chance to have 'fun' with French ski lessons have done really well.
I guess the question that needs asking is for modern carving skis is there a single accepted method for using them and if so should it be standardised across all countries? I suspect the question is a veritable can of worms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| kieranm wrote: |
| it suggests to me that you're not carving, but perhaps rotating and slipping the skis. |
Like 99% of British skiers then. I very, very rarely see any recreational skiers railing, even more rarely will I see someone carving. That said, I agree that it is a very poor technique, regardless of how you are skiing. The bio-mechanics of it are all wrong - it's far more inefficient and you lose precision and control (it's like using a sledgehammer on a drawing pin). In the short term it is something which can lead to a perceived improvement, but will massively hinder any further development.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
oh bobbins!...
kieran/simon - no, we're not carving, although we did a lot of stuff this week heading towards it (although maybe now i'm not sure anyone knew what we were heading for!) - inside knee towards the hill, trying to find the edge (ie no A-frame, i think you call it?).....turns on the inside ski only.....but then i guess all of this in combination with the body rotation was the idea?
and now we have to wait til next season to try and sort this out 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| skisimon wrote: |
| kieranm wrote: |
| it suggests to me that you're not carving, but perhaps rotating and slipping the skis. |
Like 99% of British skiers then. I very, very rarely see any recreational skiers railing, even more rarely will I see someone carving. That said, I agree that it is a very poor technique, regardless of how you are skiing. The bio-mechanics of it are all wrong - it's far more inefficient and you lose precision and control (it's like using a sledgehammer on a drawing pin). In the short term it is something which can lead to a perceived improvement, but will massively hinder any further development. |
BTW, what's railing?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
richymidd, I very much sympathise, and as you guess from the posting above have been in same position myself on a couple of occasions - you think you are getting one method nailed and then someone else suggests that you are doing it all wrong and that a different method is better. You end up completely confused and potentially wrecking something that you've nearly got licked with some other method. Consistency would be great, but IME it doesn't exist, and I tend to think it should.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
I saw a Swiss instructor in Les Crosets teaching a sort of arm swing to go with a snowplough turn last week. Looked a bit odd but I assumed it was just an exercise to get his client to weight the outside ski as the arm came round.
Only saw a few turns as we were sitting on a terrace drinking coffee so not sure if it developed into something else. Looked like a first week adult skiier lacking a bit of confidence to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
So, which way do you want me to ski today? A question that always comes to mind (often with a hint of irritation) whenever I'm having lessons - and I've had a fair few in my 20+ years of skiing.
There is more than one way to ski. Instructors often fail to convey why we are learning something new and the (usual) implication is that the old way is 'wrong'. No - it's just a different way. Neither is 'wrong'. Sometimes you'll use one way and sometimes the other. A good instructor will tell you when to use them.
In the case of 'tittys down the hill': this is a skiddy, shorter, stable, safer way to turn. It's a good way to start. Conversely, turning your body with the skis produces a stronger, grippier, larger radius turn. It requires more skill and balance but leads the way to carved turns and faster skiing. As your skills increase you'll want to use more of the latter on mellow ground. But you'll still want to keep the quick, skiddy turns for the steeper stuff.
Last edited by And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports. on Mon 19-03-12 15:07; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
altis, I am a huge fan of 'why' and not only in skiing! I am not keen on the do it this way approach with no balance as to why we do something.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Thanks Altis - I was going through a despairing hour of what a waste of a week, but it seems not all may have been lost! I have to say, on the larger turns with the body turn there was a continued emphasis on leaving the skid behind and moving towards a more 'edged/carved' turn so maybe that was the transitition she was trying to take us through. As i said above, i did eventually feel that i had more control in the turn and although i wasn't 'carving' completely, neither was there a full skidded, parallel turn.
We almost came to the conclusion, as my OP suggests, that the rotational method is good for easy turns but revert to the 'original' method for shorter stuff on steeper runs - something you seem to corroborate.
Any more dissenters like to add to the fray?! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| altis wrote: |
There is more than one way to ski. Instructors often fail to convey why we are learning something new and the (usual) implication is that the old way is 'wrong'. No - it's just a different way. Neither is 'wrong'. Sometimes you'll use one way and sometimes the other. A good instructor will tell you when to use them. |
BINGO... I teach both depending on the standard, ability and experience of client and THEIR goals / aspirations. The skiing 'textbook' if you like is many hundreds of pages long and is a dynamic mix of techniques e.g. a World Cup racer does not 'carve' top to bottom of the course but may blend together many 'techniques' so to speak.
| altis wrote: |
In the case of 'tittys down the hill': this is a skiddy, quicker, stable, safer way to turn. It's a good way to start. Conversely, turning your body with the skis produces a stronger, larger radius turn. It requires more skill and balance but leads the way to carved turns and faster skiing. As your skills increase you'll want to use more of the latter on mellow ground. But you'll still want to keep the quick, skiddy turns for the steeper stuff. |
Partially... but if you have rotational separation (body facing down the hill) and extend forward and down the hill at the start of the turn creating 'long-leg' extension on the outside ski with it pressing down then that ski should bend and grip, accelerate to catch up with you hips and then come around underneath you at the end of the turn and there should be minimal / no ski.... this is neither 'carving' or 'skidding' but gripping around the arc length! Again on REALLY steep stuff you may intentionally skid the ski after the fall line to wash off speed and lose height skillfully e.g. in a Couloir per se!
But certainly their is the public perception of 'old school' versus 'new school' techniques and different nations have slightly different takes on the same thing as well as generational differences which make it difficult when you are on the receiving end (granted). But as they say 'there is more than one way to skin a cat.' It is also worth noting that qualification level of instructor can also make a difference (but not always though) as qualification / experience etc allow the 'remedy' to be correctly prescribed!
I personally ALWAYS try and say why when I am teaching somebody something.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| richymidd wrote: |
| BTW, what's railing? |
It's what pretty much all instructors would call carving. I suppose in some ways it is carving, but it's passive, as opposed to active. As it was described to me by the guy who conducted my coaching course: railing is when you're on the edges of your skis, turning at the natural radius of said skis, whilst you leave clean lines behind you. Meanwhile carving is when you're still leaving those lines behind you, but you're being more active in pressuring the ski and working the edge angles, which can change the form of the turn with the same ski radius.
Whilst I appreciate that there are differences in approach between most instructor associations, I would suggest that they are generally minimal. I actually find it very strange if/when I take part in a BASI-led training session due to some of these differences (though it's largely a stylistic thing I tend to find). Fundamentally though, they almost all base their techniques on the same understanding of bio-mechanics and physics. That understanding suggests that initiating your turns with your upper body is both inefficient and provides minimal control. On long turns, of course you want to allow them to follow round, but I would certainly argue against the wisdom of initiating with them.
Just my tuppence worth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Megamum wrote: |
| richymidd, I very much sympathise, and as you guess from the posting above have been in same position myself on a couple of occasions - you think you are getting one method nailed and then someone else suggests that you are doing it all wrong and that a different method is better. You end up completely confused and potentially wrecking something that you've nearly got licked with some other method. Consistency would be great, but IME it doesn't exist, and I tend to think it should. |
I agree with your sentiment, however, I've also had the opportunity of skiing with the same instructor for more than one year running and the progress is palpable. A friend has skied with the same instructor for 7 years running and it is fair to say, he appears to be far more adept than his 10 once-a-season years would suggest.
I think it's all wonderful asking for standardisation in beginner training, but that difference is sort of what makes the world go round, if you get my drift. Better to dedicate a few years to being a little boring and heading to the same place to learn ( I know, I know.. what's the point of the holiday?) from the same instructor and get good. This is my ideal world, and even I can't manage it. Perhaps the best compromise is to find a ski slope/fridge in the UK where you can try and get the same instructor on a regular basis to maintain that consistency.
After all, it's about the interpretation, isn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
( I know, I know.. what's the point of the holiday?)
Well, what is the point of the holiday?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
bottom line is there are 4 basic skill areas in skiing.
basic posture - probably the most important set of skills a person can learn. Georges Joubert who was a professor of skiing in France in the sixties and seventies (read 'skiing an art a technique', if I remember rightly and if it is still in print) advocated spending a minimum of 6 hours in ski school doing straight running with excercises developing balance in different scenarios. Basic posture is the foundation of good skiing like good foundations are to the longevity and height of a building. Realistically unless every ski school worldwide put beginners through 6 hours of straight running excercises emphasising good posture then it would not happen at all as paying customers want quicker results even at the expense of hitting the 'intermediate plateau' at some point because they did not learn the basics properly, for long enough on easy slopes. A case of ski schools pandering to the principal of the 'customer is always right' when in actual fact the customer does not know what is best for them. However financially it would take a very bold ski school to take the correct approach and convince the customer that the slower, steadier approach to learning was better for them in the long run.
As an example I once worked for a ski school specializing in clinics which were a week long and included video analysis on the first and last days of the course. Most of our clients had the same faults. Many were postural. From many discussions with many clients I worked out that most of the clients had been progressed onto harder slopes too soon by the ski schools they had been with in their formative skiing years. This happens because ski schools are paid to get results by their clients, clients see results as being able to ski a red or black run by the end of week one, two etc.............or whatever!
Ski schools need to educate skiers to expect more gradual progress in the formative skiing weeks. Will this ever happen? Highly unlikely! The beginner skier knows nothing, but in our modern society they expect to be able to buy anything they want with little work on their own part!
Skiing as we all know is not a skill you can just buy. Sure you can buy more weeks skiiing and more weeks instruction if you are rich. But at the end of the day it is you personally that must learn the skills.
Anyway I digress.
Skill 2 - (no order of importance here btw) foot rotation
skill 3 - lateral skills - edging
skill 4 - vertical skills - pressuring
There are of course other skills which are to do with line selection which encompasses many things which a teacher can impart, but only on the hill and are very situational depending on snow type, slope angle and shape and a variety of other factors which can only be described really when faced by them by the teacher.
So to me these are the basic skills, they are mixed and matched depending on the situation required and to a degree what the skier wants to do depending on their level of skill and what the terrain and snow dictates.
Any instructor who is arbitrarily teaching a 'national' teaching system of whatever country does not truely understand their subject and is purely teaching dogmatically. Avoid these teachers. As Steve Angus said go for teachers who explain why they are teaching something. Because they understand their subject. When questioned they will be able to give believable reasoned answers rather then 'that is what the system is' answers.
Oh and movement of the upper body, swinging arms? 'Generally' I'd say b0ll0cks! But there is always the odd situation where.........
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
skir67 WISE WORDS. 
I would concur that for every 100 people I teach at any level on a pair of skis the underlying faults are more often than not the same over and over again in 99 of those people. Find the middle of the ski, learn to rotate it, manage the pressure and bingo we are then in a position to learn all the rest of the stuff. In the same way get your foundations right and you can build your mansion of your dreams... get them wrong and you can NEVER build your mansion no matter how hard you try!
There is a MASSIVE and ongoing discussion amongst the coaches in my ski school (TDC) ([url]www.tdcski.com]) at the moment along the lines of:
do we teach what clients WANT or what they NEED - usually what people need is different from what they want.
I could spend 6 hours working on posture for example but people don't necessary understand the benefit or how important it is as they are not progressing onto a black run for example when at the start of the lesson they were red run skiers whereas in fact they are now skiing red runs with infinitely greater posture and therefore skill etc than before. So do we go for quick fixes or long term results?
Unconscious incompetence through to conscious competence and all that!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Quote: |
do we teach what clients WANT or what they NEED
|
no debate at our school as there are only two of us 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
skimottaret, two's plenty for the purposes of debate and disagreement. But luckily, peace and harmony reign at Inside Out. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Another vote for good posture. But I think there's a lot as instructors we can do to make people realise the importance of good posture. For example once they've got the basics of skiing, teaching them awareness and feeling for what their skis are doing, then using that so that they can (themselves) compare what happens when you make a small change to their posture, and in my experience clients can see/feel the benefits even if it is uncomfortable for them at first, or they aren't immediately skiing more difficult terrain. I.e. we can teach them other ways of evaluating their skiing other than "what colour runs can I get down". Doesn't work for everyone, but for a lot of people I think learning to feel what is happening is a revelation.
One thing I'd change about skir67's list: I'd say it is leg rotation (or perhaps ski rotation) rather than foot rotation, but that is being pedantic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
kieranm,
| Quote: |
for a lot of people I think learning to feel what is happening is a revelation.
|
Definitely!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| kieranm wrote: |
| ...I think there's a lot as instructors we can do to make people realise the importance of good posture. For example once they've got the basics of skiing, teaching them awareness and feeling for what their skis are doing, then using that so that they can (themselves) compare what happens when you make a small change to their posture, and in my experience clients can see/feel the benefits even if it is uncomfortable for them at first, or they aren't immediately skiing more difficult terrain. I.e. we can teach them other ways of evaluating their skiing other than "what colour runs can I get down" (ED: the bain of my life!). Doesn't work for everyone, but for a lot of people I think learning to feel what is happening is a revelation. |
+1
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
Another way to look at competing systems is think of it as an embarrassment of riches.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
OK, good stuff, so what do you all suggest?
We were late to skiing (we're now just both sides of 40) but i can't see us stopping now! we have done a week of ski school for the last 5 years - always a 'national one'. After this week, i would say we can get down any piste, in most snow/piste conditions....although elegance and style will inevitably fall away as it gets more difficult!....but we're over the 'what level are we', 'i want to ski a black by the end of the week' kind of mentality.....(although we did just pester to get down the lauberhorn!!!).....
We just really enjoy it, the holiday at the moment is about being in the mountains and learning to ski better - we tend to ski for as long as we can every day and i think it;s the challenge and progression that is entertaining us as much as the location, social blah blah blah
i guess we're lucky as well in that we could throw some cash at this next year - benefit of a week of personal tuition to make sure we've got the right idea, before bad habits become difficult to shift? value for money in that? how would you do it?
R
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Check out warren smith. He is very good at getting people improving a lot in a week. It's not one to one but still fairly intense. Being fit when you turn up makes a big difference. Personally I would find one to one for more than a short session working on a specific issue too much.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| richymidd wrote: |
| OK, good stuff, so what do you all suggest? |
Find a ski school or instructor you like and stick with them. This might mean that you return to the same resort from time to time, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Ask for suggestions for a particular ski school or instructor here and you might have some a shortlist of instructors you could consider using.
I've preferred using small, independent ski schools rather than the big "nationals" as I think it is easier to ensure high quality instructors in a smaller ski school. No guarantees, of course, just better odds of getting a good instructor. I've also used British ski schools as I've preferred to be taught by someone with native English. Again, no guarantees that this will mean you have a good instructor, but IME it increases the odds considerably compared to the big nationals.
Good luck with it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
richymidd: consider finding a dry slope or snow dome near you in the UK so you can practice and get lessons all year. If you're just skiing once a year for a week progress will be slow. If you take a course of lessons before your holiday you'll be able to take best advantage of being in the mountains.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| jbob wrote: |
| Check out warren smith. He is very good at getting people improving a lot in a week. It's not one to one but still fairly intense. Being fit when you turn up makes a big difference. Personally I would find one to one for more than a short session working on a specific issue too much. |
Warren Smith can confuse as well!
I've done his course twice and to some extent I'm left with more questions than answers. It's very formulaic and he has some none standard ideas.
Equal weight on each ski through the carve - I've never heard anybody else promote that.
Concentrating on moving the hips over the skis, without much emphasis on actually getting the ski on its edge, i.e. no big toe/little toe, the assumption being that happens naturally, not strictly true from my own personal experience.
Pole planting introduced late in the course, if at all, I still struggle to pole plant properly.
The obsession with braquage (SP).
That said I thoroughly enjoyed the experience. I have developed considerably as a skier as a result of WS. At the end of the day it's a relatively cheap way of getting a weeks tuition in a small group and the instructors are, in my opinion, pretty good. And because it's formulaic they all teach in exactly the same way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Fifespud wrote: |
Equal weight on each ski through the carve - I've never heard anybody else promote that.
. |
Tomba!
It has it's limitations if you want to vary turn shape when carving.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
"chest down the mountain" - A means of executing a pivot
"using the outside arm to swing around" - A means of executing a pivot.
Bottom line, you were being taught the same type of turn initiation by those two instructors, just different ways of powering it. As primary, go-to turn types, both are dead end roads. Non pivoted turns should be your go-to turn. Pivots are special situation types of turn initiations only, which require more energy and dynamic movement. They're a less efficient way to turn, and are therefore generally best called upon only when needed. 90 percent of the time you don't need to pivot, so you don't need to waste the effort. Nothing feels more fluid and effortless than a pivot free turn initiation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
