 Poster: A snowHead
|
So, the Skipress ski reviews are out. Looking at both magazines (one called Fall 2005 Volume 20 Number 1, the other is Volume 5 Number 1)
The Canadian edition (vol 20) has the following technique article...
http://www.skipressworld.com/ca/en/magazine/2005/Fall2005/fall2005_Vol20_no117.htm
A carpenter is only as good as her tools.
Same with skiers and, here too, choosing the right tool for the job is essential.
Like stance width.
Consider how far apart your skis are. A quick glance at different skiers on the mountain shows everything from the wide track of beginners to the classic legs-together of Steinesque skiers. Look at racers and you’ll see them leaving a wide track on the snow. Width of stance depends on the job.
Wide is stable…
Compare a Formula 1 car with a bicycle. The car with the broad base is more stable than narrow-stance bike. That’s why skiers with less refined balance will naturally use a wider track — if they didn’t, they’d fall over. A skier moving at high speeds on an icy surface also needs stability. That’s why the racing stance is wide. Look at the first photo sequence — Adam’s carving and travelling fast, so his wide-track approach is the right tool.
Narrow is tippy…
There are many skiing situations where a little tippiness can help. Bumps, powder and broken snow require quickness from side to side — this is where a tight stance comes in handy. In the second sequence, Adam has chosen a narrow stance for the soft snow and bumps. This gives him the strength of both legs to deal with the terrain and lets him tip freely into the turn, like leaning a bicycle.
Learn ’em both!
The two sequences show the same skier using two approaches. Learn to change the width of your track on the snow according to what you’re skiing. Use a stable, wide track for speed, carving and icy snow. Use the narrow track for bumps and soft snow. Choose the right tool to get the job done.
Any comments?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
kamikaze, those articles are interesting, although I didn't actually find what they meant by "modern narrow" apart from "not athletic" and "not touching".
I guess that breakthroughonskis would also be negative on the other thread - about the uphill ski.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Ah, sorry, I just read this bit again...
"I’m thinking especially about bumps and powder. If you try to ski bumps with your feet apart, you will find that one ski drops into the trough of the bump while the other rides high on the flank of the bump - a recipe for trouble. Far better that both skis encounter the same bumpy terrain at the same time. Likewise if you can maintain a narrow stance in deep snow, both skis will hit the same drifts at the same time, it will be easier to maintain that special powder-skier’s even weight distribution, and both skis will tend to float equally, rather than go their separate ways."
So, Lito is advocating it for in bumps and powder, as is the article in Ski Press. Where the difference comes is when on piste - Ski Press is saying go wider, he appears to say that you need to stay in the same stance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
I use both techniques, at speed the wider stance is much better it also lets you get lower into the tuck position, for gentle cruising the narrow stance is much more elegant but it really comes into its own in deep snow where a wide stance is much more likely to cause you to fall over, as with the other 90/10 article the trick is not only to learn as many techniques as possible but also to learn when is the right time to use each technique
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Does anyone else sometimes regret reading stuff about technique?!! Let's face it - most of the advocates of the various techniques know waaaaay more than I'll ever know. Still...
I think I tend to try to ski the way that Ski Press suggest. I'm not entirely sure that the narrower stance is widely recommended for bumps and powder anymore, but the logic works for me and I'm sticking with it for now at least.
I'm unconvinced by the "Breakthrough on Skis" links. I think in part the description of a wide stance skier is exaggerated, for example:
| Quote: |
| If, on the other hand, your feet and skis are widespread, it takes a big lurching movement of your center of gravity (your hips) to move from ski to ski. And even then, the move is seldom effective, because when a wide-track skier turns, it is almost impossible to keep weight of the inside ski: it catches, the outside ski slips away, and what should have been an elegant efficient carve, finishes as an awkward skid. |
This just hasn't been my experience nor presumably that of many 1000s of skiers around the world who have adopted a wider stance. There MAY be a case agains the wider stance but I'm not sure this is a particularly strong argument. "A big lurching movement" seems a little ridiculous - the difference in stance isn't that extreme - would Lito describe his own sking as involving "lurching movements", albeit smaller ones?
(I'm not going to touch the issue of racer stances because that makes my head hurt)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Just 'cos bumps is my thang...
IMHO you can't zipline bumps with feet apart. Feet together allows your feet and skis to rotate as one on the top of the bump. No questions, not an opinion, it just doesn't work otherwise.
Alan empty, definitely still narrow, feet together recommended for bumps. Powder less so...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
alan empty, I think the article is a little trite with it's "lurching movement' comment. I agree that that skiing is unlike tennis - but in a more significant way than the article covers. On skis your feet are 'sliding' sideways in a way that is impossible in grippy tennis shoes. THus, in the right circumstances, it is not you mass that lurches sideways, but you skis that move accross under you. THis movement achieves the transfer of load without 'lurching', no matter how wide your stance. The wider the stance, the slower the transfer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Wear The Fox Hat/Lito wrote: |
| If you try to ski bumps with your feet apart, you will find that one ski drops into the trough of the bump while the other rides high on the flank of the bump - a recipe for trouble. |
...and that was exactly what they tried teaching me in Breckenridge  . Agree 100% with David Murdoch on that one - you need both feet rotating as one, and the only way for that is for them to be together.
The other point about keeping them together in powder is that they then form a single wider platform (like a snowboard) rather than two narrow platforms, and so you get better floatation as the snow can't get between the gap. This was also brought home to me quite obviously when I started waterskiing this year.
Crud may on occasions though benefit from a wider stance - I found that carving it worked pretty well in some rather nasty crust last Easter, and a normal carving stance certainly was more reliable than trying to float over the top of it.
(Doesn't mean to say I can actually do any of the above all the time though)
|
|
|
|
|
|
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, so we seem to have an agreement - narrower stance in bumps and powder.
The disagreement (certainly in the two articles) is whether you should use the same narrow stance for piste skiing as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Murdoch, as GrahamN says there do seem to be some people/places which teach a wider stance on bumps as well. Maybe Rusty or Charlotte could shed some light here? It may be intended as an initial stage to get people able to get down a bump run using their normal, wider stance. I've tried it and it doesn't work very well for me, so I've gone back to my old style for now.
lampbus, agreed, "The wider the stance, the slower the transfer" would be a less emotive argument for proponents of a narrower stance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| alan empty wrote: |
| lampbus, agreed, "The wider the stance, the slower the transfer" would be a less emotive argument for proponents of a narrower stance. |
Ah, yes, but why be less emotive, if you can make one person feel stupid, and another feel superior... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
WTFH, have you seen anything about whether fat skis are changing this for powder? If the crucial factor was the gap between the skis (rather than the legs) then there could be an argument for a slightly wider stance here as well? Not got an opinion myself - just curious.
FWIW, I like my wider stance on piste and crud and I like skiing more 2-footed. It seems to be working for me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
alan empty, I would say that a "narrower stance" would have to include ski width - otherwise you will end up with skis touching each other, at which point you're going to lose control if you're not very careful, due to tips or tails overlapping.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
alan empty, it also depends on what type of turn you are trying to do in powder (or any other snow for that matter). for a lot of people, powder skiing = short radius turns (powder Ss) = feet together. This is all well and good. If you want to ski fast in powder, doing GS type turns, a wider stance is better IMO
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Wear The Fox Hat,
| Quote: |
The disagreement (certainly in the two articles) is whether you should use the same narrow stance for piste skiing as well.
|
Do bumps count as piste ? 
If, on piste, you want to carve, then you'll need to be able to tilt your skis onto the new edge at the start of the turn - a wider stance makes this easier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Arno wrote: |
| If you want to ski fast in powder, doing GS type turns, a wider stance is better IMO |
Yeah, I think that's partly what I had in mind. However, I'm assuming that the rise of this style of off-piste skiing is largely related to the fatter skis, enabling a more snowboard-like approach.
WTFH, but that's not really a narrow stance is it? Surely it's the position of the legs that is key? In which case, the equipment is removing the need for a narrow stance off-piste. Which just leaves us with the bumps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| alan empty wrote: |
| WTFH, but that's not really a narrow stance is it? Surely it's the position of the legs that is key? In which case, the equipment is removing the need for a narrow stance off-piste. Which just leaves us with the bumps. |
What if you ski bumps with fat skis?
In my opinion, skiing with your skis touching tip and tail is not good with carving skis, as the sidecut can then create a spring effect which will flick a tip or tail on top of the other ski. So the leg gap may not be very narrow, but it can be narrower than the stance adopted on piste.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wear The Fox Hat, how fat? B5s pose an interesting question and I can't answer it as I haven't tried them. Why would you use Phat skis anywhere other than powder?
Why use Phat skis at all? Learn to ski powder properly on 203cm slalom racers!! 
alan empty, re: teaching, an interesting question indeed. Never heard if teaching wide stance to get down bumps - but not terribly experienced on the lessons front recently.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One of the best books I've read on skiing was Lito Tejada-Flores' Breakthrough on Skis. It is inspirational writing and really gave you the feeling that you could follow what was being described and improve your skiing. Sadly, not long after, I stopped skiing for a few years, so never got to try it out and of course, now philosophies and styles have changed. I guess the website must be updated stuff but I can't remember the original stuff anymore. Probably still got the book around somewhere though I might have lent it to someone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
WTFH, good point to raise. You hear many intermediate skiers saying: "I've been trying to ski with my legs together all these years and now I'm being told to keep them apart!" Of course, neither is correct. An expert skier should be able to alter his/her stance width almost with every turn if necessary.
It's impossible to keep a very narrow stance when making dynamic carved turns with the sort of leg angles used by modern racers. However, even today's SL racers will occasionally adopt a narrower stance when going through a 3-gate flush, simply to reduce the distance travelled by the feet over the ground. But generally speaking, if you want to carve your turns on-piste, it's far more difficult if your feet are "glued" together. Then again, if you want to "wedel", a narrow stance would indeed be better, as it also is for short, pivoted turns in bumps or in powder.
I think Lito is being a little "old school" and I would actually like to watch him trying to teach carved turns to someone using a narrow stance! He wouldn't be making life easy... Even in the 1960s, when instructors like Lito were wedelling like Stein Eriksen, racers still had a wide stance because it was the most stable and best for carving, although this was mainly done with the outside ski using the A-frame. (It was often only possible to generate enough force to bend one of your skis into reverse camber.) The difference nowadays is that shaped skis give more skiers a chance to ski like racers (ie. carve dynamically) so the ski teaching community has had to adjust to that.
I agree with David Murdoch - in the zipper line (in bumps) it is near impossible to maintain a wide stance; but if you were to leave that line, and cut up the side of a bump, especially if the gradient is steep, you might want to widen your stance temporarily. Just to give an example of how you must always be adaptable.
And others have mentioned the difference between the narrow stance for "classic" short, bouncy turns in powder, and the wide stance for longer GS-type turns - which are best saved for when the powder is shallow or when you're wearing fat skis (eg. +90mm waist); situations where you're unlikely to sink too deep.
GrahamN, to be fair to your unnamed Breck instructor, if he/she was not specifically teaching you the "zipper line" tactic, then an absolute insistence on a very narrow stance would not have been necessary, and he/she may simply have been allowing you to keep the "hip-width" stance that you were comfortable with at the time. Very difficult to comment on a lesson without having been there and without having watched the client ski...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Martin Bell, thanks for that explanation. I tired of seeing ski magazines and other experienced pundits promoting this false dichotomy of "Narrow v. Wide" As you say, skiers should employ both techniques as conditions demand. Perhaps you could expand on your post in an article for DMS&S?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
Martin Bell, great post, I agree with rob - if you're looking for ideas for an article for DMS&S, that would be one which I think might get a lot of interest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Martin Bell, and another vote for an article like that from me, there's far too many people out there who are told, "This is the only way to ......" a few good, well known skiers publicly saying "Well actually, you can do it that way but you can also ..... " would make a welcome change
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm abit bemused about all this. I tend to think what does it matter? You are givien the basics and you adapt to what suits you.
If you go hacking down a run and almost lose it your body will work it out. After a while you learn from it. It's what our brain does..!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
JT, I think the point is that some teach narrow stance all the time, others teach wide stance all the time, now if you are taught that only one stance works, you may well end up being very inefficient in your skiing - and remember, it's supposed to be fun, not hard work.
If you end up going to the same ski school every year, or the same style of instructor, who is pushing students to ski one stance all the time, then you may be hindered in improving, because you are being told you MUST do things in a certain way.
That's why I think it is something worth thinking about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
Martin Bell, I'm afraid the Breck instructor will remain nameless as I certainly can't remember it now (and probably couldn't the week after either). The thing that amazed me was that my feet are often naturally about hip width apart, but he was trying to get the legs at least shoulder-width apart and steer one ski over the top of the bump while the other was going around it! And of course I agree that feet should be allowed to spread naturally if you're on the steep side of the bump. Adaptation is good!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| JT wrote: |
I'm abit bemused about all this. I tend to think what does it matter? You are givien the basics and you adapt to what suits you.
If you go hacking down a run and almost lose it your body will work it out. After a while you learn from it. It's what our brain does..! |
Eventually, through a frustrating period of trial and error, you might find what works best. Or you could shortcut that process and learn from the experience of others. Either option will work, but perhaps one is a more efficient way of maximising your potential?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Wear The Fox Hat,
I don't think people are that dumb. There are principles that you should get and embrace but if it isn't working you would try a few different things. You could use another instructor, you could watch other people, you could read up about it and you could try a few things yourself.
If you fight all this and still try and fix a round peg into a square hole then maybe there is no hope.
I've learnt all my stuff on the hoof and that might not be the best way but slavishly following a certain teaching method to the exclusion of all else seems just as bad to me. After a while most people should get what they are trying to do and be able to see a way forward. If they go to lessons and think the instructor is wrong for them, then get another instructor. It should be fine-tuning skills learnt by then anyway. For the purpose of this debate I am assuming that people will have quite a few lessons under their belt.
Basically, I watch and learn. I've skied with expert posey skiers who fall apart as soon as they get off their preferred terrain because their feet are nailed together. What do they do? They go back to their comfort zone and never confront the problem. Thats fine, no crime there, but I think the most limiting factor in skiing is not having an open mind. Teaching should give you the basics and correct inherrent faults but the reason why skiing is so addictive is beause it always ask questions from you. To my mind sooner or later you are going to have to come up with a few answers yourself, ie, what works for you..!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
rob@rar.org.uk,
It may be, the other may be more fun, its all ifs and maybes. I don't think you can teach every last thing though and there are good and bad instructors surely.
Oh, and to quantify 'expert posey skiers'; they looked very very good down a red run and you would think they were great skiers. but they literally fell down the Toviere black mogul into Tignes..!! I think that is the right name for the run - so obviously not experts after all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| JT wrote: |
Wear The Fox Hat,
I don't think people are that dumb. |
Ah, I believe you are underestimating the narrow-mindedness of some.
On another forum, a poster described the wide stance in the picture as being "that exaggerated wide stance." and referred to previous conversations where a bunch of people had said that narrow was correct for all circumstances, and anything else was wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| JT wrote: |
rob@rar.org.uk,
It may be, the other may be more fun, its all ifs and maybes. I don't think you can teach every last thing though and there are good and bad instructors surely.
|
Perhaps, although I enjoy lessons as much as I enjoy free-skiing. There are different reasons why I like both, but nevertheless for me there is equal enjoyment.
I agree that you can't be taught everything, but equally I don't think you can learn everything experientially. As with so much in life, a little bit of this and a little bit of that is probably the best recipe for success 
For a long time I stopped instruction because there are good and bad instructors, and I didn't know how to avoid the bad ones. Now I have a better idea of how to avoid the bad ones I'm happy to go back to lessons, and my skiing (and my enjoyment of skiing) has improved markedly.
Last edited by Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do. on Fri 23-09-05 13:52; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Wear The Fox Hat,
If they were taught/read that and swallowed it hook and line, I like to see tham ski...!!
On second thoughts, maybe I wouldn't...!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rob@rar.org.uk,
I like to think I get something from every holiday.
We video most of the best runs and use guides so there is wealth of stuff there. I admire the economical style of the guides but have seen much more stylish skiers.
Looking at the last vid' we did, I am horrified to see how far back I sometimes am relatively speaking. This has crept in on steep stuff because it isn't there on piste. I will be aiming to fix this pretty damn soon. No more double pole plants for me as I have worked out this is how I correct it for the turn.
Of course, a regular overhaul of your technique should be peformed to nail these little bad habits that can creep in. I think I can do this myself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JT, I'll PM you a link!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Wear The Fox Hat,
Thanks...!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
