Time Machine, 1930's -The Pure Stem

"Kneale Brownson" wrote in message
om...
"foot2foot" wrote in message
...

Well, you've certainly made a mess of them. By the end of
that period of time, around 80 to 90 percent of the people
who took a ski lesson never returned to the mountain. This,
using exactly the system you advocate.


What possible evidence do you have for such a claim? Had I done all
my teaching in the last six or eight years, you might have some
justification for your figures based upon the national average for
beginning skier retention. I started teaching when the number of
skier days was increasing steadily. Regardless, there is no basis for
blaming an individual for the performance of a group. Sounds like
you're the one with the anger.

You insist on defending and apparently teaching the system
that nearly killed the industry. That's how you can be
"blamed".

Kneale, it's great that you've been dedicated to teaching for
such a long period. In fact, you should be in line for some
sort of lifetime service award or something.

But, it's what you do now that counts now. The PSIA wedge
and the attitudes that go with it are a miserable failure which
cannot be denied. It almost killed the industry. Yet there is
still no change, no improvement in beginner teaching.
The PSIA wedge still haunts the level I and II exams in all
it's useless, obsessive compulsive, egotistical glory.

You as much as admit there are faster ways to teach students,
yet you cling to the old ways with justifications like, "My
students will have more fun".

"Is my PSIA wedge good enough for level II?"

"No."

"I'm an advanced skier. If I can't get it right, how could it
possibly be of any reasonable use to a beginner?"

Clearly it can not.

All this aside, why would you respond to a post of an
obviously historical interest with a grating, personal attack?

Perhaps you could contribute to the initial intent of the
thread. Why do you think the book reads as it does?
Would todays techniques have worked back in the 1930's?
What are the differences in technique and teaching between
then and now? What can we learn from looking at old
techniques?

"foot2foot" wrote in message ...
"Kneale Brownson" wrote in message
om...
"foot2foot" wrote in message
...

Well, you've certainly made a mess of them. By the end of
that period of time, around 80 to 90 percent of the people
who took a ski lesson never returned to the mountain. This,
using exactly the system you advocate.


What possible evidence do you have for such a claim? Had I done all
my teaching in the last six or eight years, you might have some
justification for your figures based upon the national average for
beginning skier retention. I started teaching when the number of
skier days was increasing steadily. Regardless, there is no basis for
blaming an individual for the performance of a group. Sounds like
you're the one with the anger.

You insist on defending and apparently teaching the system
that nearly killed the industry. That's how you can be
"blamed".

Kneale, it's great that you've been dedicated to teaching for
such a long period. In fact, you should be in line for some
sort of lifetime service award or something.

But, it's what you do now that counts now. The PSIA wedge
and the attitudes that go with it are a miserable failure which
cannot be denied. It almost killed the industry. Yet there is
still no change, no improvement in beginner teaching.
The PSIA wedge still haunts the level I and II exams in all
it's useless, obsessive compulsive, egotistical glory.

You as much as admit there are faster ways to teach students,
yet you cling to the old ways with justifications like, "My
students will have more fun".

"Is my PSIA wedge good enough for level II?"

"No."

"I'm an advanced skier. If I can't get it right, how could it
possibly be of any reasonable use to a beginner?"

Clearly it can not.

All this aside, why would you respond to a post of an
obviously historical interest with a grating, personal attack?

Perhaps you could contribute to the initial intent of the
thread. Why do you think the book reads as it does?
Would todays techniques have worked back in the 1930's?
What are the differences in technique and teaching between
then and now? What can we learn from looking at old
techniques?

I don't understand how a heels out, knees together braking wedge is
easier/superior to a narrow gliding wedge.

All that aside, the differences between then and now are in the
equipment. I grew up in the ankle-high laced-up leather boot and
beartrap binding era. You simply could not ski with today's economy
of effort with the loose-boot, loose-ski-interface of the '30s and
'40s, especially considering the ski lengths employed then. You
needed to press the heel onto the weighted ski to maintain contact
with it or the shoe rolled off the ski. You needed to make
large-muscle (no ankle twitching here) movements and great bodily
rotations to maneuver those heavy, unedged boards out of contact with
the snow so they could be reoriented and reweighted to accomplish a
turn.

The principal thing we can learn is an appreciation for the gear
available today. You never saw folks my age skiing then. And nobody
went out from daybreak to nightfall unless it included several stops
for meals and warming. The activity required too much effort.

"Kneale Brownson" wrote in message
m...


I don't understand how a heels out, knees together braking wedge is
easier/superior to a narrow gliding wedge.


It's harder to learn, it takes too much time to learn, it has
a tendency to cause people to not want to give up the
big toe edge of the inside ski, and you just don't have
to go through all that. You want to teach the person to
set the edge of the outside ski and match the inside
without ever really going to the pinky edge of the inside
ski. The only reason to teach a braking wedge at all is
as a device to make it easy to learn to set the outside ski.
Once they can do that, the wedge is disposed of. That
way a student spends maybe five minutes in the wedge,
then proceeds to matching skis.

Besides, what you describe is *not* the PSIA wedge. As
such, PSIA doesn't *have* a beginner progression. Even
you don't teach that wedge. All this business of the PSIA
wedge as a task for level I and II exams is nonsense.

All that aside, the differences between then and now are in the
equipment. I grew up in the ankle-high laced-up leather boot and
beartrap binding era. You simply could not ski with today's economy
of effort with the loose-boot, loose-ski-interface of the '30s and
'40s, especially considering the ski lengths employed then. You
needed to press the heel onto the weighted ski to maintain contact
with it or the shoe rolled off the ski. You needed to make
large-muscle (no ankle twitching here) movements and great bodily
rotations to maneuver those heavy, unedged boards out of contact with
the snow so they could be reoriented and reweighted to accomplish a
turn.

The principal thing we can learn is an appreciation for the gear
available today. You never saw folks my age skiing then. And nobody
went out from daybreak to nightfall unless it included several stops
for meals and warming. The activity required too much effort

Thanks for sharing your experiences, but, what about the
literature I posted from the 30's? A bit before your time I assume....where
is the progress between then and the time
you started? What's different and why?

For instance, Lunn says that for the pure stem, you must
flatten/change edges on the inside ski, not with knee motion but with
*ankle* motion, clearly impossible today.