If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 24 Dec 2004, Gene Goldenfeld wrote: You're very sensitive. Classical tempo is different than skating in a way that makes it easier to do when one isn't in peak shape. Consider that one can go up a steep hill or a long incline at a variety of paces in classical, but skating doesn't allow as much flexibility. Doesn't allow? It amazes me the number of folks who forget the easiest skating option in which you single-pole using the same rhythm as herringbone. I've heard it called names like "wimp-skate" and "sliding herringbone". When caught in traffic on a steep hill in a race such that you can't put out full effort and are stuck V1-ing in a sort of stop/start pattern to avoid running over the person ahead, it's amazing how you can drop back to the wimp-skate, expend far less energy, and still keep up until either the top is reached or the way is clear to pass. I never see wimp-skate taught anywhere but it makes a great low gear for those folks who think they're "not in good enough shape to skate". -Mitch |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Doug Taylor wrote
skating is harder to learn, but easier to master . . . classical is the harder and more subtle technique. V1 skate technique by a Top-20 World Cup racer has more complex subtle moves than any Classic technique -- once you take time to deeply analyze a video of an elite racer and discover all the non-obvious, non-intuitive moves, and start to understand the physics and biomechanics underlying them. It's not "elitism", just physics (or mechanical engineering): If you have a mechanical assembly with many parts and links, you get many more degrees-of-freedom in the system if you allow 3-dimensional coordination, than if you artificially limit the effective work it can do to a mostly 2-dimensional coordination. Skating is fully 3-dimensional, Classic is not. I think lots of people think Skating is easier to "master" because they only understand some quasi-2-dimensional simplification of it -- so they're not aware of the other creative possibilities. the skating poling techniques are counter-intuitive and take a while to become coordinated. The poling coordination for skating is the obvious part of technique. The tricky part is the coordination with hips and with shoulders, and the two-phase leg-push. The complexity in skating that typically gets overlooked is the creative possibilities in the multiple-joint coordination and 3-dimensionality of the leg-push from hip to ski. Because we think, "Just push on the ski with my leg -- how hard could that be?" Ken |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"Mitch Collinsworth" wrote: You're very sensitive. Classical tempo is different than skating in a way that makes it easier to do when one isn't in peak shape. Consider that one can go up a steep hill or a long incline at a variety of paces in classical, but skating doesn't allow as much flexibility. Doesn't allow? It amazes me the number of folks who forget the easiest skating option in which you single-pole using the same rhythm as herringbone. I've heard it called names like "wimp-skate" and "sliding herringbone". When caught in traffic on a steep hill in a race such that you can't put out full effort and are stuck V1-ing in a sort of stop/start pattern to avoid running over the person ahead, it's amazing how you can drop back to the wimp-skate, expend far less energy, and still keep up until either the top is reached or the way is clear to pass. I also think steep climbs are just about as easy skating compared to classic herringboning - both in racing or on those days when I want go so easy that I'm effectively at a walking effort. I do use the diagonal skate when V1 bogs down. I often find when switching back and forth between V1 and diagonal skate on very steep sections that the speed can be the same but the diagonal skate will be easier and have a better rhythmn, which makes the choice between them obvious. In one 30K race last year at Kincaid Park, I V1ed hard up a pretty steep climb ("Stairway to Heaven") on sugar snow with about 10 minutes to go to the finish while the a friend diagonal skated, la la la, behind me. I was was pretty worked, but when I looked back he looked like he was just coasting, and I knew I should have been diagonal skating. Once we topped the climb, he put the hurt on me and later outsprinted me at the finish. (Fast snow is fun! We finished in 1:21 on the hilly course, but were 10 minutes back from the winner.) |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Both are "real" skiing, but if anyone tells you that skating is more
difficult to learn/do than striding, then take away his crack pipe. I only need to go as far as to point out the legions of big-engine triathlon geeks from the bay area who show up at Tahoe skate races and muscle their way to respectable finishes, but who are mysteriously absent at striding races. They're taking the path of least resistance.... bt |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"Ken Roberts" wrote in message ... Doug Taylor wrote skating is harder to learn, but easier to master . . . classical is the harder and more subtle technique. V1 skate technique by a Top-20 World Cup racer has more complex subtle moves than any Classic technique -- once you take time to deeply analyze a video of an elite racer and discover all the non-obvious, non-intuitive moves, and start to understand the physics and biomechanics underlying them. This is an interesting comment that I haven't heard before from any coach or teacher that I've been associated with. But I'm interested to see what other folks think. Although my personal opinion is that classic technique has more subtle and difficult to master nuances, I don't claim to be an expert. Cam |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
I try to avoid participating in these micro-technique discussions since I think they are largely counter-productive, but here goes. On Sat, 25 Dec 2004, Ken Roberts wrote: Doug Taylor wrote skating is harder to learn, but easier to master . . . classical is the harder and more subtle technique. V1 skate technique by a Top-20 World Cup racer has more complex subtle moves than any Classic technique -- once you take time to deeply analyze a video of an elite racer and discover all the non-obvious, non-intuitive moves, and start to understand the physics and biomechanics underlying them. I have a hard time with this statement. I think if you lined up 20 videos of 20 top-20 world cup racers you'd probably find at least 20 different sets of complex subtle moves complete with all the associated non-obvious non-intuitive moves. So what does it all mean? IMO it means that there are enough variations between individuals that there is room for a significant variety of styles. Which one is "best"? The one that works for you of course. I really think it's like many other technique-driven human activities. You learn the basics, you go out and practice, and then when you want to improve you drill on the basics again and again and again. Trying to find a trick move is fun but drilling on the basics is what builds success. It's not "elitism", just physics (or mechanical engineering): If you have a mechanical assembly with many parts and links, you get many more degrees-of-freedom in the system if you allow 3-dimensional coordination, than if you artificially limit the effective work it can do to a mostly 2-dimensional coordination. Skating is fully 3-dimensional, Classic is not. And here I think is a common misconception about diagonal stride. Anyone who thinks it is 2-dimensional needs to peel another layer off the onion and look again. The 3rd dimension of diagonal stride is called "weight shift" and if you aren't doing it you're not striding you're shuffling. For that matter you're also having a hard time negotiating bends in the trail. :-) -Mitch |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
sknyski wrote
. . . big-engine triathlon geeks from the bay area who show up at Tahoe skate races and muscle their way to respectable finishes, but who are mysteriously absent at striding races. I bet most of them could get even better finish results in Classic races, _if_ * they got good Classic-technique coaching . (not so easy to find in USA) * learned how to use klister. * practiced lots of double-poling over the summer . (and maybe some hill running and bounding). But how many would _want_ to? Not me. And not anybody I know. Lots of Classic races are not "striding" races. Instead you double-pole the flats and run up the hills. And skate around the turns (at least back when I was racing Classic). I'm not a racing type, and I tried Classic racing first. I got a respectable first-wave finish at a national loppet only thirteen months after I so much as _met_ my first cross-country ski racer. I could look at videos of the best Classic racers in the world and explain the physics and biomechanics of every little move they made (except I missed the lower-leg-thrust in double-poling). But I was bummed by all the double-poling in races and in practice. Then I took a skating lesson from a gifted instructor, and that gave me a taste of the magical joy of it. So then I worked on learning skating just as hard as I worked on Classic. Got much more paid coaching, much more video analysis than for Classic. But after one year of serious skate-training, I got nowhere near as good race results (probably because I've never been one of those big-engine racer-types that sknyski talks about). Now its almost two years of serious learning, and I'm still discovering new moves in the World Cup racer videos, still getting surprised by new joyful feelings in my own skating. And I'm still finding that magical joy in skating. I haven't done a hill-bounding workout in two years, and that makes me glad. I have not spent a day skiing Classic in groomed tracks in almost two years, and I'm not missing it yet. For me Classic is for exploring the ungroomed backcountry -- yet I'm starting to find myself taking my skating skis into ungroomed situations (or wishing that I'd taken them, like on Lake Aloha). I know very well that I could go back to achieving higher race-finish results any time if I would just practice lots of double-poling and enter some Classic races. But I'm not doing that. Because for me skiing is about magical joy -- and on groomed trails, skating delivers way more of that than striding (and double-poling gives less). Ken _____________________________ sknyski wrote Both are "real" skiing, but if anyone tells you that skating is more difficult to learn/do than striding, then take away his crack pipe. I only need to go as far as to point out the legions of big-engine triathlon geeks from the bay area who show up at Tahoe skate races and muscle their way to respectable finishes, but who are mysteriously absent at striding races. They're taking the path of least resistance.... bt _____________________________ |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Mitch Collinsworth
The 3rd dimension of diagonal stride is called "weight shift" Yes. But that's _all_ there is in the 3rd dimension for Classic. And you don't get much _choice_ about it in Classic. "weight shift" ... if you aren't doing it you're not striding you're shuffling. That's one of the big reasons that novices find it hard to learn Classic striding -- because to get good grip you need to learn single-ski balance. But once you've _learned_ it, you're finished with the 3rd dimension in Classic. And then I found out in Classic races that almost half the time I didn't need weight-shift anyway. Because I was double-poling. if you lined up 20 videos of 20 top-20 world cup racers . . . there are enough variations between individuals I'm talking about how hard it is to understand the physics and biomechanics of the skate-technique moves which all 20 World Cup racers are doing the _same_. when you want to improve you drill on the basics again and again and again. After almost two years of skate lessons and video, I'm still working on how to push with my leg effectively. If skating is not more complicated than striding, then please tell me or point me to someplace that really explains how the best ski-skate-racers push with their leg? Ken ____________________________________ Mitch Collinsworth wrote I try to avoid participating in these micro-technique discussions since I think they are largely counter-productive, but here goes. On Sat, 25 Dec 2004, Ken Roberts wrote: Doug Taylor wrote skating is harder to learn, but easier to master . . . classical is the harder and more subtle technique. V1 skate technique by a Top-20 World Cup racer has more complex subtle moves than any Classic technique -- once you take time to deeply analyze a video of an elite racer and discover all the non-obvious, non-intuitive moves, and start to understand the physics and biomechanics underlying them. I have a hard time with this statement. I think if you lined up 20 videos of 20 top-20 world cup racers you'd probably find at least 20 different sets of complex subtle moves complete with all the associated non-obvious non-intuitive moves. So what does it all mean? IMO it means that there are enough variations between individuals that there is room for a significant variety of styles. Which one is "best"? The one that works for you of course. I really think it's like many other technique-driven human activities. You learn the basics, you go out and practice, and then when you want to improve you drill on the basics again and again and again. Trying to find a trick move is fun but drilling on the basics is what builds success. It's not "elitism", just physics (or mechanical engineering): If you have a mechanical assembly with many parts and links, you get many more degrees-of-freedom in the system if you allow 3-dimensional coordination, than if you artificially limit the effective work it can do to a mostly 2-dimensional coordination. Skating is fully 3-dimensional, Classic is not. And here I think is a common misconception about diagonal stride. Anyone who thinks it is 2-dimensional needs to peel another layer off the onion and look again. The 3rd dimension of diagonal stride is called "weight shift" and if you aren't doing it you're not striding you're shuffling. For that matter you're also having a hard time negotiating bends in the trail. :-) -Mitch |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
--- Ken Roberts wrote: Doug Taylor wrote skating is harder to learn, but easier to master . . . classical is the harder and more subtle technique. V1 skate technique by a Top-20 World Cup racer has more complex subtle moves than any Classic technique -- once you take time to deeply analyze a video of an elite racer and discover all the non-obvious, non-intuitive moves, and start to understand the physics and biomechanics underlying them. Sorry, Ken, but that is totally wrong. The feel necessary to make a classic ski really glide, then to make that same ski grab the snow for a powerful kick, is incredibly subtle skill. I think it's not appreciated because so few of us have ever achieved it. I've been chasing it for over 30 years... Rob Bradlee |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Ah, ok. Right.
Happy holidays, Bryant |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
converting from classical to skating | S. S. | Nordic Skiing | 9 | February 17th 04 02:36 AM |
TR- New York City park skating | Ken Roberts | Nordic Skiing | 2 | January 24th 04 01:19 AM |
skating on classic ski | Sebastian | Nordic Skiing | 4 | January 14th 04 06:03 PM |
glide: skating vs. traditional??? | Ken Roberts | Nordic Skiing | 4 | August 22nd 03 11:57 PM |
Highcountry Skating (was: For inspiration: a truevikingbreaks a record) | Mark | Nordic Skiing | 1 | August 7th 03 02:53 PM |