Skating Elitism.

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004, Ken Roberts wrote:

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.

What kind of choice are you looking for? Weight shift is the basis of
both striding and skating. It doesn't come intuitively for most people
regardless of technique.


"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.

It's also one of the big reasons novices find it hard to learn to skate.
If you aren't doing it you're not skating you're shuffling.


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.

That's highly dependent on the course. In the New York/New England region
there are few race courses that will give you 50% DP.


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_.

My point is that you don't need to understand all that stuff in order to
learn to do it well. This seems to be a common mind-blocks for physicists.
We see it all the time in the trumpet player's group, too. They love to
micro-analyze everything, which is fine if you want to figure out why
something works but it's not all that helpful in trying to learn how to do
it. In order to play the trumpet well you need to practice your
fundamentals and listen to good players to get an idea of what a good
trumpet sound sounds like. Then when it comes time to play you take a
big breath, think about what sound you want to come out and blow. If you
also think about which facial muscles to engage, whether you want to blow
upstream or downstream, how to shape your tongue, how much to roll your
lips, etc, etc, you will have such a lengthy checklist that you'll need
more advance notice than the orchestra conductor is going to give before
the piece starts.

It's the same thing in skiing. All of these details are "important" in
order to achieve the desired result, but they have to be 2nd nature in
order to perform them correctly. They get that way not by micro-analyzing
them but by drilling on the fundamental skills that develop them properly.



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.

Yep. It does take most folks more than 2 years to get there. This is a
technique sport.


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?

How they push with their leg is not important. How they learn to push
with their leg is. They do this with balance drills, dry-land bounding
exercises, and by doing a lot of no-pole skating, including uphills.
(Rollerblades don't count here.)

-Mitch

That's not "wimp" skate, it's the "coaches" skate....

Nathan

"Mitch Collinsworth" wrote in message
rnell.edu...

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

I wholeheartedly agree that classical is much more difficult to master
than skating. The subtleties involved in lining everything up properly and
timing the kick correctly take a lot of time to figure out. While skating
may have more 3-dimensional movement, the movement required to "master" the
technique and move efficiently and effectively is not nearly as precise as
the techniques required to move effectively with classical technique.

-Nathan
www.nsavage.com


"Rob Bradlee" wrote in message
.com...

--- 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

Rob Bradlee wrote
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...

I think this debate depends on the definition of the word "mastery".

My definition of "mastery" of technique coordination for racing is like (A)
"percentage of speed that could be attained by a perfectly optimally
programmed humanoid robot with the same mass distribution and the same
power-force-speed characteristics of its motor-actuators".

I think the other definition of mastery is like (B) "performance feels fully
under control and I'm not aware of anything I could do differently that
would make it better".

By the other definition of mastery B, Classic striding feels un-mastered
because you feel a slight slipping in the grip, or like you have to hold
back a little in your kick in order to avoid having grip slipping -- and you
can _feel_ that deficiency. Or in the glide phase you can feel like the ski
isn't holding its speed as well as it could.

But it might be that a perfectly optimized-coordination robot would
experience exactly the same compromises -- because physics says that's what
Classic striding performance _is_ : a big compromise. So you might _feel_
dissatisfied and unmasterly, even though your performance was at 99% of an
optimally-coordinated humanoid robot.

I think the reason for that feeling of dis-satisfaction is comparison:
Classic striding technique on snow normally feels inferior to the
kick-and-glide-performance of Classic rollerskiing. (And of course Classic
glide is inferior to even our on-snow memory of skate-ski glide.) So our
feelings of un-mastery are unconsciously formed by our actual memories of
superior performance which are physically impossible in our current
classic-snow-skiing situation. The cause of un-mastery type B is classic
rollerskiing.

By my definition of "mastery" A applied to skating, you could be feeling
really good about your skating, even if you're speed is only 88% of what an
optimally-coordinated humanoid robot could achieve with your
muscle-capabilities. But you don't know that, so it doesn't _bother_ you. If
your speed is slow, you can explain it in terms of slower snow conditions
compared with hard-snow days or smooth-pavement rollerskiing. Maybe another
skater passes you who has attained 93% of the optimally-coordinated robot
with the same muscle-and-lung-capacity as yours. But you say: He must have a
bigger engine. So it's only using the other definition B that you can say
that you've achieved "mastery" of skating.

So claim of easy "mastery" of skating might be based on ignorance of what is
really possible.

If optimal skating leg-push is so simple to master, please point me to the
place where it explains how the best racers actually do it. How hard could
that be?

Ken

From http://www.jacksonxc.org/Events/Mastersclinic05.html (staff
description for Master Skiing seminar):

"Rob Bradlee is an experienced racer and coach who has been skiing for
over 30 years. He has studied with the best American coaches and knows
the latest technical details of correct skiing form."

In this tread, Rob says: " 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..."

From http://www.nsavage.com/services/resume_sports.html (Nathan
Schultz's resume):

"1996-present Fischer Factory Team (Skiing) "

Nathan says: " wholeheartedly agree that classical is much more
difficult to master
than skating. The subtleties involved in lining everything up properly
and timing the kick correctly take a lot of time to figure out. While
skating may have more 3-dimensional movement, the movement required to
"master" the technique and move efficiently and effectively is not
nearly as precise as the techniques required to move effectively with
classical technique."

In rubuttal, Ken said "My definition of "mastery" of technique
coordination for racing is like (A) "percentage of speed that could be
attained by a perfectly optimally programmed humanoid robot with the
same mass distribution and the same power-force-speed characteristics
of its motor-actuators"....(going on to discuss another possible
criterion, which I din't really understand). .... ..."So claim of
easy "mastery" of skating might be based on ignorance of what is really
possible."

I'm goin' with ......hmmm..... can't really figure out who to believe!
8-). IGNORANCE of what is really possible??? Nathan Schultz and Rob
Bradlee (and others' who's resumes probably aren't as stellar)???
Someone's probably a little embarrassed at this point, I would think...
I'll jes' haveta go with my own 25+ years of skiing (incl 10+ on skate
skiis). Striding tougher to figure out, period. Skating great too, but
not technically as tough. -zeke

Mitch Collinsworth wrote:
How they push with their leg is not important.

That statement is either true or false.

For bicycle racers, how they push is very important, even though the
leg-motion in bicycling is simpler (2-dimensional, and highly constrained
even within that) than ski-skating. Nowadays lots of serious racers put
force-sensors on their bike, so they can discover opportunities for
improvement in their leg-push. The obvious guess would be that the
3-dimensionality and greater freedom of the skating leg-push would offer yet
more creative possibililities for optimization -- to those who search for it
seriously.

How they learn to push with their leg is. They do
this with balance drills, dry-land bounding exercises,
and by doing a lot of no-pole skating, including uphills.

I bet some of the elite racers sometimes got some video analysis, and
sometimes some very specific technique pointers from an astute coach. I saw
an XC ski article from Norway which gave some helpful details about how to
do serious video analysis of technique. Most sports with money nowadays are
very sophisticated about video analysis. I know for myself that detailed
video analysis was very important in transforming my downhill-skiing
technique.

Doing all those drills is good -- but even better is knowing what to _look_
for and what specific _moves_ to play with while doing those drills.

This seems to be a common mind-blocks for physicists.
They love to micro-analyze everything

Except that the leg-push is the one thing in skating which I gave the least
attention to in my analysis -- other than how it coordinated with my
pole-pushes. I've been skating since I was 8 years old, so I figured, "Of
course I already know how to do that -- How hard could it be?" I figured my
skate-leg-push technique-coordination must be at least 95% of optimal. I
just needed to train my muscles harder in order to go faster.

Then I saw that video segment of Carl Swenson's legs, and I tried the
knee-drive move and entered into a whole new world of performance. All along
I had really been less than 80% of optimal on my leg-push technique.

Micro-analysis would not be necessary if cross-country skiing were a
normal sport like bicycling or downhill-skiing, where the basic physics and
biomechanics have been understood and communicated for a long time. I have
books on my shelf that explain it all in detail for both sports. The
explanations seem to make sense, and they agree on the basic advice -- so I
don't put much time into analysis, just focus on practicing the advice.

But for ski-skating the experts and the books and my instructors have not
agreed on the basic advice, and many of their explanations turn out to be
fallacious when examined by physics. When I try their ideas anyway, I find
that some of them don't work for me. So why should I not want to try
micro-analysis?

My puzzle remains: I've just made a big gain in my leg-push effectiveness
and feeling of "mastery". But perhaps I'm still only at 80% of
optimal-coordination, but don't yet know what I'm still missing. How can I
know, unless somebody points me to this:
An explanation of how the fastest skiers do it, and the key things matter
for their effectiveness. Where the explanation seems reasonably plausible
in the light of physics and biomechanics.

Ken
________________________________
Mitch Collinsworth wrote
Ken Roberts wrote:
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.

What kind of choice are you looking for? Weight shift is the basis of
both striding and skating. It doesn't come intuitively for most people
regardless of technique.


"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.

It's also one of the big reasons novices find it hard to learn to skate.
If you aren't doing it you're not skating you're shuffling.


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.

That's highly dependent on the course. In the New York/New England region
there are few race courses that will give you 50% DP.


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_.

My point is that you don't need to understand all that stuff in order to
learn to do it well. This seems to be a common mind-blocks for
physicists.
We see it all the time in the trumpet player's group, too. They love to
micro-analyze everything, which is fine if you want to figure out why
something works but it's not all that helpful in trying to learn how to do
it. In order to play the trumpet well you need to practice your
fundamentals and listen to good players to get an idea of what a good
trumpet sound sounds like. Then when it comes time to play you take a
big breath, think about what sound you want to come out and blow. If you
also think about which facial muscles to engage, whether you want to blow
upstream or downstream, how to shape your tongue, how much to roll your
lips, etc, etc, you will have such a lengthy checklist that you'll need
more advance notice than the orchestra conductor is going to give before
the piece starts.

It's the same thing in skiing. All of these details are "important" in
order to achieve the desired result, but they have to be 2nd nature in
order to perform them correctly. They get that way not by micro-analyzing
them but by drilling on the fundamental skills that develop them properly.



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.

Yep. It does take most folks more than 2 years to get there. This is a
technique sport.


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?

How they push with their leg is not important. How they learn to push
with their leg is. They do this with balance drills, dry-land bounding
exercises, and by doing a lot of no-pole skating, including uphills.
(Rollerblades don't count here.)

-Mitch
_______________________________________________

Mitch Collinsworth wrote
What kind of choice are you looking for?
[ in the 3rd dimension of weight shift in Classic ]
Weight shift is the basis of both striding and skating.

In Classic striding, the side-to-side weight shift is only a pre-requisite
for the _transmission_ of propulsive force to the snow. It does not generate
any forward-propulsive force. The more complete the weight-shift, the larger
the down-force to sustain grip against the snow. It's mostly just an
independent multiplicative factor with the static coefficient of friction of
the grip wax. So it's one more degree-of-freedom in the mechanical system.
Compare with Classic rollerskiing on clean pavement: grip can be taken for
granted and weight-transfer is not important. Say that Classic rollerskiing
has 24 mechanical degrees-of-freedom -- then Classic snow-skiing has like
25 mechanical degrees-of-freedom.

But in Skating the sideways weight-transfer moves add to
forward-propulsion work. And the amount of work that is added depends on the
velocity of weight-transfer move. And different parts of the body can be
moved sideways at different velocities at different times in the
stroke-cycle. Or the side-moves of some parts can _subtract_ from
forward-propulsion work. Then there's the matter of how efficiently the work
of the various side-transfer moves is _transmitted_ to the ski and the snow
(which is not even a question for side-moves in Classic). Some side-force
moves of some body-parts will interfere with the effective utililization of
other contributors to propulsion, especially poling.

So you get lots more relevant mechanical degrees-of-freedom in the
part-motions themselves in Skating, then double that to include velocity as
well as position, and then various additional degrees-of-freedom emerging
from pairwise interactions of some of those parts with each other, and
interactions with other degrees-of-freedom in the system not themselves
making the side-moves (for transmission, etc). So the addition of side-moves
to Skating could raise the number of relevant mechanical-degrees-of-freedom
from say 24 to say like 113.

In Classic the side-motion aspect has fewer relevant parameters in itself,
and its interactions with other positions and moves is simpler. And its
possibilities are constrained by the two grooves.

What surprises me is that so many American experts who have not tried to
analyze the physics of skating, have not put force-torque sensors into a ski
binding, have not done the careful scientific video analysis with
measurements, and cannot explain how the biomechanics works in detail -- yet
they can be so confident to assure us that it's straightforward to master
skating, so sure that there's little room for further improvement.

Ken

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Roberts"
To: "Multiple recipients of list NORDIC-SKI"

Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2004 4:30 PM
Subject: Skating Elitism.


Rob Bradlee wrote
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...

I think this debate depends on the definition of the word "mastery".

My definition of "mastery" of technique coordination for racing is
like (A)
"percentage of speed that could be attained by a perfectly optimally
programmed humanoid robot with the same mass distribution and the
same
power-force-speed characteristics of its motor-actuators".

I think the other definition of mastery is like (B) "performance
feels fully
under control and I'm not aware of anything I could do differently
that
would make it better".

By the other definition of mastery B, Classic striding feels
un-mastered
because you feel a slight slipping in the grip, or like you have to
hold
back a little in your kick in order to avoid having grip slipping --
and you
can _feel_ that deficiency. Or in the glide phase you can feel like
the ski
isn't holding its speed as well as it could.

But it might be that a perfectly optimized-coordination robot would
experience exactly the same compromises -- because physics says
that's what
Classic striding performance _is_ : a big compromise. So you might
_feel_
dissatisfied and unmasterly, even though your performance was at 99%
of an
optimally-coordinated humanoid robot.



lots of good stuff snipped here..

Ken,

I think that what you said in this post made good sense to me, and
yet....

Like many others, I've 'chased after the grail' of mastery in skating
and classic, as a citizen racer and just as someone that loves the
feel of skiing. I feel that my skating is pretty solid, and my classic
leaves much room for improvement. One metric of success that I watch
is my percentage slower than the winner of races that I do.

I don't recall the numbers at the moment ( no real snow here! :-(, and
no races. ), but my skating numbers are very consistent relative to
the best, and not that far behind. But in classic it varies, and there
are a few guys that just blow me away. And not only me. We have a few
locals that are really good at classic, and the large majority of
those locals actually grew up in one of the Scandinavian countries.
There aren't any skaters that blow away the field like that. If you
look at the results in World Masters, the US skiers do rather well in
skating, and success in classic is lots tougher. Another way to look
at it would be to compare the spread between the winner and say, 10th
place in a skating vs classic race. Pick a classic race with easy
kick waxing, and I think you'd still find a wider spread.

So count my among those that continue to believe that classic is lots
tougher to master.

I've felt the magic of classic at times, and it is enough to keep me
chasing after it again. I sure live in the wrong place for it tho -
29 to 31F, 90+ percent of the time.

Erik Brooks,
Seattle, where we are off to our worst start to winter in some time -
:-(

wrote
(from staff description for Master Skiing seminar):
Rob Bradlee ... knows the latest technical details of correct skiing form.

Well, I think Rob Bradlee is a rather good coach, but I don't think that
whoever published those words intended them to mean things like:
* He knows the latest new skating moves being tried by the Norwegian team
this month.
* He knows _which_ of those "latest details" will still be popular 5 years
from now.
* All development of ski-skating technique is now finished, and an angel
appeared to him on August 13, 2004, and delivered the final perfect result
on two gold DVDs.

IGNORANCE of what is really possible?

Yes in many contexts, _admission_ of ignorance is a sign of the depth of
intelligent understanding. It goes together with being fully alive and still
growing.

I notice that Pete Vordenberg keeps talking like he's still growing, still
learning together with the best American ski-skaters about what techniques
really works out on the snow -- and sharing with us some of the good stuff
that he hopes can help us at our level.

Despite the claim that Classic is supposed to be so difficult that it takes
many years to learn, and is only truly mastered by Norwegians, young Kris
Freeman had some pretty good finishes in World Cup competition last year.

But in Skating competition the USA team has not closed the gap against the
best in the world. How can we be so sure that part of the gap is not due
to superior new skating techniques by some of the Euro teams, techniques
which we have not yet understood -- or perhaps have not yet even detected?

Ken
_________________________________
wrote in message
ups.com...
From http://www.jacksonxc.org/Events/Mastersclinic05.html (staff
description for Master Skiing seminar):

"Rob Bradlee is an experienced racer and coach who has been skiing for
over 30 years. He has studied with the best American coaches and knows
the latest technical details of correct skiing form."

In this tread, Rob says: " 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..."

From http://www.nsavage.com/services/resume_sports.html (Nathan
Schultz's resume):

"1996-present Fischer Factory Team (Skiing) "

Nathan says: " wholeheartedly agree that classical is much more
difficult to master
than skating. The subtleties involved in lining everything up properly
and timing the kick correctly take a lot of time to figure out. While
skating may have more 3-dimensional movement, the movement required to
"master" the technique and move efficiently and effectively is not
nearly as precise as the techniques required to move effectively with
classical technique."

In rubuttal, Ken said "My definition of "mastery" of technique
coordination for racing is like (A) "percentage of speed that could be
attained by a perfectly optimally programmed humanoid robot with the
same mass distribution and the same power-force-speed characteristics
of its motor-actuators"....(going on to discuss another possible
criterion, which I din't really understand). .... ..."So claim of
easy "mastery" of skating might be based on ignorance of what is really
possible."

I'm goin' with ......hmmm..... can't really figure out who to believe!
8-). IGNORANCE of what is really possible??? Nathan Schultz and Rob
Bradlee (and others' who's resumes probably aren't as stellar)???
Someone's probably a little embarrassed at this point, I would think...
I'll jes' haveta go with my own 25+ years of skiing (incl 10+ on skate
skiis). Striding tougher to figure out, period. Skating great too, but
not technically as tough. -zeke

Erik Brooks wrote
If you look at the results in World Masters, the US skiers
do rather well in skating, and success in classic is lots tougher.

My interpretation of such World Masters results is this: Each country's
serious Masters racers train first for their own big prestigious national
loppets. In many of the European countries the big loppet is Classic,
notably Norway and Sweden. When I skied in Sweden, I was astonished at the
high percentage of athletic adults skiing Classic on gentle trails
beautifully groomed for skating. Also Norway has accessible ungroomed
non-steep snow which seldom gets a good crust for skating; and around Geilo
I remember finding some trails that were groomed narrow for Classic only --
nearly unheard of in USA.

But in France the big Transjurassienne loppet is Freestyle, and it is my
observation from trips to the Alps that 90% of the athletic skiers at Les
Saisies and Autrans and La Feclaz are skating. In USA the majority of the
big loppets are Freestyle -- and on most days I see the athletic skiers
mostly skating.

Conclusion: the (non-French) Euro Masters skiers are better at Classic
because they practice it lots more.

But let's also look at the main World Cup and Olympic competitions: I think
actually the very _best_ results by North Americans have been in events that
included Classic. Kris Freeman and Becky Scott.

Pick an [American citizen-level] classic race, and
I think you'd still find a wider spread [than in an American skating race]

My explanation for that is:
(1) less-athletic skiers refuse to enter skating events, especially longer
events or hillier courses. Because they're afraid they won't finish at all,
or that they'll struggle on the hills and then be thrashed for the rest of
the race. Therefore skate races are self-selected for a tighter spread,
because they've largely eliminated the lower quartile before the race
started.

(2) instruction in North America for what techniques really work for Classic
racing is very uneven. I say that based on my personal experience at two
camps with national-level instructors. The instructors probably had decent
Classic technique in their own skiing, but could not make explicit what they
were doing so that me and others could learn it.

My belief is that only a small percentage of USA skiers know and practice
all the moves that make for effective grip. It's so bad that when one
national-level coach explained one of the basic moves for grip in a public
technique article in the last couple of years, another nationally-known
coach immediately disagreed with him publicly. And there's still lots of
local coaches teaching the overall-ineffective "stomp" move. No wonder North
American skiers are confused.

Your interpretation is that a few skiers have advanced their Classic
technique to an amazing level of mysterious mastery. My interpretation is
that only a few North American skiers have really learned all the _basics_
of sound Classic striding. Unfortunately for prospects of me improving my
finish-standing in the only major Classic loppet anywhere close, the long
tradition of sound New England classic-technique coaching is still
widespread enough to deliver a significant number of well-trained Classic
skiers to Craftsbury VT each year.

(3) how to train effectively for Classic racing is not well known in USA.
And even if you know it, the off-snow parts (think lots and lots of
double-poling on rollerskis) are less fun than some of the ones with
substantial payback for skating performance. Therefore the very few who know
and care enough about the best training mix for Classic have a big
advantage.

Seattle
29 to 31F, 90 percent of the time.

I was born in Seattle, and I've skied a lot in the Cascades. But mostly on
steep mountains, using climbing skins for grip. None of my Seattle ski
partners skis Classic in groomed tracks, but a couple of them like to skate.

Practice drill that helped me to learn Classic technique: Tried to ski up to
Thompson Pass near Mazama at temperature 31-33F in bright sunshine with no
klister and no poling.

Ken
_______________________________________
"Erik Brooks" wrote in message
news:001801c4ed54$1f357790$0a0110ac@Merlin...

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Roberts"
To: "Multiple recipients of list NORDIC-SKI"

Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2004 4:30 PM
Subject: Skating Elitism.


Rob Bradlee wrote
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...

I think this debate depends on the definition of the word "mastery".

My definition of "mastery" of technique coordination for racing is
like (A)
"percentage of speed that could be attained by a perfectly optimally
programmed humanoid robot with the same mass distribution and the
same
power-force-speed characteristics of its motor-actuators".

I think the other definition of mastery is like (B) "performance
feels fully
under control and I'm not aware of anything I could do differently
that
would make it better".

By the other definition of mastery B, Classic striding feels
un-mastered
because you feel a slight slipping in the grip, or like you have to
hold
back a little in your kick in order to avoid having grip slipping --
and you
can _feel_ that deficiency. Or in the glide phase you can feel like
the ski
isn't holding its speed as well as it could.

But it might be that a perfectly optimized-coordination robot would
experience exactly the same compromises -- because physics says
that's what
Classic striding performance _is_ : a big compromise. So you might
_feel_
dissatisfied and unmasterly, even though your performance was at 99%
of an
optimally-coordinated humanoid robot.



lots of good stuff snipped here..

Ken,

I think that what you said in this post made good sense to me, and
yet....

Like many others, I've 'chased after the grail' of mastery in skating
and classic, as a citizen racer and just as someone that loves the
feel of skiing. I feel that my skating is pretty solid, and my classic
leaves much room for improvement. One metric of success that I watch
is my percentage slower than the winner of races that I do.

I don't recall the numbers at the moment ( no real snow here! :-(, and
no races. ), but my skating numbers are very consistent relative to
the best, and not that far behind. But in classic it varies, and there
are a few guys that just blow me away. And not only me. We have a few
locals that are really good at classic, and the large majority of
those locals actually grew up in one of the Scandinavian countries.
There aren't any skaters that blow away the field like that. If you
look at the results in World Masters, the US skiers do rather well in
skating, and success in classic is lots tougher. Another way to look
at it would be to compare the spread between the winner and say, 10th
place in a skating vs classic race. Pick a classic race with easy
kick waxing, and I think you'd still find a wider spread.

So count my among those that continue to believe that classic is lots
tougher to master.

I've felt the magic of classic at times, and it is enough to keep me
chasing after it again. I sure live in the wrong place for it tho -
29 to 31F, 90+ percent of the time.

Erik Brooks,
Seattle, where we are off to our worst start to winter in some time -
:-(
____________________________________________