Explanation of "Levels"

"Chris" wrote in message
...
Well I'm getting back into skiing, I stopped back in about 1993, after
having been doing it for about 10 years. Wow! What a suprise! All the skis
are shaped now, the bidings are more reliable, and there are snowboarders
everywhere.

Anyway, back in the day I was aware of 3 types of skiiers. Type 1-3. Now,
however, I hear everybody saying 'level' or 'class' then a number 1-10.
How
does this break down? (aka what's a level 1, 2, 3, 4, etc...)

I tried some shaped skis last year, and I must say, a pair of 167s shaped
is
much different than my old 210 straight sticks! I kinda miss my old
sticks.
But I picked up a pair of Rossi cobra sx's to try this year...not the
Volkols I wanted, but the price was good.

Anyway how 'bout it with the level 1 2 3 4..?

There are inherent problems with the "levels thing". The biggest
one is, the biggest part of the levels list is taken up by what will
(hopefully) happen in the first three or four days of the student's
skiing life. There is a *huge* gap between beginner/novice, and
capable parallel skier according to this list, as in some cases there
is also a gap in many typical instruction progressions. The other
problem is that it gives no indication of how the student does
what he or she does, or why they do or don't ski as they wish
they could.

There are but a few elements of the mechanics of skiing, and a
better way to approach things is for the student or instructor to
evaluate which of those elements the student has or does not
have command of.

If the student "owns" at least to some extent, body position,
crossover, weight distribution, angulation, steering, rotation and
counter rotation, flexion and extension, and perhaps another
item or two that you could name, that student is an advanced
skier, ready to enter the realm of expert skiing.

Learning these elements and using them is not a difficult thing.
It's in the blending of them that an expert is set apart from an
intermediate skier.

The purpose of the the levels, and descriptions, is so the students can walk
in and say, "I'm level 4," and get put in the right class. I suppose you
could ask the students, "Do you own extension?" but you might get more than
a few glassy stares. You could also spend lots of time with the instructor
devoting individual attention to each student, and sorting them ... though,
if that's your plan, I think you ultimately want just to say, "Sorry,
private lessons only; we don't do classes."

lal_truckee wrote:

sjjohnston wrote:
If you're skiing somewhere where there's not a sizable percentage of people
who at least "are comfortable on blue/black runs and can ski in the
fall line on easy moguls," you need to get to a different ski area.

Maybe I mis-read the meaning of "comfortable?" as used in my on-line
reference? http://www.amenta.com/ski/skiknow.htm#8 I take
"comfortable" to mean skiing with elan, with panache ...

I hear (and see) people who take it to mean "I can get down that without
panic." I differ.

I consider (for example) Blue Ox and Highline at Vail (you know - those
intermediate runs Vail lets bump up and then labels double diamond?) to
be representative of those referenced "easier moguls" that proverbial
level 8 is supposed to be comfortable skiing. I just don't see that many
people who truly are "comfortable' skiing even these runs.
[Aside: Whoopee - I knew skiing that dump a few times would pay off
someday - let's me reference something lots of folks can relate with!]


I was responding to the notion (correct, I think) that the sample level
description make a whole series of fairly fine distincitions between level
1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7, and then 8 and 9 cover a huge range of abilities.

Two comments - the levels ARE intended to make distinction between
closely related skill sets; AND it's easy to forget that when learning
to ski going from a stem christie to a parallel turn is a significant
and difficult skill to master - after mastery it may seem like a trivial
step - but it wasn't - for the beginner, the levels represent real and
significant achievement.

But we probably agree more than disagree. Have another beer. You too, Walt.

I agree with this post.

--
//-Walt
//
// http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/040514/matson.gif

"foot2foot" wrote in message ...
"Chris" wrote in message
...
Well I'm getting back into skiing, I stopped back in about 1993, after
having been doing it for about 10 years. Wow! What a suprise! All the skis
are shaped now, the bidings are more reliable, and there are snowboarders
everywhere.

Anyway, back in the day I was aware of 3 types of skiiers. Type 1-3. Now,
however, I hear everybody saying 'level' or 'class' then a number 1-10.
How
does this break down? (aka what's a level 1, 2, 3, 4, etc...)

I tried some shaped skis last year, and I must say, a pair of 167s shaped
is
much different than my old 210 straight sticks! I kinda miss my old
sticks.
But I picked up a pair of Rossi cobra sx's to try this year...not the
Volkols I wanted, but the price was good.

Anyway how 'bout it with the level 1 2 3 4..?

There are inherent problems with the "levels thing". The biggest
one is, the biggest part of the levels list is taken up by what will
(hopefully) happen in the first three or four days of the student's
skiing life. There is a *huge* gap between beginner/novice, and
capable parallel skier according to this list, as in some cases there
is also a gap in many typical instruction progressions. The other
problem is that it gives no indication of how the student does
what he or she does, or why they do or don't ski as they wish
they could.

There are but a few elements of the mechanics of skiing, and a
better way to approach things is for the student or instructor to
evaluate which of those elements the student has or does not
have command of.

If the student "owns" at least to some extent, body position,
crossover, weight distribution, angulation, steering, rotation and
counter rotation, flexion and extension, and perhaps another
item or two that you could name, that student is an advanced
skier, ready to enter the realm of expert skiing.

Learning these elements and using them is not a difficult thing.
It's in the blending of them that an expert is set apart from an
intermediate skier.

Actually, there are just 2 'levels' of skiers:
1) those that catagorize skiers into levels
2) those that don't

The first type spends all their time analyzing and catagorizing, the
second type just goes out and has fun.

;-)

Armin

Armin wrote:

Actually, there are just 2 'levels' of skiers:
1) those that catagorize skiers into levels
2) those that don't

The first type spends all their time analyzing and catagorizing, the
second type just goes out and has fun.

Actually, there are three kinds of skiers. Those who are good at math,
and those who aren't.

--
//-Walt
//
// http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/040514/matson.gif

Actually, there are three kinds of skiers. Those who are good at math,
and those who aren't.

And there are 10 kinds of people. Those who know binary and those who
don't.

( Does that make this a binary post? )





.................................................. ...............
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
at http://www.TitanNews.com
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

"Armin" wrote in message
om...
Actually, there are just 2 'levels' of skiers:
1) those that catagorize skiers into levels
2) those that don't
The first type spends all their time analyzing and catagorizing, the
second type just goes out and has fun.

;-)

Armin

Hmm, so, it's fun to jump into a pair of skis and boots and get
right out on the slopes and end up breaking your leg because you
don't have a *clue* how to turn them?

Or, it's fun to be locked into a basic, incapable level of skiing
because nobody ever showed you about rotation and counter
rotation? Or it's fun to fall now and then and never understand
why, because nobody ever pointed out to you that you're
getting caught up on the inside ski? Nobody ever explained
crossover and weight distribution to you.

I'm in it to help people with their skiing. I'm in it to help them
to have *more* fun than their having now.

Sure, just go out and have fun.

"sjjohnston" wrote in message
...
The purpose of the the levels, and descriptions, is so the students can
walk
in and say, "I'm level 4," and get put in the right class.

Which never really happens anyway.

I suppose you
could ask the students, "Do you own extension?" but you might get more
than
a few glassy stares.

Then, clearly, and simply, it becomes apparent they don't. Guess
we better work on that eh? But if you're going to extend you'll
have to flex as well. So, you tell them what flexion and
extension are, (simple) what you can use them for (simple), then
you show them to the students, and then we all go out and do it.
After this lesson they have something they can work on in their
own time. And they have a framework for understanding and
practicing it.

You could also spend lots of time with the instructor
devoting individual attention to each student, and sorting them ...
though,
if that's your plan, I think you ultimately want just to say, "Sorry,
private lessons only; we don't do classes."

If you have a group of students, you need to size them up, and
figure out what you can work on that will do the most for all of
them, and you don't need to limit it to one thing.

Besides that, I spend individual time with each student every
lesson I give, although I don't do too many groups anymore.

The system of elements of the mechanics of skiing, (please,
there are only seven, and perhaps a couple more, any *fool*
can deal with this many concepts/skills over a career of skiing)
gives a skier a concrete, real, simple framework to use to learn,
to fully understand, and to improve.

The mechanics of skiing are real, not just somebody's idea.

The problem today is, instructors make it *too* complicated,
and too mysterious. The elements are simple, and anyone can
make use of them. The skier has a right to *understand* how
skiing works. And most all want to. There are some, very few
that don't, and they can only improve by trial and error and
pure luck. There *needs* to be a simpler and more universal
system of teaching and evaluation skiers.

Joel wrote:

Actually, there are three kinds of skiers. Those who are good at math,
and those who aren't.

And there are 10 kinds of people. Those who know binary and those who
don't.

Sorry. I meant to say there were 11 kinds of skiers.

--
// Walt
//
// There is no Volkl Conspiracy

foot2foot wrote:
"Armin" wrote in message
om...
Actually, there are just 2 'levels' of skiers:
1) those that catagorize skiers into levels
2) those that don't
The first type spends all their time analyzing and catagorizing, the
second type just goes out and has fun.

;-)

Armin

Hmm, so, it's fun to jump into a pair of skis and boots and get
right out on the slopes and end up breaking your leg because you
don't have a *clue* how to turn them?

Except for the "breaking your leg" part it's exactly how I, and most of my
cohorts, learned how to ski. And we had a *lot* of fun, right from the first
run.

Or, it's fun to be locked into a basic, incapable level of skiing
because nobody ever showed you about rotation and counter
rotation? Or it's fun to fall now and then and never understand
why, because nobody ever pointed out to you that you're
getting caught up on the inside ski? Nobody ever explained
crossover and weight distribution to you.

Funny, I know numerous people who have never taken a single lesson who are
*expert* skiers. Must be magic, eh?

I'm in it to help people with their skiing. I'm in it to help them
to have *more* fun than their having now.

And that's very nice of you, honestly... but you need to get a sense of
humour, learn to be a little less, um.... verbose, and remember that most
things are better in moderation (including ski instruction).

Sure, just go out and have fun.

Thanks for giving me permission for doing what I have been doing for 44
years. I now feel so fulfilled and validated. ;-)
Hey, F2F, here is some advice for you: Don't forget to smile and have fun
when you hit the slopes.

Cheers,
Armin