A Snow and ski forum. SkiBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » SkiBanter forum » Skiing Newsgroups » Nordic Skiing
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Wisconsin theory of skating (was forward-step move in skating)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old July 11th 03, 04:22 PM
Gene Goldenfeld
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wisconsin theory of skating (was forward-step move in skating)

I don't have time to look up articles, but part of the confusion seems to
stem from the fact that it was "new" to some, but not all, in the US. And
since the 'some' that didn't find it new were watching Europeans, hence
their strong reaction. A reaction which, it appears to me, was rubbed a
bit raw by the fact that the 'new skate' was being marketed by an
organization in for-profit clinics (however modest the profit). More to
the confusion, as I recall (vague memory) the original article(s) (by Pete
V?) found support for the 'new skate' in a late 1990s study by Norwegian
coaches that compared the Italians and Norwegian style of V-1, rather than
in what Alsgaard (and others before him?) had been doing for years. Had
the latter been emphasized -- "hey, Americans, we need to catch up here" --
I suspect the reaction would not have been nearly as sharp as it was.
(Sometime I'm going to look again at T. Mogren's Gunde Swan's skating to
see how they were pushing off.)

I first learned skating in 1995 at W. Yellowstone and, to the degree that
as an absolute skiing novice just coming off a knee operation I actually
learned anything, it was hanging on the pole and such, rather than the
emphasis on leg compression that Kevin B teaches. Sometimes when Kevin
wants to correct someone (an adult), he'll soften the comment by mentioning
that they are doing it the way he and others used to teach several years
ago.

Gene


Nathan Schultz wrote:

Gene,

I agree with you that it is a dumb name. I've always called it the "new
skate" but immediately explained that it is not really new. Unfortunately,
due to lack of better nomenclature, people understand what "new skate"
describes, but not what the "push with your legs, lean forward at the
ankles" skate is. That's why I generally use quotation marks around "new
skate".

You would be surprised at how many people out there are still skating
old school. It is still very new as far as most of the ski community is
concerned, although it is finally starting to sink in and be a generally
accepted idea.

-Nathan

Ads
  #12  
Old July 11th 03, 04:27 PM
Gene Goldenfeld
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wisconsin theory of skating (was forward-step move in skating)

Nathan,
Question: Push *off* the legs? As I understand what Kevin B's been
telling us, initially the push is compression *into* the upper legs and
then ends with "off," skiing going to the side and forward.

Gene


Nathan Schultz wrote:

Jim,

Welcome to the "new skate". Make sure you continue working on getting a
big push off of those legs, even with the increased tempo. Begin pushing
off those legs as soon as they touch the ground and keep pushing throughout
the entire stroke. It takes a while to build the necessary strength, but
when you pull everything together, those locals will have to watch out for
you uphill....

-Nathan

  #13  
Old July 11th 03, 08:12 PM
Gene Goldenfeld
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wisconsin theory of skating (was forward-step move in skating)

Let's try that again, maybe a little more clearly:

On the face of it, it appears that part of the confusion and contention
about the 'new skate' has stemed from the fact that it was "new" to some,
but not to all, in the US. And, since that 'some' which didn't find it new
were often experienced coaches who were already watching Europeans skate,
they didn't react well to this 'new' technique idea. The reaction may also
have been accentuated by the fact that the 'new skate' was being marketed
for traveling clinics (however modest the profit). Perhaps also adding to
the confusion, I seem to recall (vague memory) that one of the original
articles for the 'new skate' based itself on a late 1990s study by
Norwegian coaches that compared the Italians and Norwegian style of V-1.
Had the focus been more on what Alsgaard (and others before him?) had been
doing for years -- "hey, Americans, we need to join the world" -- perhaps
the reaction would have been very different than it was. (Sometime I'm
going to look again at videos of Torgny Mogren and Gunde Svan to see how
they were pushing off.)

My first time skating and skating lessons were in 1995 at W. Yellowstone.
To the degree that as an absolute novice just coming off a knee operation I
actually learned anything, it was hanging on the pole and such, rather than
the emphasis on leg compression that Kevin B. teaches. Sometimes when Kevin
wants to correct someone (an adult), he'll soften the comment by mentioning
that they are doing it the way he and others used to teach several years
ago.

Gene


Nathan Schultz wrote:

Gene,

I agree with you that it is a dumb name. I've always called it the "new
skate" but immediately explained that it is not really new. Unfortunately,
due to lack of better nomenclature, people understand what "new skate"
describes, but not what the "push with your legs, lean forward at the
ankles" skate is. That's why I generally use quotation marks around "new
skate".

You would be surprised at how many people out there are still skating
old school. It is still very new as far as most of the ski community is
concerned, although it is finally starting to sink in and be a generally
accepted idea.

-Nathan

  #14  
Old July 12th 03, 02:50 PM
Philip Nelson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wisconsin theory of skating (was forward-step move in skating)

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 18:55:57 +0000, Nathan Schultz wrote:

Rob, yes you did say that, and quite well.

One of the most interesting things I noted from attending the
Coaching
Symposium that started this thread was that there are a lot coaches out
there who do not have a very good handle on technique. Probably 10-20%
of the coaches there knew and could understand high-level technique
discussions, 40% had a grasp of intermediate technique principles, and
the remainder had little concept of even basic concepts.


In my experience, most coaches focus mostly on training rather than
technique. Then each coach has his own basic understanding about how
skiing works and her own understanding of the techniques to practice
accompanied by the coaches own unique vocabulary. Ugh.

Trond and Pete did a great job integrating everyone and
disseminating a
lot of knowledge, from basic to advanced. Obviously it has already had
an effect, as Jim's experience shows. Yes, it is true that not everyone
agrees on every point of technique and training, but what I learned from
the weekend was that we (as a country) need to place much more
importance on coaches' education and make information accessible to
coaches, clubs and skiers around the country. We're not necessarily
going to agree about everything, but at least we can develop a framework
for basic coaching skills, which is not currently in place.


A shared vocabulary would be a start and basic requirement. Better would
be a basic agreement on how skiing actually works, which was the reason
for this marathon thread. With an shared understanding of how skiing
works and a shared vocabulary, there is plenty of room for coaches to have
individual drills, emphasis on different techniques and even different
styles.

In architecture, and now in software development, the idea of putting a
label on a concept that all agree to call by name has had tremendous
impact. These labels are called patterns and there is tons of information
out there on the web if you are interested. But the basic idea is that to
promote the diffusion of fairly complicated ideas you have to have a
limited shared vocabulary of patterns that are shorthand for both the
simple and complex things you do. Then, newbies can learn that vocabulary
and concentrate on how to excecute the concepts rather than just make
sense of twenty different coaches who kinda,sorta mean the same thing with
different words.

It would probably require a book by a respected coach to make it happen.


Ken's thread about disagreement being fun seems to me to miss Rob's
point. I know we all have different goals and motivations for being XC
ski nerds, but I (and I think Rob) see the big picture of becoming
better skiers as the key to enjoying the sport.


Yes, arguing loudly to promote a point of view is fun, and also
educational because you have to have your arguments in a clear form to
make any progress at all.

Rob's frustration is not due to him "trying to take the fun out of it",
but being tired of watching people wasting time arguing about things
that become self-evident with a little coaching.


What was the thread called? A link maybe?
  #15  
Old July 12th 03, 03:12 PM
Philip Nelson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wisconsin theory of skating (was forward-step move in skating)


When I say vertical, I mean vertical as measured against the fall line,
which varies with terrain, but is never straight up and down.


Then you better explain what _you_ mean by "fall line" and how you
expect everybody else to "measure against it". And then you could
explain why it's worth it for the rest of us to take the time to _learn_
how to analyze skating in terms of "fall line".


This idea, though possibly not the term, comes from Antonina Anikin, via
a coach friend who has been attending her classes. It certainly isn't new
and isn't my idea. The term is ancient in downhill skiing, though it
doesn't mean the same thing.

Since you didn't quote any of the text about the dowel balancing on your
palm, I have to think it didn't make any sense. Unless I get *really*
ambititious and find a way to annotate mpegs to show the lines I'm talking
about, I'm not sure how to explain it better. Too bad, I thought the dowel
explanation was kind of clever ;-) The line the dowel makes at
equilibrium would be described as the fall line.

I see that later in the this thread, you mention your uphill technique,
cadence and staying relaxed. The thing that helped me the most was the
idea that as long as I keep my mass ahead of the fall line, meaning I have
to move my skis under me to avoid falling on my face, the proper cadence
comes pretty naturally. If you step too far up the hill, your body can
actually kind of lean back as you straighten that leg, forcing you to use
your poles more and also slowing you down. If you don't step
far enough, you don't move past the fall line enough to move much. Your
actual cadence is determined by how fast your mass is moving and how steep
the hill is.
  #16  
Old July 14th 03, 10:23 PM
Nathan Schultz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wisconsin theory of skating (was forward-step move in skating)

Hi Ken,

I hope I didn't make you feel like I was attacking what you were saying.
I totally agree with you that it is a messed up situation and that we need
better coaching. I wasn't trying to muzzle the discussion of technique or
ideas. I was trying to point out that there is a point of becoming
superanalytical where we lose sight of what is important.

As someone who is coaching, it is frustrating to see people "wasting
time" trying to figure out things that should be easily corrected by
coaching. It is criminal that with all of the skiers we have here (I'm
being provincial, meaning here in the US), that we have so few good coaches
and that so few coaches seem to care to educate themselves and be open to
other ideas. Every club in the country should be able to find a decent
coach that has the technical knowledge to explain these things quickly.

Unfortunately, we've developed a system of turf wars where we have
perhaps too many coaches and too small of a market and so some coaches feel
threatened by others' ideas. Instead of cooperating and collaborating,
they're busy cutting each other down so as to sell more books or attract
more athletes. I don't know what the answer is. Maybe Rob and I should
start an on-line idea police business where we give advice on to which
coaches people should listen.

Whatever it is, if you want to gain technical knowledge quickly, find a
coach or two that you like and can trust, learn from them, and you will do
1000 times better than if you pore over the Master Skier every month and try
to figure out everything from reading.

-Nathan
http://nsavage.com


"Ken Roberts" wrote in message
...
I'm actually a big believer in live personal coaching, and I've gotten
tremendous benefit from it, and I want more of it.

Rob Bradlee wrote:
This newsgroup has long discussions about
things that would made moot by five minutes of live coaching.


Yes, but live coaching from _which_ coach?

Nathan Schultz wrote:
there are a lot coaches out there who do
not have a very good handle on technique.


That sure fits my experience, and several other people's too.

Rob and Nathan already "know" which coaches are right. The rest of us
don't.

We still have to deal with eloquent articles by respectable coaches in XC
ski magazines teaching that old coaching lore -- and claiming to support
their old concepts from current World Cup videos.

We still have local coaches saying "those new skate concepts may be right
for national collegiate champions, but I know what really works in

practice
for masters citizen skiers." And those old-lore coaches are pretty good

at
giving live personal tips that _feel_ like they work to lots of citizen
skiers.

So how are the rest of us going to _decide_ which coach to put our faith

in?

I don't see much alternative to presenting the diversity of things we're
hearing and reading and trying -- and debating about them.

And even if you find the "right" experts, what do you do when they

disagree?
My live personal instructor of my breakthrough "new skate" lesson at a
leading ski-skating center tells me that the "forward-step" move is
important for me to practice. A week later an expert on this newsgroup
tells me "forward-step" is outmoded. Is there some official tribunal I
should have gone to for a tie-breaker?

Ken




  #17  
Old July 15th 03, 01:43 AM
Rob Bradlee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wisconsin theory of skating (was forward-step move in skating)


Maybe Rob and I should
start an on-line idea police business where we give
advice on to which
coaches people should listen.


I'm in! Although I don't think the market of skiers
seeking coaching is very big.

Whatever it is, if you want to gain technical
knowledge quickly, find a
coach or two that you like and can trust, learn from
them, and you will do
1000 times better than if you pore over the Master
Skier every month and try
to figure out everything from reading.


Right on.

Rob Bradlee


=====
Rob Bradlee
Java, C++, Perl, XML, OOAD, Linux, and Unix Training




  #18  
Old July 15th 03, 03:21 AM
Mitch Collinsworth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wisconsin theory of skating (was forward-step move in skating)


On Thu, 10 Jul 2003, Rob Bradlee wrote:

Didn't I explain all this last winter in this
newsgroup? This demonstrates that everyone needs a
coach to show them this and get them to FEEL it.
Reading the internet and teaching yourself doesn't
work.


Funny. The same point keeps getting repeated over and over
again on the trumpet players list. :-)

-Mitch




  #19  
Old July 15th 03, 03:32 AM
Mitch Collinsworth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wisconsin theory of skating (was forward-step move in skating)


On Thu, 10 Jul 2003, Nathan Schultz wrote:

That is hilarious. Dale Niggeman credited with the "new skate". You do
not know how happy that makes me. I am laughing hysterically. That is
perhaps the funniest thing I have heard in a long time.

Thomas Alsgaard was doing this in 1994. By Dale's own admission on his
web site, he figured it out by watching World Cup skiers. There aren't any
dates on his web site, but from looking around, it looks like he wrote all
of it around 1999, several years after several people in the US were trying
to spread the word about this "new" technique meeting huge resistance,
mostly from the recreational racing community.


Maybe I'm not understanding correctly what is meant by "new skate",
but it sure sounds to me like a technique that was first introduced
to me by biathletes, who favored it because their gun didn't bounce
around on their back so much on the uphills. This was before
Alsgaard started making headlines with his unusual technique.

-Mitch




  #20  
Old July 23rd 03, 12:17 PM
Ken Roberts
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wisconsin theory of skating (was forward-step move in skating)

Yes, live coaching is valuable. I've been away from this newsgroup while
trying out as a bicycle coach.

. . . lose sight of what is important.


Yes, I've been trying get them to learn key things like applying force
through the whole stroke cycle, and finding their lactate threshold. But so
far I've been failing:
http://www.roberts-1.com/t/b03/v
I guess I just don't have that special coaching "leadership" focus . . . or
something.

Unfortunately, we've developed a system of turf wars . . .
Instead of coaches cooperating and collaborating,
they're busy cutting each other down so as to sell
more books or attract more athletes.


"normal human society", is my term for this sort of behavior.

Providing coaching services is a competitive social status game. Some might
say: more interesting than the one-dimensional-racing game. Others might
say: a game which at least one "new skate" advocate has pursued with full
vigor.

One thing I've seen in other kinds of skiing that helps contain the
confusion: Somebody writes a really good _book_.

Like in the U.S. telemarking scene, Paul Parker wrote the definitive book.
And soon it was widely recognized as definitive -- even though telemark ski
technique is rather tricky to learn. I don't think the book made very many
people think telemark turns could be learned without taking lessons. But at
least that book helped educate the _instructors_ -- a function that may be
trickier than some people think, judging by my limited live experience with
officially-labeled "new skate" coaches so far.

Just look at the books in any XC ski catalog or shopping website -- It's not
hard to see why there's confusion about skating technique in the U.S.
community. Where is there a single book that clearly explains the new
skating ideas?

As someone who is coaching, it is frustrating to see
people "wasting time" trying to figure out things that
should be easily corrected by coaching.


There's no doubt that doing live coaching is quicker and easier and
rewarding (even as an amateur, see above). There's no doubt that writing
and drawing good diagrams is harder and slower -- and re-writing and dealing
with publishing. So it's very understandable that "new skate" coaches have
been putting off writing the definitive book that would provide both broad
context and focus on what's important.

The result is this: Other instructors may be stuck on old ideas, but at
least they've done the _hard_work_ of expressing them clearly in a
publicly-available format.

Until that "book" gap gets filled, don't be surprised to see amateurs like
me stepping into it -- and sometimes adding to the confusion because Yes, we
haven't figured out which things are important yet.

Ken


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:47 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SkiBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.