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 » Alpine Skiing
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

To pole or not to pole



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 15th 05, 06:11 PM
yunlong
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default To pole or not to pole

Had a really nice couple-students the last couple of weeks. They said
they were one time Heavenly group lesson skiers and they didn't really
learn anything, and they wanted to learn skiing. Determined they were,
they showed up with brand new skiing outfits, clothes, boots, skis,
even to the new detachable wrist strap for their fancy poles. Yeah
right, I thought.

I gave them, a young couple, four lessons (2 each week): 1) to ride the
chair-lifts, 2) snowplow--wedge turn, 3) christie turn, 4) parallel
turn.

In the first lesson, I needed to know how much they did know, so I
asked them to show me how to stop, they barely made it. For too much
work to walk up the hill to practice that, I suggested we rode the
chair up, the lady wouldn't go because she has never ridden one. I
persuaded and took them up, they both fell on unload. Nevertheless, I
showed them how to control the speed and how to stop and a little bit
of turns, and they learned how to ski down the bunny hill. For the
first day, they were happy, so they scheduled a lesson the next day.

The second day they showed up dragging, because the fatigues
accumulated the day before. I took them to "higher" lift for I thought
that a longer run may give them better chance to pick up the rhythms of
skiing. But the idea of "higher" spooked the lady, she frozen on the
unload; I was holding her arm and thinking about supporting her as she
get out the chair, but she didn't get down the chair, and the chair
wrenched my wrist, yike. Anyway, they learned wedge turn and snowplow
skiing that day. They were happy and wanted other lesson, I told they
to go practice first.

A week later, they called me up wanted to go for the "blue" runs. When
I checked them out, they can snowplow quite fluently on the greens but
still catch the edge on the inside ski quite a bit. I didn't take them
to the blues but showed them the christie turn instead. They learned
christie turn that day, and scheduled the fourth lesson the next day.

In the fourth lesson I was going to teach them parallel turn, so I
showed them how to use poles to support their christie turn first. They
couldn't catch up the timing and did poorly in coordination. So I asked
them to give up the poles. The lady tried first and found it easier so
she persuaded her boyfriend to do the same. And at the end of the
lesson they both did parallel turn without using poles, though the man
still carrying the poles for his security crutch. I took them to the
top of Heavenly and they came down the Ridge (blue) like a seasoned
skier.

Come to think about it, in four lessons/days of skiing, they have
learned/accomplished more than what I did in four years on my own. To
pole or not to pole, is now the question.

Have funs,
IS

Ads
  #2  
Old January 15th 05, 08:34 PM
Jim Strohm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hm, you didn't say which trails you were using at Heavenly, but nearly
every hill has a "higher up" trail that's better for beginners than the
bunny slope at the base. Your decision to take them higher on the hill
was valid, assuming you'd scoped the day's trail conditions earlier.
Me, I've never had the time nor the inclination to explore Heavenly's
greens and learner slopes, because Sky lift almost always runs, and the
bowl below it is almost always open.

As far as poles? Teaching children to ski without poles seems to be the
rule, and not the exception, except when they're holding onto mommy's
poles and going out for a drag. Since kids are built so close to the
ground and their motor skills are less developed, poles can often be as
much a hindrance as a help. So teaching without poles is probably
better -- for small children.

Adults probably need to be taught skiing with the equipment as "all one
piece" -- i.e. in normal conditions you'll always have two skis and two
poles, and one body to use.

If you take a "first-ever" skiier and teach them to use their poles to
the utmost of their ability first, then they should be able to get the
bottom half of their body to follow their top half. Which means --
poles give balance, the focus for turns, and a good universal tool for
when you're not moving on your skis.

Until you learn to use your poles properly, you're going to have a
difficult time becoming a proficient skiier.

Here's an experiment you can try.

Get a four-legged stool. Set it on the floor. Shove it a few feet
along the floor. This is your skiier with both poles in active contact
with the snow.

Chop off one leg, and try the same things. This is your skiier with one
pole planted and the other pole searching for its next plant.

If you didn't kick the stool too hard, it stayed upright the whole time.

Now cut off the leg opposite the first one you cut off. Balance the
stool. Then shove it a few feet. I don't have to tell you what the
results will be.

This is your skiier who can't use their poles.

And -- don't spend more than 45 seconds teaching the snow plow to
grown-ups, unless you're buying lunch and it's gonna be "pizza, french
fries, pizza, french fries." Teach the parallel turn concept first, and
then the snowplow and wedge turns as "nice to know but you'll only use
them in the lift line."

Train for the ultimate goal, not the lesson plan objectives.

Jimintexus
  #3  
Old January 16th 05, 05:08 PM
yunlong
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jim Strohm wrote:
......

Adults probably need to be taught skiing with the equipment as "all

one
piece" -- i.e. in normal conditions you'll always have two skis and

two
poles, and one body to use.


Not really, one body and two skis will be sufficient.


If you take a "first-ever" skiier and teach them to use their poles

to
the utmost of their ability first, then they should be able to get

the
bottom half of their body to follow their top half.


So you haven't seen the beginners tangled up in their tangled poles and
skis, eh?

Which means --
poles give balance,


Not really, balance is held at the feet/skis, not at the poles,

the focus for turns,


and poling breaks the traction (so is the focus) of the turning force
and produces unstable turns.

and a good universal tool for
when you're not moving on your skis.


Ski like skate, no poles are needed.


Until you learn to use your poles properly, you're going to have a
difficult time becoming a proficient skiier.


Not really, the most proficient skiers I see are those ski patrollers
ski without poles.


Here's an experiment you can try.

Get a four-legged stool. Set it on the floor. Shove it a few feet
along the floor. This is your skiier with both poles in active

contact
with the snow.

Chop off one leg, and try the same things. This is your skiier with

one
pole planted and the other pole searching for its next plant.

If you didn't kick the stool too hard, it stayed upright the whole

time.

Now cut off the leg opposite the first one you cut off. Balance the
stool. Then shove it a few feet. I don't have to tell you what the
results will be.


What a tedious experiment, do you think that Mary needs to learn how to
use hacksaw to even do this experiment (and destroy a perfectly
functional stool)?

I had my students threw away their poles already.


This is your skiier who can't use their poles.

And -- don't spend more than 45 seconds teaching the snow plow to
grown-ups, unless you're buying lunch and it's gonna be "pizza,

french
fries, pizza, french fries." Teach the parallel turn concept first,

and
then the snowplow and wedge turns as "nice to know but you'll only

use
them in the lift line."


I don't get them into parallel turn until they have a solid fundation
on snowplow skiing.


Train for the ultimate goal, not the lesson plan objectives.

What is your/the ultimate goal [in skiing]?


IS


Jimintexus


  #4  
Old January 16th 05, 09:34 PM
Jim Strohm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

yunlong wrote:
Jim Strohm wrote:
.....

Adults probably need to be taught skiing with the equipment as "all one
piece" -- i.e. in normal conditions you'll always have two skis and two
poles, and one body to use.



Not really, one body and two skis will be sufficient.


I suppose you never learned the difference between "necessary" and
"sufficient" in your college philosophy classes.


If you take a "first-ever" skiier and teach them to use their poles to
the utmost of their ability first, then they should be able to get the
bottom half of their body to follow their top half.



So you haven't seen the beginners tangled up in their tangled poles and
skis, eh?


Sure I have, and most of their trouble seemed to stem from getting up on
the hill without any measureable skills with either skis or poles.

If you'd spend thirty minutes at the start of the class showing them how
to use their poles before giving them skis to get tangled up in, you'd
see a lot less pole / ski entanglements. They WILL get tangled in their
skis the instant they put them on. You should minimize the effect of
their poles contributing to that.

You should also minimize the detrimental effects of your students doing
the robot all over the hill. This is something that's easy to prevent
if they are just taught what to do with their poles. When they DON'T
know, they're just going to hold out their poles with their elbows
locked at 90 degrees. Because they don't know what else to do. "Domo
origato," as it were.

Which means --
poles give balance,



Not really, balance is held at the feet/skis, not at the poles,



That being the case, where would the skiier's center of gravity be? If
it's at their feet as you say, then skiiers would be able to lean as far
as they want in any direction without falling over, because "balance is
held at the feet/skis," as you put it.


the focus for turns,


and poling breaks the traction (so is the focus) of the turning force
and produces unstable turns.



I said focus, not pivot-point. I'm not sure whether beginning skiiers
would have the ability to do pole-plant turns. Certainly they should
not be on terrain steep enough to enable or require pole-plant turns.

Anyway, any turn that's not a pure carved turn will have some degree of
inherent instability because it's a skidded turn. And any turn made
tighter than the carving turn radius of the skis HAS to be skidded to
some degree to make the turn.

So you've got your students carving all their turns after just four
days? Intriguing.


and a good universal tool for
when you're not moving on your skis.


Ski like skate, no poles are needed.


Are you a skating teacher too? A lot of people come to the hill never
having learned to skate. If learning to skate comes with your ski
lessons, you should probably tout that benefit.


Until you learn to use your poles properly, you're going to have a
difficult time becoming a proficient skiier.



Not really, the most proficient skiers I see are those ski patrollers
ski without poles.


Read what I wrote -- "becoming a proficient skiier." Becoming. That's
YOUR business -- helping people become better, more proficient skiiers.

I'd like to hope that patrollers are already proficient enough skiiers
to be safe in what they do on the hill. And -- from what I've seen and
heard, being able to ski without poles -- for example, when sledding
somebody down -- is a job prerequisite, and not a sign of proficiency
under development.

Let's see, jumpers and freestylers ski without poles. Am I to
understand that your beginners exit four lessons with you, fully
qualified to join the ski patrol, jump a hundred meters, or throw a
triple back with five twists?

I'd like to see that.


Here's an experiment you can try.

Get a four-legged stool. Set it on the floor. Shove it a few feet
along the floor. This is your skiier with both poles in active


[snip]

Apparently those examples were completely lost on you. So it's not as
surprising to me that you're unwilling to question your obviously
superior talents as an instructor, and unable to consider any deviation
in your methodologies because you are already the perfect instructor
reciting from the perfect set of instruction guides.


What a tedious experiment, do you think that Mary needs to learn how to
use hacksaw to even do this experiment (and destroy a perfectly
functional stool)?

I had my students threw away their poles already.



So they could ski fine with their poles and then you took away their
poles? That's almost as bogus as saying "they could ski fine with their
eyes, so I blindfolded 'em."

But really -- did you ACTUALLY think anybody would be credulous enough
to cut a stool to pieces so they could learn to ski?? (Never mind that
they caused the death of many, many little baby polyesters to make their
skis....)


This is your skiier who can't use their poles.

And -- don't spend more than 45 seconds teaching the snow plow to
grown-ups, unless you're buying lunch and it's gonna be "pizza, french
fries, pizza, french fries." Teach the parallel turn concept first, and
then the snowplow and wedge turns as "nice to know but you'll only use
them in the lift line."



I don't get them into parallel turn until they have a solid fundation
on snowplow skiing.


Oh, so they can use the ski-through line at the lunch counter? "Pizza,
french fries, pizza, french fries, whoops caught an edge -- banana
split!" Oh wait, I forgot, they're already carving all their turns!


Train for the ultimate goal, not the lesson plan objectives.


What is your/the ultimate goal [in skiing]?



My ultimate goal is to ski comfortably and competently, anywhere I want
to. It will never include patrolling, instruction, or pro competetive
skiing. To reach my goal I've had to overcome some egregiously bad
instruction. After my last bout with an instructor -- a week of
half-day semi-private advanced intermediate, I asked him -- "So what are
we supposed to do with our poles?" He considered the question for a
moment, then said, "I confess -- I completely forgot to say anything
about that at all this week, and I should have." He then spent fifteen
minutes _discussing_ the hows and whys of poling. I took his knowledge
and applied it that very afternoon, and achieved some pretty good
results in some steep iced-over moguls which had been completely above
my ability just ten minutes before his talk.

He was a pretty good instructor, and I felt that, even though he'd left
out some obvious important points, I'd benefited immensely from his
work. I wonder what would have happened if he'd had that little talk
with us the first day, and had amplified on it during the week? I'm
thinking we all would have got more from the lessons. Also, I'm almost
positive that the student who broke two ribs from landing on his pole
the wrong way would not have sufffered that injury. Even I knew NOT to
plant my pole in the fall line in front of me, between two moguls.

Of course, that would never happen to any of your students, because you
had them all throw their poles away!

Jimintexus
  #5  
Old January 17th 05, 03:51 AM
yunlong
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Bob Lee wrote:
I feel like playing around with yunlong because he wrote:

Jim Strohm wrote:
[...]
Which means -- poles give balance,


Not really, balance is held at the feet/skis, not at the poles,


Couple of points. Balance is in the core - the abdomen and center of


gravity, not the feet.


The center of gravity is supported/held up by the feet.

Also, if poles don't help balance, why do
downhill racers carry them?


Security crutches, maybe.


and poling breaks the traction (so is the focus) of the
turning force and produces unstable turns.


Ex-****ing-scuse me?


You are "ex-****ing-scused," nevertheless, watch your foul-mouth
language.

Proper poling increases turn stability...


Not really, the pole-planting is to create an instability so the skier
can initiate the edge changing...

and the
first part of that sentence gets a bunny with a pancake on its head.



Not if you teach them stand properly on the skis.


Ski like skate, no poles are needed.


If you could skate in powder or crud, or on a slope over 40
degrees, then what you wrote might not be viewed as bull****.


I did, as flat-boarding.

But until then...


Let's hear it what skills you have to handle the "powder or crud, on a
slope over 40 degrees"? How to use poles?


Until you learn to use your poles properly, you're going
to have a difficult time becoming a proficient skiier.


Not really, the most proficient skiers I see are those ski
patrollers ski without poles.


I assume that's because you only ski on easier slopes.


You may assume, even self-deceiving.

If you'd ski
difficult terrain, you'll find the patrollers using poles -
unless they're carrying something or tieing rope.


Yup, "the most proficient skiers I see are those ski patrollers ski
without poles."


I had my students threw away their poles already.


But you have them pick them up at some point...


No, among hundreds students I taught, only one teenager would like to
keep his poles.

or do you only teach beginners?

So you think people ski without poles are beginners?


IS


Bob


  #6  
Old January 17th 05, 04:07 AM
yunlong
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jim Strohm wrote:
yunlong wrote:
Jim Strohm wrote:
.....

Adults probably need to be taught skiing with the equipment
as "all one piece" -- i.e. in normal conditions you'll
always have two skis and two poles, and one body to use.


Not really, one body and two skis will be sufficient.


I suppose you never learned the difference between "necessary"
and "sufficient" in your college philosophy classes.


I have, but like to hear what do you mean by them.


If you take a "first-ever" skiier and teach them to use their poles

to
the utmost of their ability first, then they should be able to get

the
bottom half of their body to follow their top half.



So you haven't seen the beginners tangled up in their tangled poles

and
skis, eh?


Sure I have, and most of their trouble seemed to stem from getting up

on
the hill without any measureable skills with either skis or poles.


Yup, most of their trouble is placing the pole in wrong places then
step/ski over; without poles saves them from get into the trouble in
the first place.


If you'd spend thirty minutes at the start of the class showing them

how
to use their poles before giving them skis to get tangled up in,

you'd
see a lot less pole / ski entanglements.


You even spend "thirty minutes" to explain how to use poles in a "two
hours" ski session?

They WILL get tangled in their
skis the instant they put them on. You should minimize the
effect of their poles contributing to that.


I rather spend "thirty minutes" to explain to them how to "stand" on
the skis properly, and they won't have ski-pole entanglements ever.


You should also minimize the detrimental effects of your students

doing
the robot all over the hill. This is something that's easy to

prevent
if they are just taught what to do with their poles. When they DON'T


know, they're just going to hold out their poles with their elbows
locked at 90 degrees. Because they don't know what else to do.

"Domo
origato," as it were.


Don't you realize if they don't have/use poles, all the problems you
mentioned above become non-existence?

BTW, what/how's the techniques to use poles again?


Which means --
poles give balance,



Not really, balance is held at the feet/skis, not at the poles,



That being the case, where would the skiier's center of gravity be?


Between the legs.


If it's at their feet as you say, then skiiers would be able to lean

as far
as they want in any direction without falling over, because "balance

is
held at the feet/skis," as you put it.


Not sure where do you get this reasoning, not that "lean" is a bad
habit in skiing, and every one knows if you "lean" to one side far
enough, your legs would not be able to hold on that structure and you'd
collapse.



the focus for turns,


and poling breaks the traction (so is the focus) of the turning

force
and produces unstable turns.



I said focus, not pivot-point.


When you body wobbles, so is your focus.

I'm not sure whether beginning skiiers
would have the ability to do pole-plant turns. Certainly they should


not be on terrain steep enough to enable or require pole-plant turns.


Why not, and when/where do you think that the beginners should practice
and learn the pole-plant turns?


Anyway, any turn that's not a pure carved turn will have some degree

of
inherent instability because it's a skidded turn.


Can't agree to that, instability is created because the wobbling of the
turning force, which is caused by uncoordinated body movements, and the
tracks of the skis are waving at the edge,

And any turn made
tighter than the carving turn radius of the skis HAS to be
skidded to some degree to make the turn.


and a good turning track shows a curved line with a smooth [inside]
edge.


So you've got your students carving all their turns after just
four days? Intriguing.


No, flat-boarding doesn't stress using edges, thus has no carved turns
in the conventional sense, but it does stress "tracking the line" (i.e.
ski a line like riding a roller-coaster), and "turn at will"
techniques/skills.



and a good universal tool for
when you're not moving on your skis.


Ski like skate, no poles are needed.


Are you a skating teacher too?


Yes, roller-blading.

A lot of people come to the hill never
having learned to skate. If learning to skate comes with your
ski lessons, you should probably tout that benefit.


When I just started to ski, on a chairlift an old-timer told me, "ski
is easy, just like skate, except you have a two meters blade of the ski
instead a foot blade for the skate"; I didn't know either ski or skate
then, but now I do, yes, ski like skate is a way to do it.

BTW, I do use the same way to ski and to skate.



Until you learn to use your poles properly, you're going to
have a difficult time becoming a proficient skiier.


Not really, the most proficient skiers I see are those ski
patrollers ski without poles.


Read what I wrote -- "becoming a proficient skiier." Becoming.

That's
YOUR business -- helping people become better, more proficient

skiiers.

Yes, that's what I do, "helping people become better, more proficient
skiers" by teaching them ski "without" poles.


I'd like to hope that patrollers are already proficient enough

skiiers
to be safe in what they do on the hill. And -- from what I've seen

and
heard, being able to ski without poles -- for example, when sledding
somebody down -- is a job prerequisite, and not a sign of proficiency


under development.

Let's see, jumpers and freestylers ski without poles. Am I to
understand that your beginners exit four lessons with you,
fully qualified to join the ski patrol, jump a hundred meters,
or throw a triple back with five twists?


I think that is too much an expectation for beginners with four
lessons.

The question remains, can you do all those you described above?


I'd like to see that.


Me too.



Here's an experiment you can try.

Get a four-legged stool. Set it on the floor. Shove it a few feet
along the floor. This is your skiier with both poles in active


[snip]

Apparently those examples were completely lost on you.
So it's not as
surprising to me that you're unwilling to question your obviously
superior talents as an instructor, and unable to consider any

deviation
in your methodologies because you are already the perfect instructor
reciting from the perfect set of instruction guides.


That was to say if you cannot develop a method to practice on the ski
slope, the method is not worth to talk about.


What a tedious experiment, do you think that Mary needs to learn

how to
use hacksaw to even do this experiment (and destroy a perfectly
functional stool)?

I had my students threw away their poles already.



So they could ski fine with their poles and then you took away their
poles? That's almost as bogus as saying "they could ski fine with

their
eyes, so I blindfolded 'em."


Not sure where do you get this idea, I suggest them to give up the
poles because "they couldn't catch up the timing and did poorly in
coordination."


But really -- did you ACTUALLY think anybody would be credulous

enough
to cut a stool to pieces so they could learn to ski?? (Never mind

that
they caused the death of many, many little baby polyesters to make

their
skis....)


That was a joke for your increditable example.


This is your skiier who can't use their poles.

And -- don't spend more than 45 seconds teaching the snow plow to
grown-ups, unless you're buying lunch and it's gonna be "pizza,

french
fries, pizza, french fries." Teach the parallel turn concept

first, and
then the snowplow and wedge turns as "nice to know but you'll only

use
them in the lift line."



I don't get them into parallel turn until they have a solid
foundation on snowplow skiing.


Oh, so they can use the ski-through line at the lunch counter?

"Pizza,
french fries, pizza, french fries, whoops caught an edge -- banana
split!" Oh wait, I forgot, they're already carving all their turns!


Maybe just you lose your marbles.



Train for the ultimate goal, not the lesson plan objectives.


What is your/the ultimate goal [in skiing]?



My ultimate goal is to ski comfortably and competently,
anywhere I want to.


Can you do it without poles?

It will never include patrolling, instruction, or pro competetive
skiing. To reach my goal I've had to overcome some egregiously bad
instruction. After my last bout with an instructor -- a week of
half-day semi-private advanced intermediate, I asked him -- "So what

are
we supposed to do with our poles?" He considered the question for a
moment, then said, "I confess -- I completely forgot to say anything
about that at all this week, and I should have." He then spent

fifteen
minutes _discussing_ the hows and whys of poling. I took his

knowledge
and applied it that very afternoon, and achieved some pretty good
results in some steep iced-over moguls which had been completely

above
my ability just ten minutes before his talk.

He was a pretty good instructor, and I felt that, even though he'd

left
out some obvious important points, I'd benefited immensely from his
work. I wonder what would have happened if he'd had that little talk


with us the first day, and had amplified on it during the week? I'm
thinking we all would have got more from the lessons. Also, I'm

almost
positive that the student who broke two ribs from landing on his pole


the wrong way would not have sufffered that injury. Even I knew NOT

to
plant my pole in the fall line in front of me, between two moguls.

Of course, that would never happen to any of your students,
because you had them all throw their poles away!


Of course, because they can do "all-terrain" without using poles.

IS


Jimintexu


  #7  
Old January 17th 05, 04:30 AM
Richard Henry
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"yunlong" wrote in message
oups.com...
Bob Lee wrote:

Proper poling increases turn stability...


Not really, the pole-planting is to create an instability so the skier
can initiate the edge changing...


Actually, I have found that moving the pole as if it were to be planted,
without actually planting it, is sufficient to complete the act. Or at
least initiate it.

All attempts at humor aside, phantom pole planting gets the body into the
right position for turning. I usually don't bother to actually plant the
pole with any force unless I am in an extreme situation (going slow on the
steep, for instance) where not making the turn would have serious
consequences.

and the
first part of that sentence gets a bunny with a pancake on its head.



Not if you teach them stand properly on the skis.


Whoosh!


Ski like skate, no poles are needed.


If you could skate in powder or crud, or on a slope over 40
degrees, then what you wrote might not be viewed as bull****.


I did, as flat-boarding.


Some might interpret that staement to mean that flat-boarding is bs.



  #8  
Old January 17th 05, 06:22 AM
rosco
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



yunlong wrote:

Not really, the most proficient skiers I see are those ski
patrollers ski without poles.


I would like to take an informal poll. Any patrollers out there? If
so, please let us know if you ski with or without poles.

How about ski instructors... any of you recommend skiing without poles
other than as a drill?

RAC

  #9  
Old January 17th 05, 01:26 PM
David Harris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"yunlong" wrote in
oups.com:


Also, if poles don't help balance, why do
downhill racers carry them?


Security crutches, maybe.

Okay, following along this increasingly silly thread, this line jumped out
at me.

First, I wouldn't restrict the question to downhillers, but include ALL
alpine racers. Every one of them. For ever.

"Crutches"?

Maybe I'm misinterpreting your reply, but it seems that you are saying you
know something that every professional and amateur racer of the past 50
years has missed. I doubt that very much.

Good luck with your fantasy.

dh
  #10  
Old January 17th 05, 01:47 PM
MoonMan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

David Harris wrote:
"yunlong" wrote in
oups.com:


Also, if poles don't help balance, why do
downhill racers carry them?


Security crutches, maybe.

Okay, following along this increasingly silly thread, this line
jumped out at me.

First, I wouldn't restrict the question to downhillers, but include
ALL alpine racers. Every one of them. For ever.


Two main reasons,

1) to get out of the start gate.
2) (in slalom) to protect oneselfe from the slalom poles.

Chris *:-)


 




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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
pole length steve Nordic Skiing 6 December 22nd 04 05:21 AM
Pole Planting. Mark A Framness Alpine Skiing 4 March 26th 04 05:50 PM
Palm side exit point for pole length measure -JP- Nordic Skiing 1 March 22nd 04 04:02 AM
pole length question Nevalainen, Eric Nordic Skiing 8 February 2nd 04 04:11 AM
Infinity Pole Report - Didn't Snap It Dell Todd Nordic Skiing 0 January 5th 04 03:46 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20 PM.


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