![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Very few skiers have put more energy into trying to improve their technique
during the past six years than I have. Along the way some smart people on this newsgroup responded that I'd get more benefit from just putting my skiing time into doing workouts of the appropriate intensity and duration for each day. Now I'm coming to think there's a lot of truth to that advice. Here's why: * The muscular moves of XC skiing (especially skating) are too complicated for even scientists focusing on it to really understand accurately -- unless somebody put a lot lot more money into research then is ever going to happen for this sport. * Even if a few scientists and top coaches knew how it worked optimally for full-time 23-year-old elite racers, we still wouldn't know which aspects of that applied to 37-year-old citizen racers. * Even if well-understood, many of the concepts are non-intuitive and complicated, so it would take enormous labor by a highly-skilled inter-disciplinary team of authors and advisors to be able to _communicate_ that in a book or CD or DVD simple enough for most of us to grasp without substantial misunderstandings -- only likely to happen if there's way way more purchasers than are in this sport. * Even if a few scientists and national team coaches really understood the biomechanics accurately, the biomechanics is too complicated for most of the local and regional coaches to have the time and focus to understand it carefully -- unless coaches were paid a lot more money than is ever going to happen ... * Therefore, the probability that the coach who you take a lesson from is going to know what's really the best technique for you to work on now is not very high. It's much easier to spot things which are surely _not_ optimal technique for you -- and (surprise!) lots of coaches seem to be good at that. * If you try to figure out what works for yourself, the big problem is that a _normal_ feeling of a new move which is a genuine long-term improvement is wierdness and harder work. New moves which make skiing feel easier right away generally lead to no long-term improvement. Getting consistent measurable benefit from a new move normally takes at least a couple months, often a whole season. * Another big problem is that as you get accustomed to the new move, it gets easy to feel all the positive things directly from it, but hard to feel or measure the losses from diverting mental focus (and oxygen pressure) from other moves, losses from compromising the range-of-motion or leverage position or timing of other moves. You work on one new trick, and you forget to do the other three tricks from last month. More subtle, focus on the concept or "image" of any move, and you slow down the unconscious "flow". * It's possible to choose the wrong new move, then put in all the hours and months of work, and still not get any long-term benefit (or not ever _know_ if you got benefit from it). Trying out a new move in XC skiing is necessarily "faith-based". (Like some other faith-based activities, it works better if you enjoy the process as well as the goal.) I still think that learning a new technique can result in a long-term increase in speed. But finding the new technique that's appropriate for me at my stage of development now -- then actually extracting net positive benefit from it for me for a long-term increase in my skiing speed -- that's a lot trickier, not necessarily a good bet for investing time. Except for me it's been worth it because I find mastering new moves and combinations fun in itself. Also trying a new technique is worth it for lots of racers because _anything_ that motivates training tends to help racing performance. And most things that expose our unconscious neuro-muscular supercomputer in our brain to new data on new combinations of moves will likely improve its control sensitivity and optimization. But those results could follow as well from playing with bad techniques. Anyway the "motivational" aspect is only short-term, and requires another latest newer technique for next season -- which (surprise!) regional camps and clinics and magazines are most happy to provide. Ken |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I call BS on this one! I'm sure you're much faster than me with
whatever level of skill you have. A good motor will almost always go faster than good technique. However.... You seem to be assuming that the only purpose for nordic skiing is going fast. This just isn't true. Skiing isn't a racing sport, racing is just one minor aspect. One of the things I (and I do believe most others) enjoy about every type of skiing I do - alpine, nordic downhil (tele - on and off piste), skate skiing, track classical technique - is to do it as gracefully and with as good technique as possible. I really think it's a worthy goal. I know relatively few alpine, tele or even track skiers who are in it for racing, and this includes many highly skilled excellent skiers. For example, how many excellent alpine skiers are actually in it for the racing? The same is true for nordic, maybe not so in the limited subset that participate in this particular forum. This is not meant as a criticism, just that the traffic on this forum represents a very small portion of excellent nordic skiers. Working on technique for technique's sake alone is worth while. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I agree a bit Ken. If you watch a World Cup or Olympic race, there are
defintiey some skiers that have odd techniques or at least something that the majority of skiers don't do. You can nit-pick little things about their technique and think, "I was always told that was wrong". They still find a way to be insanely fast though! |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Zeke wrote
You seem to be assuming that the only purpose for nordic skiing is going fast. This just isn't true. You're right to call me on that -- thanks Zeke. I should have been more clear at the start that I was talking about the goal of speed. I basically agree with you, but when you start saying stuff like this . . . ... racing is just one minor aspect. Whoa!?! Watch out for lightning bolts from above. do it as gracefully and with as good technique as possible. An unexamined assumption is that the technique which is best for speed is also going to look and/or feel graceful. Ken |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Ken Roberts wrote: I should have been more clear at the start that I was talking about the goal of speed. I think speed probably depends more on proper ski flex, structure and wax than technique. We've all seen a lot of guys go fast, good technique lets you do this with a minimum of energy. An unexamined assumption is that the technique which is best for speed is also going to look and/or feel graceful. For me, this is not unexamined - At a clinic given by Ben Husaby several years ago, he very clearly demonstrated techniques that really looked good, but were all wrong. Husaby had the ability to slowly and noticeably change his body position and technique from "wrong" to "right". It was a real eye opener, trying to "unlearn" what I always thought was correct from watching others ski. do it as gracefully and with as good technique as possible. Ahhh...now the key point. We ski because it is fun, it is relaxing, it is a time to spend with family and friends, usually in a location that is a joy to behold. It is easy to wring the life out of a sport with training, racing and constantly analyzing (and second guessing) every aspect of it - I know, because I've done it. I still enjoy ski racing and do train for it but that isn't all there is to nordic skiing. - Bob |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Ken Roberts wrote: wrote If you watch a World Cup or Olympic race, there are definitely some skiers that have odd techniques ... You can nit-pick little things about their technique and think, "I was always told that was wrong". The biggest example for me is Thomas Alsgaard. In the 1990s he was a winning skater. Then in the early 00s people were congratulating themselves on how with the new scientific research we were moving past those obviously wasteful excessive moves of Alsgaard. In the next few years the American skiers adopting the "new" scientific approach didn't have much success in World Cup races. Then my coach came back from West Yellowstone and told me: "Learn from Alsgaard." Next I hear he's been hired as technique coach for the Swedish team. Ken, Thanks for starting an interesting discussion. If you have a chance to watch Julia Tchepalova and Marit Bjoergen in the 4th leg of the '05 Oberstdorf World Cup Women's Relay you'll see a good example of two different styles that have both produced gold medals, Tchepalova a picture of grace and fluidity, Bjoergen rather stiff-legged but extremely strong. I would be very interested in someone asking questions about the most efficient, not necessarily the fastest, ways to ski. While I see merit in contrasting earlier comments (we ski for speed vs. we ski for fun) some of us less-talented skiers also want to be able to use our energy wisely and many of us don't have a lot of that left because of age, limited time for training, limited genetic endowment, etc. Most of what I've read and been taught is technical advice that has filtered its way down from world cup champions who are enormously talented and well conditioned. For example, I've begun to wonder if rapid turnover is the smartest for me to get up a hill? Some very good skiers say it is but I've found that, as in rapid pedaling on the bike, rapid turnover means high heart rate, sometimes very high. While I would expect some recommendations to remain the same (good posture, timing and balance being important for both efficiency and speed), I wonder if looking for an "easy" way to skate wouldn't yield some different answers than trying to find the fastest way. Russ |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Ken Roberts wrote: Seated pedaling on a bicycle is pretty near the simplest kind of human propulsion. Ken, I think running is the simplest form....maybe walking. As for speed and technique - I think proper skiing is removing everything that is wrong. Sort of like the story of how Michelangelo carved the David, just chip away everything that is not the David. Skiing is not one technique, it is constantly changing and working the transitions. The best thing for learning is time on the snow - sort it out - remove the bad. /john |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
double poling technique | Tall Willy | Nordic Skiing | 7 | March 2nd 05 07:53 PM |
a little leg move from Carl Swenson | Ken Roberts | Nordic Skiing | 20 | December 23rd 04 10:01 PM |
Grasshopper technique questions! | Tom | Snowboarding | 16 | February 5th 04 05:23 PM |
Skate technique USST two cents | Pete Vordenberg | Nordic Skiing | 52 | January 22nd 04 02:31 PM |
Thomas Alsgaard comments on technique... | SBull10152 | Nordic Skiing | 23 | December 11th 03 01:11 PM |