correct skiing-vs- foots flatboarding

"LePheaux" wrote in message


Your one of *those* instructors that can't see the bad habits taught from
some schmuck
like someyoung dumbguy.
tell me foot.
what would you do if you came accross some person that learned from ichen.
the bad form and improper technics would have to be addressed wouldn't
they ?


I would show the person other stuff besides what he's doing.
Maybe something else would work for him.

I'd run down the little list of the elements of the mechanics
of skiing and see which ones, if any he/she lacks. They I'd
try to fill that void with knowledge and experience about that
particular element.

I surely would never utter "bad", and I would never
utter "form". I would *certainly* never say "improper".
Because of course, there are no such things in skiing.
There are only the elements of the mechanics of skiing.
Those are as real as the keyboard you type on.

I would simply try to give the skier the tools
do to what *they* want, whether or not some instructor
thinks it's bad form. If it works, it works. It doesn't have
to be a mirror image of whatever form is in fashion at the
time, like so many in instruction seem to think.

"foot2foot" wrote in message
...

"LePheaux" wrote in message


Your one of *those* instructors that can't see the bad habits taught from
some schmuck
like someyoung dumbguy.
tell me foot.
what would you do if you came accross some person that learned from
ichen.
the bad form and improper technics would have to be addressed wouldn't
they ?


I would show the person other stuff besides what he's doing.
Maybe something else would work for him.

I'd run down the little list of the elements of the mechanics
of skiing and see which ones, if any he/she lacks. They I'd
try to fill that void with knowledge and experience about that
particular element.

I surely would never utter "bad", and I would never
utter "form". I would *certainly* never say "improper".
Because of course, there are no such things in skiing.
There are only the elements of the mechanics of skiing.
Those are as real as the keyboard you type on.

More denial
reply to this now
You sound like a basic math teacher trying to get the 4 year old how to
recognize the numbers.
there is no wrong way to add 4 +4.
I agree with that theory. that's math and the correct answer just is.
skiing howsomever isn't cut and dried like your trying to make it out to
be.
sure we could all cartwheeel our asses to the bottom of the hill.
we could flatboard tai-chi our way to the william hung toon all the way to
foolish fame.
we would also trash our bodies and break alot more bones then needed.

"LePheaux" wrote in message

You sound like a basic math teacher trying to get the 4 year old how to
recognize the numbers.
there is no wrong way to add 4 +4.
I agree with that theory. that's math and the correct answer just is.
skiing howsomever isn't cut and dried like your trying to make it out to
be.
sure we could all cartwheeel our asses to the bottom of the hill.
we could flatboard tai-chi our way to the william hung toon all the way
to
foolish fame.
we would also trash our bodies and break alot more bones then needed.

*You*, have filled up about thirty thou k or so and you haven't
said anything except a bunch of downsides about Yun, and
nothing clear at all that I can distinquish about me personally.

You have no point, no focus, you're just babbling.

The basic mechanics of skiing *are* simple. *You* want
badly to make them complicated so that the whole world
can never really understand them and they'll have to come
to you and your buds.

My students don't crash their bodies. They learn how to
ski in parallel (half in two hours) by using a three step
progression into the berm if possible. Parallel run, wedge
changeup, then pickup the tail of the inside ski to match
the skis. See ya.

Without using any words on the now oft repeated list.

You never did answer my long K's ago question.

*CAN YOU DO THAT*? (emphasis only, no shouting
intended)

Can you teach half of any group to ski in a parallel in two
hours?

If not, then why not quit talking?

"Sven Golly" wrote in message


Well those are absolute terms which rarely apply in recreational
activities. But you can say here's a "better",

Yea, you could say that, but it's get you in trouble the same
way that good and bad or incorrect and correct do. Why is
it "better"? Who decided it was "better"?

"more efficient",

Weeelllll, I might go for that one except that the word holds
heavy baggage lately because that's all you ever hear out
of the mouths of dead set PSIA peeps. About how efficient
this or that is, when it isn't necessarily, they just think it is.
Yea, it's pretty, but it isn't *necessarily* efficient.

Probably the most *efficient* way to ski is to simply lean
from one side of the skis to the other with body straight as a
board. Just cross over bigtime. But you'll *never* get a PSIA
cert doing that. HE'S BANKING!!! HE'S BANKING!!!
STOP IT!!!! STOP IT!!!!! SOMEBODY STOP HIM!!!!

"easier",

Yea, that would be ok, easier in some ways to do something
the skier wants to do. FI, counter rotation at the end of the
turn makes the start of the next turn easier...

"faster"

Hmm. If you want to go faster in this situation, try this....
yea, that might work.

, etc. way to do it. And what's wrong with using the
word "form"??

Ah, it's just that "form" turns into instructor laziness and
ego just like the other words. It's not about a particular
form or style, it's about those few, very simple things that
make the ski work. The elements of the mechanics of skiing.
It's so dynamic, how can form even apply, except in the case
of the basic home position? It's just something you do. You
move your knees or hips to the center of the turn. You flex or
extend your legs a little or a lot. You twist your legs in the
direction you want the skis to go. You rotate your shoulders
in the direction you want to turn, or opposite that direction.
You change the lead of the skis. You cross your body over
the skis one way or the other. These are just things you do.

These are the mechanics of skiing. They are simple, simple
things. They are very few. Where is "form"?

Form is Wedeln. Form is Avelement. Form is the French
"style" the Austrian "style", the PSIA "medim radius turn",
done *just right*. All of these "styles" are just re arrangements
of the elements of the mechanics of skiing. Why do we need
all this crap in the middle? Why don't we just teach people
how the ski works?

It can be just another way of saying "technique",
"approach" or "style".

Technique is ok, approach is ok, put style in the round
file.


I think both of you set up artificial constructs.

I'm the only one in this whole long discussion that's talking
pure reality. Every one else is talking from the socially
constructed reality to one extent or the other. They *can't*
think without the group, they *can't* go outside the box,
and see reality for itself alone. And, the closer they come to
seeing what a bunch of BS a lot of their whole thing is, the
more upset they become and the more their assertions
deteriorate, until they're left with panicked name calling, like
some school child. Then I suppose they just panic completely
and become helpless, quivering blobs of jelly, but I guess I've
never seen it go that far. They'll never let go of the "group".
Actually, I guess they run away from the evil stimulus trying
to point out the BS before that happens. You know,
plugging their ears and eyes and all that...

"foot2foot" wrote in message

*You*, have filled up about thirty thou k or so and you haven't
said anything except a bunch of downsides about Yun, and
nothing clear at all that I can distinquish about me personally.

See it's all about youin your mind

You have no point, no focus, you're just babbling.

the only point was fgor you to drop the semantics debate.

The basic mechanics of skiing *are* simple. *You* want
badly to make them complicated so that the whole world
can never really understand them and they'll have to come
to you and your buds.

your the only one making anything more complicated foot.
your long winded go nowhere verbage debates over semantics.

My students don't crash their bodies. They learn how to
ski in parallel (half in two hours) by using a three step
progression into the berm if possible. Parallel run, wedge
changeup, then pickup the tail of the inside ski to match
the skis. See ya.

good . anything else would be the wrong way to learnright EG

Can you teach half of any group to ski in a parallel in two
hours?


I don't claim to be an instructor.
BTW you aren't trying to claim you can get 4-5-6 YO to ski parallel are you
?

foot2foot wrote:

"LePheaux" wrote in message



You sound like a basic math teacher trying to get the 4 year old how to
recognize the numbers.
there is no wrong way to add 4 +4.
I agree with that theory. that's math and the correct answer just is.
skiing howsomever isn't cut and dried like your trying to make it out to
be.
sure we could all cartwheeel our asses to the bottom of the hill.
we could flatboard tai-chi our way to the william hung toon all the way
to
foolish fame.
we would also trash our bodies and break alot more bones then needed.



*You*, have filled up about thirty thou k or so and you haven't
said anything except a bunch of downsides about Yun, and
nothing clear at all that I can distinquish about me personally.

You have no point, no focus, you're just babbling.

The basic mechanics of skiing *are* simple. *You* want
badly to make them complicated so that the whole world
can never really understand them and they'll have to come
to you and your buds.

My students don't crash their bodies. They learn how to
ski in parallel (half in two hours) by using a three step
progression into the berm if possible. Parallel run, wedge
changeup, then pickup the tail of the inside ski to match
the skis. See ya.

Without using any words on the now oft repeated list.

You never did answer my long K's ago question.

*CAN YOU DO THAT*? (emphasis only, no shouting
intended)

Can you teach half of any group to ski in a parallel in two
hours?

If not, then why not quit talking?




Are you the only one who can?
Is your system the only system that can?
Do you have any data to support a positive answer to either of those?
If so does that mean that your system is the end of road and we should
just quit talking?
If so, as you seem to suggest, then aren't you guilty of the same thing
that you accuse others of doing?

Dave M.

Sources close to the investigation reveal that, on Sat, 29 Jan 2005
22:43:33 -0800, "foot2foot" wrote:

This is a philosophical yard sale:

I'm the only one in this whole long discussion that's talking
pure reality. Every one else is talking from the socially
constructed reality to one extent or the other. They *can't*
think without the group, they *can't* go outside the box,
and see reality for itself alone.

The whole point of the post-modernist jargon of "socially constructed
reality" is not merely that *no one* can "see reality for itself
alone" but that "pure reality" Does Not Exist.

Why bury worthwhile technical, pedagogical, and psychological points
under the irrelevant jargon of post-modernism?


--
Bill Griffiths
"The fool hath said in his heart, there is no such thing as justice." Hobbes

"Dave M" wrote in message


Are you the only one who can?

Please. Anyone who reads five paragraphs can. It's that simple.

Is your system the only system that can?

It's not my system anyway. Don't you read the group? We've
been through this before. Lots of people are doing it. You tell me.
Can any of the other systems? Sounds like your problem not mine.
You work on it. I'm telling you *this* system can.

Do you have any data to support a positive answer to either of those?

Yea, whatever. Try it yourself and you'll find out. Why bother me?

If so does that mean that your system is the end of road and we should
just quit talking?

It's not my system. But, yea, we should maybe just quit talking. Teaching
with it is so much better than talking.

If so, as you seem to suggest, then aren't you guilty of the same thing
that you accuse others of doing?

:Huh uh.

Mike, nothing about this changes the fact that if you teach a guy
run straight in a parallel, do some wedge changeups, then run
straight while lifting the tail of either ski, then showing them how
to put those three things together and turn the skis could certainly
have half of any given class in a rough parallel by the end of two
hours. People do it. It's possible.

Have they set up the bunny berm at your local hill yet?

"LePheaux" wrote in message


BTW you aren't trying to claim you can get 4-5-6 YO to ski parallel are
you ?


No. Not with magic turns. You're talking about magical
thinkers. Any way at all you can manage to teach that age of
child anything about how to ski is pure luck. It's nothing but a
crap shoot. Every thing is magical to them. They don't quite
get a handle on cause and effect yet.

In order to learn with magic turns, you need to be able to
understand what the inside and outside skis are, that all the
weight goes on the outside ski, that you pick up the tail
of the inside ski and leave the tip on the snow, and that you
always keep your hands forward every second.

A child needs to be into concrete operations to be able to do
that. About six or seven should do it. You can tell if you give
them magic tests. Seven years of age and up should be no
problem in most all cases. They most always pass out of
magical thinking and into concrete operations at around six
to seven.

"Bill Griffiths" wrote in message
news
Sources close to the investigation reveal that, on Sat, 29 Jan 2005
22:43:33 -0800, "foot2foot" wrote:

This is a philosophical yard sale:

I'm the only one in this whole long discussion that's talking
pure reality. Every one else is talking from the socially
constructed reality to one extent or the other. They *can't*
think without the group, they *can't* go outside the box,
and see reality for itself alone.

The whole point of the post-modernist jargon of "socially constructed
reality" is not merely that *no one* can "see reality for itself
alone" but that "pure reality" Does Not Exist.

Nah, nope...

I don't know where you get this stuff, but, here's how it
works.

The point is, that people sometimes tend to want to make
decisions about reality as a group. So, then what happens
is that they just come up with something. Hence, their reality
is socially constructed. It doesn't exist. But, please. Reality
*couldn't* actually be any simpler. You just teach to the
elements of the mechanics of skiing. If it works, it's real.

See, whoever it was that explained it to you...I don't know...

Can't say I'm buying into it. I think they need to re assess
reality.

Anyone can see the reality of a three step progression to
parallel skiing that will allow half of any class to ski in a
rough parallel at the end of two hours. The turn they learn
is one they can take up to the blues, and everything won't
fall apart, like it always does with more traditional systems
for teaching beginners. Traverse, make a wedge, the same way
you would do in a wedge-changeup drill, transfer all the weight
to the outside ski, then lift the tail of the inside ski while leaving
the tip on the snow. Put the skis back together. Just leave your
body where it is the whole time. Keep your shoulders facing
the same way the skis are pointing the whole time. Keep your
hands forward the whole time. Especially that.

See, what happens is, half of em learn to ski in a rough
parallel at the end of two hours. Happens every time.

Half. Two hours.

It *really* really helps if you have the bunny berm.

And, if it happens, hey, it's real.

Why bury worthwhile technical, pedagogical, and psychological points
under the irrelevant jargon of post-modernism?

Cause it's true. Socially constructed reality does not exist.