New thread LAL, PSIA wedge.

OK, enough of this - lets go back to arguing about skiing and ski
instruction...

I like the wedge (which in the grand old days was called the "snowplow")
which I learned about in the one and only lesson I had during the 1950s.

In fact, I have no problem with using Hannes' original progression in
teaching - I think it would still work today. The primarily change I'd
make would be to continue the progression on into modern independent leg
action and carving.

Now, there are more efficient modern progressions, one hopes; but
Hannes' original progression made the beginner feel secure, taught
movement over snow in a way that the beginner could understand and
utilize immediately, and allowed for continued learning. What's not to
like?

Hannes' original progression was also focused on natural snow, not this
phony groomed and massaged carpet ski-wusses rely on these days. I
sometimes feel that modern instruction is deliberately aimed at limiting
the new skier to resort carpet skiing. The newbie coming out of typical
ski lessons is condemned to the groomed - he has no basic survival
skiing techniques from his lessons - no basic snowplow, little in the
way of traversing and kick-turns; he has learned nothing of the natural
mountain environment. Skiing for the modern lesson-produced newbie is
strictly lift served groomed carpet and lines, interminal lines. It's no
wonder he gets bored and drops out almost immediately.

I'm going to turn that snoig guy loose on you. I'm talking
about the PSIA wedge, nothing at all like the traditional
wedge that magic turns is built on. The PSIA wedge is this
nutty useless ski ballet thing that instructors with years of
experience, who are clearly advanced skiers can't "get right".
That's because it's subjective, and for the most part altogether
ridiculous.

Magic turns starts with a wedge changeup, then moves to
paralell turns *initiated by a wedge*, without ever really
exploring wedge turns themselves. This as opposed to the old
idea of spending lots of time in the wedge, then moving to parallel
skiing through the use of the stem christie.

Magic turns, especially with the bunny berm, gives the
skier a level of confidence and security that has never
existed before with these previous systems.

foot2foot wrote:

I'm going to turn that snoig guy loose on you. I'm talking
about the PSIA wedge, nothing at all like the traditional
wedge that magic turns is built on. The PSIA wedge is this
nutty useless ski ballet thing that instructors with years of
experience, who are clearly advanced skiers can't "get right".
That's because it's subjective, and for the most part altogether
ridiculous.

Magic turns starts with a wedge changeup, then moves to
paralell turns *initiated by a wedge*, without ever really
exploring wedge turns themselves. This as opposed to the old
idea of spending lots of time in the wedge, then moving to parallel
skiing through the use of the stem christie.

Magic turns, especially with the bunny berm, gives the
skier a level of confidence and security that has never
existed before with these previous systems.

I have no idea what you're talking about, so here's a bunny with a
pancake on his head:

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/misc15.jpg


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

"Walt" wrote in message
...
foot2foot wrote:

I'm going to turn that snoig guy loose on you. I'm talking
about the PSIA wedge, nothing at all like the traditional
wedge that magic turns is built on. The PSIA wedge is this
nutty useless ski ballet thing that instructors with years of
experience, who are clearly advanced skiers can't "get right".
That's because it's subjective, and for the most part altogether
ridiculous.

Magic turns starts with a wedge changeup, then moves to
paralell turns *initiated by a wedge*, without ever really
exploring wedge turns themselves. This as opposed to the old
idea of spending lots of time in the wedge, then moving to parallel
skiing through the use of the stem christie.

Magic turns, especially with the bunny berm, gives the
skier a level of confidence and security that has never
existed before with these previous systems.

I have no idea what you're talking about, so here's a bunny with a pancake
on his head:

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/misc15.jpg


what Walt said !
what did he say ?

Ron

foot2foot wrote:
OK, enough of this - lets go back to arguing about skiing and ski
instruction...

I like the wedge (which in the grand old days was called the "snowplow")
which I learned about in the one and only lesson I had during the 1950s.

In fact, I have no problem with using Hannes' original progression in
teaching - I think it would still work today. The primarily change I'd
make would be to continue the progression on into modern independent leg
action and carving.

Now, there are more efficient modern progressions, one hopes; but
Hannes' original progression made the beginner feel secure, taught
movement over snow in a way that the beginner could understand and
utilize immediately, and allowed for continued learning. What's not to
like?

Hannes' original progression was also focused on natural snow, not this
phony groomed and massaged carpet ski-wusses rely on these days. I
sometimes feel that modern instruction is deliberately aimed at limiting
the new skier to resort carpet skiing. The newbie coming out of typical
ski lessons is condemned to the groomed - he has no basic survival
skiing techniques from his lessons - no basic snowplow, little in the
way of traversing and kick-turns; he has learned nothing of the natural
mountain environment. Skiing for the modern lesson-produced newbie is
strictly lift served groomed carpet and lines, interminal lines. It's no
wonder he gets bored and drops out almost immediately.


I'm going to turn that snoig guy loose on you. I'm talking
about the PSIA wedge, nothing at all like the traditional
wedge that magic turns is built on.

Nuts. If your not going to be for what I'm against, and against what I'm
for, we can't argue effectively.

Anyway, turing to my second concept - I think it could use a bit of
fleshing out. Here's some questions: Do modern lessons (your and/or
PSIA's and/or anyone's) provide off-piste skills equivalent to Hannes'
1920 progression? Is it possible that condemning newbies to the carpet
groomers is what's turning them off to skiing after a couple of days?

I can remember (barely - it's been half a century) the excitment of
learning to snowplow and traverse and kickturn (actually my pre-teen
version involved sitting down and swinging my legs around - but I
learned it in beginner class) - it opened the whole mountain to me. I
was amazed - the mountains were mine. And that's how I've felt ever
since. I think that feeling is what would bring beginners back again and
again; I think creating that feeling is what's missing from modern
instruction.

Ski instruction has taken on the concept that skills are the goal - I
think the mountain must be the goal. Ski instruction is considered the
same as golf or tennis instruction; it should be completely different.
Skiing's not a sport, it's transportation, it's freedom to go where you
want, it's connection with weather, it's anything but a sport. It's the
opening up of a whole new environment formerly forbidden to the
beginner. What groomers and resorts have down to skiing is a tragedy.

CLIP

"lal_truckee" wrote in message
...
foot2foot wrote:
OK, enough of this - lets go back to arguing about skiing and ski
instruction...

I like the wedge (which in the grand old days was called the "snowplow")
which I learned about in the one and only lesson I had during the 1950s.

In fact, I have no problem with using Hannes' original progression in
teaching - I think it would still work today. The primarily change I'd
make would be to continue the progression on into modern independent leg
action and carving.

Now, there are more efficient modern progressions, one hopes; but
Hannes' original progression made the beginner feel secure, taught
movement over snow in a way that the beginner could understand and
utilize immediately, and allowed for continued learning. What's not to
like?

Hannes' original progression was also focused on natural snow, not this
phony groomed and massaged carpet ski-wusses rely on these days. I
sometimes feel that modern instruction is deliberately aimed at limiting
the new skier to resort carpet skiing. The newbie coming out of typical
ski lessons is condemned to the groomed - he has no basic survival
skiing techniques from his lessons - no basic snowplow, little in the
way of traversing and kick-turns; he has learned nothing of the natural
mountain environment. Skiing for the modern lesson-produced newbie is
strictly lift served groomed carpet and lines, interminal lines. It's no
wonder he gets bored and drops out almost immediately.


I'm going to turn that snoig guy loose on you. I'm talking
about the PSIA wedge, nothing at all like the traditional
wedge that magic turns is built on.

Nuts. If your not going to be for what I'm against, and against what I'm
for, we can't argue effectively.

Anyway, turing to my second concept - I think it could use a bit of
fleshing out. Here's some questions: Do modern lessons (your and/or PSIA's
and/or anyone's) provide off-piste skills equivalent to Hannes' 1920
progression? Is it possible that condemning newbies to the carpet groomers
is what's turning them off to skiing after a couple of days?

I can remember (barely - it's been half a century) the excitment of
learning to snowplow and traverse and kickturn (actually my pre-teen
version involved sitting down and swinging my legs around - but I learned
it in beginner class) - it opened the whole mountain to me. I was amazed -
the mountains were mine. And that's how I've felt ever since. I think that
feeling is what would bring beginners back again and again; I think
creating that feeling is what's missing from modern instruction.

Ski instruction has taken on the concept that skills are the goal - I
think the mountain must be the goal. Ski instruction is considered the
same as golf or tennis instruction; it should be completely different.
Skiing's not a sport, it's transportation, it's freedom to go where you
want, it's connection with weather, it's anything but a sport. It's the
opening up of a whole new environment formerly forbidden to the beginner.
What groomers and resorts have down to skiing is a tragedy.

CLIP

First of all.... thanks to foot. As soon as I can get the kids out on the
snow again, I'll be trying the "Magic Turns" with them, and I'll make sure I
let you know how it works out.... assuming I can explain it right AND
simply.

My first lesson was at Taos many years ago. I remember the instructor
seemed like an old guy, Stuart. He was kind of a hard-ass... didn't take
excuses, and kept insisting that we weren't there to learn the bunny hill,
we were there to learn how to go to the top of the mountain. Unfortunately,
he insisted on teaching us the snowplow, and I ragged his butt, because I
wanted to start edging.... He had me doing step turns, similar to the "Magic
Turns" on my first day. I was working my way down the Blues.

After spending $7.3 million on ski lessons (aka day care) at several ski
areas, the kids still couldn't make a turn if their lives depended on it.
Unfortunately, I don't take em to the hill to put em in day care, I want to
ski with them. Soooo.... I clicked them into their skis in the living room
and taught them the "Tim Taylor" method (lots of grunting and pushing on one
foot. They were making turns the next time their skis hit the snow!
However, the Magic Turns might get them more consistent...

OK, so to make a short story long.... What happened to the day when you
could learn to ski at ski school? Not only do they not seem to be willing
to focus on the mountain, they don't even seem to focus on skiing anymore!
The kids were 6 and 8 two years ago when they started.... not exactly grown
up, but not babies... geez!

- Steve

"Steve FZ1" wrote in message
...


First of all.... thanks to foot. As soon as I can get the kids out on the
snow again, I'll be trying the "Magic Turns" with them, and I'll make sure
I
let you know how it works out.... assuming I can explain it right AND
simply.

Thanks. It is *so* simple. The challenge is to watch the
student and figure out why they're having trouble. The solution
is then, usually, quite simple.

My first lesson was at Taos many years ago. I remember the instructor
seemed like an old guy, Stuart. He was kind of a hard-ass... didn't take
excuses, and kept insisting that we weren't there to learn the bunny hill,
we were there to learn how to go to the top of the mountain.
Unfortunately,
he insisted on teaching us the snowplow, and I ragged his butt, because I
wanted to start edging.... He had me doing step turns, similar to the
"Magic
Turns" on my first day. I was working my way down the Blues.

After spending $7.3 million on ski lessons (aka day care) at several ski
areas, the kids still couldn't make a turn if their lives depended on it.
Unfortunately, I don't take em to the hill to put em in day care, I want
to
ski with them. Soooo.... I clicked them into their skis in the living
room
and taught them the "Tim Taylor" method (lots of grunting and pushing on
one
foot. They were making turns the next time their skis hit the snow!
However, the Magic Turns might get them more consistent...

OK, so to make a short story long.... What happened to the day when you
could learn to ski at ski school? Not only do they not seem to be willing
to focus on the mountain, they don't even seem to focus on skiing anymore!
The kids were 6 and 8 two years ago when they started.... not exactly
grown
up, but not babies... geez!

So, we have ages 8 and 10? Should be a snap. Below about six,
you run into magical thinking. Above that, you can explain things,
and they can understand.

You might try explaining home position (did you get that part?)
and asking them to hold the ski poles vertically in front of them
as they ski. If they have home position, and they can set an
edge using a wedge, all they need to know is that all the weight
goes on the outside ski.

Outside ski.

Adult or child, I walk in a circle and ask the student to
identify my outside foot. Then I'll walk around the other way,
switch directions in "s" turns and ask them to pick the outside
foot with each change in direction, and try other various ways
to get the outside ski idea across. Hands forward, traverse,
make a wedge, edge and put all the weight on the outside ski,
pick up the tail of the inside ski *just a tiny bit*. Repeat.

There are other fairly standard remedies for problems the
student might have, but most just start skiing.

"lal_truckee" wrote in message
...

Nuts. If your not going to be for what I'm against, and against what I'm
for, we can't argue effectively.

Anyway, turing to my second concept - I think it could use a bit of
fleshing out. Here's some questions: Do modern lessons (your and/or
PSIA's and/or anyone's) provide off-piste skills equivalent to Hannes'
1920 progression?

Magic Turns results in an aggressive, carved turn, surely what
one needs off the carpet, or in fresh. What would be called
the mainstream approach to beginners today has gliding wedges,
flat skis and steering. It just isn't enough for the steeps or fresh.

Is it possible that condemning newbies to the carpet
groomers is what's turning them off to skiing after a couple of days?

Nah. It's when they don't get skiing that first day that they
quit. If you get them skiing, they'll stay in the sport.

I can remember (barely - it's been half a century) the excitment of
learning to snowplow and traverse and kickturn (actually my pre-teen
version involved sitting down and swinging my legs around - but I
learned it in beginner class) - it opened the whole mountain to me. I
was amazed - the mountains were mine.

That's what you've got to give to the newbie. You must actually
get them skiing. Just "having fun" is not enough.

And that's how I've felt ever
since. I think that feeling is what would bring beginners back again and
again; I think creating that feeling is what's missing from modern
instruction.

Ski instruction has taken on the concept that skills are the goal - I
think the mountain must be the goal. Ski instruction is considered the
same as golf or tennis instruction; it should be completely different.
Skiing's not a sport, it's transportation, it's freedom to go where you
want,

Yup. You've got to get them actually skiing that first day.

it's connection with weather, it's anything but a sport. It's the
opening up of a whole new environment formerly forbidden to the
beginner. What groomers and resorts have down to skiing is a tragedy.

Walt wrote in article
...

I have no idea what you're talking about, so here's a bunny with a
pancake on his head:

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/misc15.jpg

OK, this is officially very very funny.

I think the bunny is a guinea pig though.

I wonder if he ate the pancake after the picture was taken?
And it does appear to be TWO pancakes.

ant

"ant" wrote in message
news:01c4d4d7$d43de5e0$8456d5cb@notebook...
Walt wrote in article
...

I have no idea what you're talking about, so here's a bunny with a
pancake on his head:

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/misc15.jpg

OK, this is officially very very funny.

I think the bunny is a guinea pig though.

I wonder if he ate the pancake after the picture was taken?
And it does appear to be TWO pancakes.

ant

Nope, definitely a rabbit. Note the ears laid back under, and actually
extending out past the pancakes.

C.

In message 01c4d4d7$d43de5e0$8456d5cb@notebook, ant
writes
Walt wrote in article
...

I have no idea what you're talking about, so here's a bunny with a
pancake on his head:

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/misc15.jpg

OK, this is officially very very funny.

I think the bunny is a guinea pig though.

It seems to have long ears.
None of the guinea pigs I've eat^h^h^h met had those, so I reckon it's a
juvenile rabbit.

I wonder if he ate the pancake after the picture was taken?
And it does appear to be TWO pancakes.

You'd need two for a sandwich.

--
Sue ];(