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
|
|||
|
|||
Time Machine, 1930's -The Pure Stem
Let's learn to turn the skis. The turns are as follows.
The pure stem. The telemark. The open christiania. The pure christiania. The jump turn. The step turn. These are the cardinal turns, other turns are formed by a combination of these. For example, the stem christiania is a combination of the pure stem and the pure christiania. A steered turn is performed by holding the two skis at an angle to each other. If you place two skis at an angle to each other, they cannot run straight, but must begin to turn until they reach a state of equilibrium. The pure stem, the telemark and the open christiania are steered turns. First, the pure stem. From a traverse, Lower the intended inside shoulder and lean well out from the hill in order to weight the intended inside ski (now the downhill ski). Slide the intended outside ski, now unweighted, uphill to the widest possible stemming angle, keep the knees together, press the heels outward. Bring the inside shoulder back and up, and the outside shoulder forward and down. This will begin to weight the intended outside ski. At the point when you are facing straight down hill, the shoulders should be level with each other and square to the slope so that your weight is equally on both feet. The inside ski should point straight down the hill, and the outside ski at an angle to it. With the shoulders as they are, most of the weight will be on the outside ski, and you will be prepared to resume the normal traverse position as you finish the turn. The real difiiculty here is switching the edge of the inside ski. You start on the inside edge (big toe edge to you and me of today) of the inside ski, but must end on the outside edge. (pinky toe edge) of it. Golly, even back in the thirties, they faced the same question that beginners and instructors face today, and have wondered about for a long time. How do you match the inside ski? To continue: Changing skis from inside to outside edge is normally done by keeping the ankle stiff and moving the knee over, but in this case we must keep the knees together and bend the inside ankle. This is impossible if you make the mistake of wearing boots that are too stiff. When you have brought the inside ski to it's outside edge, you must skid it parallel with the outside ski, swing the inside ski over from it's knock kneed position and press it into the hill, and also bring the inside ski forward. Thus, bring the skis parallel again. Guard against the following faults: Stiffening the inside leg as you slide the outside leg uphill to start the turn. Attempting to hold the angle between the skis by pressing the knees and not the heels outward. Hanging back as soon as your skis point downhill. This can result in backward collapse, or divergent tips.You must keep your shoulders hunched forward. Keeping the inside ski on it's inside edge throughout the turn. The ski will not ski round throughout the turn. Allowing the inside ski to lag behind at the end of the turn. This can result in crossed tails, which causes you to spin round into the hill and fall backward and outward. This is known as a toe spin. Next, the telemark. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Time Machine, 1930's -The Pure Stem
"foot2foot" wrote in message ... Let's learn to turn the skis. The turns are as follows. The pure stem. The telemark. The open christiania. The pure christiania. The jump turn. The step turn. These are the cardinal turns, other turns are formed by a combination of these. For example, the stem christiania is a combination of the pure stem and the pure christiania. Cab someone interested in ski history attend your ski school and be taught these classis techniques? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Time Machine, 1930's -The Pure Stem
"foot2foot" wrote in message ...
At the point when you are facing straight down hill, the shoulders should be level with each other and square to the slope so that your weight is equally on both feet. The inside ski should point straight down the hill, and the outside ski at an angle to it. With the shoulders as they are, most of the weight will be on the outside ski, and you will be prepared to resume the normal traverse position as you finish the turn. ************************************ How can your weight be equal while facing down the hill with the shoulders level and square to the slope if you have one foot pushed out and one pointed down the hill? And then how do you go from equal to most on one? If you're copying this word-for-word from someone's manual, you should attribute it to someone. If not, it's no wonder you have trouble with PSIA exams. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Time Machine, 1930's -The Pure Stem
It's from the 1930's Kneale. Maybe you should read the title
of the post. And then read the rest of the post a bit more carefully. "Kneale Brownson" wrote in message om... "foot2foot" wrote in message ... At the point when you are facing straight down hill, the shoulders should be level with each other and square to the slope so that your weight is equally on both feet. The inside ski should point straight down the hill, and the outside ski at an angle to it. With the shoulders as they are, most of the weight will be on the outside ski, and you will be prepared to resume the normal traverse position as you finish the turn. ************************************ How can your weight be equal while facing down the hill with the shoulders level and square to the slope if you have one foot pushed out and one pointed down the hill? And then how do you go from equal to most on one? I assume the body would be centered over the skis. I see no reason why one couldn't have equal weighting in such a situation. Maybe you couldn't but I'm sure I could. I do it all the time in a braking wedge. This kind of falls in line with the way you tend to invent things that don't exist in relation to skiing to justify your positions on teaching. Then again, perhaps I'm misreading. Perhaps I *should* copy word for word. I think I got pretty close though. It's a long description. If you're copying this word-for-word from someone's manual, you should attribute it to someone. If not, it's no wonder you have trouble with PSIA exams. You're just mad 'cause you know good and well that my beginners will humiliate your beginners. My beginners will make your beginners look like fools on skis. My beginners will utterly shred your beginners. Sniping aside, the interesting part of this description of the pure stem turn, for me, is the way that shoulder position is used to distribute weight on the skis. Pulling the inside shoulder back and pushing the outside shoulder forward and down is how the weight is distributed. Shoulders level and square equates with equal weight as you are directly in the fall line. Then inside shoulder back and up, outside shoulder forward and down puts weight on the outside ski to finish off. If you have further questions you might refer them to Peter Lunn or his father. I'm not sure if he or his father could still give an answer though. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Time Machine, 1930's -The Pure Stem
"foot2foot" wrote in message ...
It's from the 1930's Kneale. Maybe you should read the title of the post. And then read the rest of the post a bit more carefully. "Kneale Brownson" wrote in message om... "foot2foot" wrote in message ... At the point when you are facing straight down hill, the shoulders should be level with each other and square to the slope so that your weight is equally on both feet. The inside ski should point straight down the hill, and the outside ski at an angle to it. With the shoulders as they are, most of the weight will be on the outside ski, and you will be prepared to resume the normal traverse position as you finish the turn. ************************************ How can your weight be equal while facing down the hill with the shoulders level and square to the slope if you have one foot pushed out and one pointed down the hill? And then how do you go from equal to most on one? I assume the body would be centered over the skis. I see no reason why one couldn't have equal weighting in such a situation. Maybe you couldn't but I'm sure I could. I do it all the time in a braking wedge. This kind of falls in line with the way you tend to invent things that don't exist in relation to skiing to justify your positions on teaching. Then again, perhaps I'm misreading. Perhaps I *should* copy word for word. I think I got pretty close though. It's a long description. If you're copying this word-for-word from someone's manual, you should attribute it to someone. If not, it's no wonder you have trouble with PSIA exams. You're just mad 'cause you know good and well that my beginners will humiliate your beginners. My beginners will make your beginners look like fools on skis. My beginners will utterly shred your beginners. Sniping aside, the interesting part of this description of the pure stem turn, for me, is the way that shoulder position is used to distribute weight on the skis. Pulling the inside shoulder back and pushing the outside shoulder forward and down is how the weight is distributed. Shoulders level and square equates with equal weight as you are directly in the fall line. Then inside shoulder back and up, outside shoulder forward and down puts weight on the outside ski to finish off. If you have further questions you might refer them to Peter Lunn or his father. I'm not sure if he or his father could still give an answer though. The subject line doesn't tell me whether it's YOUR version of teachings from the 1930s or exact explanations from someone who was there in the 1930s, Foot. So I have to assume from what you add that it's your interpretation of your understanding of what someone else wrote out with more understanding. There's no way you maintain equal weighting on skis unequally displaced with regard to the fall line. If one ski is pointing straight down the fall line and the other is placed at an angle to that and you stand on them equally, the one pointing down the fall line will travel faster. A "braking wedge" implies equal displacement from a midline. I'm not angry about anything related to skiing. I AM mad about skiing, though :~). Unlike the Lunns, I have no great favor for turning the joys of skiing into competitive activies. Your beginners might get down the hill faster, especially if they always point one ski down the fall line. But they won't have any more fun than my beginners. By the way, Foot, how many beginners have you taught? Since I started teaching skiing in 1970, I've probably averaged a beginner lesson a day (anywhere from four to 12 students) for half of my average 100 days a season skiing. Maybe 10,000 beginners over my career? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Time Machine, 1930's -The Pure Stem
"Kneale Brownson" wrote in message The subject line doesn't tell me whether it's YOUR version of teachings from the 1930s or exact explanations from someone who was there in the 1930s, Foot. So I have to assume from what you add that it's your interpretation of your understanding of what someone else wrote out with more understanding. As usual, you assume/invent a lot. There's no way you maintain equal weighting on skis unequally displaced with regard to the fall line. If one ski is pointing straight down the fall line and the other is placed at an angle to that and you stand on them equally, the one pointing down the fall line will travel faster. Hmm, sounds like the PSIA wedge to me, "flatten the inside ski".... But, just to re-emphasize, *it's from the 1930's Kneale*. A "braking wedge" implies equal displacement from a midline. Ah, I dunno. You have an interesting point about the ski straight down the hill. This PSIA wedge thing is just nonsense. Direct quote: "Slide the intended outside ski, which is now unweighted, uphill to the widest possible stemming angle. Keep the knees as close together as possible and press the heels firmly outwards. As you begin to turn downhill gradually bring the inside shoulder backwards and upwards and the outside shoulder forwards and downwards. At the moment when you are facing straight downhill your shoulders should be square to the slope and level with each other, so that your weight is borne equally by both feet, your skis should not, as is generally supposed, be in the snow-plough position but with your inside ski pointing straight down the slope and your oustide ski at an angle with it. As you begin to face the opposite direction you must bring your outside shoulder forward and down and your inside shoulder backwards and upwards, this will automatically transfer most of your weight ;to the outside foot. You are thus preparing to resume the normal traversing position." Like I said Kneale, ask him. I'm not angry about anything related to skiing. I AM mad about skiing, though :~). Oh. Unlike the Lunns, I have no great favor for turning the joys of skiing into competitive activies. Your beginners might get down the hill faster, They learn faster. I'm glad you admit it, but Kneale if you take longer than necessary to teach someone how to ski just so you can get more lessons out of them, you're doing nothing better than stealing from them. especially if they always point one ski down the fall line. More nonsense. It's from the 1930's Kneale. But they won't have any more fun than my beginners. Yes they will, they'll be able to ski. You are the perfect example of the use of the "just make sure they have fun" line to justify ineffective, egotistical, self serving, antiquated teaching methods and goals. By the way, Foot, how many beginners have you taught? In the thousands. Not as many as you. In fact you may well be underestimating your total. Since I started teaching skiing in 1970, I've probably averaged a beginner lesson a day (anywhere from four to 12 students) for half of my average 100 days a season skiing. Maybe 10,000 beginners over my career? Well, you've certainly made a mess of them. By the end of that period of time, around 80 to 90 percent of the people who took a ski lesson never returned to the mountain. This, using exactly the system you advocate. The interesting thing is, you can't deny, like others who to use the older systems to teach skiing, that my students will learn faster. BTW, my "problems with the PSIA exams" are as follows: I ski more like a racer than I do a PSIA instructor. I carve instead of skid, and I crossover instead of flex and extend 'foreagonally". Also, I really suck in the bumps. I have a lack of flexion and extension which permeates every aspect of my skiing. I really need and want an up unweight and I still don't quite have it. Can't deny it. In fact, the last exam I took was, fun and informative. One day though, I will have those issues solved and I will learn whether or not this whole thing is just one big bunch of BS or not. I already know, however, that the implementation of the PSIA wedge as a task in the exams is without a doubt a pure bunch of BS. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Time Machine, 1930's -The Pure Stem
"Kneale Brownson" wrote in message The subject line doesn't tell me whether it's YOUR version of teachings from the 1930s or exact explanations from someone who was there in the 1930s, Foot. So I have to assume from what you add that it's your interpretation of your understanding of what someone else wrote out with more understanding. As usual, you assume/invent a lot. There's no way you maintain equal weighting on skis unequally displaced with regard to the fall line. If one ski is pointing straight down the fall line and the other is placed at an angle to that and you stand on them equally, the one pointing down the fall line will travel faster. Hmm, sounds like the PSIA wedge to me, "flatten the inside ski".... But, just to re-emphasize, *it's from the 1930's Kneale*. A "braking wedge" implies equal displacement from a midline. Ah, I dunno. You have an interesting point about the ski straight down the hill. This PSIA wedge thing is just nonsense. Direct quote: "Slide the intended outside ski, which is now unweighted, uphill to the widest possible stemming angle. Keep the knees as close together as possible and press the heels firmly outwards. As you begin to turn downhill gradually bring the inside shoulder backwards and upwards and the outside shoulder forwards and downwards. At the moment when you are facing straight downhill your shoulders should be square to the slope and level with each other, so that your weight is borne equally by both feet, your skis should not, as is generally supposed, be in the snow-plough position but with your inside ski pointing straight down the slope and your oustide ski at an angle with it. As you begin to face the opposite direction you must bring your outside shoulder forward and down and your inside shoulder backwards and upwards, this will automatically transfer most of your weight to the outside foot. You are thus preparing to resume the normal traversing position." Like I said Kneale, ask him. I'm not angry about anything related to skiing. I AM mad about skiing, though :~). Oh. Unlike the Lunns, I have no great favor for turning the joys of skiing into competitive activies. Your beginners might get down the hill faster, They learn faster. I'm glad you admit it, but Kneale if you take longer than necessary to teach someone how to ski just so you can get more lessons out of them, you're doing nothing better than stealing from them. especially if they always point one ski down the fall line. More nonsense. It's from the 1930's Kneale. But they won't have any more fun than my beginners. Yes they will, they'll be able to ski. You are the perfect example of the use of the "just make sure they have fun" line to justify ineffective, egotistical, self serving, antiquated teaching methods and goals. By the way, Foot, how many beginners have you taught? In the thousands. Not as many as you. In fact you may well be underestimating your total. Since I started teaching skiing in 1970, I've probably averaged a beginner lesson a day (anywhere from four to 12 students) for half of my average 100 days a season skiing. Maybe 10,000 beginners over my career? Well, you've certainly made a mess of them. By the end of that period of time, around 80 to 90 percent of the people who took a ski lesson never returned to the mountain. This, using exactly the system you advocate. The interesting thing is, you can't deny, like others who use the older systems to teach skiing, that my students will learn faster. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Time Machine, 1930's -The Pure Stem
"foot2foot" wrote in message
... If you place two skis at an angle to each other, they cannot run straight, but must begin to turn until they reach a state of equilibrium. Now wait, a second ... I didn't get too far, but: that's not right. I can do a wedge straight down the fall line all day (or at least until my legs get tired and my hips get sore). I can do a wedge in a straight line across the fall line too. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Time Machine, 1930's -The Pure Stem
"sjjohnston" wrote in message ... "foot2foot" wrote in message ... If you place two skis at an angle to each other, they cannot run straight, but must begin to turn until they reach a state of equilibrium. Now wait, a second ... I didn't get too far, but: that's not right. I can do a wedge straight down the fall line all day (or at least until my legs get tired and my hips get sore). I can do a wedge in a straight line across the fall line too. Maybe you couldn't do it in the 1930's with the equipment of that time. Remember it was apparently whatever kind of boot, a leather strap and a long hickory ski possibly with or without edges. True enough, today, if you slip the skis, you can wedge straight down the hill. I do it also. It's the uneven distribution of weight in the wedge (assuming equal angulation of the skis) that causes the skis to turn, or, that in combination with unequal angulation (or edging). I think what we have here is a mystery. I find pushing on the heels, using the shoulders to weight the skis, as well as to aid in the turning, and the use of ankles to flatten or edge the skis (impossible today) as interesting items in comparison to the way we ski today. I have to wonder how much of that shoulder stuff was really necessary. Maybe they just didn't know. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Time Machine, 1930's -The Pure Stem
"foot2foot" wrote in message ...
Well, you've certainly made a mess of them. By the end of that period of time, around 80 to 90 percent of the people who took a ski lesson never returned to the mountain. This, using exactly the system you advocate. What possible evidence do you have for such a claim? Had I done all my teaching in the last six or eight years, you might have some justification for your figures based upon the national average for beginning skier retention. I started teaching when the number of skier days was increasing steadily. Regardless, there is no basis for blaming an individual for the performance of a group. Sounds like you're the one with the anger. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
!Vasaloppet! | Gary Jacobson | Nordic Skiing | 19 | March 11th 04 06:10 PM |