new skis require a different skiing style?

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 16:36:02 -0600, "Marty"
wrote:

Yes indeed. I'm looking at a sequence shot of Von Gruenigen, Bode Miller,
and Eric Schlopy (the highest form of expert that you can attain) in an
Alpine Masters ski mag from October 2001. That is exactly what I see. The
only difference between Bode and Eric to Von G., is that Von G. uses an "up
un-weighting" technique instead of the "down un-weighting" technique that
Eric and Bode use. The un-weighting comes during the transtion of one turn
to the next. Ski width stays pretty much static all the time. Very cool
sequesnce of photos. Hip almost touching the ground angulation - Harb woud
be toast here, or he'd be lifting the inside ski off the ground to get these
angles. No, looking at Von G., I don't think Harb would be able to pull
these angles off at all - ever.

Amusing you should mention Michael Von Gruenigen because a clip of
him skiing is used in Harb's video (presumably with his authorisation)
to demonstrate Harb's 'phantom move'. His skiing seems to show exactly
the points Harb is making - he is lifting and tipping his inside ski
and bringing it in close to the stance ski. (He also shows Thomas
Grandi and Kjetil-Andre Aamodt doing pretty much the same stuff).
Funny, eh?

It seems that many people here are disparaging what Harald Harb says
without actually knowing what he says.

(I should point out that I'm not a disciple, just someone curious as
to whether his teaching technique, which looks very promising,
actually works. It's certainly helped me in the past, but I've never
actually been to a PMTS class).

John

In article ,
John Moore wrote:

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 16:36:02 -0600, "Marty"
wrote:

Yes indeed. I'm looking at a sequence shot of Von Gruenigen, Bode Miller,
and Eric Schlopy (the highest form of expert that you can attain) in an
Alpine Masters ski mag from October 2001. That is exactly what I see. The
only difference between Bode and Eric to Von G., is that Von G. uses an "up
un-weighting" technique instead of the "down un-weighting" technique that
Eric and Bode use. The un-weighting comes during the transtion of one turn
to the next. Ski width stays pretty much static all the time. Very cool
sequesnce of photos. Hip almost touching the ground angulation - Harb woud
be toast here, or he'd be lifting the inside ski off the ground to get these
angles. No, looking at Von G., I don't think Harb would be able to pull
these angles off at all - ever.

Amusing you should mention Michael Von Gruenigen because a clip of
him skiing is used in Harb's video (presumably with his authorisation)
to demonstrate Harb's 'phantom move'. His skiing seems to show exactly
the points Harb is making - he is lifting and tipping his inside ski
and bringing it in close to the stance ski. (He also shows Thomas
Grandi and Kjetil-Andre Aamodt doing pretty much the same stuff).
Funny, eh?

It seems that many people here are disparaging what Harald Harb says
without actually knowing what he says.

(I should point out that I'm not a disciple, just someone curious as
to whether his teaching technique, which looks very promising,
actually works. It's certainly helped me in the past, but I've never
actually been to a PMTS class).

John


I'd like to see this video...

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

Alan Baker wrote:

The problem is what beginners to
quite high level intermediates take away from the idea that you don't
need your skis somewhat apart.

They start off standing up!


Huh? They're supposed to start off sitting down? We're talking skiing
here, not snowboarding - what gives?

--
//-Walt
//
// http://tinyurl.com/3xqyq

John Moore wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 16:36:02 -0600, "Marty"
wrote:


Yes indeed. I'm looking at a sequence shot of Von Gruenigen, Bode Miller,
and Eric Schlopy (the highest form of expert that you can attain) in an
Alpine Masters ski mag from October 2001. That is exactly what I see. The
only difference between Bode and Eric to Von G., is that Von G. uses an "up
un-weighting" technique instead of the "down un-weighting" technique that
Eric and Bode use. The un-weighting comes during the transtion of one turn
to the next. Ski width stays pretty much static all the time. Very cool
sequesnce of photos. Hip almost touching the ground angulation - Harb woud
be toast here, or he'd be lifting the inside ski off the ground to get these
angles. No, looking at Von G., I don't think Harb would be able to pull
these angles off at all - ever.


Amusing you should mention Michael Von Gruenigen because a clip of
him skiing is used in Harb's video (presumably with his authorisation)
to demonstrate Harb's 'phantom move'. His skiing seems to show exactly
the points Harb is making - he is lifting and tipping his inside ski
and bringing it in close to the stance ski. (He also shows Thomas
Grandi and Kjetil-Andre Aamodt doing pretty much the same stuff).
Funny, eh?

Von Gruenigen's skis are about as close together as they can get
(relative to force vector) here
http://www.ski-and-ski.com/work/Gallery/MVG-PC03gs.htm

But I'm a Rahlves fan, having watched him from a wee tyke ...
http://www.ski-and-ski.com/work/Gallery/RahlvesKitzbuhel02sg.htm
Pretty close - no? About 10 inxhes, I'd say.

Here's some Tomba to illustrate a point
Close skis - in the turn
http://www.ski-and-ski.com/work/Gallery/TombaAre.htm
After a turn - note the independent skis - he doesn't try to keep them
the same distance apart all the way through a turn - the skis carve
independant radii http://www.ski-and-ski.com/work/Gallery/TombaNevada.htm
Tomba again, close, but completely independent arcs - if he tried to
hold both arcs he'd land on his face
http://www.ski-and-ski.com/work/Gallery/TombaFinal.htm

Finally, for Der Kaiser fans, here's a little independent leg action at
Wengen
http://www.ski-and-ski.com/work/Gallery/KlammerWen.htm


It seems that many people here are disparaging what Harald Harb says
without actually knowing what he says.

No. They couldn't be. Not that.
Some people will believe the PSIA has a lock on ski know-how in spite of
the observation of their own eyes. PSIA is good for getting a newbie to
the Intermediate Rut - not so good at getting the newbie beyond, IMO.


(I should point out that I'm not a disciple, just someone curious as
to whether his teaching technique, which looks very promising,
actually works. It's certainly helped me in the past, but I've never
actually been to a PMTS class).

A few days of Harb or Tejada-Flores will get you over the hump better
than a year's worth of PSIA lessons, IMO.

"Goldenset" wrote in message
om...
I was informed that these carvers are best used when
feet are should width apart rather than that smooth and cool looking
way of keeping the boots together (which I'm still trying to work
on!).

You sure inspired a chorus of comments.

A few thoughts (as if they were needed):

In my view, people who say "Your feet must be x distance apart," or "y% of
your weight must be on your outside ski," are too limited. You should
understand you have the flexibility to do what works, depending on the snow
condition and situation and the peculiarities of your own physique and
balance and reactions.

Ironically, I think the "feet wide apart" argument really started out not
as, "Your feet *must* be shoulder width apart," but rather as, "Don't listen
to those fools who say your feet must be within an inch of each other --
it's okay for them to be pretty far apart ... even shoulder width."

It seems to me (and this agrees with some of what others have said) that
shoulder width is on the wide side. If you're feeling okay with 'em that
wide apart, I wouldn't criticize you for it (unless it's causing a problem
in the particular situation), but I wouldn't tell you force them that wide
apart either. On the other hand, if you're skiing with your boots touching
(or within a few inches), I'd tell you to loosen up and let your stance get
a little wider. Once you're used to a wider stance, it should feel more
natural than a really narrow stance.

"BoftheW" wrote in message
...
... The fallacy that shaped skis
result in perfect carved turns on every turn is widespread. Look at
intermediate
skiers. They rarely make carved turns, even though they are on 'carving'
skis.
Perfect carved turns (where the tail follows that exact line of the tip)
only
occur on a modest slope that does not require active braking. Otherwise,
one
would build speed up every turn. Even the 'best in the world' skid their
turns
to peel off speed when needed. Look at a steep (smooth or bumped) slope
and see
if anyone perfectly carves their turns. The only ones that do have a death
wish
(11s straight down or slightly bent turns that pick up speed). The only
exception is when a steep slope is deserted and one can make wide turns
with an
uphill portion that allows gravity to slow you down. I would be willing to
bet
however, that the majority of most skiers turns on any given day are
skidded,
even though they have 'carving' skis.

You're dead right (though I think a lot of other people are going to
disagree with you ... and I guess that means me too).

Laying the skis over and doing a "railroad track" carved turn is a cool and
fun thing to have in your bag of tricks (indeed, I'd go so far as to say
you're not really an expert skier if you *don't* have it), but it's not the
whole bag.

lal_truckee writes:

Walt wrote:

Personally, I think
shoulder width is too wide, but there are some very good skiers who
adopt a stance that wide.

Either you're hanging out with a whole bunch of ultra-wimps with
extremely narrow shoulders, or you have an odd idea of what a good skier
looks like - I don't think I've ever seen a "good skier" who habitually
skis with "shoulder width" skis (measured relatively to his combined
force vector.) On me that'd be about 20 inches apart, and I consider
myself a narrow-shouldered-mathematician

Well, maybe you're a literal-minded mathematician. I've heard the
instructions "place your feet shoulder-width apart" in more sports
and physical skills than I can name, and it has never been used to
mean, "place your feet with as many inches between them as your
shoulders are wide." Instead, it has been used to mean that the
feet should be placed more or less pelvis-width apart, neither
angling in nor out. Why don't we just say "pelvis-width apart"? I
don't know, but probably because while most people know what
shoulders are, a lot of idjits aren't too surre what a pelvis is.

--
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::
Mary Malmros
Some days you're the windshield,
Other days you're the bug.

BoftheW writes:

The subject of skiing technique always brings out interesting comments from
people, given their various backgrounds and how/where they learned to ski. Some
sample comments from this thread and my own personal comments to them:

It would be helpful if you included a little more context.

[snip]
Mary Malmros:

…but you can't really argue that
it was functional.
[NB: my original, much snipped comment, was to the effect that the
feet-glued-together stance may have looked real cool to some folks,
but wasn't functional

Comment: again, see comment above. Functional in what way? To whom?

Not functional, unless you're talking about getting dates with MOTAS
who find that sort of thing cool.

--
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::
Mary Malmros
Some days you're the windshield,
Other days you're the bug.

So with the new carving skis, do you apply pressure to the downhill boot
only as described in Lito's book, or is it equal pressure?

BoftheW wrote:
Walt wrote:

You don't have to twist or pivot them to get them to turn, and any twisting or
pivoting means that you're working against the ski, not with it. Modern skis
work best when the tail follows the same path as the tip in a smooth carve.

Comment: This one I found the most hilarious. The fallacy that shaped skis
result in perfect carved turns on every turn is widespread.

Is it? I've never heard anybody say that the newer shaped skis carve
a perfect turn every time. I certainly don't think that.

Let's be clear on the context - a guy who (apparently) has spent most
of his skiing career on traditional sidecut skis doing the
feet-glued-together skid/twist thing asks whether he should try a
different approach now that he has new gear. I tried to summarize the
basic idea of intermediate carving as a better approach. Maybe I
overstated the case. So sue me.


Look at intermediate
skiers. They rarely make carved turns, even though they are on 'carving' skis.
Perfect carved turns (where the tail follows that exact line of the tip) only
occur on a modest slope that does not require active braking. Otherwise, one
would build speed up every turn. Even the ‘best in the world’ skid their turns
to peel off speed when needed. Look at a steep (smooth or bumped) slope and see
if anyone perfectly carves their turns. The only ones that do have a death wish
(11s straight down or slightly bent turns that pick up speed). The only
exception is when a steep slope is deserted and one can make wide turns with an
uphill portion that allows gravity to slow you down. I would be willing to bet
however, that the majority of most skiers turns on any given day are skidded,
even though they have 'carving' skis.

Sorry if I offended, but I thought I would add my 2 cents,

No offense taken. And not much to disagree with in the paragraph
above. The only thing open for debate is the definition of "modest"
and "steep".

PS: Also, sorry for the top post, but I didn't see where else it would go.

Now we've got a religious war worth fighitin' over! Top posting sucks!


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