Slipping turn vs. carving turn revisited

"taichiskiing" wrote in message
ups.com...
snoig wrote:
taichiskiing wrote:
Only that we would all like to see your marvelous flatboarding
techniques on some more difficult trails so we can judge it's merits
on
terrain that is relevent to the better skiers here.

"Better skiers," eh? can we have some clips to see how they ski,
please?

Actually, this discussion is not about how they ski. It is about
flatboarding and your taichiskiing method. We really don't care how
well Allen or VtSkier ski. It's irrelevent to this discussion.

It is not about how you ski, but integrity of your [skiing] knowledge.
To say it is irrelevant is your denial.

Now as
someone who claims to be an instructor, I find your teaching methods
somewhat curious. You are trying to convince us that your skiing style
is innovative but when people who obviously have some knowledge of
skiing question you ridicule them and call them gapers.

A gaper is those who think that they are knowledgeable, but don't know
that they have a huge "gap" in their knowledge and reality. I only
pointed out the matter of fact. I didn't ridicule them; it's the
gaper's own little knowledge did that to them.


This really doesn't seem like the most effective way to
convince people of new ideas.

No, a gaper, such a self-conceit, cannot be convinced.


Personally, I think PSIA teaching methods leave a lot to be desired
with levels above 7 or 8 but I don't see anything in the videos you
have posted to show that taichiskiiing may be a better method.

Maybe is because that you don't know how read the videos? But methinks
mostly it's just your denial.

For
most people who are taking lessons, the goal is to get to that level 9
or 10 in the shortest time with the least effort. If taichiskiing will
help people get there faster, it's only reasonable that people in this
newsgroup who's main job is instructing would want to see it demoed on
more advanced terrain.

I did show a clip of flatboarding on a black trial, but you cannot see
it. "But methinks mostly it's just your denial."

If you can't convince instructors that your
methods have merit, how can you convice anyone?

No, anyone else may be easy to convince, but some instructors who, like
an old time elementary school teacher who has been in such an authority
figure with elementary school students for such a long time may
actually think that he knows everything, cannot be convinced.


Probably the north side of Peak 9. They are some pretty steep
trails,
usually with good snow coverage. They are rated single black here
but
would probably be rated double black at many areas. When you get in
the trees between the designated trails, they are definately double
black.

So, I wasn't exaggerating?

I think the exaggerations have been pretty well established.

I mean there were "double diamonds" where I specified, right? If it was
a fact, then I wasn't exaggerating.

Say from your claim that the trail at Tahoe was a double
black when there are no double blacks on the map. Or maybe
from you posts last year claiming that pictures from Breck
were on black runs when in reality they were on fairly easy groomed
blues.

Or your exaggeration to miss-claim the event? Remember I showed you a
picture to show that I have skied Breckenridge but you turned it into a
trail designation debate.

Even on easy groomed blues, tele no poles remains a challenge to you.

Or maybe your comparrison last year of
the Jeep King of the Mountain Series to World Cup.

I was saying that a/the "Jeep King of the Mountain" event was held on
the trail "World Cup," Heavenly.

When you twist the fact to make your argument, you've already
lost/destroyed your argument.


In many cases, that's true. As I said in another post, if a ski
area
only has one designated double diamond trail, it's more for
marketing
purposes than an actual difficulty rating. A resort needs two or
more
double diamond trails for them to actually be expert level trails.
Now, how about some video from Heavenly in Mott or Killerbrew
Canyons.
Or maybe something off of KT-22 at Squaw?

If you send me a photographer who can follow me there, I'll be glad to
oblige.

Some time soon? Heavenly is open.

Ok, well I guess we wont be seeing videos from anything difficult
anytime in the near future.

Actually, asking you to send me a photographer is for the purpose so
that he can also verify the fact as an eye witness. But I guess you
don't really want to see the fact to become true, so you can continue
denying it?


Remember, as a teacher of your disipline, you cannot truely become a
master until you can convey your methods in a clear manner to your
students. We are all waiting.

Are you a student of Taichi Skiing? Are you humble enough to learn?

No, one cannot learn [Taichi Skiing] with a full cup.

With the quality of your discussion, I pity your ski students.
That is, if you really had any.

Bob

snoig wrote:
taichiskiing wrote:
Actually, this discussion is not about how they ski. It is about
flatboarding and your taichiskiing method. We really don't care how
well Allen or VtSkier ski. It's irrelevent to this discussion.

It is not about how you ski, but integrity of your [skiing] knowledge.
To say it is irrelevant is your denial.

My denial of what?

Your/their ski ability is "irrelevant" to your/their skiing
knowledge/perceptions.

I have not denied that your
flatboarding/taichiskiing method may have merits but the question here
has really come down to how well does it hold up on advanced terrain.

I have not said that you denying the merit of the flatboarding, but
playing down its ability to ski more difficult terrain before you can
"prove" it is [your denial].

It seems that whenever anybody brings up that question you ridicule
them. It's a classic case of 'shoot the messenger'.

No, I think they are ridiculed by their own ridicules. It's more like a
classic case of "self-inflict a wound, and then cry foul," as when the
messenger misrepresented the message, he shot himself on the foot.


Now as
someone who claims to be an instructor, I find your teaching methods
somewhat curious. You are trying to convince us that your skiing style
is innovative but when people who obviously have some knowledge of
skiing question you ridicule them and call them gapers.

A gaper is those who think that they are knowledgeable, but don't know
that they have a huge "gap" in their knowledge and reality. I only
pointed out the matter of fact. I didn't ridicule them; it's the
gaper's own little knowledge did that to them.

No, actually a gaper is someone, usually from places that don't have
mountains who are awed by the spectacular vistas of our mountain
community and tend to stare at things with their jaws 'agape'. Gapers
can frequently be spotted by their eyes not looking in the direction
they are skiing/snowboarding/driving/biking etc. Texas plates are also
usually a giveaway. Hence, the pronunciation with the long a, not a
short a as would be suggested if the word was derived from 'gap' and
not 'gape'.

Maybe you're right, the meaning of the term "gaper" I learned is from
some internet ski forums.


This really doesn't seem like the most effective way to
convince people of new ideas.

No, a gaper, such a self-conceit, cannot be convinced.

So, you are saying that ridicule is part of the teaching of
the taichiskiing method?

If it is a fact, then it is not ridicule, and it is a cognition method,
not a teaching method.

You may want to think about revising your teaching methods.

My teaching method varies, depends on how perceptive the student is.

I know that personally, ridicule doesn't
work on me. It makes me think that the teacher does not have
mastery of the subject when they can't answer simple
questions or demonstrate basic techniques.

That's quite true; nevertheless, if you were my student, you would have
learned all the flatboarding tricks before you even know it.


Personally, I think PSIA teaching methods leave a lot to be desired
with levels above 7 or 8 but I don't see anything in the videos you
have posted to show that taichiskiiing may be a better method.

Maybe is because that you don't know how read the videos? But methinks
mostly it's just your denial.

Again, denial of what? I don't deny that I see your arms flailing all
over the place and that you are barely maintaining your balance.

But you don't deny that you don't have enough vision to see that the
"body/core" movements are not interrupted and flow steadily?


I did show a clip of flatboarding on a black trial, but you cannot see
it. "But methinks mostly it's just your denial."

As we have seen, trail designations in your mind are often different
than the trail designations on the map. Still it doesn't really matter
because a groomed black trail at one area can even be a green trail at
another area. Again, what people are asking is how well your methods
hold up on some of the most difficult terrain? And for a defination of
what most difficult terrain is, I have suggested a double diamond trail
at a resort that has more than one trail designated as double diamonds.
I think that most people who read this newsgroup agree that this is a
reasonable definition of 'most difficult terrain'.

Then "double diamonds" it is, but how would I make you believe it
without you send me a photographer?


If you can't convince instructors that your
methods have merit, how can you convice anyone?

No, anyone else may be easy to convince, but some instructors who, like
an old time elementary school teacher who has been in such an authority
figure with elementary school students for such a long time may
actually think that he knows everything, cannot be convinced.

Well, I will grant you that but, you still should be able to
answer their questions with reasonable arguments. So far all
we have seen is you ridicule the questioners. Again, it's a
case of shoot the messenger.

Yes, questions raised and answers given, nevertheless, you/they
wouldn't want to look into the answers but think that you/they been
ridiculed? As ridiculous as it sounds, maybe it is because the reality
bites?

I'll ask again. How well does flatboarding/taichiskiing
handle the most difficult terrain?

Flatboarding/taichiskiing is a "double diamonds" class technique.

A video on this type of terrain
would certainly answer a lot of questions.

A good video clip is hard to come by.


I think the exaggerations have been pretty well established.

I mean there were "double diamonds" where I specified, right? If it was
a fact, then I wasn't exaggerating.

No, there were no 'double diamonds' as you described. Twenty
years ago, there were no narrow trails designated double
diamond at Breckenridge. All the double diamond trails back
then were very wide open and steep.

So, no more "When you get in the trees between the designated trails,
they are definately double black."? Yes, "trees"!


Say from your claim that the trail at Tahoe was a double
black when there are no double blacks on the map. Or maybe
from you posts last year claiming that pictures from Breck
were on black runs when in reality they were on fairly easy groomed blues.

Or your exaggeration to miss-claim the event? Remember I showed you a
picture to show that I have skied Breckenridge but you turned it into a
trail designation debate.

Because you claimed it was a black when in fact it was an easy groomed
blue.

Yeah right, we have been this block before, not sure I care to revisit
it that again.


Even on easy groomed blues, tele no poles remains a challenge to you.

No, actually it doesn't. I have no problem teleing on easy groomed
blues with no poles and this is only my third season on teles.

Good for you, don't you not feel good?


Or maybe your comparrison last year of
the Jeep King of the Mountain Series to World Cup.

I was saying that a/the "Jeep King of the Mountain" event was held on
the trail "World Cup," Heavenly.

When you twist the fact to make your argument, you've already
lost/destroyed your argument.

Excellent point!

Here's a quote from your post:
'As for what "Olympic calliber courses that are run on blue trails"?

All the major competitions, except the Mogul, held in Heavenly,
including the recent Jeep's "King of the Hill" was conducted on the
World Cup, a blue trail.'

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.s...e=source&hl=en

So? I was saying, 'including the recent Jeep's "King of the Hill" was
conducted on the World Cup, a blue trail,' not your "comparison last
year of the Jeep King of the Mountain Series to World Cup."

So, who's being exaggerating?


Actually, asking you to send me a photographer is for the purpose so
that he can also verify the fact as an eye witness. But I guess you
don't really want to see the fact to become true, so you can continue
denying it?

Just trying to skirt the question of how your methods hold up on most
difficult terrain?

How about it LAL? You're in that area, can we get you to volunteer to
go hold a camera once Mott and Killerbrew Canyons open?

When you guys settle it, let me know the schedule.


Remember, as a teacher of your disipline, you cannot truely become a
master until you can convey your methods in a clear manner to your
students. We are all waiting.

Are you a student of Taichi Skiing? Are you humble enough to learn?

Are you humble enough to teach?

Interesting question, never thought of that, I only teach the
skiing/techniques, not morality. "Don't you want to learn the 'best'
technique in the skiing"? Being humble doesn't sell.


IS


No, one cannot learn [Taichi Skiing] with a full cup.

snoig

taichiskiing wrote:
Personally, I think PSIA teaching methods leave a lot to be desired
with levels above 7 or 8 but I don't see anything in the videos you
have posted to show that taichiskiiing may be a better method.

Maybe is because that you don't know how read the videos? But methinks
mostly it's just your denial.

Again, denial of what? I don't deny that I see your arms flailing all
over the place and that you are barely maintaining your balance.

But you don't deny that you don't have enough vision to see that the
"body/core" movements are not interrupted and flow steadily?

Well, I guess this is what it all boils down to and no, I don't see
that your body/core movements are flowing steadily. It appears just to
opposite.

From what I understand your concept of taichiskiing is to minimize
motions to the point that you are only executing the minimal movements
require to make a turn. If that is the case then your central body
core should not be moving. There's really nothing new here. PSIA has
been teaching this for a long time. Quiet upper body, counterbody
rotation, face downhill etc. I don't see much of difference between
these concepts. However, when I see your videos demonstrating
taichiskiing, what I see are your arms flying all over the place.
Since basic physics says there has to be something to counterbalance
your arm motion, that means your core is moving. If you truely wanted
to minimize your core body motion, your arms would not be moving.

I believe that most PSIA Level 3 cert instructors would have no problem
skiing any blue trail with no poles and their hands at their side or
behind their back and no upper body motion. I know that's not a
problem for me. If the goal of taichiskiing is to minimize unnecessary
moves, why do your demos show so much arm movement?

As far as flatboarding goes (I'm thinking taichiskiing and flatboarding
are two seprate related concepts) I want to see a demo on harder
terrain because I believe you are mistaken in your assumptions and I
would like to see them demonstrated. My general technique on very
steep terrain is to keep edge contact with the mountain as much as
possible and to minimize the time when your boards are flat on the
mountain. Sure, we have all seen ski films where somebody is
straightlining some super steep face but people with skills like that
are in the upper echelon of skiers. That's why they are in the films.
After I've made the effort to get to something super steep, I want to
enjoy it, not get to the bottom as fast as possible. That is unless
I've got a helicopter waiting at the bottom.

snoig

snoig wrote:
taichiskiing wrote:
Personally, I think PSIA teaching methods leave a lot to be desired
with levels above 7 or 8 but I don't see anything in the videos you
have posted to show that taichiskiiing may be a better method.

Maybe is because that you don't know how read the videos? But methinks
mostly it's just your denial.

Again, denial of what? I don't deny that I see your arms flailing all
over the place and that you are barely maintaining your balance.

But you don't deny that you don't have enough vision to see that the
"body/core" movements are not interrupted and flow steadily?

Well, I guess this is what it all boils down to and no, I don't see
that your body/core movements are flowing steadily. It appears just to
opposite.

From what I understand your concept of taichiskiing is to minimize
motions to the point that you are only executing the minimal movements
require to make a turn. If that is the case then your central body
core should not be moving. There's really nothing new here. PSIA has
been teaching this for a long time. Quiet upper body, counterbody
rotation, face downhill etc. I don't see much of difference between
these concepts. However, when I see your videos demonstrating
taichiskiing, what I see are your arms flying all over the place.
Since basic physics says there has to be something to counterbalance
your arm motion, that means your core is moving. If you truely wanted
to minimize your core body motion, your arms would not be moving.

Thanks for the exposition, but no, not quite what Taichi Skiing is
doing. Taichi Skiing thrives on a concept of "move the core to move the
limbs," so the arms don't usually move on their own. What you see is an
illusion created by an amateur camcorder (3-D to 2-D), and without
poles, the hands movements appear exaggerated.

Taichi Skiing is operated on the concept of Qi, that's "pressure" to
you westerners. The concept of Qi/pressure treats the body like a
closed hydraulic system, where the internal Qi/pressure is
maintained/controlled by varying--open and close--all the joints, where
straightening a joint enhances the overall internal Qi/pressure and
generates more external force, and retract/bending a joint does just
the opposite. And our bodies, by Taichi count, have sixty-four joints


I believe that most PSIA Level 3 cert instructors would have no problem
skiing any blue trail with no poles and their hands at their side or
behind their back and no upper body motion. I know that's not a
problem for me.

I didn't say that they cannot do it, but to let the poles go is another
story. And flatboarding (the main technique of Taichi Skiing) is not
about how to ski without poles but how to control/utilize the whole ski
to ski.

If the goal of taichiskiing is to minimize unnecessary
moves, why do your demos show so much arm movement?

What kind of movements do you really see? The arms are also served as
valves that control the internal Qi/pressure, and without poles their
movements may appear exaggerated.


As far as flatboarding goes (I'm thinking taichiskiing and flatboarding
are two seprate related concepts) I want to see a demo on harder
terrain because I believe you are mistaken in your assumptions and I
would like to see them demonstrated. My general technique on very
steep terrain is to keep edge contact with the mountain as much as
possible and to minimize the time when your boards are flat on the
mountain. Sure, we have all seen ski films where somebody is
straightlining some super steep face but people with skills like that
are in the upper echelon of skiers. That's why they are in the films.
After I've made the effort to get to something super steep, I want to
enjoy it, not get to the bottom as fast as possible. That is unless
I've got a helicopter waiting at the bottom.

Methinks you also mistaken the idea/technique of the flatboarding and
straightlining. Although flatboarding favors riding on flat skis and
"inside ski turn" but it doesn't preclude the use of the edges, not
even carving, or outside ski turn. Ultimately, flatboarding surfs the
gravity; it surfs the hills like surfer surfs in the ocean. And
straightlining is not just going straight, but contouring/following a
trail, i.e. turns only when needed to change the direction, which is
different from the conventional skiing that uses turning only to
control the skis' forward speed.

I agree with about not straightlining on the steep. Straightlining on a
black trail is thrilling, but I think it's too fast for most resort.
When I see that in a film, my reaction always feels sorry that they
wasted all that elevation and nearly perfect snow.


IS


snoig