Skating Elitism.

On Fri, 24 Dec 2004, Gene Goldenfeld wrote:

You're very sensitive. Classical tempo is different than skating in a
way that makes it easier to do when one isn't in peak shape. Consider
that one can go up a steep hill or a long incline at a variety of paces
in classical, but skating doesn't allow as much flexibility.

Doesn't allow? It amazes me the number of folks who forget the
easiest skating option in which you single-pole using the same
rhythm as herringbone. I've heard it called names like "wimp-skate"
and "sliding herringbone". When caught in traffic on a steep hill
in a race such that you can't put out full effort and are stuck
V1-ing in a sort of stop/start pattern to avoid running over the
person ahead, it's amazing how you can drop back to the wimp-skate,
expend far less energy, and still keep up until either the top is
reached or the way is clear to pass.

I never see wimp-skate taught anywhere but it makes a great low
gear for those folks who think they're "not in good enough shape
to skate".

-Mitch

Doug Taylor wrote
skating is harder to learn, but easier to master . . .
classical is the harder and more subtle technique.

V1 skate technique by a Top-20 World Cup racer has more complex subtle moves
than any Classic technique -- once you take time to deeply analyze a video
of an elite racer and discover all the non-obvious, non-intuitive moves, and
start to understand the physics and biomechanics underlying them.

It's not "elitism", just physics (or mechanical engineering):
If you have a mechanical assembly with many parts and links, you get many
more degrees-of-freedom in the system if you allow 3-dimensional
coordination, than if you artificially limit the effective work it can do to
a mostly 2-dimensional coordination. Skating is fully 3-dimensional, Classic
is not. I think lots of people think Skating is easier to "master" because
they only understand some quasi-2-dimensional simplification of it -- so
they're not aware of the other creative possibilities.

the skating poling techniques are counter-intuitive
and take a while to become coordinated.

The poling coordination for skating is the obvious part of technique. The
tricky part is the coordination with hips and with shoulders, and the
two-phase leg-push.

The complexity in skating that typically gets overlooked is the creative
possibilities in the multiple-joint coordination and 3-dimensionality of the
leg-push from hip to ski. Because we think, "Just push on the ski with my
leg -- how hard could that be?"

Ken

"Mitch Collinsworth" wrote:
You're very sensitive. Classical tempo is different than skating in a
way that makes it easier to do when one isn't in peak shape. Consider
that one can go up a steep hill or a long incline at a variety of paces
in classical, but skating doesn't allow as much flexibility.

Doesn't allow? It amazes me the number of folks who forget the
easiest skating option in which you single-pole using the same
rhythm as herringbone. I've heard it called names like "wimp-skate"
and "sliding herringbone". When caught in traffic on a steep hill
in a race such that you can't put out full effort and are stuck
V1-ing in a sort of stop/start pattern to avoid running over the
person ahead, it's amazing how you can drop back to the wimp-skate,
expend far less energy, and still keep up until either the top is
reached or the way is clear to pass.

I also think steep climbs are just about as easy skating compared to classic
herringboning - both in racing or on those days when I want go so easy that
I'm effectively at a walking effort. I do use the diagonal skate when V1
bogs down. I often find when switching back and forth between V1 and
diagonal skate on very steep sections that the speed can be the same but the
diagonal skate will be easier and have a better rhythmn, which makes the
choice between them obvious.

In one 30K race last year at Kincaid Park, I V1ed hard up a pretty steep
climb ("Stairway to Heaven") on sugar snow with about 10 minutes to go to
the finish while the a friend diagonal skated, la la la, behind me. I was
was pretty worked, but when I looked back he looked like he was just
coasting, and I knew I should have been diagonal skating. Once we topped
the climb, he put the hurt on me and later outsprinted me at the finish.
(Fast snow is fun! We finished in 1:21 on the hilly course, but were 10
minutes back from the winner.)

Both are "real" skiing, but if anyone tells you that skating is more
difficult to learn/do than striding, then take away his crack pipe. I
only need to go as far as to point out the legions of big-engine
triathlon geeks from the bay area who show up at Tahoe skate races and
muscle their way to respectable finishes, but who are mysteriously
absent at striding races. They're taking the path of least
resistance....

bt

"Ken Roberts" wrote in message
...
Doug Taylor wrote
skating is harder to learn, but easier to master . . .
classical is the harder and more subtle technique.

V1 skate technique by a Top-20 World Cup racer has more complex subtle
moves
than any Classic technique -- once you take time to deeply analyze a video
of an elite racer and discover all the non-obvious, non-intuitive moves,
and
start to understand the physics and biomechanics underlying them.

This is an interesting comment that I haven't heard before from any coach or
teacher that I've been associated with. But I'm interested to see what
other folks think. Although my personal opinion is that classic technique
has more subtle and difficult to master nuances, I don't claim to be an
expert.

Cam

I try to avoid participating in these micro-technique discussions
since I think they are largely counter-productive, but here goes.

On Sat, 25 Dec 2004, Ken Roberts wrote:

Doug Taylor wrote
skating is harder to learn, but easier to master . . .
classical is the harder and more subtle technique.

V1 skate technique by a Top-20 World Cup racer has more complex subtle moves
than any Classic technique -- once you take time to deeply analyze a video
of an elite racer and discover all the non-obvious, non-intuitive moves, and
start to understand the physics and biomechanics underlying them.

I have a hard time with this statement. I think if you lined up 20
videos of 20 top-20 world cup racers you'd probably find at least
20 different sets of complex subtle moves complete with all the
associated non-obvious non-intuitive moves. So what does it all mean?
IMO it means that there are enough variations between individuals that
there is room for a significant variety of styles. Which one is "best"?
The one that works for you of course. I really think it's like many
other technique-driven human activities. You learn the basics, you go
out and practice, and then when you want to improve you drill on the
basics again and again and again. Trying to find a trick move is fun
but drilling on the basics is what builds success.


It's not "elitism", just physics (or mechanical engineering):
If you have a mechanical assembly with many parts and links, you get many
more degrees-of-freedom in the system if you allow 3-dimensional
coordination, than if you artificially limit the effective work it can do to
a mostly 2-dimensional coordination. Skating is fully 3-dimensional, Classic
is not.

And here I think is a common misconception about diagonal stride. Anyone
who thinks it is 2-dimensional needs to peel another layer off the onion
and look again. The 3rd dimension of diagonal stride is called "weight
shift" and if you aren't doing it you're not striding you're shuffling.
For that matter you're also having a hard time negotiating bends in the
trail. :-)

-Mitch

sknyski wrote
. . . big-engine triathlon geeks from the bay area who
show up at Tahoe skate races and muscle their way
to respectable finishes, but who are mysteriously
absent at striding races.

I bet most of them could get even better finish results in Classic races,
_if_
* they got good Classic-technique coaching
. (not so easy to find in USA)
* learned how to use klister.
* practiced lots of double-poling over the summer
. (and maybe some hill running and bounding).

But how many would _want_ to?
Not me. And not anybody I know.

Lots of Classic races are not "striding" races. Instead you double-pole
the flats and run up the hills. And skate around the turns (at least back
when I was racing Classic).

I'm not a racing type, and I tried Classic racing first. I got a respectable
first-wave finish at a national loppet only thirteen months after I so much
as _met_ my first cross-country ski racer. I could look at videos of the
best Classic racers in the world and explain the physics and biomechanics of
every little move they made (except I missed the lower-leg-thrust in
double-poling). But I was bummed by all the double-poling in races and in
practice.

Then I took a skating lesson from a gifted instructor, and that gave me a
taste of the magical joy of it. So then I worked on learning skating just as
hard as I worked on Classic. Got much more paid coaching, much more video
analysis than for Classic. But after one year of serious skate-training, I
got nowhere near as good race results (probably because I've never been one
of those big-engine racer-types that sknyski talks about). Now its almost
two years of serious learning, and I'm still discovering new moves in the
World Cup racer videos, still getting surprised by new joyful feelings in my
own skating.

And I'm still finding that magical joy in skating. I haven't done a
hill-bounding workout in two years, and that makes me glad. I have not spent
a day skiing Classic in groomed tracks in almost two years, and I'm not
missing it yet. For me Classic is for exploring the ungroomed backcountry --
yet I'm starting to find myself taking my skating skis into ungroomed
situations (or wishing that I'd taken them, like on Lake Aloha).

I know very well that I could go back to achieving higher race-finish
results any time if I would just practice lots of double-poling and enter
some Classic races. But I'm not doing that. Because for me skiing is about
magical joy -- and on groomed trails, skating delivers way more of that than
striding (and double-poling gives less).

Ken
_____________________________
sknyski wrote
Both are "real" skiing, but if anyone tells you that skating is more
difficult to learn/do than striding, then take away his crack pipe. I
only need to go as far as to point out the legions of big-engine
triathlon geeks from the bay area who show up at Tahoe skate races and
muscle their way to respectable finishes, but who are mysteriously
absent at striding races. They're taking the path of least
resistance....

bt
_____________________________

Mitch Collinsworth
The 3rd dimension of diagonal stride is called "weight shift"

Yes. But that's _all_ there is in the 3rd dimension for Classic. And you
don't get much _choice_ about it in Classic.

"weight shift" ... if you aren't doing it you're not striding you're
shuffling.

That's one of the big reasons that novices find it hard to learn Classic
striding -- because to get good grip you need to learn single-ski balance.
But once you've _learned_ it, you're finished with the 3rd dimension in
Classic.

And then I found out in Classic races that almost half the time I didn't
need weight-shift anyway. Because I was double-poling.

if you lined up 20 videos of 20 top-20 world cup racers
. . . there are enough variations between individuals

I'm talking about how hard it is to understand the physics and biomechanics
of the skate-technique moves which all 20 World Cup racers are doing the
_same_.

when you want to improve you drill on the basics again and again and
again.

After almost two years of skate lessons and video, I'm still working on how
to push with my leg effectively.

If skating is not more complicated than striding, then please tell me or
point me to someplace that really explains how the best ski-skate-racers
push with their leg?

Ken
____________________________________
Mitch Collinsworth wrote
I try to avoid participating in these micro-technique discussions
since I think they are largely counter-productive, but here goes.

On Sat, 25 Dec 2004, Ken Roberts wrote:

Doug Taylor wrote
skating is harder to learn, but easier to master . . .
classical is the harder and more subtle technique.

V1 skate technique by a Top-20 World Cup racer has more complex subtle
moves
than any Classic technique -- once you take time to deeply analyze a
video
of an elite racer and discover all the non-obvious, non-intuitive moves,
and
start to understand the physics and biomechanics underlying them.

I have a hard time with this statement. I think if you lined up 20
videos of 20 top-20 world cup racers you'd probably find at least
20 different sets of complex subtle moves complete with all the
associated non-obvious non-intuitive moves. So what does it all mean?
IMO it means that there are enough variations between individuals that
there is room for a significant variety of styles. Which one is "best"?
The one that works for you of course. I really think it's like many
other technique-driven human activities. You learn the basics, you go
out and practice, and then when you want to improve you drill on the
basics again and again and again. Trying to find a trick move is fun
but drilling on the basics is what builds success.


It's not "elitism", just physics (or mechanical engineering):
If you have a mechanical assembly with many parts and links, you get
many
more degrees-of-freedom in the system if you allow 3-dimensional
coordination, than if you artificially limit the effective work it can
do to
a mostly 2-dimensional coordination. Skating is fully 3-dimensional,
Classic
is not.

And here I think is a common misconception about diagonal stride. Anyone
who thinks it is 2-dimensional needs to peel another layer off the onion
and look again. The 3rd dimension of diagonal stride is called "weight
shift" and if you aren't doing it you're not striding you're shuffling.
For that matter you're also having a hard time negotiating bends in the
trail. :-)

-Mitch

--- Ken Roberts wrote:

Doug Taylor wrote
skating is harder to learn, but easier to master . . .
classical is the harder and more subtle technique.

V1 skate technique by a Top-20 World Cup racer has more complex
subtle moves
than any Classic technique -- once you take time to deeply analyze a
video
of an elite racer and discover all the non-obvious, non-intuitive
moves, and
start to understand the physics and biomechanics underlying them.

Sorry, Ken, but that is totally wrong.
The feel necessary to make a classic ski really glide, then to make
that same ski grab the snow for a powerful kick, is incredibly subtle
skill. I think it's not appreciated because so few of us have ever
achieved it. I've been chasing it for over 30 years...

Rob Bradlee

Ah, ok. Right.

Happy holidays,
Bryant