Rotation and Counter Rotation

"lal_truckee" wrote in message
...
Walt wrote:

lal_truckee wrote:

foot2foot wrote:


For those of you who don't know by now, Kneale is
a highly ranked and experienced PSIA instructor.

He's still not doing it right if it causes him to skid. Doesn't matter
who he is.


C'mon lal. When did you convert to the "always carve, all the time"
school?

There are (or should be) lots of tools in the kit - you know that more
than anybody around here.

Point is: Skid when you want to skid, not because a misapplication of a
particular technique "caused" a skid.

But people were carving long before "carving skis." Nothing to it but
balance and appropriate pressure control, then or now.

I took me about, let's see, 25 years to get a carved parallel turn to a
smooth arc I was satisified with.

I think I like jumping around in powder better.

"Richard Henry" wrote in message
news:itNwb.21470$m24.15526@fed1read02...

"lal_truckee" wrote in message
...
Walt wrote:

lal_truckee wrote:

foot2foot wrote:


For those of you who don't know by now, Kneale is
a highly ranked and experienced PSIA instructor.

He's still not doing it right if it causes him to skid. Doesn't matter
who he is.


C'mon lal. When did you convert to the "always carve, all the time"
school?

There are (or should be) lots of tools in the kit - you know that more
than anybody around here.

Point is: Skid when you want to skid, not because a misapplication of a
particular technique "caused" a skid.

But people were carving long before "carving skis." Nothing to it but
balance and appropriate pressure control, then or now.

I took me about, let's see, 25 years to get a carved parallel turn to a
smooth arc I was satisified with.

I think I like jumping around in powder better.


Hey Richard the Dick,

Don't post about skiing. You're ruining a perfect record.

Bert

"lal_truckee" wrote in message
...
Walt wrote:

lal_truckee wrote:

foot2foot wrote:


For those of you who don't know by now, Kneale is
a highly ranked and experienced PSIA instructor.

He's still not doing it right if it causes him to skid. Doesn't matter
who he is.


C'mon lal. When did you convert to the "always carve, all the time"
school?

There are (or should be) lots of tools in the kit - you know that more
than anybody around here.

Point is: Skid when you want to skid, not because a misapplication of a
particular technique "caused" a skid.

But people were carving long before "carving skis." Nothing to it but
balance and appropriate pressure control, then or now.

That's one of the wierd parts for me now. I could carve *before*. On the new
**** it's more difficult to get the release (skid?) when you want it. Or quite
often I don't want the tips to come all the way across the fall line, I just
want a little direction change, but the skis want to stay across the fall line
rather than down it.

pigo

"foot2foot" wrote in message ...
"Kneale Brownson" wrote in message
om...
"foot2foot" wrote in message
...
There was a bit of talk about rotation and counter
rotation

Snip the exasperatingly long and dubious information

Hey Foot, there's a huge difference between being in an anticipated or
countered position and putting yourself in one.

Besides, only skidders routinely are employing the positioning you
describe anymore. Most modern skiers are more or less square with
their skis except in really short turns, when they wish to skid more
than carve.

For those of you who don't know by now, Kneale is
a highly ranked and experienced PSIA instructor. A
decent spokesman if nothing else.

I don't know that many would rank me highly, Foot (blush), but thanks
for the thought.


Thanks for the input here, but Kneale, you (whom I'm
constantly pressing for relevant PSIA info and tips via
email, by so doing getting very good stuff) must admit,
that complicated terms aside, all people are doing
today is to rotate through the first half of the turn, and
counter rotate through the second. This is all that quiet
upper body is. It's being made more complicated than it
is.

If you are making turns shorter than your skis can carve, you
appropriately maintain the "quiet upper body" and the skis turn more
under you than they would in longer carved arcs. But you are not
rotating the upper body into an anticipated position against the lower
body before or at the point of turn initiation nor are you countering
the upper body against a turning lower body as the turn finishes.
Instead you are turning the lower body against the stable mass of the
upper body.

The historic rotation of the upper body into the turn, which really
was almost a necessity given the nature of the skis and boots in use
at the time, is an active force that accompanied almost a leap to
relieve pressure on the skis and allow them to turn the way the body
was rotated. Remaining facing down a fall line is a long ways from
rotating the shoulders into that position. And if you've left the
shoulders facing down the fall line, you hardly can "counter" it into
that position at the end of the turn. The differences are in the
amount of activity.


Also, by not explaining the simple mechanics of this to
the student so they can make their own choices about
how much or how little to use, and when, are actually
doing a disservice to the student.

Instead, the tendency is to tell the student to look and
ski "like this" without ever saying why or what the
real mechanics behind it are.

I thought you were the guy with the simple "home" position????
Anyway, I wouldn't be suggesting inexperienced students attempt to
make short turns on steep terrain.

And again, I'm just missing the distinction you make
between putting yourself in a countered position and
being in one. To me, it's just making something that's
simple unnecessarily complicated.

I guess if nothing else I'm right in that rotation has
become "anticipation" and counter rotation has
become "counter". Why does it have to be renamed?
Why not just call it what it was originally called? The
original terms are more intuitive and illustrative than
the new.

Again, there's a big difference between a relaxed "quiet upper body"
and active rotation/counter rotation movements. That's why the
application of those terms makes no instructional sense. Indeed,
there's little instructional value in most terminology.

Also, you must admit, the history section of
the post was accurate.

You are correct that the Arlburg technique involved rotating the body
to help cause the skis to turn. I don't remember your including the
unweighting aspect that allowed the technique to work.

"foot2foot" wrote in message
...

"Kneale Brownson" wrote in message
om...
"foot2foot" wrote in message
...
There was a bit of talk about rotation and counter
rotation

Snip the exasperatingly long and dubious information

Hey Foot, there's a huge difference between being in an anticipated or
countered position and putting yourself in one.

Besides, only skidders routinely are employing the positioning you
describe anymore. Most modern skiers are more or less square with
their skis except in really short turns, when they wish to skid more
than carve.

For those of you who don't know by now, Kneale is
a highly ranked and experienced PSIA instructor. A
decent spokesman if nothing else.

Thanks for the input here, but Kneale, you (whom I'm
constantly pressing for relevant PSIA info and tips via
email, by so doing getting very good stuff) must admit,
that complicated terms aside, all people are doing
today is to rotate through the first half of the turn, and
counter rotate through the second. This is all that quiet
upper body is. It's being made more complicated than it
is.

Also, by not explaining the simple mechanics of this to
the student so they can make their own choices about
how much or how little to use, and when, are actually
doing a disservice to the student.

Instead, the tendency is to tell the student to look and
ski "like this" without ever saying why or what the
real mechanics behind it are.

And again, I'm just missing the distinction you make
between putting yourself in a countered position and
being in one. To me, it's just making something that's
simple unnecessarily complicated.

I guess if nothing else I'm right in that rotation has
become "anticipation" and counter rotation has
become "counter". Why does it have to be renamed?
Why not just call it what it was originally called? The
original terms are more intuitive and illustrative than
the new.

Also, you must admit, the history section of
the post was accurate.

Thanks for contributing to an interesting thread. Counter rotation
doesn't seem to come up as often, unless discussing beginners and
novices,,,maybe intermediates as well. Otherwise, a good skier just doesn't
cross the fall-line far enough to engage in a counter rotation movement.
Fact is, the counter rotation movement is kind of hard. Maybe harder than
learning consistently linked turns that allow control but barely allow you
to point your skis long enough across the fall line to actually need a
counter motion (at least not much of one) Good ski technique, along with
deep sidecuts, are finishing off turns with a healthy enough momentum to
continue into the next turn. Of course steep terrain would certainly cause
any skier to possibly use a little counter movement. I think as long as a
skier doesn't initiate with extreme rotation, they will have little need for
counter rotation. It really depends how rotating affects their balance.
You can initially rotate a small amount into a turn and as long as this
rotation is exclusive to the upper body and not the driving force of the
lower body, you are fine. An extreme example is when a good racer's upper
body becomes off balance but manages to keep their lower body in control and
moving down the hill. In retrospect, if counter rotation seems less
pervasive, it's probably because of more emphasis on keeping a steady
shoulder presence pointing down hill, instead of initiating turns with more
extreme shoulder influence. Most good skiers will not even bother to
counter rotate when coming to a skidded hockey stop.

Rick Swanger

"foot2foot" writes:

There was a bit of talk about rotation and counter
rotation in other threads so I thought I'd make a
synopsis in a new thread.

Plus ca change...

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

"Jeremy Mortimer" wrote in message

You frequently read in books on technique that none of the old ideas ever
really go away, they just hang around to be used in particular
circumstances. And like a lot of other stuff, the techniques f2f describes
are still really useful in deep or heavy snow, no matter what type of skis
you're on.

Jeremy

There's a fellow who's name escapes me, who is the long
time ski school director at Grangeville, Idaho's ski area,
Snowhaven. This man is a *serious* veteran, since maybe
the forties or fifties, who's coached Olympic competitors,
I believe.

They put something like 1,500 new skiers on the snow
last year, a tremendous feat considering the population
around there.

He wrote a book, the skier's Bible. There is more than
one ski book by this name. He talks of the old Austrian
way, and scoffs at all this jumping around in powder
saying that all the Austrians ever did (and still do?) was
to go fast enough in the powder to be able to surf to the
top of it, then counter rotate. "They make their living
that way" he will say. "They aren't stupid".

My only points are, that you *can* use your shoulders
to turn your skis, that shoulder position helps to free the
skis to be turned otherwise, and that shoulder position
can work *against* the skier's turn. I think a student
has a right to know this.

Rotation and Counter rotation aren't just ways, they're
absolute *elements* of skiing mechanics that will
*never* go away.

I don't know if you would agree with that or not...

"Kneale Brownson" wrote in message

If you are making turns shorter than your skis can carve, you
appropriately maintain the "quiet upper body" and the skis turn more
under you than they would in longer carved arcs. But you are not
rotating the upper body into an anticipated position against the lower
body before or at the point of turn initiation nor are you countering
the upper body against a turning lower body as the turn finishes.
Instead you are turning the lower body against the stable mass of the
upper body.

I'll have to go along with the stable upper mass, as,
to me, and to my beginners and intermediates that I teach,
Home Position, with the hands forward always, etc, is
the anchor which allows the turn to work. Especially the
hand position as well as a square upper body to the skis
(shoulders face forward, at a right angle to the skis).

But when you move on to more advanced slopes and
turns, the equation changes. Countering the skis with
the upper body, or however you want to put it, becomes
a necessary part of it. Keeping the shoulders square with
the skis at the end of a turn doesn't work very well. Nor
does starting a turn with the shoulders square to the skis.

The historic rotation of the upper body into the turn, which really
was almost a necessity given the nature of the skis and boots in use
at the time, is an active force that accompanied almost a leap to
relieve pressure on the skis and allow them to turn the way the body
was rotated. Remaining facing down a fall line is a long ways from
rotating the shoulders into that position. And if you've left the
shoulders facing down the fall line, you hardly can "counter" it into
that position at the end of the turn. The differences are in the
amount of activity.


Surely I don't advocate either extreme of the old days,
either rotated or counter rotated, with the shoulders
nearly parallel to the skis. This is ineffective.

Again, there's a big difference between a relaxed "quiet upper body"
and active rotation/counter rotation movements. That's why the
application of those terms makes no instructional sense. Indeed,
there's little instructional value in most terminology.

I'm only seeing semantics here. The same muscles that
make an active rotational movement of the shoulders
are the same ones that hold the upper body in place as
the skis and legs turn under the skier.

"Swanger" wrote in message
. com...

Thanks for contributing to an interesting thread. Counter rotation
doesn't seem to come up as often, unless discussing beginners and
novices,,,maybe intermediates as well. Otherwise, a good skier just
doesn't
cross the fall-line far enough to engage in a counter rotation movement.

They do if they have to, because of terrain, for instance.
That is, if a path they need to take requires different size
turns, as opposed to symmetrical linked turns.


Fact is, the counter rotation movement is kind of hard.

I teach new skiers to counter rotate all the time. They
don't have trouble with it. Old dogs that aren't used
to doing it have more trouble getting the idea, but
once they do, it's like they're free, and they'd never
been so before. A big key to this seems to be showing
them that they actually can turn their skis by turning
the shoulders the opposite way of the turn. Once again,
not with the goal that they turn only using the shoulders,
but to use the shoulders to balance out the equation of
the turn.

Maybe harder than
learning consistently linked turns that allow control but barely allow you
to point your skis long enough across the fall line to actually need a
counter motion (at least not much of one)

Exactly. Making different sized turns as the terrain
demands *is* more difficult than doing a bunch of
linked s-turns in a sequence. Especially as the terrain
gets tougher. To do this, you must have control over
shoulder rotation, and either naturally be doing it,
or understand how it all works.

On easy slopes, flatten your skis and try to turn them
*only* by counter rotation. Extend your arms out to
the side in a cross like position to aid the turning.
It seems unnatural until the switch clicks, don't
you think?

That's the whole point with me, it's just a little bit, but
it's still rotation or counter rotation. Quiet upper body
*is* rotation and counter rotation. Rather than trying
to turn the skis this way alone, it's mostly used to
equalize the upper body against the turning lower body,
but it's *still* rotation and counter rotation. If the skis
turn left, the upper body *must* turn the opposite way.
Otherwise you're fighting yourself.

Good ski technique, along with
deep sidecuts, are finishing off turns with a healthy enough momentum to
continue into the next turn. Of course steep terrain would certainly
cause
any skier to possibly use a little counter movement. I think as long as a
skier doesn't initiate with extreme rotation, they will have little need
for
counter rotation. It really depends how rotating affects their balance.
You can initially rotate a small amount into a turn and as long as this
rotation is exclusive to the upper body and not the driving force of the
lower body, you are fine.

Exactly, not the idea of actually *turning* the skis
through shoulder rotation, but using shoulder rotation
to free up the skis to turn. Or to help wind up a turn
at the end.

An extreme example is when a good racer's upper
body becomes off balance but manages to keep their lower body in control
and
moving down the hill. In retrospect, if counter rotation seems less
pervasive, it's probably because of more emphasis on keeping a steady
shoulder presence pointing down hill, instead of initiating turns with
more
extreme shoulder influence. Most good skiers will not even bother to
counter rotate when coming to a skidded hockey stop.

Ah, but your upper body will still face down the hill.
At least, the stop will work a lot better if the body
does face down the hill.

I say that *is* counter rotation. Rotation or counter
rotation is simply the rotation of the shoulders, not
necessarily the use of it to actually turn the skis.

You *can* do this if you want, but that's not
the end or beginning of it.

I have the best success, when taking a student to
steeper slopes for the first time, but asking them
to take one turn at a time to a stop, *then* learn
to link the turns.

I introduce students to a bit of counter rotation at the
end of a turn in the fourth to sixth hour of their
skiing lives. It helps them to wind up a turn to a stop,
instead of continuing on up the hill, and ending up sking
backward down the hill.

"foot2foot" wrote in message ...
"Kneale Brownson" wrote in message

If you are making turns shorter than your skis can carve, you
appropriately maintain the "quiet upper body" and the skis turn more
under you than they would in longer carved arcs. But you are not
rotating the upper body into an anticipated position against the lower
body before or at the point of turn initiation nor are you countering
the upper body against a turning lower body as the turn finishes.
Instead you are turning the lower body against the stable mass of the
upper body.

I'll have to go along with the stable upper mass, as,
to me, and to my beginners and intermediates that I teach,
Home Position, with the hands forward always, etc, is
the anchor which allows the turn to work. Especially the
hand position as well as a square upper body to the skis
(shoulders face forward, at a right angle to the skis).

But when you move on to more advanced slopes and
turns, the equation changes. Countering the skis with
the upper body, or however you want to put it, becomes
a necessary part of it. Keeping the shoulders square with
the skis at the end of a turn doesn't work very well. Nor
does starting a turn with the shoulders square to the skis.

If your turn initiation involves skidding the tails (which I suspect
is part of your problem with passing level II), then you NEED the
anticipated upper body of days of yore, Foot. If, however, you
initiate turns by rolling onto the new set of edges and allowing your
center of mass to move forward and inside the turn radius, you don't
need the upper body's help in getting the turn going.

The historic rotation of the upper body into the turn, which really
was almost a necessity given the nature of the skis and boots in use
at the time, is an active force that accompanied almost a leap to
relieve pressure on the skis and allow them to turn the way the body
was rotated. Remaining facing down a fall line is a long ways from
rotating the shoulders into that position. And if you've left the
shoulders facing down the fall line, you hardly can "counter" it into
that position at the end of the turn. The differences are in the
amount of activity.


Surely I don't advocate either extreme of the old days,
either rotated or counter rotated, with the shoulders
nearly parallel to the skis. This is ineffective.

Again, there's a big difference between a relaxed "quiet upper body"
and active rotation/counter rotation movements. That's why the
application of those terms makes no instructional sense. Indeed,
there's little instructional value in most terminology.

I'm only seeing semantics here. The same muscles that
make an active rotational movement of the shoulders
are the same ones that hold the upper body in place as
the skis and legs turn under the skier.

If you're "holding" the upper body square with the fall line, it's not
a relaxed quiet upper body. Again, you need to distinguish between
carved turns and those that are shorter than the built-in turn of the
pair of skis you're riding, given the snow conditions and the forces
generated by speed and your weight.