Is there a skill level system?

I found this:

Level One

Congratulations! Your about to participate in an exciting and beautiful
sport!

You should definitely read before you go. This is the most important
time to get into a lesson. Friends and loved ones may mean well but
invariably get you into dangerous situations. A half or full day lesson
will equip you with the basic skills and concepts you need to enjoy
skiing. This small investment of time and money will be an investment
for life!

Level Two

You are able to stop on green runs using the wedge or "snowplow". You
may be able to make some direction change but linked turns are yet to come.

Level Three

You are able to stop and link wedge turns on green runs comfortably.

Level Four

You are relying more on turn shape than wedge size to slow you down.
Your wedge is getting smaller and by the end of the turn your skis are
running parallel. This level represents a major milestone. Mastery of
level four concepts prepare the student for the transition from green
runs to blue ones!

Level Five

You are using similar wedge-match turning mechanics to the level four
skier. The primary difference is that you are able to use the technique
comfortably on blue runs.

Level Six

Your wedge (or stem) is mostly gone and you are making open parallel
turns on blue runs.

Level Seven

You are able to change turn radius and duration comfortably on blue
runs. Pole plants are being used to time turns. Blue-black and black
diamond runs are starting to look skiable.

Level Eight

You are comfortable on blue-black terrain. You can ski in the fall line
on easier moguls.

Level Nine

You can ski black diamond bumps, steeps and varied snow conditions
comfortably. Sadly, not even all instructors are strong level nine skiers.

Wai Chan wrote:

This may be a trivial question for some of you -- particularly the
instructors and competitors... Is there a unified system to designate
one's skill level in alpine skiing? I notice that some of the resorts use
the Levels 1 through 10 system with 10 being the most expert. Is that the
standard?


--------------------------------------------

W R Chan from Upstate NY
(to respond, remove ### from email address)

* I have no stinking sig *

"Wai Chan" wrote in message
. 1.24...
"foot2foot" wrote in
:
I notice that some of
the resorts use the Levels 1 through 10 system with 10 being the most
expert. Is that the standard?

Yes it is, but it's a bit subjective at best.
In the US at least.
Be that as it may. It's still more precise than the green/blue/black
system.

Why do you ask?
More for curiosity than anything else. Also, when asked about level of
ability, it would be nice to be able to describe it more definitively than
say "high blue at this resort and low black at another".

Thanks for the reply to my reply!

Perhaps I could put it this way. The first levels,
something around one through six can be accomplished
in two hours of instruction. The big step is moving
from the "stem" of the outside ski, or the use of a
wedge to turn, or to begin a turn, to a turn in which skis
remain parallel start to finish. A "level 6" skier can do
this, though it may not look all that pretty. Then comes
the question, *where* can he/she do it? On the bunny
hill, then the turn falls apart as the skier tries a steeper
slope? This isn't addressed in the "levels" concept.

The problem, is, a wedge does not work well on
anything but a very gentle slope. A good solution is
to simply not spend hardly any time at all in the wedge
as the student learns.

Not so long ago, the levels referred to at least one
lesson or more per level. This meant perhaps a whole
year before a student was even introduced to an attempt
at parallel skiing. The first two to four hours were spent
learning to stand and step on the skis, and how to fall.
No wonder that 90 some percent of the first time skiers
never returned.

The real importance is, not how the skier looks, but will
the turn *work* on intermediate slopes, no matter how
"ugly" it might be to the purist instructor.

You've brought up a highly significant point, though.
Green black and blue mean next to nothing. One resort's
black is another's blue. Many "double diamond" slopes
are far from expert only difficulty. The slopes should
actually be rated in terms of the degree of inclination of
the slope. This would not be hard to do, and would be
of tremendous use to the new, intermediate or
experienced skier. At present, there really is no way
to realistically assess a slope for your own purposes
(do I really want to take my wife down this?) until you
go down it yourself.

The skier should be greeted at the top of the trail with
the name of the trail, a color designation if desired, and
a real *number* like "25 degrees" that refers to the
steepest part of that trail. The skier could then relate
their own abilities to the numbers. "By the end of the
year I want to go down a 30 degree trail"."My wife can
go down a 25 degree with no problem".

foot2foot wrote:

Perhaps I could put it this way. The first levels,
something around one through six can be accomplished
in two hours of instruction.

Never-ever to open parallel in two hours? Are you nuts?

Maybe at the school for the naturally gifted athlete. But the average
adult is not going to go from "this is a ski" to open parallel on blue
slopes in two hours. No matter how much time they've spent jumping over
doormats.


BTW, the Level 1 through 9 scale is intended as a way to sort students
into group lessons and has limited applicability to any other purpose.
In particular, I wouldn't use it to rate what terrain the person can (or
should) ski.

--
//-Walt
//
// The Volkl Conspiracy

In article ,
Walt wrote:

foot2foot wrote:

Perhaps I could put it this way. The first levels,
something around one through six can be accomplished
in two hours of instruction.

Never-ever to open parallel in two hours? Are you nuts?

Maybe at the school for the naturally gifted athlete. But the average
adult is not going to go from "this is a ski" to open parallel on blue
slopes in two hours. No matter how much time they've spent jumping over
doormats.

I'm not so sure I agree.

I've had some experience teaching absolute beginners and I think it
might be possible in more than a few cases.

I think that 4 hours would do it for lot of people.



BTW, the Level 1 through 9 scale is intended as a way to sort students
into group lessons and has limited applicability to any other purpose.
In particular, I wouldn't use it to rate what terrain the person can (or
should) ski.

--
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."

"foot2foot" wrote in message
...

"Wai Chan" wrote in message
. 1.24...
"foot2foot" wrote in
:
I notice that some of
the resorts use the Levels 1 through 10 system with 10 being the most
expert. Is that the standard?

Yes it is, but it's a bit subjective at best.
In the US at least.
Be that as it may. It's still more precise than the green/blue/black
system.

Why do you ask?
More for curiosity than anything else. Also, when asked about level of
ability, it would be nice to be able to describe it more definitively
than
say "high blue at this resort and low black at another".

Thanks for the reply to my reply!

Perhaps I could put it this way. The first levels,
something around one through six can be accomplished
in two hours of instruction. The big step is moving
from the "stem" of the outside ski, or the use of a
wedge to turn, or to begin a turn, to a turn in which skis
remain parallel start to finish.

The big step is not sweating the difference between a parallel turn and a
turn starting with a stem.

A "level 6" skier can do
this, though it may not look all that pretty. Then comes
the question, *where* can he/she do it? On the bunny
hill, then the turn falls apart as the skier tries a steeper
slope? This isn't addressed in the "levels" concept.

The problem, is, a wedge does not work well on
anything but a very gentle slope.

A pure snowplow turn doesn't work well, you're right, but a stem to start
the turn is pretty much essential for a vast majority of skiers trying to
negotiate more difficult terrain, and in my experience it "works" pretty
darn well. As long as people don't view stemming as some sort of a failure,
and as long as they have proper instruction, they can use a stem to build
confidence on steeper terrain and in different conditions. Gradually the
level at which they are forced to stem will rise.

A good solution is
to simply not spend hardly any time at all in the wedge
as the student learns.

Right on. There's no point teaching people to snowplow down the bunny hill
when their skis want to run straight as they cross the fall line.

Not so long ago, the levels referred to at least one
lesson or more per level. This meant perhaps a whole
year before a student was even introduced to an attempt
at parallel skiing. The first two to four hours were spent
learning to stand and step on the skis, and how to fall.
No wonder that 90 some percent of the first time skiers
never returned.

The real importance is, not how the skier looks, but will
the turn *work* on intermediate slopes, no matter how
"ugly" it might be to the purist instructor.

You've brought up a highly significant point, though.
Green black and blue mean next to nothing. One resort's
black is another's blue. Many "double diamond" slopes
are far from expert only difficulty. The slopes should
actually be rated in terms of the degree of inclination of
the slope. This would not be hard to do, and would be
of tremendous use to the new, intermediate or
experienced skier. At present, there really is no way
to realistically assess a slope for your own purposes
(do I really want to take my wife down this?) until you
go down it yourself.

The skier should be greeted at the top of the trail with
the name of the trail, a color designation if desired, and
a real *number* like "25 degrees" that refers to the
steepest part of that trail. The skier could then relate
their own abilities to the numbers. "By the end of the
year I want to go down a 30 degree trail"."My wife can
go down a 25 degree with no problem".

littlebirdwithaknife wrote:


A pure snowplow turn doesn't work well, you're right, but a stem to start
the turn is pretty much essential for a vast majority of skiers trying to
negotiate more difficult terrain, and in my experience it "works" pretty
darn well. As long as people don't view stemming as some sort of a failure,
and as long as they have proper instruction, they can use a stem to build
confidence on steeper terrain and in different conditions. Gradually the
level at which they are forced to stem will rise.

I disagree. Stemming may work pretty darn well as long as you stay on
the moderate pitches, but above a certain steepness stemming simply
won't work at all and is a major hinderance. If you're in the habit of
stemming when the terrain gets gnarly because stemming gives you
confidence, you're in for trouble.

The point is to build good habits on the easy terrain so that when the
going gets tough you'll naturally do the right things because that's
what your habits tell you to do.

Stemming is a bad habit - among other things it promotes late weight
shift - and will cause you to do precisely the *wrong* thing when the
terrain gets steep. Dump it.

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

"littlebirdwithaknife" wrote in message
...

"foot2foot" wrote in message
Perhaps I could put it this way. The first levels,
something around one through six can be accomplished
in two hours of instruction. The big step is moving
from the "stem" of the outside ski, or the use of a
wedge to turn, or to begin a turn, to a turn in which skis
remain parallel start to finish.

The big step is not sweating the difference between a parallel turn and a
turn starting with a stem.

A more effective method is to start a turn with a wedge,
if need be, then learn to leave it alone. The "stem" is truly
a concept that belongs to the old days. The key is to let go
of the big toe edge of the inside ski as soon as possible.
If you never even get on that inside ski big toe edge, you
have a parallel turn, no matter how clumsy.

This is best accomplished by gettting the student on one
foot at a time as soon as this can be done. The key to
getting on one foot at a time is picking up the tail of the
inside ski while leaving the tip on the snow.

The problem, is, a wedge does not work well on
anything but a very gentle slope.

A pure snowplow turn doesn't work well, you're right, but a stem to start
the turn is pretty much essential for a vast majority of skiers trying to
negotiate more difficult terrain, and in my experience it "works" pretty
darn well.


Ah, but the use of a *wedge* to initiate the turn is so
much preferable to the use of a stem. The use of the
wedge to initiate is one of the reasons the student makes
fast progress.


A good solution is
to simply not spend hardly any time at all in the wedge
as the student learns.

Right on. There's no point teaching people to snowplow down the bunny hill
when their skis want to run straight as they cross the fall line.

Thanks for the reply, this is interesting.

"Walt" wrote in message
Never-ever to open parallel in two hours? Are you nuts?


Nope. I do it all the time, and it's not me, it's the system.
Any given class, half of the students will be in a rough
parallel at the end of two hours. The other half will need
more work in particular areas. That first half will be able
to take their turn up on the blues *and learn* to ski
the blues capably, usually after another hour to two
hours they'll be able to. Some go right out and ski blacks.

There are only two ways to get this kind of result that
I know of. One is schrittbogen, or related, the other is
short skis. like 120's. In the end though, you must make
a big adjustment to long skis anyway.

Many instructors accomplish this result, but it's due to
short skis or some variation of schrittbogen. Harb's ski
instruction system is a variation of schrittbogen.

Half of any given class, rough parallel in two hours.
A turn that will work on the blues. Consistently, it
happens.

Parallel is defined by the lack of use of the big toe
edge of the inside ski. In other words, the wedge is
gone.

foot2foot wrote:

"Walt" wrote in message

Never-ever to open parallel in two hours? Are you nuts?


Nope. I do it all the time, and it's not me, it's the system.

You don't sell Amway by any chance, do you?


--
//-Walt
//
// There is no system

"Walt" wrote in message
...
littlebirdwithaknife wrote:


A pure snowplow turn doesn't work well, you're right, but a stem to
start
the turn is pretty much essential for a vast majority of skiers trying
to
negotiate more difficult terrain, and in my experience it "works" pretty
darn well. As long as people don't view stemming as some sort of a
failure,
and as long as they have proper instruction, they can use a stem to
build
confidence on steeper terrain and in different conditions. Gradually the
level at which they are forced to stem will rise.

I disagree. Stemming may work pretty darn well as long as you stay on
the moderate pitches, but above a certain steepness stemming simply
won't work at all and is a major hinderance. If you're in the habit of
stemming when the terrain gets gnarly because stemming gives you
confidence, you're in for trouble.

A "stem" is indeed a relic of the past. If you need to, it's
most effective to use a *wedge* to initiate a turn. Can you
explain the difference between the two?

Even the most accomplished expert will use a wedge if they
need to for one reason or another.

The point is to build good habits on the easy terrain so that when the
going gets tough you'll naturally do the right things because that's
what your habits tell you to do.

Stemming is a bad habit - among other things it promotes late weight
shift - and will cause you to do precisely the *wrong* thing when the
terrain gets steep. Dump it.

There's no such thing as a "bad habit". This is arrogance speaking.
Who is the one to determine a thing is "bad"? For that matter,
define "bad".

There is also no such thing as "should", nor any such thing as
"correct", nor such a thing as "unlearn".


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