A Snow and ski forum. SkiBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SkiBanter forum » Skiing Newsgroups » Nordic Skiing
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Still a Place for "Old School" Double Pole?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 14th 10, 03:54 PM posted to rec.skiing.nordic
Jon[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 50
Default Still a Place for "Old School" Double Pole?

I still feel unsure on the latest thinking regarding double pole
technique. Pete Vordenberg says: "The initial impact of the poles is
when the most force is applied to the poles and it is applied quickly
– it is when the most power is applied. Wham!"

What I wonder about is for skiers who aren't very powerful, is there
still a place for a double pole technique that has a gentler initial
impact, then gradually increases pressure as you go fairly deep with
upper body?

In other words, has anyone shown the newer, more explosive technique
to be most efficient for all skiers, or do you have to train
specifically to incorporate it into your skiing?

Thanks,

Jon
Ads
  #2  
Old December 14th 10, 05:50 PM posted to rec.skiing.nordic
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 572
Default Still a Place for "Old School" Double Pole?

You can do what's comfortable, and in some circumstances, such as slow
snow, the older, more extended slower style that involves the triceps
more is sometimes the way to go. The newer DP style (past 10 years)
emphasizes using core muscles and lats, which are much stronger. The
conceptual key is that skiing is a push-and-glide sport, so getting the
most out of the push phase from the upper body - down through the poles
and down into the legs - makes sense. Think of a 90k DP-fest like Mora:
would you rather depend on core/torso or arm/back muscles? Of course,
no one is doing short, truly explosive strokes every time; one could't
last long that way. Rather, it's a matter of which muscles are used for
greatest efficiency for the situation. The technique difference
becomes clear if you try an explosive DP with short strokes up a short
rise (hands only to hips).

Studies have consistently found a strong correlation between upper body
VO2max (on a treadmill) and race results. So yes, those ab, lat, etc.,
exercises, as well as lots of rollerski and on-snow DP, pay off. One
thing I get a big bang for the time from in this regard, and for general
conditioning, is kettlebells. One just needs to be shown how to use
them properly (and hopefully have a local gym with them).

Gene


On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 07:54:10 -0800 (PST)
Jon wrote:

I still feel unsure on the latest thinking regarding double pole
technique. Pete Vordenberg says: "The initial impact of the poles is
when the most force is applied to the poles and it is applied quickly
– it is when the most power is applied. Wham!"

What I wonder about is for skiers who aren't very powerful, is there
still a place for a double pole technique that has a gentler initial
impact, then gradually increases pressure as you go fairly deep with
upper body?

In other words, has anyone shown the newer, more explosive technique
to be most efficient for all skiers, or do you have to train
specifically to incorporate it into your skiing?

Thanks,

Jon

  #3  
Old December 14th 10, 06:10 PM posted to rec.skiing.nordic
Jon[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 50
Default Still a Place for "Old School" Double Pole?

*Think of a 90k DP-fest like Mora:
would you rather depend on core/torso or arm/back muscles? *Of course,
no one is doing short, truly explosive strokes every time; one could't
last long that way.


This clarifies where I'm confused. I've always thought of, even the
old, slow, double-pole as mostly depending on abs. The different for
me, when I try a shorter explosive style, is that less of my body
weight comes into play. In the old-school style, I think of falling
on the pole, and then continue that feeling of body weight on the
poles, while I add an ab crunch. New style feels like all ab crunch
and lat pull-down.

In teaching intermediate skiers, it has still seemed productive to
encourage them to feel the body weight sensation...

Jon
  #4  
Old December 14th 10, 08:26 PM posted to rec.skiing.nordic
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 572
Default Still a Place for "Old School" Double Pole?

On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 10:10:05 -0800 (PST)
Jon wrote:

_Think of a 90k DP-fest like Mora:
would you rather depend on core/torso or arm/back muscles? _Of
course, no one is doing short, truly explosive strokes every time;
one could't last long that way.


This clarifies where I'm confused. I've always thought of, even the
old, slow, double-pole as mostly depending on abs. The different for
me, when I try a shorter explosive style, is that less of my body
weight comes into play. In the old-school style, I think of falling
on the pole, and then continue that feeling of body weight on the
poles, while I add an ab crunch. New style feels like all ab crunch
and lat pull-down.

In teaching intermediate skiers, it has still seemed productive to
encourage them to feel the body weight sensation...


Ab crunch and lat pull down describes it well. In teaching DP, I start
with the basic motion, i.e., ab crunch with knees flexing over ankles
(vs. "sitting on the pot"). Then I move onto how to bring the core
forward in the initiation, using the image of an arrow protruding from
the C-O-G. But not way forward, tho I still give use the "timber!"
exercise to break through the feear about bringing the body forward. In
the newer style, there is normally less fall forward (vs. a sprint); in
fact, I've had a couple of coaches say there is none, just make sure
one's hips are not lagging.

The old DP did, of course, engage the abs first. However, by reaching
out with the arms and using relatively straight legs it took away
everything above the abs, and missed the central biomechanical
advantage of enhancing the push off; everything was spread over the
course of the entire push and glide. It also put a lot of pressure on
skiers' backs. I suspect there are fewer back problems since the
changeover.

Gene
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Fischer "Zeros" or similar "chemical-based" skis... Chris Cole Nordic Skiing 2 March 1st 09 10:27 PM
Has "C-Shaped" Double Poling Led to Increase In Spine Injuries? [email protected] Nordic Skiing 6 February 28th 09 07:40 PM
Is "Base Oxidation" "Freezer Burn"? Gary Jacobson[_2_] Nordic Skiing 3 December 2nd 08 05:10 AM
burton's "twin-like" vs "directional twin" TacoJohn Snowboarding 0 December 21st 07 03:46 AM
What happened to those "double deckers"? JQ Alpine Skiing 5 January 15th 07 01:30 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SkiBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.