Why wider stance for GS and even wider for SG and DH?

PMTS Forum

Why wider stance for GS and even wider for SG and DH?

Postby ChuckT » Wed Dec 26, 2007 11:03 am

Watching WCSN clips, I see Linsey Vonn has a very nice, narrow stance when she skies SL but has noticeably wider horizontal legs separation in speed events. The men in DH also have what looks to my untrained eyes almost an A frame when they glide. But when they make a sharp turn, I can see most of them narrow their legs separation (looking much more elegant).

What is the advantage of a wider stance in this situation?
ChuckT
 
Posts: 113
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 3:06 am

Postby h.harb » Wed Dec 26, 2007 11:39 am

Before I answer the question I have to put some of the disciplines you mention into context with real skiing. First, to be able to present ski racing with the slightest relevance or comparison to everyday recreational skiing, which includes all mountain and bump skiing, you can only use slalom. Most skiers don’t ski at even slalom speeds, which can be as high as 35mph. In today’s skiing world, recreational skiers, even expert skiers, rarely ski a turn at WC GS speeds, let alone Super G or Downhill. Skiing straight down a slope on fat skis at 45mph, without turning (which is what most skiers on these products do) doesn’t count as GS or Super G skiing. The WC skiers do these speeds and higher, in turns.

So, whatever is happening at GS speeds, can’t be applied, related to, or compared to recreational skiing or recreational skiers. Look at slalom for your technical comparisons, it’s the closest thing to what we can do on the slopes. Slalom is also the basis for short turns, and short turns are used in bump skiing, speed control and most all mountain situations.

Now to answer the question of why skiers in Super G and Downhill need and can hold a wide stance. Aerodynamics is a huge issue in speed, so to stay lower the easiest way is to get the feet apart and lower the body between them. That said, skiers will give up this position if the turns become technical, in many cases to make speed, the turn is more important than any aerodynamic gains that can be achieved by a wide stance and lower body position.

In addition, a recreational skier or instructor can not relate to the forces generated from such high speed and high energy turns. Therefore it is a huge error to base any technique or assumptions about technique for skier development, on what activities or movements are obvious in GS, Super G or Downhill turns. It is at times interesting to observe trends, such as GS skiing becoming much closer in nature to slalom skiing. GS skiers are using more flexing and bending in their releases than they did even 5 years ago.
User avatar
h.harb
 
Posts: 7047
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 2:08 pm
Location: Dumont, Colorado

Postby ChuckT » Wed Dec 26, 2007 12:05 pm

Harald,

Thank you for answering my rather academic question. As always, you gave clear and precise information.

whatever is happening at GS speeds, can't be applied, related to, or compared to recreational skiing or recreational skiers...Therefore it is a huge error to base any technique or assumptions about technique for skier development, on what activities or movements are obvious in GS, Super G or Downhill turns.


I bet a lot of people who do not have your experience and understanding are making and propagating this "huge error" with recreational skiers.
ChuckT
 
Posts: 113
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 3:06 am

Postby h.harb » Wed Dec 26, 2007 12:49 pm

It is strange that even coaches that are supposed to know better fall into these traps. I think it?s the get it fast, instant success mentality. This never worked in any sport, you have to analyze the level of movement capability and balancing ability of the athlete and then build the skier from a strong foundation. There has never been a easy fast way to become a champion, ask Michael Jordon or Tiger Woods.

If you don?t understand that what?s happening is wrong and you just look over what was happening on the WC, a few years ago, you would have said, ?Oh look they are all skiing with the feet apart.?

Sure it?s obvious, but what are the situations and the causes? Does it apply to my skiers or are my skiers ready for this.

It?s for this reason I presented the vertical separation vs. horizontal separation explanation, so many instructors were getting it wrong. The whole PSIA dogma is still all about a wide stance, pivoting and steering for beginners and intermediates.
User avatar
h.harb
 
Posts: 7047
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 2:08 pm
Location: Dumont, Colorado

Postby HeluvaSkier » Wed Dec 26, 2007 2:13 pm

Harald,
Would you consider a critical difference between the model turn in traditional instruction versus the model turn in PMTS to be that in many (most/all?) cases traditional instruction focuses on a GS turn as the model turn? I believe that a lot of articles have been written about how the GS turn is the model for which modern (traditional) instruction has been built on. This was probably the very first revelation I had when I started learning more about PMTS. Those who come from a racing background more than likely recognize a lot of what PMTS teaches as good slalom technique.
Discipline is the refining fire by which talent becomes ability.

www.youtube.com/c/heluvaskier
User avatar
HeluvaSkier
 
Posts: 1526
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2005 7:29 pm
Location: Western New York

Postby h.harb » Wed Dec 26, 2007 4:04 pm

HeluvaSkier wrote:
Would you consider a critical difference between the model turn in traditional instruction versus the model turn in PMTS to be that in many (most/all?) cases traditional instruction focuses on a GS turn as the model turn?

I would suggest that TTS?s model turn is based on a poorly constructed and conceived GS approach. But again, we have to keep a number of observations in context with TTS?s methods of describing skiing.

It is increasingly difficult to pin down what TTS actually means with any of their descriptions of skiing. If they could ever accurately describe their skiing approach, using valid, accurate movement, words that should describe what they mean, rather than these nebulous concepts, (such as blending skills) that generate only confused open-ended outcomes, they would see how frustrating their system is to teach. The TTS model turn is more of a repackaged, detuned GS turn, a contraption to suit and justify their ineffective maneuver based system that?s based on a Skill Blending model.

I use the terms sample or example to describe the PMTS turn; as it is just that, a sample. We don't use the term Model as the word already has limitations and is not applicable in all situations. Our Sample Turn is just what it says, a sample of what can be done with the "Essentials" movement approach. We leave little to conjecture or guess work. Although there seem to be many attempts by PSIA instructors to repackage my work and twist it so they can confuse it with the rest of their belief based system.
User avatar
h.harb
 
Posts: 7047
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 2:08 pm
Location: Dumont, Colorado

Postby h.harb » Wed Dec 26, 2007 4:14 pm

Helvaskier wrote:
I believe that a lot of articles have been written about how the GS turn is the model for which modern (traditional) instruction has been built on. This was probably the very first revelation I had when I started learning more about PMTS.

First I'd like to see who writes these articles.
Since when can the forces and speed of a WC GS turn be interpreted to apply to a skier that pushes the uphill ski, uphill, to get the skis into wedge position?

TTS doesn?t have the background or experience to describe the complexities of the different WC GS turns, they have difficulty describing movements of their basic parallel turn, and have even more difficultly doing what they describe.
Last edited by h.harb on Wed Dec 26, 2007 4:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
h.harb
 
Posts: 7047
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 2:08 pm
Location: Dumont, Colorado

Postby h.harb » Wed Dec 26, 2007 4:17 pm

Those who come from a racing background more than likely recognize a lot of what PMTS teaches as good slalom technique.


If you have the fundamentals of Essentails, in your skiing, it doesn't matter if you want to be a GS skier or a slalom skier.
User avatar
h.harb
 
Posts: 7047
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 2:08 pm
Location: Dumont, Colorado

Postby HeluvaSkier » Wed Dec 26, 2007 4:40 pm

h.harb wrote:
Those who come from a racing background more than likely recognize a lot of what PMTS teaches as good slalom technique.


If you have the fundamentals of Essentails, in your skiing, it doesn't matter if you want to be a GS skier or a slalom skier.


Agreed. I don't think there is anyone out there who could argue (logically) that the "essentials" are not present in high level skiing. Depending on the event I think they are displayed to different degrees as you said above in your reference to GS skiers starting to display more flexion than they did as little as 5 years ago.
Discipline is the refining fire by which talent becomes ability.

www.youtube.com/c/heluvaskier
User avatar
HeluvaSkier
 
Posts: 1526
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2005 7:29 pm
Location: Western New York

Postby ChuckT » Wed Dec 26, 2007 9:49 pm

[HeluvaSkier wrote]I believe that a lot of articles have been written about how the GS turn is the model for which modern (traditional) instruction has been built on.[/quote]

I'd like to venture a guess about the TTS GS turn instruction based on my understanding of Harald's answer to my question. The Essentials of the PMTS turn constitute the most efficient way to ski. Period. Now, at the speeds attainable by elite racers in speed events, minimizing air drag becomes important and a wider stance helps even though it is not the best from an efficient skiing perspective. The elite racers have the skills and the strength to handle a wide stand for better aerodynamics when not confronted with a technical turn. The wide stand does not make better GS turns or more efficient skiing in any way. It merely results in lower air drag. It is a trade-off that becomes advantageous for longer radius turns at high speeds: The GS turns as performed by elite racers.

Without the understanding that the real reason is aerodynamics at speeds that are inaccessible to most recreational skiers (I didn't till Harald explained it this morning), it is easy to try to imitate WC racers with a wider stance for long radius turns. In doing so at recreational speed, efficient skiing is sacrificed for no good reasons. Since the form of such a skier resembles, to untrained eyes, that of a WC GS skier, the myth of a GS turn model was born and supported by nebulous, hard to pin down theories. Am I correct?
ChuckT
 
Posts: 113
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 3:06 am

Postby tdk6 » Fri Dec 28, 2007 7:42 am

What is TTS?

I have not to this date seen any instructor with no prior racing experiance ski a GS cource in a convincing way. As far as I know conventional ski instruction aims at getting people skiing at regular speeds and in different terrain. Most instruction happens at lower skill level and that is pritty far from GS.

Exactly which of the "essentials" are not used in GS?
tdk6
 
Posts: 441
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 12:56 am
Location: Europe

Postby h.harb » Fri Dec 28, 2007 6:26 pm

TTS, Traditional Teaching Systems, all of them.

If that ?s the case you do instructors continually refer to GS turns as the basis for their teaching approach???????
User avatar
h.harb
 
Posts: 7047
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 2:08 pm
Location: Dumont, Colorado

Postby tdk6 » Sat Dec 29, 2007 3:55 am

h.harb wrote:TTS, Traditional Teaching Systems, all of them.

If that ?s the case you do instructors continually refer to GS turns as the basis for their teaching approach???????

The TTS seems to be a pritty coloured heterogen group of individual ski instructors, ski school assosiations, ski schools and teaching systems all arround the world. Maybe its PSIA that uses that reference. I dont but I cant speak for the rest of the TTS society.
tdk6
 
Posts: 441
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 12:56 am
Location: Europe

Postby François » Wed Jan 02, 2008 10:08 am

Just speaking for myself, I tend to have use little wider stance when skiing at SG speeds than GS or Sl speeds. I'm not sure why. One reason could be that having a wider base of support while blasting down an unprepared run at very high speeds just seems a little better with a little more room for error, and in the event of an unexpected sudden course adjustment I am a little closer to having my cm and outside ski in a position to apply force with less delay.
François
 
Posts: 229
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:08 pm


Return to Primary Movements Teaching System

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 50 guests