Why teaching the wedge doesn't work

PMTS Forum

Postby Ott Gangl » Thu Oct 07, 2004 12:26 pm

>>>They are grabbing onto the wide stance shown in some of the examples but adaptiing it to a poor 2 footed carving technique (as shown in the videos).<<<

POOR two footed carving technique? John, John, John...

The entertainment value of your posts has just fallen flat, you are in danger to becoming the laughing stock because of your PMTS hype and it rubs off on HH since he obviouslly reads this stuff and by his silence condones, if not supports it.

Realize that you are the de facto spokesman for PMTS because no one else is, so many people reading your stuff may well get turned off, though some may get turned on.

You keep saying that the turns you saw were not like the PMTS turns. Why should they be? The retro look of close stance and one footed skiing may get wolf whistles from the girls on the chair but they are not better than any other high level turn, just different, so let them be different.

Oh GOD, bring back SCSA....

......Ott
Ott Gangl
 
Posts: 451
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 3:16 pm
Location: Ohio, USA via Bavaria

Postby tommy » Thu Oct 07, 2004 1:04 pm

Ott and others...

John has stated zillions of times that he only has some 70+ days of skiing under his belt, all achived under a year or two. So, how *ANYONE* could possibly jump to the conclusion that he speaking for PMTS or Harald, is just beyond my comprehension!

Personally, I'm impressed by someone who's fallen so much in love with the sport, and who is so eager to learn, but at the same time, I don't pay *too* much attention to the comments or conclusions of someone who's been spending less time on skis in his whole life than most people I know around here do in less than a year....

Just cut him some slack, will you.... ?

--T
tommy
 
Posts: 264
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 9:27 am
Location: Waxholm, Stockholm Archipelago, Sweden

Postby Ott Gangl » Thu Oct 07, 2004 2:01 pm

Tommy, I've been doing just that, cutting him slack, guiding him when I think it appropriate, and kind of enjoying his rambling as he sometimes brings up good points.

But when he states that unless he sees videos he wont believe that guys like Sogard, Weems or Barnes can ski with high edge angles, and especially that these icons of skiing couldn't ski a turn, a PMTS turn that Harb teaches to his intermediates, the slack has just tightened . That is a stupid statement and if he doesn't know it some had to point it out to him, it happened to be me.

Why isn't there someone in the PMTS community who proof read him?

...Ott
Ott Gangl
 
Posts: 451
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 3:16 pm
Location: Ohio, USA via Bavaria

Postby jclayton » Thu Oct 07, 2004 2:08 pm

Well spoken Tommy ,
this forum by definition is a place to sound off , stand on ones "soapbox" . John has a late starters enthusiasm . He is free to express himself though in a rather oneyed fashion .

How can he be seen as official spokesman . Skiersynergy looks more the part for example with quite succinct contributions .

The arguments on this thread could go on forever , neither side is going to give up . Lets have some more specific contributions , it's getting a bit "airy fairy" .

Ott , you have sparked my curiosity , where did you start skiing ? You obviously have a history . ( a little dark maybe ?? )
skinut ,among other things
User avatar
jclayton
 
Posts: 1019
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 12:37 pm
Location: mallorca ,spain

Guys, Gals and Its

Postby John Mason » Thu Oct 07, 2004 2:25 pm

Guys, Gals and Its - say what you want.

No one seems to be addressing what I'm asking at all.

I'm a beginner for sure. In my beginner eyes, like Eddie brought up as well (and he is not a beginner) there is a different style at the high levels of a PMTS trained skier then people that achieve expert level trained in other approaches.

These are obvious, even to a beginner like me in the short radius turns linked to by MilesB. The turns I see match the technical descriptions of Bob Barnes on Epic. They look and are described consistently. Both the look and description are quite different then how a PMTS skier would handle the same radius turns on the same terrain.

The choice of how valid these differences are and which is the better way to ski, is up to the individual.

But (hear gomer pyle her saying) gooooollllleeey. No one at all seems to be commenting on the forum in public other than eddie and in PM's if there is even a style difference, much less a structural one. I can't get an opinion Yea or Nay on that from the more experienced ones chiming in here. All people are arguing about is should I be reigned in or not and how much slack I should be cut.

What a vacuous discourse.

My observation is that while there are unlimited ways to ski there are two main styles in vogue today. The PMTS style which follows what Lito Tajeda Flores and Eric and Rob Deslauriers also teach and the faux race style two footed carving and it's variations being pushed by a large number of people from much of the instructor community. If these are indeed two styles with structural differences in outcomes, then the student of ski instruction has choices. It becomes an important issue under which school of thought to follow.

In singing you also have 2 major camps, the German method and the Itailian method. The end result is quite different as are the ways people arrive there. There are endless ways to sing, but most are derived from one or the other of these major philosophies.

I have been looking and observing overlaps and differences for a long time and see these also in the various books I have.

So, since no one seems to be interested in discussiong much in a way that furthers my understanding, I'll make it easier:

Just pick one:

1. I believe the outcomes style wise of skiing and ski instruction methodology does not matter. The end result is the same.
2. I believe the outcomes style wise of skiing and ski instruction methodology does matter. The end result is different.
3. I believe the outcomes style wise of skiing and ski instruction methodology does matter, yet the end result is the same.
4. I believe the outcomes style wise of skiing and ski instruction does not matter. The end result is not the same, but that does not matter either.

I'm of course a 2. If two is correct, then its useful to discuss for a student such as myself to study the outcomes and help pick the coach.

1 seems to be what many are saying.
3 is a middle ground. One way may be more efficient than the other, but the end result is the same.
4 is a nice hedonistic approach - just go ski, it's fun

Now try hard - resist temptation to sidetrack. Just reply 1 2 3 or 4 so I can get a clue to the context of the comments

(edited for spelling (the to they))
Last edited by John Mason on Thu Oct 07, 2004 2:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
John Mason
 
Posts: 1050
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 10:52 pm
Location: Lafayette, Indiana, USA

Ott - tisk tisk - I never said that.

Postby John Mason » Thu Oct 07, 2004 2:27 pm

Ott Gangl wrote:But when he states that unless he sees videos he wont believe that guys like Sogard, Weems or Barnes can ski with high edge angles


I thought I went over that. I never said that. I'll put you down as a 1.
John Mason
 
Posts: 1050
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 10:52 pm
Location: Lafayette, Indiana, USA

Postby piggyslayer » Thu Oct 07, 2004 3:50 pm

I am for no 2.

I do not understand why it is not OK to judge experts ski.
John has stated clear reason why he does not like what he sees; nobody seems to be disputing his argument, only his competence level.

I looked at the videos, and share John's opinion. I am not disputing that this is high level PSIA skiing, I am simply saying that as a skier I decide not to choose what I see on these videos as my goal.

To me PMTS is clearly not just teaching system, it is a way to ski after you graduate, if one ever graduates.
PMTS has defined for me elements in ski technique that I value and these elements are different from, what I am reading, non-PMTS skiers value.

One thing I am learning from all these discussions is that if you want to learn how to ski and be good at it you have to be EDUCATED CUSTOMER and make your own decisions.

I think the obvious part of John ski enthusiasm and his clear success in learning is that he has been an educated customer and can decide if he likes what he sees or not. I think, I am the same way.

Is it a misuse of this forum space to share observations like that?
Last edited by piggyslayer on Thu Oct 07, 2004 6:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Piggy Slayer
let the piggy breathe
piggyslayer
 
Posts: 320
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2003 9:27 pm
Location: New Jersey

Postby Ott Gangl » Thu Oct 07, 2004 5:02 pm

>>>>Ott , you have sparked my curiosity , where did you start skiing ? You obviously have a history . ( a little dark maybe ?? )<<<

Well let's see: I started skiing seriously at twelve in the German Alps. Since I'm 72 now pushing 73, this is going to be my sixty-first season.

I went through the German system, the Austrian school, the French and eventually the Early American. I made my Full \Certifcation under the USSA before PSIA existed, then, since PSIA was eventually the only game in town, I taught for 25 years every level skiers, retired from teaching and am not a member of PSIA anymore, my International Ski Instructors Association (ISIA) tie pin is worn occasionally just for effect but otherwise I 'just ski'.

My contemporaries at the time of my early certifiction were skiers like Anderl Moltrer, Pepi Gramshammer, Ernst Hiterseer, Egon Zimmerman, Pepi Stiegler, Stein Ericksen, Christia Pravda, et al. I strived to be like them because they could make the most of the cumbersome equipment we had to deal with. But I never got stuck at any one point and always welcomed the advance in equipment and technique over the years.

There were always great controversies, and there always will be, but we never ever belittled the skiing of these greats, though if you look at old films of them they look really awkward. But they didn't get stuck in the past either.

So when John started criticizing Weems and Sogard's skiing because they didn't match his ideal that really riled me, as I presume you gathered from my latest posts.

Harald Harb is a great skier and I would never say otherwise or criticize the turns he chooses to make, he, like any skier of that echelon can ski any which way, and even I, in my old age can still make the old turns along with the new ones, it isn't rocket science after all it is just skiing and if you look around the hill, teenagers are now doing what top experts could only wish for in the not-to-distance past.

No, my history isnt really dark, it's quite delightful, really... :)

....Ott
Ott Gangl
 
Posts: 451
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 3:16 pm
Location: Ohio, USA via Bavaria

Postby Ott Gangl » Thu Oct 07, 2004 5:03 pm

OK, Joh, whatever....Ott
Ott Gangl
 
Posts: 451
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 3:16 pm
Location: Ohio, USA via Bavaria

Postby jclayton » Fri Oct 08, 2004 3:21 am

Ott,
nice resum? , I'll put you in with those guys in Leni Reifenstahl's movie "White Spirit " or something like that with Hannes Schneider . Joking apart those guys look like they had so much fun with that old equipment and no grooming at all , they really flowed .
skinut ,among other things
User avatar
jclayton
 
Posts: 1019
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 12:37 pm
Location: mallorca ,spain

What jargon and dogma doesn't work

Postby Alaska Mike » Fri Oct 08, 2004 3:43 am

I just waded through this long and sometimes very dogmatic thread. I feel a little drained.

I have attended various racing camps over the last few years with US, Canadian, and Austrian coaches with Europa or World Cup experience. In each camp wider stance width (a personal issue) and two-footed carving (not to be confused with 50/50 weight distribution) were covered. The Canadian coaches in particular focused on constant separation (see the CSCF World 2004 video for further details). They would actually have me exaggerate a wider stance to correct a narrow stance, realizing that my body would find a natural, functional width as I skied. It worked for me. Just because Harald (and others) advocate a more narrow stance does not mean that every high-level coach does. There is still a great deal of debate on this issue. Even within the World Cup there are many approaches to expert skiing. Compare Kostelic with Miller for instance. For example, the difference in fore-aft body positioning in various stages of the turn is huge.

Dismissing an instructor as less skilled because of his organizational affiliation is just plain wrong. An experienced instructor that maintains a long-term passion for the sport will naturally seek all sorts of input to increase his "bag of tricks", no matter what the source. I'm fairly sure Weems can perform all sorts of turn styles, it's a question of intent. Hopefully John will maintain his interest in teaching while opening his mind a bit. PMTS's progression/goal oriented approach obviously appeals to him more than the relatively loose format of PSIA, but that isn't any reason to discount other approaches out of hand.

Many PSIA instructors face large class sizes, equipment of all vintages, insufficient/improper terrain, and students of greatly varying motivation levels- the PSIA approach has to be extremely flexible to get the greatest impact for the majority of students. Is it the fastest way to expert skiing? Probably not, but it is probably the fastest way to get a large number of students skiing. Since a great number of them have no interest in progressing past the very basics of the sport even if they had the considerable resources required to do so, one or two lessons are all they will ever take. Few resorts are willing to reward true expertise, upgrade rental equipment, or reduce class size. These are the realities that instructors face, and I believe they do a good job of getting a bunch of people doing a fairly ridiculous activity- sliding down a hill with sticks strapped to your feet. Sure, there are less-than-capable instructors out there in PSIA. If PMTS was as large as PSIA I'm sure they would slip through the cracks there too- especially with resort managers watching the bottom line. Sorry, that's the reality of human nature.

If it was available to me, I probably would have enjoyed training with a PMTS instructor. Unfortunately, Harald left Alyeska before I got there and there are no PMTS instructors at the resort. Self-diagnosis isn't my strong suit and the first book was a bit rigid for my tastes without an instructor's feedback. PSIA instruction got expensive quickly and didn't provide a lot of continuity at the upper levels(instructors kept moving back to the lower 48), so I turned to race training instead. I thrived under a progression-oriented system, where improvement is measureable and obvious. However, the hours of drills and directed skiing isn't for everyone. I would say that most people aren't built that way.

PSIA and PMTS both have their strengths and weaknesses, and both have their place. I honestly can't say one is better than the other for every type of skier.
-Mike

You probably think you ski better than I do. You're probably right.
Alaska Mike
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 3:41 am
Location: Anchorage, Alaska

why assume it's jargon and dogma?

Postby John Mason » Fri Oct 08, 2004 4:34 pm

Alaska Mike wrote:Dismissing an instructor as less skilled because of his organizational affiliation is just plain wrong.


Agreed - absolutly. If anyone thought that's what I said, then re-read.

I see two styles of skiing most taught today. I pointed out 3 authors that advocate the style I like. Only one of these authors were PMTS. The other two authors wrote and encourage a similar style of skiing. Edie pointed out a Demo team PSIA member he likes and others whoose styles he does not like. Of course they are all acomplished skiers.

These two general styles cross PSIA boundaries as PSIA is not a ski "method" per-se . It's a "big tent" more than an endorsement of a single approach to skiing. The non-big tent style link that BigE posted and cert standards argue counter to the prior two statements, yet many PMTS instructors and certs are also PSIA instructors and some are even PSIA examiners.

Alaska Mike wrote:I'm fairly sure Weems can perform all sorts of turn styles, it's a question of intent. Hopefully John will maintain his interest in teaching while opening his mind a bit.


I'll put you down as a 1 also. A "1" advocates belief that all top skiers ski the same way or can ski the same way and thus a newer skier like me can get good instruction from any source.

Not everyone, even high level skiers, can emulate all styles at will. It may or may not be an issue of intent. There is not enough information to know that in the case of the skiers presented in the video. The audio background comment really really liked what they were watching these skiers do. I did not. There are things I saw there that I had in my own skiing that got "coached out" as pretty big errors. This is at the fundemental movement pattern level of how to release and transition turns. It's a totally different style. People can go for whatever style they want. I just personally wouldn't want to go there since I was sorta there already and find the newer movement patterns much more to my liking. (less effort, more applicable to more terrain and conditions - not to mention not dying on carvers)

On another note, the race camp I went to this summer, while run by PSIA tech team members, was very much in sync with what I have been learning in PMTS. Some of the coaches were going for a tad wider stance at transition but not all of them. I didn't see any of the coaches actually in a wide stance at all when they skied the gates, even the ones that were nudging for a wider stance (I say nudge because none of them were going for the a-frames in the video). Lots of vertical seperation but very little lateral seperation was evident in the instructors skiing at this camp.


It wasn't just the stance, the weak a-frame position, I didn't like in the video. It was the absence of carving in the high part of the turn, the unweighting, the subtle guiding/pivoting, the late transition going on in the video that I personally didn't like. Anyone doing these types of things at Race Camp (all run by PSIA folks - none affiliated with PMTS) were given one ski drills to work on because as Lito wrote, when all your weight is on the new ski early, you simply can't twist of pivot it. (and Lito isn't PMTS either)

It is a mistake when people analyze what I write and think it's PMTS against the world. I don't mean that. PMTS does incorporate the style I like. So did the top end Masters race camp I went to run by a particullar group of PSIA level III certs. But if I see a coach skiing the style I'm not pursuing and describing these movement patterns the same as what I'm seeing, of course I'm going to be reticent to spend time and money in that venue.

Read Jay's analysis in the newer thread. He was much more detailed than I was being in pointing out the specific movement pattern differences.

Ott - I take back what I said. I'm pretty sure your a 4.
John Mason
 
Posts: 1050
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 10:52 pm
Location: Lafayette, Indiana, USA

Postby Ott Gangl » Sun Oct 10, 2004 5:37 pm

>>>>Ott - I take back what I said. I'm pretty sure your a 4.<<<

What's with these numbers, John? Am I too old to get it???

....Ott
Ott Gangl
 
Posts: 451
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 3:16 pm
Location: Ohio, USA via Bavaria

9 posts up I said:

Postby John Mason » Sun Oct 10, 2004 9:58 pm

Ott, the 1, 2, 3, or 4 are to classify attitudes about ski instruction:

(9 posts prior up in this thread I said: )

Just pick one:

1. I believe the outcomes style wise of skiing and ski instruction methodology does not matter. The end result is the same.
2. I believe the outcomes style wise of skiing and ski instruction methodology does matter. The end result is different.
3. I believe the outcomes style wise of skiing and ski instruction methodology does matter, yet the end result is the same.
4. I believe the outcomes style wise of skiing and ski instruction does not matter. The end result is not the same, but that does not matter either.



You, the skier with a long history, just ski for the enjoyment and comaradaree. You are a 4. (the skiing hedonist - you ski for relaxation and a good time)

I, on the other hand, am a late comer to the skiing party at almost 50 in my 2nd year of skiing. I'm still learning how to ski. Every time I go up I pickup something new - ie, I see improvement often. From my point of view I'm more of a 2.

Some people posting in this thread appear to be 1's. To them the source of instruction does not matter. I, on the other hand, see significant differences in ski technique and style at the very top of the food chain and feel a responsibility to myself to select the best coaching.

Yet, when I have skied as long as you have, I'm sure I will also be a 4 and will tell anyone 20+ years my junior the same.

I think when I posted that before, you were on the 3rd Martini.
John Mason
 
Posts: 1050
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 10:52 pm
Location: Lafayette, Indiana, USA

Postby Ott Gangl » Mon Oct 11, 2004 5:45 am

OK, John, classifying me is a new one for me. But you are right I ski for pure enjoyment. Since retiring from teaching I have become much less judgemental about skiers I see except when I see a skier so close to getting over the hump that just one lesson from any instructor would give him a breakthrough I feel like shouting at him to get it. But I don't. If she is young and beautiful I might finagle a chair ride with her and do it myself.:wink:

And you are absolutely right, anyone should get instructions from a system and style that suits them, unfortunately novice skiers aren't educated enough to know if the get a good or bad lesson.

.....Ott
Ott Gangl
 
Posts: 451
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 3:16 pm
Location: Ohio, USA via Bavaria

PreviousNext

Return to Primary Movements Teaching System

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: jbotti and 37 guests