You asked?

PMTS Forum

You asked?

Postby Harald Harb » Tue Dec 28, 2004 3:22 pm

Realities of the Wedge, by Harald Harb, from the PMTS web site newsletter articles.

Every so often someone sends me an excerpt from a ski forum on the Internet. You can guess at my amusement when I saw what was being discussed in this particular thread. I had just returned from a week in the Florida Keys, fly-fishing for Bonefish, so my mind was clearly not on skiing. By the way, the fishing wasn't that great - wrong time of year - but then again, catching isn't the main reason for fly-fishing in the first place.

I understand a thread on a ski forum was started where a skier asked, "What's the difference between GLM and PMTS Direct Parallel?" At first, many thoughtful and accurate responses were given before the Traditional concepts of skiing were again served up by a few instructors as the requisite way of learning to ski.

In an attempt to combat the blatant misrepresentation of "PMTS Direct Parallel", I offer these comments. The "System", PMTS Direct Parallel does not teach the wedge. The reasons are clear and important. The wedge keeps skiers from learning rapidly. The wedge and its progressions used by traditional systems worldwide are flawed and create flaws that continue to limit skiing progress in beginning and intermediate skiers. We call them "Dead-end Skills". In fact, the wedge progressions are what keep skiers at intermediate levels.


Those who still defend the wedge have yet to study, understand, use and be properly trained in the power of the effective alternative. Let me make clear that I don't blame instructors. I know they have allegiances and commitments to other organizations, time constraints and financial considerations limiting their motivation for further training. These are all valid reasons for not moving ahead or pursing education. Some instructors feel threatened and defiant of other approaches that challenge their way of thinking. I respect everyone's right to have these feeling and emotions, but it doesn't stop me from challenging the current systems and telling the truth about the differences. I also have the right to disseminate information and the public has the right to decide what is the superior product in ski teaching.

As many of you know, my company, Harb Ski Systems, offers ski camps employing PMTS Direct Parallel. PMTS has been used in over four hundred thousand lessons in the past four years. In our ski camps, week after week, we are virtually undoing the movement mistakes skiers learned from the wedge and other traditional instruction. The most common comments made by skiers after attending Harb Ski Systems Camps are: "I cannot believe they are still teaching the wedge." and "I will never take another traditional lesson." It is very frustrating to skiers when they discover they have been led down the wrong trail.

Shaped skis have changed the playing field. The wedge and its enhancements are unnecessary components if an accelerated teaching system using shaped skis is desired. However, if someone wants to learn the wedge, they should use traditional skis. The wedge is easier, and control with it will be better, on traditional skis.


The proponents of PMTS Direct Parallel unequivocally understand and acknowledge that a wedge stance may result, even when skiers are taught "Direct Parallel". Often, the torque created through leg alignment twists the skis to a wedge. In fact, many humans cannot control the inward rotation of the femur in balancing situations on skis. Many intermediate skiers have difficulty standing in balance on one ski without skidding the ski tails. Standing on one ski is part of an overall, comprehensive, on-snow balance assessment done with every PMTS Direct Parallel student. The wedge and its many stages of development make this situation worst. The wedge is already a pre-internally-rotated position of both femurs and it accentuates and ingrains this predicament in beginning skiers. Therefore, not only does the "PMTS Direct Parallel" system teach "Direct Parallel", but it also incorporates alternatives to reduce and undo the influences of beleaguered rotary movements and wedge maneuvers.

The defense I often hear from traditional instruction is, "We teach the gliding wedge not a braking wedge." True, a gliding wedge is better than a braking wedge, because it is closer to parallel. A braking wedge is acknowledged even by traditionalists to be hard to unlearn once you become dependent on it. It is naive to believe that a beginner will stay in a gliding wedge until they become parallel. The gliding wedge, which is often suggested as the "saving grace" of the wedge progression, is discarded by beginners for the reliable, bracing, defensive wedge as soon as they move from the beginner slopes to even slightly more difficult terrain.

Ski teaching has moved on; soon skiers will be able to differentiate between instructors who have pursued alternatives. Skiers are already asking for PMTS lessons at the major resorts. Remember to remind your friends and clients who want a PMTS Direct Parallel lesson to ask for an Accredited PMTS Instructor, to get the "Real Thing".


Harald Harb is a pmts.org trainer and the originator of the PMTS Direct Parallel system
Harald Harb
 

Postby Harald Harb » Wed Dec 29, 2004 8:40 am

One interesting point that stands out from the study on skiing demographics done by the National Ski Area operators Association, is the proportion of expert skiers to intermediate skiers. .

In the late nineties and early two thousand years, the ratio of experts has reversed compared to the number of experts to intermediates in the seventies. There are less expert skiers on the slopes today. Now that either says something about the quality of instruction, amount of instruction or are skiers not taking instruction. It could simply mean that skiers are not as committed to their skiing as they were in the seventies.
Harald Harb
 

ratio of expert to intermediate

Postby skier_j » Wed Dec 29, 2004 12:59 pm

HH, can you supply definitions used in the study you cited?

I suspect that a review of Warren Miller films spanning the time frame you mentioned, not only be a lot of fun---I think I'll start this evening, but would show that terrain skiable by the best in the world, depending on your definition of expert, has changed dramatically in that time frame.

The best in the world are skiing radically more difficult lines in 2000 than in 1975.

The bar has been raised to such a degree that the gap should be expected to get wider between the "expert" and the intermediate.
Whee!
skier_j
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2004 6:00 am

Postby *SCSA » Wed Dec 29, 2004 2:33 pm

skier_j makes a great point.

I was just talking about this yesterday. Snowmass has opened up terrain that was previously out of bounds. Highlands is going to open up another 1000 acres below Highlands Bowl. Vail has Blue Sky and Teacup Bowl.

The ski patrol guy I rode up with yesterday at Snowmass said it too -- skiers are skiing lines today, that were thought to be unskiable just a few years ago.

Has the mountain changed? You bet it has!
*SCSA
 

Changes

Postby Harald » Wed Dec 29, 2004 5:56 pm

I agree, there is skiing being done today that was not considered possible in 1975.

Much has to be credited to the skis. I lived in Alaska before the shaped skis. We skied some sick lines because we were able to do it with the coastal snow, on the steep terrain.

When you add wide skis with race construction, you can float and hold on anything at very high speed. You can even consider lines that are avalanche dangerous because with the newer, wide, strong skis, you can out run some avalanches, if you are sick enough.

This doesn't change the fact that there are less expert skiers on the mountains. If you are interested in the exact numbers from the study, contact Rick Kahl at Ski Area Management Magazine. The study is probably online.
Harald
 
Posts: 1181
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 10:36 pm
Location: Dumont

Postby skier_j » Thu Dec 30, 2004 8:16 am

Harald, Thank you for the reply, I too think equipment has helped to open up more challenging terrain.

I'd be interested to know if the ratio of expert to intermediate skill level, you refer to, is self assessed level or either subjectively or objectively measured, and if so, by what criteria.

I can see even the "he's a legend in his own mind" types looking at these radical lines on film and self assessing down a notch or two as they realize how difficult those lines are.

I'll try to find it online.
Whee!
skier_j
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2004 6:00 am


Return to Primary Movements Teaching System

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 34 guests