Sorry,
me above - cookie lost for some reason....
--T
PMTS not Carving
no comparison
by Real skier » Sat Jan 22, 2005 8:17 pm
Rusty, the differnce between the quality of HH's teaching and BB's is so huge there is no comparison. So why would John possibly want a lesson or advice from BB, an inferior product. BB is a PSIA instructor HH is not. There in is the difference. Not to mentain the differnece in the quality of their skiing.
- Real skier
past better than recent
by Eddy » Sat Jan 22, 2005 8:22 pm
Real skier, you may find the older PSIA Demo Team members are better skeirs than the present ones, judging from what I saw on the posted videos of recent demo team.
- Eddy
by Ott Gangl » Sat Jan 22, 2005 9:24 pm
When HH worked for BB at Winter Park he didn't last too long, why?
>>>>the differnce between the quality of HH's teaching and BB's is so huge there is no comparison.<<<
How do you know that, did you take a lesson from BB?
...Ott
>>>>the differnce between the quality of HH's teaching and BB's is so huge there is no comparison.<<<
How do you know that, did you take a lesson from BB?
...Ott
- Ott Gangl
- Posts: 451
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 3:16 pm
- Location: Ohio, USA via Bavaria
by FastMan » Sat Jan 22, 2005 11:58 pm
Well, this little journey to PMTSville has been interesting, but now it's over, I'm going home, and you can consider this final contribution my auf wiedersehen.
First, I want to thank SCSA for extending his kind invitation to me to drop in and chat with you guys. I can see from our discussions that you folks are really pleased with this training program, and that's great. I wish you great luck with it, and I hope it takes you to the destination you seek in your skiing.
I'm not going to try to convince you anymore on the virtues of including rotary skills in your bag of technical tricks, or of the appropriateness of their situational application. You will believe what you want, for the reasons you choose, so I've exhausted enough energy on this litlle "save a piece of the world" project.
I will say, though, that as much fun as it may be for you to believe you're privy to a wonderful, new, cutting edge technical model, it's just not the case. As I said before, I've been in this game a very long time, and I see nothing new here. All the techniques HH is claiming as his babies are nothing more than old techniques with fancy new names. There really is nothing new under the sun kids, as much as you'd like to believe the contrary.
I've been teaching carving since the 70's, and the principles of the turn have not changed one iota. It's all about balance, optimal structural alignment, and the elimination of rotary as a turning force. At its base, carving is really just that simple. The skis sidecut has no altering affect on those principles, only the appropriate positions that make execution of the principles possible have changed.
For most of the general public the introduction of shape skis provided a window to a whole new world of skiing, because experiencing the wonderful feeling of carving a turn was now available to the average Joeseph. For racers it was a less dramatic transformation. All the new skis did for us was provide new shapes for the same turns we'd been making for years. Was it fun making those new small radius carves? Hell yes! Was it a whole new turning sensation? Not in the least. For us the transformation was immediate and effortless. Our prior training had already provided us with all the necessary balance and edge application skills, all we had to do was change the body angles.
Non carved turns? This seems to be an area where you guys want to hang your hat. First, I'll say that the refinement of a well controlled washed turn is a very important step in the development of a high level skier. It's a foundational skill that for ever more in the life of a skier will at times be called upon, and will always be there for him to fall back on when needed.
Thing is though, in the grand scheme, it's only an intermediate level skill that becomes more and more abandoned in favor of carving as the skill and confidence of the student expands. That said, the decision of which method to use to create and controll that wash will have to be left up to personal preference. While I find the feel of precision and control two footed steering yeilds to be very efficient for the purpose it's intended, I won't criticize those who find the passive form of rotary promoted by HH as a means of generating wash turns more comfortable, and I will continue to teach my students how that method is done. This is not a big area of debate with me, other than my thinking that all methods of washing a turn should be perfected. As I said, this lower level skill stuff that I cover very early in my students maturation process.
Stance width. This seems to be a bone of contention between the two camps. In reality, I don't see much separation (pun intended) between the two. What I've read from HH on this I agree with. He seem to promote a functional stance appropriate to the type of turns being made. He does not, from what I've read, advocate a single stance width for all occasions. Right on.
Turn transitions? My program has focused on a multitude of varieties of them for yearsr. Up unweighting, down unweighting, converging steps, diverging steps, retraction with contact, retraction with loss of contact, two leg retraction, single leg retraction, new inside leg extension, old inside leg tipping, micro pivots, macro pivots, weighted release, early transfer, late transfer, transfer with balance, transfer with balance disruption. I've been teaching all of these for years, and yes, even what you now call the phantom move has long been mixed into that bag. The transition now call "weighted release" has been in my teaching model since the mid 80's when the skiing world noticed Steve Mahre spontaneously doing it and coined it the "White Pass Lean". I find that in real life skiing all these seperate transition techniques get used occasionally, and that taking the time to develop the ability to perform all of them profficiently and effortlessly just enhances my students ultimate performance thresholds, and allows them to comfortably and confidently adapt to and handle pretty much anything the mountain may throw at them at any moment.
It's worked pretty well for me over the years too. I've never had any experience with my racers hitting the wall of terminal mediocrity you refer to. In actuality, it's much to the contrary. My programs have had a history of consistently producing high level FIS racers whose futures after leaving my program run the gamut from world class success to simply enjoying for a life time a sport in which their broad based abilities make them clearly stand out above the crowd at any resort in the world. I will never see the legitimacy in any argument that says certain skills are universally wrong, and to be absolutely shunned, and others are unequivocally superior to all else at all times. I have too much real life experience with hundreds students who've each spent many years successfully developing to very high levels under my tutelage that speaks loudly to the effectiveness of a broad foundational methodology. But again, like I said, I'm not trying to change anyones mind anymore, just sharing my parting impressions.
Finally, to you John Masson. This will be my last time I personally address you, here, on Epic ski, or anywhere else. I was very supportive of you in the past on Epic ski. I complimented your enthusiasm and supported many of your contentions. I know that you've read much of what I've written on Epic ski, and I know you understand that the depth of my technical philosophy does not revolve around the use of rotary as a turning force. Far, far from it. The way you isolated a single topic I was addressing here on this forum and attempted to erroneously define my whole approach to skiing through it was a gross misrepresentation, and you know it. Given our history, I found that very disturbing. End of story.
And to the rest of the readers here. I know I came in here like a bull in a china shop, challenging one of HH's pet preachings. I'm not surprised that you reacted defensively, it's just human nature. My hope is that after I'm gone, and the dust settles and the emotion dissipates, that as you continue along in your pursuit skiing excellence you might on some occasion mentally reflect back to this thread and that what some dimwit who called himself FastMan said about rotary not always being bad, and how technical vasatility can take you far.
Good day all, thanks for indulging me. RICK
First, I want to thank SCSA for extending his kind invitation to me to drop in and chat with you guys. I can see from our discussions that you folks are really pleased with this training program, and that's great. I wish you great luck with it, and I hope it takes you to the destination you seek in your skiing.
I'm not going to try to convince you anymore on the virtues of including rotary skills in your bag of technical tricks, or of the appropriateness of their situational application. You will believe what you want, for the reasons you choose, so I've exhausted enough energy on this litlle "save a piece of the world" project.
I will say, though, that as much fun as it may be for you to believe you're privy to a wonderful, new, cutting edge technical model, it's just not the case. As I said before, I've been in this game a very long time, and I see nothing new here. All the techniques HH is claiming as his babies are nothing more than old techniques with fancy new names. There really is nothing new under the sun kids, as much as you'd like to believe the contrary.
I've been teaching carving since the 70's, and the principles of the turn have not changed one iota. It's all about balance, optimal structural alignment, and the elimination of rotary as a turning force. At its base, carving is really just that simple. The skis sidecut has no altering affect on those principles, only the appropriate positions that make execution of the principles possible have changed.
For most of the general public the introduction of shape skis provided a window to a whole new world of skiing, because experiencing the wonderful feeling of carving a turn was now available to the average Joeseph. For racers it was a less dramatic transformation. All the new skis did for us was provide new shapes for the same turns we'd been making for years. Was it fun making those new small radius carves? Hell yes! Was it a whole new turning sensation? Not in the least. For us the transformation was immediate and effortless. Our prior training had already provided us with all the necessary balance and edge application skills, all we had to do was change the body angles.
Non carved turns? This seems to be an area where you guys want to hang your hat. First, I'll say that the refinement of a well controlled washed turn is a very important step in the development of a high level skier. It's a foundational skill that for ever more in the life of a skier will at times be called upon, and will always be there for him to fall back on when needed.
Thing is though, in the grand scheme, it's only an intermediate level skill that becomes more and more abandoned in favor of carving as the skill and confidence of the student expands. That said, the decision of which method to use to create and controll that wash will have to be left up to personal preference. While I find the feel of precision and control two footed steering yeilds to be very efficient for the purpose it's intended, I won't criticize those who find the passive form of rotary promoted by HH as a means of generating wash turns more comfortable, and I will continue to teach my students how that method is done. This is not a big area of debate with me, other than my thinking that all methods of washing a turn should be perfected. As I said, this lower level skill stuff that I cover very early in my students maturation process.
Stance width. This seems to be a bone of contention between the two camps. In reality, I don't see much separation (pun intended) between the two. What I've read from HH on this I agree with. He seem to promote a functional stance appropriate to the type of turns being made. He does not, from what I've read, advocate a single stance width for all occasions. Right on.
Turn transitions? My program has focused on a multitude of varieties of them for yearsr. Up unweighting, down unweighting, converging steps, diverging steps, retraction with contact, retraction with loss of contact, two leg retraction, single leg retraction, new inside leg extension, old inside leg tipping, micro pivots, macro pivots, weighted release, early transfer, late transfer, transfer with balance, transfer with balance disruption. I've been teaching all of these for years, and yes, even what you now call the phantom move has long been mixed into that bag. The transition now call "weighted release" has been in my teaching model since the mid 80's when the skiing world noticed Steve Mahre spontaneously doing it and coined it the "White Pass Lean". I find that in real life skiing all these seperate transition techniques get used occasionally, and that taking the time to develop the ability to perform all of them profficiently and effortlessly just enhances my students ultimate performance thresholds, and allows them to comfortably and confidently adapt to and handle pretty much anything the mountain may throw at them at any moment.
It's worked pretty well for me over the years too. I've never had any experience with my racers hitting the wall of terminal mediocrity you refer to. In actuality, it's much to the contrary. My programs have had a history of consistently producing high level FIS racers whose futures after leaving my program run the gamut from world class success to simply enjoying for a life time a sport in which their broad based abilities make them clearly stand out above the crowd at any resort in the world. I will never see the legitimacy in any argument that says certain skills are universally wrong, and to be absolutely shunned, and others are unequivocally superior to all else at all times. I have too much real life experience with hundreds students who've each spent many years successfully developing to very high levels under my tutelage that speaks loudly to the effectiveness of a broad foundational methodology. But again, like I said, I'm not trying to change anyones mind anymore, just sharing my parting impressions.
Finally, to you John Masson. This will be my last time I personally address you, here, on Epic ski, or anywhere else. I was very supportive of you in the past on Epic ski. I complimented your enthusiasm and supported many of your contentions. I know that you've read much of what I've written on Epic ski, and I know you understand that the depth of my technical philosophy does not revolve around the use of rotary as a turning force. Far, far from it. The way you isolated a single topic I was addressing here on this forum and attempted to erroneously define my whole approach to skiing through it was a gross misrepresentation, and you know it. Given our history, I found that very disturbing. End of story.
And to the rest of the readers here. I know I came in here like a bull in a china shop, challenging one of HH's pet preachings. I'm not surprised that you reacted defensively, it's just human nature. My hope is that after I'm gone, and the dust settles and the emotion dissipates, that as you continue along in your pursuit skiing excellence you might on some occasion mentally reflect back to this thread and that what some dimwit who called himself FastMan said about rotary not always being bad, and how technical vasatility can take you far.
Good day all, thanks for indulging me. RICK
- FastMan
by mkgil » Sun Jan 23, 2005 4:36 pm
Damn! First Big E, and now FastMan. I'd rather neither of them left our forum. I practice in a profession awash with controversial theories and competing practices. What has been helpful to me is distinguishing between those positions that differ from mine and have little logic or research to recommend them, and those positions that differ from mine but are "usefully provoking." Sometimes in my career, a usefully provoking argument has caused me to rethink assumptions and shed my professional skin. At other times, I've maintained my previous position, but have benefitted from being challanged to more completely articulate the theoretical or practical underpinning of my approach. In either case, I appreciate being usefully provoked.
Absent the attitude, this thread has been usefully provoking. I regret we're losing some useful provocateurs, like FastMan.
Michael
Absent the attitude, this thread has been usefully provoking. I regret we're losing some useful provocateurs, like FastMan.
Michael
- mkgil
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2004 1:57 pm
by Ott Gangl » Sun Jan 23, 2005 5:34 pm
mkgil, when remarks like:
>>>Posts by Rusty and Fastman and BigE demonstrate a level of ignorance about skiing that goes beyond comprehension. They are not capable of evaluating the destruction they preach, present or produce.<<<
are made, you wonder why they leave?
And then John Mason, who I think is realy trying to learn, makes a statement like this:
>>>Rusty enjoyed greatly his lesson with the other BB at winterpark. Based on what he described I personally would run from a lesson like that and view it as a waste of time and money.<<<
There is so much more out there to learn and unless one feels physically limited one should try to learn as much as plossible.
John, since you seem to have unlimited time and funds, try some of the stuff listed in the URL below.
...Ott
http://directory.google.com/Top/Sports/ ... struction/
>>>Posts by Rusty and Fastman and BigE demonstrate a level of ignorance about skiing that goes beyond comprehension. They are not capable of evaluating the destruction they preach, present or produce.<<<
are made, you wonder why they leave?
And then John Mason, who I think is realy trying to learn, makes a statement like this:
>>>Rusty enjoyed greatly his lesson with the other BB at winterpark. Based on what he described I personally would run from a lesson like that and view it as a waste of time and money.<<<
There is so much more out there to learn and unless one feels physically limited one should try to learn as much as plossible.
John, since you seem to have unlimited time and funds, try some of the stuff listed in the URL below.
...Ott
http://directory.google.com/Top/Sports/ ... struction/
- Ott Gangl
- Posts: 451
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 3:16 pm
- Location: Ohio, USA via Bavaria
by Rusty Guy » Sun Jan 23, 2005 6:07 pm
I think it goes without saying Fastman's departure is a blow to any forum. He and I have disagreed over the years about technique, subtlties, nuances. In the end I hope we have remained friends. I have the utmost respect for the guy and hope to someday make turns with the him.
What is most amazing?
I had the wonderful opportunity to ski with Winter Park's Bob Barnes for two days. The group include ten pro's from all over the state. It was one of the best teaching experiences of my career. I hope I can always continue to learn from a wide variety of sources.
You guys slamming PSIA simply comes from one bitter, angry, disenfranchised source.
I learned something from EVERY SINGLE person in the clinic group. One gentleman was 74 years old, began skiing at Camp Hale, ski patrolled for twenty years, and now primarilyl teaches disabled skiers. The tales he told mesmerized me. His voice and personna epitomized patience. He was a true pro.......a true teacher. He was a soft spoken self depricating gentleman. Let me assure you. He could still ski anything on the mountain and was as smooth as silk.
WP's Bob Barnes is a very, very good bump skier. I doubt as a PSIA level III cert that I can ever ski bumps as well as a PMTS skier, however, maybe I can dream that one day I'll be an expert skier.
What is most amazing?
I had the wonderful opportunity to ski with Winter Park's Bob Barnes for two days. The group include ten pro's from all over the state. It was one of the best teaching experiences of my career. I hope I can always continue to learn from a wide variety of sources.
You guys slamming PSIA simply comes from one bitter, angry, disenfranchised source.
I learned something from EVERY SINGLE person in the clinic group. One gentleman was 74 years old, began skiing at Camp Hale, ski patrolled for twenty years, and now primarilyl teaches disabled skiers. The tales he told mesmerized me. His voice and personna epitomized patience. He was a true pro.......a true teacher. He was a soft spoken self depricating gentleman. Let me assure you. He could still ski anything on the mountain and was as smooth as silk.
WP's Bob Barnes is a very, very good bump skier. I doubt as a PSIA level III cert that I can ever ski bumps as well as a PMTS skier, however, maybe I can dream that one day I'll be an expert skier.
- Rusty Guy
evaluation
by Eddy » Sun Jan 23, 2005 7:43 pm
Rusty your evalauation of intermedate skiing is at an all time high as you fit perfectly into it.
- Eddy
Not so gentle
by Eddy » Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:00 pm
Ott, you try to come off as such a nice, old gentleman skier, but your derogatory digs are underhanded and just as obvious as Rusty?s. Don?t you find it a little presumptuous to guess at why Harald left Winter Park or did anything else in his life?
You don?t know the man or what he has done. You are just as underhanded as the rest of the jealous, want to be recognized skier instructors who will never make in the business.
Harald has made it and you are all jealous. What if Harald thought BB was a bad manager and director, what if he had a better offer? You never offer the brighter side of what Harald has done. You can only find a way to be critical. Time for a couple more drinks, you seem to be nicer when you are drunk.
You are out of line with your assumptions as most of you who don?t know Harald or his business are. Why don?t you mind your own?
You don?t know the man or what he has done. You are just as underhanded as the rest of the jealous, want to be recognized skier instructors who will never make in the business.
Harald has made it and you are all jealous. What if Harald thought BB was a bad manager and director, what if he had a better offer? You never offer the brighter side of what Harald has done. You can only find a way to be critical. Time for a couple more drinks, you seem to be nicer when you are drunk.
You are out of line with your assumptions as most of you who don?t know Harald or his business are. Why don?t you mind your own?
- Eddy
Killed school
by Eddy » Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:06 pm
I know many of the present and former instructors at Winter Park. The ski school has been gutted of good instructors. Harald built that school, maybe that's why he left, when he saw the writing on the wall.
I also know that BB can't hold a candle to Harald's skiing or teaching. I took many clinics when I was an examiner.
I also know that BB can't hold a candle to Harald's skiing or teaching. I took many clinics when I was an examiner.
- Eddy
Return to Primary Movements Teaching System
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 36 guests