I don?t want to be a policeman when it comes to correcting misleading posts, but I can?t allow our PMTS members to be high-jacked by false premises or incorrectly lead by misleading explainations. I know most PMTS forum members can hold their own, and I don?t want to single out or pick on anyone, but when there is consistent, on going, misunderstanding and flagerant misrepresentation that differs from the actualities in skiing and then a photo example is posted of a WC skier, as if it were supported by PMTS or my coaching, I have to comment.
Rick, you posted the WC photos from LeMasters site, on numerous occasions on the PMTS forum, PMTS members, me included, have tried to clear up and point out where there were misconceptions in your arguments about inside leg extension, which we do not advocate in PMTS, but it seems you do.
Now in this post you continue to misrepresent what is happening in the race montages you posted and described. I doubt you misundstood my posts on the subject. If you did not, would you like to re-read my posts on inside leg extension, then you will see why I am making a point of bringing up your comments at this time. I thought we had cleared up your misunderstanding, but in this post you introduce it in a sly way by posting photos from LeMaster?s site. Below is what you stated referring to the first montages to prove your point.
These first two sequences are what most would describe as cross over transitions. The CM is raised through the transition via an extension of the old inside leg. This lifting of the CM unweights the old outside leg and pulls it away from the snow, causing it to naturally swing back in and narrow the stance.
Rick, who are "most"?
The CM is not raised.
Lifting the CM does not unweight the outside leg.
This explanation is complete horse hockey and comes directly out of TTS thinking. Where do you get this, does it come from LeMaster (sounds like him) or from the PSIA think tank? This is exactly the misunderstanding we at PMTS are trying to stop. The racers in the first montages are not pushing or raising their CM to transition by extension of the old inside leg. How often do I have to post this statement? If you don?t like it, which is obvious, please continue to misrepresent skiing some where else. Your explanation and what you are promoting is typical of those skiers who have never raced or skied at this level, LeMaster included. Your analysis is ?photo diagnosis disease? that is prevalent in TTS.
As I said in my earlier posts the new outside leg stretches to maintain contact with the snow, lengthening is a following of the movement into the next turn as the CM moves across and into the next turn; it is not the skier pushing the CM into the turn.
The later is a PSIA abomination that is used to overcome a locked, blocked, stance leg or a need to move the CM after another typical PSIA move is made ?the push off? from the old turn.
We don?t use or need these movements or understanding in PMTS, as we don?t put our skiers in a position where they have to push their CM around. Neither do the WC skiers, as they have plenty of energy to move the CM to the new turn. If anything they are trying to manage their CM so it doesn?t drop too quickly into the next turn. If you analyze Palander, you will see no snow coming from the new outside ski in transition. No WC racer wants to push on the new outside ski in transition (or in the ?high C? part of the turn) as it causes additional friction and slows the skis when there are no gravitational forces pulling them downhill. The leg extension push to move the CM is only taught by PSIA, no reasonable race coach I know even thinks about that move.
As far as the reasons and explanations you offer in the subsequent and following montages, you are comparing apples to oranges. The last two montages are slalom, where very quick leg retraction has to be used. The skiers are so quick at retraction the skis actually rebound and the skis are into the un-weighted or float between turns situation.
On this topic of inside leg extension there is already a whole thread devoted to the transition, in it are explanations which totally contradict your description of movement.