Hi C question for Harald

[Pierre]

Harald last night I was the only one out playing on the slopes after 9pm so I decided to really play with the Hi C stuff and now have a question.

Even on easy terrain I can get as low as your picture within a few turns and with a clean solid edge on the stance foot. My question has to do with physiology and the free foot.

I am really the master of staying low and moving foot to foot without rising in the turns. I notice in your videos that when you get as low as I am you rise slightly more and your tracks becomes narrower at edge change than mine. When I stay that low I am wondering if there is a physical limitation in being able to track the skis back narrow for edge change. The reason I ask is that my inside edge change is no longer as clean when I get that low. I think my tracks indicate my stance is not quite narrow enough.

My real question would be is that rising you are doing totally intentional to be able to track the skis back narrow so as to be able to invert the free foot cleanly? I have seen you criticized for rising like that.

The reason I am not assuming this is because my ankle flex is only about 10 degrees and my problems could be due to that instead. My tracks in very dynamic high C turns clearly indicate that I am not inverting the free foot clean at edge change. Keep in mind that these turns are too tight to be considered railroad track turns even though that is what I am accused of doing.
The accusation translation means "Too dynamic, not enough rotary". I do not apologize for being addicted to High C turns. Sorry, there is nothing quite like the feeling. I can't stop.

[dewdman42]

I would LOVE to see some video Pierre. Please!?!?

[Harald]

This is a very simple answer, pull your old stance leg toward your chest as you release, similar to a professional boxer jumping rope, they pull their legs up rather then move the CG up. This is aggressive enough to cause the skis to narrow or come together in transition. As you pull the knee into your chest, tip the foot, ankle and whole assembly from the hip down, toward the little toe edge.

[Ken]

...you [HH] rise slightly....

Watching Harald ski, I saw his legs remain retracted, but his body does rise slightly as his body crosses over the skis. This is nothing like the body rising due to extending the legs. Of course, me watching Harald is like the blind men examining the elephant...there's way more going on than I can recognize and put together.


Ken

[Pierre]

I will try to get some video.

I was out playing again today and with narrowing the stance. I like the result but I do have a slight rise to get back to narrow . I doubt that I can compress as much as Harald with the cross under. I certainly do more of a retraction on the old stance foot.

I was on much steeper terrain today and I like the result of the narrower stance. I think I can get lower because a compressed free leg is not in my way as much. Sure takes more of a leap of faith that the edges are going to hold though. Cool feeling none the less.

[Harald]

I do not understand this preoccupation with seeing rising in transition. I don?t use extension to release in any of my turns. I don?t teach extending (nor do we in PMTS) for any turns, yet there seems to be hysteria about HH rising.

The intent of what you are doing is the important part of how movements take effect. If you, as I explained in anther post, flex or bend by 1mm you are on the right track, if you extend by 1mm you are on the wrong track if you are a habitual push off skier.

Regardless of what you see, skiers who bend to release may show the body moving toward the new turn with what looks like rising to the untrained eye. I have explained this before. If you take a ski pole and tilt it up hill, leave the tip of the pole in the same place in the snow, then bring the handle straight down through and to the falline until the ski pole is tilted downhill, did the ski pole extend or did it stay the same length? Of course it stayed the same length. Does it look like it extended at the point when it was perpendicular to the falling, of course it did. Many PSIA trained skiers or instructors can't differenciate between a push-off and a flexing transition!!!

The ski pole did not make an extension move. When I ski at low amplitude, like I often do in my videos, I demonstrate movements of flexing and retracting of the old stance leg and foot for a PM and I continue to flex it during transition.

If the inside leg is not flexed or angled to any great degree, due to speed and slope, especially at slow speed, (when it is not necessary) the transition might look like the CG goes up, (as the leg stays close to the same length especially if you only flex by 1mm, but it isn?t being pushed up (same as the ski pole). This is a strong distinction to be understood.

If you want to see up movements that are incorrect watch the Sogard and Weems video. They both use an up and an extension, this is very different form how I ski and how we teach in PMTS. If you watch the bump skiing sections of my videos where I am skiing naturaly at my normal speed you will see definate retraction.

This is why I don?t agree with instructors who say, ?Good skiing is good skiing?. That demonstrates poor MA capability. There maybe a category of skiing called good for ?PSIA Skiing? but don?t confuse that with ?Good PMTS? skiing, they are different.

When I teach the Super Phantom, I make sure the inside leg stays flexed at the end of the turn (when balance is transfered to it) and that is stays flexed through the transition. Because the inside leg has to hold and stabilize the upper body over the boot or foot and the core has to stabilize the body from rotating and leaning, some transitions look like the CG moves over to the little toe edge. This is correct and OK for learning little toe edge balance.

Once more hill dynamics are added to the Super Phantom turn, the time spent where the CG is over the little toe edge is miniscule, so the CG no longer looks like it moves up to the little toe edge. There is absolutely nothing wrong with teaching that the CG moves over to the little toe edge for the Super Phantom, this is an exercise for skiers who do not know how to exit a turn without stemming. The Super Phantom is the wedge blocker. It is an exercise, not a technique or a movement. I find that instructors confuse movements with exercises and exercises with technique and technique with movements.


You can incorporate the S-Phantom into your skiing and make it completely fluid.

[Harrison]

in all my time spent watching you ski, dad, i have never seen you rise at the release.

on the stance thing i always just think about bringing the feet together at the release, then the further over i get tipped, the further in i bring the inside ski

[Pierre]

Ok with what I experienced today I see where you are coming from.

The rise that I am talking about is on easier terrain where I am getting really low and I do not have enough room between my head and the snow to fit my body without my head rising a little bit. I simply cannot flex enough. This is not the same as pushing up in any way shape or form. I think you have cleared up what my question was.

I will try to get some video as I would like an opinion.

PSIA still advocates a definite up movement in the lower level skiing and they want to see it even if you have replaced it with something that works much better. I really think you have to remove the rotary before you begin to use flexion as a method of release not the other way around.

I am now starting to catch some flak for not showing any rotary in my skiing and showing no rise in lower level demonstrations for intructors preping for certification. BUT, I like my skiing much better since I took the time to remove the rotary movements. I am agreeing with you more and more as time goes on. Push just doesn't feel right to me anymore. The fun factor is much higher.

[milesb]

Thanks for that explanation, Harald.

[Harald]

Right on Harrison, you have an eye for skiing. Many instructors (PSIA Epic) think I?m being combative when I say there is a difference between PMTS and PSIA or TTS skiing. I know that they don?t see it because they are not MA trained.

I know this because of their comments and the level of MA ability I saw from PSIA instructors when I was a PSIA examiner. It is pitiful. When you begin to try PMTS, read PMTS and use PMTS, like Pierre is doing, you will begin to realize the difference for yourself. One word of caution Pierre, don?t tell your friends, as they will think you are crazy and drinking the cool-aid.

[Harald]

Pierre, today while skiing, I really concentrated on how I get my skis to come closer together, narrower during the transition. I made some very aggressive short carved turns on steeps. When I refer to these turns they leave two fine pencil line, without skid. At the end of the turn when I?m about to release, just as I said in the previous post, I flex aggressively with the stance leg.

Since the stance leg is extended in the turn and should be very close and even touching the inside ski boot, if you retract the stance leg it stays close to the inside boot as it shortens. As the pressure comes off the stance ski it continues to hook a turn, as it is not completely flat at that point. The extra hooking brings it into or toward the inside ski, therefore the skis come closer together.

I find when I ski with my feet wider in transition, I am much more likely to lose my outside ski, as my CG goes into the center of the turn too far and moves away from my stance leg, like I get disconnected from the pressure on the stance ski. This causes me to carry too much pressure on the inside ski, as a result the out side ski grinds rather than slices.

I can achieve angles that touch the hip in the snow, but only for fun, as I find that going for this much angle and body lean doesn?t necessarily make you fast in slalom. It causes the skis to finish or stay in the arc too long.

[Pierre]

Since the stance leg is extended in the turn and should be very close and even touching the inside ski boot, if you retract the stance leg it stays close to the inside boot as it shortens. As the pressure comes off the stance ski it continues to hook a turn, as it is not completely flat at that point. The extra hooking brings it into or toward the inside ski, therefore the skis come closer together.

I find when I ski with my feet wider in transition, I am much more likely to lose my outside ski, as my CG goes into the center of the turn too far and moves away from my stance leg, like I get disconnected from the pressure on the stance ski. This causes me to carry too much pressure on the inside ski, as a result the out side ski grinds rather than slices.

Harald this is exactly what I am finding and wanted to make sure it was PMTS as I differs greatly from PSIA's approach. I also find the disconnect and loss of power in the turn when I do not move the CG from the kenetic chain using the feet and flexion at transition. While the wide stance does allow great lateral movement across the skis I am now leaning towards that not being such a great thing.

My surprise yesterday was really holding it together on much steeper terrain than we have at the home slopes. It was piles of snow gun snow and snow pushed up in piles with bare boilerplate in between.

Your explanations here have made me feel much more comfortable with what I am doing. Harald I am an inventor and entreprenuer, I came to your conclusions on a parallel path while trying to get the problems out of my tele skiing. It was the end of last year when I realized that I was re-inventing a wheel that was already invented. I had started to come to that conclusion last year when I posted the question to you about tele and I am now convince that wheel is yours.

I have had your instructors manual for some time but I am starting to get the idea that there is more in the second book than what is in the instructors manual.

[Pierre]

I can achieve angles that touch the hip in the snow, but only for fun, as I find that going for this much angle and body lean doesn?t necessarily make you fast in slalom. It causes the skis to finish or stay in the arc too long.

This is interesting. I am not a racer and therefore do not care that much about speed. We have limited hills and high fun factor and slow speeds to appeal to me. I wonder if I have enough flexibility to do that. I am assuming that you need very firm snow or forget it.

At times I do something that makes me go much lower but I have not figured out what it is so I can't repeat it with accuracy. Until now I though it was a mistake that I was making but maybe not.

[patprof]

WOW-great thread Harald and Pierre!

[Icanski]

Hi Harald and Pierre,
I was thinking about all this HH rising stuff, too, and your explanation with the pole is perfect HH. I thought of posting to hold a ruler at the six inch point and rotate it from one side of the table to the other and see that it doesn't extend, it's geometry; the upper body defines a bit of an arc unless you actively flex down through the whole transition but that's something else.
FYI, on Wednesday we had a "session" after work for CSIA instructors. We were dealing with carving and turn shape and the level 3 leading the session was talking about at the transition extending up and into the next turn "extend up, and steer the feet" he then said that the large joints had to be in the turn first: the hip then the knee then the feet. "What?!" I said. I asked how he could get the CM to come across the skis and start into the next turn if the feet weren't released first and that they were where it all had to start. I also noticed that since he was extending and steering his edges didn't engage until they were in the fall line and then they want you to flex down to pressure them before you extend. I also noted that this worked fine at slow speeds for the nice instructor type turns, but at speed or in bumps it would be hard to move up and down and the feet would always be behind.
I bring this up not to start an argument, but to point out that this is still what is considered up to date in systems like CSIA. I always go take a bunch of runs and go through the PMTS exercises after these sessions to "shake it off" and keep to the PMTS style. I also pointed to my tracks which had engagement higher up and before the fall line than theirs and they still said though it was good, it wouldn't be clear as a demonstration turn, because the students couldn't see the extension. ( So they couldn't see that I was turning in a different way.) When I did some extension turns, they said they could see the improvement.
I gotta get to Fernie fast!
I did have a private lesson yesterday with a guy who hadn't skied for seven years and got new shaped skis. He was a big guy, size 34 boots and about 6'4" 250 or so. He remembered a bit of wedge to stop but couldn't remember how to turn. He said he wanted to learn to use the new skis and was told they turned "easier." So I asked if he'd like to learn a way that went to parallel right away rather than stay wedge centered and he was up for it. We went through the green progression ( we had just an hour) and he got through it and was doing step turns, then drags, and by the end was able to link both stepped turns and turns using the phantom drag and starting to get the PH. He was happy and said he had a lot to work on but enjoyed it. I told him that he had the skills now and needed to refine them and they were the same skills that I used and the guys he'd be seeing at the Olympics. He was ready to go on. His Mom, who came to meet him said "hey, you're already skiing in parallel" when he came up. It does work even in just an hour it was enough to get him on the track and using his ski's edges and cut and otherwise, he'd still be in wedge turns trying to get the inside leg to come closer.
It was a nice way to end the day. I felt good, too. another out of the box
icanski