3-D motion capture comparison of elite WC SL skiers

Re: 3-D motion capture comparison of elite WC SL skiers

Postby Max_501 » Tue Dec 24, 2013 6:50 pm

In a course racers make many mistakes. There is no getting around that simple fact. If you want to understand why ALL skiers and racers should tip to the LTE first see the PMTS Instructors Manual or search the forum. This has been covered many times.
User avatar
Max_501
 
Posts: 4124
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 7:39 pm

Re: 3-D motion capture comparison of elite WC SL skiers

Postby h.harb » Tue Dec 24, 2013 6:58 pm

This is simple, although a skier may have an intend to ski biomechanically perfectly, it's difficult, but you should never give up because it's the most efficient way to move. My own skiing, I analyze and critique more than any skier's skiing. Do I find too much A frame at certain times, sure. But what would I ski like if I didn't try to mitigate the A frame. I'd ski like crap. A wider stance is definitely not the answer, as you seem to support in your posts.

It's not just trying for the "O" frame or going to the LTE that's important, in a still frame, it's about the next movement, which is continuing the tipping to the LTE ski first and continuing that movement. Even Ron LeMaster who is movement moron, (both in movement and understanding) presented this LTE concept, which is plagiarized and 17 years late, at the last Congress, you didn't notice that presentation?

It's obvious you have not taught skiing at any level, (sorry except for possibly a wedge based system) and not been coached by coaches who understand a high level of skiing, if you have to ask this question. And as Max_501 stated, you should start with Expert Skier 1, to educate yourself. Biomechanics and kinematics are not the answer to good skiing. You are now demonstrating a level of paralysis, by analysis, without understanding movements. Most inept race coaches and PSIA instructors end up at this level and stay there. I hope you aren't one of them????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? And just trying to justify your behavior and understanding!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am not impressed by quotes from the international Congress and justifications for bad movements. I am impressed with movements that make better sense. So let's not waste any more time, and let's assume it's all written and explained in this forum many times before and in my books simply, clearly and legibly.
User avatar
h.harb
 
Posts: 7047
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 2:08 pm
Location: Dumont, Colorado

Re: 3-D motion capture comparison of elite WC SL skiers

Postby theorist » Tue Dec 24, 2013 8:31 pm

Max_501 wrote: In that case you definitely need to start with Anyone Can Be an Expert Skier 1, the PMTS Instructor Manual, and the companion videos.

I studied ACBAES1 extensively a long time ago -- 1998 -- so, granted, my memory may have gaps -- but I don't recall it addressing these particular types of foundational questions -- e.g., providing context like Harald did, in response to my earlier question, of Ligety's wider stance during WC GS (and I can't locate my old copy with all its notes). Hence let me ask you a more practical question: leaving aside the broader questions I've been asking, suppose I want to start doing the PMTS drills again. What book should I start with? Would the latest one -- Essentials of Skiing -- provide the most direct path to improvement for an advanced skier, or should I get another copy of ACBAES1?
User avatar
theorist
 
Posts: 277
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 9:57 pm

Re: 3-D motion capture comparison of elite WC SL skiers

Postby Max_501 » Tue Dec 24, 2013 8:52 pm

theorist wrote:I studied ACBAES1 extensively a long time ago -- 1998 --


How old were you in 1998? How many years had you been skiing at that point? How many days per year, since then, have you spent working on PMTS drills from Book 1? Have you mastered everything in Book 1?

theorist wrote:Would the latest one -- Essentials of Skiing -- provide the most direct path to improvement for an advanced skier, or should I get another copy of ACBAES1?


Define "advanced skier".
User avatar
Max_501
 
Posts: 4124
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 7:39 pm

Re: 3-D motion capture comparison of elite WC SL skiers

Postby theorist » Tue Dec 24, 2013 9:11 pm

Harald, your assumptions about me (nearly all of them, I'm afraid) are incorrect. I'm not trying to justify anything. I'm a serious, sincere student asking sincere, serious questions. My only purpose here is to understand. Note, for instance, that in reply to your post about Ligety, while I sought clarification, I didn't argue with you, and then posted a summary to capture my understanding of what you were saying -- that's the same thing I'm trying to do here. I.e., I haven't been arguing for a wider stance, I was just trying to understand its appearance on the World Cup in the context of PMTS. And as you wrote in 2006: "I encourage honest, open, discussion, by anyone who is asking legit questions and seeking answers." I think part of what's going on is that my questions remind you of those from others that have different agendas, so you are lumping me with them and reacting strongly.

[As an aside, I think there's nothing wrong with someone coming on here and saying they disagree with you and wanting to challenge you (if they do it politely) -- after all, you yourself have no problems challenging others ("No one is bashing, what is happening here is healthy dissection of different approaches.") -- and just as it's perfectly OK for you to do this, it's perfectly OK for others to do it as well (we all have to play by the same rules). But let me emphasize that's not what I've been doing here -- I'm not here to challenge your thinking, just to understand it.]

And specifically regarding the BTE lead, I didn't cite Reid's dissertation to justify it, I cited it simply to establish that it exists in elite skiing, which I needed to do in order to ask my question. And just as it's perfectly natural to wonder how to explain Ligety's wide stance in a PMTS context (which you did very nicely), it's perfectly natural to wonder how to explain Hirscher's frequent BTE lead in a PMTS context.

One of the chief complaints you've made about other schools is that "skiing is not science to them, it's a religion, that's why you can't reason with them." Well, I agree, skiing should be treated as a science, not a religion! And one of the key distinctions between at least some religions and the sciences is that, in science, we welcome serious, challenging question (I should know -- I've been a scientist for more than three decades). By contrast, in the more dogmatic religions, those who ask questions are criticized simply for asking them -- instead of sticking to the substance of the question itself, ad hominem comments are often made. That's what you've done here -- in response to my questions, you've made negative (and unfounded) comments about me personally: "It's obvious you have not taught skiing at any level, (sorry except for possibly a wedge based system) and not been coached by coaches who understand a high level of skiing, if you have to ask this question." You wouldn't tolerate that if someone did that to you, you don't like it when other schools do it to you, so please don't do it to me. Please treat me the way you would like to be treated. That's what I've done with you.

And again, let me reiterate that I do appreciate the time you took to answer my previous questions.
Last edited by theorist on Tue Dec 24, 2013 9:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
theorist
 
Posts: 277
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 9:57 pm

Re: 3-D motion capture comparison of elite WC SL skiers

Postby Max_501 » Tue Dec 24, 2013 9:22 pm

theorist wrote:I'm a serious, sincere student asking sincere, serious questions. My only purpose here is to understand.


A serious student of PMTS would have studied Books 1, 2, Essentials, and the Instructors Manual (and all of the video that goes with them) and attended at least one camp. A serious student would know that Harald has consulted with a rocket scientist (literally) on the physics of skiing and a PhD in Bio-mechanics with regards to the PMTS movements.

A couple of older threads related to your questions:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3997

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3200
User avatar
Max_501
 
Posts: 4124
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 7:39 pm

Re: 3-D motion capture comparison of elite WC SL skiers

Postby theorist » Tue Dec 24, 2013 9:42 pm

Max_501 wrote:
theorist wrote:I'm a serious, sincere student asking sincere, serious questions. My only purpose here is to understand.


A serious student of PMTS would have studied Books 1, 2, Essentials, and the Instructors Manual (and all of the video that goes with them) and attended at least one camp. A serious student would know that Harald has consulted with a rocket scientist (literally) on the physics of skiing and a PhD in Bio-mechanics with regards to the PMTS movements.

I do have some experience with PMTS, but I won't claim a level of expertise I don't have, so I never said I was a serious student of PMTS. What I am is a serious student of skiing. And again note Harald's quote: "I encourage honest, open, discussion, by anyone who is asking legit questions and seeking answers." Not anyone that is a serious PMTS student, but anyone that's serious period.

Also, I was aware of Harald's consultations. And I know he knows at least one aerospace engineer -- Diana.
User avatar
theorist
 
Posts: 277
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 9:57 pm

Re: 3-D motion capture comparison of elite WC SL skiers

Postby Max_501 » Tue Dec 24, 2013 9:50 pm

theorist wrote:Also, I was aware of Harald's consultations.


Then you already know why Harald says PMTS is based on science, yet you feigned ignorance on this matter earlier. What is your agenda here?

theorist wrote:But you've said PMTS is science-based, so could you please explain in more detail what you mean by that?
...
As before, any clarification you could provide to alleviate my confusion would be appreciated!
User avatar
Max_501
 
Posts: 4124
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 7:39 pm

Re: 3-D motion capture comparison of elite WC SL skiers

Postby theorist » Tue Dec 24, 2013 10:05 pm

Max_501 wrote:
theorist wrote:Also, I was aware of Harald's consultations.


Then you already know why Harald says PMTS is based on science, yet you feigned ignorance on this matter earlier. What is your agenda here?


Sheesh, what's with you folks and your suspicion of agendas!

That was 15 years ago, and all that I knew is that he'd done some consulting, but as I've already explained, merely consulting a scientific expert is not what a scientist would consider science-based. You need to look at results (which Harald addressed in his reply to me). Consulting an expert in science is like consulting an expert in ski racing -- a respected coach may tell you over the summer that, based on his expert opinion, skier X is going to challenge Hirscher for the SL overall this season. And because he's a respected coach you should listen. But skiing, like science, is ultimately about results -- you don't know if skier X is capable of challenging Hirscher until you see him compete against Hirscher under race conditions. So while I knew about the consultations, what I wanted to know was to what extent Harald was incorporating results from studies of the movement patterns of world cup racers. Harald answered that for me. Asked and answered. I don't know why you're bringing it up again.

More importantly, you've responded to a question with a serious ad hominem attack, to which I feel obliged to respond ("you feigned ignorance on this matter"). That's an accusation of dishonesty. If you truly had a legitimate concern about my doing this, the way to handle it would have been to message me privately and express it (politely). I would have then done my best to address it. What you instead did was to, without any substantive basis, publicly call into question my integrity by saying you think I'm being dishonest -- just because I asked a question you didn't like, or didn't understand. This was bad form, and shows disappointingly bad judgement. How would you like it if someone accused you of dishonesty just because they misinterpreted or misunderstood your questions? Doesn't feel too good, does it?

Frankly, it's a lot of work to ask good, detailed questions -- to make it clear just what you are asking. Nevertheless, I'm willing to do the work because I'm interested in what you folks have to say. For me, that's a high compliment. So I'm not going to ask a question to which I know the answer, since that's just making unnecessary work for myself.
Last edited by theorist on Tue Dec 24, 2013 11:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
theorist
 
Posts: 277
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 9:57 pm

Re: 3-D motion capture comparison of elite WC SL skiers

Postby theorist » Tue Dec 24, 2013 11:14 pm

Max_501 wrote:How old were you in 1998? How many years had you been skiing at that point? How many days per year, since then, have you spent working on PMTS drills from Book 1? Have you mastered everything in Book 1?

I was 40 in 1998; I started when I was 11, so at that time I had been skiing for 29 years. I have not kept up with PMTS since about 2000. So I was wondering which book would provide the most effective starting drills for me -- Book 1, or the Essentials.
Max_501 wrote:Define "advanced skier".

As I said above, I don't claim to be a serious student of PMTS, so I won't try to answer this in PMTS terms.

So: I can easily, and consistently, bend a ski into an arc (http://www.flickr.com/photos/111386007@N06/11538834955/), and I can shape that arc. I can comfortably ski 45-55 degree chutes in various off-piste snow conditions on 62mm SL skis (see my avatar). My principal current challenge is consistent high-C turn entry. When I was about 30 I was briefly PSIA, recognized that it was not going to take my skiing in the direction I wanted, and switched to Master's racing. I trained with a local team for about 10 years (including downhill roller blade training in some summers), ending in about 2002, after which (for various reasons -- serious injury, outside commitments) I didn't ski much. Now I'm getting back into the sport. Also I don't think you can be an advanced skier, regardless of your skill, unless you also maintain the corresponding fitness, and I follow a serious fitness regimen incorporating flexibility, ski-specfic plyometrics, agility and balance training, trail running, weight lifting, Hsing-I (a Chinese Internal Martial Art), and swimming. In addition Diana, who I skied with in the late 90s, said at the time that I was too advanced for a green or blue PMTS camp.
Last edited by theorist on Tue Dec 24, 2013 11:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
theorist
 
Posts: 277
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 9:57 pm

Re: 3-D motion capture comparison of elite WC SL skiers

Postby Max_501 » Tue Dec 24, 2013 11:29 pm

theorist wrote:More importantly, you've responded to a question with a serious ad hominem attack, to which I feel obliged to respond ("you feigned ignorance on this matter").


My post was based on your response which suggested you were aware of Harald's work with experts in aeronautical engineering and bio-mechanics.

BTW, I suspect Harald would describe his work with Diana and Robert as more than "some consulting". View the cover of the PMTS Instructors Manual to see the authors. Next see page ix of the Instructors Manual then jump to Bio-21

theorist wrote:So I was wondering which book would provide the most effective starting drills for me -- Book 1, or the Essentials.


IMO the best progression is always the same. Master Book 1, then master Book 2, use the Essentials for additional drills along the way.
User avatar
Max_501
 
Posts: 4124
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 7:39 pm

Re: 3-D motion capture comparison of elite WC SL skiers

Postby h.harb » Wed Dec 25, 2013 12:43 am

First, let me answer your assertions that I made negative comments about you.
"It's obvious you have not taught skiing at any level, (sorry except for possibly a wedge based system) and not been coached by coaches who understand a high level of skiing, if you have to ask this question."
This isn't negative about you as a person, it's defining the level of your skiing background and I stand to it, because if you are above this level of background, the answers to the questions you are asking would be self evident. I'm sorry you take this personally, but it it's meant that way. It's in response to the level of your questions.

Any serious student of ACBAES1 would have background knowledge of the information you ask about and already be educated enough to know why and how we explain these movements. Especially if you have already skied with Diana. These are not naive questions, and they show too much focused insight and research to be asked for an off hand reason. Yet they are answered everywhere in my materials. You already know the answers, to me that's obvious. Your questions have already been answered in numerous publications, including my Blog, my books , (instructor manual, especially because it describes the biomechanics directly and reasons for "O" frame and leading a turn with the LTE). My videos, Blog and numerous posts on this forum, go far beyond your questions, and you know that. You reassure us that you study and know so much about the presentations of the Congress, and provide details about these, yet you maintain you don't know the answers to the simplest PMTS mechanics. I'm referring to the questions about "O" frame vs "A frame etc. not about the Ligety questions, which are harder to find, but are still readily available.

You refer to the Congress and other references to my teaching and programs, yet want to assume ignorance about PMTS fundamentals that are more accessible and complete. You demonstrate you want simple explanations, to straight forward questions, yet there are already simple answers documented. I know you have the knowledge and the ability to find this information quickly. And it is much easier and more accessible than the information you use to back your questions. You provide reasons for asking questions with numerous substantiating quotes and materials, to create an underlying sense of doubt about PMTS mechanics, by referring to other beliefs of skiing relative to PMTS movements. This maybe a non-agenda, but why not come straight? So what is your motive? Do you want the answer directly from me? You are far too accommodating with a totally non-confrontational behavior, to be the antagonist, yet you are relying on your back-up research to present a counter to PMTS teaching. I don't find you are disagreeing, or disagreeable, you use other sources to confront PMTS, your preparations for the questions, allow you a tone of innocent intermediary. This takes you off the firing line, but everything isn't in the open or forth coming with just your asking of these questions. There is a reaction that can be generated from this form of preparation and questioning, that conjures up a sense of mistrust and suspicion.

Back to the content and substance of your questions, PMTS has documented and has complete explanations for the answers you seek, you only have to ask in a straightforward way, without trying to justify your question, with and through other comparisons. If I want or need to find questioners of my system that is easy, I have dealt with them for decades and can easily do so again, but not on this forum. The references you provide from the Congress research, are not specific to PMTS approaches and therefore will have different results than if the skiers were using PMTS methods, therefore the Congress reports of movements are not relevant. I did answered your other questions about why an "A" frame appears in my skiing and others. It is the difference between intent and outcome, and doesn't mean the movements aren't valid, because the outcomes would be far worst if the correct PMTS intent were not there.

If you want answers for academic reasons and really want the source of PMTS biomechanics, this can be provided, but this is not the way about it. Just ask simply, for example, why do PMTS skiers lead with the LTE, why do PMTS skiers ski with a narrow stance? This is a straight forward and honest way of approaching the forum. We can lead you easily to the answers. Why the need for a shroud of mystery and an enigmatic handle like "Theorist"?
I do and always will, encourage honest, open, discussion, by anyone who is asking legit questions and seeking answers. But let's start with approaching it that way.
User avatar
h.harb
 
Posts: 7047
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 2:08 pm
Location: Dumont, Colorado

Re: 3-D motion capture comparison of elite WC SL skiers

Postby theorist » Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:14 am

That's a very impressive analysis Harald -- seriously. I see what you mean, and it deserves a serious answer. I'll give you one, but I like to give thought to my posts, and I need some time away from the computer, so it may not be until next week that I reply. But as a courtesy I wanted to respond immediately to let you know I'm not ignoring what you wrote. Thanks.
User avatar
theorist
 
Posts: 277
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 9:57 pm

Re: 3-D motion capture comparison of elite WC SL skiers

Postby jclayton » Wed Dec 25, 2013 3:22 pm

All sounds a bit strange , a bit like a scientific , postulating Leopold Bloom . Sorry Theorist but we have had trolls in all sorts of guises . The taking of umbrage is often a giveaway . As is an avowal of skiing skills ( sans video ) . Language is a bit messy/wordy for a proponent of a " scientific " approach .
skinut ,among other things
User avatar
jclayton
 
Posts: 1019
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 12:37 pm
Location: mallorca ,spain

Re: 3-D motion capture comparison of elite WC SL skiers

Postby h.harb » Wed Dec 25, 2013 5:15 pm

So you noticed some Bloomage in these posts, things are getting weirder and weirder? We'll see what Mr. theorist has in store for the next session. I won't make any predictions, but he had better get to the point with much more alacrity than the previous attempts.
User avatar
h.harb
 
Posts: 7047
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 2:08 pm
Location: Dumont, Colorado

PreviousNext

Return to Racing

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests