LiquidFeet wrote:Did the blow-up happen because of the Technical Models thread?
There was no blow up, no major arguments, etc... no need to 'step in' that I ever saw. I had been enjoying that there was a more open, non-adversarial culture.
LiquidFeet wrote:I read people here "putting down" non-PMTS instructors who do not display the technical movements or understanding that this site admires. There is often derision, mockery, and contempt in such posts. I read this quite often. People here clearly enjoy posting this type of observation, and I can tell that they feel justified displaying this kind of attitude towards the "enemy."
LF, the observation you describe is usually that of a demo-team level (or other similarly high-ranking) instructor, who is publicly stating "I'm the expert, this is how you ski, let me show you how to do it" (choose any PSIA video at random). However when we break down the skiing that is displayed, looking at the movements being made, and compare them with the movements that the best racers make (arguably the most technical skiers on the planet), THEY AREN'T THE SAME. Not only will those types of people refuse to explain or even admit to the discrepancy, they go so far as to claim that there is no difference!
Should these people be beyond reproach? They are within PSIA, but not here... and not in any environment where REAL skiing performance is being targeted (e.g. racing). System agnostic... they are not using the same movements that the best skiers use. Period. Movements are movements... we are either flexing or extending, tipping or steering, rotating or countering, balanced on the outside ski or not... we can't have it both ways. Accepted imperfections in a racer's technique should not be confused with the ideal targeted technique (e.g. what they are shooting for). I alluded to this in the 'technical models' thread you referenced as well as the 'what does it take' thread.
A statement of fact should not be viewed as adversarial unless something is trying to be hidden, covered up or ignored. I went on to say that the difference doesn't matter as long as you're up-front and honest about the desired outcome... e.g.) If you want to ski like a PSIA d-team member you're going to do a different set of 'things' than you would if you want to ski like a WC SL skier. If PSIA said to racers, I'm sorry, we don't ski that way, we can't train you... I don't think there would be any controversy. Instead, PSIA teaches their fundamentals to USSA [skills quest] as the path to achieving high-level race technique.
LiquidFeet wrote:The situation is what it is, and I don't see anyone on either side working to bridge the gap between PMTS and everyone not-PMTS. I don't think it should come as a surprise that both sides are sensitive to the ongoing negativity, that's all I was saying. There is an adversarial relationship. I'm flummoxed that you are not aware of it.
I am not unaware of the relationship, however, talking like there is some kind of on-going war does nothing but put people on the defensive. I'd rather have people eager to learn where it is possible, ignore those with closed minds and have truthful, open dialogue about what those who are in positions of authority are really doing in practice. I acknowledge the differences. This is the first step to bridging any gap... the realization that we are not doing the same thing. When I make short turns next to most PSIA instructors who are also making short turns - they don't look the same. The fundamentals are different. I don't care if PSIA never changes, however, when they claim to be doing something they are not, or are representing themselves or what they teach as something they/it are not, I take issue (e.g. the fallacy that wedge turn contains all of the same fundamentals as an expert turn... maybe an 'expert' PSIA turn... but certainly not an expert SL or GS turn - not even close). I take even further issue when the wrong fundamentals are taught to, for example, junior racers, and portrayed as racing fundamentals (e.g. the right way to do things) by these same people.
Sure a high level of skiing competency can be reached using movements that are different from what PMTS teaches, but we [collectively] need to be honest about the fundamental differences and what the result is when we focus on one set of fundamentals versus another set of fundamentals (Jon Ballou and Eric Lipton certainly don't suck at skiing... they both ski at a level any skier would be elated to achieve, but let's be honest, they don't look like HH, Reilly, Mikaela or Hirscher when they make turns). Once this reality is confronted by 'the other side', a healthier dialogue is going to take place. In my experience, PMTS-trained skiers have a better grasp of PSIA fundamentals than PSIA-trained skiers do... because we have studied and understand the differences. [Ask Max_501 and jbotti about the time I demoed carved medium radius turns using extension for them... it is EASY]
In my case, when I work with a traditionally-taught racer, I focus on getting them on the right track, focused on the right fundamentals and thinking about skiing through the right frame of reference... as opposed to telling them how they have spent their entire skiing career being taught the wrong things. Would you rather hear "I can help you ski a slalom course faster" or "You suck at slalom because you're doing everything wrong"? Which approach will ignite a passion to want to improve The same logic can be applied to bumps, short turns, off-piste... etc. As an expert [PMTS] skier and periodic coach, I may be part ambassador for PMTS, but most people don't care about acronyms - they just care about skiing better... so I am really an ambassador for the sport. The skiing and results... well, they speak for themselves.
Discipline is the refining fire by which talent becomes ability.
www.youtube.com/c/heluvaskier