Horse Hockey

[Harald]

Due to my Alignment Center involvement and coaching duties at Copper for a race camp this week, I have fallen behind in the threads.

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.

[Mikey B]

hey harald,

That guy should go to one of your all mountain camps! I will see you next week at Copper!

Mike New York

[Max_501]

This is what I was trying to point out in my earlier posts. I can tell some people enjoy comparing and analyzing the differences in the teaching systems. But as a student interested in PMTS instruction its incredibly confusing having them mixed into the PMTS forum without any way of identifying who is PMTS and who is TTS.

[Harald]

No comment, you are convinced, remember the name of the thread.

[NoCleverName]

I'm no expert on this by any means, but I'd like to make the following observations. 1) One must not forget that the hill is falling away from the skier, therefore, any body extensions could be nothing more than mere compliance to the hill rather than a force raising the body. 2) Extending the body must lower the CM, not raise it (relative to the body, that is).

Now, if you were crouched on a flat surface and then stood up, the z-position of your CM would clearly be higher (relative the surface) than before, but it would be at a much lower position relative to your body. But the CM has changed position relative to the surface, so a force is involved. Once a mass starts moving, only a force can alter its course, so, once you "stop standing up", you have to wait for gravity to arrest your upward motion before you can exert your entire weight on the floor. (If you stand up really fast, of course, you leave the floor and exert no weight on it).

On the other hand, if instead of you "standing up" the floor is pulled down away from you, extending your body to conform to the new floor position lowers you CM and creates a downward acceleration. When the floor stops moving you are compressed as you resist continuing down.

So, in the first situation you are moving your mass in a direction entirely at odds with what you want to do (get your CM to the bottom of the hill faster than the other guy can get his) versus the second scene where you are managing the rate of fall.

Beats me what this has to do with ILE, but I can say than the statement "the CM is clearly raised" is not so easy to defend. Since the entire argument rests on this assumption, which could very well be false, then the argument just doesn't, well, have a leg to stand on.

[jbotti]

Rick,
Heyoka says that you can ski, and because of this I'm sure that you can. Having said this, your comments here will always be somewhat suspect. Back when you posted as Fastmen (last year) you were adamant in your commentary that WC racers do not lift and tip the free foot to initiate turns. This response from the forum was overwhelmimg, because all of us regularly see WC racers performing this exact move (in fact every WC racer does this). You seemed to disappear after that. Now you are back. The real question is why. What are you tryng to accomplish?You have a wonderful opportunity to learn from Harald and he is more than willing to respond to your questions. Why not try and get what you can from him? You can use whatever portion of it (or none of it) you choose.
More importantly, if you are here to try and justify your approach to skiing and teaching, no one is really interested in it. The real question is why do you move in this direction? Can you not drop your defense and just listen, learn and ask questions? None of us are here for ego gratification. I have copied my post from Saturday. I mentioned no names in it, but it is aimed at you.

I first want to say that so far this season our forum is taking on a completely different shape, and we have newcomwers from the TTS/ PSIA world that are contributing and all of this occurring without rancor. Bravo, it's what we have always wanted.
Having said this, I will make a comment to all newcomers, especially those steeped in a different approach to skiing and to teaching skiing. When the ego is in the way, it is impossible to learn (this is an undeniable fact). The sure fire way to learn in life is to find a master (at whatever discipline one wishes to improve in) and then learn everything that you can from him. Most importantly, surrender to his knowledge and to his ability to get you the result that you are after.
Harald is a Master, and this is not to say that there are not other people who have his kind of mastery in skiing. Unfortunatley, to get real value from Harald and from this forum, those that come from a different past, must have some willingness to say that some or (perhaps unfortunately) much of what you have learned and focused on has been in the way and cannot get you the result that you seek. I know that for me this is the toughest thing in the world to face and accept. But I have learned over and over that this is the only way to progress.
Harald and Jay, and John Mason and others consistently and elequently expound on the distinct differences between TTS and PMTS, and there are many and the differences are stark (from flexing to release vs getting upright to release, to initaiting early and agressive counter movement and counter balance vs "following the turn", to never teaching the wedge and the list goes on). I don't think that the expanantions can be any clearer, yet what consistently comes back is that "it's just another way of describing the good skiing that we are already doing and teaching". This is the exact moment of truth... It's not. It is different. In order to get real value form the forum and from Harald you need to accept this.
Let me stress that I say this with sincere compassion and my intention is to bring us all closer and for people with a tts background to continue to participate here and contribute here.

Again, I find it simple to get maximum value form Harald and PMTS. I drop my ego at the door, I am intent on learning everything form Harald until I surpass him (unlikely).
If you are having trouble doing this the real question is why? Does he not demonstrate and amazing ability with his skiing and teaching? Does he not get amazing results with his students? Do his books not display immense attention to detail and articulate specificity?
Of course you may just be stuck on the fact that he consitently say that your background (TTS) is problematic. Whether you agree with this concept or not, in my opinion it really is that he last thing that anyone should allow to get in the way of learning from a master.

So my simple tips to get maximum value from Harald and the forum:
1. Drop your ego at the door (even if it looks like Harald has not dropped his)
2. Accept that there are real differences and learn to appreciate the differences and look to use them.
3. Accept that some or much of what you have been taught has been in the way (it does not mean that you can't rip or that you can't teach, it means you could rip better and teach better).
4. Use Harald. He is here. He answers questions and he wants everyone to ski and teach better.
5. And let's all keep it fun. That is why we all ski!!

I will again say that I write this with an intention to make our forum more inclusive. I hope that you will take my comments as trying to accomplish this.
_________________
jdb

[NoCleverName]

Let me say this in Rick's defense: when you look at the photos it can appear he is right about leg extension. Because since I'm not so good at this skiing, I can't say that he's wrong from my personal experience. But, taking it as a matter of faith that HH is most likely mo' right, you can stare at the photos and try to draw out an explanation. Of course, I'm further handicapped by the fact I can't remember all that much of my MIT physics acquired at a time far, far, away!

The photos show something, Rich and HH have differing hypothesis about what's happening, so a little scientific method is in order to make a decision. I have no problem with this; Rick's ideas make one think things thru.

Keep 'em coming.

[John Mason]

there is no debate

the speed of the crossover - the lateral movement of the CM across the skis - can only come from removing the pressure from the down hill ski.

You can't push that hard. Rick described ILE as pushing just a couple of CM as a trigger. If that's the case, then why do it. It's not where the force for the crossover is coming from.

I would think both Rick and HH agree is the removal of the leg supporting the g-s that create the lateral movement.

But if that's the case, what is any purpose to the ILE?

We are all agreeing that the release/flexion of the downhill leg is creating the energy for the CM to come over the skis aren't we? That seems totally obvious.

If that's the case, then I'm not sure what the debate is.

Copper mountain wednesday if anyone wants to ski with Rick, Syed Faisal, Heyoka, Hobbit, maybe Jay - (Jay you comming) - maybe Mike M, and me. Warmup day for the instructor camp! I'll cross post this where it goes in the posse section.

[jclayton]

I would really like to see the videos Rick talks about as justifying his ideas . I have to say there is a lot of reasoned logic in his arguments but he does seem to focus on very fine points which would need a very high level of established skill to be able to work on (and thus could confuse us mere mortals). The videos of Hermann etc sound educational .

[John Mason]

I don't know. When I see these pics I don't see any ILE going on other than in response as a following move to the release of the downhill ski.

These montages are not shot on level ground but uphill. Once you realize that the 'up' that is being talked about is really a change in the rate of downhill, there is no push up required to get what these pictures show.

The downhill ski releases, the body comes over the skis. Any passive following to engage the new ski is just that.

Obviously both legs are changing in length. The discussion seems to be about what the skier is doing to effect the transition. Taking the 400 + pounds of g-force away from the downhill leg and collapsing it does the trick for me. What the other leg does once the release occurs by lengthening as the body comes over the skis is a result not the cause.

But I guess that would be my question for Rick. Does the energy for the lateral motion over the skis come from releasing the downhill ski or from lengthening the uphill ski. I'm already taking as a disagreement that Rick thinks the initiation being used is ILE. But I'm interested in to how much of a push-off Rick is seeing here in these pics rather than a release of pressure.

[Jim Ratliff]

I am continually amazed by the reliance (on Epic and here, to a lesser degree) of "what the WC racers do". I have a little experience coaching Little League and High School baseball, and one of the biggest battles is getting kids to do it fundamentally right and to NOT try to emulate what the Major Leaguers do. (and we did have one kid make it to the majors)

There are many professionals (and Cal Ripken was one of them) that are/were fundamentally sound in almost everything they do. There are many others that are fundamentally sound but it's masked by some odd looking stance that they rapidly move out of as they trigger their swing (for example) too quickly for the less skilled to notice/emulate. There are also plenty that have fundamental flaws. The thing that they ALL have in common is hand-eye coordination and reflexes far above the average "good" athlete that enable them to perform exceptionally in spite of their unique traits. It is hard for me to believe that any profesional sport doesn't have the same dichotomy.

As a skiing example, I can sort of understand what ILE is. I am absolutely convinced, however, that a set of ski movements based on ILE instead of Harald's approach/progression would have me stemming and skidding like crazy because I don't have the fundamental touch and skill to execute it properly.

Rick, I actually enjoy (at least at an intellectual level) reading your posts (to the extent I can understand them). However, two basics of business are: 1) Know your customer, and 2) stick to your knitting. My compliments to Harald who, although frequently pretty caustic, recognizes that
1. PSIA instructors and ski racers are not the pirmary PMTS customer,
2. 50 year old "terminal intermediates" who dramatically improved their skiing satisfaction just by reading a $20 book are;
3. The purpose of Chevrolet's web site isn't for Ford and Chrysler engineers to discuss car design with the Chevrolet engineers. The Chevy web site exists to promote, discuss and explain the Chevy product.

[Belskisfast]

Fastman appears to be an intelligent, articulate, well meaning, well mannered fellow ski fanatic. As such he should be personally welcomed with open arms and minds. His ideas and techniques are open to shredding...HH is an evangelical Heritic to the TTS establishment and has suffered many a sling and arrow over the years. It is understandable why he has little if any tolerance for non primary movement techniques or even their discussion here. Some have argued it is a waste of a good PMTSians time. The best teacher/instructors are always passionate hardasses. (except Maria of course... )
This discussion has caused much reflection and study on transitions which is always good. I for one don't read a stealthy agenda to attack PMTS in Fastmans posts.

Noclevername makes some really interesting points regarding CM travel. I was wondering if what appears to be or feel like ILE is not simply the engaged edge of the ski scibing its arc around the moving/fallingdownslope CM????? Any thoughts on this?

[John Mason]

something to consider

In the sequenced shots of the skiers where Rick believes he is seeing a lifting with the inside uphill ski since he sees the skiers body coming up just isn't my own perception of what my body is doing in a strong short radius transition.

You can get all the lift you want, in fact too much, but just not flexing the downhill ski enough.

The moment you start releasing the pressure on the downhill ski past the apex of the turn there is a cascade of events this causes. That ski will start to go flat. Pressure will increase on the uphill/inside ski. Your CM will start to move over your skis.

Anyone who does these turns knows what I'm talking about. You can totally control how high your CM comes over by the amount of downhill leg flexion. Once the turn itself lessons because the downhill ski is no longer edging and you begin your 'pole vault' with your uphill inside leg's LTE being the pivot point, any lift you want or think you need is controlled not by pushing the uphill inside ski, but by how much you bend or don't bend the downhill ski. Once the turn is stopped and your skis enter the edge change part of the turn, your body is still going down the hill with a lot of force. Just like a pole vaulter you can have way too much lift if you want by not flexing the downhill leg enough.

This is why when I see the same sequence of pics Rick sees and he thinks there is a push up, I don't get it at all. You can get way too airborne by not flexing enough for as much vertical movement as you would like.

I see just a release of pressure of the downhill leg - body coming over laterally. You don't have to push on the inside leg to get it to length. You can just leave it on the snow and it will lengthen as you pole valut over. The challenge is actually to minimize that lengthening and pole valuting by flexing enough, especially when its steeper.

[John Mason]

Biowolf

a. Super Phantom Drill
b. Weighted Release Drill
c. Anything between a and c

This is the same progression we use.

It's all about using and the ability to ski on either leg on any edges.

That's probably why no one reacted to your other posts of this since it's so similar.

Rick's ILE is not however, unless your thinking 'a.' is the same. Holding the uphill ski and standing on it is a phase for learning not something done once learned.

Jay saw a bunch of skiers working specifically on ILE in chili with drills to learn it. It's not what we do in PMTS. But, people can do it if they want, just not the same as in PMTS, nor is it in this quote you keep posting.

[john heath]

the fact that he coaches miller does not make him right by the way. i once played cricket with a guy who coached one of the best players in the world. his coaching was some of the worst i have seen.