It's not so different to Europe though except for the fact that lots of Euros went through multiple weeks of classes as kids
It's pretty common for kids to go through season long multiple lesson in north America too.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Quote:
I do think because of the avalanche thing the Euro attitude is learn on a piste first which leads lots of skiers to define themselves as a "piste skier"
I wonder if that limit also help foster the heavy focus on "perfect technique"? After all, if the piste are usually smooth, there isn't a whole lot of "varied condition" to deal with...
Though somehow, I kind of doubt that. The few times I skied in the Alps, I saw multiple lesson groups going beyond the piste (the punters' standards varied but some no better than ~5 weeks, which is similar to when NA skiers are led into the ungroomed -- by no means "advance" level). So Euros do go off piste rather sooner and more frequently that I was led to believe. Again, I can't help but wonder if it's just the British skiers who got the mistaken believe that off-piste is "only for advanced skiers"? (fault of BASI?)
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Dave of the Marmottes wrote:
...I always contrast prospective BASI L2 candidates search for the "right" ski ...
I always think that's a useful indicator of "expert" - if you don't know what you like to ride, and precisely why, then you're not
----
I don't think practicing is remotely stressful - the OP makes it clear that it's a pretty good thing.
----
I disagree about learning on challenging terrain, although many people, mostly males, can be found side slipping black runs around the world because they think that way. I doubt they learn much from the experience, except how to side slip black runs. My view is that people learn good technique quicker on straightforward consistent terrain. If they learn it right, then that technique transfers seamlessly. You do get "piste skiers" or "park stance" people whose technique falls apart even in simple bottomless powder, but my view is that if you looked closely at their technique on piste, the faults would be clear there too. And they're way easier to fix on a piste.
It's not so different to Europe though except for the fact that lots of Euros went through multiple weeks of classes as kids
It's pretty common for kids to go through season long multiple lesson in north America too.
If they're locals sure....but then we aren't really talking about those brought up skiing every weekend here....
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Dave of the Marmottes wrote:
abc wrote:
Quote:
It's not so different to Europe though except for the fact that lots of Euros went through multiple weeks of classes as kids
It's pretty common for kids to go through season long multiple lesson in north America too.
If they're locals sure....but then we aren't really talking about those brought up skiing every weekend here....
A pretty substantial percentage of north American population live within an hour of a ski hill, "locals"!
Not all of them "brought up skiing every weekend". They're taught to ski on school programs during the week...
When I was a rookie instructor, the hill I worked on had those. The kids came from schools in surrounding communities. Not all the kids continue to ski. But those who do take to skiing, they have some options. There're also race clubs. Even kids who aren't exactly fast, they can still be part of the program.
We're not talking about Colorado. We're talking about Connecticut and suburban New York City.
After all it is free
After all it is free
abc wrote:
Problem with skiing? Or just problem with BASI? ('too much emphasis on "perfect" technique')
Without wishing to be accused of being a "BASI Shill" again I thought the idea was that at the lower levels: L1, L2, the candidate instructors had to ski "by the book" but at L3, L4 there was less need, therefore less emphasis on this and skiing is more open.
The idea was to have solid foundations and be able to properly demonstrate technique to clients without having loads of parasitic or even incorrect movements. This also has some basis in the background of BASI instructors, often from a holiday skier background with little instruction rather than the continent where they are more likely to be from the local club scene and therefore having done years of instruction and coaching. It probably depends on the trainer as well.
I don't think clients have to perform a perfect BASI snowplow though.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
davidof wrote:
Without wishing to be accused of being a "BASI Shill" again I thought the idea was that at the lower levels: L1, L2, the candidate instructors had to ski "by the book" but at L3, L4 there was less need, therefore less emphasis on this and skiing is more open.
Not really more 'open' but it's certainly expected that the higher level you are the more fluid, dynamic and efficient your skiing is expected to be. Conversely there is no expectation, just in practice an acceptance, that a L1/2 instructor (may) be more mechanical and stiff, and so perhaps give an appearance of "by the book" skiing compared with a L3/4.
But the ability to successfully and consistently demonstrate the "by the book" movements and techniques, and to do so at all times when you're with students applies at least as much at the higher levels (OK, not done BASI4 myself, but I believe this is still the case) with a proportionally higher standard (of demonstration) required.
davidof wrote:
I don't think clients have to perform a perfect BASI snowplow though.
Hah. No, we don't expect anything to be perfect, not even their ability to spell the word;-)
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Chaletbeauroc wrote:
davidof wrote:
I don't think clients have to perform a perfect BASI snowplow though.
Hah. No, we don't expect anything to be perfect, not even their ability to spell the word;-)
"spell the word" in a British style, that is.
Same goes for the skiing.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
abc wrote:
Chaletbeauroc wrote:
davidof wrote:
I don't think clients have to perform a perfect BASI snowplow though.
Hah. No, we don't expect anything to be perfect, not even their ability to spell the word;-)
"spell the word" in a British style, that is.
.
quite, it is a small island somewhere in the North Atlantic of which we know very little, including the bizarre spelling.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
davidof wrote:
abc wrote:
Chaletbeauroc wrote:
davidof wrote:
I don't think clients have to perform a perfect BASI snowplow though.
Hah. No, we don't expect anything to be perfect, not even their ability to spell the word;-)
"spell the word" in a British style, that is.
.
quite, it is a small island somewhere in the North Atlantic of which we know very little, including the bizarre spelling.
Touché. It's only that one small island and the rest of the English speaking world, bar the US, that continues to spell it in a way that retains its etymology.
Seriously though, there's something jarring about that particular combination word when spelt the American way, which looks like the two syllables should rhyme. Like so many of Noah Webster's spelling 'improvements' that failed to catch on outside of the US it just looks... odd to the rest of the world. Does snowplough look just as odd to USians?
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
Quote:
Does snowplough look just as odd to USians?
yes
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
I wonder if snowplough also looks odd to the Irish, given they think that loch should be spelt lough?
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
@Inboard, do not forget that
Ghoti
Spells……
Fish
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
Chaletbeauroc wrote:
Seriously though, there's something jarring about that particular combination word when spelt the American way, which looks like the two syllables should rhyme. Like so many of Noah Webster's spelling 'improvements' that failed to catch on outside of the US it just looks... odd to the rest of the world. Does snowplough look just as odd to USians?
Last edited by Poster: A snowHead on Thu 12-05-22 11:29; edited 1 time in total
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Chaletbeauroc wrote:
Touché. It's only that one small island and the rest of the English speaking world, bar the US, that continues to spell it in a way that retains its etymology.
but in that case pronounce it Plug ! Snowplug
Maybe snowheads should be renamed: snougheads?
but I agree that Websters doesn't respect the etymology and is more a phonetic spelling.
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
From something interesting about skiing, into disagreement on the spelling of English, in a page and a half. A subject upon which transatlantic disagreement won’t be resolved in my lifetime. Possibly ever. Scope for interminably insulting one another across the internet into the wee hours, possibly forever.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
abc wrote:
Quote:
ou do get "piste skiers" or "park stance" people whose technique falls apart even in simple bottomless powder,
My point being, if you don't have varied conditions, you don't get to see how badly it falls apart!
Off piste is the test. There's a saying "it's not you can't ski moguls. It's you can't ski, and the mogul proves it"
Conversely, I've known many people over the years, perhaps including myself, who were really competent, fluid and dynamic off piste, but who lacked some of the skills we'd regard as the basis for good on-piste skiing. Spent years as a SCGB leader where the focus was always about off-piste, and indeed the training (initial 2-week course then a 4-day refresher every three years) was also focussed away from anything like instructor training technique.
So it works both ways - it's quite possible to appear good, almost expert, in conditions that you're very familiar with, but look a complete back bottom [1] when you're out of your comfort zone. Sit-back skiing, as someone mentioned a page or two back, can sometimes be quite appropriate in fast deep powder skiing, but if that's all you can do you're not going to do so well on the icy moguls. Not well at all...
[1] Haha, that's not what I typed. Didn't realise the forum software had automatic censoring, and for such harmless terms as a r s e .
After all it is free
After all it is free
Chaletbeauroc wrote:
[1] Haha, that's not what I typed. Didn't realise the forum software had automatic censoring, and for such harmless terms as a r s e .
You get used to it and most regulars end up reverse substituting in their heads. Be careful where you put your pints!
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
Quote:
it's quite possible to appear good, almost expert, in conditions that you're very familiar with, but look a complete back bottom [1] when you're out of your comfort zone.
It's possible. But it's not very likely.
Don't know how they got to be "almost expert" in conditions they're familiar with in the first place, except to have skied in those conditions without "falling to pieces" when they first encountered it.
Quote:
really competent, fluid and dynamic off piste, but who lacked some of the skills we'd regard as the basis for good on-piste skiing
Frankly, that sounds like a very good position to be in, to be "competent, fluid and dynamic off piste", while only ok'ish on piste.
To me, piste are just highways to get me to the quiet good snow off-piste, or lunch/apres bar afterward. (I won't claim I'm anywhere near "competent, fluid and dynamic off piste". I just much prefer off piste than on)
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
abc wrote:
Quote:
really competent, fluid and dynamic off piste, but who lacked some of the skills we'd regard as the basis for good on-piste skiing
Frankly, that sounds like a very good position to be in, to be "competent, fluid and dynamic off piste", while only ok'ish on piste.
To be honest that sounds like the problem a lot of non lesson junkies have with teaching systems. If skiers are genuinely competent, fluid and dynamic off piste and that is where they want to spend their time why the need to artificially break them to make them by negging their "basics"?
(FTAOD I get it - perceptions of competence by an individual are not objective, ultimately lacking some foundational skill will hamper "progression" somewhere along the line etc etc.)
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
Dave of the Marmottes wrote:
abc wrote:
Quote:
really competent, fluid and dynamic off piste, but who lacked some of the skills we'd regard as the basis for good on-piste skiing
Frankly, that sounds like a very good position to be in, to be "competent, fluid and dynamic off piste", while only ok'ish on piste.
To be honest that sounds like the problem a lot of non lesson junkies have with teaching systems. If skiers are genuinely competent, fluid and dynamic off piste and that is where they want to spend their time why the need to artificially break them to make them by negging their "basics"?
(FTAOD I get it - perceptions of competence by an individual are not objective, ultimately lacking some foundational skill will hamper "progression" somewhere along the line etc etc.)
Agree. I'm in that boat of being a reasonable snowboarder happy to ride all the kind of terrain I want safely and with reasonable "style". However, I don't know why anyone in my position that's "competent" would decide to have lessons, a guide seems more appropriate to a fun day out.
Going back to experts with non traditional technique there is always a debate in movement sciences about if you'd taken apart their current technique to coach a more traditional technique would they be even better? Or would you have ruined them as the technique they've adapted is perhaps more optimise to them. Of course we will never know for sure.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
boarder2020 wrote:
Going back to experts with non traditional technique there is always a debate in movement sciences about if you'd taken apart their current technique to coach a more traditional technique would they be even better? Or would you have ruined them as the technique they've adapted is perhaps more optimise to them. Of course we will never know for sure.
You can't "ruin" a competent person's technique. The worst you would suffer is you gain nothing and waste your time and money.
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
Quote:
To me, piste are just highways to get me to the quiet good snow off-piste, or lunch/apres bar afterward. Toofy Grin (I won't claim I'm anywhere near "competent, fluid and dynamic off piste". I just much prefer off piste than on)
Yup that's me too.
But.... hard snow is much much harder to ski on well than soft snow... I would want a skiing "expert" to be excellent wherever. And as far as technique goes, unless you have all the "basics" down then you will limit your performance in some way. Hard snow shows up those errors is quite stark detail. And yes I have just failed an L3 exam (on teles) for precisely this reason!
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
I spend most of my time off piste unless the conditions are really poor. That said, I enjoy the sensations of carving clean turns on good pistes and the challenge of holding an edge on hard pistes very much too. And of course trying to flow smoothly and with control through the bumps. The core of skiing is shared in those different environments but they call for different emphasis and require you to hone bits of your technique - it's all good.
As to why a competent all round skier would want to improve their technique, I'd just say that the better my technique gets the more fun I have. It's only really on powder days that I prefer to forget about honing technique and purely enjoy the sensations. In less wonderful conditions the added interest of working on something enriches my experience.
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Quote:
As to why a competent all round skier would want to improve their technique, I'd just say that the better my technique gets the more fun I have. It's only really on powder days that I prefer to forget about honing technique and purely enjoy the sensations. In less wonderful conditions the added interest of working on something enriches my experience.
Hear, hear! It's great to have that as a focus; it keeps motivation going through a long season and on those crappy-weather days you still make the effort to get out. To draw a parallel, would park skiers stop trying to develop once they've done their first 180? Or do they keep going back to learn new tricks...
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
bobski62 wrote:
Quote:
As to why a competent all round skier would want to improve their technique, I'd just say that the better my technique gets the more fun I have. It's only really on powder days that I prefer to forget about honing technique and purely enjoy the sensations. In less wonderful conditions the added interest of working on something enriches my experience.
Hear, hear! It's great to have that as a focus; it keeps motivation going through a long season and on those crappy-weather days you still make the effort to get out. To draw a parallel, would park skiers stop trying to develop once they've done their first 180? Or do they keep going back to learn new tricks...
I think the idea that those of us that are not taking formal tuition aren't trying to improve or progress is probably not quite right. I spend plenty of time thinking about runs, what went right and wrong and how I can correct things etc. For me progression means skiing new more challenging lines, and putting better lines down old faces (i.e. linking up a few little cliff drops, generally keeping more speed and more fall line etc.). Of course you can have a completely different idea of what progression is to you and that's fine. I can tell you after learning 360s (to varying success) I have absolutely zero motivation to ever try a 540
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
boarder2020 wrote:
bobski62 wrote:
Quote:
As to why a competent all round skier would want to improve their technique, I'd just say that the better my technique gets the more fun I have. It's only really on powder days that I prefer to forget about honing technique and purely enjoy the sensations. In less wonderful conditions the added interest of working on something enriches my experience.
Hear, hear! It's great to have that as a focus; it keeps motivation going through a long season and on those crappy-weather days you still make the effort to get out. To draw a parallel, would park skiers stop trying to develop once they've done their first 180? Or do they keep going back to learn new tricks...
I think the idea that those of us that are not taking formal tuition aren't trying to improve or progress is probably not quite right. I spend plenty of time thinking about runs, what went right and wrong and how I can correct things etc. For me progression means skiing new more challenging lines, and putting better lines down old faces (i.e. linking up a few little cliff drops, generally keeping more speed and more fall line etc.). Of course you can have a completely different idea of what progression is to you and that's fine. I can tell you after learning 360s (to varying success) I have absolutely zero motivation to ever try a 540
I've had two weeks of ski school and three private lessons in 40 years of skiing so you are preaching to the converted. I'm not anti-lessons - half thought about a private lesson at Easter.
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
A good way to improve as a child is to ski as closely as safely possible behind the best skier in your group and to do it regularly in all conditions.
It’s probably the reason the children of great skiers also tend to become great skiers
As to why a competent all round skier would want to improve their technique, I'd just say that the better my technique gets the more fun I have. It's only really on powder days that I prefer to forget about honing technique and purely enjoy the sensations. In less wonderful conditions the added interest of working on something enriches my experience.
Hear, hear! It's great to have that as a focus; it keeps motivation going through a long season and on those crappy-weather days you still make the effort to get out. To draw a parallel, would park skiers stop trying to develop once they've done their first 180? Or do they keep going back to learn new tricks...
I think the idea that those of us that are not taking formal tuition aren't trying to improve or progress is probably not quite right. I spend plenty of time thinking about runs, what went right and wrong and how I can correct things etc. For me progression means skiing new more challenging lines, and putting better lines down old faces (i.e. linking up a few little cliff drops, generally keeping more speed and more fall line etc.). Of course you can have a completely different idea of what progression is to you and that's fine. I can tell you after learning 360s (to varying success) I have absolutely zero motivation to ever try a 540
I've had two weeks of ski school and three private lessons in 40 years of skiing so you are preaching to the converted. I'm not anti-lessons - half thought about a private lesson at Easter.
Ditto. Always trying to improve technique but not sure private lessons is a magic formula. Video footage certainly makes the faults very obvious. But correcting them is hard!
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
BobinCH wrote:
.....but not sure private lessons is a magic formula.
I think that hugely depends on the Instructor. Some have the ability to home in on quite subtle things, that when corrected, make a big difference.
Ditto. Always trying to improve technique but not sure private lessons is a magic formula. Video footage certainly makes the faults very obvious. But correcting them is hard!
Video footage can indeed be good at helping you see what's happening, but it is not a magic formula either. Specific body movements, or lack of, and positions may be evident, but unless they're able to be viewed in the context of what the ski is doing, and how it may be made better, it's not much use in itself.
Perhaps back in the day it might have been deemed sufficient to spot and try to correct deviations from a template body position, on the basis that once the correct position is adopted the rest of the skiing package will fall into place. I believe this was a normal approach in the Austrian system until relatively recently (+/-15 years back?), for example.
These days I don't think anyone would suggest that approach, and video is most successfully used to see a problem at the ski level, e.g. too much skidding, over-rotation, juddering... and try to work up the body to find what may be causing it or what changes might be made to avoid it. As such it can be a very powerful tool, best used alongside, rather than instead of, good tuition.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Chaletbeauroc wrote:
Perhaps back in the day it might have been deemed sufficient to spot and try to correct deviations from a template body position, on the basis that once the correct position is adopted the rest of the skiing package will fall into place. I believe this was a normal approach in the Austrian system until relatively recently (+/-15 years back?), for example.
I think that is a very valid comment. A good instructor will take what somebody has and maximise it.....rather than make a "clone", based on the diktats of a specific teaching system.
After all it is free
After all it is free
BobinCH wrote:
Video footage certainly makes the faults very obvious. But correcting them is hard!
Stopping your skis diverging at the end of a turn shouldn't be that difficult.
My first thought on seeing the videos you posted recently was that it doesn't look like you have done much race training on modern skis. I would expect that any of the Verbier locals that you might compare yourself against would have done some.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
rjs wrote:
Stopping your skis diverging at the end of a turn shouldn't be that difficult.
Just like keeping your skis together in powder shouldn't be difficult either, I suppose? I do recall back in the day that some instructors apparently used to think so; thankfully things have largely moved on since then.
In both cases, as in so much else, what you see is a symptom - the problem that needs addressing lies somewhere else.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Dave of the Marmottes wrote:
I do think because of the avalanche thing the Euro attitude is learn on a piste first which leads lots of skiers to define themselves as a "piste skier" whereas it would be stranger in the US and Canada where lessons covered varied terrain.
Yes, I agree. I have heard American skiers saying Europeans don't ski off piste. On the other hand American skiers seem very scared of going beyond the resort boundary (where this is allowed) but of course European off piste skiers just get what they are used to. I arrived in Jackson Hole a few days after new snow, but much of the front was wind crust. I got to the top of the tram with my friends and walked through the first gate. Powder and not a single track!!! It would have been skied out in Europe. Two days later and we were with a "Steep and Deep" group. I complained to a local that we weren't skiing any powder. He said "There isn't any" but we had been skiing it for 2 days.
FAQ
Poster: A snowHead
