Angulation feels like....

[Josh Matta]

can we just agree that angulation might not feel like the same thing to every person, and maybe we should teach movements that lead to proper angulation.

 

[markojp]

can we just agree that angulation might not feel like the same thing to every person, and maybe we should teach movements that lead to proper angulation.

Thank you.

 

[oisin]

Oisin, you are not on the wrong track about developing counter and then leaning your upper half forward (rather then tilting your torso sideways) to create a kind of angulation with less pinching sideways to do it. In actual practice its probably not 100% cut and dried that you can create enough counter and exclusively bend forward at the waist to create a kind of hip angulation. In actual practice there can be some leaning forward at the waist (if there is counter), and there can also be some amount of leaning out sideways as well, and there will also almost certainly be come articulation in the spine, which can also be in 2 dimensions in addition to whatever is happening in your hip socket... The counter, if present, just changes a bit which direction the spine should articulate...and it will probably not be exclusively sideways, nor exclusively forward. It will be whatever it needs to be in order to balance over the outside ski with whatever amount of counter you happen to have at the moment. If you try to do it exclusively by leaning forward, you will also have to bend forward considerably more then if you mix in some sideways, in order to get balanced on the outside ski. I would say that exclusively trying to do it by leaning forward will produce hip dumpy skiing with exaggerated counter. You are quite correct, however, that counter enables the skier to get balanced over the outside ski using using different larger muscle groups, leaning sort of forward rather then the sideways pinch, which is a good thing.

I differ with you 150% about how to develop counter. Your thoughts about trying to twist the femurs to create counter are, however, quite common in PSIA circles.

Here is a thought experiment for you. Think for a bit, what would the effective differences be between practicing say.....double pole plant drills and pivot slips, with regards to developing better counter? I see and experience myself huge differences between those two drills in terms of how upper-lower separation is created, yet both develop what different people would refer to as so called "counter", not necessarily the same kind of counter in those different cases, so there again we have another word which can mean different things depending on the bio mechanical movements used to create it.

I also want to ask you, if you create hip angulation by twisting your feet to the side and bending forward at the waist, do you expect this action to cause increased edging? I don't. If you try to twist BOTH femurs, do you expect this simultaneous action to swing the pelvis outwards into counter against edged and stabilized skis? I don't.

No, angulation is used to adjust lateral balance. Inclining your legs produces edging. Different things. There's no need for angulation if you are not experiencing significant lateral force. That (lateral force) would normally mean that edging is already present.
I don't disagree that angulation involves a blend of those things you mentioned. My point was to bring up the relatively limited contribution bending the spine can produce. I've often seen people try to teach or to learn to angulate by bending the spine sideways (getting the "pinch").
I'm not sure what you mean by double pole plant drills. I've used these in conjunction with hop turns on steep chutes (I think it was one of the long term instructors at Taos who was pushing these) but I don't think this is what you are referring to. So I don't know what you mean by different types of counter, Counter is counter to my way of thinking but I'm open to further understanding. Counter is not some kind of built up torgue in the spinal column if that's what you mean although it might be present or not.

. quote:
"If you try to twist BOTH femurs, do you expect this simultaneous action to swing the pelvis outwards into counter against edged and stabilized skis? "

I don't think swinging is involved. Absent this simultaneous leg rotation your pelvis (and hence your upper body) is going to remain "square" to your skis and your body is going to remain this way throughout your turn. I suppose you could fling your arms and upper body around in what used to be called "counter rotation" but this isn't what we do. Leg rotation or perhaps more accurately the leg rotation force is what we use to get counter. If the rotational forces in each leg were equal though I suppose they would cancel each other out as they act upon the pelvis. I imagine that what we must actually do is to unbalance these forces to allow the pelvis to turn with respect to the direction of the skis. I suppose a person might think that is the skis which are being turned (by the aplication of force) and not the pelvis but since we know that the turning force that turns the skis is not coming from the legs but from the skis and their relationship to the snow and we know that the pelvis is being turned with respect to the direction of the skis and our direction of momentum then something must be acting upon the pelvis to alter the relationship of pelvis to skis. I would say that is leg rotation force. That's what it feels like to me when I ski. I'm open to any other theories as to how this may be accomplished. I agree that "leg rotation" per se may be a bit of the misnomer. Leg rotation force or something like that might be more accurate but, since Leg Rotation is the name we've given to the skill involved, that is the term I've used. My point is to emphasize the importance of developing this skill throughout a skier's progression. Upper and lower body separation should be present to some degree from the skier's very first turns on skis.

 

[BS Slarver]

Well said Josh, short and to the point.
Keeping it simple will always be relevant, even with the ever changing and evolving equipment and the effect it has on ones tactics and technique.

I thoroughly enjoyed how this topic got started but the last few pages of verbal diarrhea reminded me just why I let my level III go.

 

[oisin]

can we just agree that angulation might not feel like the same thing to every person, and maybe we should teach movements that lead to proper angulation.

Absolutely agreed. Teaching the movements that lead to angulation has always been my recommendation. My point though is that there are habitual movements in your skiing that lead to angulation. Without those simply teaching someone to move into the position is a mistake IMO.

 

[BornToSki683]

No, angulation is used to adjust lateral balance. Inclining your legs produces edging. Different things.

Ok, I don't necessarily disagree about hip angulation being more about balance, then about edging. PSIA currently does disagree with you though, FWIW. However, lets ask the question again another way.

Do you feel that if you twist your feet to the side and bend forward at the waist you will be more able to incline your legs to produce edging? I don't.

There's no need for angulation if you are not experiencing significant lateral force.

Sorry you have it backwards. "inclination" (not "angulation") of the CoM is only needed with any lateral force. "Angulation" can absolutely be present with zero lateral force and actually the lack of sufficient lateral force is what makes angulation necessary! It makes it possible to incline the legs, as you like to say, more then the CoM can be inclined based on the current lateral forces. You actually need more angulation to deal with less lateral force.

That (lateral force) would normally mean that edging is already present.

true but hopefully its progressively growing somehow. how do you go about growing it?

I don't disagree that angulation involves a blend of those things you mentioned. My point was to bring up the relatively limited contribution bending the spine can produce. I've often seen people try to teach or to learn to angulate by bending the spine sideways (getting the "pinch").

Some people do need to get the pinch. They need to lift the inside hip and the outside will feel pinched. This is the case even if you are getting countered, though it may feel less pinchy since you will be using more efficient large muscle groups to stack up.

Regarding the spine, If you really think about the way we round out our lower back (hopefully) when we ski, then the bending forward you mention is actually more in the spine then anywhere else.

I'm not sure what you mean by double pole plant drills. I've used these in conjunction with hop turns on steep chutes (I think it was one of the long term instructors at Taos who was pushing these) but I don't think this is what you are referring to. So I don't know what you mean by different types of counter, Counter is counter to my way of thinking but I'm open to further understanding. Counter is not some kind of built up torgue in the spinal column if that's what you mean although it might be present or not.

built up torque in the spinal column is commonly referred to as "anticipation". No that's not what I meant.

You should experiment with double pole plant short radius turns. This will help you to stabilize the upper half and discipline the pelvis. How does one stabilize the upper half or discipline the pelvis? By keeping a strong inside half. When you do short radius turns with double pole plants and make sure your hands, shoulder, arm, and especially the inside hip, is always leading forward, then countering happens. This is upper body discipline and has almost NOTHING, zilch...to do with twisting the femurs. Doing double pole plant short radius turns with this focus will create counter as an upper body discipline.

Since you are unfamiliar with this drill then there is not much point it contrasting the differences to say, pivot slips, which is mostly a lower body effort of twisting the two femurs like mad on mostly flat skis. Completely different bio mechanical movements involved, and in my view entirely different results.

I don't think swinging is involved.

Please consider the possibility that if you are balanced on your outside ski and the pelvis rotates outward on the outside hip socket alone, then it is swinging out like a gate on a hinge, where the outside hip socket is the hinge of the gate. Then reconsider the question about what happens when you try to twist both of your femurs underneath your pelvis pivot slip style and contrast the difference.

Absent this simultaneous leg rotation your pelvis (and hence your upper body) is going to remain "square" to your skis and your body is going to remain this way throughout your turn.

See above.

I suppose you could fling your arms and upper body around in what used to be called "counter rotation" but this isn't what we do.

who said anything about flinging their arms and upper body around? Zenny tried to explain this to you already I will try again. "counter rotation" is in fact what you have to do with your pelvis around the hinge of your outside hip socket, in order to create the visual image of a stabilized or disciplined pelvis and what looks like a quiet upper body. This is UPPER BODY discipline. Trying to accomplish this by twisting your femurs is not going to get you there.

Historically, an old ski technique was used that was referred to as "counter rotation" and that was as you describe, doing a highly exaggerated (flinging?) counter-rotation movement such that you visually see the upper half counter-rotate and consequently this allows the lower half to visually rotate even more then the skis will do on their own. That old style was called "counter-rotation" and for that reason this terminology is often mis-construed as referring to that old technique of literally counter twisting the upper half exagerattingly to the degree that an outside observer will see counter rotational movement of the upper half with exagerrated rotational movement of the lower half. But that technique is generally not used anymore and nobody here was suggesting that it should be.

However, in order to create the visual illusion of a quiet, stable and disciplined upper half, some lessor amount of counter-rotation by the upper half is actually required. An outside observer will not see this counter-rotation visually because the lower half will be rotating a certain amount as the skis make a turn, and the counter-rotation in the upper half will be just the right amount to match the rotation that is already happening in the lower half. That rotation in the lower half is NOT by twisting the femurs, its by the skis making a ski turn. As the skis make a turn, the skier is turned with it. The skier then counter-rotates their upper half just the right amount so as to create counter as the turn progresses. Some may refer to this action as "counter-action" in order to avoid confusion with the historically antiquated term "counter-rotation".

Leg rotation or perhaps more accurately the leg rotation force is what we use to get counter.

Well that is certainly what some in PSIA will say. I don't. As I said earlier if you compare upper body discipline drills such as double pole plants and many others, and contrast those to leg twisting drills such as pivot slips, you will find they are totally and completely different activities, using different muscle activations, different bio mechanical movements, different outcomes in terms of the way the skis are edged, steered and balanced upon.

If the rotational forces in each leg were equal though I suppose they would cancel each other out as they act upon the pelvis.

cancel each other out? Not sure what you meant by that, but like many have pointed out about standing on two bar stools and twisting your legs, the lever arm of the pelvis enables you to twist both legs without counter-acting the pelvis at all as described above. They provide a way to push against each other and twist them both... Yes that results in a pivot slippy way of the skis pointing a different direction then the pelvis...but that is ENTIRELY different from what is achieved with counter-action of the pelvis against the outside leg.. It requires weight on both skis and other things which are counter-productive for good ski turns. Different muscles, different movements, different outcomes entirely.

I imagine that what we must actually do is to unbalance these forces to allow the pelvis to turn with respect to the direction of the skis. I suppose a person might think that is the skis which are being turned and not the pelvis but since we know that the turning force that turns the skis is not coming from the legs but from the skis and their relationship to the snow and we know that the pelvis is being turned with respect to the direction of the skis and our direction of momentum then something must be acting upon the pelvis to alter the relationship of pelvis to skis.

YES. You are getting dangerously close to a breakthrough with that thought!

I would say that is leg rotation force.

why would you want to use a leg rotation force (whatever that means) to counter-rotate the pelvis? In truth you need to keep a strong inside half from the pelvis up.

 

[razie]

I have big issues with the concept of angulation and I actually stopped using it: it doesn't really help. I can see that: so stop slapping your forehead! It doesn't help either!

If you mean just lateral movement, we have tipping the skis on edge with the feet and counterbalancing with the upper body, as specific movements that we actually do, which result in an angulated relationship. As the turn progresses, counter builds up through counteracting or coiling.

However, the angulation is not a thing in itself, we don't angulate because it looks good, the goal is to get on that outside ski and there are many parts to that, which just saying angulation does not even begin to convey, all listed in the article I linked (I don't usually post links to articles, but this one's a fairly long list).

It includes things like long leg, lifting inside hip and unweighted ski, keeping the skis together (out from under the body) and many more...

So, I either talk only about the movements (counterbalancing comes to mind) or the actual important concept of "getting on the outside ski".

The point being that if you angulate but keep the inside ski loaded, it's useless. If you angulate but keep the inside ski under your hips, again: useless. If you angulate but keep the outside leg very flexed: useless and the list goes on and on and on...

cheers.

 

[Philpug]

can we just agree that angulation might not feel like the same thing to every person, and maybe we should teach movements that lead to proper angulation.

Ding...ding...ding...We have the answer. 13 pages of going round and round and a few post reports. Let's shut this down for the time being. Maybe revisiting in the future.