The need for term definitions?

[Tricia]

From the Decontructing of Mikaela Shiffring thread, but a different topic at hand.

What happened when you used the terms "still" or "quiet" as opposed to "disciplined"?

I seriously think, for discussions like this, words and terms need definitions. We need a United Nations body that sets standards that aid in communications. <edit> We can start with the low hanging fruit, defining the crimes and categorizing them, from misdemeanors to capital, then move on to define quiet, still, world class.

These posts had me thinking about definitions to clarify what an instructor means.
There are a couple issues with defining terms like this, because its all subjective.

For me, the term Quiet upper body, worked. I didn't need a definition because the instructor knew what he meant, and he knew how to communicate it to me. I knew what I was working on and it made sense to me.


How necessary is it to define these terms?
Are they as subjective as I think they are?
@4ster 's post in that thread is definitely something I'm stewing on.

Quiet, calm, disciplined, stable, still, countered, square, separated, rotated, anticipated, twisted, leveled, etc. are all just descriptors. The key is to find out which you or your student/athlete relate to & can create a trigger to a positive, effective outcome.

A static, stiff upper body is often a step on the path to eliminating wild useless movements that detract from a balanced well honed technique employed by someone like Shiffrin.
View attachment 25200

 

[Mike King]

A big issue in ski instruction (and life in general) is the ambiguity of the English language. And while the terms themselves may be ambiguous, the client's understanding of the term, let alone the concept that the instructor is attempting to communicate, leads to further complexities in coaching. That's why the comment from @4ster is spot on: "The key is to find out which you or your student/athlete relate to & can create a trigger to a positive, effective outcome."

 

[Tricia]

A big issue in ski instruction (and life in general) is the ambiguity of the English language. And while the terms themselves may be ambiguous, the client's understanding of the term, let alone the concept that the instructor is attempting to communicate, leads to further complexities in coaching. That's why the comment from @4ster is spot on: "The key is to find out which you or your student/athlete relate to & can create a trigger to a positive, effective outcome."

Example:
I took a friend to learn to ski and since I have several friends who are instructors, (and I taught skiing for a bit) I asked for some assistance because I didn't want to lead my friend astray.
The person who helped, immediately picked up on terms that clicked with her.
What I thought was interesting is that those terms wouldn't have made much sense to me at all.
Subjective.

 

[Art of Skiing]

Imo it helps to give explanations rather then terms. Once an explanation sticks/makes sense, then you can give the explanation a term for future reference. Once you use that term it is immediately clear what is expected. When you want someone's upper body to be quiet or disciplined you can for example tell them to have some abdominal tension and that they have to try and move the feet and legs first to initiate a turn instead of starting a turn with the upper body. If you want there upper body's to face a certain direction you could also add that. Once they understand that concept you can tell the student that this is what we call a 'still', 'disciplined' or 'quiet' upper body. You can even make up a term, because no matter what term you use, it will be clear what the term means because it is linked to an explanation. That explanation however is personal and you can tweak and add to the explanation until something is clear for that student in particular. Which is exactly what 4ster already said. So to summarize: first give an explanation, then give the explanation a name and not the other way around.

There is also a simpler solution. Start skiing at a young age, kids don't need difficult explanations to improve. Unfortunately that ship has sailed for many.

 

[Philpug]

Imo it helps to give explanations rather then terms. Once an explanation sticks/makes sense, then you can give the explanation a term for future reference. Once you use that term it is immediately clear what is expected. When you want someone's upper body to be quiet or disciplined you can for example tell them to have some abdominal tension and that they have to try and move the feet and legs first to initiate a turn instead of starting a turn with the upper body. If you want there upper body's to face a certain direction you could also add that. Once they understand that concept you can tell the student that this is what we call a 'still', 'disciplined' or 'quiet' upper body. You can even make up a term, because no matter what term you use, it will be clear what the term means because it is linked to an explanation. That explanation however is personal and you can tweak and add to the explanation until something is clear for that student in particular. Which is exactly what 4ster already said. So to summarize: first give an explanation, then give the explanation a name and not the other way around.

There is also a simpler solution. Start skiing at a young age, kids don't need difficult explanations to improve. Unfortunately that ship has sailed for many.

Here in lies the problem, people learn differently and they visualize from words to actions differently. Your user name us a goos example..why did you choose "Art of Skiing" and not "Science of Skiing"? Probably because the way you look at the sport. One is not wrong or right, this is why we need to respect others views and perceptions and not judge, belittle or combat them but to understand that there are other ways to look at the sport and the way we learn it.

 

[Tricia]

Another question was posed to me:
Is it important to have a blanket definition of these terms, or is it important to explain the term to the individual?

IMHO its more important for the individual to understand what you're talking about.
The problem lies in discussions like this where thousands of people will read but only a few will interact.
Having a blanket definition may only speak to a handful of these people, which is why its important to take a lesson from a knowledgeable person.

 

[Monique]

When I'm actually interacting with an instructor, I find they try different terms and analogies until something works. A good instructor will have a lot of different ways to describe the same thing.

The terms matter for professionals, like ski instructors and race courses, who need to be extremely precise.

The tricky part here is that we mix both populations in the same conversation.

 

[James]

There's a difference in describing an outcome vs describing movements to get there.
The whole brouhaha in the other thread was partly an issue of conflating the two. Upper body stability could be talked about with a gymnast like Simone Biles or a ballet dancer but really don't know how it's described in those worlds.

In general it can be weird what works for people in terms of movement instruction. I've given explanations with analogies that were relevant and I thought made it clear but have gotten nothing. Then I'll mention something almost as a throw away, and the light bulbs go on and they say "Why didn't you mention that earlier?" And you think, "Really, that's what made sense to you?" Go figure.

 

[Art of Skiing]

Here in lies the problem, people learn differently and they visualize from words to actions differently. Your user name us a goos example..why did you choose "Art of Skiing" and not "Science of Skiing"? Probably because the way you look at the sport. One is not wrong or right, this is why we need to respect others views and perceptions and not judge, belittle or combat them but to understand that there are other ways to look at the sport and the way we learn it.

I agree with your post. But isn't that why explaining something extensively until someone actually gets it might work? What I mean is find out what works for the student and only once that is clear label the explanation with a term, like 4ster already basically said. And I very much agree with Tricia on this one. Discussions like this is probably what causes a lot of ambiguity. And it is probably hard for people to imagine why something would not make sense for someone else, while it makes total sense for yourself. I'm definitely one of those people sometimes, which is one of the reasons why I joined a forum: to learn about skiing, but learn about people as well.

I chose 'Art of Skiing' because 'The Art of Skiing' was too long. My name is a reference to a 1941 Goofy cartoon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Skiing

 

[Tricia]

There's a difference in describing an outcome vs describing movements to get there.
The whole brouhaha in the other thread was partly an issue of conflating the two. Upper body stability could be talked about with a gymnast like Simone Biles or a ballet dancer but really don't know how it's described in those worlds.

In general it can be weird what works for people in terms of movement instruction. I've given explanations with analogies that were relevant and I thought made it clear but have gotten nothing. Then I'll mention something almost as a throw away, and the light bulbs go on and they say "Why didn't you mention that earlier?" And you think, "Really, that's what made sense to you?" Go figure.

Exactly!

 

[T-Square]

@James

Very true. That affected me personally. For years instructors would say 'you need to get forward.' Even though I was an instructor and understood, or thought I understood, what that meant, I couldn't get 'forward.' Then someone told me 'pull your feet back and keep them back.' BINGO! That is what this student needed. As an instructor I learned two things from that, first the feeling/movement I needed to bring myself into the proper position over my skis, and second, teaching needs to be tailored to the student, not the instructor or 'accepted' verbiage.

Instructors need to communicate with a vast array of individuals that come to us with vast backgrounds. Good instructors know this, poor instructors ignore it, great instructors use it to their and their student's advantage.

As instructors we need definitions/words to use as shorthand to be able to efficiently discuss and visualize complex movements. Thus when analyzing a student and determining that he needs to 'get forward' we have set a goal in our mind for that student. Then we need to adjust our language and drills to fit our student to advance to the desired outcome.

I'm a proponent of using different instructors for students. A different approach is often good for a student and helps them advance.

 

[john petersen]

Nice recovery of a topic that has merit, Velvet Hammer...

For the instructor:
When asking about goals and outcomes with a guest, you will get some information. You will get a little more information when your further ask about other activities or interests your guest enjoys. and still more information when you watch how they approach skiing. You have already found out what they are looking to get out of the lesson and whether or not they are hesitant, relaxed, nervous, excited, psyched, ect.....

Good instructors assess all these things throughout the lesson.....always checking back in mentally with a list they have loosely formed in their minds so that by the end of the lesson there will be measured successes. ( this includes mental outlook by overcoming fears, improving tactical choices, just plain having fun and exploring, ect)

For the lesson taker:
How does this relate?....If you as a guest or you as an instructor are attentive to your respective roles, coaching cues and exercises will have been chosen and practiced on certain terrain for the best chances at success.

Its not just about specific terminology, but terminology chosen based on all that came before it when you gathered vital information about your guests interests, approach to life, mood, level of engagement, ect. It is totally subjective for that lesson, that day, that terrain, the people involved, ect.....It will be unique, familiar, but unique.

in the analogies thread there are some coaching cues that resonated with a few folks, in the Shiffrin post there is also some great material of note, ect ect, ect......For me, its the Infinity Move thread....(cant get enough of that one!)

not tooting my own horn (its not an air horn anyway...more like a bicycle squeeze horn), but if you look at the coaching cues flow chart and put in a coaching cue that worked for you, then fill in the analogous language box....you begin to see what works for YOU. Instructors try to do this in a lesson...but they have to get to know you.....

It helps instructors, by the way, for you to share the analogies and terminology that works for you already.

Analogous language is sometimes given to instructors by guests unintentionally:

Picture an Instructor who is trying and trying to find terminology that clicks with a movement or movement pattern. Nothin...then as James said above something clicks. Sometimes the guest will blurt out the perfect analogy that you never would have thought of!....."OHHHHHHHH. you meen like a pinwheel on the end of a stick!!!" or "OHHHH like directing energy to Optimus Prime's Mega Sword!!!!" or "Like when Thor throws his hammer" or "OHHHH like riding a galloping horse and holding the reins" or "OHHHH like power sliding through muddy turns on my quad"

and you as the instructor will of course, say...."Yes!....Yes...just like that! Now you've got it!"

JP

 

[Mike King]

Verbiage really goes to the auditory part of the VAK (visual, auditory, kinesthetic) model. As important as an explanation can be, many will learn better though demonstration or describing the feelings. As an instructor, you should pay attention to all three.

 

[razie]

While yes, good instructors will explain more than just repeat "quiet, silly, quiet" all day, and thus make themselves understood eventually, it's a matter of the semantics we attach to the words. If the semantics of "disciplined" are closer to what I want to drill into the student's brain than say "quiet", then I will have on average more success.

I am in the business of transmitting and engraining vivid images and the closer the vivid words I use, are to the semantics I mean to engrain, the better.

As far as this specific issue is concerned, lest we get into a summer thread drift, the upper body is supposed to counteract, counterbalance and pole plant, as far as movements go. Not to be quiet or still, but move with a purpose, which disciplined perhaps conveys a little better, but @James is correct - it's better to perhaps just focus on the actual movements.

Where's that I'm-not-riding-my-bike-but-I-wish-I-were smiley?

 

[john petersen]

objective technical and analytical data delivered (based on professional knowledge and training) in a mixture of objective analysis (this is what I saw your skis doing, the tracks they left in the snow show a mixture of sliding and carving as we can see by looking back up the hill at them...)
AND
subjective descriptions ("I would like to see you round out the top of your turns more"), demonstrations (Ill ski down to you, then away from you) , sensations (You may feel pressure building as you ski through the fall line) and analogous language (Lets work on our penmanship and form round "c" shaped arcs in the snow that turn into "s" shapes ) to help improve efficiency (speed control through turn shape) , comfort (terrain choice), performance (speed control does not necessarily mean slowing down) and tactical choices (terrain based learning)

"LIfe is a skill blend"....my mantra before I complicated it!...the instructor has to blend all their knowledge into meaningful and clearly understood segments, while the guest has to blend new information and sensations into their skiing....Its intelligently experiential!

As far as this specific issue is concerned, lest we get into a summer thread drift, the upper body is supposed to counteract, counterbalance and pole plant, as far as movements go. Not to be quiet or still, but move with a purpose, which disciplined perhaps conveys a little better, but @James is correct - it's better to perhaps just focus on the actual movements.

I like this Razie, as it boils down a fairly hot topic into its essence and looks at both sides of the coin....sometimes its "whatever works"

 

[Mendieta]

I agree with so much that has been said, particularly @James nailed it IMHO. I want to stress the fact that movement based teaching and analysis is not an alternative to the outcome based approach. They are complementary. I am learning, not teaching, skiing. But I learn faster when my instructors use a combination of both.

The other thing to stress is that ambiguities are problematic. As @john petersen and @Monique were alluding, instructors in a same institution (say, PSIA, USST, CSIA, etc) will have catchy terms for complex concepts. While those serve them well when they work together, they mean little, on their own, to people outside their circle.

I would say, most of us (all?) think Mikaela Shiffrin's skiing is exemplary. How we call her upper body's behavior is subjective. But we want to do something that resembles that.

So, going on a long conversation, back and forth, whether your upper body should be quiet, or steady, or controlled, or counter ... is futile.

 

[markojp]

I also think there was a fundamental misunderstanding in the thread some perceived that others were saying "you're wrong" to use a particular word when the case was much more about what word in a particular person's experience has worked and why. For some reason, we're a touchy lot. I'm trying to understand why this is and to go out of the way NOT to upset anyone. Usually it's a simple matter of not having enough time to type a fully formed thought.

My take away is I simply won't post while having other things going on. Personally there's nothing disagreeable enough about skiing to argue much about, only to share what seems to work. As mentioned before, it's always a good idea to post as if you're meeting people in the conversation in the morning for turns. Anything less leads to boat loads of umbrage, and unfortunately when there's a question about verbiage or semantics, it's hard to say, " here, let me show you." like we are able in the 1:1 world. It's faster than fishing for the right youtube vid.

 

[KingGrump]

I agree with so much that has been said, particularly @James nailed it IMHO. I want to stress the fact that movement based teaching and analysis is not an alternative to the outcome based approach. They are complementary. I am learning, not teaching, skiing. But I learn faster when my instructors use a combination of both.

The other thing to stress is that ambiguities are problematic. As @john petersen and @Monique were alluding, instructors in a same institution (say, PSIA, USST, CSIA, etc) will have catchy terms for complex concepts. While those serve them well when they work together, they mean little, on their own, to people outside their circle.

I would say, most of us (all?) think Mikaela Shiffrin's skiing is exemplary. How we call her upper body's behavior is subjective. But we want to do something that resembles that.

So, going on a long conversation, back and forth, whether your upper body should be quiet, or steady, or controlled, or counter ... is futile.

It is good to hear from the other side of the coin. The dude who pays the bill. The one on the receiving end of all those lessons.

I like it when everyday end users (rec skiers) get involved in instruction threads. It keeps things a bit lighter and not so up tight. (Had to edit out the synonym for "up tight" to keep thing civil. ) But then sometimes it just muddies the water. Still better than watching the train derail and into the weeds.

Just have to remember we are all teachers and students sometime or another. Often both at the same time.

 

[Crank]

Going back to OP definitions of terms and use of terms/jargon are great for professional use. They don't work for the uninitiated nor the casual student.

 

[markojp]

Going back to OP definitions of terms and use of terms/jargon are great for professional use. They don't work for the uninitiated nor the casual student.

Absolutely!