Don't say what you mean

[MikeS]

Instructors and coaches, as we talk to our students, how often do we find ourselves saying things we don't really mean?

I'm not talking about little white lies about how well-behaved little Johnny was at ski school today. I'm talking about in technical terms. We may tell our students to do something, when we know biomechanically that's not really what's happening. For example, if we tell our students to pull their feet back underneath them. In technical terms, we're really getting them to move their CoM over their feet by closing the ankle and knee joints. But it *feels* like pulling the feet back, so that's what we say. Another example is initiating a turn with your hips.. well no, your legs need to do something to get your hips to move, but we want the focus to be on the hips, so we use that terminology.

Is this a wise approach? Are we sacrificing long-term understanding for short-term gains? Are we clouding our own understanding of the biomechanics involved? Or are we using the best way to communicate to our students to lead to breakthrough?

To start, I'm posing the question without bias. I have done it myself often, and probably will do so again in the future. But I've also thought about and worried about if I'm doing the right thing by doing this. So I sit firmly on the fence here, and would love to hear some honest conversation about where other instructors stand on this.

 

[T-Square]

It all depends on the situation and student. Most clients don't want the technical geek stuff, they want the quick and dirty tips so they can ski better. When I'm clinicing instructors then I'm more technical. However, I'll still use the quick and dirty to help achieve the desired results.

Instructors need to know the technical aspects of the sport in order to teach effectively. We also need to know how to boil that tech jargon down to short concise statements that work for that particular student.

We also need to test our knowledge so we have in depth comprehension. I do that by asking "why" three times after the initial statement or answer. Why? This helps the instructor focus on the issue. Why? To probe deeper into the subject. Why? This promotes more comprehension of the underlying factors surrounding that particular issue.

 

[PTskier]

Getting centered...it is all about aligning the body's center of mass and the skis' sweet spot somewhere forward of the toe bindings. We have very weak muscles to pull our bodies forward. We have strong hamstring muscles to pull our feet back. If you and I were facing each other, you try to pull your body forward, I could stop you with one finger. If you were pulling your feet back, one hand would not be enough. So, pull the feet back to get the skis' sweet spot under the body's center of mass every time. Closing ankles & knees...closing the ankles are those weak muscles. Let the ankles move as we hinge at the ankles by pulling back with the hamstrings. Knees? If we flex the knees, how are we moving the body forward in relation to the skis? We aren't. I've skied with young women so wonderfully flexible that they could pressure the boot tongues and still have their center of mass so far back that the ski tips fluttered (no, not on Souls).

Initiate a turn with the hips? Noooooo.... All skiing starts with the feet. The rest of the body amplifies what the feet do. In the beginning, the feet ski and the rest of the body just balances.

The technical geek stuff is how the skis' edges engage with the snow. The student doesn't need to hear about that now. We do need to show them how to move their bodies, mainly the feet, to efficiently, effectively engage the skis into the snow the way that's needed while the rest of the body just balances.

Too many instructors do not know much. They just parrot what they've been told by clinic leaders who do not understand what they've been told. Want to be really unpopular in an instructor's clinic? Ask, every time, how does the movement shown effect the skis' engagement with the snow to improve the skis' performance for that task. It's like speaking Greek.* Match the angles across the ankles, hips, and shoulders? Why? What's the biomechanical reason? (There isn't one. And, how does the skier, while skiing, measure that?) How does that improve the skis' engagement with the snow? (It hinders, not helps.) Align toes, knees, nose? Again, why? How does that improve the skis' engagement with the snow? How does the skier measure that while bounding through moguls or dodging kids on a weekend? Ski with the shoulders square with the ski tips? Why? What's the biomechanical reason? (There isn't one.) How does that improve the skis' engagement with the snow? (It hinders, not helps.) Make a big arm swing to reach way downhill for the pole plant? What's the biomechanical reason? How does that help the skis' engagement? It actually breaks loose any grip the ski edges have on the snow. Much more effective is to pull the feet back at that time, which improves the ski edges grip on the snow at the beginning of the next turn.

*(I like Greeks. The only Greek word I understand is gyro. No, not j-eye-ro. YEE-ro.)

 

[john petersen]

poulou kalo, PT Skier-aki, 'yee-ro', kai souvlaki eínai ta agapiména mou....



We often have to break things down into smaller bites to eat the elephant....

We have skiing in the center, and out laterally, if you will, are concepts and focus that reinforce or for that matter introduce movement patterns.

Mike pointed out that we need to address what we "feel" we are doing. and we need to be instructed to that effect, and also instruct to that effect. (though there is discussion on presuming to know how someone else "feels".....but thats another story....a little generalizing is okay, right?)

****we have already discussed dogmatic language on the forum and how some exercises can be misconstrued as ways to SKI.......
I think its important to realize that we need to point out that an exercise is just that. a way to focus on PART of a movement pattern, and that movement pattern is just a PART of how we ski.....

BUT, we still need to illustrate, or highlight, or point out or focus on how certain parts of the body need to be involved with turning, controlling speed (both ways), and managing your path down the hill...

Sometimes we do need to talk about the hips, or the hands, or the shoulders, or feet or the skis...or whatever....because the uninitiated does not know how, or for that matter that they even do need to include that part of the body. Conversely, there are times when we need to let some minor things go, as efficiency is not being affected: for instance if the elbows rise for the first time wedge turner when trying to make the first few turns.

its also important, IMHO, that we need to mention WHY we are asking for a certain movement pattern from a particular area of the body by briefly stating what the result of the movement should be and how things may "feel" along the way to enlightenment. THEN we can work it back into skiing and cement it in place. (A question to ask yourself as you are working through the lesson and demonstrating your exercises and testing your presentation of concepts is....."is this working for me too?")

as an instructor, have you ever been asked, "so this is the way to ski, then?" after working on an exercise?......well, its part of it.......

As T-Square and PT point out, understanding enough tech about what you are saying is important. Where do you want a movement to come from to engage the ski on the snow properly? If we say, "Push the foot", or "bend the knees", or "stand up straight"....what do those things do?......sometimes, the student will do exactly what you ask, and its then that you realize you may have used the wrong words because you did not fully understand the meaning behind them.....

Honestly, we have all been there....learning is infinite. but we can get up and over enough tech to understand the movement patterns and where in the body they should be originating from.



JP

 

[Monique]

As a non-instructor, my two cents via anecdote -

For years, I have heard instructors talk about flattening your skis. And I was like, of course, what's so hard about this? You just tip your knees ...

Only last year did I discover that actually, you want to get your CoM down the fall line, with the effect of flattening your skis.

Incredibly frustrating for me. I can't imagine that any student hears "flatten your skis" and thinks, "Oh, get my CoM down the fall line." Do some students instinctively do this? I feel like I instinctively used the smallest motion that would accomplish the stated goal.

 

[john petersen]

As a non-instructor, my two cents via anecdote -

For years, I have heard instructors talk about flattening your skis. And I was like, of course, what's so hard about this? You just tip your knees ...
Only last year did I discover that actually, you want to get your CoM down the fall line, with the effect of flattening your skis.
Incredibly frustrating for me. I can't imagine that any student hears "flatten your skis" and thinks, "Oh, get my CoM down the fall line." Do some students instinctively do this? I feel like I instinctively used the smallest motion that would accomplish the stated goal.

heh, heh......yeah, Monique, I was just talking with a very experienced instructor friend and honestly, the best method for an instructor is to understand what they are telling you, carefully choose from a list of analogous examples or make one up on the fly based on the students background....something else they can relate to.

If an instructor starts talking about your COM, unless you ask for clarity on something showing that you understand advanced concepts, then that instructor may be flirting with being too techie!....

if "flatten your skis worked for ya" on some level for a certain period of time, then understanding HOW....can come later....the feeling of success, with the body working subconsciously from already familiar movement patterns is what we are trying to work with and uncover/discover together in a lesson.

One, thing I noticed in your post was that you might be considering that there is only one way to flatten your skis. There used to be what was called "the surf technique" which was just as you said...tip your knees without really bringing the COM to the area we now consider modern. it was a technique and a tactic, and in my opinion, it still is!

one is active, tipping the knees, the other is more passive, continuing from one turn to the next where the COM "flows" down the hill along a slightly more narrow path than the skis.....

People who are active or athletic or are used to getting the upper body out ahead of the lower body and vice versa (swimming dive, dirt biking, mountain biking, water skiing, ect) will probably instinctively (through talent or skill acquisition) "just do this".....folks new to sliding may be stiff and need to work on angulation (and be holding the COM back up the hill )......look at most intermediate skiers just learning to ski parallel. the body tends to move more as a unit and has not had enough experience on steeper terrain to begin to separate the upper and lower body, learn the art of vissage (the active or passive twisting that separates the upper and lower body) or for that matter learn that angulation and active guiding of the COM become keys to opening doors to more advanced skiing.....

unless they take a lesson, of course!



For me, personally, there came a day when a number of things just clicked and I was able to understand WHY certain movement patterns were more successful than others. The buzz words that go along with those movement patterns can come from a place of very deep understanding which is why certain terms really resonate with some people when used at the right time for the right purpose...

JP

 

[Monique]

If an instructor starts talking about your COM, unless you ask for clarity on something showing that you understand advanced concepts, then that instructor may be flirting with being too techie!....

Hah! Well, I end up taking lessons from a lot of examiners and level 3s, and they know me and my analytical brain - so in that case, not flirting with too techie at all. Maybe you're right that I was doing one kind of right move, and maybe I was doing the CoM thing just enough that they thought I understood. I had been told various things, but I'd never put it together. I'm a slow learner when it comes to physical movement. And btw, I do mountain bike, but my body is *back* when riding downhill, not forward!

(For full context - I take 20-30 lessons every season via a lesson program at Breck. They've done a lot for my skiing, but in my groups we work more on technique until the upper mountain opens, and then it's often more tactics in terrain - kinda more like a big mountain clinic. We do still work on technique, but we rarely drill on groomers. Last season, I was recovering from ACL surgery and had to tone it down, so I joined a level 6/7 group - a group not yet comfortable on bumps. It did a lot for my technique, although I did die a little inside every powder day or when the upper mountain looked *so beautiful* and I knew I couldn't risk it yet.)

 

[Living Proof]

Instructors and coaches, as we talk to our students, how often do we find ourselves saying things we don't really mean?

I'm not talking about little white lies about how well-behaved little Johnny was at ski school today. I'm talking about in technical terms. We may tell our students to do something, when we know biomechanically that's not really what's happening. For example, if we tell our students to pull their feet back underneath them. In technical terms, we're really getting them to move their CoM over their feet by closing the ankle and knee joints. But it *feels* like pulling the feet back, so that's what we say. Another example is initiating a turn with your hips.. well no, your legs need to do something to get your hips to move, but we want the focus to be on the hips, so we use that terminology.

Are we sacrificing long-term understanding for short-term gains? Are we clouding our own understanding of the biomechanics involved? .

I think the better question is " Are we saying things that the student can understand?" When I go to my Doctor, I do not want to hear a bunch of medical terms, I need to have it stated in language that I can understand. In learning, I'm mostly about the KISS theory of Keep It Simple, Stupid, where the stupid refers to the instructor, not the student. While I can get overly analytical and into bio-mechanics much too easily, what is the sense behind doing technical analysis while standing on a hill outside in freezing weather, possibly in a group lesson. I have taken many skiing lessons from instructors who loose the students very quickly with jargon, it is easy to see students looking at each other and saying WTF?

Using your specific skiing example of "pulling the feet back underneath them", that happens to be one of very first movements taught in Harb's PMTS system, although the PMTS terminology would be to do the pullback in transition. The important aspect is the student can feel the muscles activating to perform the movement. If teaching that movement was a basic building part of a ski instruction program, there would be a lot less backseat skiing. I am not looking to re-start old wars about ski technique, I just need to transmit some strong emotions about over-technical instruction to students.

 

[Nancy Hummel]

Learning is complicated and not linear especially in skiing where there are many subtle movements that can't always be seen.

Instructors have an understanding of a term that they convey to a student. Student interprets the term and translates to a movement. Student may have correct understanding of movement but does not or is not able to physically perform the movement. As a student's learning progresses, they may realize that their initial interpretation was not the complete picture. As their motor skiils develop, they may be able to refine their movements.

It is a complicated, fascinating process.

 

[Dave Marshak]

When I focusing on technique, I never even think about whether what I say is true or not. I'm not exactly lying, the truth just isn't relevant. I'm trying to disrupt habits and to get students to respond differently to familiar stimuli. Mostly that means directing their attention to the things they should be feeling, so that they can begin to learn the feedback loop of feelings>movements>more feelings>different movements. Every student responds differently to verbal direction, and if a tell a group to "pull your feet back" or "push you outside foot forward," two of them will get better, two will ski worse and the rest won't change. I'm always searching for the cue that will make the student respond in a way that he/she is more aware of the sensations that good technique create.

OTOH when I work on tactics, I'm always careful that my directions are accurate and truthful. That's because tactics are developed by thinking (not feeling) and you need accurate information and sound analysis to develop effective tactics. I know a lot of people who ski really well without being able to describe any ski technique, but everyone can explain the tactics they use, and why they are effective or not in particular circumstances.

dm

 

[JESinstr]

With the modern shaped ski, skiing is a sport about making circles. We don't have to teach people to go straight. To make circles, the ski needs to be edged and bent.
Nothing techy. Simple and easy to understand right?

Well here is where the complexity comes in. At (0 mph) the only force available to bend the ski is gravity so we tell students to balance over the outside ski. As velocity increases and edge engagement is maintained, the turning force (centripetal) becomes the force of record and we need to be balancing against the ski not over it. In addition we need to be making the moves to perpetuate this circular travel and not succumb to the outward force that wants to return you to straight line travel.

My point is that skiing is not only dynamic but relies on two different forces to complete the process. What made be said for one part of the process is totally inaccurate for rest. What is important is to find common fundamentals that span the spectrum of forces. Things that should be consistent throughout the circular process. Things like Tipping the ski, compressing the arch, Feet underneath, utilizing the inside half, facing direction of travel etc.

Speaking of which, one of my favorites is "Face down the hill". The reality is that we face direction of travel. If we doing short radius/short swing turns then facing down the hill is helpful because that is the direction we are traveling. But if your are doing long radius turns, facing down hill only helps destroy the circular process.

 

[jimmy]

VAK? Telling someone to pull their feet back only involves one learning style. Why wouldn't you also demonstrate the movement (V) and coach the student to perform the task (K)? Then "pull your feet back" is short hand for "flex your ankles and your knees to move your center of mass over your base of support."

 

[john petersen]

Monique, Living, JESinstr, Dave and Nancy that is awesome! (Jimmy, good point...) yeah, on the nosey.....



JP

 

[Monique]

When I focusing on technique, I never even think about whether what I say is true or not. I'm not exactly lying, the truth just isn't relevant. I'm trying to disrupt habits and to get students to respond differently to familiar stimuli.

Ah! So it's your kind's fault that when us analytical types sit down to discuss what we learned today in different lessons, we're completely confused by what we each say our instructors said.

 

[PTskier]

Then "pull your feet back" is short hand for "flex your ankles and your knees to move your center of mass over your base of support."

Not. At. All. Tell the student what to do in a way they can immediately understand and a way they can see and measure for themselves. Pulling the feet back means pulling the feet back. Everyone knows what that means and how to do it. No gobbledygook. No insider jargon. Flex the ankles? What does that mean to the non-instructor? Nothing. Flex the knees? Why? That's hard work that tires the quads and wears on sore knees, and puts many into the back seat. Move your center of mass over your base of support? WHAT? That means NOTHING to the student. I've been doing this a long time, and I'm not sure what you mean by base of support. I know what I'd mean by it, and I'd never use it, but I'm not sure there is one universal understanding of that. And, flexing the ankles and knees does not move the center of mass forward in relation to the skis' sweet spot. It moves the CoM straight down. Or back.

I agree with Monique, and I'd add that too many instructors do not understand what they parrot to students. Five instructors would give six or seven explanations to some of the commonly used jargon. They certainly do not understand why they were told to say what they say. They do not understand how it is supposed to help the students' skiing. And, the student doesn't stand a chance of understanding. "Ski along the full length of the ski." What does that mean to the student? What does it mean to the instructor? What does it mean the student is to do? Jargon like this belongs in the dumpster. Tell the student what to do, how to do it, and how to know if they get it right.

 

[Dave Marshak]

Ah! So it's your kind's fault that when us analytical types sit down to discuss what we learned today in different lessons, we're completely confused by what we each say our instructors said.

Yup.

The confusion problem is always there, but instructors only make it worse if they use more technical and technically correct language. I could describe your skiing in terms of pressure in the ski, or in terms of ski/snow interaction or by your body movements, and all those descriptions could be correct, but you might not have the background or knowledge to see the underlying connection of all those descriptions. The fact that I might not have the skills to describe your skiing accurately makes the problem even worse.

My directions are more like "try this, see what happens." Learning to ski is more like an experiment than anything else.

dm

 

[Uke]

To answer the op's question, I always say what I mean and mean what I say. I would consider it a disservice to future instructors as well as the student to do otherwise. Also if you have students who return over a long period of time then you run the risk of hearing "But last season you said X and now you say Y".

Never teach anything that has to be untaught at a later stage and never say anything that has to be unsaid later.

uke

 

[Monique]

Yup.

The confusion problem is always there, but instructors only make it worse if they use more technical and technically correct language. I could describe your skiing in terms of pressure in the ski, or in terms of ski/snow interaction or by your body movements, and all those descriptions could be correct, but you might not have the background or knowledge to see the underlying connection of all those descriptions. The fact that I might not have the skills to describe your skiing accurately makes the problem even worse.

My directions are more like "try this, see what happens." Learning to ski is more like an experiment than anything else.

dm

I'm sure you're a fantastic instructor for people who click with that style. It drives me up a wall and I hate it. I want an instructor who can do it all - explain to me what movement pattern I should change and what it will do for me, and be able to explain the physics if I don't understand.

And yes, there are instructors who can and do do this.

The "see what happens" leaves me feeling lost. I don't know! Am I doing the thing at all? Does it help? Hard to say, since it's unfamiliar, so it feels weird. And I can't write it down to review later.

 

[jimmy]

Instructors and coaches, as we talk to our students, how often do we find ourselves saying things we don't really mean?

I'm not talking about little white lies about how well-behaved little Johnny was at ski school today. I'm talking about in technical terms. We may tell our students to do something, when we know biomechanically that's not really what's happening. For example, if we tell our students to pull their feet back underneath them. In technical terms, we're really getting them to move their CoM over their feet by closing the ankle and knee joints. But it *feels* like pulling the feet back, so that's what we say. Another example is initiating a turn with your hips.. well no, your legs need to do something to get your hips to move, but we want the focus to be on the hips, so we use that terminology.

Is this a wise approach? Are we sacrificing long-term understanding for short-term gains? Are we clouding our own understanding of the biomechanics involved? Or are we using the best way to communicate to our students to lead to breakthrough?

To start, I'm posing the question without bias. I have done it myself often, and probably will do so again in the future. But I've also thought about and worried about if I'm doing the right thing by doing this. So I sit firmly on the fence here, and would love to hear some honest conversation about where other instructors stand on this.

VAK? Telling someone to pull their feet back only involves one learning style. Why wouldn't you also demonstrate the movement (V) and coach the student to perform the task (K)? Then "pull your feet back" is short hand for "flex your ankles and your knees to move your center of mass over your base of support."

Not. At. All. Tell the student what to do in a way they can immediately understand and a way they can see and measure for themselves. Pulling the feet back means pulling the feet back. Everyone knows what that means and how to do it. No gobbledygook. No insider jargon. Flex the ankles? What does that mean to the non-instructor? Nothing. Flex the knees? Why? That's hard work that tires the quads and wears on sore knees, and puts many into the back seat. Move your center of mass over your base of support? WHAT? That means NOTHING to the student. I've been doing this a long time, and I'm not sure what you mean by base of support. I know what I'd mean by it, and I'd never use it, but I'm not sure there is one universal understanding of that. And, flexing the ankles and knees does not move the center of mass forward in relation to the skis' sweet spot. It moves the CoM straight down. Or back.

I agree with Monique, and I'd add that too many instructors do not understand what they parrot to students. Five instructors would give six or seven explanations to some of the commonly used jargon. They certainly do not understand why they were told to say what they say. They do not understand how it is supposed to help the students' skiing. And, the student doesn't stand a chance of understanding. "Ski along the full length of the ski." What does that mean to the student? What does it mean to the instructor? What does it mean the student is to do? Jargon like this belongs in the dumpster. Tell the student what to do, how to do it, and how to know if they get it right.

Sorry for the double negative but I am not suggesting not to ask a student to pull their feet back i do it frequently. I also check for understanding and will demonstrate the movement as well. Pull your feet back, I don't spew all that about ankles and knees not sure where you got that from my response to the original post. You are an excellent writer so I will assume that english is your first language and you just misunderstood my post. Maybe it's my Appalachian accent

 

[Dave Marshak]

I'm sure you're a fantastic instructor for people who click with that style. It drives me up a wall and I hate it.

That's the problem right there. "Learning styles" are part of a model intended to help instructors (most of whom have no formal education in instruction), not students. Outside of that model, those styles don't exist, and within the model they are far too limiting. It's simply wrong to suggest that anyone can only learn in one preferred style. Buying in to that model creates a self-inflicted learning disability. Everyone should learn in every way possible, and in a way that is most appropriate for the skill that needs to be learned.

IME it's the overly analytical people who have the most trouble learning skiing or other physical skills, and ironically they benefit the most (in all aspects of their life) by sometimes working in a non-analytical way. At least that's how it worked out for me.

dm