Technical Models

[razie]

The technical model discussion is perhaps important enough to have its own thread... and I'll kick it off by looking at several aspects of what goes into a "technical model". The issue is not quite simple, given the many countries with instruction associations, manuals, technical progressions etc.

We should look at:
- technical foundation - as in the components of the turn
- technical model of a turn
- outcomes and, as @karlo just pointed out
- teaching models (progression, focus, feedback)

I'll kick this off by looking at one simple issue: pulling back the inside foot.

As I posted in the other thread, I intend to ....., this is a pretty basic movement or component of good skiing. Not many good skiers would likely come out as "gosh, don't do that !".

However, although most do look at avoiding "excessive lead", it is not something clearly stressed and focused on in most models, as far as my research goes:
- USSA - the wall, it's actually quite different, using the "lead" as a base of form for GS
- CSCF - word of mouth: tips even, also part of "coiling"
- CSIA - word of mouth: no excessive tip lead

One that addresses it specifically, lifting it at the rank of "primary movement" is PMTS, relating it to other "primary movements" in their own system, as something we do in all good turns.

That simple issue will generate a difference in the teaching model, progressions, focus, feedback and outcome - as you can expect them to have specific drills on this, cues and feedback and as a result, a very controlled inside foot while others I guess a little more loose.

Do you think between us here on this forum, since we're from all over the world, that we can identify some categories of differences and could we even identify a few families of models, maybe relate that to their goals, without getting into "mine is better" ?

 

[Lorenzzo]

With so many accomplished skiers here, I'd really like to see models articulated by those who feel they have one. Maybe what they've thrown out along the way too.

Choosing a model seems like choosing a career. How does one acquire enough insight to make a good choice?

 

[karlo]

Choosing a model seems like choosing a career.

Yeah! I don't want to choose a career. I just want to ski really well. And, I think I do, not having chosen a career. But, I also recognize that no one's path can be like mine, or anyone else's. And, if there is a shorter path by working with a technical model, whatever that is (and I hope to learn that here), I would like to know, as I've only just begun instructing and I'd like to offer the best path(s) to the guests and clients.

 

[Rod9301]

Well, you can decide based on how well articulated the model is.
Look at harb's model, then look at psia, and see which one makes more sense to you.

Personally, I changed my doing a couple of years ago, using harb's model and I'm pleased with the results.

I've taken a lot of lessons before, and there was never an integrated, consistent easy of skiing, or teaching.

A lot of, try this drill, or this one.

When you look at ski racers, pretty much everyone looks the same.
So i don't buy the "all ski techniques are valid, use the one that works for you"

Sure, at the highest levels, skiers adapt the technique that works for their body type, musculature, etc.
But for 99.99 percent of skiers, it would be better to follow a model.

 

[Fishbowl]

Is the best outcome for a recreational skier looking to improve, to follow a model based on ski racing turns?

 

[Jamt]

Is the best outcome for a recreational skier looking to improve, to follow a model based on ski racing turns?

Depends on what you like I guess, but IMO yes it is a good model.
It is really fun to ski with high G forces, and if you have a turn that works in a rutted/icy/soft/uneven course it also works pretty much everywhere else.

 

[Doug Briggs]

...

When you look at ski racers, pretty much everyone looks the same.
So i don't buy the "all ski techniques are valid, use the one that works for you"

...

Except they don't really all look the same anymore than Manning looks like Brady. IMO.

Racers have the same goal but get there in different ways. Tactics may distinguish the winners from the losers more often than actual techniques, but Gut doesn't ski like Shiffrin doesn't ski like Vonn.

Individuality is key to success in skiing; any sport for that matter. Strengths and weaknesses exist in everyone and I'm not talking about technical, but rather physical ability.

 

[4ster]

Is the best outcome for a recreational skier looking to improve, to follow a model based on ski racing turns?

Depends on what you like I guess, but IMO yes it is a good model.
It is really fun to ski with high G forces, and if you have a turn that works in a rutted/icy/soft/uneven course it also works pretty much everywhere else.

I tend to agree in that the model of the carved turn, first described to me around the time of Witherall's "How the Racers Ski", is the best technical model. I am convinced it works best in all conditions, all the time whether you ever get in a race course or not! Of course, some of this would depend on your definition of carving.

It is just a matter of taking these basics & learning how to isolate, blend & adapt tactically to different snow textures, pitch & equipment. We've seen it recently on this forum with the recently posted @Marcus Caston videos. In his recent interview with @PowellMovement, Plake talks about a need to return to the more technical aspects of skiing to experience the most joy in all conditions.

Although I can gain some from watching demonstrators like in the videos that @HeluvaSkier posted in the "What does it take" thread, my models have always been racers. Most recently they have been Shiffrin, Vieth, Kristoffersen & Hirscher. Over the years it has been many others & not necessarily the one winning all the races.
Although I have spent some time in the gates, I would not consider myself a racer. I am just a skier but a skier who likes to enjoy all aspects of skiing from backcountry to moguls.

Just as Helluva stated in the other thread, technique is not style. A style is born from ones interpretation of technique.

 

[Lorenzzo]

In golf a couple of guys created a computer generated composite out of what had been considered to be the best golf swings in the world and turned it in into a book called Swing Like a Pro. It sparked a debate as to whether the composite was legitimate in that it averaged I think it was around 100 different swings and so maybe it took legit but different and created averaged but not legit. It did get people thinking about whether there were models and what they were.

A few years later a videographer was editing swing frames of pros and happened to realize that while the total elapsed time of the swing varied, it wasn't by as much as the naked eye presumed, and, the frame (time) ratio of backswing to downswing was essentially the same for all top pro golfers of any generation no matter the total number of frames (time). He published a book too (of course) called Tour Tempo.

So in golf the model or models is/are partially in focus, but not completely.

 

[karlo]

using harb's model

carved turn, first described to me around the time of Witherall's "How the Racers Ski", is the best technical model

my models have always been racers

@HeluvaSkier, what did you mean by "technical model"? A Harb Model, which I think is a teaching model, not sure. A type of turn? A skier or a class of skier? Can you give an example of a clear and concise technical model?

 

[RuleMiHa]

A Harb Model, which I think is a teaching model, not sure.

In order to understand the concept of a technical model you first have to accept that the Canucks, Austrians, French, (Germans?), and Harb, etc. are all actually teaching different turns (sometimes slightly), not just different paths to get to the same turn. Look at what @Razie posted to start the thread in terms of differences. If you don't accept that the skiing is intrinsically different, the concept of a technical model will not make sense. Whether there is tip lead, or pull back changes the turn. How the weight is supposed to be distributed changes a turn. What initiates a turn changes it. It makes it a different turn.

 

[karlo]

- USSA - the wall, it's actually quite different, using the "lead" as a base of form for GS
- CSCF - word of mouth: tips even, also part of "coiling"
- CSIA - word of mouth: no excessive tip lead

Am I off base? I thought that the thread that @HeluvaSkier created, and the issue of Technical Model, related to a recreational learner picking clear and concise technical model. I am recreational, and I wouldn't know where to start if this is what it takes.

 

[markojp]

.... aaaaand this is where racing kicks in. It's all trickle down. The best watch and learn from each other regardless of national affiliation. The clock doesn't lie. It's also easy and necessary to include the influence of the Japanese tech skiing comps and how they're evaluated as a player in current trends and thinking. The latter I'm not so keen on... at all.

 

[Doby Man]

My latest personal technical model is actually a cat. I don’t really know why people would use other humans as an athletic model of any kind. The human species is animal and, in the animal kingdom, humans are the most physically pathetic specimens of flesh and bone there is. I’m pretty sure that cats are what Marcel Hirscher has been using for a technical model so I am just going to copy him. It is clear to me that he is not using a human model so feline has got to be the next best guess. Right? The model I use for moguls isn’t even a biological life form at all. I have always admired the Slinky, the sleek and graceful toy that blends gravity, momentum, rhythm and flow to create and manage energy while following the most direct, simple and effortless path down the staircase zipper line. The slinky is an excellent teacher of mobility for movement reduction.

 

[karlo]

My latest personal technical model is actually a cat

Mine is a monkey, swinging in a tree, video posted in Teaching with Analogies. Very dynamic, rhythmic, masterful use of angular momentum. We humans sure have lost a lot.

 

[MikeS]

Technical models are awesome for filling pages in technical manuals, and perpetuating debate among instructors and coaches and lay skiers. In reality, technical models are just general frameworks that makes conveying concepts easier. They definitely should not be taken as "this is how you should ski" As someone who spent many years skiing to a technical standard, I can tell you that my skiing in uniform and my skiing out of uniform bore very little resemblance to each other. My in uniform skiing was skiing to technical standard laid out by a technical model. My out of uniform skiing was and still is skiing in the way that works best for me. Skiing to a technical standard is robotic and generally not enjoyable. It also didn't produce the greatest end result.

In the end, a technical model is just that... a model. Looks pretty, not much use. And probably heavily photoshopped anyways.

 

[karlo]

.... aaaaand this is where racing kicks in. It's all trickle down.

That makes sense to me. A competitor would choose, or grow up in, a particular technical "technical model" that is quite difficult to understand to the recreational skier. The recreational skier would use a racer or freestyle skier as his or her visual technical model and seek a coach to forward that vision.

So as to

I'll kick this off by looking at one simple issue: pulling back the inside foot.

A number of years ago, I wanted to work on extreme carving, as seen at 1:56 and 2:03 of


and also


I was lucky enough to get the time, just a couple of hours over 2 days, of a junior racing coach. He pointed out just one thing. Pull back my inside foot more. That's all it took to get me on the right track to continue on my own. So, that's it? For me, the recreational skier, the technical model is the extreme carver?

Of course, working on that, and truly exploring it, I developed the ability to use my inside ski to a far greater degree. And, of course that enhanced foot independence and agility. That's what @HeluvaSkier meant, pick one thing as a model, like the extreme carver, develop it, and many good things can come from it?

 

[graham418]

I think an association such as PSIA or CSIA needs a technical model or framework to help and ensure that all instructors teach a consistent lesson across the board. Otherwise , why bother having a national body. Speak with a united voice, use the same methodologies, so a student can take a lesson here, or there or anywhere , and get a consistent learning experience. Learning to ski is hard enough. No need to make it harder.

 

[François Pugh]

I think an association such as PSIA or CSIA needs a technical model or framework to help and ensure that all instructors teach a consistent lesson across the board. Otherwise , why bother having a national body. Speak with a united voice, use the same methodologies, so a student can take a lesson here, or there or anywhere , and get a consistent learning experience. Learning to ski is hard enough. No need to make it harder.

If an organization is going to give certifications, e.g. L1, L2, L3, etc. then they should all be teaching the same thing.

 

[markojp]

If an organization is going to give certifications, e.g. L1, L2, L3, etc. then they should all be teaching the same thing.

Different markets, cultures, and clientelle's... Interski is all about comparison and cross-polinization. You can bet that 2011 was a huge wake up call for the PSIA contingant. If you look at the current PSIA technical focus (five fundamentals ), it's pretty clear PSIA was looking at what CSIA was doing not to mention the obvious connections in organizations like 'The Rookie Academy', etc... Conversly, CSIA appears to have taken some of the 'student centered learning' from PSIA. These guys (unisex here) are trading info and ideas across nat'l organization platforms. It's one of the great benefits of the internet and a shrinking communication sphere.

That said, there are always going to be some differences in requirements for different levels of cerification in various nat'l systems. Again, unique cultural expectations, focuses, ski school business models, etc... In my humble observation, I'd say a strong PSIA L3 is on the high end of CSIA L3. L4 is more like DCL/DECL level skiing and teaching, so there is a rough translation. Don't take that as a swipe at CSIA at all. I'm a huuuuge fan, and have said many times that half my PSIA dues should go to CSIA for all the great and free content CSIA provides and how much it's helped me in the context of working toward full certification in PSIA. In this day and age, anyone who's really interested in 'all things skiing' is looking well beyond nat'l organizations to learn and grow.