This collection of threads has been really thought provoking, especially the definition of the term “technical model” and how it applies to moving forwards as a skier.
When I think about my goals as a progressing skier, I tend to look at the finished product rather than specific techniques. I think it’s fair to say that we all know good skiing when we see it, regardless of our MA abilities. So, I want to ski with rhythm, timing and balance. I want to be athletic and dynamic, yet appear effortless. I want a quiet upper body that also counters against the slope. I want consistent rounded turns that enable me to control my speed. I want to “go there”. I want clean early edge engagement with high edge angles. But most of all I want to flow down the mountain with grace and speed.
So, the next question is how to get there. All the videos Helluva posted a few pages ago show good skiing that encompass all the qualities I just outlined, yet they are clearly achieved in different ways. We all see the skis and legs turning, but is it the skis turning the legs or the legs turning the skis? This aspect of MA is all about cause and effect and truly understanding what you need to learn to achieve your goals. BTS nicely breaks down how each skier is using leg extension and/or retraction to release and engage their edges. It’s all good skiing, but at this point the “technical model” comes into play, forcing us as students to pick a teaching system that suits our goals. We need to look at the philosophy of each system and decide which technical model to follow.
For example, I like the way HH skis and would be happy to emulate his style. Looking at his teaching materials he clearly has an affinity for the “flex to release” style of skiing. His teaching method employs clearly laid out drills that would enable the student to learn and progress in this style of skiing.
So now I have my goal; good skiing. My technical model; flex to release, and my teaching method; PMTS.
When I think about my goals as a progressing skier, I tend to look at the finished product rather than specific techniques. I think it’s fair to say that we all know good skiing when we see it, regardless of our MA abilities. So, I want to ski with rhythm, timing and balance. I want to be athletic and dynamic, yet appear effortless. I want a quiet upper body that also counters against the slope. I want consistent rounded turns that enable me to control my speed. I want to “go there”. I want clean early edge engagement with high edge angles. But most of all I want to flow down the mountain with grace and speed.
So, the next question is how to get there. All the videos Helluva posted a few pages ago show good skiing that encompass all the qualities I just outlined, yet they are clearly achieved in different ways. We all see the skis and legs turning, but is it the skis turning the legs or the legs turning the skis? This aspect of MA is all about cause and effect and truly understanding what you need to learn to achieve your goals. BTS nicely breaks down how each skier is using leg extension and/or retraction to release and engage their edges. It’s all good skiing, but at this point the “technical model” comes into play, forcing us as students to pick a teaching system that suits our goals. We need to look at the philosophy of each system and decide which technical model to follow.
For example, I like the way HH skis and would be happy to emulate his style. Looking at his teaching materials he clearly has an affinity for the “flex to release” style of skiing. His teaching method employs clearly laid out drills that would enable the student to learn and progress in this style of skiing.
So now I have my goal; good skiing. My technical model; flex to release, and my teaching method; PMTS.