• For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.

Wanted: drill for narrow stance

BornToSki683

Putting on skis
Pass Pulled
Joined
Apr 27, 2017
Posts
113
Location
Park City
you can also go the other way and squeeze a foam ball or something a bit squishy between your knees.

The thing is, the key to skiing with a narrow stance is not only to just get comfortable with your feet, or more specifically your legs, closer together...but actually its about initiating certain moments in a way that will automagically keep your legs close together and a narrow stance. You won't have to even think about it, it will just be where it feels comfortable and lots of people will be saying "gee you sure have a narrow stance".

I ski with a very narrow stance, I don't know how many times a well intentioned PSIA or resort clinician has at the very least asked about it and at other times downright challenged me about it. I don't agree with them so I just shrug my shoulders anymore, or nod my head and try to move on, sometimes I will try to ski a little wider just to make them satisfied for now, but honestly it makes me ski worse. A narrow stance, and I don't mean "functional", I mean "NARROW", is more efficient if you have good balance and and good transition skills. There is a time and place for a wider stance at certain moments, but in my view that is the exception to the rule. And don't mean 50% of the time exception, I don't mean 25% of the time. I mean less than 1% of the time.

As others have hinted, by "narrow stance" I mean how much airspace between the legs. You want leg independence, not glued together (which is why I don't really like these drills with squeezing a ball or holding the legs together), but basically you want your legs very close together. Probably won't see much daylight. but the legs should not be glued together they need to be totally independent.

Don't even worry about how far apart the feet are...the feet might be wide, even while the legs are close together due to vertical separation and that is to be expected if you are really laid over. If you aren't laid over the feet will be close together too. Going wider with the legs only constrains and limits you from skiing dynamically.

LF, myself and others have already mentioned the key movement...which is at turn init, pull the new inside (downhill), foot in as close and back as you can, and balance on the outside ski. That's it. Then just feel relaxed, let the inside leg shorten. Pulling the inside knee up out of the way vertically is the only seperation you want to create: VERTICAL SEPARATION.

If you focus on vertical separation instead of stance width, init your turns properly with active inside foot... you won't have to tie your knees together or force yourself to do anything, your will just have a nice narrow stance without even thinking about it. It is a RESULT of certain movements. BTW, forcing a wider stance will kill those movements too.
 

oldschoolskier

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Dec 6, 2015
Posts
4,225
Location
Ontario Canada
In the old days we used a bandana tied around the knees then bungies. An instructor pal came back from Austria and said they just pulled down their lederhosen

I still have my ledehosen (real ones for every day use). Sadly, I've gotten a little bigger in the wrong dimensions.
 

Alexzn

Ski Squaw
Skier
Joined
Nov 13, 2015
Posts
1,956
Location
Bay Area and Truckee
Alexn I think you have it wrong.....what is allowing Reilly angulation is his narrow stance....its not ankle flexibility but hip socket flexibility.

wider than hip width stance make its nearly impossible to maintain balance on the outside ski, and slow down the edge chance quite a bit. the thing is what you can balance entirely on the outside ski, there is no reason to have the inside ski far way.

Josh- Can you elaborate? What I hear from the racing coaches is that you have to keep you feet wide, otherwise you won't be able to load the outside ski at high angle (the other foot will get in the way. So it is always "hip width" stance (and yes, there is really no situation when I can see a stance wider than hip width being beneficial, but I thought we are talking about a much narrower stance). The quick demonstration the coaches give on the hill is pretty convincing (to me). Even if I shuffle my feet quickly under my desk (sad...) trying to imitate that demonstration, it still makes sense. Coming from years of crappy skiing with my feet together I am all for narrow stance, but in my experience it does not work, this is why I was pretty amazed by the Reilly;'s skiing, he has no reason to ski that well in that narrow stance, hence the guess about very flexible ankles. I need to watch that video more carefully.
 

markojp

mtn rep for the gear on my feet
Industry Insider
Instructor
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
6,602
Location
PNW aka SEA
Vertical separation is the 'wide' that often gets confused. Then there's gliding, tuck stuff, etc. vs SL...
 

Josh Matta

Skiing the powder
Pass Pulled
Joined
Dec 21, 2015
Posts
4,123
the thing is narrow and independent is different than narrow and locked....Alexn I am guessing you were locked at one point in time.
 

karlo

Out on the slopes
Inactive
Joined
May 11, 2017
Posts
2,708
Location
NJ
But my feet are quite wide apart. I feel this wider platform hinders the snappiness and agility. Moreover, it leaves room (literally) for my feet to move independently from each other

any drills that I can do that help me getting and keeping my feet closer together (laterally)?

I suggest first, to work on lateral control, whether feet are together or not. In the gym, with agility drills, like hopping on and off a platform, or hopping in and out of a square, or hopping between narrow and wide, don't just do it at as high a speed as possible. Do it at as high a speed as possible, with perfect form. Make sure both feet point forward with every landing. Make sure neither foot is forward of the other. Make sure spacing between feet is the same every time. Make it perfect.

As for the side to side hops, keep your core quiet, neither going side to side, nor up and down, to the best of your ability. Do this until perfect form at speed is second nature and you barely have to think about it; do it with your eyes closed and have someone tell how your feet placement is.

BTW, whether feet are narrow or shoulder width apart, though not wider, you will not lose agility. The agility comes from the core, with the ability to keep the upper body, ahem, per debate in another thread, stable and quiet, or disciplined, using the core and upper body to lever what's going on in the hips and legs. IMO.
 
Last edited:

karlo

Out on the slopes
Inactive
Joined
May 11, 2017
Posts
2,708
Location
NJ
I am actually training on an indoor snow slope ...
I ski shoulder-wide right now,...
But for the short, slipped turn, I'm looking to improve right now.

Your feet do not need to be narrowly spaced to achieve short turns. Get on edge early, then get on high edge quickly, and, as the skis turn, rotate your femur in your hip socket. Yes, best weighted more on outside ski, but it can also be done only skiing on the inside ski.

Drills to develop the ability? I learned the hard way, on snow, in skis. But, I believe the physical abilities can be developed off-snow.

1. Lean forward on a railing, at varying angles. Both feet pointed one way or the other. Keep body straight, at the angle of lean. Rotate your hip. One position you encounter is you body arched. When in that position, imagine your upper body perpendicular to the snow, your lower body arched behind you and uphill of you upper body. That's how you get very early entry of the turn.

2. Use a hoola hoop. Both directions. Do it standing tall, do it in a lower athletic position, vary it. Keep both feet parallel, whatever spacing you want. Upper body as still as possible. Again, when your hip is projected forward, your body is arched. Do this drill on two feet. Do it on one foot.
 

BornToSki683

Putting on skis
Pass Pulled
Joined
Apr 27, 2017
Posts
113
Location
Park City
What I hear from the racing coaches is that you have to keep you feet wide, otherwise you won't be able to load the outside ski at high angle (the other foot will get in the way.

At high edge angles you can create vertical separation, the inside leg is Flexed....the stance (gap between the legs) is NOT widened.

So it is always "hip width" stance (and yes, there is really no situation when I can see a stance wider than hip width being beneficial, but I thought we are talking about a much narrower stance).

If you are talking about the distance between the feet, then you can definitely get your feet more then hip width apart on the snow, while your legs still are very close together in a narrow stance. If you are skiing with a narrow stance, the gap between the legs should remain fairly constant and narrow.. The skis will be far apart at the apex with high edge angles and closer together through transition, due to vertical separation. With big edge angles the feet might even be wider then hip width on the snow. But that is not a wide stance if the legs remain close together.

Coming from years of crappy skiing with my feet together I am all for narrow stance, but in my experience it does not work,

I agree with Josh, you were probably skiing with your legs strapped together and no development of long leg/short leg

this is why I was pretty amazed by the Reilly;'s skiing, he has no reason to ski that well in that narrow stance, hence the guess about very flexible ankles. I need to watch that video more carefully.

Yes watch all his skiing carefully. There is a reason he skis so well and part of it is his narrow stance!
 

Alexzn

Ski Squaw
Skier
Joined
Nov 13, 2015
Posts
1,956
Location
Bay Area and Truckee
Vertical separation is the 'wide' that often gets confused. Then there's gliding, tuck stuff, etc. vs SL...
No, no I am not talking about that kind, vertical separation is different (at least in my mind). By the way, I was told that tuck stance also should be about hip width.

the thing is narrow and independent is different than narrow and locked....Alexn I am guessing you were locked at one point in time.
Oh, yeah, and not at only one point :). I still kind of suck (and the gates prove it), but getting better.
 

Rod9301

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Jan 11, 2016
Posts
2,443
No, no I am not talking about that kind, vertical separation is different (at least in my mind). By the way, I was told that tuck stance also should be about hip width.

Oh, yeah, and not at only one point :). I still kind of suck (and the gates prove it), but getting better.
If the tuck stance is hip width, don't you but your chest on your knees when absorbing?
 

ScotsSkier

USSA Coach
Industry Insider
SkiTalk Tester
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
3,150
Location
North Lake Tahoe, NV
Alexzn, don't despair, I agree with what you are hearing from your coaches, and indeed I also coach with the same approach. I like to see at least hip width so you can give the skis room to work and get independent, long leg short leg. In fact I use he cowboy drill often to work on this with athletes. Yes in slalomthey will often come closer, but listen to your coaches. Not going to get into a p@@@ing match here but some of this reflects the different approach and objective from Psia and ussa.

And yes it works, one of the reasons I was still quite happily skiing a 35m GS ski,and having fun, in the soft snow at closing weekend...
 

Mendieta

Master of Snowplow
SkiTalk Tester
Contributor
Joined
Aug 17, 2016
Posts
4,903
Location
SF Bay Area, CA, USA
And yes it works, one of the reasons I was still quite happily skiing a 35m GS ski,and having fun, in the soft snow at closing weekend...

I am seriously considering opening a new thread for stance width. Or maybe someone has a few minutes to do it and redirect traffic there. Because I don't want to drift much from the OP. But I have a question right there. I tend to ski mostly on the outside ski, or I try. But in powder, that caused me many a crash. My instructor rightly mentioned that in very soft snow you want smooth round turns, a narrow stance, and nearly equal weight on both skis to assist flotation. So, presumably, if the snow softened even more, at some point you would have been on a narrower stance? Or is just the fact that slush and powder ski different? Thanks for any thoughts!
 

ScotsSkier

USSA Coach
Industry Insider
SkiTalk Tester
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
3,150
Location
North Lake Tahoe, NV
You are not too far off Leo. In softer snow I was still using a hip width stance but less aggressive extension/separation on turns as the softer snow does not allow the same pressure on the ski. I also try to be "lighter" on the ski in softer snow
 

Rod9301

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Jan 11, 2016
Posts
2,443
You are not too far off Leo. In softer snow I was still using a hip width stance but less aggressive extension/separation on turns as the softer snow does not allow the same pressure on the ski. I also try to be "lighter" on the ski in softer snow
Would you happen to have a video if you skiing powder?

I have a hard time seeing hip width in powder.
 

ScotsSkier

USSA Coach
Industry Insider
SkiTalk Tester
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
3,150
Location
North Lake Tahoe, NV
Afraid not Rod. But on a 115 waist ski you are getting pushed apart anyway!! :) I do still try to use a pretty similar approach even in powder, although you are absolutely correct they do tend to come closer, particularly in the belly of the turn as you do not have a surface to drive off
 

James

Out There
Instructor
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Posts
24,436
I am seriously considering opening a new thread for stance width. Or maybe someone has a few minutes to do it and redirect traffic there. Because I don't want to drift much from the OP.
I wouldn't worry about it. This does relate to the OP's question. Do we really need hundreds of threads? Put some tags on it maybe.

geez if one can't ski powder on a 115mm ski in any stance width you want then...?
I've seen people do wedge turns in steep powder on wide skis.
It is perhaps easier and less prone to error to be in a narrower stance for powder. It is not absolutely necessary. Just like wide skis aren't necessary. We're not talking doing 50mph on an Alaskan face here. (stand by for fat ski indignation in 5,4,3....)
Think of powder as a fluid that's pushing your skis. You need a certain amount of speed to get force from the fluid.
If one commits the body ahead of the skis into the turn the skis are light and can easily be directed whether together or hip width, even shoulder width. The later would require other subtle foot maneuvers. Once you get a rthym it makes it easy. Talking untracked there. On very flat terrain it is definitely easier to do feet together while one bounces to get light.

It's curious how people "know" they need a narrow stance in powder but in moguls not so much. They're looking for that tip on the chairlift to unlock everything.
 

BornToSki683

Putting on skis
Pass Pulled
Joined
Apr 27, 2017
Posts
113
Location
Park City
I think in powder it's more relevant to have something closer to 50/50 weight distribution. With really fat skis you can get away with outside ski dominance since a single ski creates enough of a parachute effect to provide sufficient reactionary force to create a ski turn. With skinnier skis we want two parachutes. This is a different process then what happens on hard snow where the edge needs to penetrate the surface to provide sufficient reactionary force. In that case we want as much pressure focused on the outside ski as possible in order to maximize the downward penetrating force.

If you do that in powder the single parachute may not provide sufficient reactionary force to create a nice round turn. This is why 50/50 weight makes more sense in powder but again with a fatter ski you can often get enough reactionary force from a single outside ski.

Stance width in my view does not need to change for powder, you should already be narrow! ;-)

well if you like a wider stance on the groomer what reason is there to be more narrow in powder? If there is some advantage to a narrow stance in powder, why not use that advantage on the groomer? Use narrow everywhere! I like to say "walking stance". But it can be advantageous to go even more narrow then that!
 
Last edited:

karlo

Out on the slopes
Inactive
Joined
May 11, 2017
Posts
2,708
Location
NJ
I tend to ski mostly on the outside ski, or I try. But in powder, that caused me many a crash. My instructor rightly mentioned that in very soft snow you want smooth round turns, a narrow stance, and nearly equal weight on both skis to assist flotation. So, presumably, if the snow softened even more, at some point you would have been on a narrower stance?

I don't think that stance, wide and narrow, and pressure distribution between outside and inside ski are the same thing. It might help to better understand what causes you to crash; for example, because your skis get crossed, or something else.
 

Sponsor

Staff online

Top