What skills determine ability levels?

[Monique]

Umm, not really. It's just a little-used steep off-trail pitch near Wally's World. No bumps, no trees, no exposure. One year they (or maybe the wind) even sprinkled a few spruce twigs to help with depth perception. Ironically, S&D was where our instructor "gently but firmly" told us we didn't have a clue -- she didn't put it that way, of course -- which started me at age 49 on the road to really learning how to ski. By the end of the camp, another student and I were telling each other "first, we have to un-learn how to ski."

Several years later, on the year without a tram, they did the ski off in Broken Goggle or Lost Goggle, which was a bit gnarly, especially with zero visibility that day. I fell on an unexpected and unseen slope-angle transition. And I ski generally poorly when I can't see.

At Taos, we hiked the ridge most days, and our instructor took us to a lot of interesting spots. Taos ski week is a little more towards the instruction end of the instruct vs guide spectrum, but it really is not that different. Cheaper, though.

Thanks for the correction!

 

[Varmintmist]

Interesting that folks mentioned they can often tell just by looking at someone whether or not they are a good skier. I tend to feel the same way. What is it though? Is it their gear or clothing? Or is it the way they carry themselves or their skis?

IMHO, the better/more proficient you get at something, the less you let snap judgements be the answer. It is a matter of perspective also. One can get a idea about someone elses ability by watching them gear up if you have a lot of experience with various people doing that specific thing. It wont be 100%, but close.

I shoot matches, and compared to the folks that are good in the serious matches, I am a name to fill the lower end. The matches that are more for fun I am normally at the top end. Just shot for my detachment Marine Corps League match having never fired it before, having to change stuff to become compliant, and shooting a position that I havent in 30 years, in a extended time limit that was rough on the knee, I am pretty sure I shot in the top 10, maybe a bit better and I was not happy with the performance dropping points where I had no business dropping points.
For perspective
So as compared to:
National match standards, I suck. Below avg. Make mistakes that cost big time
MC league, I am classed Master
Games matches, I am a Silver and Gold shooter
As compared to the avg guy on the range pre hunting season, I will out shoot every one there most of the time.
Now if I did nothing but the MCL matches, I would think I was pretty darn good. Like bombing Camelback blacks only. Change the game a little and the baseline changes. I saw what the guys in my detachment were doing and knew right then that as a group we were not taking any awards home before a shot was fired. It has to be the same with ski instructors.

As a musician, I find many really good players have beat up and maybe not the best gear but can make it sound great. If someone shows up with a shiny new, expensive drum kit or a bunch of high dollar guitars, etc I am immediately suspicious as I have run across many who suck and just have the $ to buy gear but have not put in the time to hone their skills.

Anything that requires specialized gear is like that. You could put the nicest instrument that money can buy in front of me, it wont help. I have a hard time playing the radio.
Many years ago when I was pretty broke, I bought a rifle to hunt with out of a guys attic for 90 bucks. Cleaned it up, figured out what it was, shot it a lot and took it to the range pre season to test a hunting load. There was a guy to my right and a guy to my left when we got back from hanging targets. The guy on the left saw my 1903 with open sights and started on me how I needed a XXX rifle like his with a XXX scope like his. Think about a contentious gear thread that you HAVE to read because you must be there. Then we started. After I put 3 downrange the guy on the left stopped talking and the guy on the right with a scope looked at me and said "You dont need a scope or a different rifle." I smiled at him and said "I know." I was dead on with a smaller group then the left guy.

Here is a story about George Farr and it is the best example of someone who can using what gear he has.
https://www.ssusa.org/articles/2016/4/21/birth-of-a-legend-the-farr-rifle/

Gear helps. In shooting or skiing, playing music. It isnt the solution to most problems though. A good skier can make mediocre gear preform to the best of its ability. A poor skier isnt good enough to take advantage of the gear to make it worthwhile.

 

[markojp]

Because we have all met that guy. Sort of like lawyer jokes...only in an affectionate way.

and the usual comments generally come from the same people, I'm sure all affectionately.

 

[tinymoose]

Don't think this is Robin's thing, but some people just ski a lot worse during a ski-off. Similar to those who fall anytime you point a camera at them.

This is me to a T. Doesn't matter what it is... gymnastics, skiing, piano, dancing. Put the spotlight on me and I perform way worse than I would if I thought nobody was watching.

 

[Alveolus]

I do a camp of some sort maybe every other year. I consistently get in a group a level or so below my ability, simply because I like being a bit more relaxed. After ski off am invariably asked if I would like to move up to another group. One year I did move up- and although I learned more that year, it just wasn't as fun. Improving is always good, but for me the camps are more about the camaraderie, mountain/resort expertise (and of course lift line cuts) than about hard core ski instruction.

But the basic reason I don't want to go with a higher group is that the level the instructors put me in after a Monday morning ski off really is a good level or two above what my level is by Wednesday afternoon.

 

[karlo]

What skills and expertise differentiate an ... expert skier from an advanced one?

In my opinion, an advanced skier has learned all the skills - rotary control, edge control, pressure control, and balance (if one chooses to define that as a skill). An expert skier has worked with those skills to become expert at a particular style of skiing, whether that be freestyle, steep skiing, extreme carving, or anything else.

I am reminded of the scene in Kill Bill Vol 2, attempting to introduce herself with dignity to the master, Pai Mei.

Beatrix (the Bride): "I am proficient in Tiger-Crane Style, and I am more than proficient in the exquisite art of the Samurai sword."

Pai Mei: "Hmph! The exquisite art of the Samurai sword. Don't make me laugh! Your so-called exquisite art is only fit for … Japanese fatheads! Your anger amuses me. Do you believe you are my match?"

 

[CalG]

The first term of FFF is FAST.... The second is "Flying", You all know the last ;-)

Bottom line, The better YOU get, the better skiing gets.

MAGIC!

 

[fatbob]

Group lessons are always a crapshoot at higher levels because you can't control the population that turns up for them and relatively small deltas in experience, exposure or technique can make for large differences in ability to keep up.

I totally get Olyesa's point. While I am comfortable in most terrain I am not relaxed or at my best in high consequences terrain. So I don't tend to mesh well with a group of people who are primarily concerned with bragging rights on the toughest terrain they can get.

 

[François Pugh]

Ah... I like that take. The terrain becomes a way to show the skills that are already there. Not a requirement to have those skills.

But for the average skier, if they are looking to figure out where they are and what to work on (which is one possible reason to want to know your level), I guess they'd have to take into account what terrain they are capable of skiing, in order to figure out what their short comings are?

The best thing to do would be to book a private lesson with a good instructor and express your goals, e.g. I would like to ski Powder Face without falling or shopping for turns, or I would like to ski Exposition without getting knocked around by the bumps, or I would like to ski faster while making tighter turns. Let the instructor see you ski and let him decide which skills improvement would help the most, and what to do to improve those skills.

Edging and pressure skills can be worked on in many ways, carving the cleanest turns you can on hard snow, while trying to make tightest turns you can, hones those skills. The math (stess-strain curve in the ski and cosine function) illustrates how at higher the edge angles the skis become very sensitive to the angle of the ski to the snow. Edging skills can also be worked on by making short radius (not-arc-2-arc pure carved) turns and shaping the turn, short radius turns in bumps also helps with pressure skills (absorbing and extending). Skiing in man made rollers helps absorbing, as does absorbing the virtual bump in tight cross-under carved turns. While doing X certainly makes you better at doing X than more than doing Y will, the skills built in one or environment or activity are still transferable to others to a large degree. IMHO it's important that you enjoy the activity you are using to improve your skills. If not, another activity will suffice.

Often a skier will demonstrate a separate issue of improper body position, e.g. a hip too far forward or back blocking the movement that would come with better alignment of body parts. You would take a lot more time figuring that out than having a good instructor watch your skiing.

 

[François Pugh]

Frontside and backside, in my understanding, are characteristics of a mythical mountain on which all groomers and bumps are in the front, and everything else is on the back side of the mountain. Actually, I don't remember seeing this term for a while. I guess if you vastly simplified Vail prior to Blue Sky, you could have described it that way. And maybe I made up that definition.

When you're in the US skiing anywhere west of Kansas, there's a big difference between out of bounds and in bounds, trees or no. I think you will find that a lot of people west of Kansas will have quite the allergic reaction to any implication that it's the same thing, because we're tired of hearing about people dying and putting SAR teams at risk. That reaction is so strong that it will overcome any other intended comparison. Hitting a tree is only one of several failure modes - tree wells are more dangerous, IMO.

I actually disagree that trees ski the same if we assume that in-bounds trees are skied more often than out of bounds trees. Snow gets compacted when lots of people ski in an area. Thus you're actually safer in frequently skied trees because you're less likely to get caught on roots and stumps ... and ugh, upside down snow, nasty stuff.

Yes. I've skied at many mountains/hills that are exactly like that; all the lifts and all the runs marked on the trail map are on one side of the mountain, and untouched snow and forests are on the back side.

IMNSHO the "front side" skis being promoted today are really too wide for front side skiing at eastern areas, and are really a compromise between front side and back side skis.

 

[Monique]

I heard an entertaining (to me) word in a wilderness first aid course yesterday. "Frontcountry." Backcountry is where there's no 911/ambulance available. Frontcountry is where that stuff is available. (To be fair, the commonly-used term "urban" isn't really appropriate, so you do need a word.)

I totally get Olyesa's point. While I am comfortable in most terrain I am not relaxed or at my best in high consequences terrain. So I don't tend to mesh well with a group of people who are primarily concerned with bragging rights on the toughest terrain they can get.

FWIW it's not necessarily, or only, about bragging rights. It can be about internal enjoyment. In high consequence, tough terrain, my focus improves. I feel more alive. And I love the rush of accomplishment. Now, I have no idea what the gap is in your mind between your abilities and what you picture as high consequence terrain, vs. what the gap is in my mind between my abilities and what I picture as high consequence terrain. But one person's "high consequence terrain" is another person's warm up run, and it's hard to compare or know exactly what's going on in other people's heads.

 

[green26]

My assessment of what I expect from the Taos ski week is kind of based on things I have learned from some who are familiar with the program. Mostly from a grump who skis there now and then.

JH Steep and Deep is something I have looked into but the price is way more than I want to spend for 3 days of skiing! Taos Ski Week is going to set me back $180.

For this coming season it's $220...

 

[TPJ]

We do our splits verbally with a ski off to confirm the groups. The splits are generally made based on the goals of the students and the speed and terrain they want to ski. It's not about a number, we use colors now . I have been teaching upper level lessons full time for over a decade now and I really can tell a lot about how someone skis just by watching them walk up to the meeting place. I know what questions to ask them and I can smell bullshit from a pretty good distance. The splits we make at the meeting place are generally very accurate and the "ski off" is for confirmation with minor tweaks.

The group lessons I teach almost never have more than 4 people in them, it's usually 3-4. The smaller group makes for a better product and a higher return rate. I have no problem taking someone young and aggressive into a higher group than the written description of the skills might suggest. The groups work the best when everyone skis at about the same speed and has similar terrain goals. There is also a group for the middle aged technically proficient skier who doesn't like bumps. That skier shouldn't be in the same group lesson with a teenager who wants to charge.

 

[Crank]

For this coming season it's $220...

We have a group discount.

 

[Fishbowl]

Most of these skill set lists are primarily subjective, therefore placing form over function. This discounts the ability to ski advanced terrain with "not the current standard" technique. I would prefer to see a shift towards grading skiers by the results of their technique, rather than the technique itself. The ultimate way to grade skiers is the stopwatch, but the timing of runs is absent in all of these lists. A practical exam like a timed and gated run on varying terrain would do the trick.

 

[Monique]

The groups work the best when everyone skis at about the same speed and has similar terrain goals. There is also a group for the middle aged technically proficient skier who doesn't like bumps. That skier shouldn't be in the same group lesson with a teenager who wants to charge.

These three sentences have made me rethink my comments to @Crank earlier in the thread, and I think you have some extremely good points here.

Most of these skill set lists are primarily subjective, therefore placing form over function. This discounts the ability to ski advanced terrain with "not the current standard" technique. I would prefer to see a shift towards grading skiers by the results of their technique, rather than the technique itself. The ultimate way to grade skiers is the stopwatch, but the timing of runs is absent in all of these lists. A practical exam like a timed and gated run on varying terrain would do the trick.

I was sort of nodding for the first half of this, and then I realized that by "results" you meant "time to the finish line." What the fluffernutter? No. Just no. I realize that gating it means they have to be able to accomplish certain turns, but now you're prioritizing a particular type of function. In the real world, you almost always have choices - and even if you don't, the mandatory line doesn't look like a race course.

If you are divvying up wanna-be racers, I guess that's a good method ...

I was nodding because I know some senior ski lesson groups, and they don't necessarily want to be taught to completely rework their technique - they prefer some tips that will help them do better with the style they've already learned. And that's not the worst.

 

[Wilhelmson]

Most of these skill set lists are primarily subjective, therefore placing form over function. This discounts the ability to ski advanced terrain with "not the current standard" technique. I would prefer to see a shift towards grading skiers by the results of their technique, rather than the technique itself. The ultimate way to grade skiers is the stopwatch, but the timing of runs is absent in all of these lists. A practical exam like a timed and gated run on varying terrain would do the trick.

I was thinking about this. I don't know what level I am but my friend and sister are "better" skiers than me due to their time in VT, UT and NM, however after a lot of days the last few years and being in decent shape I can crush them on any moguls, glades, or powder.

 

[François Pugh]

These three sentences have made me rethink my comments to @Crank earlier in the thread, and I think you have some extremely good points here.



I was sort of nodding for the first half of this, and then I realized that by "results" you meant "time to the finish line." What the fluffernutter? No. Just no. I realize that gating it means they have to be able to accomplish certain turns, but now you're prioritizing a particular type of function. In the real world, you almost always have choices - and even if you don't, the mandatory line doesn't look like a race course.

If you are divvying up wanna-be racers, I guess that's a good method ...

I was nodding because I know some senior ski lesson groups, and they don't necessarily want to be taught to completely rework their technique - they prefer some tips that will help them do better with the style they've already learned. And that's not the worst.

I recall a time when I could beat most folk to the lift from the top of the mountain based on strength, guts and quick reflexes, BUT HAD NO CLUE WHAT I WAS DOING.

 

[jzmtl]

I'm curious for those who say they can tell a skier's level by how they stand and walk, can you give some examples on how it works?

 

[Fishbowl]

These three sentences have made me rethink my comments to @Crank earlier in the thread, and I think you have some extremely good points here.



I was sort of nodding for the first half of this, and then I realized that by "results" you meant "time to the finish line." What the fluffernutter? No. Just no. I realize that gating it means they have to be able to accomplish certain turns, but now you're prioritizing a particular type of function. In the real world, you almost always have choices - and even if you don't, the mandatory line doesn't look like a race course.

If you are divvying up wanna-be racers, I guess that's a good method ...

I was nodding because I know some senior ski lesson groups, and they don't necessarily want to be taught to completely rework their technique - they prefer some tips that will help them do better with the style they've already learned. And that's not the worst.

No, not a race, but yes, in some circumstances timed.

The application of ski technique is just the ability to control your speed and direction. Better skiers can control their speed and direction at higher speeds and on more difficult terrain. It is easy to set up practical tests to judge to application of technique. The timed element just shows that someone can make controlled turns at at variable speeds.

We use objective testing in many sports. Golf and martial arts come to mind as two sports where the end result is not defined subjectively. Why not skiing?