Pole position (excuse the pun)

Rossfra8 wrote:I have so much to say on this it's unreal. Drag your pole baskets (hands forward) by the arch of your foot. Once you have planted your pole, make sure it remains in contact with the snow after the turn and drag it once more. As for your outside pole, it should always drag along the ground aswell-for purposes of a beginner/intermediate skier which i'm assuming you are.

Thanks for that. I am a beginner heading towards intermediate level. I can go down a black but don't look pretty, that sort of level.
I don't think i was keeping the outside pole in contact with the snow, which made it look like I was flapping my poles around. A few exercises on my hands position should hopefully sort that one out. So many things to do and remember....

pole planting posters: your a tough lot I must say!

I can tell you that when your hips are whittled away and ankles so worn you fall about the bedroom putting your socks on, the last thing you look for is extensive 'carving'.

Carving throws powerfull forces back into the hips/knees. I've known BASI Teachers advocate caution in teaching young children carving for that very reason. Immature joints still forming etc.

All that seems to have been forgotten due to the ease carving can be done on modern gear. Time will tell on that one.
Of couse, I'm talking about extreme angles of carve on that one. I also recognise that today's angles are less of a loading due to current designs of ski when skied at less than expert pace

bandit wrote:

ise wrote:

And I should clarify I'm talking about what we learn when we're training to be ski instructors )

Unless you're on the flattest of slopes you need poles for all the reasons I've given, no one manages without and those that try are simply unable to handle even moderately difficult slopes at any speed.

So, way back in the mists of time, when I was being taught by BASI teachers, we had our poles taken off us for several days at a time. We were skiing French red grade runs (Les Arcs) carving all sized radius turns at speed.
That does'nt happen these days then?

It does, all ski instructors do it but I think they're (nearly) all doing it wrong, it's clear that some (too many) students are coming away with an impression that poles are optional in some way. If that's happening then the instructor isn't communicating the purpose of the exercise and that's not going to work for a lot of students, people like you (I'm think I'm right) like to know the how and why of an exercise, some people don't of course but instructors ought to be explaining that. In part the purpose of that exercise is to learn and emphasise the PET principle (Pressure, Edge, Turn in various orders). On a uniform slope the ski will turn, or carve, wth a simple Pressure, giving Edge then a Turn.

Carve turns are fun, railing at high speed even more so, but it's only one turn we use to get all over the mountain. It's around this point people get confused, get some carving skis and discard their poles. You even see it around here, I saw some people the other week doing it, peak holiday time, they probably see lessons doing it, or misunderstand their own lessons, and reckon a carving ski doesn't need a pole.

Trencher wrote:
When something is accepted as the norm for decades, it often it becomes so entrenched that no one even quieries it.

Your analogy is just plain wrong, we adapted technique and teaching a lot to deal with advances in kit. For BASI the "Central Theme" reflects what carving skis are and what they do and it's no different for CSIA or PSIA and at the ISTD levels.

I think the suggestion that people who've taken training and passed exams as ski instructors lack insight into what they're learning and teaching is actually pretty insulting actually.

I apologise, no insult was intended.

I was just suggesting that sometimes instruction methods have a momentum of their own and often are slow to change or recognise new techniques. Witness how long it has taken for most ski instructors to be able to carve a clean arc, many still cannot.


Trencher

pavelski wrote:Interesting reading on subject!

The Pole Plant in Modern Technique
by Greg Gurshman

http://www.youcanski.com/en/coaching/pole_plant.htm

So, I read the whole article. The main theme seems to be the use of the pole plant in recentering at transition (not timing or edge set etc).

What the article fails to convey is the actual mechanics of how this is supposed to work. Is there a real physical connection between the pole and the snow that helps the skier recenter or is it the momentum of swinging the pole forward that pulls the skiers mass forward. If the later, then the same movement without the pole would accomplish the recentering.

The point I have been trying to make is that so often it is not the pole plant that accomplishes whatever is intended, but the movement to make the pole plant.

Trencher

ise wrote:

bandit wrote:

ise wrote:

And I should clarify I'm talking about what we learn when we're training to be ski instructors )

Unless you're on the flattest of slopes you need poles for all the reasons I've given, no one manages without and those that try are simply unable to handle even moderately difficult slopes at any speed.

So, way back in the mists of time, when I was being taught by BASI teachers, we had our poles taken off us for several days at a time. We were skiing French red grade runs (Les Arcs) carving all sized radius turns at speed.
That does'nt happen these days then?

It does, all ski instructors do it but I think they're (nearly) all doing it wrong, it's clear that some (too many) students are coming away with an impression that poles are optional in some way. If that's happening then the instructor isn't communicating the purpose of the exercise and that's not going to work for a lot of students, people like you (I'm think I'm right) like to know the how and why of an exercise, some people don't of course but instructors ought to be explaining that. In part the purpose of that exercise is to learn and emphasise the PET principle (Pressure, Edge, Turn in various orders). On a uniform slope the ski will turn, or carve, wth a simple Pressure, giving Edge then a Turn.

Carve turns are fun, railing at high speed even more so, but it's only one turn we use to get all over the mountain.

Hmmm, I'd like to think that you don't know me that well, but you are spot on with this observation :D
Which is a little worrying, can I be read that easily? :shock:

Trencher wrote:
I apologise, no insult was intended.

I was just suggesting that sometimes instruction methods have a momentum of their own and often are slow to change or recognise new techniques. Witness how long it has taken for most ski instructors to be able to carve a clean arc, many still cannot.

Maybe they can't in Minnesota but I can assure they can in Europe and I know that no one will pass a PSIA certification without being able to carve a turn. All you've done is just repeat the same misconception and latch onto one single point that's been made about timing, even in this you've simply not understood what's being said.

I can see it's articulated badly but it's not so very difficult. When you hear timing you seem to have an idea of rhythm, like counting 1-2-3-4 and pole planting on every other beat alternating left/right, that's not what we mean at all. This is timing just like walking, when I place my front foot on the ground and start to lift my back foot that's timing, a series of movements that happen in a sequence with one leading another.

Trencher wrote:What the article fails to convey is the actual mechanics of how this is supposed to work. Is there a real physical connection between the pole and the snow that helps the skier recenter or is it the momentum of swinging the pole forward that pulls the skiers mass forward. If the later, then the same movement without the pole would accomplish the recentering.

The point I have been trying to make is that so often it is not the pole plant that accomplishes whatever is intended, but the movement to make the pole plant.

I made three other point about pole plants which you don't seem to have understood, these were :

2. balance support, in turns with high edge set or pronounced check it's an aid to balance at the point of maximum deceleration

3. aid to leg rotation, a momentary anchor to aid leg rotation into the new direction without disrupting balance or posture.

4. momentary torque in initiating quick, tight turns.

None of these are possible without actually having a pole, it's not just the movement to make the plant but the actual plant itself.

I know Greg Gurshman is a highly regarded coach and trainer but I'd ignore that article, it's rambling and badly written and it's hard to determine what point he's really trying to make.