kids' skis

[Dhillus]

Can anyone offer tips on sizing skis for kids? I've heard the rule of thumb of
that, when placed on end, a ski is properly sized if its tip comes to somewhere
between the skier's chin and forehead -- would this apply to kids learning to
ski, as well?
I have an almost-5-year-old and an almost 7-year-old who took to the magic
carpet pretty well last season (ok, well, they liked it but they didn't quite
get the idea of actually turning in more than one direction per trip down the
hill), but they'll rip this year! The younger kid will get the skis the older
kid was on last year. Now, of course, it's swap-meet season, and I' off for
boards for the big kid.
Also, these kids are just in the pizza-wedge stage. Are shaped skis really
applicable to them, or would some old straight skis work? My instinct is why
not use modern skis for the tykes. Any thoughts?

[JQ]

"Dhillus" > wrote in message
...
> Can anyone offer tips on sizing skis for kids? I've heard the rule of
thumb of
> that, when placed on end, a ski is properly sized if its tip comes to
somewhere
> between the skier's chin and forehead -- would this apply to kids learning
to
> ski, as well?
> I have an almost-5-year-old and an almost 7-year-old who took to the magic
> carpet pretty well last season (ok, well, they liked it but they didn't
quite
> get the idea of actually turning in more than one direction per trip down
the
> hill), but they'll rip this year! The younger kid will get the skis the
older
> kid was on last year. Now, of course, it's swap-meet season, and I' off
for
> boards for the big kid.
> Also, these kids are just in the pizza-wedge stage. Are shaped skis really
> applicable to them, or would some old straight skis work? My instinct is
why
> not use modern skis for the tykes. Any thoughts?
>


Hi,
I started my son when he was 4 years old on shape skis and he never looked
back. The chin to nose thing is what was used to size the skis to him and
seemed to worked out well for him. Make sure you get proper fitting boots,
this will make all the difference in the world to how well they improve. My
son was using rear entry boots and was improving but when I finally broke
down and bought him front entry boots it was like night and day. I found
that Lange had the best fit for him and were light. I was also buying the
women's boot for him. This year I got him the men's boot (he's 11 now) and
I think II should of stuck with the women's boot. The problem is he didn't
want to wear anything that was made for the opposite sex an image thing.

Good luck and happy trails,

JQ
Dancing on the edge

[Wai Chan]

(Dhillus) wrote in
:

> Can anyone offer tips on sizing skis for kids? I've heard the rule of
> thumb of that, when placed on end, a ski is properly sized if its tip
> comes to somewhere between the skier's chin and forehead -- would this
> apply to kids learning to ski, as well?
For shaped skis, I have been told that for a average kid the maximum is to
the chin. As for adults, it does not hurt to go shorter. On straight skis,
however, then the chin to forehead range work better.


> I have an almost-5-year-old and an almost 7-year-old who took to the
> magic carpet pretty well last season (ok, well, they liked it but they
> didn't quite get the idea of actually turning in more than one
> direction per trip down the hill), but they'll rip this year! The
> younger kid will get the skis the older kid was on last year. Now, of
> course, it's swap-meet season, and I' off for boards for the big kid.
> Also, these kids are just in the pizza-wedge stage. Are shaped skis
> really applicable to them, or would some old straight skis work?
I'd say either one would work, especially if they were to do it
occasionally.

My 7-year old started with straight skis when she was 4 and have no trouble
parallel skiing down pretty much any slope now with shaped skis with pretty
good form. So, it does not hurt to go with the traditional skis as a
beginner pair.

OTHO, my now 4-year old started with her shaped skis last year and her
coach has recommended to stick with the same skis for this season because
she is already benefitting from the new design.

> My instinct is why not use modern skis for the tykes. Any thoughts?
It depends on how much you want to spend and how fast you think they will
progress on the first set of skis. If pizza (or wedging) is all they will
be doing on them, then straight skis will probably work just as well.

Hope that helps!


--------------------------------------------

W R Chan from Upstate NY
(to respond, remove ### from email address)

* I have no stinking sig *

[NE-skier]

On 26 Oct 2003 19:43:27 -0500, Wai Chan >
wrote:

>My 7-year old started with straight skis when she was 4 and have no trouble
>parallel skiing down pretty much any slope now with shaped skis with pretty
>good form. So, it does not hurt to go with the traditional skis as a
>beginner pair.

Sorry, but I've got a bunch of problems with your comments.

1) I teach, and there are probably fewer than 1% of the 7 y.o.'s that
have objectively "good form". Those that do are the kids of other
instructors and 'trollers who spend huge ammts of time on the hill.
Its not as if the other kids can't get down the mountain, but its how
they get down the mountain. Are you truly competent to judge good
form?

2) As far as anyone on this forum can tell, the good form that you
refer to could be anything from a braking wedge to skidded parallel to
hop turns. Next time, could you be more specific.

3) So, from precisely one example, your daughter, you can conclude
that it doesn't hurt to go with traditional "straight" skis. Let me
ask you, (a) are you really sure that she would not have done better
on shaped skis? and (b) might there be other skiers whose ski
instruction progress was hampered by straight skis, but you didn't
know about it?

4) Straight skis in a traditional braking wedge will teach your
daughter defensive braking moves that will eventually have to be
un-learned if she is to continue to progress in this sport. Short
shaped skis, combined with modern (and correct) teaching methods will
have her learning fundamentals which will never have to be
un/re-learned. If you are interested in a full discussion of this
concept, do a search in the Ski Instruction forum over on
www.epicski.com for the phrase, "Ski the slow line fast".

Bottom line - get her some decent shaped skis.

Good luck.

[JQ]

"NE-skier" > wrote in message
...
> On 26 Oct 2003 19:43:27 -0500, Wai Chan >
> wrote:
>
> >My 7-year old started with straight skis when she was 4 and have no
trouble
> >parallel skiing down pretty much any slope now with shaped skis with
pretty
> >good form. So, it does not hurt to go with the traditional skis as a
> >beginner pair.
>
> Sorry, but I've got a bunch of problems with your comments.
>
> 1) I teach, and there are probably fewer than 1% of the 7 y.o.'s that
> have objectively "good form". Those that do are the kids of other
> instructors and 'trollers who spend huge ammts of time on the hill.
> Its not as if the other kids can't get down the mountain, but its how
> they get down the mountain. Are you truly competent to judge good
> form?
>
> 2) As far as anyone on this forum can tell, the good form that you
> refer to could be anything from a braking wedge to skidded parallel to
> hop turns. Next time, could you be more specific.
>
> 3) So, from precisely one example, your daughter, you can conclude
> that it doesn't hurt to go with traditional "straight" skis. Let me
> ask you, (a) are you really sure that she would not have done better
> on shaped skis? and (b) might there be other skiers whose ski
> instruction progress was hampered by straight skis, but you didn't
> know about it?
>
> 4) Straight skis in a traditional braking wedge will teach your
> daughter defensive braking moves that will eventually have to be
> un-learned if she is to continue to progress in this sport. Short
> shaped skis, combined with modern (and correct) teaching methods will
> have her learning fundamentals which will never have to be
> un/re-learned. If you are interested in a full discussion of this
> concept, do a search in the Ski Instruction forum over on
> www.epicski.com for the phrase, "Ski the slow line fast".
>
> Bottom line - get her some decent shaped skis.
>
> Good luck.

NE-skier,
A little harsh on the guy aren't you?

JQ
Dancing on the edge

[Wai Chan]

>>
>> Sorry, but I've got a bunch of problems with your comments.
>>
>> <comments snipped>
>>
>> Bottom line - get her some decent shaped skis.
>>
>> Good luck.
>
> NE-skier,
> A little harsh on the guy aren't you?
>
> JQ
> Dancing on the edge
That is quite alright, I have had worse.


--------------------------------------------

W R Chan from Upstate NY
(to respond, remove ### from email address)

* I have no stinking sig *

[Wai Chan]

> Sorry, but I've got a bunch of problems with your comments.
First, just a bit of background... I don't teach but love to start getting
involved in it this year. I don't consider myself a good skier but I love
the sport and enjoy immensely the joy out of sharing it with my family. We
average about 1 day/week last year but will do 2X as much this year.


> 1) I teach, and there are probably fewer than 1% of the 7 y.o.'s that
> have objectively "good form". Those that do are the kids of other
> instructors and 'trollers who spend huge ammts of time on the hill.
> Its not as if the other kids can't get down the mountain, but its how
> they get down the mountain. Are you truly competent to judge good
> form?
I may not ski well but I recognize a good skier when I see one. I don't
disagree with the demographic concerning what a 7-year old can do. In fact,
I share the same sentiments with you based on the day-to-day conversations
that I have with other parents. Very infrequently, do I find these "good"
skiing children of theirs to be that good of skier (in your terms). But,
hey, there is nothing wrong with being proud of our own children. Bragging
about it while knocking others tho... That is another story.


> 2) As far as anyone on this forum can tell, the good form that you
> refer to could be anything from a braking wedge to skidded parallel to
> hop turns.
I did fall short in elaborating, didn't I? But, was it my place and time to
brag? Anyhoo, the "good form" that I was referring to doesn't come from me
but rather from her coaches and instructors, and passthrough skiers. And, I
don't mean doing it on the bunny slope either. Last year at 6, she handled
some of the tough glades at Smugglers' and middle of the line 2X diamond
moguls at Sugarbush. You should see how some people drop their jaws as she
skied by them. Unfortunately (or fortunately) she has me to slow her down.

> Next time, could you be more specific.
To name a few things: abrupt hockey stops, skating uphills, pole planting
(still need work there), traversing down a steep (double diamond), bumps
and glades, middle size hits and half pipes. No pizza! All french fries!
The only time she went into a wedge was right after a freezing rain which
turned the top layer of everything into a hard crust. There, because she
was not able to hold an edge with her own weight, she had no choice but to
do an exaggerated wedge.


> 3) So, from precisely one example, your daughter, you can conclude
> that it doesn't hurt to go with traditional "straight" skis. Let me
> ask you, (a) are you really sure that she would not have done better
> on shaped skis? and (b) might there be other skiers whose ski
> instruction progress was hampered by straight skis, but you didn't
> know about it?
Maybe but probably not. If a child starts out by doing pizza, a shaped ski
would help him/her in holding a better edge on a wedge because of the way
it is designed, but I still contend that straight skis will not hold
him/her back. However, if the lesson is to start with matching skis up,
then the impact is much more drastic.

> 4) Straight skis in a traditional braking wedge will teach your
> daughter defensive braking moves that will eventually have to be
> un-learned if she is to continue to progress in this sport.
I disagree!!! Wedging should not be unlearnt once learnt but rather to be
kept as a secret weapon when the condition calls for it (e.g. hard crusty
snow and tight single track in the woods) I won't argue that shaped skis
are better but the modern skills should be learnt on top on the wedge.
Everyone should know how to hold a wedge -- shaped or straight.


> Short
> shaped skis, combined with modern (and correct) teaching methods will
> have her learning fundamentals which will never have to be
> un/re-learned.
Again, I am not disagreeing. In fact, my original comment was that in the
case a parent is undecided or if he/she wants to save a few buck, the
straight ski should be OK to get as the starter skis. Furthermore, like I
said, my young daughter is starting with her shaped skis and I have no
intention to move her onto her sister's old straight ones.


--------------------------------------------

W R Chan from Upstate NY
(to respond, remove ### from email address)

* I have no stinking sig *

[NE-skier]

On 30 Oct 2003 03:01:26 -0500, Wai Chan >
wrote:

>I may not ski well but I recognize a good skier when I see one. I don't
>disagree with the demographic concerning what a 7-year old can do. In fact,
>I share the same sentiments with you based on the day-to-day conversations
>that I have with other parents. Very infrequently, do I find these "good"
>skiing children of theirs to be that good of skier (in your terms). But,
>hey, there is nothing wrong with being proud of our own children. Bragging
>about it while knocking others tho... That is another story.

First, let me apologize for being too abrupt in the tone of my
previous message. A combination of tiredness and having seen
thousands of kids (a) absurdly overrated by their parents and (b)
given poor skiing advice by well-intentioned parents triggered my
response. Independent of her skiing abilities, you *should* be proud
of all of your daughter's accomplishments. That's our job as
parents, isn't it? :)


>I did fall short in elaborating, didn't I? But, was it my place and time to
>brag? Anyhoo, the "good form" that I was referring to doesn't come from me
>but rather from her coaches and instructors, and passthrough skiers. And, I
>don't mean doing it on the bunny slope either. Last year at 6, she handled
>some of the tough glades at Smugglers' and middle of the line 2X diamond
>moguls at Sugarbush. You should see how some people drop their jaws as she
>skied by them. Unfortunately (or fortunately) she has me to slow her down.

EXCELLENT! She sounds like quite a little ripper. I also suspect
that you are being modest about your own abilities. Most kids skiing
is patterned closely after their parents' skiing.

>To name a few things: abrupt hockey stops, skating uphills, pole planting
>(still need work there), traversing down a steep (double diamond), bumps
>and glades, middle size hits and half pipes. No pizza! All french fries!
>The only time she went into a wedge was right after a freezing rain which
>turned the top layer of everything into a hard crust. There, because she
>was not able to hold an edge with her own weight, she had no choice but to
>do an exaggerated wedge.

Again, it sounds like her skiing career is off to a great start! One
suggestion: For anyone to ascend beyond the level of intermediate, it
is essential that they have carving and line selection skills in their
bag of tricks. You should watch her and try to encourage speed
control by line selection, not by scrubbing speed off using skidding
or pivoting maneuvers. In the list above, obviously, the hockey
stops, bumps, and pipes mostly involve skidding or pivoting. She
probably skis glades the same way. These are the sorts of things I
termed "defensive" skiing in my previous post. Skating, OTOH, is very
good for developing independent leg motion, strong edge control and
eventual carving.

(BTW, from your location, I'm guessing that your home mtn is Greek
Peak?)

>Maybe but probably not. If a child starts out by doing pizza, a shaped ski
>would help him/her in holding a better edge on a wedge because of the way
>it is designed, but I still contend that straight skis will not hold
>him/her back. However, if the lesson is to start with matching skis up,
>then the impact is much more drastic.

There has been a HUGE amount of discussion about this among
instructors. The concensus that has developed is that everyone will
learn skidding and pivoting maneuvers, so that it is hardly necessary
to emphasize these to beginning skiers. OTOH, very few will ever
develop carved turns if left to their own devices. Thus, its better
to push the development of carving and semi-carving (skarving) skills
in developing skiers because at the end of the day, this will actually
leave them with both strong carving and skidding skills. Failing to
emphasize carving early in the skier's development almost always
results in the dreaded, "terminal intermediate" situation.

>> 4) Straight skis in a traditional braking wedge will teach your
>> daughter defensive braking moves that will eventually have to be
>> un-learned if she is to continue to progress in this sport.
>I disagree!!! Wedging should not be unlearnt once learnt but rather to be
>kept as a secret weapon when the condition calls for it (e.g. hard crusty
>snow and tight single track in the woods) I won't argue that shaped skis
>are better but the modern skills should be learnt on top on the wedge.
>Everyone should know how to hold a wedge -- shaped or straight.

It is true that both types of skills are needed, but see my preceding
paragraph which discusses why it seems to be much harder for people to
do it the way you are suggesting (ie, skidding first, then build
carving on top). Much experience has shown that if you get the kids
using their edges for something other than scrubbing off speed, and do
this as early as possible in their skiing careers, then the
skidding/pivoting stuff comes in automatically.

>> Short
>> shaped skis, combined with modern (and correct) teaching methods will
>> have her learning fundamentals which will never have to be
>> un/re-learned.
>Again, I am not disagreeing. In fact, my original comment was that in the
>case a parent is undecided or if he/she wants to save a few buck, the
>straight ski should be OK to get as the starter skis. Furthermore, like I
>said, my young daughter is starting with her shaped skis and I have no
>intention to move her onto her sister's old straight ones.

I certainly understand about saving some money wherever possible, and
it sounds like you understand the situation well.

Again, given your interests, let me again, even more strongly, suggest
you take a look at the instruction forum over on www.epicski.com .
From the tone of your last message, I suspect you will find it very
interesting. They have a great archive of old discussions, so for
example, do a search on the work "kids" in the instruction forum and
you will probably be fascinated by the level of discussion that takes
place on this topic.

All the best, and keep doing the great job with your kids that you
already are obviously doing.

NE guy

PS - BTW, I am NOT the same NEskier that is on that forum. It was
sort of an accident that we wound up with the same (non-imaginative)
screen name.

PS#2 - Its a pleasure to talk skiing on this forum in spite of all the
"noise" that has plagued it over the past few years.

[foot2foot]

"NE-skier" > wrote in message


>
> There has been a HUGE amount of discussion about this among
> instructors. The concensus that has developed is that everyone will
> learn skidding and pivoting maneuvers, so that it is hardly necessary
> to emphasize these to beginning skiers. OTOH, very few will ever
> develop carved turns if left to their own devices. Thus, its better
> to push the development of carving and semi-carving (skarving) skills
> in developing skiers because at the end of the day, this will actually
> leave them with both strong carving and skidding skills. Failing to
> emphasize carving early in the skier's development almost always
> results in the dreaded, "terminal intermediate" situation.
>

I would agree with this to a certain extent. However,
when this emphasis on carving begins to take
precedence over the goal of getting the new (adult)
skier up and skiing absolutely as quickly as possible, it
only does the student as well as the industry a disservice.

Far too many new skiers are giving up out of
boredom or a belief that they won't be able to ski,
because the instructor has taken too slow a pace in
bringing the new skier along. Obviously, they'll
learn to skid a lot faster than they will to carve. Even
still though, if certain techniques are used, the new
skier will learn to carve as well as skid at the same
time, and in fact be able to ski blue slopes within a
period of two to four hours.

However, when we're teaching children, they are
more or less a captive audience, and as such the
instructor may well have the luxury of slowing
immediate progress for the goal of a better result in
the future, whatever value that notion may have.

Back in the days when only the Olympians could carve,
and even they didn't do it all that often, learning to ski
didn't almost always result in a terminal intermediate.

If an instructor can't help *any* student to progress,
then he/she isn't much of an instructor. As such, the
"terminal intermediate" is more of an excuse than any
kind of a fact. Or, a typical argument in favor of a
particular instructor or group of instructor's point
of view.

There is no such thing as unlearn. There is only
building on and adding to what the student already has.
No matter *what* or *how* *any* student has learned
before, if you can not help him or her to progress, then
you and your system really aren't worth a darn.

Don't take me wrong here, I'm not trying to hurt
anyone's feelings, just discuss the point.

[NE-skier]

On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 21:54:12 -0800, "foot2foot"
> wrote:

>"NE-skier" > wrote in message
>>
>> There has been a HUGE amount of discussion about this among
>> instructors. The concensus that has developed is that everyone will
>> learn skidding and pivoting maneuvers, so that it is hardly necessary
>> to emphasize these to beginning skiers. OTOH, very few will ever
>> develop carved turns if left to their own devices. Thus, its better
>> to push the development of carving and semi-carving (skarving) skills
>> in developing skiers because at the end of the day, this will actually
>> leave them with both strong carving and skidding skills. Failing to
>> emphasize carving early in the skier's development almost always
>> results in the dreaded, "terminal intermediate" situation.
>>
>
>I would agree with this to a certain extent. However,
>when this emphasis on carving begins to take
>precedence over the goal of getting the new (adult)
>skier up and skiing absolutely as quickly as possible, it
>only does the student as well as the industry a disservice.
>
>Far too many new skiers are giving up out of
>boredom or a belief that they won't be able to ski,
>because the instructor has taken too slow a pace in
>bringing the new skier along. Obviously, they'll
>learn to skid a lot faster than they will to carve. Even
>still though, if certain techniques are used, the new
>skier will learn to carve as well as skid at the same
>time, and in fact be able to ski blue slopes within a
>period of two to four hours.

I have no disagreement with what you have said thus far. I am indeed
advocating techniques which attempt to accomplish exactly what you
suggest, ie, getting them up the mountain in a couple of hours. OTOH,
getting everyone onto a blue within that time is not necessarily a
good idea. As I'm sure you know, there will be many students that
indeed may have the technical skills by this point, but still will be
outside their comfort zones, and hence not particularly enjoying
themselves, not learning well, etc. The "up on a blue" decision must
be made on an individual student basis.

One example of the sort of technique that I am advocating is that
while in a beginner's wedge, push both knees to the right to turn
right. If the degree of edging of their outside ski is below the
"critical edge angle" they will turn right by a skidded turn. If it
is above this value (unlikely in beginners), they will turn right by
making a carved turn with their outside ski. In either case, they
have learned a movement pattern that will not have to unlearn or
replace as they progress in skiing.

>If an instructor can't help *any* student to progress,
>then he/she isn't much of an instructor.

True

>As such, the
>"terminal intermediate" is more of an excuse than any
>kind of a fact.

The logical connection between this sentence and your previous one
totally escapes me. In fact, reading it again, I don't even know
what you are really trying to say. Are you indirectly trying to
suggest that PSIA has coined this phrase as an "excuse"? If so, that
is a totally and probably willfully inaccurate characterization of
PSIA.

In my experience, "terminal intermediates" usually are people who have
not taken lessons (from anyone) and have not availed themselves of
books, internet discussion groups or any other external source of
information (with the possible exception of well-intentioned friends
with similar learning habits).

>There is no such thing as unlearn. There is only
>building on and adding to what the student already has.

That simply is not true. For example, if a beginning skier has come
to rely on pivoting, braking twists of the skis for speed control,
they will have to "unlearn" their reliance on that technique if they
want to progress to carving. This simply may never happen for someone
who has limited time on the slopes (ie,,most recreational skiers).

Yes, of course it's nice to have both carving and skidded turns in
your bag of tricks, but the quickest way to do this in the opinion of
many in PSIA is not to work on skidding per se first, and then move on
to carving, but rather, to work on basic movements that carry over
with little change as they naturally progress from skidding to
carving.

>No matter *what* or *how* *any* student has learned
>before, if you can not help him or her to progress, then
>you and your system really aren't worth a darn.

Getting a bit ruffled there, aren't you, buddy?

Calm down, try to get back to logical statements, and try not throw up
strawman arguments. Specifically, no one ever said that I or PSIA
can't help someone progress if their previous instruction wasn't to
my/our liking.

What I said was that in the opinion of many, the quickest way to ski
at advanced levels without giving up one iota of fun, on-snow, low
level skiing time (ie, maybe blues by the end of the first day of
lessons) is to start people off with sound fundamentals and their
application to novice skiing, and not go off on a pedagological
tangent that will essentially only be applicable to low level skiing.

>Don't take me wrong here, I'm not trying to hurt
>anyone's feelings, just discuss the point.

You didn't hurt mine, but IMHO, you didn't present your case very
well, either.

One final thing - I have lurked on RSA for some time, and I have seen
the length of your posts when you "get going" on some particular
topic. Unfortunately, the season is about to start, and I have lots
of things to prepare for, so its quite unlikely that I will be able to
respond back point by point to your usual lengthy posts. I would
suggest that if you are interested in learning about the teaching
concepts that I have touched on, you should come to the PSIA Eastern
Pro Jam this year, or, if that is not possible, at least read some of
the current thinking on this subject, e.g.,
http://www.epicski.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001986
..

Even better, why don't you participate in that particular discussion
since its a topic that I know has been of interest to you, namely,
lifting the inside leg in a turn. There are lots of guys over there
who will be able to discuss the pros and cons of such issues to your
heart's content. Some are PSIA, and will advocate "no lifting", other
are PMTS and will be on the other side. They are a very civil bunch,
and I'm sure you will have a good time and have a good interchange.
OTOH, they are also extremely knowledgable and logical, so be prepared
to defend your positions credibly.

[foot2foot]

I appreciate your response. I do want to make one point
above all others. As far as the length of my posts, in
those posts I am usually trying to actually *teach*
someone how to ski in response to some question they
have.

I'm not talking about intellectual banter about technique,
I'm talking about actually trying (and in at least some
cases succeeding) to *teach* someone through text. Try
this yourself if you get a chance, and see how succinctly
you can do it. Or if you can do it.

(nonetheless, this post is turning into being a bit long, but
hey, there's lots of bandwidth to be had right now)

Further points:

1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The decision to try the blues must come from the
students themselves. But half of a given group should
be ready to if they want after two hours of instruction.
To me, it's not about being comfortable, It's about
being challenged, and succeeding after accepting the
challenge. It's not about having fun. It's about learning
to have fun. Too many quit, with the thought that,
"Well, I had fun, but I don't think I'll ever be that
good at it". I ask almost every one I talk to if
they ski, or ever have. I hear that answer a lot.

Your goal must be to get them *skiing*, whatever
that takes. It won't be as much fun as the reward
they get when they struggle to learn, and succeed.

Everything *isn't* "OK, as long as they had fun".
If they don't continue, you have failed. It's expensive.
They have to get their money's worth. They can play
in the snow on the side of the road for free.

You have to get them skiing before they know
what hit them. Learning to ski *isn't* fun. Skiing
is.

If PSIA does one thing to facilitate the speed with
which people learn, they/we will have to lose that
nutty wedge. Also, PSIA needs place a total emphasis
on hand position. A student doesn't spend *one
second* skiing without their hands ahead and
forward. A student is wasting his/her time otherwise.

2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

My impression of the "terminal intermediate" term
has been that it refers to a student that *can't* progress
because of the absolutely *horrible* instruction they
have received. Or the *horrible* "bad habits" (another
thing that doesn't exist) they have developed/been
taught/learned otherwise.

Your own words below verify my construction of
the definition. Basically, a statement that they are
forever handicapped because they weren't taught
"my way" as they started out. Might as well have
cut a leg off or something. No hope there.

The thing about "unlearn" is, to my impression of
it, the utter arrogance implicit in the term. "I" have to
"unteach" what some other lout instructor has screwed
this guy up with. Or what this stupid fool has learned
on his own.

As far as the braking, pivoting maneuvers, the student
doesn't need to "unlearn" these, they will need them
in some circumstances, for instance short swing, or
hockey stop. What they need is to learn something new
to add to the bag of tricks they already have. They need
to refine and diversify the techniques that they already
have. To "unlearn" would mean that the student must
never do this thing again, it is of no use at all, and is
completely non productive in terms of their learning
and/or their skiing.

It is a *negative* statement and a negative point
of view. "Don't do that".

To "unlearn" would also mean that there is only one
way to do it, (*my* way).

There is no such thing. No such thing as unlearn, no
such thing as a bad habit, no such thing as "should".

The whole "unlearn" thing is utterly detrimental
to the progress and improvement of ski instruction.

I've squeezed *a few* further comments in between
yours and my previous, below.

"NE-skier" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 21:54:12 -0800, "foot2foot"
> > wrote:
>
> >"NE-skier" > wrote in message
> >>
> >> There has been a HUGE amount of discussion about this among
> >> instructors. The concensus that has developed is that everyone will
> >> learn skidding and pivoting maneuvers, so that it is hardly necessary
> >> to emphasize these to beginning skiers. OTOH, very few will ever
> >> develop carved turns if left to their own devices. Thus, its better
> >> to push the development of carving and semi-carving (skarving) skills
> >> in developing skiers because at the end of the day, this will actually
> >> leave them with both strong carving and skidding skills. Failing to
> >> emphasize carving early in the skier's development almost always
> >> results in the dreaded, "terminal intermediate" situation.
> >>
> >
> >I would agree with this to a certain extent. However,
> >when this emphasis on carving begins to take
> >precedence over the goal of getting the new (adult)
> >skier up and skiing absolutely as quickly as possible, it
> >only does the student as well as the industry a disservice.
> >
> >Far too many new skiers are giving up out of
> >boredom or a belief that they won't be able to ski,
> >because the instructor has taken too slow a pace in
> >bringing the new skier along. Obviously, they'll
> >learn to skid a lot faster than they will to carve. Even
> >still though, if certain techniques are used, the new
> >skier will learn to carve as well as skid at the same
> >time, and in fact be able to ski blue slopes within a
> >period of two to four hours.
>
> I have no disagreement with what you have said thus far. I am indeed
> advocating techniques which attempt to accomplish exactly what you
> suggest, ie, getting them up the mountain in a couple of hours. OTOH,
> getting everyone onto a blue within that time is not necessarily a
> good idea. As I'm sure you know, there will be many students that
> indeed may have the technical skills by this point, but still will be
> outside their comfort zones, and hence not particularly enjoying
> themselves, not learning well, etc. The "up on a blue" decision must
> be made on an individual student basis.
>
> One example of the sort of technique that I am advocating is that
> while in a beginner's wedge, push both knees to the right to turn
> right. If the degree of edging of their outside ski is below the
> "critical edge angle" they will turn right by a skidded turn. If it
> is above this value (unlikely in beginners), they will turn right by
> making a carved turn with their outside ski. In either case, they
> have learned a movement pattern that will not have to unlearn or
> replace as they progress in skiing.
>

Except that the inside ski will cross the outside? Or they'll
have their body too far to the outside, get too much weight
on the inside ski, then fall? I'll give you one thing though,
they won't have to unlearn it. It'll just take them forever to
learn to ski. Especially if their hands are waving all over.

> >If an instructor can't help *any* student to progress,
> >then he/she isn't much of an instructor.
>
> True
>
> >As such, the
> >"terminal intermediate" is more of an excuse than any
> >kind of a fact.
>
> The logical connection between this sentence and your previous one
> totally escapes me. In fact, reading it again, I don't even know
> what you are really trying to say. Are you indirectly trying to
> suggest that PSIA has coined this phrase as an "excuse"?

I'm not sure "PSIA" coined the phrase. It seems to have
come into common use one way or the other though.

I'm not saying anyone did anything. I'm saying it *is*
an excuse, or a nonfactual justification of a particular
system of teaching. And arrogant at that.

If so, that
> is a totally and probably willfully inaccurate characterization of
> PSIA.

Define "PSIA". "Willfully" would be an interesting elaboration
as well.

> In my experience, "terminal intermediates" usually are people who have
> not taken lessons (from anyone) and have not availed themselves of
> books, internet discussion groups or any other external source of
> information (with the possible exception of well-intentioned friends
> with similar learning habits).

You said that they got this way because they learned to skid first,
not to carve first. Below you describe a "terminal intermediate" as
one who *may never* be able to progress because of the way
they learned earlier. I say (in a friendly, gentlemanly way) that
this is nonsense.


> >There is no such thing as unlearn. There is only
> >building on and adding to what the student already has.
>
> That simply is not true. For example, if a beginning skier has come
> to rely on pivoting, braking twists of the skis for speed control,
> they will have to "unlearn" their reliance on that technique if they
> want to progress to carving. This simply may never happen for someone
> who has limited time on the slopes (ie,,most recreational skiers).

If this never happens, he/she needs another instructor.
There is no such thing as what you describe, convenient as
the representation may be for some purposes, namely to
support one's own point of view about how to teach.

Directly above, you have said that a skier is forever
handicapped because of the previous things/ways they
learned/were taught. There's your definition of
"terminal intermediate". It doesn't exist.

Once again, the skier will need to retain the braking pivots
they already have. They need to learn new skills and
refine the ones they already have. No unlearn.

> Yes, of course it's nice to have both carving and skidded turns in
> your bag of tricks, but the quickest way to do this in the opinion of
> many in PSIA is not to work on skidding per se first, and then move on
> to carving, but rather, to work on basic movements that carry over
> with little change as they naturally progress from skidding to
> carving.

I won't disagree with you there. In fact, to progress rapidly,
a student needs a carved turn, an aggressive turn, strongly
edged. Steering is not enough. Two footed stance is not
enough.

> >No matter *what* or *how* *any* student has learned
> >before, if you can not help him or her to progress, then
> >you and your system really aren't worth a darn.
>
> Getting a bit ruffled there, aren't you, buddy?

You said it yourself. The student "may never" progress
if they haven't been taught in this particular way.
I say if you can't help them progress you might as well
become a kayak instructor or something.


> Calm down, try to get back to logical statements, and try not throw up
> strawman arguments. Specifically, no one ever said that I or PSIA
> can't help someone progress if their previous instruction wasn't to
> my/our liking.

Yes you did. Quote, "simply may never happen". You
are not alone in this common representation.

> What I said was that in the opinion of many, the quickest way to ski
> at advanced levels without giving up one iota of fun, on-snow, low
> level skiing time (ie, maybe blues by the end of the first day of
> lessons) is to start people off with sound fundamentals and their
> application to novice skiing, and not go off on a pedagological
> tangent that will essentially only be applicable to low level skiing.
>
> >Don't take me wrong here, I'm not trying to hurt
> >anyone's feelings, just discuss the point.
>
> You didn't hurt mine, but IMHO, you didn't present your case very
> well, either.

Funny thing, I though I did. Again.

> One final thing - I have lurked on RSA for some time, and I have seen
> the length of your posts when you "get going" on some particular
> topic. Unfortunately, the season is about to start, and I have lots
> of things to prepare for, so its quite unlikely that I will be able to
> respond back point by point to your usual lengthy posts.

Oh well.....

>I would
> suggest that if you are interested in learning about the teaching
> concepts that I have touched on, you should come to the PSIA Eastern
> Pro Jam this year, or, if that is not possible, at least read some of
> the current thinking on this subject, e.g.,
> http://www.epicski.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001986

One day in my life I may get back east. For now I'm
a cowboy. But, trust me, I'll get plenty of opportunity
to learn about the concepts you've touched on, and
already have to at least a bit of an extent.

I appreciate the invitation though.

> Even better, why don't you participate in that particular discussion
> since its a topic that I know has been of interest to you, namely,
> lifting the inside leg in a turn. There are lots of guys over there
> who will be able to discuss the pros and cons of such issues to your
> heart's content. Some are PSIA, and will advocate "no lifting", other
> are PMTS and will be on the other side. They are a very civil bunch,
> and I'm sure you will have a good time and have a good interchange.
> OTOH, they are also extremely knowledgable and logical, so be prepared
> to defend your positions credibly.

Or, why don't some of them come over here?
No one will bite. Despite the rumors.

Well, I will say good luck to you in the things you'll be
working on this year, and thanks for the responses you
did make. I'm also a bit flattered by your mention of
the fact that you've noticed some of my posts. Even
more so that you've absorbed some of the content.
BTW, it isn't just lifting the tail of the inside ski, it's
a whole system. And it isn't Harb's PMTS.
It's Schrittbogen.

But that's another post. Anyway,
Thank you, good luck to you.