critiqued by a ski instructor...wigglers unite!

[jack97]

Every now and then I see old school wigglers up at Wachusetts. If they are enjoying themselves, all the power to them. Having said that, IMO, the ski and boots are tools to control your decent down the mountain; be it through the woods, up/down the bumps or carving it down a groomer. Like any tool, I believe that there are proper techniques to use when skiing so that movements are efficient, puts you in control and with enuf time will take you to another level of proficiency.

 

[BushMogulMaster]

Now I hear my skis clanging together all the time and the tips on my Cabrawlers (bump skis) are already starting to wear, after only 2 days on them.

That's what I like to hear, Greg! Keep it up, and you won't have any tips left! Mine are a mess with 118 or so days on them. Guess it's time to mount up the new ones. But I'm holding out til I find some P12s. I will wait as long as I need to (or until my current brawlers delaminate or something awful like that).

 

[Greg]

One interesting observation I read once about stance (I'm sorry; I don't remember the context) was this: think about the width of your stance when you're simply walking. It turns out your feet stay pretty close together; probably closer than you might think. Get up and try it. Now try walking with a shoulder width stance and it's going to look like you just crapped a load in your pants. If a stance that tight works while walking, why shouldn't it while skiing?

Now obviously throw in things like ski angulation and whatnot, and making carving-type turns inherently requires a wider stance. However, a tight stance is obviously a pretty balanced platform which might explain in part why it works so well in the bumps or when making short radius turns.

 

[sledhaulingmedic]

Too funny. :lol:

Glad someone got it!

 

[tmcc71]

greg's right.

I tried walking with a wide stance as suggested by my friend. It felt unnatural like a Frankenstein walk. I never realized how close our normal walking or jogging stance was. My feet practically touch where those funny bones protrude. I guess there is something to be sais about conditions and speed dictating stance. I noticed tonight my stance widened slightly in crud and at speed. Not shoulder width, but slightly wider than my usual. This is definitely an interesting subject to mull over.

 

[sledhaulingmedic]

OK: Try walking at a 30 degree angle. Where's your stance at now...?

 

[snoseek]

OK: Try walking at a 30 degree angle. Where's your stance at now...?

good point.

 

[riverc0il]

Technique needs to vary based on terrain and conditions if you want to maximize performance. Not saying any one has to ski with a certain technique, but certain techniques have been proven to make turning and skiing both more easy and more enjoyable when done correctly. Feet together is a must do in the bumps but you will not max out your ability or potential enjoyment of carving with feet together. Powder? Sometimes feet together, but often not, depending on conditions.

The walking comparison really does not hold water unless you are comparing to flat land cross country skiing, as sled pointed out with the 30 degree comment. Sports players always use athletic stances, think of ready positions for baseball, football, hockey, tennis, etc. Sports that require quick bursts of speed in a variety of directions, especially lateral, generally have "home" positions with a shoulder width stance. But this doesn't work in bumps, of course. So it is all about adjusting for terrain and conditions.

People can ski any way they like and have fun, no argument there. But there certainly are better and more fun approaches for certain types of terrain and conditions. Doesn't mean people have to adjust their technique, but doing so will probably be beneficial and add a technique component to your package.

 

[ckofer]

I have a neighbor who I guess would be called a wiggler. He's very strong on the mountain too-one of the better skiers you'll see. He claims he can't really feel the difference on his new skis vs his old straight skis. In other words, he never really carves.

I ski on Metrons. As I have been working on my bump style, I've realized that my old skis (Salomon Equipe 9s) would have done me just as well there. On the days, however, when I can find a fairly empty, groomed trail, I find a whole different pleasure in opening my stance and rolling the skis into their natural radius. True carving=no skidding. I'll bet my skis are more than shoulder width on some turns and the sensation is more or less like ripping arcs on a snowboard.

Now I can see why an instructor may choose to teach this to novices and intermediates. You develop solid turning and stopping skills. I'll bet I'm not the only one here who was taught snow plow > stem christie > etc. I think the new technique moves people to parallel much faster than that. I believe that beginners should be on snowblades. You learn hockey stops right away and where your weight should be.

After you've got control of your skis, whatever technique makes you happy is right.

 

[Greg]

OK: Try walking at a 30 degree angle. Where's your stance at now...?

Good point. For me, an overall narrower stance works better. I'm able to absorb small undulations in the terrain with both skis, as a single skiing "platform", rather than having one skis drop lower as the other walks higher on the uneven terrain. On the steeper pitches, my stance does widen out quite a bit though.

 

[sledhaulingmedic]

Good point. For me, an overall narrower stance works better. I'm able to absorb small undulations in the terrain with both skis, as a single skiing "platform", rather than having one skis drop lower as the other walks higher on the uneven terrain. On the steeper pitches, my stance does widen out quite a bit though.

Now, with that said, once you crank (angulate) a turn on something steeper, your feet are further apart, but are they really that much wider apart? Actually, not that much.

 

[jack97]

Now, with that said, once you crank (angulate) a turn on something steeper, your feet are further apart, but are they really that much wider apart? Actually, not that much.

True dat. Knees are held close but the ski edge and foot are further apart due to the altitude split.

 

[jack97]

Too funny. :lol:

Glad someone got it!

I got it but that incident was disturbing.... did he get indicted?

 

[billski]

I have a neighbor who I guess would be called a wiggler. He's very strong on the mountain too-one of the better skiers you'll see. He claims he can't really feel the difference on his new skis vs his old straight skis. In other words, he never really carves.

I ski on Metrons. As I have been working on my bump style, I've realized that my old skis (Salomon Equipe 9s) would have done me just as well there. On the days, however, when I can find a fairly empty, groomed trail, I find a whole different pleasure in opening my stance and rolling the skis into their natural radius. True carving=no skidding. I'll bet my skis are more than shoulder width on some turns and the sensation is more or less like ripping arcs on a snowboard.

Now I can see why an instructor may choose to teach this to novices and intermediates. You develop solid turning and stopping skills. I'll bet I'm not the only one here who was taught snow plow > stem christie > etc. I think the new technique moves people to parallel much faster than that. I believe that beginners should be on snowblades. You learn hockey stops right away and where your weight should be.

After you've got control of your skis, whatever technique makes you happy is right.

I wish I was as flexible as Goofy.:dunce:

 

[sledhaulingmedic]

I got it but that incident was disturbing.... did he get indicted?

Even though I brought it up, I'll stay clear of the politics. I often stretch the limits of good taste for comedic incentive. End of hijack. back to our original thread, already in progress.

I've never been able to ski moguls with anything but a skid, or seeded moguls on a relatively flat slope with a (mostly) carved turn. I would have to believe to win mogul competitions that you'd have to carve the turns to keep your speed up and win. (Just my opinion. That, and 5.75 can get you a coffee at (Star)bucks.)

 

[tjf67]

Master both ways and you can ski anywhere.

 

[jack97]

Even though I brought it up, I'll stay clear of the politics. I often stretch the limits of good taste for comedic incentive.

No worries sled, even my wife and daughter were cracking jokes about it and all the re-creation vid on utube was funny. The fact that he said he did nothing wrong and he might still hold his seat (no pun) is disturbing.

I've never been able to ski moguls with anything but a skid, or seeded moguls on a relatively flat slope with a (mostly) carved turn. I would have to believe to win mogul competitions that you'd have to carve the turns to keep your speed up and win. (Just my opinion. That, and 5.75 can get you a coffee at (Star)bucks.)

In the moguls or more likely baby bumps, you have the time to set up and hold a gs carve. When the bumps are in tight formation and the troughs are deeper then you have to rely on another type of carve.... it's using the front part of the ski edge to control the line and the descent.

 

[jaywbigred]

My two cents (caveat: there is no wrong way if you are having fun and not hurting yourself!)

1.) Stem christie and related wiggling techniques evolved in the pre-shaped ski era (heck, in the pre-modern materials era) when bending a ski to carve a turn was nearly impossible. Even after the advent of synthetic materials being used in the ski making process, most skiers did not have enough strength to bend the ski to a true carve. Thus, the ruling techniques taught skiers to gain maximum control mosty via a skidded turn.

2.) Shaped skis changed a lot, allowing mere mortals to basically turn a ski on its edge and feel the thrill of a carved turn and the ensuing (albeit light) g-force in their belly.

3.) This resulted in wider stances becoming more of the norm, mostly because a wider stance is more stable at speed, and the new technology now allows more people to ski faster but remain in control (the out-of-control knuckleheads at every resort on weekends notwithstanding).

4.) At lower speeds, a narrower stance actually produces more control, probably because it gives the skier more surface area with which to work (i.e. create a coefficient of friction). This applies in bumps, in the trees, on icy terrain, and in powder, where the increased surface area leads to more float (pow)/more ability to check speed (trees bumps).

5.) But as you increase speed, a skier needs more edge to continue to provide himself with a sufficent coefficient of friction to stay in control. He could keep his feet together and still do this, yes; if he has amazing balance, he might be fine; but most people would wind up toppling over at some point (put your feet together while sitting and angle them hard; or just picture a capital "T"). However, if you widen the stance sufficiently, this allows the skier to primarily devote one edge (downhill) to creating the coefficient of friction (i.e., do most of the edging) while the other ski hold his weight upright (i.e. provides stability). You can learn a lot by watching a disabled skier with one leg, in this regard. Ever wonder why disabled skiers have that little ski on the end of each "pole" ? that ski is serving as a sort of outrigger, in place of the uphill ski, to serve as support while the leg does the carving. A person who choose to ski at high speed, with a very narrow stance, while carving, is akin to a disabled skier choosing to ski without an outrigger for support.

Anyway, i guess that is more than 2 cents worth; also, let me couch what I am saying with a disclaimer: I am repeating what a ski instructor taught me 7 years ago when I was learning to become a ski instructor during college. Also, he was graduate student in physics. Also, I was not. Also, my stint as a ski instructor barely lasted 1 season. Also, it has been sitting in my head for 7 years, so who knows how straight I've got it.

Anyway, ski whatever way is most fun for you, so long as it doesn't interfere with other people doing the same. That is the "best" technique.

 

[mattchuck2]

. . .
4.) At lower speeds, a narrower stance actually produces more control, probably because it gives the skier more surface area with which to work (i.e. create a coefficient of friction). This applies in bumps, in the trees, on icy terrain, and in powder, where the increased surface area leads to more float (pow)/more ability to check speed (trees bumps).

5.) But as you increase speed, a skier needs more edge to continue to provide himself with a sufficent coefficient of friction to stay in control. He could keep his feet together and still do this, yes; if he has amazing balance, he might be fine; but most people would wind up toppling over at some point (put your feet together while sitting and angle them hard; or just picture a capital "T"). However, if you widen the stance sufficiently, this allows the skier to primarily devote one edge (downhill) to creating the coefficient of friction (i.e., do most of the edging) while the other ski hold his weight upright (i.e. provides stability). . .

Yeah, you're going in the right direction, but your physics seem a little iffy. I would imagine that the coefficient of friction has less to do with stance width than does the centrifugal/centripetal forces that you would have to manage (where a wide stance would be more beneficial for stability at speed). But, like you, I'm no physics expert.

The important thing to this discussion, however, is that wiggling is kind of a vague term. Are you people wiggling like a professional bump skier? Or are you wiggling like Backseat Jesus in Wanderland?

A narrow stance is good for a variety of reasons. In bumps, I like to use a narrow stance so I don't get caught in awkward positions with one foot in a trough and one foot on top of a bump. In powder, it's usually better to cruise around on something like one giant plank, so a narrow stance is good here, too (unless you have Fat skis, in which case you can have a wider stance - i.e. Jeremy Nobis on Alaskan Peaks in countless TGR movies). In trees, it's usually better to have a narrow stance because, in addition to there being bumps and powder in the trees, it's harder to straddle a birch when your skis are close together.

A narrow stance is good for any kind of conditions where there is more of a rotary move in your turn (bumps, trees, powder). A wider stance is good for conditions where the turns have more of an edge component to them - huge carved GS-Super G turns across the entire trail, for example.

It's exceedingly difficult to carve short turns through "wiggling". What most of you are probably doing is sliding your tails out and skidding your turns (In fact, as an experiment, stand up and try to slide your heels out while keeping your toes still. That ass-wagging that you're doing is what people are seeing if you ski this way). There's nothing really wrong with that, just don't confuse this type of turn with a perfectly carved turn (where your tails follow your tips, and you could look back and see two distinct railroad tracks in the snow). Most ski instructors would prefer that you "scarve" your turns in bumps, which is sort of a halfway point between skidding and carving - allowing you to get more rebound and energy from your skis, but still letting you add as much skid as you need to control speed and line.

I usually adapt my stance for the situation . . . If I'm ripping groomers, I never have a narrow stance. I'm always on edge, and always carving big turns. But when I'm in the bumps or trees, I'll tighten my stance to deal with the conditions. But even with the tight stance, I wouldn't call myself a wiggler.

I've found that the PSIA teaching style is much about "their way", and less about really functional skiing. Ask a PSIA instructor about how to ski bumps, they don't have an answer. Ask about crud, or pow. Prolly same deal. How to rip corduroy on shaped skis? They have the answer.

I didn't quite realize just how narrow the PSIA aproach is until talking with several instructors and then taking a lesson at a non-PSIA ski school (Snow King, WY).

PSIA is not the only way.

First of all, almost every ski school in the country has both PSIA and non-PSIA people working for them (I bet several people at Snow King are PSIA certified, maybe even the people you took lessons from). Second of all, there are people in PSIA who are experts in every type of terrain imaginable (including powder, crud, park, pipe, and bumps). If you don't believe me, go to Mammoth Mountain at the end of April/early May, when they will be having Tryout for the PSIA National Team. Tell those guys that they don't know how to teach.

 

[KevinF]

4.) At lower speeds, a narrower stance actually produces more control, probably because it gives the skier more surface area with which to work (i.e. create a coefficient of friction). This applies in bumps, in the trees, on icy terrain, and in powder, where the increased surface area leads to more float (pow)/more ability to check speed (trees bumps).

I don't know where the "increased surface area" concept is coming from. Two skis have the same amount of area no matter where they're held. The concept of holding them closer together in powder / bumps is to ensure a consistency of snow underneath both feet. The friction of your ski bases (assuming they've been waxed) is, for all intents and purposes, zero.

5.) if you widen the stance sufficiently, this allows the skier to primarily devote one edge (downhill) to creating the coefficient of friction (i.e., do most of the edging) while the other ski hold his weight upright (i.e. provides stability).

I maintain that anybody who can lay way over into a carved turn has (or at least could very easily) pick the inside ski right up off the ground anytime they felt like it. Saying your inside ski is "holding your weight" is, IMHO, wrong. The only time my weight falls onto my inside ski is when I've just made some really big mistake.