|
Post by superbman on Jan 8, 2014 12:10:13 GMT -7
Well, What is it? We have a nice community here that mixes some coaches, expert skiers, instructors and mostly enthusiasts looking to get better (I am in the latter group).
Not great skiing, mind you, but at what point do you describe a friend, compatriot, chum as a 'good skier' when some asks about his or her ability or approach to skiing?
Is it all purely technical? I think of the Myriad of folks I make turns with each week (LivingProof's response to my review of the Occam's Razor got me on this reflective kick), so many and so very different and at least 2/3's of them achieve the 'good' skier rating in my world. From what I have seen, I would describe most folks on this forum as 'good' and even a few as experts.
Cards on the Table, I think of myself as having reached the level of 'good skier' over the last few seasons. I am not great, and I am loathe to even use the word 'expert' in deference and awareness of other actual experts (of which I am not). But I am good, good enough to comfortably follow any crew just about anywhere ('except huge hits because although, I am good, I am also a chicken!). I am good enough to give meaningful ski education to low intermediates (but not experts or even other 'good' skiers). I know what I do well and I am painfully aware of the moves I have yet to master (and stubbornly avoid working on! So sue me).
For me, I look for balance and comfort over some spectrum of the classic 'all terrain all conditions' goal of expert skiing.
How about you? And the why goes with the how and the what.
We'll discuss 'great' and less than good in other threads...
I posted this over on Skier Village, another nice, small community of friendly skiers and enthusiasts (I wouldn't dare post this on Epic and I am pretty sure I know the response in other technique focused forums).
|
|
|
Post by superbman on Jan 8, 2014 12:18:27 GMT -7
oh…you moved it here. Hmmm…I didn't really see this as 'blog worthy' more just general thread discussion worthy...
|
|
|
Post by JimRatliff on Jan 8, 2014 13:06:44 GMT -7
As Liam said, Admin moved this from the General Discussion board to this blog. However, discussion is still enabled and encouraged. The topic just seemed introspective and interesting enough (and not gear or ski specific) to be "blog worthy".
|
|
|
Post by JimRatliff on Jan 8, 2014 13:56:50 GMT -7
The question triggered another question (the real definition of good), and that triggered a Google search "adjective 'good'". www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/good18 examples of the use of the word good came up, the following are some of them: 4. being to one's liking <that band's music is good> or <his skiing is good>. 8. having or showing exceptional knowledge, experience, or skill in a field of endeavor <he's good at math> or <she's a good skier> 10. having the required skills for an acceptable level of performance <that electrician is good at what he does> or <that guy is a good skier> 15. very pleasing to look at <an actress who always looks good on-screen> or <that girls skiing really looks good>. 18. of a level of quality that meets one's needs or standards <the restaurant is good but hardly great> or <Jim ski's good on green slopes but hardly great>. What struck me is what makes an answer difficult. There isn't an objective definition of what good really is -- many of the examples just list areas where good describes a completely subjective assessment. I guess the one I most gravitate to is number 10; having the required skills and ability for an acceptable level of performance. And I would further say the definition of "acceptable" is the skier them-self. A good skier is one who is satisfied with their level of performance. Liam's definition almost mirrors that -- he is satisfed with where and how he is able to ski while still recognizing room for improvement. I wish I were a 15, someone whom others enjoyed watching ski. And I probably too often would say that my criteria is "am I a good PMTS skier" and that is a dramatically different assessment, because it becomes less subjective if you are looking for definitive movement patterns? Just my nickels worth.
|
|
|
Post by superbman on Jan 9, 2014 5:46:00 GMT -7
What got me musing about this topic is an off-handed conversation. I am planning my yearly big mountain trip (a return to Snowbird-Alta in March) with my old ski bud, and I got a few locals to join this year. My old friend, upon hearing I was bringing a new crew asked 'Are they good skiers?' Without pause I said, 'Yeah, they can all ski, they're good.'
Now, what both he was asking and what I was answering wasn't really about an assessment of deeply embedded technique. Instead I was saying, yeah they'll enjoy Snowbird, they ski well-enough to appreciate that hill, hang for the day and make a nice cadre of ski companions for the week. Some of them are truly expert skiers and some are not so strong, but they all passed my muster as 'good.'
But, because I tend to be reflective, I thought I'd explore, via the ski forums I enjoy frequenting, exactly what I meant by 'good.' And is 'good' fairly consistently appreciated. Again, I am not talking great, or even true expert hood, but when someone asks you if another skier is good, or if you are good what do you say? How do you arrive at that?
Of course, this is subjective, but if Foucault is right so everything else. For me, I think it comes down to a few things:
1. Attitude (the more game you are, the more my estimation rises, regardless of technique)
2. Technique does matter, however, it doesn't have to reflect mine, or even the technique of gurus I esteem, but you have to have a fairly decent level of competency in your chosen style and technique. And this is the grayest area of good.
3. As I said before, skier in question has to have a detectable level of Balance and Comfort in Most Terrain/ Most Conditions (ok, I down graded this). They don't have to 'slay all conditions' or even be expert in most conditions, just balanced, comfortable and game--do that, regardless of style or technique, and you are good…maybe not great, or even very good, but good enough to be good.
|
|
|
Post by livingproof on Jan 13, 2014 10:12:46 GMT -7
Liam,
Sadly, personal differences with respect to the topic of what defines good skiing almost killed our forum last season. Sure don't want to,go down that path again. Skiing has a 10 level subjective system that is decent in determining what is competent. I claim to be a 8 at my home mountain, a 7 in Jackson type mountains.
My thinking replaces the word "good" with "competent". Last week the mod team was at Elk on a demo day, and, we all spent a few runs on their most difficult run. We all got down through bumps and some harder snow, some faster than others, some more stylish, I had a moment where I was a little bewildered early in the day. We all enjoyed those runs, but, the trail is sure not as steep as Stowe blacks. A friend who worked for GE told me the initials stand for "good enough" and that has some negative connotations, but, our Elk skiing was good enough.
I think you are on the right track defining your personal criteria to determine a good skier. When skiing with a group, the question may be reduced to a specific person keep up. I know that when I ski with the Epic group, I can't keep up with the best in the most difficult terrain, and, those who barge into that group without the required skills very quickly become a subject of much criticism. I agree that attitude plays a big role in introducing someone to your group, and, we all like people who have can-do attitudes and contribute to the discussion when riding chairs.
What words do we use to describe the skiing of Helluvaskier, Josh and Max?. I sure don't know. High Angles skis a level just below them, and, I don't have some difficulty doing adequate wordsmithing using only common terms. I do respect high level teachers, such as Harald, when they write and share thoughts about movements and techniques to define what is expert, and, have issues with those who state "it's all good".
I wish it were as easy as golf's objective handicap system, although, that has it's issues and is not perfect.
|
|
|
Post by superbman on Jan 13, 2014 17:59:46 GMT -7
LP,
Sure, competent is fine. And, I think from the outset, I made it clear that 'good' was at the minimal end of a long continuum towards excellence (i.e the old Sears catalogue, good, better, best). Where other skiers fall in that continuum is of little concern here, I was just seeing if there was room for a more ecumenical notion of acceptable skiing. Where other people I've never skied with (Josh, Chris, Greg, etc) 'rank' is not remotely the timber of the post. Like I said, site unseen, I suspect most people here meet my basic notions of 'good' skiing. Great, or expert, or professional skiing is a subject for another thread.
Also, I left this as subjective as possible, there's no right answer, only what each of us might mean when we say someone is a good skier, and some thought as to why we say that. And, my personal sense is, that outside of internet forums, most of us might use the word good or competent more loosely. I know I do, and yet, I do mean something when I say someone is good (at any endeavor, I suppose).
Coming back to competency, then, what is competency on skis? What makes you think someone is or isn't achieving a base level of competency? I suspect your notion of competency is on target with my colloquially applied term 'good.' I don't think 'it's all good' either, you know. So, if it's not 'all good' then what is good, or good enough, or competent?? If one thinks it is specifically a technique, than so be it.
|
|
|
Post by HighAngles on Jan 14, 2014 7:17:13 GMT -7
Competent on skis - you can ski the terrain of choice with smooth linked turns of chosen radius (without extended traversed transitions), in balance, and able to maintain your desired speed consistently from top to bottom (you don't end up going faster and faster until you have to stop). Key Characteristics:- Control Speed
- Dictate Turn Shape
- Maintain Balance
What you see in really good skiers is the ability to descend a slope using turns all of the exact same size and traveling at the same consistent speed all the way to the bottom. When I see that I know I'm looking at a skier with skills. What you see in great skiers is that same ability on any terrain in any condition - that's Harald; nothing fazes Harald and he can ski down anything as slowly or as quickly as he chooses without using extended traversing between his turns.
|
|
|
Post by perry on Jan 14, 2014 11:53:30 GMT -7
Competent on skis - you can ski the terrain of choice with smooth linked turns of chosen radius (without extended traversed transitions), in balance, and able to maintain your desired speed consistently from top to bottom (you don't end up going faster and faster until you have to stop). Key Characteristics:- Control Speed
- Dictate Turn Shape
- Maintain Balance
What you see in really good skiers is the ability to descend a slope using turns all of the exact same size and traveling at the same consistent speed all the way to the bottom. When I see that I know I'm looking at a skier with skills. What you see in great skiers is that same ability on any terrain in any condition - that's Harald; nothing fazes Harald and he can ski down anything as slowly or as quickly as he chooses without using extended traversing between his turns. These are well thought out and ring true to me. For a ski trip, it also gets into personalities. Are people flexable, and realistic about their abilities or are they compelled to push it and make themselves and everyone else uncomfortable; feel like every decision has to go their way etc. In golf - there are great golfers I don't like to play with (slow or constantly angry) and real hackers that I enjoy being with (don't feel compelled to find every ball and know when to pick up and still have a good time)
|
|
|
Post by superbman on Jan 14, 2014 12:20:17 GMT -7
Competent on skis - you can ski the terrain of choice with smooth linked turns of chosen radius (without extended traversed transitions), in balance, and able to maintain your desired speed consistently from top to bottom (you don't end up going faster and faster until you have to stop). Key Characteristics:- Control Speed
- Dictate Turn Shape
- Maintain Balance
What you see in really good skiers is the ability to descend a slope using turns all of the exact same size and traveling at the same consistent speed all the way to the bottom. When I see that I know I'm looking at a skier with skills. What you see in great skiers is that same ability on any terrain in any condition - that's Harald; nothing fazes Harald and he can ski down anything as slowly or as quickly as he chooses without using extended traversing between his turns. That sounds right to me. Linked turns of chosen radius and speed, in balance-no unwanted acceleration to a critical max and no traversing to control speed either. That gives out a good technical scope. And I think I like your proposed continuum from good to great (ala Harald).
|
|