Question about skiing technique and its value

bdarb207

bdarb207

Active member
So i was hangin' out with my buddy last night and he tells me that this winter while instructing at Sunday River he met Glenn Plake. Super chill guy, whatever. So his wife was taking her PSIA level 3's. Long story short the tester ends up failing her because she initiates her turns from her hips or some crap. It just made me chuckle because this woman is a worldclass skier who has ripped everything with Glenn around the world and was twice the skier of the instructor lol.

I was just wondering what everyone thought about this. To me, I see skiing as an evolving sport that incorporates uniqueness and creativity. If this guy cant ski as good as her who is he to tell her how she skis is wrong? Are techniques becoming antiquated similarly to tricks or is there a "right" way to ski period (for the record i think in most instances probably not)

whatchathink?
 
i think that if you can comfortably navigate the mountain while being in control and not giving yourself shinbang or something like that, then you're doing it right. that being said, i suck at actually skiing but i've been getting better.
 
Just watch Adam Delorme or Thovex ski fuck everyone else.

I have a roommate that thinks polls ONLY can be measured properly by holding them upside down and them making a 90 degree angle with your arm. The same shit that a PSIA or some other jerk off would insist is the only right way to find a pole that fits you. I tried explaining to him that its about personal comfort and having poles that are four feet tall just isn't the best for park, or even skiing for that matter but its all about what someone else told him is right.

Skiing is fucked because this mentality is going to be mainlined into our blood over the next few years and I'm going to need some gay PSIA certification to teach at kid how to slide a rail at Hood. The best part is whoever is going to be teaching the certifications is going to hardly be able to hit a rail, or do a backflip yet they will still be telling us if we are qualified do teach it or even do it.
 
It amazes that people start off by skiing park these days and can't ski other shit. Mind boggling really.

(by the way this isn't a shot at you mastasheff because hey you're working at it and i'm positive there are people worse)
 
exactly, my freind who is an amazing freeskier, could not coach his local hill team, because he was not qualified, seems like it wouldnt matter where i live though...
 
haha yeah i realize it's not the best but i came from rollerblading, so park, or at least trails that have tons of things to pop/drop off of are the only things that interest me. and even though i only do park i can still get down the mountain better than half the kids at my school who have been skiing forever and this was only my 3rd season
 
I will never get psia certified. Being surrounded all winter long by the psia mentality at my job is suffocating. Their view is, in order to teach skiing you need to break down and understand every single aspect of flexing, extending, balance, rotary, and pressure. Completely dissecting EVERY FUCKING movement in their "open parallel / Dynamic parallel".

Level 3 is the most intense as far as breaking movements down. I ski and teach with these people, and i swear that analyzing every fucking turn has drained the love of skiing from them. A lot of places being certified is required for upper levels and like mentioned above, some park. I feel bad for you guys, but you have no choice in order to teach.

Anyways just because you can rip big Mtn lines, ski steeps, and trees with ease doesn't mean that you will pass you're level 3 psia(which is broken down into parts). Every fucking movement is meticulously broken down and examined and this is the reason why i steer clear of it.

**spark notes - I hate psia. sorry for the rant
 
PSIA has its place in the ski industry because standards need to be set for instructors across the nation. Level 1 PSIA is cake, I don't have mine bc i would never ever be an instructor, but anyways, if you are level 2-3 your are doin some studying and practicing for sure. I think that PSIA requirements at a mountain for their instructors is a great thing because these are the people teaching fundamentals. Ok sure they can't ballerina spin 13495968 a rail, but they know how a ski works and how to effectively use it which is necessary for teaching skiing skills.

Without PSIA you would have every dipshit wiggle ass feet together skier teaching lessons and ruining people's skiing life. Just like any instruction structure there are standards and required skills and PSIA develops these to ensure ski instructors are teaching people form and technique that is a foundation for any type of skiing

 
That being said, If you can hold your edges and actually carve a turn, I dont care what you look like or technique you use, but it is basically impossible to keep a ski on edge throughout the entire turn without some form of standardized technique or skill. Also, a carved turn is not any turn that isnt pizza and french fries like some believe.
 
this. kids here dont realise that while they like to be free and not have any standardised technique, guess what?! some people do!

i was training for my csia 3s this season but didnt go for them, one reason why i didnt go for them was im not sure if my flextion/extention is proportionate enough through phase 3 of the turn in moguls or short turns, also i tend throw my hip inside to generate more separation and angulation in long turns, but oh well :)
 
My friend got his level 3 first try this winter. He was quite stoked. The head of ski school at our hill also took the course (he's a snowboarder first, skier second). He passed the skiing part, but failed the teaching part - which we all found very hilarious, 'cause you know... he's the head of ski school.

 
Not sure about PSIA but CSIA, it depends on the course instructor. There needs to be a standard and when I did my level 1 we could all do the drills, however they needed to be PERFECT to do a good demo.

All Olympic coaches are not as good as the people that they teach. It requires a knowledge and a good eye, not being a better athlete.
 
You're right there does need to be a standard for teaching fundamentals of skiing. For the sole purpose of keeping all teachers on the same page. without a standard every single instructor would have their own little spin off on teaching methods. You'd have different criteria for learning all across the nation.

The problem i have with it is that i have close friends that were turned away from the pure fun of skiing because they dedicated years to reaching that level 3. It was no longer about enjoying a simple "run", but rather thinking about every turn on the way down.

Also some resorts push for you to get your level 1-2 for teaching "never ever" beginner children. I'm sorry, getting cert to teach a 7 year old to pizza and then pick them up off the snow is a little over the top. Young kids don't understand "opening your ankle" "moving your hips into the new turn".

 
I totally agree with you here. I personally would never try to get any more than a level 2 if i needed it for something. I think level 3 is a bit useless for actually teaching paying customers, but level 3 is more fit for instructors teaching other instructors.

As for teaching never evers i think an instructor needs to understand what they are teaching and why they are teaching that way and must be good with kids but not much else, and a cert is not necessary. And this is another problem I see with PSIA. They want instructors to teach 'ankle felxing and using your hips and knee angulation to initiate your turn' and explain it scientifically and physiologically when all they are really doing is confusing the shit out of the person they are teaching.
 
At least in the CSIA course I did this season, the course instructors kept stressing the need to teach and explain in a simple way, never going deep into the physics of skiing unless the client requires it or really needs it cause he sucks at skiing.

I think learning technique is good cause it teaches you to adapt to terrain efficiently. I waste less energy therefore enjoy it more.
 
lvl3 is for assessing and developing people of our standard (other lvl 3 candidate) and level 4 just goes into a shit ton of detail and teaching teachers, the terminolgy might not be appropriate for the client but a good instructor can communicatee small techy details in a way a client would understand, plus the higher your cert the better you are at assessing and therefore developing.

as for needing certs for teaching beginners, we need a basic understanding of the skills involved in skiing and thats kinda what level 1 is for
 
sorry dub post but, this, i trained alot on my turning skis this season (70 underfoot) and now i can rip them in the deepest of pow, so when i out on the big sticks i get so much more out of it
 
Yea I took my level 1 this year, just to kind of get a feel for how my technique was. I find it so awkward some of the things they teach you but learning to ski off the groomers without using your hips at all just makes shredding so much smoother sometimes. And yea I did all of last season on some rossy b2 bandits 78underfoot. Learnd to rip the pow and hit some decent 20 foot drops makes having the fat skis so much more fun and smooth.
 
I agree and don't agree. If you ski the "right" way. Leaning forward into your boots. Hips forward. Your gonna be a ton better then that kid thAt thinks you ski with your ass on your tails. You charge harder and have control the right way. But there shouldn't be such a strict national policy. I learned from coaches that are amazing skiers. But not level 3 certified. Do I care? No. Ipthey thought me more then some dude blabbing about flexing and extending or something I won't understand. I also Can actually understand what my coaches are saying. Unlike the other dudes. There is a right way to ski. But it isn't set in stone.
 
i understand the need for the csia or psia in the skiing community. there HAS to be a standard for teaching although sometimes it's stupid. i ski raced for ten years and almost failed the snow plow section on my csia level one because apparently i sucked at it. that being said, thanks to ski racing i kicked ass at the rest. i think technique is crucial to good skiing. look at jon olsson. he's an inovator in the free ski community but still kicks ass on the race course. there is only one explenation for this. flawless technical fundementals at the root of his skiing. ted ligety is another great example of a great skier with great technique. one of the best technical racers on the planet while still shredding AK super hard. on the other hand though, great text book ski racing technique usually makes people suck at rails, as the two are practically opposited imo.
 
it's pretty big bullshit, then again if you're such a good skier, you'll probably be able to ski any style you want, skiing 1 week the way instructors like to see it is a necessary evil, once you have the degree/certificate you can ski however the fuck you want ...

 
PSIA is not a qualification of how good of a skier you are. If mrs. Plake doesn't ski with modern ski technique, in the way that is smoothest, easiest, and should be taught, then she does not deserve her level 3 certification. There are plenty of people with unorthodox ski techniques that rip harder than you of me, and we should not be taught to ski like them. If it works for you it works for you, but it will not work for the greater population. The techniques that PSIA uses are what will work, or some adaptation of will work, and it's much easier to work from their standards and adapt to yourself, that adapt someone else's skiing technique back through the PSIA standard to yourself.
 
Then i Guess my question to you is do skiing techniques change or become outdatted.Especially with the advent of new ski designs nearly every year. Id be interested to learn how often they update things or what their qualifications for adapting new methods are because it is certainly an evolving sport. People are not skiing straight skis the way they ski shape skis or any other number of innovations in the last decade.

I totally agree with you btw that the wrong way can work for some people but there must be a "right" way to teach or else it would be chaos. Like I said before, I wonder how hard it is to get a new appropriate skiing technique to teach on the books.
 
The Beauty of Skiing is there are no rules. Just do what makes you happy.
 
True, but don't forget that in order to maintain that certification you have to dish out additional cash to go to the necessary "psia clinics". It's not like once you have it, it's all done and over with. I think you need to clinic at least once every 2 years or something.

Quoting bdarb802

from April 29 2012: 12:15:

do skiing techniques change or become outdatted.Especially with the advent of new ski designs nearly every year. Id be interested to learn how often they update things or what their qualifications for adapting new methods are because it is certainly an evolving sport.

/images/flash_video_placeholder.png

I'm pretty sure criteria for psia have stayed pretty consistant over time even with shaped skis making their debut, but someone with more info can chime in. Psia for park is fairly new obviously, so that's a recent installment (whatever the name is). It would be interesting reading through
 
i have my psia level 1 and i will be going for my level 2 next season. although i have mixed feelings about psia i definitely think it has its place in the ski industry. psia tries to teach you how to use your equipment most effectively and efficiently. as equipment evolves, so does psia's approach to teaching skiing. i'll admit that some of the examiners can be huuuuuge douche bags but the bottom line is that psia will make you a better skier. i'm not saying that you have to ski like an old man all the time but understanding why psia encourages you to ski a certain way will make you a better skier. also, the organization has been trying to keep up with the growing park/freestyle scene by offering specializations in these areas. i'm planning on getting my park 2 cert after i complete my level 2. bottom line...if you plan on working in the ski industry as an instructor for any extended period of time you should probably get down with psia or the equivalent where you happen to live. it is going to make you a better skier, a better instructor, and it is going to open a lot of doors with regard to which mountains hire you and what types of classes you will be teaching. and regarding plakes's wife not passing her level 3...totally not surprised. most people fail their level 3 a number of times. i bet that if you were to require 50 of the top pros in the world to take their level 3 that most of them would fail.
 
Yes, skiing techniques definitely do change, and it has been difficult for PSIA to keep up with a lot of it. I can promise you though, that Kimberly Plake's technique is not some new way of skiing new skis, it is an old way of skiing old skis that she has adapted for new skis.

My dad is a high-level PSIA instructor, working to become an examiner, who are the people who teach the teachers, and when it's time, judge them to see if they are able to be qualified for the next level, and he tells me a lot about the troubles with finding that common "modern ski technique" these days. The real problem is that there are so many different kinds of skiing and skis that it's hard to match everything to one standard. Someone may ski a perfect carved arc on a World Cup GS ski, and they should be teaching that technique to others looking to make GS carves, and there may be someone skiing perfectly on a center-mounted, full rocker ski, who should be teaching that type of skiing to other people, and I guarantee that those two will not ski exactly alike, and match the same standard. PSIA is trying to pretty much overhaul right now and make room for all of the differences in ski techniques currently. Mind you, that means the right techniques for the right skiing, not flawed or "different" techniques.
 
but regardless of variations in skis, fundamentally all of the movements should be the same. i haven't really heard much talk about teaching different techniques for different equipment. for example, whether you are on a gs ski or a powder board you are still going to initiate your turn by releasing your edges simultaneously. back in the day when skis were long and straight and much harder to turn there was a different technique. and actually different countries had very different approaches...there was a swiss style, french style, american style, etc. now there is pretty much a universal standard, albeit some debate. watch any modern world cup skiers and you will see that they all look pretty much identical.

 
You're right that the general idea of what the skis should be doing is the same, but the way in which you work the skis is different, meaning different motions.
 
according to psia this shouldn't be the case...one of the big reasons why people dislike psia. a lot of people argue that they change their technique to suit different skis or different conditions (which i totally understand) but psia says this is wrong. for example, i have a tendency to narrow my stance when i'm skiing powder, crud, or bumps because for me this feels more comfortable. psia says that i should never vary the distance between my skis because there is only one completely balanced athletic stance...which is true. they would also argue that by narrowing my stance i inhibit my ability to execute other manuevers like steering my skis...which is also true. that being said, i still like to ski with a narrow stance in powder, crud, and bumps because it feels better to me, even though it is technically wrong.
 
This is something that has been frustrating me for quite a while, I've worked 4 season in Canada and just about to head to my 3rd season in New Zealand. Don't want to brag but I slay park, big mountain, bumps and pretty quick down a race course. I've failed my CSIA level 3 three times now mostly because I don't agree with how they teach.

Nobody learns from having ridiculous amounts of technical nonsense thrown at them, whether it is a beginer learning a wedge turn, dropping a cliff, a 450 out of a rail or a cork 7 the best way to teach it is by giving a clear simple focus that the client/Athlete can visualize first and follow a natural progression.

The CSIA, PSIA, NZSIA, BASI etc are excellent at lower levels fo teaching beginer through to intermediate.

The problems start after that, in the CSIA at least level 3 and 4 is all about on piste skiing. Half the Levels 4 I know literally never ski off a groomed run, I'm not saying all of them are like this as some are exceptional skiers in all aspects of skiing. The CSIA needs to open their eyes and realise that carving on piste is only a small aspect of skiing.
 
Well you sound like you know PSIA a little better than I do, but from what I have heard, they are in the middle of changing that, realizing that someone is going to ski a 125mm waisted powder board at least a little differently than they would ski a World Cup Slalom ski, and that people may show up to their examinations on both, and should be allowed to ski on both, and not necessarily be expected to meet the same exact skiing standard.
 
i definitely agree with what you are saying...but i doubt psia will really make many changes when it comes to allowing variations in technique when they are trying to create a standard. it sort of goes against everything they stand for. this is why a lot of really good skiers hate psia...they discourage style and creativity until after you have mastered all of your manuevers and can ski technicaly proficient. psia is certainly evolving and becoming a bit more friendly, but they still exist to set a standard for skiing which doesn't leave much room for variation. could you imagine how subjective exams would become if one guys is allowed to have a different technique because he is on some specialized ski? the whole thing would go to shit.
 
I'm CSIA certified, and what we were taught is that every instructor should be on the same page, teaching the same simple fundamentals. The idea is to teach the basics so that the student has a solid base to develop their individual style off of and keep those basics consistent no matter where they take thier next lesson.

I think it makes sense, backseat sliding with your hands touching your tails isn't style, it's bad skiing. Teach kids to feel the front of their boots, keep thier hands in front, angulate a little etc. because physically that's how the best skiers ski, then let them find the little things that work as they dial it in and you're bound to end up with a decent skier.

That said, that's CSIA. PSIA sounds a little more like a bunch of old jackasses. And as I understand it it's not a mandatory nationwide standard? Which would make it a lot less useful.

 
One thing that definately annoys me is most ski instructors who don't know what they are talking about go on and on about weight on the front of the boots, this is just a throwback to when boot technology was not as good. A better way to explain to people would be to tell them to feel even pressure on the front and back of the boots and then pull their toes up which engages the tibialis anterior (muscle on front of shin). Nothing looks worse than somebody glued to the front of the boot trying too hard to get that "perfect turn"
 
is a csia certification mandatory to work in canada? from what i understand psia certs are not really viewed as all that significant abroad.
 
Yes it's mandatory to have a certification for almost all ski hills in Canada. It has also helped me get work abroad. I just wish it wasn't so Gay. Racing is a mandatory part of the level 4 and the closest they have to any freestyle or freeride is a bumps run.
 
Yeah, fuck knowing the fundamental elements of skiing! Let's just everyone grab a tall t and ride our tails all over the hill!

Being 'free' and 'individual' are usually the traits of someone who can't ski very well.

Don't get me wrong, once you are a good skier and you can start playing around and getting creative. But you kind of have to learn how to ski before you start getting snazzy.
 
Some many people make fun of kids who don't have "proper" ski technique on here. Although there are definitely better ways to ski, such as keeping your skis parallel and that kind of stuff, there is no "proper" technique. There is a generally accepted technique that has been socially defined as "proper" but nobody necessarily has to follow that to be a good skier. In my opinion at least. Little back seat? No problem.

I do acknowledge that some people can't make turns or people who's skis go really wide and clumsy style when they turn because they've never taken a lap outside the park or whatever reason. Being a shitty skier and trying to say that "proper technique" is dumb and you refuse to be defined or limited by it is stupid. And different.

You see old people do super old school style with the huge pole plants and very separated upper and lower body and all that. Then I go down and make long arc turns, skis close and parallel with very few or no pole plants and a very different and relaxed body style. What I refer to as distinctly newschooler, or park skier style. Old people probably say I can't ski right cause I don't ski like I'm doing bumps on the whole hill or do crazy lunging pole plants.

 
Level 3 is pretty high ranking, they ski a certain way and if you don't meet the qualifications you shouldn't get you're level 3. Tons of people with bad technique can rip the mountain up and, honestly it doenst matter how u do it. But if you're going to be teaching skiing you should know and be able to ski the proper way, i would hate to pay for a private lesson from a level 3 instructor who wasnt at that caliber. A level 3 is pretty up there and is a respected title for a reason. /thread
 
Definitely. Theres a better way of doing stuff, and theres an improper way of doing stuff. Variations on the proper technique are often called bad, but they accomplish pretty much the same thing. You don't see timmy wam wallsticks pole plant while he's carving down a slopestyle course and he's a pretty damn good skier.

Take longboard racing. You don't see anybody going down the hill standing up straight with their arms out. That's un-aerodynamic. They all crouch, and as long as you're crouched, somewhat aerodynamic and don't fall off I'd say your technique is fine. Obviously there are slightly more aero ways to tuck, but the differences are minute and arguing over which technique is better is pointless.
 
when you spend almost every single day on the snow, when you like to ski really extreme terrain, and when you make your living by teaching others how to ski, then proper technique is super important. if you are just some gaper that skis one week a year then it isn't all that important so long as you are able to maintain control so that you don't hurt yourself or others.

 
I agree. I'm not saying proper technique isn't important, or that there is no proper technique. There is a better way of doing things, and you better know it if you're teaching people. All I'm saying is that slight variations of what some call proper are treated as improper, when in reality they hardly make a difference. And people love to argue over those differences. I think that's dumb. There is clearly a difference between not knowing how to ski, and not having the same technique as a master level 10000 FIS instructor who makes sure his hips never exceed a 46.7 degree angle while turning or something.
 
Wait, yes I am. There is a better way of doing stuff. But to say that if you don't do one specific technique that is socially accepted as being proper, then you're a bad skier, is stupid.

 
It's actually 46.9 degrees on slushy days, and 89.67 degrees on bullet proof snow days. you'll need to know that on exam day.
 
You guys all talk about how stupid it is. But what if they gave level 3s out to everyone? We'd be here bitching about how were better then every instructor. If you want to be good at something it should be hard, not ez. And to the man who said people shouldn't need certs for teaching, it's an insurance thing :D.
 
i got my level 2 csia this season and skied with some level 4s whilst doing it and they were insanely good skiers and if they wanted to learn to slide a rail and ski some park im pretty sure most of them would be able to learn in no time. and like people have said the reason they're so particular about form and technique is because there needs to be a standard and seeing as people pay alot of money for ski lessons i think its only right that they are pretty high. people don't need to ski exactly how they're taught, they can get a solid grounding and then develop their own style and do what works best for them. yeh the woman the op was talking about was probably awesome but if there was an error in her technique then it wouldn't be fair to pass her just because of her rep. i bet a lot of pros out there would fail their levels on technique.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top