realskiers

I concur, and have to admit a certain surprise that there was so much knowledge such crucial knowledge transfer during the brief period.  (EDITED. it wasn't the volume of knowledge, it was the impact of the knowledge on our skiing).

Example. It took about 3 turns for Diana to say "we need to get rid of your bowleggedness  ( ?), that's a lot of the reason you have trouble getting edge engagement". Others had said I was "tipping too much" and that I should try skiing with a wider stance.  Canting the boot (not the cuff) made a huge difference.  My feet did move apart a little bit, but what I most noticed was my knees much closer together.  I don't remember every having my knees touching when skiing before -- I just looked at the narrow tracks I was leaving and figured all was good.

And then gradually I remembered when Rich made my last footbed three years ago commenting that although my static alignment is pretty neutral, when he padded the footbed under the big toe to compensate for my forefoot varus it changed my alignment.  Varus was raising the inside of the foot, the alignment would have required raising the outside of the boot, and he decided that it wasn't an issue for the way I skied at that time. In retrospect, I'm impressed at the consistency of diagnosis by two different people (trained in the same methodology) three years apart.

But the real value was being able to shim the boot on the slopes and look at the result in the skiing performance right then with no other changes.  Whether I could feel it or not, the improvement was clear to both Lynn and Diana (and, actually, being able to see things in each others skiing was a focus that Lynn and I had asked Diana to tutor a bit).  Lynn has a much better eye than I do (which is good for me).

Unfortunately, Lynn is also right about the camera.  It only shows how I am skiing on the snow, it doesn't understand or can't capture how much better I am skiing in my mind.