Parrallel skis, why do they need to be as such.

[bushwacka]

I hate to do this but I just read this thread as I have been away for the past few weeks in Montana and I didn't look at a ski forum the whole time I was away.

The only point I want to make is that if you look at video from the Alta Badia GS every year you will see the best skiers in the world stemming because the terrain is so steep and gnarly. One year I saw Benni Raich (one of the best technical skiers in the world) stem 3 turns in his run. So Bushwacka, do you think he finishes a run like that and the goes out and practices his stemming? Of course he doesn't because he does not want stemming to be his default move (in fact he doesn't wnat it in any of his skiing). The same goes for when we see WC racers skivoting or pivoting, they do this because they have to, because the course is set to tight with 27m skis for them to carve it, but every good GS skier is trying to carve as much of each turn and as many turns as he or she can, because it is faster. So the fact that pivoting and steering is required by you to ski a particular run, does not therefore mean that it is what one should aspire to have as the default move.
Again, I'm sure Jimmy Cochran doesn't come of that run saying "wow, I need to practice my steering more".

not touching the steering part of this post in this thread, only touching the steming(or deiverging) part of this post. I also do not feel like thrunting up someone else's thread.

Parallel skis, why do we want our skis to be parallel? simply put I would almost never argue for opposing edges(IE wedgeing). Whats wrong with stemming or diverging skis?  Aren t are feet independent? realistically won t our feet take 2 different paths in the snow so why not let them take 2 more efficent paths?

Seriously give me cold hold science on why our skis should be parallel to each other. Simply saying that the way it is, or it just works better is not enough, think of it as a math proof. Its got to be infallible before its the truth.

[Gary]

Hmm...now you all know I'm a believer in all sorts of ski skill tools and adaptation of those tools for a variety of conditions...

But skiing parallel....well my personal thoughts are as follows:

It's efficient movment
Much faster when all the parts are in sync
It sure is purrtier  to watch
Makes skiing crud, pow and bumps way easier

Still....it's all part of the big picture.
G

[jim-ratliff]

Seriously give me cold hold science on why our skis should be parallel to each other. Simply saying that the way it is, or it just works better is not enough, think of it as a math proof. Its got to be infallible before its the truth.

I'm curious, give me cold, hard science why our skis should NOT be parallel?

I can tell you why the wheels on a train are parallel, why the wheels on a car are mostly parallel, and why the front and back wheel on a bike are, in a sense, parallel.

But I think the real reason is that for years PSIA (and other past ski authorities) have presented "skiing parallel" as the objective of anyone that seeks to become an accomplished skiier?  PMTS certainly didn't create the idea that people should seek to ski this way.

The American Teaching System? (ATS) is the foundation of modern ski instruction and is the canopy of ideas and concepts that helps create uniformity and consistency throughout the U.S. The following will elaborate on ATS?

Continue reading on Examiner.com Professional Ski Instructors of America (PSIA) and the American Teaching System? -
............
In ATS?, there is the concept of Stepping Stones to Effective Skiing. In other words, there are Direct to Parallel? and wedge-based progressions in the Alpine Technical Manual. Thus, ATS? gives the instructor options to help guide a student to parallel skiing

ergo -> If I want to become a "good" skier (whatever that is) then I should seek to become skilled at parallel skiing, because that's what the "experts" want me to aim for.  And I think that, for the vast majority of people, that's it.
ergo -> And if, as you intimate, there is "better" skiing by NOT skiing parallel, they why have the "experts" led us to believe that skiing parallel is the holy grail?

NOTE: I don't accept that what the uber-athlete (world cup skier) does is pertinent to the average skier any more that I would want high school baseball hitters to imitate professional players. Some pro hitters have horrible fundamentals, but they also have the physical skills to succeed in spite of their technique. 

[Gary]

Jim...I think your "ergo" is relative to those stepping stones fo skiing...those that allow the skier to ski efficiently and in control.

I think too there are many more stepping stones...those where atlethesisim, quick thinking, and adaptablity allow the skier to take those parallel skills and modify them to ski ungroomed and off piste conditions. Racers and extreme skiers are many stepping stones above we mere mortals but certainly you can see a variety of tools watching them ski in control.

Indeed, I believe a good parallel turn is a solid basis for advanced skiing.

G

[jim-ratliff]

True enough! But we start out in school believing that the experts (the teachers and school administrators) know what we should be learning. And they were partly right, I now see a lot of value in spelling and grammar, and even public speaking.  Dissecting frogs and Calculus I haven't used much in the past 40 years.


But that was my point about parallel skiing.  I don't have the hard evidence that Bushwacka was wanting to hear; but its been presented to me by the various instructional paradigms as something to seek.  Now, maybe BW is like me and dissecting frogs, maybe he is saying that the teachers were wrong and that parallel skiing wasn't a thing that I should have even worried about, that there's no advantages to learning to ski parallel.

[Gary]

I'm sure BW can speak for himself....my impression was that he was saying it's not all just about parallel skiing.

Still...the more ya learn the more ya know it ain't ever enough! 

[Gary]

AMEN!