alpine snowboarding wikipedia entry

[Alaskan Rover]

It is superior, period

Nonsensical, self-inflated pulp fiction of the purest form. :p

[KingCrimson]

Nonsensical, self-inflated pulp fiction of the purest form. :p

Ride hardboots.

You mentioned sailing..Here ya go.

Ever sail a Hobie and then a Nacra? Hardbooting is like that.

[Alaskan Rover]

Ahhh.....NICE chute!!!! A wee bit skinny and slightly sketchy there in the middle, but me likem it just FINE!!!!:)

[b0ardski]

To second that, I'm a decent carver in softboots and on skis, but there is no tool that will quite do it like an alpine snowboard, and hard boots. It's the only thing they are designed to do. and the unique body position is able to create edge pressure that is not possible on anything else.

It is superior, period

truth:biggthump

Put my raichles & nitros on that A-frame and I'd rip that chute a new one

[KingCrimson]

Put my raichles & nitros on that A-frame and I'd rip that chute a new one

Do you mean..displace some material and make it wider?

Because I've definitely done that at Mt Baldy..More than once.

[b0ardski]

How dare you bring that 175 with hardboots into the park, don't you know that can't be done:smashfrea

[b0ardski]

Do you mean..displace some material and make it wider?

Because I've definitely done that at Mt Baldy..More than once.

It's a slow process, but keep at it, but it may take more than 1 board:biggthump

[queequeg]

My gripe about the wiki entry is the following statement:

"The term 'alpine' has come to be mostly associated with snowboarding in hardboots' date=' as they are the choice for people seeking the purest carved turn."

That statement alone makes it seem that alpiners feel they are superior to other boarders...in that other boarders have no business messing in the sanctified purity of the carve. What a bunch of malarkey. [/quote']

Well ... if we thought softboots were better we probably would't be riding hardboots would we now?? Nonetheless, this statement doesn't suggest what you are saying at all, it suggests that hardboots are the best tool for making the purest carved turn - which is correct. That in no way suggests that hardbooters find themselves to be any way better than other people, except perhaps better equipped for making carved turns. If a softbooter were to claim that softboots are the choice for people seeking the most stylish run in the pipe, would he be claiming that softbooters are superior to everyone else? No. You're looking to create controversy where there is none, and its showing.

[BobD]

Nonsensical, self-inflated pulp fiction of the purest form. :p

if you don't think it is, what are you doing here ?

[Alaskan Rover]

Ride hardboots.

You mentioned sailing..Here ya go.

Ever sail a Hobie and then a Nacra? Hardbooting is like that.

sailed lots of Hobie 16s and a few 18s. Never sailed the Nacra. Seen them but never been on one.

I have, however, sailed an ex-olympic Tornado 20. That is ONE fast cat!!!! A pure JOY to sail. They're also good for 28 knots or so on a broad reach with the right conditions. They have spinnakers, now, which is silly...as the downwind is not their forte...but hey, they do over 15 knots downwind...amazingly enough. Hobie is a SLUG downwind. I would LOVE to get a hold of a Tornado, but they are EXPENSIVE! There should be many more on the used market now, though, since for whatever reason they have been disqualified from competition in the 2012 Olympics...what a dumb decision on the part of the IOC!

But, yes, having sailed Hobie beach cats and then sailed on the race-car like Tornado 20, I know what you mean.

Gravity IS Life....so IS wind.

[Jack M]

AR. We have been over this with several others, we are very good at having this argument. There is nothing elitist about saying hardboots are superior for carving. It is a matter of fact. Like saying a Ferrari is a better sports car than a WRX. It just is. Let it be. Save us all the time, we have been down this road many times and it ends at the same place. So either agree to disagree and drop it, agree, or move along. Thanks.

[Neil Gendzwill]

But, yes, having sailed Hobie beach cats and then sailed on the race-car like Tornado 20, I know what you mean.

So you concede the argument, then?

[BlueB]

In that chute, on my hard boots, I would take the board off and walk down - I'd be able to kick the steps in all the way... On my softboots, I'd just sit there and cry. :D

Hardboots rule.

[Alaskan Rover]

Posted by Neil Gendzwill:

"So you concede the argument, then?"

Well, not necessarily a concession...however being a student of physics and the forces therein, I realize that the hardboot set-up allows one to follow a cleaner carved line. Sure.

However, I make no concession to the "pureness" of the carve. I think that is more of a soul thing...and not one to be regulated by equipment alone.

Gravity is the soul of life.

[softbootsurfer]

No mention at all of the Original Carvers ?

Such as...

Peter Bauer

Jean Nerva

Jose Fernandes

Serge Vitelli

To name just a few obvious Key figures :o of course there were many more as well!

The stance angles I set up and have used since 1985 were confirmed for me, when Peter sent this book to us in 1988...

[KingCrimson]

Posted by Neil Gendzwill:

"So you concede the argument, then?"

Well, not necessarily a concession...however being a student of physics and the forces therein, I realize that the hardboot set-up allows one to follow a cleaner carved line. Sure.

However, I make no concession to the "pureness" of the carve. I think that is more of a soul thing...and not one to be regulated by equipment alone.

Gravity is the soul of life.

You quoted BobD when he said "It's superior. Period" and called it a bunch of garbage. While he isn't directly supporting that statement with evidence, it's still an objective statement. Hardboots work better for carving. You can argue they are worse for things, staying within the bell curve for what most snowboarders do, hardboots ARE superior.

I don't know about you, but I enjoy sailing a lot more when I have a daggerboard in the water, not a boat skittering to the lee! Maybe for some people, constraining yourself to softboots in entirely inappropriate situations is a pure experience. So is ****ting in pine needles and wiping with leaves..

Fortunately, that whole previous paragraph is completely irrelevant, because pure in that context had NOTHING to do with all the boardsports-feelgood crap.

Purest carve..as in one that includes no skidding..

I stole BobD's profile photo, because it is picture perfect technique.

[JakeW.]

Nice pic of BobD! It's good to see a carving photo in which the rider is not dragging his hands in the snow!

[Call me jack]

Like saying a Ferrari is a better sports car than a WRX.

I would love to argue that. but i wont.

Either way, i appreciate you minimizing the argument of Hard boots vs soft boots in this thread, 'cause i would say this topic is probably one of the more important ones we've had, lately.

It is tackling probably the most intuitive gate way for a non-alpine rider to learn about our sport. A little more than a year ago, when i was trying to find information on this sport it was a real struggle (until i discovered this place).

So please guys, keep it on topic. No need to drag a argument out, in this thread.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

With all that said, i think there should be some mention of the fact, on the wiki page, that most beginners get their first pieces of gear used (unless thats wrong, and if it is please correct me). This will hopefully get more people more comfortable with buying our used equipment, and the likes.

[BobD]

I don't counter rotate so much on my toesides these days, but thanks anyway.

This is what sums it up for me. Boiler plate day, you could have ice skated on it. The only way you could have pressured an edge to get this inclination is on an alpine board. So some top race skiers might, but not us mere mortals.

[Snowriter]

Yes. It's pointless because 1, it did not enhance his performance; 2, I'm 99% sure Marijuana isn't or wasn't an IOC banned substance, so it should never have been an issue in the first place, and 3, his result was ultimately upheld and his medal returned. It's completely irrelevant to his accomplishment and to the wiki entry. It would be relevant on the Ross Rebagliati wiki page. Actually you could say it makes his win even more of an accomplishment because if anything, he was handicapped by it. I watched with horror as the whole thing unfolded on TV in 1998. It absolutely reeked of a plot to make all snowboarders look bad in our Olympic debut by some bigot skiers who were grumpy that it finally made it into "their" Olympics.

I disagree. It is relevant. The first person to win a gold medal in snowboarding was mired in controversy. He tested positive for an illegal substance. He was questioned by Japanese police because of his positive test. That's news. That controversy was among the biggest stories of the 1998 Games. It happened. You can't omit the event simply because it doesn't make the sport look pretty. To do so is bad journalism and an attempt to whitewash history.

IMHO of course :)

As to the IOC/FIS issue, from the NY TImes Feb 13, 1988:

The I.O.C. medical code does not penalize the use of marijuana unless a specific sports federation penalizes its athletes for using the drug. FIS guidelines state that a penalty may be imposed for a positive test, but Letheren said that the FIS president, Marc Hodler, informed the arbitration panel that FIS considered snowboarding's giant slalom an event in which marijuana testing was neither necessary nor relevant.

''The FIS said marijuana was in their guidelines to help protect the health and safety of athletes who might take the drug to overcome fear in sports where that might be important,'' Letheren said. ''They quoted ski jumping as an example. They said they were not at any time asked if they wished to have marijuana tested for in snowboarding, and that if they had been asked, the answer would have been no because it is no advantage in giant slalom.''

That doesn't look like a conspiracy to me. But, that said, I have heard other people close to professional snowboarding say there were other issues going on at the time ...

[NateW]

I'm 99% sure Marijuana isn't or wasn't an IOC banned substance, so it should never have been an issue in the first place

If I recall correctly, the newscaster's exact words were, "The IOC does not recognize marijuana as a performance enhancing drug." It remains one of the funniest things I've ever heard on TV.

I thought it would be funny (sad, but funny) if they took his medal, so the guy who got the gold would have to go through life explaining that he wasn't actually the fastest rider on the course that day, but the faster guy was stoned.

Anyway, I think it's perfectly reasonable to mention such a notable story alongside a notable name in a list of notable riders. It would be conspicuously absent if it wasn't there.

[Jack M]

I disagree. It is relevant. The first person to win a gold medal in snowboarding was mired in controversy. He tested positive for an illegal substance. He was questioned by Japanese police because of his positive test. That's news. That controversy was among the biggest stories of the 1998 Games. It happened. You can't omit the event simply because it doesn't make the sport look pretty. To do so is bad journalism and an attempt to whitewash history.

I say it's not relevant because nobody should have ever known about it at all, in the first place. It should be as if it never happened, because it was discovered in an invalid and unfair way. But of course mob mentality wouldn't allow that. Any opportunity to tear down a celebrity is fair game in our culture.

The IOC tested him either on a complete whim, or because they wanted to go lynch a snowboarder. In either case it was unwarranted, and not requested by FIS, and it should never have been an issue. It was no less than unreasonable search and seizure. The evidence found should not be admissible in the court of public opinion.

[Alaskan Rover]

....//....The IOC te sted him either on a complete whim, or because they wanted to go lynch a snowboarder. In either case it was unwarranted, and not requested by FIS, and it should never have been an issue. It was no less than unreasonable search and seizure. The evidence found should not be admissible in the court of public opinion.

I TOTALLY agree with that. Ross basically got caught up in the whirlwind of media-hype...creating a duststorm that should have settled, but because Olympic athletes are thought of as Idols..."super-people", they are held to standards so lofty that they are hard to sustain.

Snowboarding in the Olympics was an absolute anathema to many old-school traditionalists, and they fueled that fire. There were no absolute Olympic bylaws specific to marijauna-testing posted previous to those games nor DURING those games...thereby making the argument for revoking Ross's medal specious at best. He later sued the Olympic committe I think for defamation of character...I think the case was finally settled out of court a couple recently...the Olympic Committee did not want a courtroom loss affecting their 2010 games. I think Ross should have went a ahead with the civil trial....he would have WON!

Under those circumstances, I don't think it would have made as much of an impact if it had happened now, but I may be wrong. I mean look at Obama toking it!!! But at least Obama had the fortitude to ADMIT that he DID inhale....unlike a certain prior occupant of the Oval Office!!! ;) ;)

[Jack M]

Snowboarding in the Olympics was an absolute anathema to many old-school traditionalists

Totally. In 1998, snowboarding was still very very young in the eyes of the general public. It was still considered an "extreme" and "rebel" sport on the fringe, populated mostly by punks and crazies, as far as the Today Show audience knew. So the idea of a marijuana scandal in snowboarding's Olympic debut made for a perfect freakshow, and the media eagerly lapped it up.

[Jack M]

I say it's not relevant because nobody should have ever known about it at all, in the first place. It should be as if it never happened, because it was discovered in an invalid and unfair way. But of course mob mentality wouldn't allow that. Any opportunity to tear down a celebrity is fair game in our culture.

The IOC tested him either on a complete whim, or because they wanted to go lynch a snowboarder. In either case it was unwarranted, and not requested by FIS, and it should never have been an issue. It was no less than unreasonable search and seizure. The evidence found should not be admissible in the court of public opinion.

3 days and no response, shall I take it you concede this argument Snowriter? I'm honestly curious because you seem to be a member of the media.