Board riding

[charliechocolate]

Thanks. Of course now I can't see the pics or video to see what got them all in a tizzy.

Nope, it's still there. If you can't see it from there, try this http://vimeo.com/18776312, hope PhilW doesn't mind me linking to it.

They'd probably all poop bricks if they saw some of the pics and video that appear here on the regular.

I doubt it. I've lurked around there long enough that I'm fairly sure "skiboots" on a snowboard will be kookie regardless of what the rider is actually doing, 'cause, like, it's all about the steez, y'know.

Back on topic: actually, I don't know what the topic is any more. Someone posts a video of a bunch of softbooters tearing it up, then some people rag on the aesthetics of their riding style. It's not unlike how the easyloungin kids ragged on philw for riding a powder board with plates, no?

[Neil Gendzwill]

I doubt it. I've lurked around there long enough that I'm fairly sure "skiboots" on a snowboard will be kookie regardless of what the rider is actually doing, 'cause, like, it's all about the steez, y'know.

No, I meant that they would react badly. We lack steez.

[philw]

.... Someone posts a video of a bunch of softbooters tearing it up, then some people rag on the aesthetics of their riding style. It's not unlike how the easyloungin kids ragged on philw for riding a powder board with plates, no?

Precisely my point. The threat/ response thing is here as well as there. If you're confident about what you're doing, you won't feel threatened.

Terje doesn't harass the people around him to ride in a forward stance, which he uses on his Asmo as well as snowboards. I doubt many people try to tell him he's doing it wrong.

I note also that no competent rider has ever asked me why I don't ride soft boots: that question always comes from people who really haven't yet learned to ride. I think it's lack of confidence again: they're worried that they may be being led astray.

[b0ardski]

What does doing squats have to do with it? A rider doing a heelside in duck stance looks somewhat like a squat, but in a forward stance not. What is the reasoning for duck if going backwards is not a consideration?

pink floyd in my head, us & them

The reasoning is simple; standardization.

Before board instructors even existed, we spent hours or days just trying to figure out which foot forward and what angles felt right, and very few people were the same stance. I drilled Duret rotatable strap binders onto my first metal edged board in 89, that allowed me experimentally adjust angles at the flip of a lever and ended up at about 40*/25* for maximum comfort on a wide carve board.

I don't need a hip xray to tell you that duckfoot (who's only purpose was to make fakie easier) makes my hips/knees ache, ie, misaligned. Learning to ride fakie took longer going heels 1st(backwards) but riding was way more comfortable, with less neck strain from looking over the shoulder 100% of the time.

The great american homogenization machine that is pisa/aasi developed their teaching models around a totally sideways stance, (the opposite of directional) that makes both the instructor and rental tech jobs easier.

The money worshiping california park rat that became Lookout's ski school director(isn't that an oxymoron?) insists on all boards coming out of the rental shop be set at -15/15, when he actually learns to ski maybe I can take him seriously.

Since becoming aasi (was psia at 1st), the "oh my god forbid we look like a skier" attitude took over and any reference to high forward angle was mostly eliminated from the literature and left to the race teams.

so be it, it is what it is,

I'm not out to convert the masses to the power and ease of plate binders and buckle boots (though I will tout the advantages I see), and don't tell me I need to torsionaly twist the board like a potato chip from a duck stance to control my edge as one young instructor demonstrated to me the other day(apparently my setup doesn,t let me control my edge:confused:).

last Mon. I was making big "ribbon candy" carves forward and switch on the steep wide groomer next to the lift at 49*N, later while skiing w/my wife we stopped to rest a moment and a patroller snaked the fall line down to us pointed at my 174 nidecker and said "you really make that thing look beautiful", made my hat shrink.

Skiers think I'm doing it right, and soft booters think I'm a whack job until they see me hit a jump in the park and land switch into a full carve.

A skier lounging in the sun on the deck the other day said when I walked up "your the only boarder we like."

steeze is in the eye of the beholder

I'll just keep on skiing on a snowboard cause nollies in gorilla stance and trashing ptex aint my thing.

us & them

Edited March 28, 2014 by b0ardski

[Jack M]

There are two things I really hate - people intolerant of other people's opinions, and duck stance.

(

)

Heelside, ok fine. Toeside, sorry, it's not helping them or anybody else. They will be smoked in any objective measurement of their technique (a.k.a. a boardercross or banked slalom) by people riding correctly. At the Sugarloaf Banked slalom the fastest guys (Seth Wescott, Ross Powers, Alex Tuttle) were all arching their back on toeside and keeping their carcass over their board, not bent over to the side.

Beckman, LOL - eyewash station.

I guess at the end of the day if this increases interest in carving then I am all for it.

Astonishingly, Snowboarding is in decline right now. I think the biggest reason is that scant few softbooters make it look good. Kids start on skis because it's easier, then they get good at it, then they don't want to go back to being a beginner again on a snowboard. And why would they? There's so few softbooters on the mountain that make anyone point and say "I want to do THAT".

Duck stance and stupid-wide stances are to blame.

I guess these guys are probably advertising snowboarding better than most softbooters.

Edited March 28, 2014 by Jack Michaud

[michael.a]

Back on topic: actually, I don't know what the topic is any more. Someone posts a video of a bunch of softbooters tearing it up, then some people rag on the aesthetics of their riding style. It's not unlike how the easyloungin kids ragged on philw for riding a powder board with plates, no?

With all due respect, I consider this a substantive discussion on the the function, suitableness, and efficacy of using a duck stance in riding and teaching (aesthetics aside). This included referencing balance, biomechanics, skeletal structure, snowboard culture, instruction politics, and other aspects. I mean geez, look how long Beckmanns and Rob Stevens posts are... they're LONG, that's gotta mean something, right? Although Rob Stevens arguments at this point is kind of like grasping at straws. But where is the 'ragging'? Where is the 'hate'? I don't understand why talk like this is being interpreted by some as a 'threat' (just using your word phil, not a direct reference to you). We're talking about a very important aspect of snowboarding. AASI previously recommended a complete flat stance did they not? Who rides with both zero angles anymore (emphasis on ride, not attempting to get down the mountain).

As a counterpoint to all I said above, here are some of the comments from that forum showing a perfect example of 'hate':

Hahaha, wow. Why hardboots on a surfy pow board?

hard boot? get real thats like surfing with hockey skates on

you know what snowboarding ISNT about? riding pow in ****ing skiboots. unarguable.

[Rob Stevens]

Rob, would you advocate duck for someone who doesn't care if he goes backwards and doesn't want to hit the park?

I'll say that if a client said what you're suggesting here, I'd probably go on to ask them what they'd like to do, rather than what they don't want to do, as it's a balance of intention and build that should establish a stance outline. It is possible, after that conversation, that I would set up a new rider directionally. Ultimately, on their leaving the lesson, I would encourage them to experiment.

It's through experimentation that I wound up in the stance I'm in now.

I posted the latter article as an example of why some people feel discomfort, or full-on pain, in stances that bring comfort to others. Regardless of which way your feet point, a "squat", or lowering yourself while maintaining centred alignment, is key to getting low without falling over, and a full range of motion. It's the details of the squat that seem to make a difference, though... In the generally ultra-effective "Terje" stance, I had ankle pain, from squatting with my back knee tracking directly over my toes. I had better flexion and more comfort when I moved the toes "out of the way". I asked my trainer why this was, as the standard thinking was that squatting was done knees-over-toes, and he simply said "you're built different". I could go on to talk about the moves I find more satisfying when standing like I do, beyond the park and riding switch, but again, we're talking about personal preference and if I say "I like ducks because they quack best this way", someone will come on to say "No they don't! Duck bad!" and suddenly we've lost the plot.

Not forgetting why we're here. I'm stoked that some people are getting what my original intention was... Just an exercise in mind-broadening. It's meant to add to the overall realm of riding... Not take anything away. I really don't want to come off as trying to convert anyone to the stance I like. It just works for me, like more forward angles do it for the majority on here.

[Hilux]

Just for comparisons sake, check out the video in the thread link below too (sorry couldn't embed) where softbooters are ripping it up, full on carving but their body positions look different (to my eye) than the video Rob posted. I don't know what my point is other than they might be set up differently and/or the boards were designed for carving. There's hardboot footage mixed in too.

http://www.bomberonline.com/VBulletin/showthread.php?42200-Ogasaka-snowboards-2014-2015-(japan)&p=420280#post420280

Screen shot from vid

[Rob Stevens]

Although Rob Stevens arguments at this point is kind of like grasping at straws.

Beckmann! You're stoked! You win! Unfortunately, what you "win" is the right to continue to shut out altenatives, based on stinging eyes and flawed "science".

Duck killed snowboarding... Now I've heard it all!!!

[Neil Gendzwill]

I'll say that if a client said what you're suggesting here, I'd probably go on to ask them what they'd like to do, rather than what they don't want to do, as it's a balance of intention and build that should establish a stance outline. It is possible, after that conversation, that I would set up a new rider directionally. Ultimately, on their leaving the lesson, I would encourage them to experiment.

Of course, I can't speak from any position of authority as an instructor, but what I observe when I'm riding is that the majority of people on snowboards are like the majority of people on skis - they just want to ride the mountain and enjoy it. I don't see a lot of people riding switch on either equipment, or in the park, or dropping cliffs. It's just recreational riding of the mountain going forward. I am betting that what a lot of intermediates want to improve is their comfort on more difficult terrain, meaning steeper/deeper/bumpier. Given a client who wants that, whose ultimate goal is simply to ride the natural terrain of the mountain well, what is the purpose of duck stance? It just makes no sense to me, not trying to denigrate it, just trying to understand it. Your phrase "it is possible" implies to me that most of the time, you recommend duck. If I'm misreading you, please correct me.

[b0ardski]

on the point of choice, that does not exist in the latest iteration of snowboard instruction, a disservice to the customer.

I'm gonna cross post this because I think it's relevant.

you might like this,emails from last year

From: Troy Moore [mailto:switchcarve@yahoo.com]

Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2013 8:06 PM

To: Member Services

Subject: carving

Why does AASI ignore the viability of alpine carving; especially for older(30yrs+) riders and board curious skiers that have no intention or desire to slide a rail or box, or pull tricks in the air?

For an organization that purports to create a life long appreciation of the mountain experience, insisting on a duck stance and focusing on teens to twenty-somethings who want to ride parks, equates to denying half the population a chance to experience the joys of riding a single edge.

PSIA has Nordic, telemark, alpine and adaptive categories; why doesn't AASI have a hardboot alpine/carving category that caters to racers, skier crossovers and others that just want to make nice turns?

As a life long skier, telemarker and snowboarder who's wife has been a PSIA member for 20 years, this seems like an egregious error in AASI's marketing push.

I was an expert skier and telemarker before taking up snowboarding full time in my 30's and found soft boots inefficient and the "gorilla" stance used by AASI's model uncomfortable, so I gravitated to hard boots, plate bindings and carving.

Riding every weekend I talk to a lot of skiers and boarders that ask about my set up and the graceful turns they see; and I can only direct them to a couple of internet sites instead of ski school. Something is wrong with this picture.

Don't get me wrong, I tell everyone who wants to try snowboarding to "take a lesson 1st", but carve oriented instructors don't seem to exist, or are outright dissuaded. I know several duel certified instructors that have given up on AASI because of this park oriented focus, this seems short sighted on your part.

Snowboard racing is an Olympic event so why is hardboot snowboarding ignored and discouraged?

You are market creators so please don't write these questions off by saying the gear manufacturers don't support it. The gear is out there, I see it on FIS, USASA racers and Olympians all the time and it is of the highest quality.

If you even consider this worthy of a response, I and the people I talk with daily about our beloved sport would like to understand your position.

Thank you

Troy Moore

the response left me underwhelmed

Hi Troy,

Thanks for your e-mail. I taught in hard boots for many years and can appreciate the grace and power of riding a race board.

Riding carving boards has been a part of snowboarding for a long time and has always been treated as one �style� of riding that AASI addresses. In fact, each of the educational manuals that we produce have referenced carving boards and equipment. And, as we develop our next manual, this will again be the case. Our ultimate goal is to provide instructors the knowledge and tools needed to address the widest range of riders possible and these rider�s corresponding range of motivations for riding. An instructor should be helping the guest achieve what the guest wants not what the instructors wants. AASI training and certifications also reinforce this by asking participants to be proficient carving and at basic freestyle.

Areas I have worked at, or been to, typically accommodate guests that are riding carving boards or are interested in learning how to ride like this. And, while many instructors don�t ride hard boots, there are still many teaching that understand and have the skills necessary to ride a carving board. A few divisions offer specific sessions to provide the opportunity for those instructors curious about hard boot riding or interested in developing or keeping their skills sharp. Some of these are race-oriented events and others are focused on carving.

Certainly there are many with strong personal opinions regarding hard boots. Ultimately, my goal is that we help the guest be the rider they want to be- whether this is carving trenches (in hard boots or soft), surfing the trees and steeps, boosting in the pipe, or simply cruising the groomers.

All the best!

Earl

Earl Saline

Professional Development Manager

After this response I dug thru all the event calendars for every pisa division. there was 1 snowboard carving clinic event in the north east division in Penn. and NJ.

That is not adressing different styles of riding by the established experts.

just sayin

Edited March 28, 2014 by b0ardski

[Beckmann AG]

Uhhh... Yeah... If you say so.

Believe whatever you like, Quickdraw. Your speed cost you accuracy.

Re: 'Posture-crime'. You should copyright that. Delightfully Orwellian.

You do realize that we agree on that thread, right?

The subject there is trying to incorporate all sorts of things into his riding based on what he thinks he's supposed to do to make a heelside turn. Most of which run contrary to his goal. And Mike's ability to carve a turn isn't an issue. It's that I think he could be more effective in that pursuit, and you think otherwise. Both Mike and the heelside novice are essentially doing the same thing, which is to bring their respective boards to edge, and maintain that edge by way of a full or partial squat. The novice does so out of 'misunderstanding' while the more accomplished rider does so partly due to the rear binding angle.

There's that funny Bastard again! It's too bad I can't put a face to a name with you.

I resemble my avatar, if that helps.

Anyway, my issue with what you wrote lies with you saying that what Mike is doing is efficient, but lacking, on the heels of starting your commentary with an allowance for the act as a whole being largely in the eye of the beholder.

I said he was effective, not efficient. There is a difference. And I said your assessment of his riding as the near pinnacle of something, not the riding itself, was lacking.

The general statement that he's "lacking" could probably be amended to say that this is your opinion. I look at it in absolute awe (heelside, anyway).

Your awe is entirely valid, based on what you want out of riding, your understanding of how things work, and how you think 'we' should get the 'job' done.

Based on my limited understanding of how things can be done, on snow and elsewhere, I maintain the performance looks a bit awkward and overwrought.

Philosophically, I might prefer Pollock, while you might take to Oldenburg or Koons.

What I'd like to know is where the holes are in Mikes heelside turn? He seems able to ride in that stance, which is so good for many other applications, as is evidenced by its near universal use, and adopt a posture remarkably identical to a forward angle rider. Please point out his "lacking" style.

Being 'able' is quite a bit different than being 'optimal'.

The near universal use of his stance has just as much (or more) to do with advocacy as it does with utility. Just think of those heady days of the nineties, the boom years, when riders were blazing lines all over the planet, over all sorts of natural and cultivated terrain, with nary a duck in sight.

Was Jimi Scott really more stylish/effective than Haakonsen?

One need not ride switch or park in order to snowboard at a high level. That need speaks more to identity and end goals. Those two should be left up to the individual, not projected by the instructor or their sanctioning body.

As if somehow the neutral stance for beginners is some kind of sinister plot by the instructional bodies to turn everyone duck.

You do realize that geometric neutral and dynamic neutral are not the same thing? That geometric neutral is a contrivance, and dynamic neutral is not?

I'll address that in two ways: Riglet and NoBoarding. In both cases, bindings fixed to a board aren't forcing the rider into a stance. In Riglet parks, the child is simply moved around on a sliding platform and will always inherently choose to stand on it in a way that gives them the best balance. If you watch them, they stand like they would normally... A bit toes out. Its the same with surfing or noboarding... A bit toes out. An earlier comment suggested that surfers do not stand this way, but everything I've seen (in shortboard, performance surfing) and done (the bindingless snow variety) suggests otherwise.

Duck, at least in these parts, refers not to the splayed stance, but to a negative angle on the rear foot.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the majority of boardsport users, (surf,skate, snowboard, noboard etc,) will prosper with some foot splay.

Amount of splay is easily traceable back to bone structure, (conformation of the foot) how that structure affects muscle activity, and how that muscle activity (cumulatively, over the lifetime) has affected 'flexibility'. Some splay is necessary to accommodate the unsupported foot, and some splay is necessary to 'tilt' each board type. Outside of park and related pursuits, what need is there for that splay to go negative? If one has no need or desire to take advantage of the handling characteristics of duck, why should they be set that way?

A highwire is designed to throw you to your death. To suggest that it isn't moving is insane. It has to be wired up like that because of the distance of the span. If it weren't wired, not only would it roll uncontrollably, but it would have waaaay more side-to-side movement than the body could compensate for. It's basically set up so that it behaves in a way that still visibly nuts, but not suicidally so.

To the contrary, the point is to create/enhance the illusion of severe danger, while flouting certain death with apparent ease. One does that in part by taking control of any and all details that would lead to 'failure'. Great pains are taken to ensure that the wire behaves in a predictable manner. That's clarity of thought, not insanity.

In part, it's the dissonance between ease and consequence that evokes a response in the viewer. Aerial performances would be far less engaging if the aerialist was getting all grunty up on the wire.

I would say that if the slackline were made wider and guyed to at least keep it from wanting to flip upside-down, we'd be closer to a real comparative experiment, as a flat board inherently wants to sit flat.

Well, then you're closer to a high wire, and that's not much like a snowboard.

The slackline 'rolls' under the foot, while the foot 'rolls' over the high wire.

A taught slackline sits flat, and rolls or twists based on user input directed to the tippy axis. If the input from the foot overpowers the resistance to twist/roll, and/or the user moves their CM too far to one side or the other, the platform destabilizes.

It's really not a matter of the point, or points of contact, but the sensitivity of the user to the platform, so as to make use of it without unintentionally destabilizing oneself. That outcome is obviously affected by how the feet (and the rest of the body) are arranged.

Any more than 'enough' input(strength) is simply too much. I think you will find that to be true of just about any high performance activity involving distance, rate, and time.

You're hung up on the similarities... That's the problem! Slacklining does replicate a number of skills you need to snowboard and does act like one, to a point. My issue is that the demonstrator is distilling his point down to comparative balance, without having the necessary controls in place. If you want to stricly look at balance, you have to even out the playing field. If the more forward stance is supported, the opposite stance must be provided for in a similar way. That would likely require using something other than a true slackline and that would be addressing all the variables. I'd also like to see a demonstrator who has equal time in the saddle of each stance.

Slacklining and snowboarding are both, by definition, 'balancing'. Agility within that act is influenced by how we go about it.

Maybe you've found otherwise, but it seems like accurately communicating the similarities between movements needed on a board and movements used elsewhere is an effective means of teaching/coaching/instructing?

Should we bypass an intuitive means of balancing in favor of a postural standard?

A novice should be placed in a more awkward relationship to their 'platform' because that's how they are supposed to use it?

Do you work on 'balance', to become a better 'snowboarder', or do you work on manipulating a snowboard, so as to become more effective at balancing?

Are you suggesting that educators arrived where we are today, some decades later, setting up beginners and novices as we do, via not thinking about it?

We have two clear means of affecting injury to/of the novice. We can understand all failure modes and minimize/remove the possibility mechanically, or we can leave it up to the 'athleticism' of our client.

Which do you think involves more thought?

[Rob Stevens]

Boardski... I've been doing this for a long time and have been the first instructor at places like Whistler and C.O.P in Calgary, and must have taught thousands in my time and one thing I'll say is that beginners have NEVER had a choice. They are set up as they're told. In the old days, the big difference was that the rental shop guys knew nothing and students would come out in all kinds of stances, with the bolts barely in. At least now, it's consistent. As for asking a beginner, you could do that, if you're looking to have a blank-stare contest.

Jack... Duck did not ruin snowboarding... I can't believe you would say that. It's far more likely that little boys did not want to sit on the snow to put their bindings on, in front of little girls and that teaching students how to put their back foot in standing up has been more of a problem.

As to your observation that the big boys arch their toe turns, I'll say the following... If you go into a turn where the outcome is uncertain, you won't arch, for fear of getting folded the wrong way. Conversely, I wouldn't try to exit a corner to generate speed in a little ball, fully compressed. The truth of SBX lies more in the middle, with a slight forward bend at the hips, open to the direction of travel.

In SBX, there is no right or wrong, just outcomes and things work, until they don't.

Neil... I'll get to you...

[b0ardski]

"They are set up as they're told."

and never offered an alternative

"At least now, it's consistent."

ie homogenized.

discussing this with my wife (a 22yr dual certified instructor, nonduck 5*/20* and learned switch from the start) she reminds me after the blank stare contest a choice must be made. which foot stays in for getting on/off the lift? at that point duck becomes irrelevant. and directional should be offered

Edited March 28, 2014 by b0ardski

[Rob Stevens]

Believe whatever you like, Quickdraw. Your speed cost you accuracy.

I apologize if your intent was not to poke fun, as much as I think it was.

You do realize that we agree on that thread, right?

I read your post in that thread. Your efforts to communicate some kind of superiority through your language can cloud the message sometimes, but I do see we're on the same page there.

The subject there is trying to incorporate all sorts of things into his riding based on what he thinks he's supposed to do to make a heelside turn. Most of which run contrary to his goal. And Mike's ability to carve a turn isn't an issue. It's that I think he could be more effective in that pursuit, and you think otherwise. Both Mike and the heelside novice are essentially doing the same thing, which is to bring their respective boards to edge, and maintain that edge by way of a full or partial squat. The novice does so out of 'misunderstanding' while the more accomplished rider does so partly due to the rear binding angle.

I don't think mike could be more effective carving in that stance. I do think that Mike could be more effective carving. I've seen it. Mike has, as I originally wanted to point out, brought a grace to it that I've never seen before. He is open, front hand down, with his hip on the snow. The alternative would have him "Geometrically" aligned with his stace, ass out, as oppsed to "Dynamically aligned, open more to the direction of travel. I think this distinction is evident and am surprised more people don't see it. Funny thing about the novice and lots of other people in a forward stance... You'd think being forward in stance would make it very diffcult to do a heel turn so behind and out of alignment. Just food for a good session with the guy.

I resemble my avatar, if that helps.

You have the look of the day, if not the stance.

I said he was effective, not efficient. There is a difference. And I said your assessment of his riding as the near pinnacle of something, not the riding itself, was lacking.

My bad. I do get to stand by my assessment, however, as I rekon this to be the most stylish heelturn I've seen in a stance best for things other than carving. I'll say what I think those thigs are when I reply to Neil!

Your awe is entirely valid, based on what you want out of riding, your understanding of how things work, and how you think 'we' should get the 'job' done.

Based on my limited understanding of how things can be done, on snow and elsewhere, I maintain the performance looks a bit awkward and overwrought.

The first couple would be right, as they are goals I have set for myself. I don't presume that you should look that way, because I don't know what your goals are. You might presume, by my posting that vid, that I'm trying to pimp the stance. I'm not. I'm just throwing it out there that a heelside turn can be done in that stance, without the ass out, and aligned forward, like a higher angle rider. As for what you maintain, based on your way of taking things in, you're good there.

Philosophically, I might prefer Pollock, while you might take to Oldenburg or Koons.

I don't really like beer.

Being 'able' is quite a bit different than being 'optimal'.

The near universal use of his stance has just as much (or more) to do with advocacy as it does with utility. Just think of those heady days of the nineties, the boom years, when riders were blazing lines all over the planet, over all sorts of natural and cultivated terrain, with nary a duck in sight.

Was Jimi Scott really more stylish/effective than Haakonsen?

One need not ride switch or park in order to snowboard at a high level. That need speaks more to identity and end goals. Those two should be left up to the individual, not projected by the instructor or their sanctioning body.

Again, I think it's pretty optimal, for the stance, and pretty optimal in general. He's carving the **** out of that poor board!

As much as Terje is the master, I can't work in his stance. He'll always blow Jimi's doors off, but I work better in the latter's stance. The best instructors, no matter how they came up, will always ask questions of their higer-level clients. As for beginners, the stance works. In fact, in years long trials, it's more effective, on average, than anything else. When the client can't articulate their desires for the most part, you shoot for the middle.

You do realize that geometric neutral and dynamic neutral are not the same thing? That geometric neutral is a contrivance, and dynamic neutral is not?

I think we covered that, just now.

Duck, at least in these parts, refers not to the splayed stance, but to a negative angle on the rear foot.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the majority of boardsport users, (surf,skate, snowboard, noboard etc,) will prosper with some foot splay.

Amount of splay is easily traceable back to bone structure, (conformation of the foot) how that structure affects muscle activity, and how that muscle activity (cumulatively, over the lifetime) has affected 'flexibility'. Some splay is necessary to accommodate the unsupported foot, and some splay is necessary to 'tilt' each board type. Outside of park and related pursuits, what need is there for that splay to go negative? If one has no need or desire to take advantage of the handling characteristics of duck, why should they be set that way?

By toes out, I meant duck. I'll get to that other stuff in my answer to Neil! Hold on, Fak!!

To the contrary, the point is to create/enhance the illusion of severe danger, while flouting certain death with apparent ease. One does that in part by taking control of any and all details that would lead to 'failure'. Great pains are taken to ensure that the wire behaves in a predictable manner. That's clarity of thought, not insanity.

In part, it's the dissonance between ease and consequence that evokes a response in the viewer. Aerial performances would be far less engaging if the aerialist was getting all grunty up on the wire.

The "Clarity of Thought" there is to create something do-able. An unsupported wire is un-walkable. A supported wire, while predictable, is still sketchy as ****.

Well, then you're closer to a high wire, and that's not much like a snowboard.

The slackline 'rolls' under the foot, while the foot 'rolls' over the high wire.

A taught slackline sits flat, and rolls or twists based on user input directed to the tippy axis. If the input from the foot overpowers the resistance to twist/roll, and/or the user moves their CM too far to one side or the other, the platform destabilizes.

It's really not a matter of the point, or points of contact, but the sensitivity of the user to the platform, so as to make use of it without unintentionally destabilizing oneself. That outcome is obviously affected by how the feet (and the rest of the body) are arranged.

Any more than 'enough' input(strength) is simply too much. I think you will find that to be true of just about any high performance activity involving distance, rate, and time.

Slacklining and snowboarding are both, by definition, 'balancing'. Agility within that act is influenced by how we go about it.

Maybe you've found otherwise, but it seems like accurately communicating the similarities between movements needed on a board and movements used elsewhere is an effective means of teaching/coaching/instructing?

Should we bypass an intuitive means of balancing in favor of a postural standard?

A novice should be placed in a more awkward relationship to their 'platform' because that's how they are supposed to use it?

Do you work on 'balance', to become a better 'snowboarder', or do you work on manipulating a snowboard, so as to become more effective at balancing?

Again, it seems like you think I see this exercise as pointless. I don't. I simply use the anecdotal evidence I see (demonstrators toes and heels moving downward and met with... Nothing) as a starting point for a different balance experiment, comparing stance angles.

We have two clear means of affecting injury to/of the novice. We can understand all failure modes and minimize/remove the possibility mechanically, or we can leave it up to the 'athleticism' of our client.

Which do you think involves more thought?

You're suggesting that there are more injuries, per group, than before this stance became common in lessons?

[Beckmann AG]

Beckmann! You're stoked! You win!

Win?

Willis, what is this abstraction of which you speak?

I was under the impression that we were engaged in a productive discussion.

If there are winners in this scenario, it’s those riders who go forth with curiosity as to cause and effect, and pursue their own course of inquiry.

And stoking is for wood stoves and coal-fired locomotives. So, no.

I’ve been doing this for a long time and have been the first instructor at places like Whistler and C.O.P in Calgary, and must have taught thousands in my time and one thing I'll say is that beginners have NEVER had a choice… As for asking a beginner, you could do that, if you're looking to have a blank-stare contest.

Maybe the ‘right’ questions weren’t being asked?

A ways back, before snowboard trade tailed off, we started using the same basic algorithm for the learn-to-ride setup. Part of this process involved conversing with the client as to their perceptions/preferences of their stance.

If memory serves, none were rear foot negative.

Each rider came out a little different (geometrically), but the outcome was consistent, in that more beginners gained autonomy in a given time frame, and the rate of injury dropped considerably.

The problem was, this took effort.

And time for training and execution; and time is money.

Later, the highly motivated Learn-To supervisor left for greener pastures, and the process was essentially dropped.

[Rob Stevens]

"They are set up as they're told."

and never offered an alternative

"At least now, it's consistent."

ie homogenized.

discussing this with my wife (a 22yr dual certified instructor, nonduck 5*/20* and learned switch from the start) she reminds me after the blank stare contest a choice must be made. which foot stays in for getting on/off the lift? at that point duck becomes irrelevant. and directional should be offered

"Which foot do you want forward?"

"I don't know"

"Here" *Push from behind* "There you go". "Ok... Now what angles do you want?"

"I don't know"

"Well... What do you want to do?"

"I don't know... Go snowboarding, I guess?"

"Well, since sb'ing at the beginner level requires as much backwards as forwards, we'll set you here for now. Play with this later. Your stance width will likely stay *this* wide, going forward, but your angles will be more a reflection of what your body tells you, via comfort of pain, and what you want to do and where you do it"

That's it.

"

[Jack M]

Disclaimer: I have a lot of respect for Rob and Beckman and pretty much everyone in this thread not snowboarding with ski poles. ;) ;)

Jack... Duck did not ruin snowboarding... I can't believe you would say that.

Believe it. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. Of course it works better for some people's bodies. Some people skateboard better mongo too. The vast majority of snowboarders I see where I ride frankly suck at turning. They also ride wide duck stances. There is no more grace, no dance. Nobody of this generation will ever ride as well as Craig Kelly or Terje Haakonsen, because their stances are all wrong.

Also:

Duck, at least in these parts, refers not to the splayed stance, but to a negative angle on the rear foot.

It's far more likely that little boys did not want to sit on the snow to put their bindings on, in front of little girls and that teaching students how to put their back foot in standing up has been more of a problem.

Oh please!

As to your observation that the big boys arch their toe turns, I'll say the following... If you go into a turn where the outcome is uncertain, you won't arch, for fear of getting folded the wrong way.

Agreed, but in the turns in the video in question, the outcome is certain.

In SBX, there is no right or wrong, just outcomes and things work, until they don't

Well, it is simply a matter of mechanics that your balance will be worse when you are all bent over at the waist. This is true in every sport that requires standing.

Edited March 28, 2014 by Jack Michaud

[lonbordin]

The world's greatest front foot snowboarder may look like this-

or maybe it's best to be left with an enigma wrapped in a mystery until we shake each others hand and take a run together.

Blank stare- While the client is blankly staring give them a light push backward... now we've found out whether their goofy or regular.

Put the illuminated boot in the front binding and rotate to allow the knee to be centered on the board. Onward to the lesson. (Damn... Rob kinda beat me to it. We can find agreement?! Say it's not so!)

I have a question. Is anyone aware of a rental program ANYWHERE that asks what angles the client wants?

[CMC]

I remember Beckman from the beginning of time, teaching riders how to ride effectively on efficient hard surfaces of the Northeast, the surfaces that have a lesser margin for error. I saw him train those who would go onto the the Swatch Boardercross team and then some.

Beckman is the "man".

Thanks for your input Beckman, well appreciated.

[Rob Stevens]

Win?

Willis, what is this abstraction of which you speak?

I was under the impression that we were engaged in a productive discussion.

If there are winners in this scenario, it’s those riders who go forth with curiosity as to cause and effect, and pursue their own course of inquiry.

I'd say that you've got some followers here. Posing a placard for an eyewash statement on the vid syas that what's happening in it should be discarded. at least when I called Bull****! on the slack-line video, I invited anyone else to "Ask me why."

It seems like the attitude of someone who wants to be right, as opposed to having a conversation. Certainly when it comes to the veiled remarks about my intelligence.

[b0ardski]

interesting;

"Part of this process involved conversing with the client as to their perceptions/preferences of their stance.

If memory serves, none were rear foot negative."

Jack; your respect is irrelevant to my enjoyment/ability;)

I can ski w/out poles but choose to take advantage of all available tools

if I rode duck I couldn't use them, your not implying I should ride duck are you

Edited March 28, 2014 by b0ardski

[Rob Stevens]

Agreed, but in the turns in the video in question, the outcome is certain.

The outcome in this case is that Mike transitioned into the next turn.

If he tried this "style" on crappier snow, he'd be down. Just like if he tried to soul arch all the way through it.

The truth is somewhere in the middle. "Truth" being snow you can't count on.

As of the comment oabout what kids do and don't want to be seen doing in front of other kids, I think my theory reflects why kids are so much more likely to start on skis now. It just looks more "normal" If duck isn't saving the sb world (haha!) it sure didn't make it harder for beginners! Sb'ing is hard on it's own... It doesn't need help!

[b0ardski]

this is making my head spin,

I'm going skiing on a snowboard:eek:, later

[ecshredder]

I don't care what anyone says, those dudes are good!