Board riding

[Jack M]

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!

Duck might make day 1 easier, but it makes intermediate and advanced turning/carving more difficult, for most people, in my observation.

[Corey]

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!

Interesting observation. I remember being a beginner-intermediate skier that just had to learn to snowboard in the late 80's. I couldn't care less what anyone thought of my flailing and crashing, that didn't even enter my mind as a consideration. Maybe that was because I was already a geek/nerd? Are people really that self-conscious that they don't want to look like a beginner? That must suck.

Side note: It sound like Rob's definition of 'duck' is feet not parallel, while most on here define 'duck' as rear foot pointing backwards. I hated snowboarding with my rear foot pointing backwards, just didn't work for me. Put me on a longboard/skateboard to pump around and my back foot ends up pointing slightly backwards pretty quickly. I tried even +10 on the back foot - I hated it. Back to duck. Weird.

[energyrail]

How many of you run more than +3-6 degrees on the back foot in soft boots?

Me 21 front -3 or zero on back.

[Neil Gendzwill]

Side note: It sound like Rob's definition of 'duck' is feet not parallel, while most on here define 'duck' as rear foot pointing backwards.

Not from past conversations with him. He means duck the same way most of us do. We have talked before about "splay". Of course, that varies a lot from person to person and also tends to reduce as the stance moves forward. Hardly anyone runs 0 splay, although many hardbooters only run a little. My setup has about 5 degrees of splay.

[Jack M]

How many of you run more than +3-6 degrees on the back foot in soft boots?

Me 21 front -3 or zero on back.

I did. I ran I think 36/24 to avoid boot-out. But I'm weird on softboots.

[Neil Gendzwill]

I did. I ran I think 36/24 to avoid boot-out. But I'm weird on softboots.

If memory serves I was running around 15 and 25 last I was in softies, but that was a long time ago.

[Rob Stevens]

Neil;

This is the thrid time I've had to write this out, as the forum has deleted the post as I've tried to submit it. I must care deeply for you to go through it all again...

You defined advanced riding as "Steeper/deeper/bumpier", so I'll use those to tell you what I do. Bear in mind that what I ride usually requires more of a "Slarve" than a carve and sometimes I find that this kind of dynamic sliding turn can be even more difficult than holding a rail in a carve.

Steeper: At the end of a turn, I like to finish round and across the fall line. Good advice if the terrain is proper steep. What I do is a variation on "Twist the Discs" where instead of twisting both forward, I try to twist the rear one backwards. You can do that with higher angles, but I found that on heelside, the pressure moved to the toe edge, when I wanted it more centred, or to the heels. You could do it with flat or a slightly forward angle, but like I said, those angles are not comfortable for me.

Deeper: As I advance the board forward and back for float and dive, I found that with higher angles, as I moved back, my knees would come together and I'd be outside my stance. I could fight to keep my knees apart and use more core strength to stay centred, but I guess I wanted my set-up to do that particular job for me.

Bumpier: I have a more full range of vertical movement in the duck stance. I know that others can emulate this in other stances, but this is what works for me.

All in all, I have formed my stance and posture around the things I like to do. I still like to carve, and can, just not as well as I'd do on my alpine gear. I'll take this trade-off, as I could not freeride in the same terrain properly on my hardboots with carving angles.

[Rob Stevens]

How many of you run more than +3-6 degrees on the back foot in soft boots?

Me 21 front -3 or zero on back.

Those are my angles.

[Neil Gendzwill]

Those are my angles.

That's barely quacking!

Thanks for your other response. I hope someday we get to make some turns together and you can show me this stuff in person.

[2stroke]

How many of you run more than +3-6 degrees on the back foot in soft boots?

Me 21 front -3 or zero on back.

My softie set up is something like 30ish back 40ish front, but I'm weird. My first intro to snowboarding was riding complete slush on the set-up that was handed to me, I dont recall the angles but it was certainly not duck. My 2nd day was on firm ice wearing hard boots, Mammoth actually had about 40/60 ratio of HB/SB in the rental pool. On the rental HB set up I kept rotating the bindings to be more forward facing, it just seemed to work better but then again I came from a skiing background and more forward just seemed more correct. BUT with limited exposure and availability of HB's is seasons following, I ended up purchasing a SB set up after learning that my Lange ZR race ski boots made horrible snowboard boots. That set up ended up getting rotated to the high angles (for softies) that I currently ride. BTW, I am now riding pretty much full time HB's with the help and encouragement of a couple local riders from the Bomber boards :)

On the beginner front, I had a friend bring up someone that has never boarded and I set him up something like +3 +10 after determining which was his forward foot. He did OK considering it's tougher to learn when you are old vs being a kid. The next day the shop "strongly suggested" pretty much forced him to duck stance, while he did slightly better falling leaf, he no longer knew what his dominant direction was going to be and wouldnt commit to any one direction. I think it held him back.

[teach]

I started out duck just to fit my boots on the board. (I would have preferred 0 degree rear foot -- I skate bowls and wanted the same stance). But the amount of splay required increased as I got better, putting the board more on edge, to the point where it was pretty much impossible to move. I flipped the back foot around and went to something like 20/30 and then 40/45 and found that beyond that, I didn't have much help from the boots or bindings. Then I started on hard boots.

One issue with setting beginners up duck is that a front foot at 15 degrees makes it very awkward to push the board around (which they do a lot of). Not at all like skateboarding! I see this every day I'm out. It's very frustrating for many -- I think it even eclipses the "skiing sucks because of the uncomfortable boots" in turn-off value. I think it's also a cause of lift accidents (if you were going to ride a skateboard one-footed, would you have your foot at 15 degrees? What would happen if you did?).

[b0ardski]

All in all, I have formed my stance and posture around the things I like to do.

me too, no trade off required

I did. I ran I think 36/24 to avoid boot-out. But I'm weird on softboots.

nice shot Jack; I rode around 40/25 the last time I was in softies, for a gear comparison.

That's barely quacking!

lol

[Jack M]

"Which foot do you want forward?"

"I don't know"

"Here" *Push from behind* "There you go".

This isn't the only regular/goofy test you do, is it? It's pretty random and unreliable. If the beginner has never skateboarded or surfed, then the best test is to ask them which way they would run and slide across a slippery floor in their socks.

"Well, since sb'ing at the beginner level requires as much backwards as forwards,"

I respectfully completely disagree. Backwards shouldn't enter into a beginner lesson, unless you are teaching falling leaf, which I abhor.

[energyrail]

I'm from up north I always say a frozen puddle or icy parking lot.

Stupid CASI and their soccer ball thing.

[Rob Stevens]

This isn't the only regular/goofy test you do, is it? It's pretty random and unreliable. If the beginner has never skateboarded or surfed, then the best test is to ask them which way they would run and slide across a slippery floor in their socks.

I said it's what I do, but don't take it as the only thing at my disposal. The last place I worked, we actually had that slippery floor.

I respectfully completely disagree. Backwards shouldn't enter into a beginner lesson, unless you are teaching falling leaf, which I abhor.

"Pendulum" is part of the CASI list of tactics. Depending on the client, it may be as far as they reliably get in an hour lesson. The reality is that as soon as they are on their own, they will use the falling leaf to navigate terrain they can't consistently turn on. So, read my comment again... I said "Beginner snowboarding", not a "Beginner lesson".

Hell... I use that move to this day, if I'm not feeling a line, but still happen to be on it! I await comments saying "Well... They shouldn't be on that terrain if they can't turn on it!" In advance of that statement, I say; "Pfffffff".

[Jack M]

Actually you said "beginner level". That can mean a few things. Anyway, pendulum or falling leaf is not snowboarding, no more than sideslipping is skiing. At advanced levels it's a self-preservation maneuver which can be learned at any time after learning how to turn left and right. I'll use it in tight trees or moguls if I have to. At the beginner level it's nothing more than a trap into which less apt beginners fall if allowed, which they then must waste time climbing out of before they can learn how to actually snowboard. In a lesson it is to be avoided, not encouraged, and duck encourages it. I suppose if one is trying to sell "snowboarding" in an hour, an instructor might identify students who simply aren't going to get it, and steer them into the falling leaf trap. This is an easy out. Then the instructor can patronize the student by telling them they learned "something" in that hour.

Edited April 1, 2014 by Jack Michaud

[Corey]

I used the falling leaf on Saturday! Got bucked by an unseen bump in a heelside turn and got too close to the trees for my comfort level. I skidded switch and got back over far enough to safely change edges. Not knowing how to do that would be a shame!

My pet peeve is people that just learn how to do a heelside falling leaf and ride all over the place like that. (You can do this without dying in Manitoba - LOL!) When I worked in a shop it was amazing how many boards had near-new toe edges and dinged/gouged heel edges.

[Jack M]

Like I said, falling leaf can be easily learned at any time after learning how to turn left and right.

[Rob Stevens]

*Yawn* Won't this thread just die now? Y'know everyone? This is the West. Freedom, Eagles, all that good stuff. You all can ski if that's what you want to do. I'll be over here, riding duck, side-slipping the moguls, in an ever-so-lo-performance falling of the leaves.

[energyrail]

The most important thing in a lesson is safety and making sure it's an enjoyable experience.

You can't have them falling and breaking wrists left, right and center.

An instructor needs to modify the lesson plan accordingly.

Lots of students aren't going to turn in the first hour, and a totally directional stance isn't going to help that.

All though I do believe it's important for them know what foot they like forward.

A more realistic approach is to encourage a series of lessons to reach the goal of turning.

Some students may get confused which foot the they have forward, if I'm certain from other info they are a particular way.

changing from 15/-15 to 18/-10 and so on may help that.

Snowboarding is a misunderstood sport for sure. More technical than people realize.

Unfortunately most only get one lesson and never come back. So they stick to what the know, doing their falling leaf down the hill.

Changing edges by actually going right foot forward then left depending if they are on heels or toes, kind of like a three point turn.

[softbootsurfer]

*Yawn* Won't this thread just die now? Y'know everyone? This is the West. Freedom, Eagles, all that good stuff. You all can ski if that's what you want to do. I'll be over here, riding duck, side-slipping the moguls, in an ever-so-lo-performance falling of the leaves.

Good Idea Rob...just hit Delete Please...

[b0ardski]

*Yawn* Won't this thread just die now? Y'know everyone? This is the West. Freedom, Eagles, all that good stuff. You all can ski if that's what you want to do. I'll be over here, riding duck, side-slipping the moguls, in an ever-so-lo-performance falling of the leaves.

:AR15firindie!die!die!

c'mon Rob we know you love this schit

falling leaf and garlands are a training exercise; I used them to learn to control the edges of my skis in the 70s, and edges (I:1luvu:edges) of my board in the 80s (the fins on the burton not so much).

I skied a few runs yesterday ( the wife's new twin tip atomics switch really well) then put on the nidecker as the snow softened up.

Gonna butter turn & flat spin the schit out of the slush bumps in the sunshine on my soft board w/stepin plates wearing my tiedied union suit and 3 buckle boots, but not in a gorilla stance:p

april fools party at Schwietzer, woooohoooo!!!

[CMC]

• 
  
  

I agree, it hurts the eyes. I let the clip play as someone who had no clue was walking by my desk. They stopped and looked.... then said that is an awkward style. While they are carving, they certainly don't get any style points.

[Beckmann AG]

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.

Rob, if I had any question as to your intelligence, I wouldn't take the time to respond to your contributions thus far. Nor would I bother trying to make those responses interesting by way of seemingly oblique but relevant reference.

(E.g, Pollock, Oldenburg and Koons are not beer, as you might yet realize, but artists. The mention of which loops the discussion back to my second post.)

As to my

efforts to communicate some kind of superiority through your language

That I have come as far as I have is directly related to the understanding that I know very little.

And I'm writing for accuracy, not audience.

I'm not all that interested in making the reading easy for the reader. I'm interested in making alpine sport easier (and safer) by providing complete answers to the questions at hand. Understanding and making use of those answers might take a little effort.

That might not sit well with those accustomed to overly simplistic, and often compromised, solutions.

As to followers, there are a far greater number who disagree with my point of view than those that do.

I'm used to it, and it's no bother. Nor is it a bother to clarify or further explicate my point of view when asked.

Those that do agree with me, on whatever level, have good reason to do so.

Finally, I don't need to be right. Being right in an online discussion does nothing to improve my ability to do my job. Finding answers does, however. Sometimes finding answers involves challenging accepted beliefs, and understanding why those beliefs are so closely held.

That discourse need not be comfortable to be constructive.

If I've actually managed to offend you by way of that pursuit, then apologies offered.

I remain optimistic that a couple of experienced enthusiasts might discuss some of the 'finer' points without undue hardship.

Edited April 6, 2014 by Beckmann AG
manual transmission

[Rob Stevens]

Rob, if I had any question as to your intelligence, I wouldn't take the time to respond to your contributions thus far. Nor would I bother trying to make those responses interesting by way of seemingly oblique but relevant reference.

(E.g, Pollock, Oldenburg and Koons are not beer, as you might yet realize, but artists. The mention of which loops the discussion back to my second post.)

As to my That I have come as far as I have is directly related to the understanding that I know very little.

And I'm writing for accuracy, not audience.

I'm not all that interested in making the reading easy for the reader. I'm interested in making alpine sport easier (and safer) by providing complete answers to the questions at hand. Understanding and making use of those answers might take a little effort.

That might not sit well with those accustomed to overly simplistic, and often compromised, solutions.

As to followers, there are a far greater number who disagree with my point of view than those that do.

I'm used to it, and it's no bother. Nor is it a bother to clarify or further explicate my point of view when asked.

Those that do agree with me, on whatever level, have good reason to do so.

Finally, I don't need to be right. Being right in an online discussion does nothing to improve my ability to do my job. Finding answers does, however. Sometimes finding answers involves challenging accepted beliefs, and understanding why those beliefs are so closely held.

That discourse need not be comfortable to be constructive.

If I've actually managed to offend you by way of that pursuit, then apologies offered.

I remain optimistic that a couple of experienced enthusiasts might discuss some of the 'finer' points without undue hardship.

I should offer my apologies, Erik.

I get carried away, in defense of what I believe are my riding "touchstones". Taking a step back, I recognize that physiology plays the main role and it's likely that it's more about my knock-kneed build than anything, as to why I like that certain stance so much.

Fair to say, I get the job done, but not like a good alpine rider, with a forward stance.

Maybe one day we'll meet and can share a Pollock or two... I might learn to like it.