JJ Anderson Gold

[Jack M]

Well this thread went sideways.  noschoolrider, Erik Beckman was director of Snowboarding for the Sugarloaf Ski and Snowboard School for about 25 years.  Few people on earth have spent more time thinking about, experimenting with, and practicing alpine snowboarding than him.  A lesson with him will give one enough information to digest for a whole season.  To Erik, similarly, Don has an impressive resume himself.  Former PSIA/AASI examiner, USASA champ/coach, etc.  I think there should be mutual respect here.  As for the cited articles, I read the first one about Ted Ligety skidding his way to victory.  I disagree, because he is the carvingest MF-er I've ever seen ski down a course.  The person who wrote that article doesn't even understand how sidecut works, so I'm not sure why you referenced them.  Stivoting is simply required now that FIS went back to 1985 with it's stupid GS ski rules, so while Ligety might be stivoting, I'd argue he is still carving more than others.  So is Anderson.

[lowrider]

I think the conclusion to this would be that  the parties agree to disagree ! 

[noschoolrider]

1 hour ago, Jack Michaud said:

As for the cited articles,  I'm not sure why you referenced them. 

The discussion was about Jasey-Jay Anderson and racing.  As I have stated, the reason I included links to those articles is because they contain debatable alternatives to the conviction that the racer who carves all the time always wins.

Drift/skid/pivot/redirect turns are nothing new, however they are still something that every successful ski and snowboard racer needs to be able to perform proficiently.  I agree that some of the articles are lacking and have technical inaccuracies, but again I referenced them to show that (for racers) there other types of turns that are necessary to use in some situations.

If you don't believe me or don't care it's no big deal.  However, I will not put up will bullies or self-righteous people telling me what is or is not debatable, or what I can or cannot post.  I have no respect for that type of behavior.

Edited February 1, 2018 by noschoolrider

[Poloturbo]

Quote":JJ Gold yesterday after 8 years. Go Machine!."

Fuck yeah!!!!

Congrats JJ very proud of you...

 

 

 

 

 

[BlueB]

Now that dust has settled a bit, we can carry on... 

On 1/31/2018 at 10:54 AM, noschoolrider said:

Um, yea, Boris wrote, "The very fact that an old man is winning where he probably shouldn't"

...

I also thought I made it clear that I think using rebound to be 'Jumpy' is not using rebound in an efficient/beneficial manner.  That is why I wrote, "Jasey-Jay also did a better job of keeping his board in contact with the snow (most of the time), which was the best choice (faster) for that course."  I also believe that the more time the board spends in the air the more that speed/time are lost.  I also find it mind-boggling that so many snowboard racers continue to deliberately let their boards move far above the snow (and spend so much time in the air), instead of trying to use rebound energy to move forward (versus more upward) and/or do a better job of keeping their boards in contact with the snow.

So basically, it proves my point... All the techniques that JJ used are available to the other racers, right? If they don't recognize/use it, something is wrong with racers' mindset and coaching. The physical advantage has to be with the younger athletes in all explosive sports. If not, then not enough training was put in. 
We are going to exclude the experience card - at the age of 30 one has probably already raced for at least 15 years, 10 at the the highest level - he doesn't need to wait until 40 to call himself experienced. 

A carve is quicker then a slide. A carve with rebound utilization is faster then a slide (or drift, slarve, stivot, whatever you want to call it) with rebound. These are the facts, that's why the shaped skis obliterated the straight ones in the last century. 
The excessive use of stivot in skiing became more pronounced when the FIS mandated stupidly long sidecuts and reverted decades of development of gear and technique. The same is probably applicable to the PGS snowboarding. The shapes developed, to where we see them now, about 10 years ago. In the mean time, the courses have changed to the point where one can rarely use the 185cm 20m s/cut board and do a clean turn. Yet, racers/coaches stubbornly carry on using the same long cut boards for all the courses. Why not have a variety of boards, use a tighter cut for a tighter course? I'm not aware there's FIS cut regulation on snowboarding side... 

 

But yeah, go Jasey! It would be so neat to round of the career with another Olympic medal. 

Edited February 2, 2018 by BlueB

[nigelc]

24 minutes ago, BlueB said:

Why not have a variety of boards, use a tighter cut for a tighter course?

I have always wondered this. My conclusion is that the longer sidecut must be quicker overall in some way, such as when gliding, straightlining, drifting etc

[SunSurfer]

Given the number of runs a snowboard PGS racer must successfully complete to win an event, they need to be both fast but also consistently finish. Are there properties of the longer sidecut boards that give better edge hold, or more easily controlled skids, or handle rutted surfaces better? Or......

[noschoolrider]

On 2/2/2018 at 10:28 AM, BlueB said:

So basically, it proves my point... All the techniques that JJ used are available to the other racers, right? If they don't recognize/use it, something is wrong with racers' mindset and coaching. The physical advantage has to be with the younger athletes in all explosive sports. If not, then not enough training was put in. 
We are going to exclude the experience card - at the age of 30 one has probably already raced for at least 15 years, 10 at the the highest level - he doesn't need to wait until 40 to call himself experienced.

A lot of what you are saying is correct.  However, you should not exclude the additional experience a 40 year old has.  Even when one racer has a physical advantage such as younger, heavier (it's a gravity sport), taller (more leverage), or more strength, the racer without any of those physical advantages can still win if they make better choices and apply the most effective technique for each turn/situation (turns/courses/conditions vary).

JJA applied his experience and made the best choices for that course and those conditions (that course was similar to the course he won Olympic gold on).

I'm 5'7", 135 pounds (and old) and I race PGS on 180 and 185 Kesslers with plates.  I beat younger, taller, heavier, stronger racers most of the time, and I have also won several national championships.  When someone my size and age has results like that it indicates they use a successful combination of technique, skill and experience.

However, since I'm my own coach, if you want to say my results have nothing to do with experience and are only due to better coaching - then that's fine with me :)

I also want to make it clear that there are several BOL members I know who are faster than me including Kenneth Boivin and Everett McEwan.

On 2/2/2018 at 10:28 AM, BlueB said:

A carve is quicker then a slide. A carve with rebound utilization is faster then a slide (or drift, slarve, stivot, whatever you want to call it) with rebound. These are the facts, that's why the shaped skis obliterated the straight ones in the last century.

Everyone I know (including me) agrees with you on that.  However, carving is only quicker than sliding/skidding when that carve does not take the racer out of the faster line.

On 2/2/2018 at 10:28 AM, BlueB said:

The excessive use of stivot in skiing became more pronounced when the FIS mandated stupidly long sidecuts and reverted decades of development of gear and technique. The same is probably applicable to the PGS snowboarding. The shapes developed, to where we see them now, about 10 years ago. In the mean time, the courses have changed to the point where one can rarely use the 185cm 20m s/cut board and do a clean turn. Yet, racers/coaches stubbornly carry on using the same long cut boards for all the courses. Why not have a variety of boards, use a tighter cut for a tighter course? I'm not aware there's FIS cut regulation on snowboarding side...

Even with a blended range of sidecuts sometimes it is necessary to drift/skid/pivot/redirect - it deepens upon the offset/course.

So...  Why have the courses changed?

It's a gravity sport, which means bigger/heavier racers have a huge advantage.  If every race course was set to favor only pure carved turns (with no technical challenges) then the biggest and best gliders would always win.  The changes in the courses (that made them more difficult/technical) level the playing field and give smaller/lighter/older racers an equal/better opportunity to win.  In that situation, you must become a better technical racer to be successful.

On 2/2/2018 at 10:28 AM, BlueB said:

But yeah, go Jasey! It would be so neat to round of the career with another Olympic medal. 

Edited February 9, 2018 by noschoolrider

[lordmetroland]

2 hours ago, noschoolrider said:

When someone my size and age has results like that it indicates they use a successful combination of technique, skill and experience.

I've never won anything. Except the Cassingham Elementary School art contest when I was in 3rd grade. But if I went back 40 years later, I would still totally dominate those little f***ers. 

[Beckmann AG]

3 hours ago, lordmetroland said:

I've never won anything. Except the Cassingham Elementary School art contest when I was in 3rd grade. But if I went back 40 years later, I would still totally dominate those little f***ers. 

Please, please confirm that Stevie's album art is the spawn of that storied contest.

[Beckmann AG]

7 hours ago, nigelc said:

I have always wondered this. My conclusion is that the longer sidecut must be quicker overall in some way, such as when gliding, straightlining, drifting etc

Also possible that smaller sidecuts don't lend themselves to 'modern' technique. Racing skis of the 70's didn't have much sidecut, and racers of that era used 'similar' tactics to what you see in snowboard racing at present.

7 hours ago, SunSurfer said:

Are there properties of the longer sidecut boards that give better edge hold, or more easily controlled skids, or handle rutted surfaces better? Or......

You'd probably want to take a long gaze at all of the variables involved in board construction, interface setup, technique, course layout, etc, and some sort of order would emerge. For instance, metal provides stability, but it also slows rebound. That affects how a competitor can use rebound to move their base from place to place. Which in turn relates to board flex, and so forth.

[Beckmann AG]

On 2/1/2018 at 4:32 PM, Jack Michaud said:

Erik Beckman was director of Snowboarding for the Sugarloaf Ski and Snowboard School for about 25 years. 

Thanks Jack, but I'll not take credit for something I didn't do.

While I've been extensively involved with snowboard and ski education, for many (too many?) years at Sugarloaf, I was never officially the 'director' of anything.

[Beckmann AG]

8 hours ago, BlueB said:

So basically, it proves my point... All the techniques that JJ used are available to the other racers, right? If they don't recognize/use it, something is wrong with racers' mindset and coaching. The physical advantage has to be with the younger athletes in all explosive sports. If not, then not enough training was put in. 

As you probably realize, coaches can get pretty insular in their approach, and don't necessarily look beyond their immediate sphere of influence for ideas. And athlete efficiency is perhaps overshadowed by the conventions of strength and conditioning?

 

[lonbordin]

11 minutes ago, Beckmann AG said:

Thanks Jack, but I'll not take credit for something I didn't do.

While I've been extensively involved with snowboard and ski education, for many (too many?) years at Sugarloaf, I was never officially the 'director' of anything.

Wait... you are a Doctor aren't you???  

 

 

Edited February 3, 2018 by lonbordin
muh' world is crumbling...

[Beckmann AG]

On 2/1/2018 at 11:58 AM, noschoolrider said:

On 1/31/2018 at 9:58 PM, Beckmann AG said:

if you take the content in those articles seriously, you're constraining yourself professionally. They're poorly written, and do little to clarify how a snowsport athlete might improve their game.

You have repeatedly attempted to position yourself as being superior to Chris Knight (U.S. Ski & Snowboard Team women's speed coach), Ron LeMaster (former technical advisor to the U.S. Ski Team), and Dr. Jim Taylor by making disparaging comments about their articles and their writing abilities, and you haven't provided any compelling reasons why I should listen to you.  

I made a statement regarding the value of the articles, my concern that a fellow professional would lean on them,  and later offered alternative means of understanding movement options in snowsport. 

A few more thoughts on the writing, for those interested:

->Stephen King has said of storytelling “It’s not the teller, but the tale” He may have intended several meanings, but it should be clear that if the story has value, the storyteller should abstain from inserting their self into the narrative. 

With writing of a technical nature, it’s the content that matters, not the author. If the content has no value, the resumé of the author won’t change that. If the content is valuable, it will stand on its own, and the author will silently gain credibility based on that value.

The articles written by Taylor and Ruggeri aren’t so much about skiing, as they are about Taylor and Ruggeri. That’s apparent based on repeated self reference in the former, and the rather shallow impressions of skiing posed by the latter. And neither article brings to light anything about the sport that isn’t fairly obvious.  

As topical writing for those with passing interest, they’re readable. In a 'stuck in the airport on layover with nothing to do' sort of way.

For those looking to up their game, not so much.

Ergo, there’s no point in debating the content, or using them as reference material in a discussion about the technical nature of skiing or snowboarding.

Taylor does, however, provide a nice transition to the work of LeMaster:

"I have seen many good skiers. They were technically and tactically sound and made really nice turns. These good skiers were solid and consistent. Only one problem. They weren’t usually on the podium. Why? Because they were more focused on skiing well than skiing fast."

One of the problems in skiing, is that ‘technically and tactically sound’ is usually decided by committee, and that committee then promotes that determination, more in the interest of the committee, and less in the interest in good skiing.

Enter Ron LeMaster. (With an interesting quote by Nietzsche. The inclusion of which counts as IRONY).

LeMaster has carved out a nice niche in the field of ‘photo montage as proof’.  If there’s a photo, it obviously happened, right?
The problem with photos, and photo montage, is that it’s relatively easy to see what you want to see, rather than what’s there, and then use your position to convince others of that viewpoint.  

E.G.,  “The outside ski is the best one to make you turn”

Cue the 8x10 glossies with the circles and the arrows and the paragraphs on the back.

‘Outside ski’ is a ‘US Skiing’ talking point. You will generally hear repeated reference to the outside ski if you listen to a race with an American race commentator. After all, directing pressure, balance, good will, bitcoins, and licorice whips to the outside ski is one of the alleged hallmarks of good skiing.
Yet stressing the importance of the outside ski, and imprinting that message on a developing skier, is one of the better ways to curtail their success. It’s right up there with ‘shoulders down the fall line’ and ‘counter’.

Hypothesis:
Plastic boots interfere in many ways with intuitive and effective use of the skis. The teaching establishment is not in a position to deal with these problems, as that takes both shop time and education. Therefore, it’s convenient to focus the attention to the outside foot, the one ‘less effected’ by plastic, and to promote a means of skiing that goes ‘inside edge to inside edge’.
 
On the one hand, this decision simplifies the task of the average ski instructor. On the other, it does nothing to facilitate skiing, at least not beyond the intermediate level. 
Consistency of message is important however, so let’s go with that, and to heck with progress.

->It should be fairly obvious that the better skiers out there are deadly effective on both feet, both individually and simultaneously, as a means of changing direction. Not one to the exclusion of the other, but both as coordinated parts of an effective two-footed platform. 

(Kinda like, oh, a snowboard?)

This is, in general, a faster way to ski; due in part to the significant time reduction in the fluid connection between one turn and the next.

So, the opening of LeMaster’s symposium presentation is  ‘how to carve tight turns’, yet he’s omitting the easiest way to do that, which is to be more effective in your use of the area available in which to make that turn. The easiest way to do that, is to be more effective on both feet. Yet, he emphasizes the importance of the outside ski, a clear detriment to making tighter turns.

That circumstance might also qualify as IRONY.

If LeMaster is an authority on skiing fast or the technical aspects of skiing, shouldn’t he have a solid grasp of both time and movement, how one is connected to the other? And if he does have a grasp of time and movement, why is he emphasizing a tactic that, in effect, will make a skier slower?

Or is he involved in the symposium to support and promote the outdated notions of the coaching establishment?

Either way, I'd not recommend his work to anyone seriously interested in skiing better, faster, or better-faster.

He’s rather famous though. So by gum, you darned well better accept his knowledge?

 

Edited February 3, 2018 by Beckmann AG

[Beckmann AG]

20 minutes ago, lonbordin said:

Wait... you are a Doctor aren't you??? 

Doctor? No.

Edited February 3, 2018 by Beckmann AG
Nice leave!

[Beckmann AG]

On 2/1/2018 at 5:30 PM, noschoolrider said:

If you don't believe me or don't care it's no big deal.  However, I will not put up will bullies or self-righteous people telling me what is or is not debatable, or what I can or cannot post.  I have no respect for that type of behavior.

->Mind those windmills.

Edited February 3, 2018 by Beckmann AG

[lordmetroland]

1 hour ago, Beckmann AG said:

That's closer to my contest winning 3rd grade art submission. Why you'd post a scribble of two dudes riding llamas on a mini-golf course is anyone's guess...