Skiing stance, do you agree with this?

I was taught to ski with my skis about 12 inches apart, so that sounds about right as far as I know. I know it doesnt look as elegant as those who sweep downhill with edges virtaully stuck together, but it works.

Tony_H wrote: I know it doesnt look as elegant as those who sweep downhill with edges virtaully stuck together, but it works.

That doesn't look elegant either, because thier body movements are so unnatural.

Trencher

Trencher wrote

That doesn't look elegant either, because thier body movements are so unnatural.

Trencher,

I don't agree, then you might expect me too. A good neat skier can look good in different styles, be that legs together, or apart, carving, avalamont, telemark.

It may be that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

So who is the Monet, and who is the Damian Hirst?

Dave Mac wrote:Trencher wrote

That doesn't look elegant either, because thier body movements are so unnatural.

Trencher,

I don't agree, then you might expect me too. A good neat skier can look good in different styles, be that legs together, or apart, carving, avalamont, telemark.

It may be that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

So who is the Monet, and who is the Damian Hirst?

You are of course right Dave. One does see people skiing with style even though thier legs are together, especially in powder and moguls. To me though, that style has an unnatural flow, almost a sense of forced movement on groomed snow. This may be because I was not a fan of skiing until more recently and have no appreciation of what good technique might have been all those years ago :wink:

Trencher

Damian Hirst very alive and stunningly rich :mrgreen:

Monet is pushing up the daisies.....

Go fat, you know you really want to :D

Trencher wrote:

It may be because I was not a fan of skiing until more recently and have no appreciation of what good technique might have been all those years ago

Ah, Trencher, it's true, age is a terrible thing. And it's coming to a place close to you, soon, very soooon.

Bandit wrote:

Go fat, you know you really want to

Bandit, if you are referring to girth, then I suppose, its like my old school reports, "not bad at all, could do better."

Should you, on the other hand, be referring to skis, I recall trying some mediumish Fats. Couldn't get my feet together so gave up. :(

Dave Mac wrote:Trencher wrote:

It may be because I was not a fan of skiing until more recently and have no appreciation of what good technique might have been all those years ago

Ah, Trencher, it's true, age is a terrible thing. And it's coming to a place close to you, soon, very soooon.

Bandit wrote:

Go fat, you know you really want to

Bandit, if you are referring to girth, then I suppose, its like my old school reports, "not bad at all, could do better."

Should you, on the other hand, be referring to skis, I recall trying some mediumish Fats. Couldn't get my feet together so gave up. :(

Dave Mac. The ultimate solution for you is........a Monoski. Just think of the advantages, always having your feet together, not having to even think about it )

Don't need a Monoski, Bandit, togetherness just comes natural. Uhmm, except for boilerplate, and er marble, also choppy crud, ... and porrage. In these conditions, would require two monoskis.

Which, I guess, brings us back to Fats. Whatever they are.