Conversation About the Wedge

by Terry McLeod and Jodi Taggart

Below is a transcript of an email conversation between Terry McLeod and Jodi Taggart (published with their permission). This conversation is useful for others to read as their dialogue on the Gliding Wedge (GW) and the Braking Wedge (BW) is not uncommon, and displays some perspective and opinions on the use of the wedge when teaching kids or adults.

Another side benefit is to point out that this type of conversation, sharing of perspectives and opinions can now be “interactive” on-line at the new psia-nw.org website, where readers can post questions and comments regarding a particular article on the website.  Just go to the website, click on the Newsletter Articles link and look for the same title as in the newsletter, then post your comments at the end of the article. Very cool.

Here’s their transcript:

From: Jodi Taggart
Sent: Thursday, 05 Nov 2009 1:19 pm
To: Terry McLeod
Subject: Technical Team related question

I was just wondering if there has been discussion among the Tech Team or DCL staff in regard to not teaching a BW because it is a defensive maneuver? This came up in our Children’s summer work session and I still don’t quite understand what is meant by not teaching it. So I was wondering if you have any insight that would help me to understand where we are trying to go as a division on this topic.

Thanks. You can just call me if it is easier.
-Jodi

From: Terry McLeod
To: Jodi Taggart
Date: Thursday, 5 Nov 2009 1:55 pm
Subject: RE: Technical Team related question

I have no insight. It hasn’t been a major discussion point whenever I’ve been around. If/when it comes up we all tend to say, “yes, it puts ‘em in the backseat so we should find better ways”. Everyone agrees and we move on. That doesn’t really help in terms of how we can best present/teach it to those who are dependent on it for their lesson plan.

The Team is very focused on the importance of fundamentals and a good foundation; everything is boiling down to balance in motion, stance, alignment, flow. I think we would translate this focus down to any level of skier and promote tasks, tactics, lesson plans that best serve developing the primary skill of balance through all phases of a turn (or a straight run for first timers).
You’ve heard me talk about it for a while now. To me, the definition of a BW is a wedge that makes you sit back. This isn’t necessarily true, but if you really want to brake/stop when you’re in a wedge position, the best way to do it is to drop your hips back. I prefer to teach slowing/stopping methods that work even when you don’t sit back. You may still be in a wedge position that prevents excessive speed, but the real reason you stop is by turning and/or traveling across the hill. Terrain selection is of course very important.
-Terry

From: Jodi Taggart
To: Terry McLeod

So would you say that there is no way to stop in a wedge position facing straight down the hill without sitting back? Or just that the quickest way to stop is to sit back and most of us wouldn’t want to spend the time/distance to slowly come to a stop in a wedge without sitting back.

From: Terry McLeod
To: Jodi Taggart

Answer B
I think you’ve been with me when I’ve asked people to stop in a wedge without sitting back and between 0 and 15% of the people can do it. Even on Sky Edge where it’s not steep we all sit back because it’s a much faster way to stop. Arguably on steeper hills it’s plain impossible to stop without leveraging back (Ridge, Upper Midway, etc.)
(Editors note: referring to terrain and runs at
Schweitzer Mountain in Idaho)

From: Jodi Taggart
To: Terry McLeod

Yes on a steeper slope I agree you move back, but why you would do a wedge of any kind going straight down a steep slope is beyond me. Looking at it strictly from a beginner skier perspective on a the gentlest of slopes couldn’t you argue that teaching a maneuver that manipulates the size of the wedge for exploration of how a ski might respond -like gliding slower- is worthwhile. Even if you move back some it helps to explore fore/aft movements?

Moving fore/aft seems to be acceptable during other skiing maneuvers.

If making a wedge shape while facing straight down the hill causes us to move back then what keeps us from moving back in a GW? What is the fundamental difference between a GW and BW; or when does a GW become a BW?

Should we only be teaching a wedge maneuver while traveling across the hill? And if so, at what angle across the fall line would a wedge (braking or gliding) cease to move us in the back seat.

From: Terry McLeod
To: Jodi Taggart

Perhaps part of the answer is in you first sentence; if people have learned the wedge as a stopping mechanism and they end up on a steeper slope (say with their parents after the lesson), then the best survival technique is to lean back to stop or slow down.

I think your description of that teaching scenario is appropriate because you’re using it to explore/learn/develop movements. I teach hockey stops to develop movements but I hope that people don’t use it as their primary braking/stopping device.

We don’t move back in a GW because it’s not wide enough to force/encourage us to sit back (an oversimplified answer probably). Difference between GW and BW could arguably be defined as a GW could be maintained indefinitely without stopping. Yes, you can do this while leaning back, just like you can do a straight run while leaning back, and yes, you can come to a full stop in a wedge without leaning back. Clearly I’m not answering your questions but only continuing the discussion.

My Plan A is to teach everything across the hill, wedge or parallel, hence the curving brushes that we set up in The Dish learning area. The angle of traverse is less likely to put you in the back seat when it is flat enough to allow confidence in your ability to stop when desired, by either a balanced wedge or by turning uphill.

From: Jodi Taggart
To: Terry McLeod

I just don’t see how a GW is all that different from a BW if the difference is that a GW maintains speed-going straight down a slope gliding is arguably a version of braking. You can drive your car down a steep grade with your foot on the brake and use it just enough to maintain a constant speed. So are you braking or gliding?

So does a GW become a BW when you actually decelerate from your intended speed? And if so are you doing a BW until you reach your desire speed (assuming your intended speed is slower than what you are at currently), then you are gliding unless you adjust ever so slightly to slow down, thus you are braking and if you continue to do this gliding/braking maneuver are doing a partially bad thing. Gliding=good Braking=bad, and is the only “right” way to adjust speed to cross the fall line while “gliding”.  If that is all true then maybe the difference between a GW and BW is simply you are gliding if you can stay centered (no fore/aft movement) and you are braking if you must move aft to control your rate of decent, not sure what it is if you move too far fore.
Am I making you crazy yet? 🙂

From: Terry McLeod
To: Jodi Taggart

You have now forced me to pull out manuals and seek “official definitions.” I consulted 3 PSIA published manuals dated 1980, 1996, and 2002 and they were all very similar. BW is a wedge shape with sufficient edge engagement that is used to slow or stop a skier; typically wider than a GW. GW is a wedge position with little friction between the edges and snow, typically narrower than BW. So when performed according to the definition either one is fine and can be taught or used as needed.

My problem is with how the application typically occurs in actual skiing situations, and the problem is seen at any/all ability levels of skier. As the wedge gets wider and the edge angle steepens (barring strange knee/edge manipulations), we all drop our hips back as a way of resisting the additional forces that are creating by the higher edge angle.

This higher edge angle is the one that creates the “extra” braking, hence the term BW. The steeper the hill gets the higher the edge angle needs to be, and in fact, a higher edge angle will automatically result because of the steepness of the hill.
If you’re standing still on a moderate blue run and then step into a wedge pointing straight downhill, the pitch of the hill will result in much higher edge angles than doing the same thing on the bunny hill. It’s also worth noting that if you do this on either hill your body will basically remain vertical (or, plumb if you’re a carpenter), because you’re standing still and that’s generally how we stand (vertical). If you’re facing downhill, in a wedge, and remain vertical, the steeper the pitch the more you will be leaning back. But I’m starting to digress into areas that are difficult to type about and much easier to demonstrate and experience when we’re on snow.

From: Jodi Taggart
To: Terry McLeod

Definitions are always a good place to start, but….let’s start with totally flat terrain. In this situation one should be able to create a wide (no pun intended) variety of wedges, meaning small to large. This person should not have to move back in order to create the larger wedge, I would assume, because there are no additional forces working on them.

Now put that same person on a very very very slight hill and ask that person to do the same task while moving ever so slowly (because the terrain allows/dictates this primarily). If that person makes a wedge that is large enough to stop them on THAT terrain will they ALWAYS move aft in order to accomplish the task? I personally would argue that “no they would not ALWAYS move aft in order to stop”.

My point being that they have, at this point in their stepping stones of learning, successfully accomplished a BW without creating movements that we have to unteach later. What we have given them is a taste of control which may encourage them to continue with their learning. As they progress they could then learn that using the skill of rotation to turn across the hill to stop would be much better and they should never feel the back of their boots in a wedge (unless they use it as an emergency maneuver) in which case we don’t care about stance, balance, blah blah blah, we care about safety 🙂

On steep terrain I won’t argue your point-yes we all move back, but again I don’t know why we do a wedge on steep terrain – unless we want to start talking about a wedge christie move. It’s no wonder some people have such a hard time with a wedge christie-if they move into the wedge phase-move back to “brake” and then move across the hill to match skis only to be too far back to make that happen … that’s a whole other conversation.

From: Terry McLeod
To: Jodi Taggart

I think what you’ve described is an appropriate teaching situation and a good illustration of why making statements that start with “always” or “never” is a risky thing. I think it’s also the type of situation that someone was thinking of when they chose to include wedge change-ups as a Level 1 exam task. Are candidates able to do this maneuver without dropping back, or do they focus on simply making a wider and smaller wedge and forget good balancing mechanics?

I think you hit the root of the problem a few posts ago, “…that the quickest way to stop is to sit back and most of us wouldn’t want to spend the time/distance to slowly come to a stop in a wedge without sitting back.” My aversion to teaching with the wedge is based on people’s inborn impatience which causes them to take perceived shortcuts and consequently develop bad habits.

From: Jodi Taggart
To: Terry McLeod
I could easily argue that we as instructors tend to teach the “BW” way too far into a lesson; meaning students are being asked to do it on too steep of terrain, but that is a training issue. We haven’t yet convinced me that it shouldn’t EVER be taught to a beginner.

What if you get that person who needs every single imaginable step to “get it” or at least needs more than “straight to parallel” and a wedge change up is a skill that helps them to progress – thus they learn the skills for a GW and BW? My ultimate point is should we ALWAYS avoid the BW as a stepping stone or should we just try to avoid it?

From: Terry McLeod
To: Jodi Taggart
Subject: Re: Tech Team related question
Date: Sunday, 8 Nov 2009 07:13:02 -0800

I think you’ve done a good job in the thread of describing appropriate ways to use both GW and BW. A wedge that brakes you to the point of stopping can be accomplished in good balance, and this is certainly a valid teaching tool. I think the wedge as a stopping tool has been relied on too heavily and results too often in bad mechanics. This is particularly true given the variety of ski size/shape developments that have recently come out (the last 5-8 years).

[connections_list id=12 template_name=”cmap” image=”photo”]

Jodi Taggart is the former Assistant Snowsports School Director at Schweitzer, past Children’s Clinician, past PSIA-NW Newsletter Editor, past Children’s Committee Chairperson and is Level III Certified in Alpine and Snowboard disciplines. Email her at j_taggart@msn.com