I posted this in another thread but I think it defers from the threads original topic so here it is here:
One could make the argument that skiing without poles is MORE difficult
than skiing with poles. Take for example tightrope walking. In order to
stay balanced on the rope, the walker uses a large pole to keep
balanced.
If
the same person were to walk the same rope without that giant pole
every one of us would acknowledge that walking without the pole would
be far more difficult. The pole is used for balance, much the same as
ski poles are used for balance. When skiing we often need to make micro
adjustments in order to correct our balance, this is where poles are
used. Weather it be a drag on the ground during a carve or a slight
wobble in the air or on a rail, poles make balance adjustments easier.
By this logic, skiing without poles forces the body to counter balance
on its own. Poles are simply a tool used to make skiing EASIER.
Tradition allows skiing with poles to be the norm although skiing
without poles is, technically, more difficult than skiing with poles.
This
is not a well written argument. I do not have the motivation to
make it clearer. I think you understand what I am saying here. I think
skiing with or without poles is up to the
skier but inherently skiing without poles is more difficult. Note that
there are some aspects of skiing that become easier when skiing without
poles but that is a different argument in itself.
Discuss...
