Tested Tom’s theory this year….feel soooo good..foot feels so relaxed..way more foot/toe feel..no more foot cramps …his analogy makes. Absolute sense …try it

The rocking foot bed is very interesting. Dalbello had something similar 45 years ago. I was sceptical at the time but thinking now it makes a lot of sense

Where can we buy Tom Gellie's new footbed?

I might have missed this within the video... but how are you not left with a large void within the boot? My ankles have no retention without that space taken up.

Damn, I miss skiing

Please spread this message! Piss people off! Skiing comes from the foot. We need this discussion. Speaking as an American skier… There are bootfitters out there who understand these mechanics, mostly catering to park skiers. They will stock the flexible footbeds but tend to only offer them to people who specifically request them or when someone obviously has a very flexible arch. Most shops won’t even stock the flexible footbeds, so most custom footbeds by default are going to be inflexible. So, this suggestion “just don’t use custom footbeds” is a very apt, imho. But some of us really do need some support and certainly the need for shock absorption makes some kind of footbed mandatory. This is the best discussion I have ever heard on the topic. It is validating and inspiring! But what I am struggling most with is the shape of the actual boot. Ski boots need to be informed by the barefoot movement, which is demanding that shoes actually be designed for real foots shapes and mechanics. Ski boot toes tend to narrow to a point which pushes the big toe over. Apart from causing bunions, this prevents proper leverage from pronation. The foot can’t pronate properly if the big toe is out of alignment. Getting the boot punched adequately to correct for this is almost impossible. I’d really like to hear how others are dealing with this. Obviously this is going to be more of an issue for some people with wider feet.

@asclepias

Жыл бұрын

@@JB91710 I appreciate you standpoint, and most of the ski industry would agree with you, but I disagree and clearly a lot of other people disagree, because of the sheer mechanical fact that the human foot is not a rigid monolith. Some people can get away with treating it as if it is, but for most people the consequence of making that unnatural assumption is not just pain but loss of control and power. Humans did not evolve with rigid nubs for feet. We evolved with dynamic, flexible feet that are the source of power in the leg. This is the entire philosophy of the barefoot movement and natural running movement. The result is, runners who were once crippled by knee and hip problems from unnatural running shoe mechanics, find themselves able to run again because the foot is serving its proper function as shock absorber and source of mechanical power. Natural positions of hips and upper body follow to correct positioning of the foot through the stride. It is not just the skiing technique that would be improved by heeding the natural mechanics of the foot. It is not just the the edge angle and forward balance would have more stability and power. It would also mean that skiers would have less damage to their feet, knees, and hips caused by unnatural biomechanics. The mechanics of the leg cannot be fully translated to the ski without the flexibility and strength of the foot. If the human ankle was rigid and human foot arch was rigid, you would be correct. The mechanics of the upper body, hips, and legs may translate to edge angle through the physical structure of the leg, but it is EDGE PRESSURE (horizontal balance) and forward/center/backward pressure (vertical balance) that are needed extend the dynamic of that edge ankle through the ski. I can point to more mainstream sources that would also disagree with you: The Carv biofeedback system is entirely based on differentials of pressure across the footbed and provides extensive commentary of the importance of pressure as translate through the foot. You can’t have differentials of pressure through the foot without some degree of movement. Here is a quote from John Clendenin, in an interview from Outside Magazine: “We don’t teach clients-we teach feet! If you understand the kinetic chain in skiing, you realize that the body naturally aligns itself to the feet in order to maintain balance. Here is a simple test: sit, with your knees bent, so your thighs are parallel to the ground. Move your knees sideways back and forth, with your feet flat to the ground. Now, in the same position, try to tip your feet on edge without moving your knees. You can’t. Do the same drill standing up. You will fall over if you don’t let the body bend in response to the feet going on edge. That’s the kinetic chain. It kills me when I hear ski instructors teach body positions, because this negates the kinetic chain. These instructions force the feet to find the body, not vice versa.” www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/snow-sports/john-clendenin-better-skiing-starts-your-feet/

@asclepias

Жыл бұрын

@@JB91710 I’m finding your comments helpful in summarizing what the conventional standpoint is. You want debate? Here you go: In response to your comment, “if the feet and ankles are so important to turn skis, why are they locked into and restricted by boots?”: This is exactly the assumption that is being questioned! And no one is saying that having mostly rigid ski boots is wrong. This is about challenging the assumption of 100% rigidity, and pioneering a NEW theory of how our boots should function. This is about questioning assumptions, so you aren’t really adding anything by saying “this is the way it is and therefore it is right”. On it being the body/legs that controls edge angle and therefor the foot doesn’t matter: Of course the body/leg positioning is essential to edge angle. No one is arguing against that. If your boots are 100% rigid and your foot held 100% rigidly within them, then you are correct that this is the ONLY factor that matters. But is that true for every skier out there? Can they even achieve 100% rigidity, not just horizontally and forward/back, but up and down? No, they can’t. Freeing the foot to have more movement in the right ways and to the right degree allows the foot to extend the biomechanics of the body and legs through the footbed to the ski. It is working with the physical fact of the foot, not against it. Think of when you are deeply on edge and you begin to initiate the next turn. The edge release can begin in the foot, allowing you to maintain the upper body position for a split second longer while the feet begin a change of pressure to potentiate change in edge angle. Or think of traveling on edge across a slope and having to adapt to rough terrain. Sometimes for the sake of balance your upper body and leg position has to be just so, but your feet can be making subtle adjustments to edge angle and pressure. The feet can actually work against the edge angle set up by the body, and this has value. Having an arsenal of movement in the foot is a complement to the movements of the legs and body. They have complementary value, and the more we can broaden our vocabulary of effective movement, the more choice we have for how we express our descent. On exceptionally flexible feet vs less flexible feet: Even for people with less flexible feet, the foot does move and brace and compensate as pressure is transferred through is. This is just mechanics! There is only so much pressure that a foot can transfer simply through the resistance of its rigidly-encased structure. If more power can be gained by allow long the foot to move as it evolved to move in order to generate shock absorption, differentiation of pressure and leverage power, why not use that to our advantage? On following “big names”: I don’t just follow “names” in skiing. I follow my body, the evidence is in the results. I did 15+ years of following the theory that the foot should be held rigidly in the boot. The result was that my foot sustained irreversible damage as it was forced to transfer the pressure generated in my legs through to the sole of the boot. I have permanent bone spurs and deformation developed in childhood and in my teens, from being in the hands of professional bootfitters and ski coaches. I literally stopped skiing for more than a decade because of it. Frankly, we should be questioning whether it might be child abuse to subject children to rigid ski boots that are not biomechanically healthy! For me, the problem was not the shape of the footbed. The problem was the rigidity of it, and literally no bootfitter I ever saw as a child ever suggested anything other than a rigid footbed. It was only when I heard of a bootfitter working with flexible footbeds for feet with flexible arches that I was able to start skiing again. I find now that not only am I able to ski at all, whereas the “rigid method” had made skiing impossible for me, I find that I have much more control over my skis because than I ever did back in my heyday because now I have all this fine-tuned control and powerful leverage. Here is a fact, not an opinion: Allowing some flexibility of the foot is essential to make skiing accessible to those of us whose feet can’t tolerate that rigidity. This is an inarguable fact for many thousands of skiers. But beyond that, the question at hand is, is having flexibility actually advantageous in and of itself? This is the debate. I’d argue, vehemently, from my own decades of ardent pursuit of skiing awesomeness, vehemently, yes it is! The fact that other skiers, many at the top of the industry, also know this to be true for themselves from experience, is not just random coincidence. There is something to it. This is a learned thing stemming from physical fact, not just a random opinion. I have another name for you: Deb Armstrong, here on youtube. She talks extensively about the role of feet in ski technique. She has many videos addressing this. While she may advocate a tight fitting and rigid footbed (I don’t actually know her opinion on this, but I’m assuming she follows convention) she certainly gives plenty of evidence for the role of a strong, flexible, powerful foot in the arsenal of a skilled skier. The foot literally would not get strong without having the opportunity to move a little: m.kzread.info/dash/bejne/fqCuj6aNlae5fLA.html

@rune1327

Жыл бұрын

100% agree ski boots need start adopting a barefoot shape.

@astronomenov99

9 ай бұрын

@@asclepias I am a long time Raichle Flexon - Full Tilt user and now have some K2 FL3X boots. I felt the difference when I first tried the squishy footbeds that are in the shell of Full Tilt and K2 FL3X boots. It's edge feel I think. The ability to sense the breakaway of the edge. So you can press precisely to control the angle. I used to be a snowboarder and could do frontside turns perfectly but backside would always be a bit of a sh*tshow and I would get through it as fast as possible.

it sounds like the chines on the bottom of some kayaks to get better stability when ??? carving :)

Really not the streaming message conveyed by almost all skishop I am curious to move in that way but don’t know many ski shop Bootofitter to say : No footbed This is the first think they tell you to buy 😊

I just don't buy this idea. Try without your boot and roll your ankle in like your are on the inside edge. Your ankle will turn in and down. so to use his flat footbed will lose the fitting of your ankle in the boot. There is zero way to roll into the ball of your foot without the ankle going down. A custom footbed will give instant pressure to the ball of your foot without your ankle needing to go down. I'm not an expert in foot movement but simple kinesiology will prove my point.

@gregpark1359

6 ай бұрын

How’d you go proving it not to work?

Unless you are going back to leather boots, this is nonsense.