Why the telemark?

[lilcliffy]

Went to my daughter’s badminton tournament this morning- they were two hours behind schedule…So- I spent two hours sitting on a severely uncomfortable bleacher- day dreaming about skiing.

I ended up browsing a “telemark” forum on my phone, and discovered a thread entitled “Drop knee advantages”. The original post asked a meaningful question that is seldom asked- and even more rarely effectively answered: how and why is the telemark useful? And by extension: if the telemark is so difficult to learn, why would you use it instead of alpine turns?

The responses on the forum, from skiers, started with things such as “because it is more fun”; and ended in an endless series of bantering posts. Although many responses did give good excellent examples of where and how the telemark turn is effective; no one seemed to manage to answer this question of why- at least in a fundamental sense.

The more I think about it- this is a very meaningful question. There is of course much talk, discussion, teaching, and learning (and trial and error) about how and where to telemark- and especially what to telemark with. There is rarely much discussion on why to telemark. The “why” seems an important question. Especially when it comes to downhill skiing- Alpine ski technology is much more powerful than Nordic. There- yes, I did say that.

If us Nordic-downhill (i.e. “telemark”) skiers want the ski manufacturers to keep advancing and developing Nordic-downhill technology and equipment, perhaps we need to take some time to attract new skiers to downhill skiing on Nordic equipment. If there is not a large enough consumer base, eventually the manufacturers will stop producing it. And rather than assuming that the question of “why the telemark” is purely either philosophical, or simply matter of personal preference- perhaps we should take it as serious question. Perhaps effectively answering the question of “why”, is a key to the relevance, and the future, of Nordic-downhill technology. After all- if the telemark skier cannot reasonably answer the question “why”- why should we expect other skiers to consider downhill skiing on Nordic equipment?

I here will attempt to give my answer to “why the telemark”, and hopefully stimulate some focused responses and discussion.

Perhaps the best place for me to start is where I personally see the limitations of the telemark turn. Having done much big-mountain skiing on both alpine touring (AT) and telemark equipment; I must say that I personally believe that regardless of skier skill- there is a limit to the downhill performance of a telemark turn. There are things I have personally seen skiers do on extreme terrain and snow, which I believe, can only be done with a locked heel, a rigid boot, and alpine techniques.

My next perspective is that the telemark turn is a downhill technique that was born out of skiing downhill, on essentially xcountry-Nordic equipment.

The origins of Nordic ski technology/technique are truly ancient. The ancient pioneering of Nordic ski technology is purely utilitarian: travel, hunt, trap, herd… Snowshoe technology is even older than Nordic skiing. But the fundamental purpose is still the same- travelling on snow. Nordic skiing takes the efficiency of walking on snow even further than snowshoes, because of the ability to stride and glide. The fundamental essence of Nordic ski technology is still what it was thousands of years ago: attaching the ball of your foot to a ski, so that you can efficiently stride and glide your way around on the snow. Nordic ski technology has been used to travel long distances, hunt, trap, and even herd livestock.

Some of the ancient Nordic ski technologies only remain amongst Aboriginal peoples of Northern Eurasia. For example; Sami hunters used two completely different skis to hunt with a spear or bow- one very long gliding ski, and a second short, traction ski, with a permanent skin. The hunter would glide on one leg, while using the traction ski to “kick”- there was no use of ski poles in this setup. This frees up both hands to allow active use of a weapon such as a spear or bow- while skiing!

It seems clear that ancient Nordic ski technology at some point ran into mountainous terrain. The need to travel through, and on, mountainous terrain caused the evolution of Nordic-downhill skiing techniques.

Alpine ski technology is not ancient. It was developed in the Alps (about a hundred years ago) for a different purpose than Nordic skiing. Alpine ski technology was not developed to travel on snow. Alpine skiing was developed to powerfully and efficiently ski down mountains. Even “Alpine Touring” (AT) equipment is primarily designed to climb up mountains- in order to ski back down them. Alpine skiing was developed for recreation and high-performance sport. Nordic skiing was developed to travel and get work done.

The term “telemark turn” comes from the mountainous region of Norway with the same name. Legendary skiers, such as Sondre Norheim (from Telemark, Norway), pioneered modern Nordic-downhill technology and technique. The fact that Fennoscandians associate mountain-Nordic skiing technique with Norway is no accident- western Norway is extremely mountainous. But, Nordic downhill skiing techniques (e.g. the telemark turn) were developed at a time in history when skiers were still primarily using skis to travel, and just “get shit done”. Downhill skiing on Nordic ski tech was not invented in Telemark Norway. Humans have been using Nordic ski technology to travel in the mountains for thousands of years- they still are.

So- my basic argument is based on the fact that the telemark turn has its origins in downhill skiing on Nordic skis. In other words- the “telemark” was developed to turn xcountry skis.

The advancement and development of both Nordic and Alpine skiing technology has been dominated by recreation and high-performance sport over the last century (Sondre Norheim himself was a world-class xcountry racer, downhill racer, and ski jumper). This has led to such extremes as high-performance Nordic ski equipment that can only be effectively used on a perfectly groomed track; to big-mountain equipment that is designed to safely and powerfully ski down extreme slopes. High-performance big-mountain, Nordic (i.e. “telemark”) equipment has become so rigid and powerful that it approaches what can be done on Alpine equipment.

But regardless of the extreme downhill skiing that can be done on modern telemark equipment- I stand by my first statement: it pales in comparison to the extreme downhill skiing that can be done on Alpine equipment. Yes- I said it again...

Add to it this simple fact- no matter how much a master can make it look and sound easy- the telemark turn is damn hard to learn- especially on light, traditional Nordic ski technology.

So- this leads me back to my original question- why the telemark?

The purely utilitarian answer is no different than it was thousands of years ago: to travel long distances in mountainous terrain. OR- in other words- to xcountry ski in the mountains.

Big-mountain telemark equipment along with Alpine equipment may make downhill skiing extremely efficient- but- rigid, powerful big-mountain ski equipment is not efficient at traveling long distances.

Efficient long distance travel on snow is all about the Nordic stride (i.e. “diagonal stride”): the action of pushing down with one leg for traction, while lunging forward on the alternate leg in order to glide. An efficient Nordic stride blows all other forms of manual-xcountry travel away. An efficient Nordic stride requires some key elements:
• A Nordic binding: attached at the toe/ball of foot- allowing the full extension of the foot, when striding- with enough resistance to translate foot/boot flex into downward grip (i.e. “kick”)
• Flexibility of the instep. The foot/boot must be able to freely flex for efficient “kick”, stride and glide.

Rigid big-mountain ski equipment is simply too rigid to enable efficient Nordic striding. One cannot have it all.

Here is another fundamental perspective that I have: I believe that the original “telemark” turn was simply a modified Nordic stride. Like the Nordic stride; the original telemark turn was initiated with the same weight shifted onto the trailing ski. Unlike the Nordic stride, the leading ski was placed and forced into a carved turn, as the rear knee dropped, and weight was evenly distributed between both leading and trailing skis. The diagonal stride becomes the telemark turn.

Alpine ski technology allows the skier to effectively steer skis. This cannot be done on traditional Nordic equipment- except in the most ideal conditions- the boots and bindings are simply not rigid and powerful enough. The original telemark technique allows a skier to stride through turns, on light, flexible equipment.

So from a purely utilitarian perspective: if you are long-distance touring, the telemark allows the skier to stride through downhill turns on light, flexible equipment, which enables efficient xcountry Nordic striding. This is the essence of the “why” for me. I am a long-distance tourer- even in mountainous terrain. I personally need the telemark turn in order to effectively and consistently turn my long, glide-oriented skis, with light, flexible boots/bindings.

(I am also a serious geek for feeling in touch with ancient culture and tech. Knowing that humans have been Nordic skiing for thousands of years just does it for me!)

On the other hand, if I was simply climbing mountains to aggressively ski back down them…I would be hard-pressed to argue that the telemark is the way to go- except for the fact that it does feel so damn good! Like many have already said- perhaps “fun” is enough of a personal reason” why” to use the telemark. But I am not so certain that fun is enough of a reason to convince skiers to use Nordic rather than Alpine tech to downhill ski…

Why do you use the telemark? Why is it important? Why do we need the telemark?

[Teleman]

Was up on Wheelock Mountain ready to push off and hit Flagg Pond @ 1300 feet below....Old Growth forest with gigantic Hardwoods, all of uniform height....Had recently switched from Asnes 220's to some plasticized Fischer's that were very fast and a reaL SKINNY CC ski....waaay skinny but VERY fast....Decent powder which didn't allow for turns....Just shoot the openings and pray....What a blast! Toward the bottom a friend of Telewheels from Stowe did a tentative Telemark turn....Never heard of it....never seen it.....but instant understanding that EVERYTHING had changed....The possibilities were awesome..... Started to imitate as did Teleking....Then all of us skiing together were trying to do the turn....WHY.....To be able to control our decent in the Giant forest by making turns not possible before......In March when the surface hardened and we got 4-8 inches of powder on it we could do parallels but not in deep powder....Possibilities seemed endless....AND they were...What transformed us from trying to reality was the e99.....We expanded our horizons....Camels Hump....Hunger.....Mansfield....Sterling.....Finally the Gulf and Tucks....WHY????....Because we could take a NORDIC ski and ski just about anything given reasonable conditions....Could go miles into the Gonz...Ski up and down just about anything.....Our love for Gladded Mountain runs were made more fun by the fact that we could turn....Being out more and more gave us insight into NATURE....which revealed itself here and there over time....The tele allowed us to explore....to see...hear.....feel....THAT'S WHY!!!!!!! tm

[MikeK]

Many theorize that telemark died because of cars and lifts (I think I got that straight out of XCD), and I would wholeheartedly agree with that.

It is truly an inferior technique for riding a lift and riding on groomed snow. Alpine developed to ski just those very conditions (although I don't believe it started that way).

I've said it a million times but my whole interest in Telemark came from necessity. Necessity to control Nordic skis in soft snow conditions. I honestly would have never even put any effort into it if I thought I could get by knowing what I did.

I just finished re-reading XCD again to refresh myself for this year, and in the version I have (the first edition), Steve Barnett outlines the necessity of learning the telemark turn for all these same reasons. He also outlines the importance of using the right turn or technique for the snow/terrain conditions... and that isn't always the telemark.

[connyro]

Where I live and ski, there's just no real need for heavy alpine gear IMO. We get a LOT of snow here and have an expansive wilderness of very rugged and steep terrain, but not a whole lot of vertical (Great Lakes area): good XCD terrain. It just doesn't make sense to use AT gear and alpine technique when our slopes are a few hundred vertical feet. I grew up out east racing DH and XC but once I moved to the great lakes, I entirely stopped DH skiing because I thought it was overkill for most of the ski hills here: boring. I wanted to get out into the woods and find my own slopes and challenges, so I taught myself the tele turn.

Tele allows for efficient touring and minimal fiddling with gear plus plenty of control and enjoyment for the down without being overkill. Skiers here mix XC and DH in a typical tour, and telemark technique is superior for that, IMO. I also spend quite a bit of time exploring new terrain and bushwhacking, so I prefer the simplicity and reliability of a 3-pin tele setup for that type of skiing.

When I head west (or east) for a ski trip, I've been bringing my tele setup. Each trip, I'm amazed at how 'out gunned' I feel when trying to keep up with other decent skiers on alpine gear. It can be done but frankly, it's exhausting (but incredibly fun!) Going mach speed on groomed snow is a real thrill on a tele setup, but IMO, not the ideal or most powerful setup for that type of skiing.

[teledance]

It made accessing the BC so much easier and I was given free leather boots and Tua skis. I also scored a 1 credit A in Telemark skiing.

[MikeK]

The above posts make me think a lot about the biking industry and the parallels it has to the skiing industry. This is a bit of a wild tangent but I've noticed it a lot since I've been engulfed back into mountain biking.

Biking has specialized much the way skiing has, but the interesting thing I think is it's still way more xc focused. By that I mean people are still climbing AND descending. Skiing has long surpassed that in the mainstream. DH biking is popular, but by no means as popular and accessible as xc biking. I'd say it's still the same for xc skiing, but still dh skiing seems to be more popular (I don't have the numbers).

I find it a bit odd, or maybe similar to skiing, in that biking has this whole thing of 'trail' bikes which try to blend as much dh/dirt jump as they can into an xc capable bike. I had a recent chat with the guys at my local bike shop about that I told them I really can't see having a slack, long travel, full suspension 'trail' bike for the stuff we have in NY (much like connyro says about AT gear in the Great Lakes region). Sure, maybe I could ride a tad faster through some stuff, but I'm not racing, so a few seconds here or there on the trail is pretty inconsequential. Sure, it might make some stuff a bit easier to ride having rear suspension, but most of even the 'expert' trails I've ridden here are pretty tame. Now I can definitely see breaking my bike, and maybe a few bones on a pro level dh course... but unless you are riding a lift, and riding that exclusively, there's no point in having a dh bike.

Honestly, what I think deterred people from xc skiing, unlike xc bikes, has been ease of getting into the sport. It's quite a learning curve to ski expert xc downhill techniques. It's not hard to learn Alpine skiing, especially with a lift cutting out the time consuming and physically demanding part of getting up the hill. In the same sense it's not very hard to ride easy mountain bike trails. It's a small step up from a paved bike path. Getting into dh biking requires a big commitment in gear and some good bike handling skills, even with a big bruiser of a bike.

Also, I think here in the east the snowpack plays a big part in it. I have a feeling if snowmaking wasn't an option for ski resorts then alpine skiing might not be as popular as it is. Nordic skiers generally have to wait for the weather to be right to get out and ski... and to ski the more difficult terrain, the snow has to be near perfect.

[lilcliffy]

....WHY.....To be able to control our decent in the Giant forest by making turns not possible before......In March when the surface hardened and we got 4-8 inches of powder on it we could do parallels but not in deep powder....Possibilities seemed endless....AND they were....WHY????....Because we could take a NORDIC ski and ski just about anything given reasonable conditions....Being out more and more gave us insight into NATURE....which revealed itself here and there over time....The tele allowed us to explore....to see...hear.....feel....THAT'S WHY!!!!!!! tm

This is truly and literally awesome stuff Teleman- the stuff of legend.

And for me as well- the ability to tour and travel through forests and mountains- be in NATURE on snow- that is the underlying WHY for me.

[lilcliffy]

I've said it a million times but my whole interest in Telemark came from necessity. Necessity to control Nordic skis in soft snow conditions. I honestly would have never even put any effort into it if I thought I could get by knowing what I did.

This is it. It starts with articulating where you can travel and tour on Nordic skis- what you can see- what you can experience- especially in the wilderness/backcountry.

I just finished re-reading XCD again to refresh myself for this year, and in the version I have (the first edition), Steve Barnett outlines the necessity of learning the telemark turn for all these same reasons. He also outlines the importance of using the right turn or technique for the snow/terrain conditions... and that isn't always the telemark.

Yes- the telemark isn't always necessary or the best choice- totally agree. BUT- without the telemark there is a majority of downhill skiing that just cannot be done on traditional Nordic equipment.

[lilcliffy]

I wanted to get out into the woods and find my own slopes and challenges, so I taught myself the tele turn.

Everything you wrote resonates with me strongly Connyro- including the terrain/snow that you are skiing on.

The above quote I could have wrote myself.

[lilcliffy]

Honestly, what I think deterred people from xc skiing, unlike xc bikes, has been ease of getting into the sport. It's quite a learning curve to ski expert xc downhill techniques. It's not hard to learn Alpine skiing, especially with a lift cutting out the time consuming and physically demanding part of getting up the hill. In the same sense it's not very hard to ride easy mountain bike trails. It's a small step up from a paved bike path. Getting into dh biking requires a big commitment in gear and some good bike handling skills, even with a big bruiser of a bike.

This is a very insightful contrast and comparison man...

What's even weirder for me is the loss of xcountry skiing as a cultural, recreational pastime in rural Canada.

Less than 2 generations ago- EVERYONE xcountry skied in rural Eastern Canada.

Rural Canadians used snowshoes for work- but people used xcountry skis to get out and tour and visit on the weekends (i.e. cheap and healthy recreation and entertainment).

In a matter of less than 30 years xcountry skiing has become almost exclusively done by track-oriented performance skiers (even those that do it exclusively for non-competitive recreation/exercise).

Everybody else that can afford it is snowmobiling. The rest of us are sitting on the couch waiting for summer to return.