mca80 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2023 2:33 pm
"XCD simply means going downhill with cross-country ski equipement. The actual location where you ski is not taken into consideration. You can do backcountry XCD just as you can also do on-piste XCD."
Manney, this contradicts your statement re crusades. Also, connyro's response was never addressed, that if someone does xc skiing and encounters a hill, is it xcd? Lastly, the emphasis here is on gear. As lilcliffy pointed out, one wouldn't embark on a polar expedition with high tech heavy tele gear simply because it is not efficient.
"You are free to do whatever you want once in XCD mode. You're totally free. It's yours to decide.
XCD only requires having the right gear and the right way of using it."
The "right way of using" it would seem to contradict that one is "totally free." But again the emphasis is on the gear, i.e. traditional xc kit.
"The fact of this matter comes from the very roots of Telemark skiing. We seek to preserve those roots and see the techniques used to ski cross-country equipment downhill world-wide."
This is the crux. Preserving roots and the techniques that were born out of those roots. Of course, duck butts and various other contraptions have a debt to those roots, but are so far removed insofar as they don't make for efficient XC that a distinction needs to be made. Yes you can traverse in plastics, NTN and super fat planks, but, given other options, namely--actual xc gear--why would you?
Might be wise to ask, in relation to a much earlier post--if you wouldn't use particular kit to ski 5 miles to do 300' vert and ski 5 miles back, can that kit properly be called xcd?
I am of course new to all this, having come from an alpine dh and ice skating background, and the former only once I reached adulthood. But having learned xc skiing a mere few years ago and reading this forum for 2 years--and given my local terrain--my main goal is to get better at xc skiing and what I believe to be xcd, using the same equipment that spawned the telemark and which teleman and some others are supportive of. Like woodserson said, the joy isn't just turning downhill but being out in the woods (or elsewhere if you live above treeline) and the trek involved. The need for speed mentality, common among bored industralized people, can be met by purely dh, which can be enhanced by more powerful equipment. But that isn't what any of this is about in my opinion. More powerful equipment results necessarily in a loss of connection to the snow because it acts as intermediary. And that is why xcd--preserving the connection and free-spiritedness, whether in the BC or even riding a lift but with centuries-old (or similar enough) technology.
Some good points here…
The Knights haven’t written about Telemark in explicit terms. Their words appear more as “guidance”. This makes them broadly inclusive but not without some logical bounds. Thus, their teachings seek to encourage knowledge and truth by self discovery rather than blind adherence to a particular dogma.
You make some good points about XC skiing. Being free heel, they allow telemark to be practiced for those with the requisite skills. But even exceptional skill doesn’t make a 44mm track ski suited to telemark skiing.
We might say that backcountry skis were the result of this revelation, but that would give too much credit to industry. Truth is that backcountry skis were always with us… just not “mass marketed” in North America or certain other parts of the world. They were hunters’ and tourers’ skis… functional things that were suitable for terrain and snow beyond the reach of machines with weird sounding names… like Pinroth or Pisten Bully.
So as much as the Knights might (emphasis on “might” because my words do not necessarily reflect their views) say that a track or skate ski could be telemark skied, they would probably accept that a wider XC ski would be more suitable for such noble pursuits. They might also add that a backcountry ski would be a wholly acceptable choice too… along with, perhaps, an Alpine touring ski. Emphasis on touring.
The Knights of Telemark are not authorities of all things… or all things skiing. My sense is that this is why the word “Telemark” is part of their title.
So while the Knights are broadly inclusive, they do stay within their domain. My guess is that they’d consider Alpine Touring skis in their definitions, but not Alpine Skis. This seems to align with your thinking about the “tour” being an important element of Tele.
Of course, SC skiers will encounter changes in elevation worthy of being called a “hill”. But they won’t naturally seek these things out for recreation… they may train on hills to appear less awkward. They might even try to swiftly climb or descend on them. But they will only do so as a matter of necessity, not natural inclination (if you pardon the pun).
The issue of natural inclination might also factor into duck butts and plastic boots suitable for free heeling. These were not born from inclination to free heel ski. They became popular as a matter of necessity for those who didn’t have the inclination to weather long cycles of pain and frustration to telemark ski as their forefathers (or younger selves) once did.
That’s my interpretation of the words presented by Knights and folks more learned than me anyway. It aligns pretty well with many of your thoughts… which tells me that the teachings of the Knights, however infrequent, are guiding us to some of the same truths.
