WHY THE TELEMARK?

The Challenge of Downhill Skiing on Xcountry Skis

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.  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 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”, 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 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.

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. 

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.

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?