Talk:Freeskiing
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ski, an attempt at building a useful skiing resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information). |
The term "freeskiing" has been abandoned by the snow sports community that is being explained here. It has since been split into two disciplines, New school skiing and Backcountry skiing or Big Mountain Skiing. The term "freeskiing" is now used exclusivley by the FIS to describe its aerials, moguls, and offpiste skiing. The main difference is the rules. The FIS has a governing body which limits the number of spins and flips in aerials and mogul comps, while new school has no governing body or rules regarding what tricks can/cannot be attempted.Zzz345zzz 18:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Not Really
Not Really (e.g. The U.S. Open Freeskiing Championships). Freeskiing is still very much a term used (albeit loosely) to describe this particular type of skiing that you see in films such as Teddy Bear Crisis and on the X-Games. Perhaps a better term would be "progressive skiing." seanoop
This entire article is unbelievably pretentious. You'd think these guys had actually invented something rather than just applying better equipment to do what people have been doing, in the same terrain, for centuries. While the general facts seem sound, I don't even know where to start with toning down the rank adolescent kiddie testosterone stink here.
but honestly It is rather difficult to identify many inventions that are more than an application of new technology to an existing problem. the point with freeskiing is that the desire of athletes to redefine boundaries pushed the development of better ski technology.
I'd agree that it requires a rewrite. It's incredibly skewed towards the USA. Anybody would think none of this was going on in Europe or elsewhere.
MAJOR rewrite. I admit I have been rather heavy-handed in my editing, however I feel it is better to have a short, incomplete article than 2 pages of testosterone-charged, sensationalist, USA-centred, PoV fluff. If there are any specialists out there, the original version is in the history: Feel free to use it in order to help build a more complete article. Again, I think it is better to have an incomplete wikipedia than a bad wikipedia.
While it is agreed that much of the article that existed during March - July was heavily skewed toward the USA, that is not to say it should have remained that way. The article, as all wikipedia posts are, was a work in progress. Of course all other authors were encouraged to add additional FACTS, but to erase the entire article in favor of having some poser, who knows next to nothing about the history of the sport, erase it and start over again is beyond reproach. Those of you who contributed to the demise of a well designed and articulate overview of this dynamic sport should be ashamed. (added by 192.138.214.100, warned with npa template on user talk page)
- This is an encyclopaedia, not an MTV documentary. And these pages are here to discuss and reach consensus about changes, not to make personal attacks. Yandman 06:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
