The Guardian article is an ideal example of the general public perception of the sport, or rather, the activity of cross country skiing. Those of us who are interested, and in particularly on the sporting/competitive side, have a very different view based on the effort that we have to put in to achieve anything in the field of competition.
Ordinary Joe who wants to give it a go doesn't need to be fit at all - if you can walk, with a little bit of guidance, you can cross country ski. Initial perception on the flat cross country loipe is somewhat different to the initial perception on clumpy downhill equipment on a tiny section of flat terrain surrounded by what the novice sees as towering mountains, and cliff like slopes with no control whatsoever over the contraptions on their feet.
On the ratings for roller skis, again it is a perception thing. To move roller skis requires considerably less effort than snow
skis - even more so with fast bearings, and it is relatively easy to cruise without a great deal of effort if taking part in an activity environment rather than a sport environment - you don't need to be fit to roller ski while you might need to be to race. The danger rating is also reflected in the article - the perceived danger has been removed by performing the activity on traffic free roads/tracks. Even on a downhill road that is traffic free the perceived danger is less than on a narrow track surrounded by trees - especially on a sharp bend. Furthermore, on being introduced to the sport/activity one is hardly introduced to, or, even recommended to consider something like the Cairngorm hill road - sensible advice for the activity roller skier is to remove the skis. The thrill rating is hard to deduce, but I must admit to a certain thrill of achievement in negotiating a tight bend on a downhill track something the novice very rarely does.
In summary the article would appear to reflect the experience of the author, and that may be fair comment. From a sport development point of view we need to be able to introduce people to a more dynamic, exhilirating, and uplifting experience - snow and environment are always going to be the key - thinking caps on?
Jimd
iainxc <iainxc@...> wrote:
iainxc <iainxc@...> wrote:
For fitness, if rollerskiing only gets a 6, and XC skiing gets a 7,
what on earth gets a 10???
I'd thought only a couple of sports even came close to XC skiing in
all-round fitness and strength demands!
For the record, I had nothing to do with the ratings, but may have put
a positive spin on the danger aspect of rollerskiing.
--- In nordicscotland@yahoogroups. , "Horsley, Dr David"co.uk
<d.horsley@...> wrote:
>
> Nope not at all. Compare it to the ratings for nordic skiing in the same
> article:
>
> Roller skiing
> Thrill rating 4/10
>
> Danger rating 2/10
>
> Fitness rating 6/10
>
> Nordic skiing
>
> Thrill rating 4/10
>
> Danger rating 4/10
>
> Fitness rating 7/10
>
>
>
> I'd rate the danger of roller skiing over cross country at a much higher
> level - falling on tarmac does a lot more damage than falling on snow.
> I'd also probably rate the fitness as higher for roller than
> crosscountry as I reckon its a lot easier to take it easy and plod
> along on snow than on rollers. The thrill rating is very dependant on
> where you are skiing - eg roller skiing down the hill road at cairngorm
> whould definitely be a 'thrill'
>
>
>
> Dave
>
>
> _____________________ _________ __
>
> From: nordicscotland@yahoogroups. co.uk
> [mailto:nordicscotland@yahoogroups. ] On Behalf Of Peter Thornco.uk
> Sent: 02 October 2007 17:04
> To: nordicscotland@yahoogroups. co.uk
> Subject: [nordicscotland] Guardian article on rollerskiing
>
>
>
> The link below takes you to an article that appeared in the Guardian
> newspaper recently. Do you agree with its ratings for thrill, danger &
> fitness?
>
> http://lifeandhealth.guardian. co.uk/guides/ adventure/ story/0,, 2176012,0
> <http://lifeandhealth.guardian. co.uk/guides/ adventure/ story/0,, 2176012,0
> >
> 0.html
>
> Regards, Peter
> www.nordicski.org
>
Offline 
Send Email