Why do some of us want to grow the sport?

[Horton]

@OB we go through this every year. Why do some of us want to grow the sport? I think it perplexes a lot of readers every time you say this.

 

Let’s get the definition straight: When I say the grow the sport, I mean grow the total number of people who wish to round balls on a regulation slalom course (Trick, Jump… Yadda Yadda). I am not talking about the folks out there that own a Kidder Redline or CDX and ski on some river 4 times a year. They are not the issue here.

 

Also if your club is at capacity, growing the sport does not mean doubling your membership. It does not mean sacrificing a good ski situation so more skiers can have crappy skiing. It means more skiers out there looking for a good place to ski. Getting their own place to ski or finding someone who needs someone to ski with.

 

Your assumption seems to be that if there are more skiers there will be less water time for all. I do not see capacity as an issue but if at your site it is, could you not simply limit membership in your club or move to a more limited site? If more skiers in Atlanta would mean you get to ski less, I get it but I do not think that represents most skiing in the US.

 

Take a public site like Okeeheelee that is basically public access - I can see that if the number of skiers in Palm Beach doubled Okeeheelee could get totally jammed up and lose its appeal. Here on the West Coast there very few public access slalom courses. In fact, I can only think of two or three in California.

Most skiers I know ski on private lakes. Most of those lakes are used for wake boarding and tubing more than skiing. Here in Bako we have 15 ski lakes, and I do not think I can name 2 or 3 skiers on most lakes. Ski West has 3 lakes and there are maybe 15 skiers (including kids). Mid-week the lakes are all glass and generally unused. If we had more skiers and less tubers, the shorelines and balls would all be in better condition. It would mean a better community of skiers.

 

All that said, in my mind, growing the sport means more sites. In Colorado, a lot of the sites are super expensive. Perhaps this is because of water availability or legislation, I do not know. If more skiers were looking for more water time, it seems logical that more lakes would eventually be built. Supply and demand.

 

So why is a bigger sport better? It is largely about money. Below are a few examples that only scratch the surface.

 

Let’s use water ski media as an example. My ad revenue here has grown a lot in the last two years but there is no way in hell this site will ever be a living. My hours divided by my income equals far below minimum wage. The print edition of WaterSkiMag is down to 6 issues a year and I think one of those is the boat buyers guide. TheWaterSkier is also increasingly anemic. Lack of readers is hurting all these publications. My incentive to improve BallOfSpray has to take ROI in to account. The reason I do not have professional photography and more pro articles on the front page is that there are not enough readers to make it pay. Lucky for those who like the site, I do it (mostly) for the love of the sport. It kills me that it does not make sense to invest in more high quality content.

 

If membership at USAWS was on the upswing and not the other way around, the revenues could be channeled in a LOT of good ways. Just take Nationals as an example. USAWS takes a huge chunk of the entry fees because it needs every penny. This makes hosting the event much less attractive to the host site. If the coffers were fat, perhaps USAWS could make hosting Nationals much more attractive. I am sure there is a long list of positive affects we would all see if USAWS membership & revenue was growing.

 

Let’s look at the boat company’s. If pure slalom was twice or three times the size it is now, the landscape in terms of boat design and cruise control would arguably be way different. Is there a hard core slalom skier on earth that said, “I wish I could get a bigger more expensive boat with an open bow”?

If slalom boat sales was up only 30% don’t you think that profit margins (retail cost) might come down (or stabilize) and Promo programs would get stronger. As the boat companies have had very learn years we have had a lot of trouble getting promo boats to tournaments here in California.

 

If the sport were bigger, the pro ranks would have more opportunities. Non-endemic sponsorship becomes easier to sell as the total influence of the pro skiers grows. More Elite skiers able to make a living and excel means more knowledge seeps down the ranks to guys like us. It means more of the events many of us would like to attend to simply be fans.

 

Imagine if a water ski company had the R&D budget of a snow ski or tennis company?

 

Think about all the little guys like Ez Ed. If Ed can no longer make a dollar on portable courses and gives it up, what do you do when you need a portable course? Make it yourself? Good luck.

 

Think about how few accessory companies there are. Schnitz is the only one making after market fins anymore. Reflex & Jager are the only aftermarket binding companies. Eagle is the only wetsuit company that cares about skiing (in the US). If there is no market, no one is going to make the stuff we want.

 

The reasons go on.

 

Lastly, the effort to grow is the first step to prevent shrinkage.

 

[Horton]

Fair enough. Just let us dreamers dream.

 

Considering what you do for a living I think it is a good thing you are a realist.

[danbirch]

I appreciate both of your positions. They both shed light on different aspects of the sport, both from people who are passionate.

 

It seems to me that this is a somewhat "dis-jointed" sport. By that, I mean, it is expensive, you must (typically) travel to some rural area to ski, have ALL of the water to yourself (for your turn to work), likely have other friends that like the sport to ski with, and at best, it's a poor spectator sport (long waits between skiers, repetitive and boring for non-skiers, poor conditions for spectators (too much sun), etc.

 

For me, to grow the sport, would be to educate the public. Imagine an infomercial, where MasterCraft would show (educate) what it is like to be involved in the water ski lifestyle. The benefits for families. Interview the many great water skiing families. Show the tournaments, and people who really have a great time at them. Introduce it as a sport & lifestyle that would look attractive to people who have no idea about it.

 

As things are now, without major television exposure, the sport seems to me to be dead-locked. And with so few of the younger skiers, I fear the future.

 

IMO, Nate Smith is the greatest story to come to this sport in a long, long time. I'm hoping he can break the World Record this year, while he is young. That is a story that could make it to the media. Other than us skiers, who has heard of him??? Hopefully, opportunities like this can be seized to help grow the sport. Krista is a great person to be involved, and who knows...maybe some day....things will change....(or I'll just continue being a "dreamer")....

[ral]

Waterski is growing fast here in our little and far away country. And I expect that the 2012 Worlds will further increase the growth rate.

 

Why is waterski growing here?

 

1) GDP per capita has been increasing dramatically over the last 20 years. So more people can afford it.

 

2) In a country where we really suck at sports, waterski is one of the sports where we are kind of decent (thank you Miranda's...). So, although press coverage is not good, we get national circulation newspaper headlines and some TV time.

 

3) Buoys are considered kind of cool by kids and youngsters. It is cool to say that you ski on a waterski lake and not just in a dam. It is cool to ski behind the latest Nautique

 

Last year, the "Amateur Nationals" were held. You could go if your best recorded tournament score was less than 6 @ 15 off 34mph. 120 skiers showed up (the limit number) and more than 50 were on a waiting list.

 

[Horton]

@OB I know and I know your heart is in the right place.

 

[Horton]

Funny timing. I will be posting and article from Stisher in the next week about skiing in Dubai and the growth of skiing world wide.

[MattP]

I think the sport is growing more around the world than we really know. I'm sure Seth and the other guys on the world cup circuit get to see this more than us. Des a tremendous job of getting these locations and he is a passionate promotor of this sport. I know skiers in Malaysia, Iraq, Egypt, Turkey, even the prince in Dubi has a MasterCraft all of this in places you would not think would be skiing but they are and it is growing at a pretty good rate. What we need is more growth world wide. This will help us get on TV more on a world stage and one day yes one day the short sightedness of the IOC will change new younger people will move in among the ranks and push to have these extreme sports Water Skiing, Short Board and Ski Fly along with Wake Board added to the list of events at the Olympics. What other sports are there where you can be sitting on the starting line (dock) at any given pro event and everyone waiting for their pull is from another country all speaking different languages. It is a world sport this is where the growth needs to be.

 

@OB we still need to get together and talk.

[skier2788]

I guess I am just a dreamer. I don't expect waterskiing to ever compete with football for spectators. That being said there used to be a pro tour on ESPN. They show fishing for crying out loud. Watching someone slalom is far more entertaining than watching someone else fish. I feel that if we had a condensed version waterskiing could compete with fishing.

 

I currently live in Colorado and can definitely agree with Horton that skiing here on a good lake is very expensive. My family moved to Kansas when I was younger and we drove 7 hours back to Colorado to ski on our lake almost every weekend. Why? Because we love our sport and I would love to see it grow.

You go to tournaments and see maybe two new people a year and they ski one tournament and are gone. This leads to all the things Horton said above. I guess I dont see what OB is talking about with being over crowded I usually have trouble finding someone to ski with. I have to bribe a friend with diner all the time to just get a driver.

@ral glad to hear it is growing somewhere.

[ral]

@Horton, Stisher will spend 3 week in my lake starting Jan 12th...

[Horton]

That should be fun. He as no idea about skiing but is a pretty entertaining.

[ral]

Then I know what is wrong with us. We know too much about skiing. If you know less, you might run 39...

[Horton]

If anyone is reading this page from the top down. Clearly I am joking about Seth.

[Ilivetoski]

Ok, if we are going to talk about lake capacity then we are missing an obvious part. More people into the sport=more $$$ more $$$=more lakes. Thanks to adding lakes that means that we can divide up the skiing population evenly instead of bunding up 100 members at one lake. Skiings days on ESPN are over! It wont be long before they start putting wakeboarding on as a regular part of the channel. Which will probobly add a little bit to the skiing population just because of the exposure of water sports and inboards etc. This will also help our boat companies. Instead of boat manufatures closing down plants, this publicity will add to sales which will open up more plants which will give more jobs, more jobs=more recognition. This is all assuming that my original idea of ESPN broadcasting wakeboarding is correct.

[crashman]

I'm glad that 2 yrs ago the guys at my club decided to grow the sport by one- i.e. me. I'm sure you can all relate to the countless positive impacts skiing has had on my life. It drives so much of what I do. My motivation to grow the sport is to help pass on what has been given to me. If it means I have to wait a few extra minutes at the dock hopefully I can look back on these days when I'm just starting out- then again maybe I'm just spoiled as our club rarely is busy.

[Ilivetoski]

Yea, me and my dad are probobly the last people getting into our club. Its at the right amount right now. Enough so that you have someone you can always call and get a pull yet at the same time you dont get 1-2 sets in on a saturday.

[jdarwin]

If membership at USAWS was on the upswing and not the other way around, the revenues could be channeled in a LOT of good ways. Just take Nationals as an example. USAWS takes a huge chunk of the entry fees because it needs every penny. This makes hosting the event much less attractive to the host site. If the coffers were fat, perhaps USAWS could make hosting Nationals much more attractive. I am sure there is a long list of positive affects we would all see if USAWS membership & revenue was growing.

 

I often wonder how many dues paying AWSA members understand, let alone approve of, the large percentage of AWSA's budget (90%) that goes to funding travel expenses of international teams. And the low percentage (almost zero) that goes towards direct marketing. If we want to grow the sport, we have to change the focus of the governing body. If you want the focus to change, you have to make your voice heard. Go to your region's homepage and determine who your EVP and National Directors are. Let them know your opinions. Those are the folks who can affect change. Tell them you want this addressed at the Winter Board Meetings later this month.

[Than_Bogan]

Why I want to grow the sport: I am priveleged to know about the most awesome sport ever, and it would seem downright mean not to tell everyone about it!

[Than_Bogan]

Wow, jd, that's kind of scary when you lay it out like that. To be honest, I don't really care about the international teams *except* to the extent that they promote the sport, which actually might be significant.

 

But growing it at home would likely be even more significant, and once you have a bigger base it becomes all the easier to fund international teams for whatever additional marketing they provide.

[Horton]

Darwin,

Are you sure about that stat?

[jdarwin]

Horton - I'm sure.

[Horton]

Hmmm going to have to think about how I feel about that.

[Ilivetoski]

Then prehaps part of what @Than is saying could be incorporated without taking down the amount of money used for the international teams. Such as one pre-req for them to get the money is to agree to do something where they gain a little bit of publicity for the sport. Like (if possible) try to get a news channel to cover the event. Or even a radio broadcast. If they will cover HS football games, why not an international ski tournment?

[Triplett]

I am interested in growing the sport because lets face it, when I am 50, I want this sport to be still be around in the competitive sense. (I am 24) In Michigan we are seeing a growth of skiers in tournaments with the addition of our slalom series. But these are mostly Mens 3,4,5... As far as anyone in M1, W1 and lower, I can count the regular attendees on my hands. This, for me, is scary. We are a slalom state, anyone on here from Michigan knows that.

 

On to how to promote this. Public knowledge!!!! Everyone I have ever talked to and introduced to the sport wants to do it. I honestly have never had someone see it, rode in the boat, seen it from shore, and said "ehh, that doesn't look fun." What it takes... events like Malibu Open, the Global (RIP for 2012), King of Darkness. And then follow these events up with things like demos, sort of what skaters to at shops, where you can get some local skiers to do their thing somewhere and allow people to try it for a minimal cost. If this brings out a few new kids, I am sure it would be huge gains for everyone.

 

And making sure the college kids stick with it!!!! so many collegiate skiers graduate, or just go home for the summer and don't do anything with it.

 

[cranker]

A great thread, it is always good to look at what we want to see for our sport into the future, some of the points being made are on the money.

While I can understand people want to keep their clubs with manageable memberships for all the reasons mentioned, I do not feel that this may be the correct approach, consider that we may be turning away future champions or those that will push the sport forward by say 'yes great you want to ski but this club is full, so go find some water and start a club' this is done so that we have few people standing at the dock waiting..... I would say that this may send the wrong message and could portray the sport in the wrong light.

 

[jerseydave]

The "versus" network is now NBC sports......24/7 so this may help grow some watersports, most likely wakeboarding more than skiing though. The King of Wake series was on Versus this past season.

Growing any watersport can be a double-edged sword. On one hand growing the sport is great for boat & equipment sales, creative ideas for charity events, etc. But on the other hand (as some have stated) it adds more boaters to our public waterways. Some would rather keep their secret spot just that, a secret. (A not-so-local wakeboarder here where I ride and ski held a wake festival here for 5 years which just adds exposure to our nice local spot, not exactly what we where wanting)

 

[ntx]

Part of the problem is the cost. We live on a private site. We have a club boat. It costs me about 3,000 per year before I ski a single set. (pretty cheap) The problem is, that our homeowners, want to sell memberships for 2,500 per year. Why do I want somebody playing in my backyard for less than it costs me? They come out, ski, put hours on the boat, wear and tear on ropes and equipment and leave without giving anything back to the site. Most of them won't do so much as to wash a boat, fill it with gas, or maintain the height of bouys. I have seen members knock out turn balls and since it was the last pass, put the boat back on the lift, and leave it for the next guy to put on. I will say that most of the time, (don't hurt me) the worst offenders are the slalom gods. Most 3 eventers do the fair share of work to maintain courses and jumps. I know that this has been discussed in other places, but what do you think is the "real" cost of a set. Assume a 1-2 year old boat, with ZO. I bet it gets close to 30.00 - 35.00 per set. Make sure to add in wear and tear on the lake and the cost to rework shore line every 10-15 years.

 

People that OWN private sites will most likely agree. I don't want the headache of a bunch of people in my backyard that feel they are entitled to ski for a five dollar bill. I am not the US goverment

[Triplett]

We talk about ESPN, Versus. Have you all have heard about Fuel TV? They cater to surfing, MX, snow, some wakeboarding, etc. If we could get them to cover our "extreme" sport it would be a start.

[Onside135]

“Growing the sport” would be great in the long run, but it might not be possible. There are a number of barriers to entry to overcome in our sport. When you consider the cost of equipment, cost of gas (for boats and tow vehicles), lake and boat availability, time, and even the wx required (not everyone lives in FL or CA), a lot of stars must align for the average person to enjoy and see some level of success in this sport.

 

On the other hand, the GirlsThatFly are on the right track to increasing awareness for our sport. Ventures such as this can’t hurt!

 

[6balls]

Triplett, I agree. None of my collegiate ski team members continue to ski tourneys. Many have boats and dork around on public water, but have given up on getting better, and as you might imagine are not better and do not ski tourneys.

[cranker]

Hi all, OB and NTX are correct, the cost should be the true cost of what it is to ski at your local site.

We are in Australia and travel about five hours to ski and pay in the region of $60 for 20 minutes. On top of this we pay site fees and of course the cost to travel.

I can certainly understand clubs closing membership but I do not think that is the answer in all cases.

In relation to skiers no replacing balls etc and not helping, this is an issue for the clubs and that maybe those clubs should not renew the membership of those that are not doing the right thing, I am sure the message would get thru quickly. I think it is just a reflection of society in general that some are just not the people you want in your club etc no matter how cool or how good a person they seem, these always seems to be the same people that knock and complain about everything.

But certainly nobody should pay less than another member on the site as per NTX

[Horton]

I think cost is one issue. There are 307 million people in the USA. I do not know how many water skiers their are but there are a hell of a lot more people water skiing or doing towed water sports sports than there are slalom skiers.

 

Ski sites are hard to find of you are on a budget but if you are affluent there is always some place to ski. It sounds like OB's deal is expensive but I am not sure that is typical. In the end there are not a lot of broke skiers. Well we don't start broke.

 

My thinking is the sport needs exposure and promotion. I do not think the ESPN or VS thing will ever happen again. Maybe a one off event here or there and I am behind those efforts but I do not think that will have the big impact some hope it will.

 

My hope is that a skier or group of skiers (like GTF) breaks out and gets a significant non-endemic sponsor. Imagine if a hair or skin care company did national advertising around GTF. Or Coke?

 

I see reality TV shows about "NOTHING" and think there could be a skier show but we do not want to be the next Jersey Shore. T$ needs a TV show and or Asher should model for (some jeans company) or Nati for Metrix or Jon Travers for a Razor brand.

 

We need a PR agency and a Marketing firm.

[Horton]

This is sort of interesting. http://bicyclemarketingwatch.blogspot.com/2005/12/non-endemic-sponsorships.html

[Dirt]

Interesting thread. I was surprised by the % of USAWS funds spent on the teams. It seems like it would be better to reduce the cost of tournaments and have more incentive for hosts to put them on. Many of you remember going to Nationals and it was fairly reasonably priced, you got a nice goody bag full of t-shirts and useful items. The ski manufacturers were there with outstanding deals. I got a KD7000 with double high wraps and a bag (that I still have to this day) for $200. I bought a bunch of ropes, an accuski, etc... at Nationals.

The deals were incentive enough to attend. Now...you know what you get for your $180 or whatever it is. No wonder the sport is not growing.

[skibug]

@Horton, Sounds like @OB has a pretty fair deal. We pay $2500 for a family membership and have to provide our own boat, gas, skis, etc. (and I am not complaining). We have access to two lakes. I figured I spent about $2000 in boat gas (between me and the wife) and another $1000 in gas to travel to and from the site. $1000 a year in boat depreciation (split 5 ways amongst the boat owners), $300 on insurance and maintenance. I probably average $500 a year in ski gear and equipment. Grand total of $6650.00 to ski at our private site.

 

In order to grow the sport you need to reduce the amount of disposable income one needs to participate; or, the inverse, grow the income of those who want to participate. Both scenarios are somewhat challanging.

[jcamp]

@JDarwin Your 90% stat seemed really high ... so I checked. You can find USA Water Ski's 2010 financial statements here: http://www.usawaterski.org/graphics/downloads/TaxForms/2010AuditedFinancialStatements.pdf

 

I'm not a CPA, but from the expenses reported on this form it looks like USAWS spent $37,207 on "National Teams" in 2010. In 2009 it was $49,875. For some perspective, $37,207 is 2.5% of USAWS's expenses of $1,454,003 (on $1,750,285 in revenue). Even if some of the international team costs were included (or hidden) in other line items such as sport disciplines or sport development, the top two expenses, Membership (salaries, benefits, etc.) and Publications (The Water Skiers, regional guides and I'm assuming the website) are a combined are 60.6% of their expenses. So, there is no way international team expenses could be anywhere near 90%.

[RichardDoane]

@jcamp, thanks for checking, but even if the % is considerably lower than 90, don't you think that the travelling teams should pay their own way ?

[klindy]

@jcamp, @jdarwins comments were pertaining to the AWSA budget and not the USAWS budget. While I agree with your accounting regarding USAWS, the AWSA budget and/or financial statements are not online that can find.

[Horton]

@OB I was not clear- should have said something like "Sounds like your costs are high".

 

$1900 plus fuel for use of a new boat is somewhere between fair and dirt cheap. The least you should charge is what ever it takes pay the bills and pay for your skiing (if you are the boat owner and doing all the work).

[ntx]

Richard

 

The costs of the "elite" teams that represent the USA in international tournaments, should be covered by USAWS. Why would Freddy, or Regina fly half way across the world to compete? Out of their pocket expense? I know that last year some of the events were paid, and some not. The ones that the expenses were not covered, people were asking why the "B team" was sent? Because the A team did not want to take on the financial burden. I recently went on one of the international tournaments. It was a once in a lifetime opportunity. It cost me about 5,000. We had a great time and, it was a once in a lifetime opportunity. Would I do it twice? I don't think so. Keep in mind that I am just talking about members of the US team. The costs of independent skiers that go to compete, they should be responsable for their own expenses. The cost of the World Teams, Jr Worlds, Pan-Ams, U-21 Worlds, ...... any international tournament that the USAWS sends a team, Travel, lodging, and entry fees, should be paid. After all they are there for their country. I would not expect five star accomadations. Motel 6 should be fine. LOL Now, that being said, are there some that are taking advantage of the system with trips? You bet. The costs of the "extras" is what should be looked at. Not the cost of the skiers.

 

[Horton]

As far as USAWS budget we need to be careful here. Numbers can be funny things. Spreadsheets to not always = truth. I want to be clear before I get mad.

[jcamp]

@klindy Are you sure that AWSA has a separate budget? Maybe that is why it isn't available online?. Does anybody on here know the answer to this?

 

It looks like the AWSA budget may be included in this USAWS budget as a Sport Discipline Expense line item. But even if all $164,511 of it was AWSA (which it isn't because other disciplines have expenses too) the $37,207 (which includes non- 3-event teams too so this isn't even apples to apples) for international teams would still only be 22% of the AWSA budget. It is likely to be much less.

 

@richarddoane No, I don't think international team members should have to pay their own way. I think it is worth 2.5% of the USAWS budget to send a small number of our best skiers to compete on behalf of the U.S. If water skiers made millions then maybe, but we all know that isn't the case. Even then, I doubt Bode Miller pays his own way to the Olympics or World Championships. Plus, many teams like 35+ already pay their own way.

 

 

[jcamp]

Horton makes a good point. Anybody have a hotline to the USAWS/AWSA leadership so we can get some answers?

[jimbrake]

I think OB hit it on the head when he said "Only a very small % of people have the drive, passion, athletic ability, dedication, and money required to excel at this sport...that is why we are such a small niche." I think the prime evidence of this is the collegiate skiers that ski in college, but don't ski during the summer (or like Triplett and 6Balls stated, just dink around), then don't continue with it after college. "It's so expensive." "There's no place to ski where I live." "I don't have a boat." All may be true, but if you really want to do it, you'll find a way somehow. All we can do is introduce people to the sport. A few will stick with it. Most won't. If you don't absolutely love it, you won't. And that is really true with any sport - even the ones with easy access. If you don't love it, you won't stick with it. Even if we brought the sport to the masses again via TV, more big events, etc. I don't think it will greatly increase the numbers participating. There aren't many people of the type that will make the effort. There are a few though and we continue to grow or sustain by those few.

 

[crashman]

I like the effort the Indy skiers have done getting people on the course at a low cost by partnering with the local parks dept- there's a lot of passion in that club introducing new people to the sport.

http://www.indyskiers.com/

[scuppers]

To me waterskiing is kinda like drag racing. Years ago everybody was doing it - now not so much - and for a lot of the same reasons. Think about it - you could be the best/fastest but one slight mistake and you're out.

On top of that someone (maybe it was Schnitz) once said that slalom skiing always ends in failure. And it does. That alone is what weeds them out pretty quick.

[Horton]

FYI - I just got off the phone with Darwin. I totally miss-understood his budget comments and as did many of you. He is going to re-state for those of us who miss-read.

[jdarwin]

Let me clarify. I stated the "AWSA Budget" in my comments. That is an important distinction. AWSA is a sub-set of USAWS. I'm not talking about the magazine, staff, rent, etc., that is budgeted under USAWS. I realize that most of us old-timers don't distinguish between USAWS and AWSA. But in the post-USOC world, we are a sport division just as kneeboard, barefoot, hydrofoil, etc.

 

In addition, I was not impugning the current allocation of funds. I was simply pointing out how much was spent in direct support of international competition. If you agree, fine. If not, let your voice be heard. I believe it is important for the membership to know how their dollars are being spent.

 

[disland]

We should closely watch the Alpine skiing situation. They face similar challenges. Running gates is now a very small niche, They are getting marginalized by Snow Boarding half pipes and terrain parks. Soon no more kids will want to participate. No more kids means no more Lindsey Vons and Bode Millers, They are playing with much bigger stakes, more money and Olympic exposure.

 

On another note I have always held up Pro Surfing Tour as the positive example. They have all the same problems. No TV, spectator challenges, ridiculous travel costs and remote locations. They cant even predict what day the competition will take place. So how are they growing like crazy?

 

Answer: Marketing.

 

We need to leverage jumping as an extreme sport to make skiing cool.

[Horton]

GTF!

[Horton]

@OB I am still M3! and thanks. Just let us dream - It keeps us out of the bars in the winter.