Why do some of us want to grow the sport?

[jdarwin]

http://www.awsasouth.org/news/2011-12wsnews/2012AWSAWinterBODPacket.pdf

 

The complete board packet is in the public domain for review.

[disland]

GTF is awesome, LA Night Jam, Rocketman, Katy Jam and London Night Jump are great. Its all going to the right direction.

[ntx]

Again it gets back to cost. In addition to myself I have a teenage 3 eventer. Buy five sets (double high wraps on slalom, trick, & jump) of bindings each year as their foot grows. Plus, keep them in the proper size equipment each year. Skis, vests, jump suits, toe harness, gloves. I did it on the cheap. Getting used skis and factory blems, but it was still insane. Then go to Nationals and listen to the bios of b1-3 and g1-3. How many have several coaches that they train with or get lessons from. Travel time and cost for ski schools......... it goes on and on. To be competitive in a sport that has no financial gains. We never did much of the ski school thing. Couple of days with Cory is about all I could afford. You stay for the passion and know that you can never make a living of it. I am sure we have all heard the stories of some of the best skiers in the world sleeping on back porches in hammocks. LOL. The other problem is that it is NOT easy. If it was, it would be called wakeboarding. LOL Friends brag about how great their kids are on a wake board. They go out every weekend to the big lake with the fat sacks and..........."man they are really good" They come out to a trick tournament and can't believe the speed and number of tricks done. When you pull them on the wake boards all they can do is clean BOTH wakes. Forget about any rotation.

[Horton]

@OB I am also closer to the M5 than B2 but I would rather not think about it that way.

[jcamp]

Thanks @jdarwin for posting the board packet. I couldn’t find it. It looks like team expenses in 2012 will be 69 percent of AWSA’s annual budget of $49,260. So up there but not quite 90 percent.

 

AWSA’s budget covers a very narrow set of expenses, like international teams, the juniors pizza party at nationals and maintaining the rankings list. The money used to market the sport, i.e., publications, media relations, HQ staff salaries, websites, etc., comes from the USAWS budget. Calling on AWSA to spend more on marketing is sorta like saying my home state should spend more on the U.S. military.

 

I don’t have a need or desire to defend USAWS/AWSA, I just wanted to make sure that someone reading your first post didn't come away with the perception that 90 percent of their dues was used to fund international teams.

 

[Horton]

@jcamp correct

[jdarwin]

@jcamp - that is the proposed budget for 2012. In years past, it has been as high as 90%. In 2011, it was 75%. Did not mean to infer that it is that high every year. But yes, AWSA's mission is fairly specific whereas USAWS's is quite broad. The point of this thread was "growing the sport". When someone says "sport" I immediately think 3-event – especially in the BOS forum landscape. My point was to show what our governing body (AWSA) is doing to support our common objectives of “growing the sport”. IMO, a good use of resources would be to provide a free AWSA supporting membership to everyone who purchases a towboat or high-end water ski. I’m not referring to an inserted card in a warranty package but an automatic process when a name is submitted to USAWS as having made the above referenced purchase. This would add a significant number to the membership roles each year and perhaps drive some of them to become involved and renew their membership the following year or upgrade to an Active class. Also, it would increase the subscription base for the magazine which in turn, would raise the ad rates in the magazine that are driven off of subscription numbers. It’s just a suggestion but I’m confident that the ROI would be easier to define than sending teams to compete internationally – not that I’m suggesting an either/or scenario.

[Triplett]

@Horton, Totally agree we should have JT with a razor company, he is always clean shaven haha.

 

@OB Your talking about lifestyle. Surfing, skate, snow, etc. are all portrayed as lifestyles, we are no different. There are plenty of people that just surf, like we ski, and work for a living. The pros are the one that live the lifestyle, same thing with us. And as OB stated a small percentage of us have the drive talent and so on to be good for a sport that doesn't pay in the end. I think we are all missing the point. I played hockey from the time I was 9 years old. It cost my parents at least $2000 in ice time a season, about $700 in equipment, and I am not even talking about travel, hotels etc. Yes it is a little cheaper but I got no where, never paid out for me. This sport, on percentages, is probably close to the same as those when it comes to pay outs and time involved. There are a ton of skiers who will never make it to the pro ranks and there are the few us that can.

 

No sport is easy at a competitive level, you cant become a pro hockey player, pro football, pro anything without dedication, wake boarding is easy to learn, but hard to get really good, it runs into the same problems as us, maybe a little easier to get paid, but where they save money in boards, the boats completely off set. They have the same water problems we have etc. If you haven't, try to ride a wake board on a busy or even slightly busy public lake, it sucks.

 

Jumping is our holy grail, something anyone off the street can understand, the farthest jump wins. We just need to get in contact with the right media avenues. We need to get a hold of the Fuel TV's to start a show or do an event, label this as a extreme sport (as it is, all 3 events kind of are).

 

Purely exposure, if there is a kid who bugs their parents enough to ski, they will find a way to do it, same as kids who want to surf, it is pretty expensive to make it the surf spots.

 

Another sponsor we should try to get is Redbull, or Monster. They could get our athletes exposure.

[klindy]

Another thing is the money budgeted for "team expenses" is in a 'restricted' pool of funds specficially earmarked for that purpose. The point is, since the money is restricted, AWSA (proper) has little to say about how to spend that money once allocated.

 

Perhaps it makes sense to define exactly what that 'sport' is? Does it mean all towed water sports (i.e. USAWS) or traditional 3-event competitive waterskiing (AWSA)?

[jcamp]

There are probably lots of things that would bring in better ROI (I like your idea a lot) than international teams, but to me they are a justifiable expense ... an affordable one at that at only 2-3 percent of the USAWS budget. ROI is a tricky thing to measure but I enjoyed reading about Sammy, Carl, Deena and company winning world titles when I was growing up and I'm sure there are kids these days that feel the same way about Freddy, Regina, etc.

[jdarwin]

@jcamp - good points. This is the type of dialogue that needs to occur so AWSA (USAWS) gets feedback from the membership and defines its direction based off of that feedback. If spending 65-75% of AWSA'S annual budget on team expenses is valid in the eyes of the majority of members, then so be it. Unfortunately, it leaves little else for any other activities that might spur growth. When we were receiving USOC funding, those funds were deemed "restricted". Why they still are classified as such is unknown to me.

[501Brandon]

Speaking from experience, I found it hard to "Get in"! I found that people didnt take me serious and felt that since I was not already running passes I was not going to run passes or even get the gear needed. I showed up at a slalom course in a crownline I/O skiing on an old HO extreme vtx (I called it the tank) and was semi laughed at. At that time I had no idea about the course I just knew I wanted to do it. I think there are quit a few folks out there that would go "all in" given that they were educated up front on what it takes and not just money. I am not at all rich and I went out watched what the guys were using and bought it, saw what boats were there and bought one may not have been brand new but I got what was needed. I think given the chance there are alot of folks that would go all in if they were accepted or at least preceived welcome on the first outing or new they had other people that would take the time and encourage them.

Right now I have a really good ski partner and a half (the "half" works all the time) and we ski alot. He showed up down there and was given a pull one day and went "all in" so I know these people exist. I think there is something to be said for the "Its mine" attitude and that is great on 100% private sights but I do think that public or leased lake guys should do everything they can to invite new blood in. You never know whos out there waiting and how good of a ski partner you may find. I know I am pretty dang lucky right now in the guy I am skiing with has picked up driving and skiing the course real well and is very reliable all the way around. I am glad he was given the oppurtunity to grab a set on afternoon...

I also know alot of you guys have been doing this since you were tiny kids so you probably dont remember how you felt. I do feel that at the level some of you train, it would impede you to take the time out of your training to teach and mentor someone else and this is probably an unspoken feeling from a lot of folks.

I hope I dont ruffle any feathers with this or use any "Taelen28-ism's". Its exciting to me to see a guy come out and realize the difficulty level and the discipline this sport takes to excel and even more enjoyable when they do...

[Triplett]

This thread seems to have went on a slightly different path when the budget was brought up, I am glad Klondike kind of put it back on track.

 

@klondike, sorry to hear about your experience the first time, I am kind of surprised. I am one of those people if you want to learn how to swerve I am all for it, I don't care the skill level you come with. When looking at other threads there seems to be a lot of private lake guys who are kind of isolationist, they don't want more skiers, they want a ton of ski time. I am a private lake guy, and yes more people will make my 3 hours on the lake at night to be 4 or 5, but that is alright with me. It is simple: More people, more lakes, more clubs, more tournaments, more money to grow the sport. The athletes will be paid more, the technology will increase with the skis and boats.

 

More money would equate to higher performances, more record breaking. I know from experience that when I am working a 9-5 my scores are lower, even though I skied the same amount of time. That is really only benefiting out elite 50, but who doesn't like seeing guys run 41 off.

 

 

[Ed_Obermeier]

I think you nailed it Brandon (Klondike). One of the numerous things that basically forced me into starting my little slalom course business almost 20 years ago was the feeling of being unwelcome and excluded from the established local skier community that existed at that time due to my lack of knowledge, lack of ability, lack of equipment etc. Not gonna let me ski with you? Screw you, I'll build my own damn slalom course and ski it with my IO if that's what it takes. That was what I had to do to get started in this sport, basically had to grow my own and figure out how to do it on the cheap. Figured there were a lot of folks out there in the same situation as me and for the most part that has been pretty much proven correct, which is some of what drove me into the business end of the sport.

 

I have at least 3 skiers who are a regular part of one of my skier groups (I have the extreme good fortune of having 3 - 4 different sites/skier groups that I can ski with on reasonable notice) who I've basically taken under my wing who want to ski, don't have access otherwise, don't own boats etc, but have a crap load of potential to become "good" skiers if only given an opportunity. I've taken them in at least in some part because (besides the fact that I liked them and now consider them good friends) they are where I once was - wanting to do it but not having the access and being otherwise excluded by those unwilling to let them into THEIR groups/clubs/whatever.

 

I'm still in it despite my rapidly advancing age because I freaking love it and I love the fact that it gives me both the impetus and the means to keep my physical conditioning up. Not everyone is willing to input what it takes to keep doing it as they get older, unfortunately I've seen some really good skiers drop out the past few years because they felt they were getting "too old" and aren't willing to work at it anymore. From a business perspective I'm in the same boat as Horton with regards to ROI of my time and investment versus what I make off my small business. It's truly a labor of love. That's not a complaint, I knew going in it wasn't a money maker. But it's part of my passion for the sport (creating reasonable cost access to a slalom course) and one of the things that keeps me going.

 

Ultimately the sport grows on you because you develop a passion for it. Without that passion the other hurdles (cost, access, etc) become more than you're willing to hop over. Many are called, relatively few become passionate. That alone is the factor limiting the sports growth IMO. If you develop the passion (by whatever means) you'll find a way to make it work as Klondike did.

 

EZ-Ed

[A_B]

If people watch poker on tv, certainly girls in bikinis or cut men could certainly draw an audience. Need deep pockets to get behind it like the old beer days of the pro tour.

 

Why grow the sport? Economics. The bigger the demand for high end products, the more companies can afford for R&D and keep developing better products. Me and my friends have a rule that if you find a product you like, buy a bunch, as it might not be around next season.

 

I had a ski club in the past at my lake, and was president of a open-water club back in the 80's, which has since disbanded. I left to focus on a private lake and improving my slalom. My ski club setup at my lake was to charge $550 for the season, you provide a boat, which was rotated member to member, or whoever had time to hookup and drag it out to the lake. Members were also expected to jump on our Groundmaster and cut grass every once in a while.

 

We were up to 8 members at one point. When I upped it to a staggering $600 and wanted them to leave open 2 days/week to the other owner who wanted first dibs on taking his family out (which rarely happens), most of them balked and went up to another site. I wanted a few more bucks to buy stone for rip rap, which would benefit everyone. I made NOTHING on this ski club, just thought that they should help share in the expenses.

 

The one skier that stayed in the club has since built his own lake, so now we rotate between his site and ours, based on wind conditions. Sound elitist? Nah, just don't need the hassle. IF I actually made a few thousand to put in my boat fund, I might think about it....nah.

 

 

 

 

[The_MS]

I grew up on a lake in MN. Skipped school with the teachers permission to go skiing in the spring and fall. Made a few milk jug courses with brick anchors that we put in over the winter time but after a few windy days it was toast. I free skied every day I could from 10-36 years old. My buddy Jack and I bought a portable course and tried to use that a few times a month in the summer when we had the time. We tried to get on a few courses off an on but always got kicked off by the guys that put them in. I had Ski Tique and Jack had a Malibu Echelon. We scouted lots of local lakes and got a permit for a course around 1998. It was tough keeping it up with all the wallys hacking on it all the time but it was worth it. They started building lakes in Minn around 2003 and the fine Mrs.MS and I blew the wad and bought in. People have no idea how expensive it is to maintain a lake and ski club.

Get a boat, buy a portable from Ed, find a swamp like 6balls and go ski. I wasted 26 years not skiing buoys. Dont wait for something to happen, make it happen as you only live once. 15K for a boat, course and the lake is free. Jones built his own lake for less then I have in my house.

[Horton]

Jones is a genuis

[6balls]

I feel luckier all of the time. I appreciate the lack of backwash and surveyed courses at the joints where I ski tourneys or occasionally get a practice set. I have wondered how a fully sold ski development divides ski time if there end up being 8 homes per side of a lake, and everyone wants a piece of the time either before or after work.

I paid $17K for a '00 196 2 years ago (before that we ran my partners '87 MC 190 w/PP same site), my partner and I split the cost of a dock, lift and 2 courses 9 years ago. We also split the $750 we pay to the land owner on our "swamp".

We do deal w/some backwash depending on water levels and some course adjustments after storms w/big winds. But on the plus side we can ski glass in a 30 mph SE or NW wind, or be traffic free at noon on a sunny 4th of July weekend. I can't describe how peaceful it is out there...great blue herons, pelicans, and trees surrounding the lake.

I also ski w/another friend at least once/week at an extremely quiet public site where he has a '97 196 w/PP. On my home public lake another buddy (MS-it's Greg Brock) maintains a course, has a Response LX, and works from home 1/2 the week...we ski approx 1 noon hour per week weather permitting.

Since myself, Bob, Doug, and Greg are all options at 3 total sites...we have made the deal that any group of 2 of us can take any boat on any course any time they need to do it. Bring some gas and get it done. The boats are stocked to fix anything that needs fixing.

Other than the swamp, these arrangements have only really worked out the last year or so...and I'm convinced that the extra sets, my equipment change, the info on this site, and regular brainstorming w/Razor1 (my bro) improve my skiing with time.

Given the other posts, it's clear I get away on the cheap...s'one kick my (*&% if I complain.

[Ilivetoski]

@jdarwin- If your proposed idea of ski boat= free membership that would hurt AWSA. The whole idea is that 50k is not alot for all of the things that USAWS or AWSA has on thier agenda. What they need is MORE money and a LARGER budget to pay for MORE publicity. More publicity=larger growing sport.... wait why are we even debating this? why wouldnt you want the sport you love to grow and gain more publicity? Would you not love to be able to see $200,000 winnings at pro tournment stops?

[jdarwin]

@Ilivetoski - I don't see where giving away a supporting membership would hurt AWSA. The additional subscription numbers / ad revenue could make up most of it. And, it brings in new members which has been a major problem over the past few years as our membership numbers have dropped significantly. The only way to get MORE money and LARGER budget is to increase membership. Period. Endemic sponsors are hesitant to increase funding into an organization whose membership is dwindling. Same goes for non-endemic sponsors. Yes, I would love to see $200k purses at pro tour stops but I happen to be very familiar with the logistics of making that happen and it’s not an easy task. The modern media is a fractured beast and getting publicity for our sport will take some new thinking and strategies. The pro/elite side of sport is only one element of (what should be) a multi-faceted approach. As stated, my free-membership idea was simply a suggestion. If you have one, I’d love to hear it. Especially the ideas you have to increase payouts at pro events.

[dbski]

Jumping is what will draw in the exposure to grow the sport. Last year at the Global no admission was charged and the majority of the crowd were there just to enjoy a regular day at the beach/park. While the slalom portion was going on the wallys were just playing in the water not paying much attention to the great action going on. When the jumping started it was a completely different scene. Everyone stopped what they were doing and were really enjoying the jumpers. Even little kids 3-4 years old were watching. I always say slalom is like golf, if you do it you love to watch it because you understand the incredible skill and effort it takes the pros to run 41. But the average joe has no idea what is going on and from the shore there is not much difference between 32 and 38. Standing in the water at the Global I tried to explain to a few people what was going on, they watched a few passes and then went on ignoring the action until the jumpers started.

Earlier in this thread someone mentioned that the Global is done for 2012, does anyone know what's going on. What a bummer as the site was incredible, like an ampitheater designed for skiing!

[501Brandon]

@dbski I agree and think general public will be more prone to watching trick or jump before slalom, mainly cause the general public has no idea what boat speed or rope length means or the effects it has on the human at the end of it. all they know is there is "action" with trick and jump. I have tried to find a simplified block diagram type pictorial that was simple to read and understand to the guy/gal walking by that thinks to themself "that looks pretty cool". I am sure one exists somewhere I just havent found a simplified pictoral. I would love to have one to hang up in a few areas around our clubs lake to help educate the spectators.

Also would it be fair to state that Boat dealers, Equipment dealers, Promo guys and Ski clubs all have some sense of responsibility in promoting the sport? I did find out that their are some different type USAWS memberships that will allow a "one timer" or very infrequent skier to get membership for a day trip or public training day at a significantly reduced rate.

[boarditup]

I don't know if the Global is done or not. I was the site of the first two Global's (www.placidwaters.com). It takes a lot to put on one of these events and we don't generate that much of an audience. I cannot say for certain, but I don't think the economic impact of the 2011 Global met expectations, due to the demographics of the crowd.

 

We do need more people to expand the sport - so many are dropping out due to a number of reasons; age being foremost and lifestyle changes being secondary. It is hard to maintain the skiing lifestyle - and few want to commit to it and buy a place on a private lake designed for skiing, buy a 3-event boat, train the requisite amount of time, and match your family's social circle with the sport. It is expensive and has costs beyond cash.

 

Then throw in the elite nature of the sport, the arcane rules, the labor heavy judging requirements, and the hazing rituals, and it is hard to get new people passionate while overcoming the structural issues. That does not mean all is lost - there are some real bright spots in our sport- the INT, EZ-Slalom, Nate Smith, Freddy Kreuger, wide slalom skis, wakeboarding, etc. Some are great stories, some are accessibility, some are just fun. In the end, we have to present a compelling activity that is fun for the entire family, social group, and community. We are not after spectators who buy tickets, we are after participants who bring along others. I believe that is the only way to grow our sport. If we don't grow, we will die out.

[swc5150]

The best marketing this sport can have is an availability on public waterways, and our DNR has made that very challening. I grew up on a public chain, and when we had our course in, folks would line up to check out what we were doing. The next thing you knew, every wally on the chain owned a Mastercraft. People mimic what they see, and right now, public water is dominated by wakeboarding, mainly because it's allowable. Popping course on public water is a quick path to a visit from your local warden, demanding it be removed. The big 3 are selling wake boats like crazy, since that's what folks are seeing on public lakes. I bet there are few parents that wouldn't prefer to spend $50k on a ski boat, versus the $100k on a wake boat. If a course was allowable and encouraged on many public lakes, I believe you'd see people getting into it again, and perhaps it would grow your tournament attendance. As long as this sport continues on private lakes, out of public view, good luck!

[xrated]

Whoever talked about surfing/skating and the lifestyle nailed it.

 

If you want to grow slalom or skiing in general it is as a lifestyle.

 

I am an open water skier, I love it won't lie about that. But skiing is a lifestyle that I love. Waking up and having that empty lake time, then during the day tubing, rafting with other boats, even stealing a set or two and then skiing again at night. I LOVE that lifestyle and the big appeal is how laid back it is. We go out and do what the weather and water will permit. Somedays skiing is last in line due to other stuff but it is always the desire.

 

Heck I love just hanging out by the water, sit on the dock, play by shore with the kids, swing in a hammock, play horseshoes. Or motor over and BS with buds just waiting for ski time. Looking in from my view, hardcore slalom is not a very appealing lifestyle. Always worrying about getting good water, empty water, wind, tweaking stuff, etc. Way to many stressors....why the heck would anyone want to jump into the life style. But a style that is laid back, come what may and make the best of it....that is what draws people in.

 

If I wanted to chase bouys and deal with all the little things (which I still might) I doubt my wife would have jumped on board with buying a boat as soon as debt is gone....but since I introduced her to the laid back lake/ski style of life she was on board with a boat way before she even tried skiing and now that she has and the kids love tubing she can't wait for a boat.

 

IMO get that kinda image portrayed to the public and you see numbers go.

 

And like the Billabong ads out now say, "Life is better in boardshorts" life on the water with a boat and rope is better, just gotta get it out there.

[rodltg2]

If the sport dies out, people are going to wonder what all these wierd skinny but long lakes are all about!

[Dirt]

Sorry to beat a dead horse but if I understand this correctly, we are paying approximately $100/year for a $25/year membership so they can send teams to international tournaments. Why not make this an option on your renewal? See how many people pay it.

This sounds like our government. They know best what we need. Meanwhile people are dropping out because they can't afford the dues.

Why not let those who want to support the teams, pay $300 or $400 per year and keep the dues at $25 for the people struggling to afford the sport? Wouldn't that potentially grow the sport and increase membership and participation?

Just playing devil's advocate here for the sake of discussion.

[Horton]

@Dirt I am unsure but think those are not the facts. Maybe the funds are not spent the way you want but I think less is going to the Elite teams than you think.

 

You need to scroll up and reread what Darwin said.

 

I am in no way a defender of USAWS but I NEVER want this site to distribute false information. Many of you misunderstood Darwin’s original post. I want to make sure that we debate based on facts.

[swc5150]

Xrated summed me up completely... I'm 38 years old, have long hair and a couple tattoos, and live on a public lake. My pb is -35 (pretty weak compared to you guys), and I have no interest in entering a tournament for all the reasons mentioned. I'd love to catch a pull from any of you guys, but expect joking around from me, versus gear talk! I think this sport needs people like me. Before wakeboard boats, how many ski boats built actually pulled tournaments versus families? Not many I'd guess. Back to the thread theme: I want the sport to grow so companies keep putting R&D into ski boats, ski's, etc. The sport needs families like mine to survive, otherwise ballers will be making boats in their garages, like Shirley and Bentz had to.

[Horton]

@swc5150 I think you really are the demo for this site and the sport.

 

FYI - You have a score higher than most on this site - but that is totally beside the point.

[MrJones]

I was reading an article in a shooting sports magazine about this. They were saying that most (lifetime) sports have a trajectory of popularity. ie: A lot of people get involved. A few people take it very seriously, spend money, get good, and stay in it. Others try it out for a while, then get bored (or tired of getting beaten by the dedicated few) and move out.

 

The cost and need of others for practice, etc likely magnify this in skiing. Seems our zenith was the mid 1980's when I got hooked.

[swc5150]

...and Marcus Brown, to me, should be the poster guy for this sport. Did any of you catch the Waterski mag with the reviews on 2011 boats? The pic with Marcus by the 197 showed him with a beer in his hand. Lifestyle=fun... sell that, and you grow this sport. We have literally 2 dozen wakeboard boats on our local river, and two guys who actually wakeboard. Reminds of the 80's... lake full of Prostars and 2 guys who actually used them to ski. Simple econ, if people aren't buying the boats and skis, the sport dies, and it'll take more than a few living on private lakes to keep it financially viable. The business model is right there for us to see, and sadly it's called wakeboarding. People buy/finance crazy expensive wake boats because it's considered cool, and/or, that's what their kids want/see out there.

 

Horton - I should mention that's at 34mph (ZO B1 though! lol)

[crashman]

we could have a whole thread dedicated to what "the skiing lifestyle is" but to me it's the relaxing aspects of "lake life" juxtaposed with speed and intensity required to run the course. I could envision a Versus broadcast where they show the amount of force on the rope and skier's speeds at different points on the course- even non-skiers would be impressed by the strength and precision required to run shortline. For me skiing is to the watersport world what open-wheeled racing is to the racing world- exciting, fast, precise, and a little bit crazy.

[xrated]

@crashman, something like sports science or one of those physics type shows that Discovery has from time to time. Even open water skiing I have a hard time getting people to understand the speed and force that can be generated.

[The_MS]

The bigger this sport gets, the more expensive it gets. If all you rich people would quit buying 50-60k boats, they might get the price back down.

[Horton]

or there will not be any boat companies...

[The_MS]

I can make our 196 last until I bite the dust.

[Bulldog]

There will always be rich wallys and the wake board scene to keep the boat companies going. Go to your local boat ramp and you are sure to here this "dude my trailer has 18 inch spinner rims!! they are sick"

[Ilivetoski]

@Jdarwin I take your idea to mean "if you own a tourmnet ski boat, you get free membership" well that would only help the people inside of the water ski community. When we buy ski boats, that dosnt expose any more people to the sport other than our friends who see our new boat. I think that the way for larger payouts is like what happend at this years malibu open, where they combined the tournment with an airshow. That takes the intrested people from just water skiiers to military and aircraft fans. A way larger fan base. Charge a little bit for these events and you could easily get a $10,000-$20,000 profit off one tournment.

[jdarwin]

There are currently 8717 members of AWSA. 17k total in USAWS. How many tournament ski boats are there? That tells me that the overwhelming majority of ski boat owners are not members of USAWS.

 

Charging admission to an event brings its own set of challenges and the costs associated can be significant. But, I'm sure those that put on these events (Dana etal) would welcome your suggestions.

[swc5150]

I'm one of them JD. Was an AWSA member for years, but haven't been in either for probably the last 5 or so. I suppose I should get on board to help the cause.

[Horton]

@swc5150 nice idea to join to support but I say we need to make it so you WANT to join.

[Horton]

@Ilivetoski I would bet that it is something like...

 

For every 1 person that competes in AWSA there are 10 that ski balls on a regular basis and 100 that love skiing but don't round balls and hundreds who wakeboard or do something else on the water behind a boat.

 

Clearly these numbers are fictitious but you get the point. I think there are more then enough people that have the money and the drive. I think they have not discovered the sport.

 

[Ilivetoski]

@horton, I understand what you are saying but when we triple the number of people competing in tournments, that presents its own set of problems. Instead of a 2-3 day state tournment you are looking at a 5 day state tournment. For your local class C tournment you will have skiiers who have dedicated their lives to the sport and compete in all the tournments not being able to compete because someone who is just learning wants to ski a tournment. I am NOT saying that I dont want anymore people because I do, but I believe that a population control would be a good idea. Also to your number of "100 who dont round balls but love skiing" well, that would be on us to go out to the public lakes and put in a course, and push the sport to the people who are still in grassroots.

[Ntq206]

As a newcomer to this great sport, I can offer some first hand perspective of why I think there seems to be limited growth: Exposure.

 

Let's face it, most people (like me) are typically exposed to public waters.

What we see happening on these waters directly influences what others tend to take up on the water, especially those new to boating or lake lifestyle.

We have spent the last several years on open water, initially with an I/O boat. 99.9% of what "I" saw during these times were surfing, tubing and wakeboarding.

 

It wasn't until several years later hanging around the lake, at 7AM while walking about with my coffee, some very new friends asked me to come and spot them while they skied. Sure, no problem.

 

Turns out that he is quite an accomplished shortline skier (now I recognize that).

 

When I saw that from the boat for the very first time, the light went on, and realized how cool it was and that I'd like to do it also.

I was a convert from that point forward.

 

Now, here in lies the issue - MOST people simply aren't up and running around in boats at 7AM unless your a diehard skier or fisherman.

That's when the good water is on public water. After the wee hours in the morning, it's gone and the lake is a boating zoo.

The young crowd has NO INTEREST in getting out on the water at 7AM unless they are already hooked on a sport that demands it - so they more often than not don't get to experience it from the boat.

So so many people never even get to see a slalom skier - just due to when and where it happens.

 

I think this sport for public exposure on public water is limited simply due to the harsh constraints (for public lakes) required to do it: no wind & no boat chop.

 

I HONESTLY believe that if the younger generation simply had more direct exposure to it, this sport would attract a lot of newcomers.

 

My .02 perspective.

[6balls]

Public ski time may help on the private sites if it is offered at strategic times...ie) the times when buoy heads are not using it. Most private sites are idle the majority of the time. Think of the stay at home moms/dads that could use private sites in mid-day hours.

[Ed_Obermeier]

...most people (like me) are typically exposed to public waters.

What we see happening on these waters directly influences what others tend to take up on the water, especially those new to boating or lake lifestyle.

 

That's how I got started. First time I saw a course on the water and watched someone skiing it I was intrigued. After one short wally set (behind a 1970 Larson Shark tri-hull no less) I was hooked. I think it's how a lot of us who still remember the days of public courses on most larger public lakes got started - saw the course, saw someone skiing, wanted to give it a go.

 

I've lobbied for years (to the few who would listen) for some sort of organized effort to get the powers-that-be to take another look at allowing courses to be placed on public lakes. Like a lot of what gets discussed here it's easy to talk about but much more problematic to pull off. I keep referring back to a study supposedly done back in 1999 by the Corp of Engineers with input from various invited groups including USAWS or AWSA (had a couple of folks from California on the committee as I recall), not sure which. The general gist was to try to find ways to enhance public water use to the benefit of more groups of users (fishermen, jet skiers, water skiers, etc) without infringing on each other. I.e. set aside fishing only areas, a cove for the skiers, a cove for the jet skiers, and so on. Was informed about it but have never heard nor ever seen any results from it. Anybody here know anything at all about that? If we could get the Corp etc to reconsider getting something like that going perhaps... How to do it though?

[A_B]

 

OWSA sought out lake owners to hold oen lake days last summer. I believe they were listed on their website and maybe Regional Guide. No one showed up at our lake. I probably should have posted some info on it to some non-tournamet boater sites, but I didn't have a lot of time to mess with it. Maybe the local Marina, or whatever..

 

If we want to grow the sport, I believe the answer lies in getting exposure, like advertising, in non-tournament user sites or media. There seems to be the common channels or websites that you see advertising on, but the non-tournament crowd doesn't get a Regional Guide, or know where to find tournaments in their area. When I was a river skier, I didn't even know what a slalom course was. My cousin asked if I wanted to go through their ski clubs slalom course and (being a college student) I said do I need to bring a notebook and pencil or something stupid like that, and she then explained about the buoys, speeds, times, etc... I said duh... I had no clue that there were tournaments, pro skiing, etc.. I was amazed when they showed me copies of Water Ski magazine put out by AWSA, they were smaller in the old days, like Executive paper size, not 8.5 x11. I remember a Red and White Amercan Skier on the cover that I thought was the Cat's meow. I was hooked after rounding some milk jugs on the Ottawa River Fn's Navy Water Ski Club course. Made our own homemade Accufloat-type course (there was no production courses at that time), dropped it in the Maumee River, and started rounding my own milk jugs. I can thank a speed limit put in by homeowners who didn't like jet boats with open headers for driving me to find a borrow-pit years later, and the rest is history....

 

So the real question as I see it is how do you find the really young AB's who don't even know what a slalom course is? Advertising has to be in things other than the Water Ski etc... to find them and hook 'em like I got hooked 33 years ago... There aren't any public slalom courses around these parts anymore, but there are 5 man made sites, but unless you know about Google Earth Ski Sites, you would never know most of them exist.

 

I would think that a central body would need to devlop a campaign to reach out to uncharted waters to find ski crazy folks that have no knowledge of what they could do with their passion. We could organize ourselves on the internet if someone has a strong marketing and promotion background to drive a countrywide campaign. I volunteered my lake for a day last summer and would do it again. I wouldn't mind picking up a few serious skiers for a club again. I'm sure OB would add some at his lake, and other owners as well on that front, but how you get public courses and ski clubs developing again on open waterways, good luck with that..

 

 

[Ed_Obermeier]

I talk to a lot of folks who put permanent courses on public lakes so I know it's getting done, it's just not getting done on nearly as many public lakes as folks would like to be able to do it on. But it just seems to run the gamut with the Corp from i.e. having the Corp actually purchase the course for the local ski club (Corp pays for the course, ski club installs/maintains - it happens) to "not on this lake, bud". Seems to totally depend on the head Engineers attitude towards "waterskiers" (who are likely lumped together with jet skiers, wakeboarders, tubers, and other various wallys). If they're a hard core fisherman for example forget it. Takes a local effort from a dedicated skier, group, or club lobbying the local Corp office. If some group with enough size, visibility, and clout (here we go dumping on USAWS and INT again) could get the Corp on a NATIONAL level to take a look at it... Again, easy to talk about, much more difficult to accomplish.

[Deanoski]

we should all teach one new person to ski each yr! I like to teach kids to ski seeing their face light up is priceless.

 

Deano