Administrators Horton Posted January 18, 2012 Administrators Share Posted January 18, 2012 I know this is crazy talk but lets just say someone runs 43, what happens next? Goode ★ HO Syndicate ★ KD Skis ★ MasterCraft ★ PerfSki Radar ★ Reflex ★ S Lines ★ Stokes ★ Baller Video Coaching System Become a Supporting Member or make a One-time Donation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller Ed_Johnson Posted January 18, 2012 Baller Share Posted January 18, 2012 SAINT-HOOD !!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Horton Posted January 18, 2012 Author Administrators Share Posted January 18, 2012 My brother always thought that after 41 the boat speed should go up. Goode ★ HO Syndicate ★ KD Skis ★ MasterCraft ★ PerfSki Radar ★ Reflex ★ S Lines ★ Stokes ★ Baller Video Coaching System Become a Supporting Member or make a One-time Donation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller_ Wish Posted January 18, 2012 Baller_ Share Posted January 18, 2012 If that happens, future NBA players will have to switch to water skiing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller lottawatta Posted January 18, 2012 Baller Share Posted January 18, 2012 According to the rules (10.06 c) you take off another .25 meter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller Razorskier1 Posted January 18, 2012 Baller Share Posted January 18, 2012 Don't know, but you do need another higher bar out there if it happens! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Horton Posted January 18, 2012 Author Administrators Share Posted January 18, 2012 Seems like changing speed after 41 would promote technique over height Goode ★ HO Syndicate ★ KD Skis ★ MasterCraft ★ PerfSki Radar ★ Reflex ★ S Lines ★ Stokes ★ Baller Video Coaching System Become a Supporting Member or make a One-time Donation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller Phil2360 Posted January 18, 2012 Baller Share Posted January 18, 2012 Slight tangent, I've always wondered how a rule about handle section length would work. As in skier's vertical reach plus handle section length equals, say 12 feet. You could test it with a pole that the handle section connected to & was stood vertical. Skier would have to be able to completely wrap his palm around the centre of the handle for the rope length to be correct. Would even the playing field as far as skiers height is concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller MattP Posted January 18, 2012 Baller Share Posted January 18, 2012 @Horton I think this topic was discussed not to long ago. I will do some searching and see if I can come up with a link... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller Onside135 Posted January 18, 2012 Baller Share Posted January 18, 2012 @Phil2360...I don't think a rule like that would be a good thing. Also, I don't know of any other sport that does this that could set a precedent for this type of rule. With few exceptions within gender specific sports, most dimensions and rules are standardized. I think buoy distances and rope lengths should also be. We should not cater to shorter people, or in the same ruling challenge taller folks. The NBA doesn't lower its hoops, marathons don't care about stride length, and pro golfers all play from the same tee boxes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Horton Posted January 18, 2012 Author Administrators Share Posted January 18, 2012 I am just thinking that we could get to a point where a 7' tall guy will come in and crush the sport. I am not sure that Smith or CP could physically get to the ball at 44 1/2 off. Goode ★ HO Syndicate ★ KD Skis ★ MasterCraft ★ PerfSki Radar ★ Reflex ★ S Lines ★ Stokes ★ Baller Video Coaching System Become a Supporting Member or make a One-time Donation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller Ed_Obermeier Posted January 19, 2012 Baller Share Posted January 19, 2012 I know this is crazy talk but lets just say someone runs 43, what happens next? Who cares? Never gonna happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller Onside135 Posted January 19, 2012 Baller Share Posted January 19, 2012 A guy who is destined to be 7' tall realizes this at an early age. Appropriately, his parents and friends encourage him to focus on basketball. Until our sport grows to where guys can get full rides to Duke for water skiing, this is not an issue! Like Ed says..."Never gonna happen" Also, who makes bindings for Size 18s? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller Ed_Obermeier Posted January 19, 2012 Baller Share Posted January 19, 2012 If the 7 footer comes along who can run 41 I'd bet money that Eddie and the Radar boys would be more than happy to build him (or her) any ski and bindings required. But onside135 is right, until the day comes that the sport would financially support the decision for Mr. 7-footer to go into skiing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller skibug Posted January 19, 2012 Baller Share Posted January 19, 2012 We'll all cross that bridge (Beyond 43' off) when we come to it; like when we are able to inhabit the moon or something like that.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller 6balls Posted January 19, 2012 Baller Share Posted January 19, 2012 Yes, b/c any goofy 7 footer need not apply. We all know it takes serious strength and athleticism to play our game so this 7 footer would be a hell of an athlete. It's also much more difficult to have the core strength necessary for our sport if the tower is so tall. Not going to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller_ lpskier Posted January 19, 2012 Baller_ Share Posted January 19, 2012 @Phil2360 Will you have to put your arm under 45 pounds (or whatever it is) of tension to measure it? Lpskier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller skibug Posted January 19, 2012 Baller Share Posted January 19, 2012 Yes this is my final answer to this questions.... http://monkeybutt.ytmnd.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller Onside135 Posted January 19, 2012 Baller Share Posted January 19, 2012 Initially most would argue that height is a direct advantage, but as I think @6balls is alluding to, there are also some downsides. Just being the slightest bit out of position is magnified for a person with a large frame. It may be more challenging to get perfectly stacked for a tall versus a shorter skier. Whereas a short and stocky guy can muscle his way through being a little out of position, a taller guy has more to overcome (think something about moment arms and force...maybe @Than_Bogan can validate this with an equation). Sounds reasonable in my mind anyway! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gold Member Than_Bogan Posted January 19, 2012 Gold Member Share Posted January 19, 2012 Yep. That's all valid physics as far as I know! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller danbirch Posted January 20, 2012 Baller Share Posted January 20, 2012 Short in height is a dis-advantage. Ask Marcus Brown. He has to travel further to get his feet around the same balls (as well as get higher up on the boat). Also, It would about be the same thing as saying, a short person has an advantage to lifting more weight than a big guy. Big guy, more strength, more reach, better advantage in most physical sports, especially water skiing. Look at all of the top skiers at Nationals, Big Dawgs, and the Pro's. The pattern seems to be, Skinny & Tall (narrow center of gravity) with a long reach is the winning formula. Likewise, too tall can become an issue as well (maybe human beings who are TOO "lanky" become un-cooridenated?). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller disland Posted January 20, 2012 Baller Share Posted January 20, 2012 John has a point. Progression of the sport shouldn't be limited by physics, meaning someone has to be able to even reach that far. If the boat speed were increased it would bring ultra short line lengths in play for skiers of "average" height. If we look at the history of the sport why was 36mph even set as the boat speed. My guess is probably that was as fast as boats could even go back then. If we increased boat speed to 37mph it might make things more interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller_ The_MS Posted January 20, 2012 Baller_ Share Posted January 20, 2012 nothing happens because like Ed says, it aint gonna happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gold Member Than_Bogan Posted January 20, 2012 Gold Member Share Posted January 20, 2012 @danbirch. I think it is clear that being shorter is a *net* disadvantage. That doesn't mean there are *no* advantages of being shorter. @everyone else: I actually brought up a very similar thing a while back, and I agree that going beyond -43 doesn't make a lot of sense. I'm slightly concerned about skier height becoming far too important, but I'm even more concerned about boat path becoming insanely important. A few inches could be the difference between possible and impossible. I don't want the sport to reach the point where records are just as much on the driver as on the skier. I support eventually creating a 38 mph division, but I wouldn't get too serious about that until running -43 becomes pretty regular, and I think that is still many years away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gold Member Than_Bogan Posted January 20, 2012 Gold Member Share Posted January 20, 2012 One more quickie. Even I, at a "mere" 6'2", can reach to about 8'2", which is about 2.5m. The ball itself is only about 25cm wide, so a ski has to pass 11.5m + 25m/2. Aggresively rounding that up, call it 11.7m. So it's theoretically possible that someone at my height could run a rope that was 11.7m - 2.5m = 9.2m. That not only covers 44 off (i.e. 9.5m), but also the next one (9.25m). So we're not really at the point where "freakish" height is physically required. But still, the basic point stands: We don't want this sport to ever become all about height and perfect boat path. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RB Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Another 43 off run. Seriously, if it's ever accomplished, this will be the result. As they say, twice is skill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller A_B Posted January 21, 2012 Baller Share Posted January 21, 2012 A cigarette? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller_ Chet Posted January 21, 2012 Baller_ Share Posted January 21, 2012 I dream of auto driving. Wonder what it would do to the sport and to this topic. Chet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller ForrestGump Posted January 21, 2012 Baller Share Posted January 21, 2012 Than, records are already on the hands of the driver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller matthewbrown Posted January 21, 2012 Baller Share Posted January 21, 2012 Horton, you are crazy. @Than --"A few inches could be the difference between possible and impossible. I don't want the sport to reach the point where records are just as much on the driver as on the skier." This is so true-- at the super short line lenghts you can't compare performance at a site where buoys are 3" narrower, with a driver willing to give you another 4"-6" if you need it, with a rope/handle combo about 1/8" from being out of tolerance...vs...a dead on actual site, with a driver that doesn't budge, and a dead on rope and handle segment....the difference is enormous In this last scenario, with everything by the book how many current skiers could actually run 41..even in practice with no pressure? 3 guys?? Nate, Parrish, Willie...maybe also Degasperi when he's on..and possible Rossi when he's not skiing on ice in Utah-----all tall individuals and we are already thinking about what comes after 43..c'mon... 41 is a monstrous accompishment even if the tolerances are pushed to the limit. In 2000 I saw Mapple run 41 4 times in practice, all different sets and on the last one he got to 3 ball at 43, he was in his prime and said he had never skied better... the only known variable was what my eyes told me, the driver was giving him 9-12" at each buoy, don't know about rope/handle length or buoy setup tolerances but the driving alone made a significant difference as I don't believe he ran 41 in any competition that year, much less 4 times--I guess my point is that when I hear about someone running mid-43 or what happens after 43 I know what kind of phemnomenal feat that would be and I highly doubt that with straight up tolerances anyone will every run 43--time will tell and you can never say never Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baller Dirt Posted January 27, 2012 Baller Share Posted January 27, 2012 Would an auto-steer system even the playing field a bit more? Are the tolerances of the ski courses too wide? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.webp.fe8dc8cebd1653a72f884b76caf34341.webp)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now