Chet Raley, Marcus Brown, and Jody Seals

[boarditup]

There has been a lot of discussion about the new driver rules, the roles of professionals, and how tournaments are run. Much of the discussion comes from the point of view of the relatively elite skier - and each of the skiers mentioned I place in that category. The sport, and any sport, is largely made up of the masses who will never be an elite skier. I put myself into the category - I will likely never run 35-off due to lack of training time.

 

The rules set up by the AWSA, USA WS, and IWWF are based upon running a very objective, standardized competition. Whenever there was new technology or other methods to tighten the tolerances, it was done. Whenever there was an incident of cheating or unfortunate results, it was dealt with. It is natural for the evolution of any regulating body to introduce new rules over time.

 

With the dwindling membership and participation in organized events, we are now at the crossroads - do we regulate ourselves into further obscurity or do we find a way to adapt to the culture? Marcus makes a distinction between the elite-level skier and the professional. Chet advocated more technology to provide more objective scoring for skiers. I advocate for less regulatory burden on the mass of skiers so they can participate, officiate, and host events easier.

 

The current F tournaments don't work because there is no incentive for the aspiring Nationals qualifying skiers to either participate or host events. Aspiring skiers, of all types, need a C tournament that can be hosted with a driver, judge, and a few assistants. Elite tournaments (regionals, nationals, record capable, and cash payout) need to have full compliance with the highest standards. World Record tournaments need to comply with IWWF rules for recognition. In some areas with highly developed cultures, there are plenty of judges and drivers to go around. In most areas, there are insufficient numbers to be self-sustaining. We need to replicate ourselves rapidly. So, a few mistakes get made along the way. A few will cheat and get found out.

 

So, we have essentially 3-levels of skiers: Masses, elite, and pros. Each with their own needs. Lets make the rules simple for the masses, tight for the elites and pros, and strive to give the pros the recognition they deserve. It is time for a shake-up of the system and recognizing the strata the naturally formed.

 

So, what do you think?

[Than_Bogan]

A compelling point and well stated.

[animal]

I think you may be on to some significant distinctions no one is willing to admit. Getting the leadership to understand the need will be a different matter. Going to this type of system raises some questions. Can it be done within the framework of the existing USAWS or do the masses need to develop an independent organization? How does one migrate from the masses format to the elite? Are separate records kept for each division? Are there enough elite and professional skiers to train and evaluate competent judges and drivers if most of us operate under a more lax system? Are we big enough to start creating multiple categories with different rules and processes?

[9400]

I'm not sure I follow what you're advocating, are looking for less restrictions on a "C" tournament?

[Jody_Seal]

Trying to figure out why my name is equated with the first post:

I too am one in the trenches however have watched the powers to be in the sport make poor decisions that have greatly affected the growth or lack their of with in the AWSA membership and it's membership decline. The problem is that not many in membership will step up and disagree with the status quo. The ideology with in USAWS greatly defuses the direction of the sport because the emphasis is not totally dedicated towards the sport of Tournament 3 event waterskiing but for the betterment of "TOWED WATERSPORTS" Yet AWSA is the one who inputs the lions share of the monies to propagate the other sport divisions.

Could their be another approach that would generate membership increases and better serve the sport? I think their is. Maybe another approach is the key to success and development. I agree with What Marcus is trying to deliver. The sport should dedicate a certain amount of resource towards building a true professional level. This would bring forth younger skiers that will aspire to be a pro level athlete within the sport. The current direction of grass roots has not worked, also the current trend of junior development has started to fail. Put some of these resources to better use building a pro level the trickle down effect will be truly beneficial to everyone down the line. Keep in mind I am not advocating dropping any of the junior programs nor dropping the introduction programs but more-emphasis upon creating the pro level of our sport.

Chet has some very good points about bringing in technology when it is ready to bring in. We have been bombarded with rules and technology that is not ready for prime time.

 

It is a new year and every one of the state counsel and many of the directors with in each of your regions are up for re-election. Make a statement get off your asses get members to these meetings and vote the status quo people out and get the ball rolling to effectively change the direction of this sport. Maybe my idea of direction does not jive with others but that is what a free society is about!

See you at the state meeting? Regional Meeting? National Meeting?

[boarditup]

I added you as a person who is vocal, tying to make positive contributions, and have a vantage point different from mine. Your points are valid, worth consideration, and worthy of discussion. I may have a bit of a difference with you from perspective, but not from the goal trying to advance the sport.

 

My goal was to go from "what" to "how" in detailed, concrete actions and policies.

 

9400:

For a slalom-only class C, why does it take more time to get a Senior Judges rating than the average person takes to get an MBA? Driving takes practice, but understanding the basic rules and counting to 6? As a skier in a few tournaments, don't you have the basics down already? Get the rules and policies in alignment with what is really needed for recreational tournaments. Do we really need a Senior Judge? Maybe, maybe not? It is worth the discussion.

[jlittle]

Jody, your name most likely is there because you are passionate about our sport and the direction it may or may not be heading. The other two guys are too. @boarditup responded as I was typing...

 

The one distinction Chet made toward the end of his letter, article, post was his appreciation of all the people & sponsors for all they do at the professional & amateur level. This pro & am type of language gets used all the time.

 

I posted a one line question in the thread @Horton started about the Big Dawg possibly being bad for Professional skiing. It’s about 2/3 of the way down on page one. I posted it to see if it would spur any discussion but no one picked it up.

 

If we separate pro from am how do we do it? Is as simple as declaring yourself professional? And if so, how does that affect the athlete that wants to go to college and ski? I guess he/she does not declare. Easy enough. Would an amateur be allowed to ski in a pro event? Maybe not all of them but some. Say the US Open if they qualify with a high enough score. I think it’s doable but someone is going to have to sell it.

 

[jlittle]

As far as making it easier to run a C tourney. I'm all for that too. However, the general framework of the rule book is good and needs to be there. There's a reason it has evolved to what it is and it is not bad. It cannot be discarded IMO. We should continue to massage it but it needs to stay mostly intact.

[9400]

boarditup-

Got what you're getting at and I agree. I'm not a paperwork guy, I figured it would be easier to get an open rating and become a senior judge....it's a little harder than I thought but I'm still tackling that plan. Unfortunately I've been a witness to "friendly tournaments" and some of the reasons that certain rules are in place. There are certain judges who are over the top as far as rules go and other judges who are a little to skier friendly. It would be nice if we could find the middle ground on the spirit of the rules and then most of this regulation wouldn't be necessary...wishful thinking I guess.

[Wish]

Agree with less regs for class C. In FL it seems to have gone the way of class Rs (records) out numbering Cs. And only a couple Fs. Record tournies is money I'm not willing to spend especially with a daughter now entering tourneys. What's the point of her getting the feel for tourneys if she misses a ball on the first pass...done....lesson for her is that this sucks. It's hard enough getting her interested in going. She's skied Fs and enjoyed them. There are places we would love to go visit and ski that tourney on that date but are limited to Cs finatially. Sad really. From one of the masses, seeing a future for her in skiing tourneys, grim. Me staying in tourneys and being away from family and friends on weekends, bleak.

[jlittle]

@OB oh I'm with you 100%. There are several tourneys I attend around here that, due to the age division(s) most of the officals fall in, it's hard to even come up with a decent skier/judging/driving rotation. Throw "conflict of interest" in the mix and it ain't gonna happen.

[eleeski]

Out west, there is a tournament every weekend. Plenty of qualified hard working officials make these run smoothly and honestly. Tournaments are not the problem.

 

Attracting interest in the sport is a problem. How many of us have called our local media before or after a tournament day? Outreach to developing skiers and the community can fire up a population. College skiing has been a recent success story (we need to be careful or paranoia about parties and wakeboards can put a serious damper on the atractions to this segment). Big Dawgs has also piqued some interest.

 

I understand Marcus's issue. During my two years with an Open rating, there was not one opportunity to ski a pro trick tournament. Pro skiing is nonexistant! There is not enough money for any pro to make an acceptable living skiing. Note that working as a coach or motivator is a different job than skiing for prizes and requires different skills. I don't have any really good ideas on bringing sponsors into the sport so perhaps I'm just raging against the dying of a sport.

 

Waterskiing IS a fun activity and will always have reasonable participation at some level. But non mainstream participant sports (waterskiing, gymnastics, volleyball - I could go on forever) are suffering while poker dominates ESPN and the crappy Dodgers sell for obcene prices. I don't get it.

 

Eric

[A_B]

Agree at certain events in our sport this can make sense. Video review in professional sports has not reached down into amateur events. Pushing a video requirement down to local and even regional events would be making it even tougher to organize and hold an event much like high school football. The duration of an event could get extended quite a bit unless specific guidelines and rules are established, example, all judges see a missed gate, but skier appeals to video review anyway.

 

When money is on the line or a Natuonal title, it could make sense. I would think that only scores at Naionals that are within x number of buoys of the current record would be eligible, so a skier looking for a quarter buoy at 35 off in the middle of the pack doesn't drag out the event for the entire field. Somehow limit it to top placements.

 

I agree with @OB, as we had a hard time finding an "approved" towboat for our little class C. I don't think anyone at the time would have objected to getting pulled behind my '99 Ski Antique with PP at the time, (pre-ZO). A Big Dawg has skied into 41 off behind it and loves the pull, but we couldn't use it, out of date...blah blah blah...

[DW]

Professional = $ or potential income.

Amateur = doing it for the trophy or the love of the sport.

 

Unless money is on the line, the absolute result really is not "that" critical. Sometimes hard to accept if you are at the wrong end of a decision, but it may be needed to keep the sport alive. Add a little tolerance in the system to allow for less specific controls. When you are an amateur you are really doing it for fun or are in training to become a professional.

[LeonL]

@boarditup, you don't need a senior judge for a "C", as I'm sure you know. I agree with the point you're making, however. I'll try to be short with what we did at our site. When we decided early on to sponsor a couple of class "C" tournaments each season, we (I) made a concentrated effort to encourage (read push, coerce, prod, needle, berate) each club member to pursue a rating of some sort. It has worked. Over the 16 years, members have come and gone, but currently we have 19 members. Of that number we have 3 skiers younger than 15, thus cannot be judges. Of the rest we have 4 assistant judges, 3 regular and 1 senior, and 2 more pursuing assistant level. We have 1 reg scorer, 1 assistant scorer, 2 state level safety, 1 senior driver and 1assistant driver. Some or these have more than one rating, some have none. Point being that some have posted that they have as many as 60 members and no rated officials at all, when you just have to encourage club members to help out, and ask them be a contributor, if you want to have tournaments.