Big dawg sandbaggers

[Double7s]

Why would a big dawg top 16 skier ski M3/M4/M5. If you have won money you are not an amateur. I don't know what satisfaction you would get winning a regional/nationals. There is a division for elite skiers called MASTER MEN.

When you take the podium, you should leave your head hanging down after recieving your medal because of shame or embarrassment.

The should be a rule change that If you ski as a MM in any event, you are declaring yourself a MM for that year. No back and forth in divisions.

What's more important, filling the big dawg slots or keeping the integrity of the sport?

[ForrestGump]

There is nothing wrong with it and honestly, I get tired of people crying about it. Masters Men has never been designated to do anything with Money so it's not an amateur/pro thing. The problem is that overall is also affected. So you can't force people into MM at this point due to overall. People need to get over it until the AWSA changes the rules. If you have an issue with it, then you need to draft a rules change proposal and submit it to the AWSA. It has nothing to do with Big Dawg because you're not required to have a MM rating to ski Big Dawg.

[Double7s]

The top 34 mph slalom skiers are not 3 event skiers. Why is there even a MM division? If I thought I I was the best at 34 skier, I would want to beat any 34 skier. Not just my age group.

[ForrestGump]

Some people have a personal goal of winning their age division. There is absolutely no rule saying they can't. And yes, guys like Mark Shaw are 3 eventers and it would certainly effect him.

[T8skier]

The rules allow skiers to sandbag. There's no really upside to a win. You should have won. The only thing that makes it hard to win are the other sandbaggers in your group.

I think if you have a. MM ranking you are a MM.

[Wish]

Is there MM trick and jump?

[ForrestGump]

@T8skier This is more than just MM. By your thinking, Krista Rogers, who won W2 at the Western Regionals should have to ski open with the likes of Regina. That doesn't make much sense. This is one of those issues that just doesn't have a good answer to.

 

As far as MM, its intent was to mimic ISWF Men's 35+ so there was an equitable way to compare scores and create world rankings for 34mph skiers. No less, no more. It had nothing to do with MM being pros or money winners. Same with Open. It's intent is to allow world ranking inclusion for 36mph men or 34mph women.

 

Now, is there a way to improve this situation? Possibly. But until someone comes up with a rules proposal that takes all the different things into effect, then it's status quo. Just saying that an MM rating has to ski MM doesn't necessarily fix anything and in fact could go against why MM and Open are there.

[gjohnson]

I totally agree with @ShaneH. The AWSA has always been about age based competition first and foremost. So why begrudge a skier who's been conditioned to compete against similar aged skiers? Winning a national title is not easy.

[eleeski]

Change the overall rules!

 

When Kirk skied "up" to Open from B3 he was severely criticized by the coaches who wanted him to develop as an Overall skier. When I skied "down" to M5 I am being criticized as a sandbagger (especially when my actual overall performance falls far short of the pipe dream wild card performance I am chasing).

 

Scheduling issues also forced my choice. But I skied well enough to earn that choice. Suffer whiners!

 

Age divisions exist for valid reasons. Physical issues, career issues, family responsibility issues and others differentiate skiers as they age. The few who are able to cross those barriers are entitled to every "advantage" their performance allows under the rules.

 

In the past when I did ski "up" I was allowed to ski the events I was qualified only by overall at Regionals and Nationals. But that seems like a painful tease when I ski well in those events and don't get to score overall.

 

Skiers skiing "up" should be allowed to drag their scores into overall. If that is too difficult logistically, allow the "up" skiers to ski another run in age division for overall but not for placement. I proposed this to the Rules Committee last year but it did not seem to have enough support. Contact your AWSA reps to support such a change and a few of the overallers might quit sandbagging.

 

Eric

 

@Wish MM Jump and Trick exist and are quite fun for the competition!

[schroed]

I've had a MM rating for a long time and have traditionally skied in M3 in regionals and nationals. I've never won a regional title, but have come in 2nd many times. I don't consider myself to be competitive with some of the other MM skiers in my region like Greg Badal and Matt Brown because those guys run 39 almost every time and I've only run it once in my life in practice.

 

Funny thing is last year I skied in M3 and some people were calling me a sandbagger (jokingly, but still saying it none the less). This year I skied MM at regionals and a bunch of people were asking me why I wasn't skiing M3.

 

I don't think there's really a problem with the system today. I think the only change I would make is that if you've won a national title in your age division, and you're qualified for OM or MM, then you should be forced to ski in MM or OM.

[Than_Bogan]

My proposal to throw out for further discussion is:

 

A tournament should be all age divisions or no age divisions.

 

In other words, MM, OM, and OW would not be offered in tournaments that use age divisions.

 

Personally I find it really bizarre when my placement is artificially increased by someone choosing to ski MM. I want to see any age group championship include everyone in that age category. Otherwise the placement means nothing.

 

There can and should be tournaments that don't chop up by age and they should use OM, MM, and OW to facilitate that.

 

Some may feel this is a bit radical. I feel it is simple and logical. Two things I like.

[MrJones]

MM should be 36 mph. (Sorry for those tired of hearing me say that)

[ForrestGump]

Scot, but then there's no good crossover for 35+ IWSF scores.

[Jody_Seal]

I am surprised that someone showed the stones to approach this topic on BOS!

 

I think that at the rate the competitive side of the sport is shrinking that it really does not make much difference what division some one skis in, However Their are many reasons that the sport is shrinking and this issue does play a part in it as does the Zero Off issue, the overall cost issue the private vs public lake issue and many other issues that we seem to come up with.

 

Call it what you want Sandbagging seems to be the description. Would the sport be better off if a cutoff score was mandated for a division? I do believe that their are many a slalom skier that would come back into the sport at a competitive level at the Regionals and Nationals provided that they could be competitive in a age group division without the open and MM skiers in the mix.

I do agree that a MM or open skier in one event should have the ability to utilize his or her score towards a age group or even Open overall score placement.

 

Me personally will never be MM skier or even close but I would like to see the sport grow and believe that unless we make strides in overcoming these issues we will continue to decline and the overall cost to participate will exceed even the wealthy.

[Than_Bogan]

@Jody I fundamentally disagree with your hypothesis. Most skiers, including me, are simply not competitive with the top skiers in our age group. The best I have ever placed in the East (including the MM folks of the appropriate age) is 5th, but the gap from me to The Big Three is enormous. Lex Brumagin, Ken Autore, and Matt Pullano all figure to beat me by 6-12 buoys even if I ski well.

 

I cannot simply decide that I want to be competitive with them. And that's a good thing. It's a sport because you have to earn it. I constantly strive to get into the tier those guys are on, even though the smart money would be on it never happening.

 

If we want to have some skill-level based groups to create some artificial competitiveness, that's fine. In fact INT does exactly that, and some people love it. It's a great way to measure your progress as you advance through the skill level groups.

 

It's not for me. I want to go up against the best and see where I stand. I may never beat them*, but I'll keep trying. But if my victory is achieved by simply pushing them into some other category, that would ring hollower than a ... well, something really hollow!

 

*Technically I beat Matt and tied Lex at Nationals last year, but that was due to terrible scores by them in ridiculous conditions. That rings pretty hollow, too -- but not as hollow as just pretending they don't exist!

[Than_Bogan]

@Jody Secondly, what do you mean "continue to decline?" Here in the northeast, participation in tournaments is growing rapidly right now. It may be a ways from the peak (which was way back before even my time), but the trend is strongly up right now. And that's happening against a fairly bleak economic backdrop. Imagine what will happen if the economy ever gets really hot again!

[ForrestGump]

The problem is that people incorrectly assume MM to be an ability based division and it's not. It's solely for the purpose of having a cross-reference to IWSF 35+. It's truly more of an overlay than a division as it stands now, although we're treating it like it is own division(which honestly complicates things, IMO).

[Than_Bogan]

@ShaneH Totally agree. It should simply be an overlay, and used to do things like Big Dawg. Having it be a separate division causes problems. If you think about it, the whole idea that someone CHOOSES what division to compete in at Nationals is pretty bizarre.

 

I feel the same way about OM and OW, although perhaps that case requires more convincing for many folks.

[Wish]

So if it's seen as an overlay by some (who seem to know their stuff) why is there a cut off to get into it? Shouldn't we all be MM if over 35. Honestly I don't even know what that cut off is or how skiers become MM. Is it magic?

[klindy]

@Wish http://www.usawaterski.org/rankings/news/FAQ_Rankings.htm#EliteQual

 

Not that the info on that page will help clear things up.....

[clemsondave]

MM or Level 9 is a percentage, just like the other levels. The difference is that MM is a percentage of all 34mph skiers. No clue what that percentage is. I do know that I am in and out of it just about every week!

[Jody_Seal]

Actually MM was just that a division created for the very high end 34 mph skiers. Their were many skiers that wanted it however it has become convoluted and skiers come and go as they please, many of these skiers were the ram rods behind the division. Also it has only been in the last couple of years that the IWSF started with a rankings system for the senior divisions on a international scale. IMO The MM division could go away as it has caused more grief then beneficial. As far as international rankings go any score from a class L or R tournament will go on the IWSF rankings list in some division or another. For those that feel MM should be a 58K class it also already exists it is called international Men or women in a class L or R tournament, Any age can ski it.

Than You might want to go and read some of the reports from USAWS on their web site as they do not paint an overall pretty picture for the sport. Truly I am glad that their are hot beds around the nation but overall their is a decrease in the sports participation.

Less than 20 years in my region: in 1994 at the southern regionals at Jack Travers site their were 110 men 3 slalom skiers! in 2012 at Paducha their were 14 men 3 slalom skiers. this year the same group who now are men 5 came up with 25 slalom skiers...

 

Perception is a lot in this sport and some of us who are in a position to listen and talk to skiers and potential skiers hear what they have to say and their perception can be far different from some of you on these boards, good-bad -or indifferent.

 

My goal as a state level counsel-man is to help promote the sport to all participants as a whole and to listen to those that elected me to help create a atmosphere of fair play in competition.

[ForrestGump]

I honestly think that the fact that there IS a cutoff is what spurs so much of the confusion. The interesting thing is that Big Dawg doesn't even require an MM rating.

[ntx]

@Than If you feel the same way about OM and OW, you don't get to see Nate(M1) -vs- Chris(M2) How many M2 don't walk to the dock if the tower is standing there?

[Than_Bogan]

@ntx I think you are misinterpretting. I am in no way trying to get rid of OM or OW. I just don't think they belong in the same tournament with M1/M2 and W1/W2. I fully support the notion of open competition, without regard to age (except indirectly due to speed differences). The problem I have is when a skier gets to choose a division, which creates all sorts of weirdness. The division should be set by some obviously measurable characteristic, such as age, sex, and location.

 

I'm also totally OK with performance-based divisions (at some tournaments), but where they exist they should be automatic: certain performances put you in certain divisions, end of story.

[MrJones]

There was a comment about creating "artificial competiveness" using performance based divisions. I have to disagree with this being a bad thing. If I am not mistaken this is what tennis does. What about a handicap as in golf?

 

Even so there will always be cries of "sandbagger" if there is anything other than strict age based divisions.

[ntx]

@Than I guess I don't understand. With the exception of regionals and nationals, does tournament placement even matter? You are skiing against yourself and to get a score that qualifies you to ski regionals and nationals. Who cares what place you finish in a class c tourn that has 30 skiers and 6 age/sex groups. The rankings list gives you a indication where you fall against other skiers.

[Than_Bogan]

I didn't say artificial competitiveness was a bad thing. Skillbased divisions are used in INT and enjoyed by many. We also use a very fun handicapping scheme in a tournament that I help run.

[bishop8950]

If you dont like the "sandbagging" show up to Okee and give them a hard time. Maybe they will tell you why they choose to ski M3 vs MM. I think for the most part the system works, there are exceptions. This said no matter how you modify the rules, I think someone will always have something to complain about.

 

When I was fortunate enough to find myself at the crossover point between M3 and MM I chose MM. I thought of it as a choice between a chance for M3 gold or top 10 MM and personally I choose the latter. It is personal and I am not criticizing others for looking at it differently.

[gjohnson]

For the record, the IWSF started keeping track of old men scores in October 2009. I'm not sure what the whole point of this thread is anymore. I show up to tournaments to push myself and hang out with friends.

[JoeMac]

I am skiing in Mens 4 and Big Dawg. I have never placed in top 5 at Nationals in my own division. I didn't even place at my regionals this year. When I get a medal at Nationals I will start skiing in MM.

[Wish]

What is the cut off?

[schroed]

Cut off moves based on percentages. It looks like it's 104.25 average right now. So you need a 2@39, a 2.25@39, and a 2.5@39 to get a MM rating.

[klindy]

Again @Wish Here's a link to the FAQ's which explains the OM/MM division calculations, cut-off, etc. - http://www.usawaterski.org/rankings/news/FAQ_Rankings.htm#EliteQual

 

[mshaw200]

@Jody Seal - I disagree that MM can go away. I am happy that @ShaneH has hit this on the head. MM is NOT just a slalom division. This is the ONLY division that we have were someone like myself who cares about competing at the Sr. Worlds and Pan Ams can train and compete on the same playing field as the 35+ (Sr 1) division that the rest of the world recognizes (55k in Slalom and 57k/5.5' in Jump). I also agree with ShaneH, we have to stop thinking of Big Dawg and MM as the same, they are not.

 

That doesn't mean however that I don't agree that there are skiers skiing in their age divisions that should be skiing in MM at Regionals and Nationals.

[Jody_Seal]

Mark what Shawn stated was that MM Slalom was brought forth to set up a division to compete against the world seniors, Not that it in recent years has become that because of the added MM jump and trick. All along men 3,4,5 or any 55K scores could be applied to participation at senior world events. But again MM Slalom came about because a number of these skiers wanted a division that was a step up from men 3,4,5 to compete against each other in. Remember I was on both Ratings and IAC when the MM slalom division came about.

 

Also MM could go away because a senior skier can ski in international men under whatever conditions he is needing to score in, whether it is a 58K slalom or jumping at speeds and ramp heights not available in age group competition. These scores then will find their way to the appropriate world rankings list.

Women 5 have the same ability to do so if they chose to ski at 55K rather then 52K International women!

You will learn these things once married to a Senior scorer!

[gjohnson]

The following is the number of competitors in the Mens Masters slalom division by year at the AWSA National Water Ski Tournament. The last two years have seen a couple of trick skiers and jumpers as well.

 

2003 14

2004 16

2005 14

2006 13

2007 14

2008 15

2009 16

2010 9 **Tricks 2

2011 12 **Jump 2

[mshaw200]

Jody, I still disagree with any potential elimination of the MM division. You are right that I could compete under International Men and my scores would go to the right place but then what about Regionals and Nationals? If I ski in Men 3 at Nationals would I be included in the sandbagging conversation? Heck you call me a sandbagger anyway :)

 

[T8skier]

Is it a complement to be put in the category of a sandbagger? You have to be a very good skier to be called that.

[Horton]

I have bored many of you guys in the past about the year I got silver in M2 Jump. … The guy that got gold had his tour rating. I had an open rating. So the gold should have gone to the guy who got third and just had an EP? No. (well maybe) I think we all should have gotten beaten by Ellis and Swanson. Nationals should be an age championship.

 

Or we become an ability based sport. (INT does this) Do I get to be in the division with the guys below 5’9 and who have only run 38 once in a tournament? Next thing you know I will start to run 38 but drop the handle at 6 so I do not have to ski with the next class. Do I get a trophy for participation? Maybe a badge or a gold star.

 

I am all for ability based local events and encourage it. But a National or Regional title should not have skiers moving in and out of divisions based on performance. For the title to mean something it does not make sense that the guy a little better did not ski against you because he moved up to Open or MM.

 

Maybe exclude true pros but besides that I think ability based on the big stage is silly.

 

[Double7s]

One would think that results at reg/nat. MM scores would be higher than M3/M4.

I think out of respect for yourself, the intent of the division and the sport you would know which division to compete in.

How is it your a MM one day and a M3/4 the next. What determines that decision?

[MAD11]

Once you score high enough you automatically get a MM rating. Then your scores go into both your age based group and MM. You may never once ski as a MM or even care about it, but have a MM rating. The Big Dawg is irrelevant. Don't have to be a MM to ski in that event. If you don't have a MM rating they will put your scores in your age based group. In the past I picked which group to ski in based on what day my kid skied. Whichever was closer to her day is what I skied in. That way I didn't have to stay longer and spend more money or even make multiple trips to the city where the event was. One year there was a 3 day difference between the groups and I would most likely flown home then back to ski Mens 3.

[bmiller3536]

@double7s the skier makes the determination of which division they want to ski. If you do not like the way it is than go ski the INT and you will be grouped with people of the same ability. I could care less who skis in what division. It is one round and anything can happen, I think last years nationals proved that. Jody mentioned there being over 100 M3 skiers one year at regionals, do you think all 100 skiers had a realistic chance to win? No, but they went and competed because they love the sport and wanted to support it. It is like everything else in the world, all anyone cares about is themselves and what is in it for them not the sport as a whole.

[ForrestGump]

But Brad, it's all about ME. I keep telling you guys that and you keep ignoring me. LOL

[eleeski]

@Double7s Some days I'm looking for overall scores, some days I'm focusing on my single event. The overall rules force those choices.

 

Additionally, sometimes the age division schedule works, some days the MM schedule works. Injuries and how well I'm skiing might also factor (but my ego is so big that I know I can overcome any adversity and ski my best at any time so that really is not a factor for me). I earned those options.

 

Is there a hard qualification for Big Dawg? I was thinking of traveling to a sparsely attended one just for fun. At least my entry fee would do the real Big Dawgs some good.

 

Eric

[teammalibu]

Shane Bam I knew it was all about you!

Brad if you have time for BOS why have we been playing phone tag for 3 days. Call Me!!

[dave2ball]

My guess would be if they can bring home a medal from the nationals and or regionals.

[Than_Bogan]

@Double7s I really disagree with you painting the blame on individual skiers. They've earned the right, within the rules, to choose their division. They can choose whatever they want.

 

If there's a problem, and I tend to think there is, it lies in the rules.

[pjirsa]

i think you can get thrown out of the olympics for "sandbagging". good thing we're not a part of that.

[dave2ball]

People may drop into there respective division for a couple of reasons. One reason work. They may not be able to ski on the day MM skis so they drop down to M3 or M4. Or many have to deal with there kids and there skiing. A drop down in division may cut the time at the site from all week down to 3 days.