Why not 42 off

[Inboardfix]

During the development of our current rope shortening was 43 off really considered possible? For that matter was 41 off considered possible. My thought is when the rope lengths were determined 39.5 was probably the shortest line anyone could envision being run so anything shorter was just arbitrarily determined.

 

Now that 41 has been run often it seems the jump to 43 is too great a change to get incremental increases. Dare I say it to this crowd but watching attempts at 43 is boring to me. I know the best anyone will do is maybe, just maybe if the stars align right the skier will get to 2. I would much rather see a smaller line length change and watch skiers have an opportunity to get 3, 4 or possibly even run the pass. Isn't that the intent of shortening? Make it more difficult but not to such an extreme the chance to run the pass is virtually eliminated.

 

 

[alex38]

Increments from 28 off (in feet) to 43 go 4ft, 3ft, 3ft, 1.5ft, 1.5ft, 2ft. The shortening from 41 to 43 is, perhaps, out of sequence with somewhat of a pattern.

[MattP]

It makes more sense in meters....

18.25

16

14.25

13

12

11.25

10.75

10.25

9.75

 

I guess they could have put a 10m loop in then gone down by .25

[ntx]

The line lengths are based on the metric system. After the 12m line the loops are at .75 meters then .5

[alex38]

@mattp true, that sequence in Meters would be 1m, .75m, .5m, .5m, .5m.

[gregy]

I've been thinking 42 off would be a good idea. Wonder if any of the pros are practicing with custom ropes an extra loop? 2 ft just seem like a huge jump after 41off. Might make things more interesting.

[klindy]

It goes to .25 meter cuts after 9.75. The 0.5m cuts are all about 1'-8.5" so there is no seemingly "huge 2' jump" between 41 & 43.

[KcSwerver]

Metric or not... The jump is still 2 feet which I think is pretty huge saying that the course is only 37.5 feet from centerline to buoy.

[ForrestGump]

Actually, it is not 2 ft. It's barely over 1 1/2 feet. The call it 41 off. But it's really 41 ft 5 inches. So the jump from 41 off to 43(which is what 9.75 meters works out to) is 1' 7".

[Than_Bogan]

@MattP I think it's more "interesting" to look at the differences, i.e. the amount that is removed incrementally each time:

 

2.25m

1.75m

1.25m

1m

.75m

.5m

.5m

.5m

 

So the issue is the flattening at the end. It probably would have been more in keeping with the previous sequence if the bottom of that chart were more like:

 

.5m

.4m (i.e. rope length is 10.35)

.3m (i.e. rope length is 10.05)

 

I think the "mistake" was sticking to 0.25m as the granularity. By rounding everything to a quarter meter, we've placed -43' in an awkward spot. 25cm is a lot on these ultra-short line lengths, so that's too big of a granularity to be rounding everything to (in my opinion!).

 

Whether to make a change like this NOW is a much harder question, because there is now a history of people running 10.25 and of attempting 9.75. Changing 10.25 seems almost out of the question, but I guess it still might be sane to change 9.75 to maybe 9.9 since nobody has really done anything at 9.75. 15cm is only about 6" but that could make all the difference to give the very best a chance to get to 3 or more.

[klindy]

@KcSwerver metric is official and any reference to imperial units is approximate at best.

[John Brooks]

It makes them seem more human if they have to work a little like the rest of us.

[ral]

@Than_Bogan, it could be changed from 9.75 to 10.00 by making a .25 step from 10.25 instead of the current .5. As @Klindy mentions, after 9.75 it goes in .25 m increments.

[PurdueSkier]

The issue with a change now is the records that have been set at 43. If you add an intermediate line length it would require skiers to ski 6 extra buoys to get a shot at the WR. Unless the records are based on buoy count only and not line length but that would discount current records.

[ToddF]

Many other sports have made changes to rules and or implements and still count records, sometimes they put an asterisk by it to denote that it was prior to a certain date, Probably wouldn't discount, or change anything.

 

[ral]

IMHO, a change would need to be considered if ties are starting to occur too often at 1@ 43 off. Before that, does not make any sense.

 

The evolution of world records does not show that it has been stagnant for too long. And if someone considers it it, please look below to the dates where high jump world records were established, and I still do not see anyone advocating the use of a more stable horizontal bar or a spring device at the jump base...

 

Men (outdoor)

Pos. Mark Athlete Nationality Venue Date Ref

1. 2.45 m (8 ft 0¼ in) Javier Sotomayor Cuba Salamanca 27 July 1993

 

Women (outdoor)

Pos. Mark Athlete Nationality Venue Date

1. 2.09 m (6 ft 10 1⁄2 in) Stefka Kostadinova Bulgaria Rome 30 August 1987

[thompjs]

There is a lot of difficulty in making a rope that has .25m diff in loops

[ral]

@thompjs, I think I had Masterline with a 45 off section, but I could not swear it.

 

An easy solution would be to change a section in the final end of the rope in the boat when faced to that. But again, I would consider that only in the tie situation mentioned in my previous posting.

[maxpower220]

I thought the whole reasoning for the metric system was to eliminate the fractions.

 

It would be more entertaining and goal driven to change the "standard" to smaller line lengths. Maybe one day.

 

Perhaps the Big Dawg series could do something like this.

[ral]

Going to the metric system was for using a more standard and reasonable way of measuring...

[maxpower220]

"The evolution of world records does not show that it has been stagnant for too long. And if someone considers it it, please look below to the dates where high jump world records were established, and I still do not see anyone advocating the use of a more stable horizontal bar or a spring device at the jump base..."

 

Humans are the only factor in track. In skiing, equipment and boats change often. Apples and Oranges comparison.

 

[The_MS]

Somebody will run 42 and then you still are going to be stuck at 2@43.

[Horton]

@ms seems weird when we agree

[ral]

@Maxpower220, you are not reading it correctly. I am comparing record evolution and the need for changing rules because of reaching human limits/too many ties in tournaments, not the two sports.

[MattP]

@MS my thought exactly

[Than_Bogan]

@ral Wow, those two still hold both of those records!? I wonder if that's more indicative of the fact that all the best jumpers these days can make a ton more money playing basketball or even volleyball??

 

But in any case, I think your analogy is a bit off. The proposal herein would actually bring us closer to the way HJ works, because you can set the bar at any height you want after you've beaten your competition. The world record could advance by one cm, except that nobody can jump that high! It's not the increment that is holding people back, it's the record itself.

 

If skiing worked like that, then if someone were the only althlete to complete 10.25, he could then request (e.g.) 10.15. If he completed that, THAT would become the world record. The next time somebody got through 10.25, he could try 10.10 to beat the previous guy's record. Actually kind of a cool concept, although obviously requiring some rethinking of the rope/pylon details to make it possible. (No, I am NOT seriously advocating that. Just trying to make a closer analogy to the High Jump.)

 

In skiing, there seem to be quite a few folks who perhaps could do something at 10.0 or even 9.9, but who are going nowhere (so far!) at 9.75.

 

I personally don't think it's a desperate situation, and I'm OK with our top folks being stuck at 2 for a while yet. But I *do* think, if I were to go back in time and set the rope lengths, I'd do the last few a little differently.

[ral]

@Than_Bogan, I was just pointing out that I think there are not that many ties out there to justify a change in the rules, yet... And evolution of the world records has been fairly consistent over the last few years.

[The_MS]

@Horton I agree with most of your stuff except for the "Thin as a cashmere sweeter" comment.

Who in the hell gets cashmere sweaters for xmas?

[Horton]

@ms sexy men like me

[The_MS]

I need to have a discussion with Gallagher

[MattP]

@ms @horton possibly the oddest thread hijack ever..

Now back to our previously scheduled thread of "why not 42 off"

[Horton]

@mattp wow like you are a real moderator

[A_B]

But he doesn't have Panda control.........

[The_MS]

I would think guys like CP and Nate would just want to keep it at 41 and 43 rather than risk another high risk 42 just to get to 43 and have a shot at the record. Thats alot of passes.

32-35-38-39-41-42-43

 

[MattP]

@AB you doubt me?

@MS I agree.

[A_B]

Now that made me chuckle.

 

[andjules]

@MS I don't think you can look at a new 10m (-42') length as simply some kind of easy formality for CP and Nate, some inconvenient new hurdle they've got to bang off so they can get back to chasing the 'real' record. To our knowledge, no one has ever run 10m (-42'); no reason to expect it to be easy (or even possible). What you might expect is that somebody might get further than 1, 1.5, 2 balls, and THAT would be good for the sport in the long run.

 

As much as @ral makes a good point about the world's patience with long-standing high-jump records, I think the main issue here (as we approach the physics-based limits of the sport) is that some well-intentioned folks - many years ago - decided (for simplicity?) that after -38/11.25m, we'd just take off 0.5m every time someone makes a pass. Time has passed, performances have improved and we're now at a point where it makes sense to question that decision (people running -41 pretty often but no one ever getting a look at 3 ball @ -43, barely getting a look @ 2 ball). I think a 10m (-42') would make elite tournaments way more interesting for the next 10 years, and I think THAT would be good for the sport.

 

Speaking of things that would be good for the sport/tournament-drama, opening at -32' at elite OM tournaments is also something that should probably change.

[A_B]

What would the ancient skiers of the past who rounded stone looking markers say about rule changes?

We think the rules of our era are sacred, but in 50 years, they will seem as archaic as some of the pictures I have seen of guys rounding rocks from yesteryear.

[The_MS]

I guess I would rather hold the record with 2@43 more so than 5@42. 41 is not an easy pass and only a handful of skiers can do it. They are the elite skiers that separate themselves from the other skiers due to that ability. Run 41 and you get a shot at touching 3 ball for the new WR.

[ToddF]

 

The High Jump has been a stagnant event for the last 30 years mimimum. Meaning the crossbar has been wrapped and made the same, the standard bases are the same and the pits are the same

Nothing has changed, neither Javier or Stefka would have an advantage competing now.(With the exception of steroid testing then and now) so there hasn't been a need to change the rules, with the exception of how much rest between jumps the jumper gets, and at international WR type meets that doesn't even come into play.

 

Back in 90's they changed the Javelin so I wouldn't fly as far, Now there are two world records old jav and new jav. Accepted by everyone, there was some grumbling at first now no one gives it a second thought.

 

Skiing is a dynamic sport: with the Skis changing every year, boats changing, timing systems changing, improved bindings, etc.

 

Sometimes the rules need to keep up with the sport.

I would certainly enjoy watching someone run 42 off. I think it would really start to separate and distinguish the top skiers with the rest of the best world at any given time.

 

If skier A was running 42 with Skier B and Skier C only getting 3@42 the general ski public would have a better idea of who is top dog.

 

 

 

 

@ms I would be happy with either one of those scores

[maxpower220]

Thanks ToddF, that was my point exactly.

 

Is there an * next to a record with ZO vs PP vs Hand driving? IMO, that is a huge difference in a run. Requirements for boats have changed, but no one really is bothered by that.

 

Nothing wrong with seeing the inadequacies of the rules and then changing them for an improvement.

[The_MS]

"I would certainly enjoy watching someone run 42 off. I think it would really start to separate and distinguish the top skiers with the rest of the best world at any given time".

 

We already have that with 41 off.

[ForrestGump]

Getting past 4 at 10m might not ever even happen for all we know. To just assume these guys can run a full 10m pass and then get a shot at 9.75m, might be flawed thinking.

 

I can get to two ball at 39 1/2 off, but getting past 4 at 38 has proven to be a wall for me right now. That could happen at 10m too. Which means the current and previous WR's would need an asterisk.

[MattP]

@ShaneH agreed. What if we got the guys who run 41 a rope with a 10m loop and see what happens after a little practice.

[estrom]

With the continued advancement of ski technology, I don't think it will be long before we see people moving deeper into -43. The only limitation I see is that somewhere down the road, it's possible that the only limitation will be physical. That is, it doesn't matter how good the equipment is, if a skier is too short to reach the buoy, he's done. Then what? Start over at 38mph?

[ToddF]

A bunch of 4 and 5 balls @42 would still be more fun to watch from the spectator point of view. than a bunch of .5 and 1 balls at 43.

 

There could be the anticipation of seeing a full pass @ 42, with 43 there really is no anticipation of seeing a full pass

[The_MS]

You have to run 41 to get a shot at 42. Starting at -32 and getting to 43 is a lot of passes. Eliminate 41 and go to 42 after 39.5 but you may have to start over with the record books if 42 can not be run.

[skiray]

I like the concept. As far as the record book goes, it might sound wierd but what would be wrong with a record at 42 for a while. We would just have two records for a while. I know the pursuit of the first 41@ 34 was a big deal and generated a lot of buzz. I would imagine that the first 42 would be the same way.

 

The long term issue is how do you score the old 2@43. A revised bouy chart would score it as 2@42. It would look they had opted up. I guess there would be a note just like the old records at the higher speeds...

 

I wonder what the guys that have a real shot at the WR would think about it?

[Razorskier1]

42 off doesn't sound cool when you say it. 43 off sounds cool -- stick with 43.

[gregy]

@mattp I wouldn't be surprised if one of the 41off guys has a rope with an extra practice loop. I'd be interested in what the top skiers think of it since they're the ones it would directly effect.

 

From a spectator standpoint I like the idea.