Why not 42 off

[Horton]

I totally disagree with the idea that the current state is boring. Every time I was on site and Smith ran 41 I held my breath hopping to see him get to two @ 43. The record is so close for those top 3 or 4 guys. It is awesome.

[A_B]

We talk about not doing gates, buoys are too hard, adding loops, ZO is too hard, PP is too soft, wakes are too big, there is a trough behind the boat, etc...

 

I wonder what this guy would think about it? Probably say something like, you bunch of wussies, just get out there and ski your butt off!

 

[Inboardfix]

@horton, @shane made the perfect comment about why 2@9.75 isn't a true representation of the real best score/capabilities of the best skiers. There are several pro skiers who could get 2@9.75 but haven't put 10.25 together in a tournament. 2@9.75 isn't exciting to me because it isn't a true reflection of the limits of our top skiers. How can 2@9.75 be the limit if several top skiers are able to reach it? Our current process of determining the WR only lets us know who can run 10.25. It doesn't let us know the best score possible.

 

Having a 10m line will let the guys who can run 10.25 truly know who is the best. Sure it will mean an asterix beside the 2@9.75 score but as time passes that won't be a big deal. Personally, I'd be surprised if anyone could get through 10m but am sure we'd see deep 10m scores.

 

 

[Horton]

@Inboardfix No idea what the metric lengths are

[MattP]

@Horton every time you say that I know you are lying..

[Horton]

Nope

[Inboardfix]

@MS your earlier comment, "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. ", indicates you believe a 10m pass may not be possible to run yet you "disliked" my last post. Seems contradictory, you know 10m is quite possibly beyond the physical limits, so most definitely 9.75 is well beyond the limits, but want to stick w/a system which purports ambivalence toward the real capabilities of our sport/athletes. Doesn't make sense.

 

I would like to "dislike" your "dislike" of my last post. @horton is that possible?

[Horton]

@Inboardfix I would rather you not not get too upset about a dislike. It is a disagree (or a miss click). We are never going to learn anything if we never disagree with each other.

[Inboardfix]

@Horton Didn't mean to come across as upset. My eldest daughter was standing behind me reading my comments and laughed which is really what I had hoped you and @MS would do. Not upset in the least.

[The_MS]

I guess I am more about not changing it and having to start another set of records. As you may know from reading my posts, I dont think anyone will break the 2@43 record, but I think there are only 7 skiers that have run 41 and it has never been at a Masters or US open type of an event. So really, you may see CP, Nate, Willy or JT do it at select record events, but not all of them throwing it down at the same time at the Masters. In the end, you are stuck 4@42 or 2@43.

I dont dislike your post, just the idea of the change.

[ToddF]

It seems that the Xerox business model still exists.

 

42/10m would put a new and exciting twist on the pro tour/big dawg. Something new to promote, and increase the fan base.

[Stoner]

I am pretty confident that if Nigel Tufnel skied he would vote for 43. "Well, it's one louder, isn't it?".

[Drago]

The sport can't survive on records. Needs to be competition between skiers at different sites that have their own challenges, like Moomba or Callaway. Maybe someday we'll have a few Record tournaments a year and reallocate all this money wasted on judges/judge's hotels and video cameras.

[OTF]

The whole reason we write the record book is so someone else can rewrite it right? As gear and technology advances someone will break it, then someone else will break that.

[Horton]

@stoner

No! Nigel Tufnel skis at 11

 

[bogboy]

I think the current record holders, which they have earned, may want things to stay as they are, and not have another shared record with an asterisk.

[gsm_peter]

Didnt everybody have to start with 23m a Long time ago?

I think the sport benefit from 42off. IT is more intresting to see more full passages compared to 1/2 boie.

[elr]

Didn't Andy run 4@43 - 34MPH in a Class C a few years back . . .

[ToddL]

Here is a pic to show the total line length, the section length, and the incremental rate of change from one section to the next. The top chart is the current rope. The bottom chart adds a take off section between 41 and 43.

 

 

 

Notice how the blue line flattens out. This is what @MattP was describing.

 

Also, with these charts, it is easier to see the bends along the blue line. Each bend is a change in the rate of amount of rope removed for each takeoff. The green line indicates how much shorter each subsequent section is compared to the prior section. Notice that it hits the zero axis for the last couple of take offs.

 

If we were to attempt to never go completely flat, we'd need to avoid a situation where the same amount is removed from one section to the next. The second chart is what that looks like when a new takeoff is added between 41 and 43.

 

Here's the data for the second chart in Meters:

        Increments        Total Length        Rate of Reduction

Red                            18.25        

Orange        2.25        16        

Yellow         1.75        14.25                  0.5

Green          1.25        13                       0.5

Blue             1             12                      0.25

Violet          0.75        11.25                  0.25

Neutral        0.5          10.75                  0.25

Pink             0.4          10.25                  0.1

New             0.3          9.95                    0.1

Black            0.2          9.75                    0.1

 

 

 

 

[Than_Bogan]

@ToddL Those charts take a bit to digest, but I am happy to see you didn't force yourself to a multiple of 0.25m (about 10" for @Horton), because at these line lengths that is too limiting and can make things jagged.

 

I believe the blue line is the first derivative and the green line is the second derivative of the rope length, yes?

 

Personally, my top option would probably be to do nothing. It's just not broken enough to introduce the confusion.

 

But if I were to design the last few rope lengths with my time machine, I would actually adjust everything from 10.75 (-39) on down and use a granularity of 5cm (about 2"), not 25cm. But first I'd estimate a bunch of parameters (and their various derivatives) to find something close to a straight line in the rope lengths from 23m to 11.25m that I could then use to extrapolate what the remaining ones should be to keep the steps of similar difficulty.

 

Nerd out.

[ToddL]

Blue and Green lines on the chart are on the secondary axis to the right.

 

Blue line indicates the length of each individual section. i.e. from 13M to 12M, the length of that section is 1M.

Green line indicates the difference in rate of reduction in length of each individual section.

i.e. from 14.25M to 13M, the length is 1.25M; from 13M to 12M the length is 1M; thus the difference in rate of reduction is from 1.25M to 1M or a .25M reduction. Taking this further...

from 13M to 12M, the length is 1M; from 12M to 11.25M the length is .75M; thus the difference in rate of reduction is from 1M to .75M or a .25M reduction.

 

Another way to look at this...

 

As long as the blue line is not horizontal and the green line is above zero, then each subsequent shortening is not as big of a jump as the prior shortening. That's why the line goes flat starting at 10.75.

 

In the bottom graph, the blue line never goes flat and the green line stays above zero. Thus, each section of the line is a little bit shorter than the prior one. Incrementally, each shortening is not as big of a loss of rope as the prior one.

 

BTW, if were were to extend this "curved" blue line to the left, we should then have a 21M rope before the 18.25M section. Long-line is too long and disrupts the flow of the curve...

 

Nerd out x2.

 

PS: I completely agree with this statement: "Personally, my top option would probably be to do nothing. It's just not broken enough to introduce the confusion." by @Than_Bogan

[Phil2360]

So why does variable handle section length get such a negative response when mentioned here.

Surely a good formula could broad the depth of the top end field?

[Than_Bogan]

@Phil2360 'Cause reach is all I've got so I can dream up obscure technical arguments against anything that gives an advantage to @Horton...

[ForrestGump]

Damn engineers........

[ToddL]

I'm not an engineer, I just play one on TV...

[Stoner]

@Horton , you are correct. Nigel does ski at 11. He skied it on a "Mach piece" [1]. In-between Bach and Mozart...

[ral]

@MS, are you counting Dr. Jim among the 7 you mention?

[MattP]

@Ral @MS Its 11- JB, JT, CP, Asher, Smith, Mapple, Rogers, Faveret, Morgan, Forrest, TGas(kinda)

[The_MS]

@ral I forgot about the good DR.

@MattP Were those all at 58K?

[MattP]

@MS Forrest and Morgan were at 55k

[ral]

@MattP, Dr. jumped to 58 when 55 proved too easy to him. He would have run 41 at the Malibu Open, but his assistant forgot the extra width adjustment needed for that speed.

[MattP]

@Ral I hate it when that happens!

[ral]

Tech guru XXXXX YYYYY has said since last July that Michaels, who YYYYYY first saw in 1998 as a 35-off skier, could break the world record: “Jim has everything it takes to accomplish what he has set out to do.” Longtime ski and wakeboard coach YYYYYY ZZZZZ has been working with Michaels extensively and says, “Jim has taken the most professional approach to slalom skiing that I've seen in 25 years.”

[MattP]

@Ral if you want to keep talking about the Good Dr. start another thread!

[ral]

I am done...

[A_B]

My guess is that when someone finally got through 10.25, it was the smallest segment left to remove... so it was a practical applications vs. a well-thoughtout one.

[Edbrazil]

 

vs. Dr. Jim, a few posts above, he ran about 2.5 or 3 at 39, with the course narrowed about 0.7 to 0.8 meter on each side. Didn't get through 39. Would have been in a runoff for the cutoff spot into the next round, except he got caught. See the attached pictures taken from a video. Lots of buoys in the main line, which included 15m jump buoys and trick course buoys. Trick course buoys needing to be only approximately in line.

 

But note the 3 SL buoys that are way out of line, which would be 2-4-6 coming toward you. The buoys that look super-narrow are 19M jump buoys, which are out of sync. with the SL buoys: 19ST, 19MT, and 19EC. With 19ET removed for SL.

 

But, something else the way that top coaches and officials got tricked back then.

[Texas6]

I can never get enough of that Dr Jim story. I think it deserves its own thread