Long Rambling Idea about Restructuring Tournaments.

[Horton]

Goal – make tournaments more appealing to a wider range of skiers.

 

Background & Logic – a level 7 or 8 skier is likely to want a higher level of judging and driving than a level 5 or 6 skier. The needs and desires of a level of a level 3 or 4 skier are likely even more different.

 

If the future of the sport hinges on bringing in lower level skiers so they can make a long term commitment and rise through the ranks the competitive experience should be more welcoming.

 

Side note: I have skied a few INT events. The people are super welcoming and friendly. Except for the cost, the experience was perfect for a skier who does not have level 7 and above expectations. On the other hand it is a waste of time for me because the cost is high and the judging / driving are pretty variable. I am not anti-INT, it is just not for me.

 

Bottom line is => a skier like myself who is within in a few balls of Level 9 has totally different expectations than a skier in Level 3. For the health of the sport the Level 3 skier is perhaps more important.

 

The typical solution to the above is to say that there are already Class F, C , E/L & R tournaments. That is true. Here on the west coast most events are class C and there are almost no class F tournaments. Dividing the skiers is not the solution.

 

What if we redesigned the class system? At each event you declare what level you are competing in or are trying to qualify for. Level 9 skiers get officials & divers something like the current E/L/R. Level 7 & 8 skiers get something like the current class C. Level 3 – 6 get something between class C and class F. Details needed. I use the current levels as examples only.

 

Every sanctioned tournament must offer every level below the max for that event. So if an event is a Level 8 Max, level 7& 8 skiers get basically class C and each other level must be offered.

 

If an event has a max level of Level 6 the whole event is a lot more loose.

 

The Level 5 & 6 groups maybe do not have their gates judged and there is only boat judge. Currently certified boats are not required. Site survey is not required or whatever.

 

The Levels 2- 4 do not have their gates judged, there is only boat judge, get a mulligan and entry fees are always less.

 

What happens of a Level 8 skier skis at an event with a Level 6 max? The score does not go to the rankings list. How you move up Levels? Yea there are a lot of issues but this is really just a thought experiment. We could work out the kinks if this idea got legs.

 

What is the point? Why create this wacky and seemingly complex system? (once you get you head around it is simple)? If you are new to the sport and are a Level 2 or 3 you can set up your own tournament with an old boat, floating course, one assistant judge & one assistant driver. Your scores go into the same data base as the Level 9 guys. When you go to a Max Level 8 tournament (and ski your level) you are going to get better judging and driving but you still get a mulligan and more relaxed rules.

 

Note- this is not ability level competition. It is ability level application of the rules. We are all still in the same rankings list but the higher you are on the list the more strict the rules.

 

Someone is going to say they want the Level 9 judging and driving even though they are only level 5. No reason to not declare a higher level. The higher level is not a privilege of the elite but it costs more and the rules are tighter.

 

Summary

One ranking list

Higher level skiers ski with tighter rules and regs

Lower level skiers get looser rules unless they opt up to higher level

Every event offers all levels below it’s max

Lower level events are much easier & cheaper to put on

 

[Horton]

I apologize if this is a little convoluted. it came out as one long stream of consciousness.

[MISkier]

I think it would be easier to start another association under USA Waterski. Leave AWSA as it is and create one called EWSA (Elite Water Ski Association) and require AWSA level 9 performances to qualify to join. Then, EWSA-sanctioned tournaments would require the driving, rules, and judging that are expected by those skiers. AWSA could be the "farm team" for the "majors" that would be EWSA.

[klindy]

@horton you can do that now. Sanction the tournament as class C and class F and divide the groups as you see fit. The class F part you can also run as you see fit. There's even a class X sanction which you can use to experiment with an idea under class C.

 

For E/L/R you'll need to survey the courses, video, etc. You'll need to comply with the IWWF rule book for L and R. Conceivably you could sanction a tournament for F thru R and, again, split up the groups as you see fit.

 

So, great idea! That's why all those options exist. I'll offer to judge/score or TC any part of the tournament if you sanction one.

[Than_Bogan]

@klindy There's a big difference between "it can be done" and "it's the widely available standard."

 

I think @Horton has got one of his brighter ideas right here. Will think on it more.

[Horton]

@klindy‌ Part of what I am saying is - we do not need 2 tower judges and a boat judge for every skier but every skier should be on the same rankings list. You need to judge skiers who are at the same level with the same rules but you do not need to judge skiers at different levels with the same scrutiny.

 

As I understand the rules currently class C is "legitimate" and class F is roughly "do whatever you want". I am not saying "do whatever you want" and get your score in the books. I am saying progressively lower the scrutiny as the skiing level goes down.

 

If a level 4 or 5 skiers posts a tournament score behind a 1991 MasterCraft with PP on a floating course on a public lake with only one judge in the boat- I say we should honor that and put that score in for the ranking list. We should buy that guy a beer because the addiction is just about to take hold of his life. Soon enough that guys will be asking to be judged at a higher level and so he can be compete with higher level skiers.

 

Or if there is a higher level tournament, we should literally back down on the officiating for the lower level skiers who still think this sport is fun. We should do anything and everything to make skiing more fun for newer skiers and keep our humorless anal antics for the old humorless anal higher level skiers ( including me).

 

I am also saying to should be mandatory to run the lower scrutiny classes at all tournaments and make the entry fees lower.

 

If you think this idea is 1/2 baked I am ok with that. In some format I do think it should be mandatory that every tournament allocate some time and effort for skiers what are not yet fully addicted yet.

[Horton]

Guessing @skimom‌ will become ill when she reads this

[klindy]

@Horton‌ thanks for the clarification. Admittedly I read the whole post and scanned the "summary" part. No where above the "one ranking iist" comment is there any mention of the scores ending up on the ranking list but I certaonly should have inferred that. Your comments about how a tournament would/could run are what I've address and (@Than_Bogan‌) running a tournament that way can be done today within the current rules and without Richelle head exploding.

 

Likewise, scores from a class F tournanent are CURRENTLY commingled with others on the ranking list. The problem isn't the rules or the ranking lists it's that no one is scantionng class F tournaments!

 

For proof the scores are comingled I went into the database and filtered all class F scores. There are a lot amongst many divisions and all events (slalom and trick because jump isn't available as class F). Go to the ranking list and set the drop down boxes for M1 Slalom for ski year 2011. There are a few skiers in level 3/4 who have class F scores posted. Specifically go to the skier ranked 254 and all of his scores are class F.

 

So the rules work as recommended above (including even more options with Class X which no one used either last year). The ranking list works as recommended above (I don't believe any region allows class 3 or 4 to ski at regionals). Event sponsors just need to sanction and setup a tournament that way!!

 

My question is why aren't tournanent sponsors doing it now? Could be they don't know they can or that it's just as easy to make it all class c and make everyone pay the same entry fee. Perhaps concerns about available time? I have no clue.

 

If a tournament was set up as class C and class F (and/or class E and higher) you can run the class F portion however you want too.

 

I'd advocate for expanding it with a "third" potential group which would include level 5 (maybe others) skiers. Currently we don't have a level 1 or 2 but the framework is there to add them easily. Before the ranking list we had 1st class and 2nd class ratings which required a skier is able to get up on one ski and other fairly simple mon-tournament things.

[Horton]

@klindy‌

Clearly this is not a fully cooked idea.

 

Part of what I am saying is that at ANY tournament a level 8 or 9 skier needs to go through the gates because that is the rule and what God intended but why not do away with gates and give a mulligan for the level 4 guys. DO THIS AT ANY & ALL TOURNAMENTS.

 

Under the current rules you would mostly be in line with my idea if you ALWAYS ran Class F at every Class C and above. I think running Class F as a separate event (not at the same time) messes the point. They need us and we need them. If we send "them" to another event we are lost.

 

And yes I went off topic when I said "If a level 4 or 5 skiers posts a tournament score behind a 1991 MasterCraft with PP on a floating course on a public lake with only one judge in the boat".... That is a separate concept but runs parallel

 

As for the current state of Class F I clearly need to read the rule but as @mattp will tell you I do not really read.

 

[Kelvin]

@klindy, currently Class F scores do not go on the ranking list. Its only C and above. I like @Horton's thoughts here. In the SCR there are many C and ELR tournaments, but not many F. Along Horton's line of thought, I made a recommendation at the winter SCR meeting to allow newcomers to ski Class C events using the simple 1-day guest membership to USA Waterski. I have several occasional ski partners that don't ski tournaments. It takes the better part of the summer to convince them to think about - that is, until they hear they have to pay a $60 entry fee and $75 to USA Waterski for the privelege.

 

I also believe a single "competent" boat judge can get closer to the real score that the current 3-judge setup for Class C events, but that is a topic for another thread.

[aupatking]

How about those lowest level tournaments allowing PP boats too? It's exactly the nature of what we're discussing here that these tournaments are "real" but are truly "every man" tournaments. Isn't it @Horton? Nothing would qualify for records, obviously, because that is for higher level tournaments anyway.

Just something that gets people skiing in tournaments, in boats they recreate in too. The grass roots group we want is not in a '14 Mastercraft or Nautique, they're in a 96 or 2003. So, we expect people who have never competed, to pretend they're comfortable in their first tournament, behind a boat they've never been pulled by, and having NO EFFING CLUE what their ZO setting is, let alone what they even mean.

So, this guy has dropped $70 on joining USA Waterski just so he can drop $70 on the tournament entry fee, and goes out and runs 2 buoys at 15 off. So that's it. That's what you get. $140 bucks for 2 buoys on a lake you've never skied, behind a boat you aren't comfortable with, using a Zero Off system that just yanked you out the front on your 1 and only pass. You're never seeing this guy again.

That's why it's just not working. So, yes, I totally agree with your 91 Mastercraft thought. Buy him a beer.

Just my opinion, I could be wrong

[RichardDoane]

@horton - you need to come ski in WA and OR, we typically always include a class F skier group as part of our C events

[klindy]

@Horton‌ @kelvin apparently I'm not getting my point across - the rules currently allow class C and class F to be rub under the same sanction. The ranking list does include class F scores (I found several just surfing the list). The scoring program allows for mixed class of skiers, just code the skier as class F of C or L or whatever. Then if your skier or group of skiers are class F then put one boat judge in the 2002 Mastercraft with perfect pass and go pull them ignoring the gates. Just make sure you code the skier(s) as class F. Oh and a class F sanction is free!

 

So I fully agree, the idea has merit! Go do it!

 

And to clarify a bit more, a system like this will need some point where a skier posts a score as class F get high enough it should be class C. Currently that limit is no higher than the cut off average of level 5 from the previous years ranking list. Rule 3.06 reads in part - "A class F (Grass Roots) score above zero may be included in the Ranking calculations if it does not

exceed the Level 5 Cut-Off Average from the previous Ski Year Rankings. Those class F scores which “exceed” the Level 5 Cut-Off Average from the previous Ski Year Rankings, may be included but the score will be reduced to equal the Level 5 Cut Off Average for the purposes of inclusion in the Rankings calculations. "

 

So, if a skier posts a score that is good enough to be better than the lowest level 5 score it will Be reduced to the previous years level 5 cutoff score. If you ran the class F according to class C rules (not sure why except to allow for guest memberships to USAWS) then the score could be posted as class C (but the skier needs to be a full USAWS member). Currently there is no way to automatically track this information within the scoring program (that I'm aware of anyway) but the ranking list calculations will make the changes when it goes thru it's update every night. Point is, the ideas posted on the first post are possible today under the current rules and scoring tools.

[klindy]

Oh and what else this would do is effectively lower the thresholds for all the other levels (5-9) because the total pool of skiers is larger with class F scores posted in level 3&4. So technically that means the cutoff average for qualifying for regionals or nationals would be lower.

[klindy]

Tournament sponsors have wide latitude under class F to do things try want to do. The only real restriction is that for jump to be included you need at least a Statr Safety directir and a regular driver. For slalom and trick it's an open book.

 

@horton the idea is awesome but I don't think making it mandatory for all tournaments is a good idea. It should be highly encouraged (and it is thru the grassroots program which has lots of information on the USAWS website). But AWSA/USAWS mandating a tournament sponsor include class F at all tournaments with lower entry fees, etc seems a bit authoritarian to me.

 

I'd encourage any class C tournament to simply click the check box and add class F. The rest is largely an administrative exercise for the registrar and scorer.

 

As a side note last year about this time there were multiple threads and dozens of posts about various options to change the way gates are scored (or not). A Class X (experimental) sanction was added to the rules to allow and encourage sponsors to test out whatever suited them. The sanction even allows for a 4th round to be added if desirable. Any score run as class X would be noted in the scorebook and ranking list. The idea was to be able to track what was done and see what effect it may have on scores in general. To date, I am unaware of ANY class X tournament, round or score that took place.

 

This is a case where the membership seemingly wanted something to happen and we, as a board, made that possible. Likewise, the "lowering of the requirements" for beginning skiers has been in place for a long time too. The rule noted above has been there for several years. Again an action taken up by the board and various committees to structure a system which encourages precisely what you've described in the thought experiment above.

 

These are two examples of where positive (seemingly) change was enacted to stimulate things and address and accommodate concerns or ideas. Action on these changes at the tournament sponsorship level has been less than enthusiastic.

[ForrestGump]

@klindy Honestly this shows a big problem that the board has. They haven't done a good job with communication at times. You've got a lot of people, some Sr officials, who had no idea scores were ranked from F rounds. It's always been the view as far as I can recall that scores from F rounds didn't make it into the ranking systems. Heck, I've been chief scorer at tournaments with F rounds and I didn't know that.

[MattP]

I'm not Sr. Official but I make myself aware of the rules and I'm in the same boat as @ShaneH‌.

 

@klindy‌ I think you ( or the board) needs to put out a memo to all LOCs about the possibilities and how to organize their tournaments along with scorers instructions on how to do it. And possibly not just in an email that will get overlooked or deleted...

[klindy]

@ShaneH‌ I understand what you're saying Shane but you need to know there is an entire section on the USAWS webpage about "Grassroots" programs and it includes what to do as a skier, a host and a lot of other information. I don't understand how this shows a "big problem with the board" when every effort has been made to communicate the details. I've seen information on grassroots included in judges clinics.

 

The scoring software allows you go code a skier as class F. From there when you submit the scorebook and back up documentation after the tournament everything else works out on its own.

 

Frankly, myself included, more advanced skiers/judges/etc who are not interested in the grassroots program (because we participate in class C or above events) just don't pay attention to the finer details of the programs. I fully recognize that all of us are interested in growing the sport, learning new things and spreading that knowledge but blaming the board for a communication problem because it's a program we typically wouldn't be interested in is a bit over the top. I have no idea about most of the other sport divisions either but that isn't a communication issue of the board. The information is out there, I just haven't read or or paid attention to it.

[disland]

@klindy learn something new every day. I didnt know calls F scores counted. Thanks. I am going to sanction all my tournaments now with class F.

 

@horton your hypothesis assumes that senior drivers are better drivers. In my experience running tournaments the best drivers arent always the ones with the highest ratings. This becomes even more true in jump where sometimes there are senior drivers who drive jump once or twice a year.

 

Regarding judges for slalom, I dont see how a Sr rating really helps with buoy counts. Another pet peeve of mine is boat video. this isnt the NFL/MLB/NHL. I believe we should eliminate the requirement for boat video in slalom. Next thing you know we will have a video god in Florida watching end course, and gate video being beamed in live from all over the country for instant reviews.

[Horton]

I'm going to read all this in detail later today but for now let me say. @klindy‌ it looks like the current will book would largely allow what I'm talking about.

 

how do we make sure some guy who runs 28 off or less doesn't show up to a normal class C and find the whole experience overwhelmingly discouraging and never show up again? I think we need to make major effort to simplify and lower the criteria to make the experience more enjoyable for new skiers. at the same time maintain the standards for the more experienced skiers

[ToddF]

The NFL pays its officials up to 70,000 plus travel and expenses to know the rules inside and out regardless of how complicated the rule are for a 16 event part time job.

 

Since AWSA will never be able to do this, they need to make the system more user friendly and easy for new people to get involved in both skiing and participating.

 

I run 35 occasionally and my wife gets into 28 both @ 34, we love to and can afford to

travel and ski, but don't do tournaments.

 

Because it seems like they are complicated, confusing and set up in a Kings and Royalty need only apply, mindset. Obviously there are many tournaments that are fun and bring a family, grassroots feel, but perception here is 9/10th's the law.

 

The AWSA needs to listen to those who have a strong voice and have ideas for improvement for both skiers and tournaments.

 

On this forum there are threads about rules, drivers and declining participation almost daily. I am willing to guess if AWSA were a corporation with share holders to answer too, changes would have been implemented long ago.

 

Please don't take this commentary as an attack on the AWSA, because "I know nothing" about how the AWSA works, all I am doing is sharing my "perception" on the state of the union.

[disland]

@toddF very sad you feel this way. In Texas our tournaments are fun with family feel 9/10 if not 100% of the time and speaking for myself that includes record tournaments and regionals also.

[klindy]

@disland "boat video" is ONLY required for class R tournaments (WORLD records). So boat video is required for about 10 skiers world wide (58kph men and a few open women capable of setting a world record). For everyone else it's not a requirement. It is helpful go have the ability to "instant review" slalom in Class L tournaments which allows you to get away with one fewer judge. So some use it even tho it's not required.

 

For most of the class R tournaments we simply put a camera in the boat for the skiers in the range of setting a new world record. We generally don't even broadcast the signal to shore or at least don't rely on that signal for "instant review" purposes.

 

You can also get away with not using gate video. Again it requires more judges and putting them in the appropriate places on the shore. End course video is required because it's the only effective way to measure compliance with the boat path.

 

So there is a trade off. Use more judges or use video to provide a way to confirm what fewer judges see.

 

To the comment about needing a senior judge to count buoys I'd generally agree. However I'd note that this last week at the Jr Worlds we had nothing but Sr. type judges from around the world. And there were several calls in which the video review was helpful and either confirmed or reversed a live call. You could make the argument that the same borderline situations could happen with regular judges and you'd surely be correct. The hope is that it happens less with more experienced or higher level judges. Again like your comment about senior drivers and jump, there are senior judges I wouldn't want to call my lousy trick run. So pedigree doesn't guarantee accuracy.

[klindy]

@ToddF I'm also sorry you feel this way. At EVERY level of tournament I've worked, skied or simply watched its very much been a "family first" atmosphere. This last week at the Jr. Worlds it was precisely the same atmosphere. Sure everyone was a fierce competitor on the water and some questions/controversy with certain situations but the demonstration of fun and family is shared around the world in waterskiing.

[Horton]

@ToddF‌ there is a lot wrong with this sport but the slalom rules are not that complicated and I do not relate to the statement.

"Because it seems like they are complicated, confusing and set up in a Kings and Royalty need only apply, mindset."

 

Someone is doing something very wrong of that is your take away from AWSA tournaments.

[ToddL]

"For the health of the sport the Level 3 skier is perhaps more important." @Horton

 

No truer words have ever been spoken.

 

Dear AWSA, Site Reps/Owners, LOCs, TDs, Tournament Hosting Bodies,

If you put anywhere near 50% of your time, efforts, and mental acuity toward making Level 3 and below/Class F activities more frequent, more attractive, and a higher priority; you will see tomorrow's Class C/E/L population grow.

 

AWSA - what can you do? Make E/L/R Sanction fees substantially higher, but offer a discount rate to any LOC who has hosted 3 or more Class F events (with participating skiers) in the past 12 months.

 

LOCs / Tournament Hosting Bodies - Make participation in a Class F actually "fun" and cost attractive for someone who isn't sure if they are good enough to compete.

 

For example... Format -

Problem: new competitors can't run 1 pass - translates into paying a huge entry fee to go down the lake and back per round = no one wants to ski your event.

Solution? min of 4 passes per round. Score 1st attempt, score the mulligan, but then include "practice pull(s)" if the skier has not met the 4-pass max by the mulligan attempt.

 

Problem: Boring

Solutions? many...

Skiers choose "up to the plate" song to be played via Spotify when they are stepping off the doc for their round.

Randomly select (or have people register in) teams and calculate team points for a separate award at the end of each round. Get's people engaged in other skier's performances

Etc.

 

Problem: Officials needed/cost, etc. to host

Solution: go look at the rules for Class F and its allowances...

1 Judge in the boat (no towers), Boat can be non ZO, etc.

 

Problem: what about Trick and jump?

Solution: Trick scored from the boat by a single boat judge, extra tricks for fun points (waving to the crowd. Jumping the wakes, mule kick, grab, etc.), allow extra points for repeated tricks (20 side slides in 20 seconds)

Jump still requires Standard AWSA Membership, but make it simple - No meters, no cameras, just a 100' tape measure along the adjacent shoreline and a few spotters to estimate the point of landing.

 

Think outside of the box. Fun, Simple, Cost effective, time on the water per $. Do this, and the skiers will come and be asking when the next event will be.

 

[ToddL]

@klindy - I think you meant to tag @ToddF and not me in your comment above.

[klindy]

@ToddL you're right. I edited my post. Sorry about that.

[ForrestGump]

@klindy I love you man. But remind me how many members the AWSA has lost in the last 5 years? This DOES make it the board's problem. To say "oh the info is out there, no one's looking at it. That's their problem." is just putting your head in the sand and hope the problem goes away.

 

The contents of this discussion are the reason I'm going bike racing this year and saying screw waterski tournaments and the AWSA. Show up, pay my Cat 5(beginner) entry fee(for 10 races, then I'm bumped to CAT4 ), my $15 one day racing license the first couple of times, race with 50 other guys, and then drink beer. They make it so easy for the beginners. And I don't have to judge, drive, score or anything.

[Kelvin]

@shaneh, triathlons are the same way. The new guy doing his first tri just has to do the 1-day membership and their scores are in the system with everyone else regardless of the level of placement.

[oldjeep]

@Shaneh FWIW Masters downhill ski racing is sort of the same way, at least locally. Rather than starting out with a full yearly membership you can just buy a daily($15) and then pay the race fee (typically $15). Only if you attend a regional or National do you need to be a full member. So you're $30 plus a lift ticket into trying it out.

 

Granted ski racing doesn't have nearly the barriers to entry that waterskiing does since there are many public venues that anyone with skis, a lift ticket and $10 can practice on.

[dtm]

I agree that the INT model needs to be looked at for ideas on getting/keeping newer skiers into the AWSA. From my perspective, the attraction of the INT tournament has less to do with the lowered standards and more to do with the attention to the details in creating the "inviting and welcoming" atmosphere. Every INT event I have been to has been well structured in regards to having the site prepared to look like an event, sound like an event, and treat the contestants as if they are they are the most important asset to the success of the event. There are banners, sound systems, announcers, awards, vendors, etc.. Often times (from my experience) the AWSA events are subdued, silent, ultimately tough to tell that an "event" is ongoing.

[Than_Bogan]

I apologize for some serious redundancy, but I really feel I have a fundamental point that I think many have not thought about and didn't pick up from my first attempt:

 

There is a deep, fundamental difference between standard and optional rules.

 

As a skier, if I go to a tournament and they are using optional rules, I am gonna be pretty unhappy -- maybe even very unhappy depending on the details. I want to participate in exactly the same sport that everyone else is participating in, and I don't want any sort of asterisk on my performance -- even if only I know it should be there and it isn't officially recorded as anything unusual.

 

As an (assistant) tournament organizer, I don't want to think about applying any optional rules. The primary reason is because I assume other skiers would take it in the same negative way that I would. The distant secondary reason is that then I am responsible for explaining and justifying any changes.

 

If I imagine myself in a newbie's shoes, I want standardization even more because I am learning like drinking from a firehouse anyow, and I don't need to be confused by different tournaments having different rules and procedures. I sure as heck don't want to have it acceptable to completely miss my gate one week and the next week get scored zero doing exactly what I learned was OK last week!

 

And finally, if we're looking to do something that is especially friendly to new skiers, then it's a Catch-22 if they have to first be sufficiently knowledgeable about tournament rules to understand which events are actually friendly to them.

 

So whether you love or hate @Horton's particular proposals in this thread, I think it completely misses the point to say that an individual organizer could do some crazy things on their own under the current rules. That doesn't serve the same purpose.

[RichardDoane]

@shane - you will be missed, now that you are a "retired" tournament skier

[klindy]

Ok this will be at least slightly off topic but relavent to some of the overarching issues.

 

@ShaneH @Kelvin @oldjeep etc. etc. etc..... The bike racing, triathlon and ski racing examples aren't exactly the same as what we're discussing here. All those examples still comply to the same rules, complicated or not, as every other competitor participating. I'm sure that making the bike race route all downhill or a 5 miles headstart are options. Likewise, missing a few gates in downhill slalom still ends up in a skier getting a score. The ONLY thing those examples provide is the ability to save a few bucks on the association membership and, perhaps, a lowered event entry fee.

 

We had a one day "guest" membership at one time. I frankly don't know why it was discontinued but we DO have a full program (2 actually - Grassroots and Basic Skills programs) which DO offer discounted assocation membership costs and encourage the sponsoring clubs to make event entry costs affordable too.

 

@Horton suggested in the first post that we need a way to run tournaments with "less strict rules". That opportunity exists today including reduced membership fees - you can even sign up for the Grassroots or Basic Skills or even santioned practice for a $1 a day! - http://www.usawaterski.org/graphics/downloads/MembershipOptions.pdf And you're still covered by secondary insurance at these events.

 

To the point about barriers to entry for waterskiing, I would suggest that it's true there are a lot of "public" snow ski facilities. Likewise, there are a lot of golf courses, olympic sized swimming pools, tennis clubs, bowling alleys, etc. that ALLOW the public to use those facilities for an entry fee or membership fee. There are obviously tens of thousands of public waterways which are literally free to use but are likely undesirable to be used as a tournament site. As a sport we've migrated to a point where we've developed lots of "private" sites which are truly private.

 

Think of it this way, what if every golf course was developed by people who could afford to build an 18 hole golf course in their "backyard" and prevent access to everyone else except a handful of folks who bought lots/built homes around the golf course (sold presumably to help fund the development) and a few 'guests' once in while. Except for a small handful of dedicated sites around the US which allow the "public" to buy an access permit or golf for a fee. How successful do you think competitive golf would be?

 

Instead you have "private" courses/clubs (high dues and green fees designed to fund maintence, etc. Or you have "public" courses (privately owned or municipal) which are developed with the idea to be able to attact enough people who want to golf to amoritize the cost to develop/maintain the place. Either way, except for a couple cases, if you have enough money you can access either option. I'm sure it's possible but I don't know of any golf course that's owned and used only by the 15 or so families with property around the place.

 

Ski lakes are essentially the complete opposite. I realize only one person can particpate at a time and therefore it's important to control access to the lake. I also recognize that, even though it's expensive to build a lake, it's still very affordable compared to, for example, the golf course scenario. So it is possible to fund the development and maintenance of the site with 3 or 10 or 50 homeowners depending on the number of lakes.

 

There are a few sites I've seen (more outside the US than not) which are truly set up as "clubs". You buy a membership to the club, pay your fee for your slalom set and there's a boat and driver available to pull you. In some cases, these clubs consist of several dozen members/families.

 

I have been part of a private lake development (3 owners) and fully understand an appreciate the challenges. But I personally believe the whole "private vs public" debate and the exposure or access to waterskiing as we know it is a product of our own doing. The whole concept of cable ski parks isn't based on a handful of home owners but rather "pay for play" customers. But cable parks are a concept which is not ideal for traditional 3 event skiers.

 

So to get this back on the topic of the thread - The Grassroots and Basic Skills programs are designed to encourage sponsor (could be private site owners but not necessarily) to provide that elusive "access" to those who are interested in testing the water - literally. USAWS headquarters has been charged with setting up these programs and frankly they've done a good job with them. However it still requires someone to sponsor these events! To do so requires someone (or group of people) to embrace the concept, commit the lake time (causing the other "owners" to potentially miss their normal practice or tournament access. Again, the Grassroots (Class F) program is set up to run along with a Class C/E/L/R event (for free!) or as a standalone event.

 

The programs exist. The Basic Skills information package is sent to all clubs with their USAWS membership. All ski schools and camps also receive the information. A year or two ago there as a major push to get the Grassroots information circulated to all the regions and state organizations. Again the information is easily accessed on the USAWS website and like the home page link here at BOS, the "Grassroots & Basic Skills" links/info can be found on the menu on every page of the USAWS website (look in the menu on the left).

 

 

[klindy]

@Than_Bogan I understand what you're saying. However, there isn't a line of potential sponsors for Grassroots tournaments beating down the door of USAWS getting them sanctioned. For a Grassroots event you could simply give a skier a mulligan or just offer a discounted entry fee or whatever and use all of the standard AWSA rules. Or alternatively you can get more elaborate.

 

How does this program be successful if tournament sponsors don't offer them - either as stand alone events or in conjunction with a Class C tournament?

[Horton]

@klindy‌ every tournament I will attend in 2015 will be run to meet the expectations of skiers at a higher level. As a whole the tournament skiing community needs to actively work to bring in new skiers.

 

Yes we have class F but in California there are one or two F events and the one I am sure of is at a lake that is so filthy that I will nor ski there.

 

We need some action to make the early skiing experience more inviting. Why not jump through every hoop?

[Jody_Seal]

Maybe this will Help Horton in his quest!

 

For the largest part of the concept we are talking about Slalom!

 

The sport's current Ideology as far as it reflect's it's governing Rule's.?!??

the root to the equation is that the current rules as written does not really fit the current sport's Ideology!

Skier's today want to ski against the "List"!

To go to a tournament in today's Ideology does not mean that one is sking against another but against either the "List" or personal record and it's constancy. ( Now this Ideology only stands true until a skier gets to a championship event where either a winner's and runner's up are bested or eliminated from the competition or there is prize money.). So we are talking about normal weekend events.

(I fixed it! for sister Gramatica!))

 

Change the current rules or incorporate a set of rules that will allow a Trials type format and still have the the skiers performance recorded and inputted into the List Data base as if it were a regular tournament as we know today.

 

Example:

Trials slalom.

Boat A is in the water Pulling max speed 32 mph skier, then max speed 34 mph, then max speed 36 mph divisions. (These groupings could be oriented in any or order)

Provided that rd 1 has correct rated officials in place for a given classification skier's draw off lots in their max speed category and ski when their number is called.

Rd-2 Boat B and officials in place for classification, skiers ski in random drawn order as in rd1.

 

Currently we group in age group for regular style tournaments, change the rules to Accommodate a trials type format. I feel this would be a great addition to the sport and be more in line with the sports current Ideology!

 

 

 

[Dirt]

@Klindy Thank you for all of your hard work. I appreciate all the effort you and the other officials put into AWSA and educating us here on this forum. It is easy to talk about eliminating "free" hotel rooms for officials who work their butts off for a week straight at Nats. Would we have enough skier volunteers? Probably not. We are just tossing around ideas. I hope people don't get offended by the ignorance.

 

@Horton interesting thread. I am glad you are encouraging everyone to think about new ideas and getting new skiers involved.

 

If you want a model program for grassroots look at the Berkeley Water Ski Club and the events @Mateo Vargas and company put on. Wednesday Night Ski League is a huge success. Maybe he can elaborate on how they run it. 96 MC with PP, mulligan, 4 pass min, food, drink, awards, bragging rights, $20 entry, etc.

 

The problem is you need someone/s to take the huge amount of time and effort to organize these things and you need a site donated or rented. It is easy to talk about it.

 

[Horton]

@Dirt‌ I am saying do "something" at normal class C events. Make it mandatory. Do it at every sanctioned tournament. Make it standard. God love that wacky @"Mateo Vargas"‌ but not a lot of folks are going to do what he does.

 

The impact would not be immediate but was have to change course. If no one wants to change and we continue to bleed membership at the current rate we are doomed.

[ToddL]

@klindy is basically saying, you have the tools, do something if it really matters to you.

 

That's what the local clubs and sites in the Central Texas Area have done.

We offer at least 3 "Grass Roots" events per summer. We use a Basic Skills sanction for these events because we can them do whatever is the most attractive to the target skiers. They pay USAWS GR day pass + Entry fee which is less than $30. They are guaranteed 2 rounds and 4 passes per round minimum.

Read more here: http://www.ballofspray.com/baller-forum#/discussion/10879/competitive-skiing-is-alive-and-growing-in-austin-tx

 

To allow for these skiers to prepare for this, we have one lake which offers pay as you go ski "school" pulls once per week after work hours. We also have a "Ski League" Practice sessions which rotate across 3 active, private sites every other week on a week night after work. Thus, each site only gives up a handful of hours on one lake about every 7 weeks. Practice sets are sanctioned club practices and comply with all of the USAWS requirements for drivers, safety, and USAWS GR/Day Pass or memberships.

See more info here: http://www.waterskiaustin.com/Competition/Learning/index.htm

 

Our clubs felt like they were having attrition. We decided to invest in our future and growing the sport. Currently, our BOD has skiers on it who either just found our sport a few years ago or who are Level 4 or below. They are full of life, energy and ideas. They are pushing some of us out of our stale, "always done it that way" mindset. It is a good thing.

[ALPJr]

Long live Berkeley Aquatic Park !

[gt2003]

...Moving to Texas...

[crashman]

As a outsider to tournaments this is an interesting thread. I feel like you're trying to get guys like me to join up. What is the motivation for those of you who ski tournaments to convince those of us who don't to do so? Is it to get us "more addicted" to the sport? Increase numbers for USAWS?

 

If you want to see grass roots skiing then stop past my lake on a Thursday night this summer. That's when the guys who live on the lake get together with our guest buddies and tear up the course at -15 and -22 to determine the "king of the lake" For that week. Then we sit around the bonfire, drink beer, and make fun of Steve for always missing the gate. Good stuff though I don't think we end up on any ranking list. But then again I don't need a rank list to tell me I'm not the best skier in the country. On a good night I'm the best skier on the lake and that's good enough.

[Kelvin]

@ToddL, why not sanction them as a Class F tournament instead of a Basic Skills clinic? That way, their scores could go into the ranking list.

[Horton]

@crashman‌

you and your guys are the sole and the foundation of the sport. we don't want you to Ski tournaments if you dont desire to ski tournaments. what we want to do to make the sport appealing to those who are interested. The way things are going competitive water skiing will cease to exist in the United States before long.after that happens availability of new boats and ski equipment and coaching and people that share our passion will disappear soon after.

 

I've invested in a lifetime in the sport and honestly I don't know anything else.I guess you could take a long look at it and say if nobody wants to do it why should we force them?what are we trying to save?

 

by the way this host was done by voice on my phone while walking on the treadmill with the baby in the carrier in front of me. Yeah I am aware that the word soul is misspelled in the first line but I can't take my feet crap my handI just can't fix it

[ski6jones]

I've been thinking versions of what @crashman said.

 

When I started I had skied before years ago and wanted to start again AND learn the course. I met a guy, completely by chance, that had a lot on a ski lake. He just loved to be on the water and wanted a regular ski partner. I was the BEST ski partner on planet earth.

 

He didn't ski tournaments, in fact didn't really like the tournament crowd. It was 6-7 years after that first chance meeting that I finally skied my first tournament, and now am all in on the tournament scene.

 

Point being, my involvement came about by a chance meeting of someone that was willing to provide me access. If my only access to skiing was the infrequent tournament I'm sure I would have never stuck with it. Access is key.

[gt2003]

As a complete, never run the course newbie, my biggest challenge is going to be finding a local course to try out. In Oklahoma anyway, there just aren't that many courses but there are a handful. I like the idea of trying to bring in the outsiders for "fun nights" in the course. I'd pay $50-75/day or night just to have the chance to run the course or maybe $15-20/set. That would be a blast, it would feed the A.D.D. and leave me wanting more! I'd drive an hour or so every few weeks to give the course a shot. Somehow advertising of what is available would be beneficial. But, how do you do that? What's the best advertising avenue??

 

Also, Slalom is HARD, especially when compared to getting up on a wakeboard. I've got a co-worker and their family is a true LAKE FAMILY. However, there are no ski's in their boats, wakeboards only. This may be our true battle. How do you get the true newbies to put down the wakeboard and pic up the REAL stick? If we can figure out this question, maybe we can see the resurgence in the sport that we would like to see.

[Horton]

@ski6jones all of that make 100% sense. To turn around what I am have been trying to say

 

When I go to a tournament I want high level driving and judging. I expect the newest boats and such. For my personal ride I am completely anal about the details. I expect the rule book to be followed to the letter

 

I suspect this is not the best recipe to attract new skiers. For some yes but for some no

[crashman]

@Horton I agree with a lot of what you say. But don't fear - even though we're not participating in the tournament scene we still follow the pros, spend money on coaching (I want to Cory's twice last year), buy boats and equipment and drink Kilo. Several of the guys I ski with used to ski tournaments "back In the day" when the club at the time could hold tournaments with the floating course.