2015 Centurion BallOfSpray Cash Prize

[Horton]

Updated rules doc - it is a work in progress

 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vRLIKHRFNMFrvvkfrnfCBuUv7vBpgKAsRWHvbnVTA2A/edit?usp=sharing

[Horton]

Entries

 

[usaski1]

Is there any chance of the handicap working for someone like me to be competitive? Mens III skier. But topping out at about 3 balls at 28mph. I'm guessing not... None the less, I'm donating $200 to BOS and entering. .. and a special offer. I'll give the first person to run a full pass on my ski $100. Seriously!

[Chef23]

This sounds like a really cool event. I don't think I can get to Austin but it sounds like a blast.

[Horton]

@usaski1 Oooo Mark that is interesting. I see a bunch of scores for you in the USAWS scorebook so I do not see why not. It looks like you are super constant so you might make some cash. Bring it on!

[MattP]

@usaski1 OoO thats tempting!

[Horton]

@webbdawg99 if you or anyone else in their last year of M2 want to ski I think you have to stay at 36. I do not know of any other way to make the handicap be fair. Or you could just make the top 16 at 34 and so there no handicap needed

[Horton]

@schafer I never really did answer your question.

 

Is there a public record I can see of all your scores from Canada? As long I have enough legit scores bring it on.

[Horton]

I expect this event to fill up fast. If you want to play get me an entry!

[schafer]

@Horton I'll try and find out in the next couple days for you. Thanks.

[crashman]

as an outsider to the tournament scene, this sounds really good. If I'm understanding it correctly for 200 bucks an average joe skier gets 3 rounds of skiing in a warm weather location in addition to the entertainment of watching some really good skiers go at it. Plus it creates a reason to accumulate tournament scores throughout the year to qualify for a handicap round which could end up inducing tournament participation at a more local level.

[kfennell]

Hmm so far if I enter it will be neck and neck between me and Logan to win the handicap division.

[Horton]

@kfennell how do you figure that? @usaski1 will beat you even if I have to cook the books.

[E_T]

about to send in my money, looks like fun! @Horton

[Horton]

@E_T humans only

[skidawg]

@kfennell - logan will beat u

[Horton]

Joking aside @kfennell you do understand that in the handicap round you are skiing against your average ?

[usaski1]

@horton you better not cook the books! Though I'm flattered you thought about it! I take a lot of pride in my skiing, and I want everything on my own merits! Did I miss something? Kevin is a M2, I'm a M3, so we wouldn't be against each other? As of today, I have sent my registration and $200 "donation" in! So I'm ready to kick some butt, or have my butt kicked...

[Horton]

@usaski1 looks like I need to start over and explain the handicap. For now all you need know is you will finish ahead of @kfennell

[Wish]

So long Regionals...so long Nationals. SC BOS Cash Prize here I come. Gotta sneak in one more tourny but that will happen before then. Will attempt to enter via phone as I am on vaca and away from computers. Looking forward to it.

 

Oh and if anyone has a spare bed in town or floor space available, ...I do not take up much room :) Not really kidding.

[Wish]

Dang it. It's entry is printed version. @Horton why is this not an on line entry thing. You're a computer guy and so is @MattP. Seriously not complaining...just courious. So I can't send anything till late Wed at best. Save me a slot...

[GregDavis]

John, How about an old guy, who skies 32 mph. I would like to ski in it. Greg

[Horton]

@wish my understanding that online registration does not handle payment anymore. That does not make a lot of sense to me

[Horton]

@GregDavis like anyone else. You will br scored at 34 no matter what. if you make the head to head you're a bad bad man. If you don't make the head to head you'll have as good a chance in the handicap as anyone

[GregDavis]

John, good stuff, hats off to ya. It's easy to talk, and lots of people do, it's only a select few that do something and make it happen, Best of Luck, you are on to something good.

[Wish]

@Horton. That is strange. Literally did and on line entry 4 weeks ago. Entered and paid all on line...PayPal and all. Soooo easy.

[Horton]

@Wish then I was miss-informed.

[Wish]

Keith set it up and mentioned to me how easy and slick it was. I am sure the PayPal was the revenue collection entity.

[Horton]

@wish PayPal is expensive at my end. Maybe next year. I will look into it.

[Horton]

for you guys who do not understand a weighted handicap read @Than_Bogan's comments in this thread http://www.ballofspray.com/forum#/discussion/12520/handicapped-tournaments/p1

[Horton]

I ran some examples:

5 skiers and their handicap result if they skied exactly their average, 1 ball over, 2 balls over, 1 ball under or 2 balls over.

 

Click here to view

 

The idea is it is a much bigger deal for a 38 off skier to be one ball over their average than it is for a 28 off skier to be one ball over their average. The higher the average the lower the chance of equaling or exceeding it. The lower the average the more variable.

 

Except for Turner... I am thinking about his handicap factor.

[webbdawg99]

Excellent idea @Horton I think this is a much better system! It gives the 38 off and shorter guys a chance to be competitive

[kfennell]

@horton when i said that @usaski1 wasnt registered! And I am skiing about 4 balls past my likely handicap in practice, all I have to do is sandbag this weekend at Aquaplex..... or ski like I did this weekend.

 

@skidawg I see logan is a few balls ahead of me now, hope I can catch up this weekend! Good job Logan

[skidawg]

Wish we were coming to austin this weekend, but Jr Dev calls. Maybe next year.

[ToddL]

Hmmm.. I just did the math per the proposed handicap. My son would have to ski 14 buoys over his average to beat @Horton skiing 1 buoy over his average.

B3, Avg: 63 (3 @ 34), +14 (5 @ -22) Not sure how that would be adjusted for 36 mph.

 

That seems a bit aggressive. Still, the weighting seems to make sense when comparing -28 to -38, etc.

[Horton]

@ToddL I need to check your math but yes there is a real disadvantage to skiers below a certain level.

[kfennell]

An "easy" way to deal with @usaski1 scores is just double everything... It's not like he is improving all the time. As far as I understand you are improving at the same rate someone would be who is in say -39 or so, as in years between PB's?

[Horton]

http://media.tumblr.com/fe497dd337d9af8479bb6398b9565d16/tumblr_inline_mg6n5ltl6X1rxe4lt.gif

 

[Mapple]

Any male skier who has ever been ranked in the top ten of the IWSF Elite List or the IWSF Ranking List will be required to ski at 36 mph

 

Are you saying that anyone who has skied at a high level and is now older and wants to be able to continue to support the sport is subject to a penalty/handicap? Why do you feel skiers like myself , Jeff R, Drew. KLP, etc should be pushed aside?

 

Do you think it is best if we abandon the current events and create our own? Then allow no other skiers that have not been in the top 10? This way, skiers like Nate will have somewhere to continue to enjoy their sport after they retire. OR, do we want him to continue to help support and grow the sport?

 

Just thoughts!

[Jody_Seal]

Speaking of shorter, why not give us skiers below say 5' 8" an extra half meter in our handle... that would make for a better handicap!

 

Wait!!! Regina is only 5'4"....... I quit!

[Bruce_Butterfield]

The heck with height handicaps, we need one for age. 3" extra handle length for every year over 40 sounds fair to me.

 

KLP doesn't qualify because he doesn't need a handicap.

[usaski1]

I'll make all you guys ride my ski.. that'l even things out!

[GK]

Horton, I like what you're trying to do here and I think waterskiing needs more handicapped events. The fact that you're trying to do it as a cash prize makes it VERY challenging because as you've mentioned there is no perfectly fair way to handicap. I'm chiming in here only because I've organized over 2 dozen handicapped events in the past 5 years so maybe I can lend some help (or maybe not). I think your handicapping format is pretty solid but I do have a couple comments...

 

1. By design, you've given a significant advantage to shortline skiers because you didn't like the perceived advantage of the more novice skiers. I don't think skewing it the opposite direction helps solve the problem (yes, I have an alternative solution below).

 

2. You're taking a VERY large sample of tournaments if you're requiring at least 5 PLUS taking into account the first two rounds of an event. If you're telling me that you ran on average 2 @ 38 off over those 7 rounds and another guy ran an average 4 @ 28 off over those 7 rounds, then why is the assumption that it's harder for you to get 2 @ 38 off than it is for him to get 4 @ 28 off? That's the one part I don't understand.

 

3. Here would be my suggestion/solution. a) Do not so heavily skew your handicap to the shortline skiers, if a skier runs their average, it should be equal (or very close to) all across the board. b) Adjust for the more novice skiers through your formatting of the tournament. In other words, if a skier in any given round skis beyond their average, then that score becomes their new average for the day (or at the very least, greatly skews their average upward for the remainder of the day). If you're doing a head-to-head, then your skiers with the highest average compete at one end of the bracket and the novice skiers at the other end of the bracket. By the time you reach the finals, all skiers will have increased their average to THEIR ability level for that given day. In your case, rounds 1 and 2 would more than likely increase everyone's average to a level playing field for Round 3, but what if you divided round 3 into 3 groups based on average, and then 2 skiers from each group advance to a 6 person finals? Now you've added another round to equal the playing field for the 6 person finals.

 

Don't get me wrong, I think your system will work, I'm just giving you some food for thought as you strive towards the "most fair" system possible. Good luck and if you find the perfect system, I'm going to steal your calculations and use them myself! :-)

[RichardDoane]

@mapple - I don't think Horton is asking anyone to abandon the existing elite tournaments, he's just trying to provide yet another venue for skiers to compete and have a good time

 

@usaski1 - I would take you up on that offer, and would like to try your ski

 

@GK - it is harder to hit an average at -38 than at -28

 

[Horton]

@Mapple

 

Andy,

 

This event in October is a pilot. It is an experiment that I hope will lead to a series of tournaments.

 

I want these events to appeal a wide audience and to my readers. The rule about past elite skiers like yourself, Drew, KLP, and Jeff is the first cut to make the event more appealing to my target audience. I realize that this rule does not filter out skiers like Fred Halt, Miller, Chad, Greg, Leach, McLain and others. That fact may turn out to be an oversight. I do not know how many of them will enter. Future rules may need to handicap them also. That depends on how things evolve.

 

This is not the BigDawg and I want to be very cautious and respectful about the comparisons. The very best 34 mph skiers in the world already have a series to compete and that is the BigDawg. I have skied in 3 BigDawgs over the years and out of 40 skiers I think I placed about 37th all three times. As a skier with USAWS average of about 1 ½ at 39 I am totally outclassed at a BigDawg event. This event is more for a skier like me who is not USAWS level 9.

 

Ideally most skiers will have average scores between 28 off and 38 off. Those skiers are the core of the sport, the core of my readership and the skiers who buy your skis. My only business is selling advertising and to do that I need to cater to the ski consumers.

 

This is really an amateur event. It is only cash prize to make it fun. It is even class C.

 

[Horton]

@GK the Head to Head will not be handicapped (except for the past IWSF Elite skiers having to ski 36)

 

The remaining 24 are handicapped. I ask for 5 tournaments make sure there is a good sample and no sandbagging but only take the top 3 scores (USAWS average). If one of the prelim scores higher than on of the top 3 from the last year it will be used as the 3rd score in the handicap.

 

There is not a perfect solution

 

As I said above this is a pilot - an experiment. We will see what happens and where this goes.

[GK]

@richarddoane If it was harder, then it wouldn't be that skiers average.

 

@Horton It makes perfect sense to take the Top 3 out of 5, I also use the Top 3. I understand the top 16 won't be handicapped (not so good for the 16th seed), I'm only speaking to the handicapped portion which should still have a wide range of skiers I would assume. Just giving suggestions on how I think you could level that playing field. I run a season long tour with 5 to 6 stops each year, with skiers maxing out from 15 mph to 41 off. Our season results are pretty level and prove that super shortline skiers CAN compete with novice skiers.

 

2009 - 2 of top 5 had averages into 35 off 36 mph, and 1 of top 5 into 39 off 34 mph

2010 - 1 of top 5 had average into 35 off 36 mph, and 1 of top 5 into 38 off 34 mph

2011 - 1 of top 5 had average into 38 off 36 mph, and the winner had avg into 38 off 34 mph

2012 - 1 of top 5 had average into 38 off 34 mph

2013 - 1 of top 5 had average into 38 off 36 mph

2014 - 1 of top 5 was a female with avg into 38 off 34 mph and 1 was a man with avg into 38 off

 

With all that being said, a super shortline skier has only been crowned Champion once out of 6 years, but if the results are going to be skewed one way or the other (because it can't be perfect) isn't it the best thing for the amateur side of the sport if the underdog wins?

 

I understand it's just a pilot and I think you've got a solid foundation for a GREAT event. I just wanted to share my findings over the past 6 years in case it could help.

[ToddL]

I am trying to figure out some math, but the basic idea that I am working on is consistency. Skiers who have consistently been achieving the same score over a longer period of time are the least likely to bust out 2+ buoys over their average. This is true regardless if their average is -15 off or -38 off. However, I also still agree that moving 1 buoy further at -15 is easier than -38. I just don't think that 1 buoy at -39 equates to a never ran 36 mph skier surpassing his average by 2 whole passes plus 2 more buoys. So, we aren't there, yet.

 

I am thinking that Horton's math is a great start, but each skier may need to be adjusted based upon their consistency or volatility. For example, assess each skier's average of total scores in the 12 month timeframe vs. their ranking average vs. their best single score. If all three are within a buoy of each other, then they are locked into a plateau at whatever line/speed they are at. (Recall the survey about which is harder? Running 36 -15, -28, -38, etc.) Thus, these skiers with all three metrics in close proximity should have the advantage of adjusted points for buoys, just like the -38 skiers.

 

Or another approach might be to look at the prior 2 years' ranking scores to see how consistent the skier is.

 

All the consistent skiers should have very similar weightings for handicap scoring. With maybe a very, very small bump based upon line length. All the improving skiers (scores going up), are weighted less. All the skiers with declining scores, maybe they are weighted more.

 

The easy part is decide if the above concepts make sense in principle. The hard part is deciding on the math that makes it work. Ultimately, the goal is the same: anyone who has a breakout performance at their level should win. All skiers who do a little better than average should be neck and neck.

 

So what do you all think? Does consistency at any level mean that skier's buoys above average are more like buoys at shorter lines?

[MrJones]

The system won't be perfect, (no handicap is) but I think this is a really cool idea to bring everybody in.

 

One of the issues with the Big Dawg, and tournaments of the sort, is that the skiers are really paying the dues. For example if there are 40 skiers at $200 a pop you have $8K to play with. Pay out goes down to 4th?? Nautique provides boats, but the entries actually cover the vast majority of the costs.

 

It's great having Andy, Jeff, Fred involved as they are great skiers (and really nice people). The danger is that the mid level big dawg skiers (say the guys in spot 10-30) decide they have absolutely no shot and stay home. Then your income for the tourney goes way down, and barring serious sponsorship dollars, it goes away.

 

John's idea is worth a shot. It's a different approach and I hope it's successful. As he said it's a first step. I was there at the first Big Dawg back in '04. I'm looking forward to being at this first event!

 

 

[Horton]

@ToddL more complicated = bad