Would doing away with max speeds change slalom for the better?

[JeffSurdej]

With the recent discussion on B3 going 34mph it got me thinking...why do we force skiers to ski at a certain max speed period. Think about this...with zero based scoring starting at 15.5 mph the skiers with the most buoys wins so why not let skiers shorten the line before they get to their max speed. If I have a 14 year old boy not ready for 36 he could shorten at 34, he would be 6 buoys behind so it's not that much of an advantage. 3 @ 32off@ 34 would equal 3@28off@36. Whats the harm, if it will help kids stay in the sport. Then it got me thinking why not expand this across all divisions. If mens 3 want to go 36 let them and they get 6 more buoys. Why should AWSA dictate max speeds, let the skier do what best for them, maybe it will give shorter skiers some equalization, IDK. Food for thought. It would also let us combine the 4 million older age divisions that were created b/c skiers want a slower max speed, well with this it wouldn't matter, ski what speed you want, the zero based scoring will even it all out. Am I crazy? Jeff Surdej

[jayski]

The only argument would be that a 6 buoy difference is applicable at longer lines but in the shorter lines it is too much of a spread, a guy running 3@39/41 @36 mph is not going to run 3@41/43 @34 mph, otherwise great idea and worth applying for the masses, perhaps a sliding scale as the rope gets shorter?

[gregy]

no your not crazy.

[MattP]

@JeffSurdej for president!

[Than_Bogan]

“If at first the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it.”

― Albert Einstein

 

That may be a VERY good idea. The only "issue" I see (which could be called a feature) is:

 

Background: I believe slower speeds would be more advantageous for longer-line skiers (e.g. 34/-22 is easier than 36/-15) but higher speeds would be more advantageous for very short line skiers (e.g. 36/-35 is a hair easier than 34/-38 in my opinion).

 

So the "issue" is that skiers would ski at 34 (or slower) for such a long time that maybe they would then be very hesitant to change to 36 so late in their career??

 

Btw, one thing I would definitely like to see as part of this idea is to allow people to do whatever progression they like and get credit for it. For example, 32/-22, 34/-22, 36/-22 should not score 60, 66, then leap to 84, but rather as 72, 78, 84.

[Than_Bogan]

@jayski The great thing about this idea is that there is no need for a sliding scale. If you believe a pass that gets the same buoys is easier than a different one, then that's the one you pick! It doesn't matter if 36/-39 is easier than 34/-41 because everyone has the choice to ski whichever of those they prefer!

[Drago]

@JeffSurdej This was one of the ideas I was going to forward to you via our Area Councilperson. Lots of kids. M2, M3,want to be at a different speed (some slower, some faster) so...let them!! Keep records where they are.

Leigh Sheldrake

[nam1975]

Heck yeah! +1 on the choice of progression too, let the skier pick how they get to their best/final score.

[Bruce_Butterfield]

Jeff,

 

No you’re not crazy. We need change and new ideas should be discussed and evaluated.

 

For speed changes within divisions, I do not think it’s a good idea. When you compare buoy count at different speeds, the rule of thumb is 6 buoys for every 2mph. But in reality the buoy count varies for each individual skier and certainly at both ends of line lengths (38-41) and slow speeds (below 30).

 

For divisions like M3, I can see a lot of strategy to maximize scores. For example, if a 35 off skier can ski 8 buoys better at 34 than 36 he has an advantage. If a 39 off skier makes 1 more buoy at 34 than 36, it is definitely to his disadvantage to ski 34. Take it to another level, what if a skier can run 35 off at 34, but can run 41 at 30? (very hypothetical, but possible) That’s a 6 buoy advantage over an equally skilled skier at 34. So where is the “level playing field” that we need for competition?

 

For the B3 situation, I think the benefit of 34 is over-stated and sets the bar lower for aspiring kids (really bad idea). For a kid on the border, it would be a good idea to work at 34 at the longer lines (15-28 off) as a prep for 36, but a kid at that level isn’t winning regionals or nationals, so he is better off with some variety in training.

 

If my opinion is in the minority, and there is enough interest, it would be a good idea to have some tournaments with a rules exception and see how it plays out. Maybe my concerns will be proven wrong.

 

For the 4 million older divisions with 2 participants each, yes, they need to be consolidated, but that’s a different topic.

 

[Drago]

@jayski my PB @36 was 2@39 without the slack rule, at 34 was 1-1/2 @41 with the slack rule. Others vary, but not much. If we are going to "think out of the box", we can't pick at too much detail.

[BlueSki]

Very good idea, and the methodology allow for the free market to dictate what is easy and what is hard. As @Than_Bogan points out, if a skier thinks pass A is easier than pass B, A will be selected. I have heard more than one skier say that 22 off at higher speeds feels easier than 15 off. If that is the case, we are scoring incorrectly. Think of of all the cool data we could give to Than after a season if we have freedom in speed selection.

[MrJones]

... or we can just leave things alone and focus on improving ourselves.

 

Sorry, someone has to be the old negative codger and I guess it's me. I'm not saying that certain things don't need to change from time to time. I really like the first pass rule in class C for gates. It's just that in general making things more complicated is not appealing to me. The rules are there, play by 'em.

 

I'll have to ponder this some more, but that's my first thought.

[Bill22]

@Bruce_Butterfield the new rule could say each skier could opt down in speed but not more than 2 mph less than normal speed.

[JohnN]

Interesting idea, and it should be much less complicated. I like that there is strategy involved, more than just deciding starting pass or opting up. A taller skier who typically has an advantage at shorter lines may choose a slower speed/shorter line where a shorter skier may choose a higher speed/longer line to get to the same buoy count. Kind of levels out the playing field... I could even see people changing their max speed based on the site or conditions. Communication with the boat crew would be essential - currently we know when to speed up and when to shorten, with a change to skier selected max speed it would be a little more challenging.

[wtrskior]

As an m2 skier who has no desire to ski 36 I agree to a point.

 

I talked to a novice skier recently who wanted to ski tournaments but he "trains" at 32 he said. His max speed is 36. He ran a few buoys at 28 off at 30 mph.

 

Here is a kid who is just wanted to cut the rope. We all know 28 off at 30 is nothing like 28off at 34 or 36. Frankly this kid couldn't run 15 off at 34 for thr life of him.

 

Are we doing him a service if he can ski shortline at very slow speeds? I personally don't think we are. I don't see thus kid skiing at a much higher level unless he gets comfortable with higher boat speeds.

 

To me speed is about timing and time on the water. Shortening the line is about felling comfortable with the timing and speed and focusing on your technique as the rope gets shorter. One definitely comes before the other.

 

The sport needs some new ideas like this but we have to stay focused on improving skiers abilities as well.

[ToddL]

When I saw this topic, I was expecting to read something about skiers wanting to ski at 38MPH or more... Any takers? Anyone?

[ToddL]

Interesting ideas... What if the sliding buoy rule was limited such that:

1) you can't shorten more than -28 under your normal max speed. In other words, once you shorten to -28, you have to stay there until you run your normal max speed. Only then you can continue to -32

2) you can't get the sliding buoy benefit unless you are skiing within +/- 4 MPH your normal max. i.e. a young skier who chooses to start 15 MPH at -22 would score the same as LL until they get within 4 MPH of their normal max speed.

 

This is such a catch 22. We want something new. However, new ideas need to be clearly defined to be truly proposed. Then that leads to lengthy rules, which we already complain about.

[socalskier]

It is hard for me to understand how a 14 year old has to ski the same speed as a professional skier. It doesn't make sense. Something has to change. Retire the old records and let's make competition better for the young kids in this sport before there aren't any left. It's not about making it easier it is about making it fun and competitive.

[Bulldog]

The governing bodies of this sport really dont care about bringing in new people, it is a culture of my way or no way...

[Drago]

@Bulldog do you know who started this thread??

[Murrski]

It's been said that height of skiers may dictate a skiers speed preference for some of the elite skiers and we've talked about speeds 30 - 36. Wonder if any super technical yet shorter skiers opt for 38mph? Could TW run 39@38mph - the equivalent of a full pull at 41@36? Hmm... tasty ideas out there. Imagine the ski manufactures challenge on the speed variation philosophy.

[MISkier]

This topic is timely for me. I just decided to ski IM at a couple tournaments this year to post some 36 mph scores, since I started tournaments well after the time I could have competed in a division with that max speed. In doing so, I discovered something: I actually prefer to ski at 36 and ski with much better form at that speed. I have more fun and I can match my 34 mph shortest line length. Since I do not have an Open Rating, I ski in IM rather than OM. Plus, for my rankings, it looks like any IM scores are not used or are discounted by 6 buoys if they are used at 36 mph.

 

I am not saying that I want to ski against 34 mph skiers at 36 mph, but I should be able to choose to ski at 36 and receive the correct scoring for that speed. And, I should be able to choose to do this without an Open Rating.

 

Side note: I'm trying to adjust back to 34 mph for the last tournament of the season. It's not going well. I really just click with 36 mph better. I will probably ski several tournaments next year as IM, knowing full well that it will do nothing for my ranking or qualifications for Regionals or Nationals.

[Edbrazil]

Referring to some notes above: Jeff Surdej is AWSA President, and a good M3 3-event skier.

Age 14: Billy Spencer won Slalom at the Worlds when he was 14. Long while ago, of course.

36 was always scary for me, but may have had a good bit to do with being on squirrelly skis.

I improved about 2 passes when I graduated to Sr. Men and 34.

[John Brooks]

I really like the @JeffSurdej ideas and thoughts. I feel it makes perfect sense. I know some have mentioned, @wtrskior "Are we doing him a service if he can ski shortline at very slow speeds? I personally don't think we are. I don't see thus kid skiing at a much higher level unless he gets comfortable with higher boat speeds.

 

To me speed is about timing and time on the water. Shortening the line is about felling comfortable with the timing and speed and focusing on your technique as the rope gets shorter. One definitely comes before the other.

 

The sport needs some new ideas like this but we have to stay focused on improving skiers abilities as well."

 

I think the service we are providing him is enjoyment, exercise, entertainment and having fun.

 

I think the issue is implementing change, making it fun for all, regardless of level, finding new ways to bring more skiers, regardless of skill level into and stay in the sport. All of the skiers in a division cannot be competitive for the podium but if we continue to find ways for them to enjoy, we are on the right track. I have seen skiers, kids and adults, smile from ear to ear, just from running a pass, regardless of the fact that the speed is 23 mph. I stand on the starting dock with those skiers and they are just as charged up, maybe more, than the guy running 39 off. This sport is and can continue to be the "Fountain of Youth".

[disland]

Decent idea, The real problem is that there is no way IWWF will do this (the reasons are too many to list) so if we do it here in AWSA you have this big discrepancy in the rules. At the high end of the sport skiers want class L for international ranking list. So this rule would only be legal in Class E or C. That brings up all the issues for qualifications into Nationals, Junior US Open and Sr. Worlds.

 

The risk is further bifurcation of the sport between the "casual" tournament skiers and the elite skiers. Note the BOS handicap tournament was changed to class L,, why????, my guess is without it you cant draw the elite skiers.

[MattP]

@disland who cares about the IWWF?

Let the high end skiers ski at their international max speed if they want and I would think that they would continue to do so. This idea like you said is more about getting the casual skier into tournaments so let them ski their desired speed in C & E tournaments. Class R & L level skiers I doubt would change their max speed anyway.

The BOS tournament will only be class L for the seeding rounds. H2H can only be run as a class C.

[LeonL]

But why "L" for the qualifying rounds? I think it's a good idea allowing a "pick your speed". If this change is made, there should be no "normal" speed as some have mentioned. It's just whatever you want. I do see a real challenge for boat crews and scorers adjusting to this scenario, however. I know a lady who is a former narional champion who has stopped skiing tournaments because (W7) she hates skiing at 30mph. I've encouraged her to ski at 32 and take the 30 score, but (strangely enough) she feels that other competitors would be offended at her doing that. I told her that if they could ski better at 32 they'd be doing it, and they could if they chose to. So, this is a real world instance where such a rule change would keep a skier in the tournament scene.

[crashman]

It would be interesting to run this format as an experiment to see if it gets casual skiers who prefer to shorten before their max speed involved. I know several guys who shorten before max speed who figure tournaments to be a waste for that reason.

[jwroblew]

I like the idea. I don't ski many tournaments a year but when I aged up to M3 I stopped skiing tournaments all together because I didn't want to go 34. 4 years later I started skiing tournaments again when my daughter started skiing them. If I could have kept skiing at 36 I probably would have kept skiing those 4 years.

 

I also a agree that 38'@36mph isn't equivalent to 39'@34mph, but under this proposed rule I could chose whichever I think I can put a better score.

 

Also I would think the better skiers would opt to run max speeds, so IWF ranking lists wouldn't change.

[Chef23]

I like the idea. Let people ski at a speed that they enjoy and have fun. If they can be competitive at a tournament even better.

 

How many events a year are L or R events? In the Eastern Region is is mostly regionals that is an L or R pretty much everything else I have skied in has been a class C anyway. I realize it may be different in other regions.

[jayski]

@Drago are those PB's in a relevantly close time frame? like same year?

[Bulldog]

@Drago I did see who started it and my post was directed at the governing bodies that seem to be very resistant to changing the rules. The members of this forum have fantastic ideas that are rarely implemented.

[Drago]

@jayski Yes, both at the speed change, and the higher 34 scores became an average several years later. Originally, I skied 34 after nats one time with that score, then back into open.I (barely)skied Open until I was 40 or so.

Over the years, I have know manyGood,Younger skiers m1-2) that skied at 34 and just didn't want to go 36,and therefore passed on tournaments, and many 35-40year olds who wanted to ski 36 but couldn't reach Open to do so. Had little to do with scores, just enjoyment level.

I have also seen many Boys that could've used another year (or 2) at 34, but gave up instead

[Than_Bogan]

@Drago Although that is anecdotal, it's still scary, and definitely suggests this idea deserves serious consideration.

 

I am an amateur Game Theorist, so I love to think about incentives and how people respond to them, and what the resulting behavior will be. So far, I can't think of much wrong with this idea except the minor issue I pointed out near the start of the thread. And I see a lot RIGHT with it, which has been pointed out in this thread.

 

I disagree that this would be more complicated. In fact, I've always found it a little weird to explain to people that first you advance through the speeds and then through the rope lengths. If it's just "after each pass, you choose whether to go faster or shorten the line," that seems a little easier. I suppose it might lead to more errors by the boat crew, but then again it might be the opposite, because the skier would become used to specifying what he/she wants next after EVERY pass.

[skier2788]

If this is something that people want.... why not simplify it and eliminate age divisions? Instead of me checking the M2 box I check a 36mph box. Go strictly speed based divisions. Everyone in that division is scored the same. Personally don't like the idea of having people not running max speed getting scores as if they are and it is very confusing for judges and scorers. We have enough scoring errors the way it is.

@Than_Bogan I was at a tournament this year and a skier wanted to mess with the score keeper he ran 32/-32 34/-35 then 4 at 36/-38. How would you score that in your scoring system?

[eleeski]

There is a health and safety aspect to consider as well. The reduced speeds were originally put in place to reflect to protect aging athletes bodies from the loads that speed can exert on a body. Good! Except people age at different rates. And injuries come along and may require temporary load reduction. Allowing maximum speed choices allow more competitors to stay in competition.

 

Zero based scoring makes it very straightforward to calculate scores. Almost everything is already in place (the very old and very young skiing several speeds slower are able to get scores today). Our scorers are very competent - this is well within the skillset of every scorer I know.

 

Perhaps if there is resistance from traditionalists, a small penalty could be applied to skiing at a speed other than the specified speed for the age division. This would give an incentive to the 14 year olds to switch speed. And to keep the old skiers from killing themselves - unless they really want it. Three buoys is a huge penalty, one buoy is a gentle nudge but skiers could adapt to anything between (including zero penalty). Right now the penalty is six buoys for an overspeed and 100% for line shortened buoys earned at an underspeed. Not workable - especially for this old guy whose recovering body maxes out at 30mph as I heal.

 

If you are seriously skiing "L" for international reasons, you have now got the option to ski at the international speed (which can be different from the AWSA speed) and get a score reflective of your performance and skill.

 

Great idea Jeff! Thanks for presenting it.

 

Eric

[andjules]

Interesting idea. Creative brainstorming at this point in the sport's development is important. So... I applaud you, @JeffSurdej

 

But... no.

Fundamentally, competitive sports do better when they move towards levelling the playing field - in other words, competitions that compare apples to apples. The suggestion here would make things fun and interesting (good!) but ultimately cast doubt on all competitive results.

Question: Is 3.5 @ -32/34 really better than 3 @ -28/36?

Answer: maybe!

All in good fun until somebody's 16 year-old college-hopeful doesn't qualify for Nationals.

 

Like @Bruce_Butterfield said, 6 buoys is a rule of thumb. I think if we ran a comprehensive test over hundreds of skiers, we'd obviously come to a more accurate average... but more importantly, I believe we'd see large statistical deviations (10 buoys per 2mph at some speeds/lengths/types-of-skier/water-conditions vs 3 buoys per 2mph for others). And this is all assuming that we stick to our familiar range - 32-36mph. We haven't even considered some wildly-engineered ski that helps a 12 year old run -39 @ 24mph, or helps a daredevil ski -35 @ 42mph.

 

@Edbrazil I'd love to hear you chime in on watching the rules develop over the years. I'm sure some of the rule changes seemed smarter than others, but if there are any past memorable debates about what would be good for the sport, etc... it would be great to hear.

[MrJones]

@andjules has articulated my thoughts much better than I did.

 

 

[Than_Bogan]

@andjules For perhaps the first time in our long shared history on BoS, I completely disagree with you.

 

Jeff's idea creates a perfectly level playing field. Every individual skier chooses whatever progression that skier feels is easiest. If you ran 3 at 36/-28 and somebody else beat you by running 3.5 @ 34/-32, and you think what he did was easier, then YOU just made a mistake. You had the option to ski that speed/rope combination and chose not to. No rational basis for any complaint.

 

As far as "slippery slope" arguments, we don't have to widen the universe to every possibility in order to get all the benefits of this idea. Maybe 36 is still the top speed for safety and/or practical limitations of the boats. Maybe you still can't shorten the rope at anything less than 49kph (around 30 mph). This sort of crazy stuff is easy to prevent.

[WBLskier]

We run an Informal tourney with exactly that scoring and also use a handicap scoring system like golf for an over all winner. 30+ skiers in our little tourney each of the last two years. Had to cut off registration this year as it was too big for our site last year. Tons of fun. Would love it if real tourneys ran that way. I guarantee a big chunk of our group would show up to ski then. Most of them do not ski at designated max speed and therefore will never go to a real tournament.

[jcamp]

I like the idea as long as it is simple. I really don't want to have to sit on the starting dock and calculate in my head that I need to beat the previous skier by 3.469 buoys in order to win. This to me, means keeping the zero-based scoring we already have in place, even if it means some unintended consequences.

[MrJones]

than

Here is the problem. "Every individual skier chooses whatever progression that skier feels is easiest." Competition is not about what feels easiest, it's about comparing what you have against the next guy under the same conditions.

 

I would be much more inclined to move to performance based divisions instead of age based rather than open this can of worms. It's hard enough to explain slalom scoring to non-skier as is without having to say "well this guy is at this speed and rope length, but this other guy is going faster/slower at this rope length and with the conversions we get a score of 3.14......"

[Than_Bogan]

@MrJones There's no "conversions" -- zero based scoring is simple: round a buoy; you get a point! And everyone is competing under the same conditions.

 

I get to bring my own handle, my own ski, my own bindings, and heck I even get to choose my own zero off settings. Every one of these decisions is made mostly based on how many buoys I think I can run, and others may make very different decisions. The same would be true of each decision whether to increase the speed or shorten the rope.

 

100% fair to every competitor and the best skier on that day wins.

 

In fact, the ski and bindings are a much bigger fairness concern, because I happen to be able to bring an over $3k setup with me, where perhaps other prefer to spend that money on that "real life" thing I keep hearing about.

[unksskis]

I think it is a fantastic idea to propose, and would also like to see it applied to jump, however distance is straight up distance. A major concern would be this sets the stage for virtually lowering the max speed to 34 in the future as the majority of Boys will remain at 34, with no motivation to increase the speed. This seems like a great way to incorporate grassroots type scoring into our current set up.

[unksskis]

Somewhat off topic, but remember at regionals, 2 guys both fell around 1 ball on their opener, but no tie or run-off for the podium placement, the faster speed won according to the rule book.

[Booze]

Interesting.

How about 'extra' bouy credit for the 34mph folks speeding up to 35 or 36mph?

 

[wskierman8]

I'm working on this rule for my wednesday waterski league. The only problem I've come across is for example a person runs 12m @ 55k then wants to shorten to 11m and speed up to 58k and they get 1 buoy, essentially they would get a 6 buoy bonus for only making 1 turn.

 

My way to combat that particular 'opt up', as it stands now is to simply go back to the last completed pass.

[ToddF]

Why not give one point per buoy @34 and 1.15 points per buoy at 36.

38off @ 34mph= 38 points

38off @ 36mph=43.5 points

 

Then the kids get to pick which speed they think they can score highest and the incentive is to ski faster.

[WBLskier]

I'd suggest a tournament within a tournament. scoring for awsa remains unchanged. Then grassroots handicap tourney for all skiers participating. No idea if this fits within tournament rules currently. Far more inviting format for new skiers. I bet a lot of skiers not skiing max speed would start working towards that so that scores would count for awsa in the future. Biggest challenge seems to be to get new skiers to show up at all. Maybe even just one tourney like this per year to get some exposure.

[andjules]

OK @Than_Bogan, as usual you've got me thinking.

 

I think you're right re: the simplicity and fairness when it's every skier's choice (for which they have to take responsibility). I got caught up with how one skier's choice/strategy might produce 'unfair' advantages, but you're right, the key idea is that it's a choice/strategy, and the best ones will rise to the top and be adopted by skiers.

 

That said, I think I'm right in implying that we'd all benefit from a feasibility study (having a bunch of skiers volunteer to take 10 practice sets at slower or faster speeds and record their results against their normal baselines). It would actually be instructive—if a rule-change went ahead—to have a sense of what choices produced the best results for most skiers at a given ability-level. I still think it's a naïve assumption that 1 speed change = 1 line length, so I suspect we'd see a big change in the way the sport is played, but perhaps that's ok.

 

Most importantly, there could be some communication/marketing challenges, back to my original point about level playing fields and apples-to-apples. The more individualized the skier's choices/settings, the harder it is for a crowd to understand how it's really a competition. As an exaggeration, if Julie bakes a cake and Bobby bakes a pie, is it clear that one is really 'better'? When I was a spectator at the PanAMs earlier this summer, I overheard some non-skiers being naturally confused why the last two jumpers got to fling themselves off a better jump. I had to explain that Whitney and Regina had the guts/skill to choose a 5 1/2 foot ramp, and that the other women had been free to do so, they just opted out because they weren't at that level (frankly, the announcers could have done a better job at covering this).