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

[Chef23]

I have been goofing around at 32mph as I recover from some back issues. If I start to feel strong enough I am going to try to go down the rope and see how I do at 35 off at 32 mph. I only got through it once at 34. Of course it isn't necessarily a fair comparison because I am rusty and haven't been skiing a ton but I think it will be interesting.

[gregy]

Would something like this really effect the top level skier? I'm more concerned about getting and keeping more people involved.

[crashman]

It sounds like there are lots of "off the radar" competitions occurring like the wed night "king of the lake" that we do- it would interesting to quantify how much of this is happening. Right now we just argue about whether 5 @ -15 33mph trumps 6@ -22 32 mph or not. I could see where it could be fun to standardize this and compete against other average Joe clubs.

[MrJones]

If the goal of this is to "improve participation in tournaments", what percentage increase do you think would come from this possible rule change??

[unksskis]

Significant, can't quantify right now. It would attract the members of ski clubs and those that live at competition lake sites that don't usually participate.

[Than_Bogan]

Very hard to make a good estimate, because if people are dropping out that is not just that individual who is lost but all the people he/she might influence to get into tournament skiing some day.

[chris_logan]

Due to how late I am to this thread, I've been putting off reading it until I had the time to read all the comments. That being said, there is no reason that this rule couldn't be adopted into tournament use for experimentation and results analysis in a "Round X". I, for one, would give it a go at every tournament simply for the fun factor and contributing toward determining if this would be a change that AWSA should really look at.

[Bruce_Butterfield]

"what percentage increase do you think would come from this possible rule change??"

 

My guess is zero. People don't skip tournaments because they have to ski 34 instead of 36 or 32. They skip tournaments for many reasons, but I have never heard or suspected the speed as being any consideration. .

[MISkier]

Based on various anecdotal conversations I have had, most people skip tournaments because:

 

1. They don't want to plunk down cash and miss their opening pass. They also would like to ski at least 3 or 4 passes.

2. They don't want to spend a very long day there, away from family.

3. There is nothing for non-skiers to do that would make it enjoyable as a family outing. Spectating is not enough. Swimming is usually not allowed, but likely is the number one thing that the crowd wants.

4. If they are not chasing rankings or skiing just to challenge themselves, there is little reward for most levels of participation for the average skiers. To mix up different types of competitions and tournament-level rankings would help keep skiers motivated to chase more than one avenue of accomplishment.

 

 

 

[JeffSurdej]

Awesome feedback BOS, I will definitely use these forums for more feedback on dozens of other ideas. This had more positive feedback than I expected and warrants more discussion. The hang up I have on this is the spectator aspect of it and knowing what is winning at the time. It will be confusing and I'm not sure how it would look at regionals/nationals if seed # 2 runs 3 @ 39@34mph, then top seed runs 4 @38 @36mph. Very confusing to the crowd and other competitors. Perhaps we allow this nationwide but at regionals/nationals you must ski max speed, sort of how it used to be where you had to start at a faster speed at those events. This way we allow total freedom for local events which is where we need more skiers, but to compete at the highest level you must ski at set max speed. However one person brought up a good point of going to divisions based on speed and ramp heights and this has been mentioned before, why should you not be able to ski in a parameter setting you want, why be forced to slalom or jump at certain speeds b/c we think its time at your age.

 

BTW it has to be 6 buoys otherwise this will be way too confusing. Testing might be hard at a tournament b/c what skiers will want to waste their set trying this out. If this B3 is really an issue that might be a perfect experiment. Try it for a year, whats the worse that can happen?

[JeffSurdej]

M1skier can you expand on what you mean here?

 

To mix up different types of competitions and tournament-level rankings would help keep skiers motivated to chase more than one avenue of accomplishment.

 

[unksskis]

Exactly Jeff, this needs to be implemented at the local and grassroots level, but leave regionals and nationals as the premier level and keep at max speed, building the much needed local tournament scene.

[klindy]

Schedule a class X round in a tournament and give it a go. Nothing stopping anyone today from testing it.

[ToddL]

@JeffSurdej Regarding Spectators, wouldn't that also be easier... Every skier would end up with a total buoy count regardless of the path taken to get there (as long as each consecutive pass either raises the speed or shortens the rope). The top skiers with the most number of total buoys are the ones in the lead.

 

There's the caveat - zero-based scoring with a table to determine cumulative buoys based upon the opening pass line/speed, and a rule where each successful pass must either speed up or shorten the line.

 

A non-skiing spectator would simply need to hear: Skier "A" is starting at ##Speed with a ## rope which means upon the completion of the first pass, the cumulative buoy count will be ##. From there is it easy to understand that each subsequent completed pass adds 6 more buoys to the cumulative score, and the final partial pass adds that exact partial amount to the cumulative score. Pretty easy to me.

 

I guess some drama could result if a skier decided to "opt up" by jumping more than 1 speed increment or by more than 1 line length or by doing both a line and a speed change. Again, that makes it interesting in that the skier has to complete all 6 to get the full benefit of the "opt up".

[ToddL]

Also, I kind of agree with @Than_Bogan in that our sport allows for a lot of personalized choices. Choice of handle type/size/shape/grip, choice of ski make/model/size/year, choice of bindings make/mode/year, choice of speed control setting. Further, based upon which events a skier chooses to register for, to some degree the skier is choosing the boats used and officials present.

 

This sport is surviving financially in part because of these choices. Why buy a another new/different ski or handle or binding or ZO boat if not optimize your performances and to gain an advantage over your competitors?

[elr]

I am very excited that @JeffSurdej brought this topic over from the B3 36MPH thread for focused discussion.

 

I believe that this proposal allows for a number of beneficial things to occur for developing skiers without changing the essence of competition at higher levels:

 

In terms of tournament participation, as I stated in the B3 discussion, we used to have minimum start speeds that were 6mph below shortening speed, that rule kept my older son from skiing in tournaments. When the rule was lifted tournament participation increased. This proposal would have a similar impact for skiers that want to ski/score at other than age group maximum speed.

 

In terms of skier development, my son just skied his last B3 Nationals as a very athletically young 18 year old (17 ski years old). There are B2 kids that are more athletically mature than he is. He COA qualified (1 @ -32 @ 36) in slalom for Nationals his last two years of B3. A big reason he stayed engaged in the sport was because his trick skiing allowed him to OA qualify for Nationals his last two years of B2 - which made the trip worthwhile. Looking back at it I believe he would have progressed faster and more safely in slalom if we had slowed down and shortened to get through -28 at 28, 30, 32, 34, and then 36 then we did chasing maximum age division speed @ -15. The kids that are running -28 seem to have well established technique and have no problem upping speed.

 

In terms for understanding scoring; 3000 trick points are 3000 trick points in every age division; 200 feet equals 200 feet in jump in every age division; but wait 6@-22/34 equals 66 for B3/M1/M2 but 88 for B2/M3-6. Is the B3/M1/M2 skier really 75% as good as the M3-6 skier? Using zero based scoring it becomes easier to compare scores across age groups. In terms of spectators it may be easier to understand a "102 buoy pass" than "38 off" at various speeds.

 

In terms of incentive to ski higher speeds there is a 6 buoy incentive for each speed increment, you choose your speed to maximize your score - not because it is "easiest". If you think that there isn't a 6 buoy difference between -38/36 and -39/34 ski faster.

 

In terms of competition, this will NOT change 1st thru 5th place at placement tournament like Regional/Nationals - not a trophy for everybody - those placement go to elite skiers anyway who will ski at the speed that maximizes their score.

 

In terms of IWWF conformity, World List skiers will easily conform their tournament sets (Class L and R) to World List standards. Class E and L/R groups in tournaments would let skiers choose the rules they want to compete under.

 

The proposal will allow developing/mid-range skiers to ski at the right speed for them. I think we need our rules to be more skier development friendly.

[JeffSurdej]

@ToddL maybe you are right, we just need to get used to talking total buoy count not speed and line length.

[wskierman8]

@JeffSurdej I'm going to give this a try next year with my wednesday night ski league I'm trying to put together. Might be a great way to 'guinea pig' the idea across a large group of competitors.

 

wednesdaywaterski.com/

[MISkier]

@JeffSurdej, I was referring to additional competitions besides just the AWSA age-based divisions in a tournament. It's just a way to keep it fresh, provide an additional atmosphere of achievement, and see the competitors judged outside of their usual arena. It is not intended to foster an approach of "everybody wins something, everyone is awesome". It is intended to spark the spirit of testing yourself against a different reference point. To validate this additional competition, maybe AWSA could provide some mechanism to record such scoring or derive the placements from the already-known tournament history and scores. It would be a positive thing for skiers to see their achievements, other than age-based, in a pseudo-official forum.

 

At tournaments in Michigan, we do the "Ability Series". It is a grouping based on skiers' PB scores. The subdivisions within the groupings are score ranges that encompass the skiers PB. All of the skiers in that grouping/subdivision ski to get the highest buoy count. They ski at different speeds, so the winning score is based only on the line length and buoy count for their respective speeds.

 

Here is a sample breakdown:

 

Maximum Speed Group:

A1 Entry Level - 4 passes total buoy count at any speed


A2 .25 @ 26 MPH (43 kph) to 6 @ 28 MPH (46 kph)


A3 .25 @ 30 MPH (49 kph) to 6 @ 30 MPH


A4 .25 @ 32 MPH (52 kph) to 6 @ 32 MPH


A5 .25 @ 34 MPH (55 kph) to 1 @ -22 34 MPH


A6 .25 @ 36 MPH (55 kph) to 1 @ -22 36 MPH (B3, M1, M2 skiers)

 

Shortline Group

B1 1.25 @ -22 max speed to 6 @ -22


B2 .25 @ -28 max speed to 3 @ -28


B3 3.25 @ -28 max speed to 6 @ -28


B4 .25 @ -32 max speed to 3 @ -32


B5 3.25 @ -32 max speed to 6 @ -32


B6 .25 @ -35 max speed to 3 @ -35

 

Super Shortline Group

C1 3.25 @ -35 max speed to 5 @ -35


C2 5.25 @ -35 max speed to 2 @ -38


C3 2.25 @ -38 max speed to 5 @ -38


C4 5.25 @ -38 max speed to shorter

 

For example, I ski in the B4 group with a tournament PB of 3@32 off at 34 mph (max speed for M4). I can ski against a G1 skier, an M2 skier, and W7 skier that has achieved somewhere between .25 buoys and 3 buoys at their max speed. Whoever gets the best relative score against their max speed in their round will receive the highest points, next best receives less points, etc. Most points in the tournament wins the Ability-based competition. We handout some medals. We carry this through multiple tournaments in Michigan and accumulate points. The final Series Winner would have accumulated the most points in their Group (just A, B, and C). So, they would have an opportunity to place across the subdivisions within their respective group.

 

These types of additional classifications and competitions can help draw skiers who already know they won't be the winner in the standard age-based divisions.

 

I'm sure there are multiple ways to make it fun, challenging and competitive. Skiing against elite skiers and watching the same elite skiers significantly outpace the competition is not necessarily any of those 3 things for some skiers. Personally, I am competing against myself and not the elite skiers. My enjoyment is from my own performance against my own previous performances. I admit, though, I do enjoy participating in and watching the side competition of the Ability Series.

 

Some will say that the skiers not enjoying the direct age-based competition or wanting some different motivation to go to a tournament should stay home. To some degree, they probably are.

[WBLskier]

I bet I could get at least 10 people not currently skiing tournaments to give it a shot with this type of format.

[eleeski]

Ran 35off at 18 today (on a trick ski). Fun and challenging but not very competitive. Was pretty close to my physical limits - my hip is pretty sore now. I don't know if scoring buoys like that would do anything for the sport but it was fun.

 

Eric

[MISkier]

@eleeski, at the Meijer State Games here in June, Millennium Park was basically blown out by an uncharacteristic 25 mph NE wind. Round 1 saw some OK scores, but round 2 was about 2 foot whitecaps. Some of the college kids that participated actually skied round 2 on a trick ski and completed some passes. Many people, myself included, had no hope to improve on their round 1 score and elected not to ski round 2 to avoid injury. I think only one or two skiers on a regular slalom ski actually completed a pass in round 2.

[Than_Bogan]

@eleeski That does sound fun, and if I'm doing my addition right it would be equivalent to running 28mph long-line in terms of scoring. That's not gonna be messing up any record books, so why not let you do that if you want!!

[wskierman8]

@eleeski 35 off at 18 mph is good for 42 buoys same score as running 26 mph long line... I'd say the 35 off @ 18 score certainly sounds better

[LeonL]

Since you guys moved off onto scoring @eleeski and his slalom on a trick pass, how can it be scored at anything other than 12 buoys? I know 18 is not an actual speed (17.4 is closest) which yields 12 buoys. It matters not what line length.

[Than_Bogan]

Can I do the panda thing? :)

 

A key part of the discussion here is the idea of getting credit for increasing the speed OR shortening the rope. This isn't the rule now, it's the proposal.

[LeonL]

Duh on me!

[kfennell]

6 Buoys is a good enough rule of thumb for the difference between speeds and scores, but in a competition format it is not nearly good enough. Especially if you are a big strong guy you can get a much higher score at the slower speeds, I have NO trouble running -32 and getting 4-5 at -35 @ 34 MPH the few times I have tried even when I am skiing terrible because I just muscle through the slack hits. However at -36 I still miss -28 some of the time. Hell I saw @skier2788 Run -35@34 cold off the dock the other day the first time he ever tried it.

 

That said if I could ski at 34 and get 6 buoys added I would do it all day long, but it wouldn't be fair to someone like @rq0013 who skies technically much better then I do but who does not benefit much from going 34 due to his size and strength.

[JeffSurdej]

@kfennell I'm not sure you are proving your point. The way I read your scenario is that you sometimes miss 28off @36 which means you pretty much make it and I would assume you get 3 or so at 32off@36. This is 6 buoys off. Granted in your case it might be 7-8 or but for others it might be 3-4. Either way it's really close to 6 buoys so why not let a bigger or smaller skier take advantage of their strengths. The rulebook has told us that @rq0013 is better compared to you but maybe that's not the case. Just food for thought.

[BlueSki]

@JeffSurdej, I know it has been said, but I am glad to see you bringing up the topic and trying to improve things.

 

I don't think, however, that this has been mentioned in this thread yet: consider the typical college tournament where a large number of skiers are at 15 off, but not reaching max speed, and thus scored at long line. The system does not match what is actually happening. I think this further illustrates that there is something wrong with the scoring system. Why should there be bonus points for kid who gets 6@15off/36 over the kid who ran 2@15off/36? The difference is four buoys, not 10. Has anyone seen an M1 skier run 36 at longline in the past 25 years?

[MrJones]

We are the only country that still has "long line". It should be done away with.

[Than_Bogan]

@BlueSki Great point! Does Jeff's idea "fix" the long-line weirdness as a side effect? If you get credit for 6 more buoys at -15, regardless of the speed, then there's never that bizarre 12-buoy pass in the progression.

 

That's extremely helpful for handicapped tournaments, btw. We always have to be on the lookout for somebody crossing one of those 12-buoy passes that they usually don't complete and blowing away all others. Indeed, we explicitly compensate for it, which is a pain in the ass and I think this proposal would simply make that go away!

 

Bonus!

[kfennell]

@JeffSurdej @rq0013 is for sure better then me, anyone watching for 20 seconds can see it.

[GK]

I've been recommending we need to make this rule change for a few years. I think it would be very good for helping to grow the number of local tournament skiers. We have allowed reduced max speeds at Buckeye Buoy Tour tournaments. We score them 6 buoys below for every 2 miles per hour and it has no negative impact other than we can't post their scores as Class C (only grassroots).

 

I think over time this actually simplifies the understanding of our sport from a spectator perspective because it puts more emphasis on total buoy count as opposed to line length and speed. I think this will actually be easier to understand and give people a better understanding of the level of skiing that our professionals when being compared to amateurs.

 

Keeping the same max speeds "as is" for Regionals/Nationals seems like a fine compromise to me if necessary, but I don't see how it would negatively impact those events either. We need to make decisions in this sport that will most benefit the largest number of skiers, not based on benefiting the most elite skiers.

[liquid d]

Come up with the score for skiing 35mph too! My back feels a lot better going just a bit faster...haha

something for everybody!

[Bill22]

@JeffSurdej There is a way both sides could get what they want with a small compromise.

 

Those in favor say having flexible speed/line length/scoring would: 1) increase fun 2) increase participation of rookies/ intermediates 3) possibly reduce injuries by not skiing @ 36. The other side wants a clear winner with apples to apples scoring (no 3 @ -35/34mph wins over 2 @ -32/36mph.

 

Allow skiers to start at any tournament speed and line length. The skier chooses to increase either speed or line length in any order until a set line length “X” is reached. Once a full pass at “X” is run the boat speed must be increased each pass until max speed is reached. Length “X” could be different for each age group.

 

Example… M1 skier starts at -22@32mph, moves up the line or boat speed each pass, skier runs -32@34mph, skier must attempt the next pass at -32@36mph.

 

With this method intermediate skiers could get tournament experience and have fun, but if you want to get on the podium you need to get up to max speed. It's a win win!

 

[JeffSurdej]

all great ideas gang, @GK I'm curious when you say you've been recommending it for years, as a board member I have never seen this proposal? @Bill22 this is a decent idea. I think we still need to allow skiers to go over max and get 6 extra buoys as well, I asked Freddy Kruegers dad this weekend if he prefers 30mph or 32, he says 32, but we make him go 30mph. We should accommodate these situations as well. He's going to retire from skiing due to not having fun at 30mph, so we loose another one.

[GK]

Yeah, I've just been telling the guys in my circle. I would have proposed it to the board but I didn't think it would have a chance in hell of getting approved. I hope I'm wrong and they will give it strong consideration!

[escmanaze]

I think that everybody who keeps saying that this rule would need x, y, or z exception is missing the point. This type of scoring system would be inherently fair because It is the skiers choice if he would like to move up a speed or move up a rope.

 

It's like somebody proposing to make a football field 110 yards instead of 100. It's fair because both teams have the exact same 110 yards to go. Let's not get caught up in the over-analysis of the 110 yard field being a better advantage for short or tall or fast or slow players. It's 110 yards, we all play on it, so it's fair.

 

I can only imagine how the waterskiing community would have reacted to the NBA 3 point line or shot clock (which have obviously made the sport better to watch and better to play). All these old guys would have been freaking out saying how it would be unfair to this or that type of competitor or this or that record would be invalidated. Baseball TV ratings and youth participation is pathetic these days compared to football and basketball because the latter two have been constantly experimenting and innovating on ways to improve the sport while baseball has a bunch of old geezers worried about their current record books being invalidated by a slight change of pace. Let's not be the MLB.

[Bill22]

@escmanaze I guess you are obviously not in sales or marketing.

[Bill22]

Rule # 1: Known your customer.

 

If you want this rule or any other rule changed. Your customers are not slalom skiers or new potential tournament skiers. The customer is the board that votes on the rules. The customer is known to not like HUGE changes. Small changes spaced out over a few years will have a better chance of even getting a shot.

[gregy]

Well then, the board needs to figure out how the customer is. But considering how started this thread this is a positive step.

[Bongo]

@JeffSurdej and all contributors, I'm late to the thread - but read it beginning to end, as it was interesting. And while my opinion is largely inconsequential, I am in favor of this type of idea.

 

Two scenarios:

(1.) Previous year, my G2 daughter got to the point where she could consistently run -15 / 32mph (max G2) and grab a buoy or two @ -22 / 32. Tournaments that year were a bit of anxiety to make sure she got her base -15 / 32mph pass, then anticipation whether she could beat her tournament PB... She could see big disappointment (not get to her base pass), slight disappointment (didn't match PB) or mild excitement (adding 1/2 buoy). All good emotions to learn from and build upon. All kept her very engaged in wanting to improve.

 

This year, she graduated to G3. New max speed; 34mph. While her skill has improved year-over-year, her scores certainly don't indicate as much. While she can go deeper into 32mph (very consistently run -22), she has yet to make a full tournament pass @ 34mph.* So her buoy count is less and she's had a lot more anxiety on making her max speed pass. But when she does, oh boy, an ~18 buoy increase. (-22 / 32mph = 60 buoys; -22 / 34mph = 78 buoys). In essence, no demonstrated progression in skill improvement via tournament scores** - but (me hopes) a big jump when she gets a full pass. Not quite the message I want to send; I prefer more practice and you can see improved results. Makes it a bit more like the lottery; hey, take a swing at the pass and you might get very lucky and have a great increase in your score.

 

Thankfully, this daughter isn't as focused on tournament scores and more focused on improvement - which we demonstrate with practice improvements. If this were my older daughter, we'd certainly have been done with 3-Event skiing if/when she graduated up a division where her skiing got better and her scores got worse. (My older daughter moved from Show Skiing to 3-Event when she was G3, so never "moved up".)

 

 

(2.) My kids have a friend who is a college freshman. She's making the jump from Show Skiing to 3-Event ski and joined the college ski team. She'll have no chance to get to max speed anytime soon and neither will many of her friends. First, try to explain that shortening the rope doesn't count until she gets to max speed. Second, how do a group of kids the same age differentiate themselves if none can reach max speed but demonstrate some separation when they ski the same speed?

 

 

* We ski on a quasi-public lake with the slalom course up against the cement spillway. The next relocation of the slalom course will be off-the-lake due to competing interests of the association homeowners. Lots of bounce back and someone's boat wake from 1/2 mile away hit the course. So we get few practices at 34mph; tough to come out cold and make a run at close to your PB. After a down-and-back, no calm water - and dicey to run 34mph or 36mph (B3...).

 

** I really only value tournament scores as a comparison of skill-level, unless same boat and same conditions. I had a buddy of mine who had a daughter that "for some reason" couldn't come within 4mph of her top speed in a 3-Event tournament. He attributed it to her anxiety. I took my handheld GPS and found his paddle-wheel speedo to be about 4mph off. While no malice was intended, might remind me of some dentist near WI.

 

-Bongo-