Purpose of MM and MW

[jdarwin]

As an former AWSA board member for 6 years, I was always baffled by the existence of Masters Men and Masters Women divisions. What is their purpose? I never got clarity on that. As long as it was "optional" for the skier, it made no sense. As a M5 skier, I don't have the option of skiing in another division so I get the boat I want or ski on the day I want or get the driver I want. That is, unless I am a Level 9 skier in Men 5. Then, I get to choose. I admire those whose ranking puts them into the MM/MW division and they compete there as opposed to age division. Kudos to you. Another bone of contention I hear is in regard to former pros skiing in age division. Isn't that one reason the Masters divisions were created? How is allowing former professionals to ski in age division good for our sport? I don't have a dog in this fight other than wanting some clarity and common sense injected into how we govern our sport.

[wtrskior]

I am in Canada, where we do not have a masters class. I think we should as there are a few former pro's who ski tournaments in Canada. They are basically guaranteed to win their division, baring any unfortunate upsets. At the end of the day I think most skiers just want to ski to their potential, whatever score that may be, but we need more competition in the sport not less.

 

 

[Edbrazil]

Note that the MM and MW divisions can provide a higher level of competition than age-

divisions, without having to go into OM and OW. For consideration for the Hall of Fame,

a competitor has to be "retired" from Open for typically 3 years, unless they are age 50+.

[Than_Bogan]

My stance is and has been: A skier should never have a choice of division. A choice creates confusion, accusations of sand-bagging or other chicanery, and waters down the meaning of any particular title. The current system suffers from all of these flaws.

 

There are various ways to enforce that principle.

Skill-based cutoffs (which are non-overlapping) is one option, for example if you've run -39 in the last 12 months there you are in MM and if not you're not. This isn't my favorite option, though, because there's still some incentive to sandbag.

 

Another option is to say that a given event either has age group divisions or MM/OM, but not both. I think the only real purpose of these categories is to allow people of significantly different age to compete against each other directly. So if that's what your event is about, then don't offer any age categories at all. Note that with this scheme you probably don't need any qualification level at all. If some 60 y.o. dude wants to go run -15 at 36mph, what's the harm? (Obviously certain events would still have qualifying standards, but that is orthogonal to the category discussion.)

 

Heck, I think under that scheme we'd probably run our local "New England Slalom Championship" with pretty much just MM/OM/OW (with a few others for folks whose max speed is neither 34 nor 36). I'd much rather just ski against all other 34 mph skiers even in a local class C.

 

And of course the final option is to just get rid of MM and OM, but if we use them "right" (like above) then I don't see any reason to kill them. Maybe rename to 0pen34 and 0pen36, though?

[Edbrazil]

In the Back When, 1970's, Open was mandatory if you ran a certain score. At the time, it

was only a full pass at 32 off. So, skiers could be forced into Open Men when they didn't

have a prayer of a podium placement against skiers who were 2 passes ahead of that.

The situation led to some blatant sandbagging, which I witnessed at one Regionals.

[Kelvin]

I originally posted this in another thread, but it is more appropriate here.

 

I placed 7th at regionals the year in M4. Skied well for me. There were 3 MM qualified skiers on the podium. If they had skied MM, I would have qualified for nationals.

 

There have been rule change proposals in varying forms to force the elite into the elite divisions but none have passed.

 

I'm going to submit a change to the Nationals qualification rules to exclude the elite skiers from the age divisions when determining the top 5 age division skiers that qualify for nationals. I don't care about the medals, but they shouldn't be taking spots for nationals competitors.

[Horton]

Outside of regional and national championships I think these divisions are great. At regionals and nationals there divisions only dilute and devalue titles.

[Horton]

I have told this story many times.....

 

In 1992 I got silver at Nationals in jump. I had an Open rating (just barely) and the guy who won, Mike Heath (kicked my ass) was a low level pro.

 

You could argue that the guy who got 3rd should have won becuase 1st and 2nd both had Open ratings.

 

I think I should have gotten 10th.... the guys in our age group who skied Open should have skied the age group. I was not the second best jumper in the age group.... I was the second best jumper in the age group that did not ski Open. It is all so silly. I am super proud of my distance and would have loved the gold but but it is all a bit contrived.

 

Note: the guy who got third Jody Hooten now has a few jump titles

[Wish]

How does golf do this? I know their numbers have been declining as of late and they are trying to get creative to bring them back. I saw a commercial within the last week that showed all ages competing against each other with the key point being its all good with their handicap system. Not suggesting this but found it interesting that they now run commercials letting folks know that it matters not your age or skill level..it's about friendly competition and fun for all. Wouldn't that be a good direction? Then possibly a higher echelon level for pros? Guessing that's how golf is set up but do not know. I'd prefer to ski against all 34mph skiers at a local tourny. I end up looking at the other age groups anyway just to see. Handicapping would make it even more interesting. Handicapping may even reward hard work in the off season with a bump in rankings or podiums.

[jdarwin]

There are currently 9 skiers registered in MM. 2 in MW. There are probably a dozen more that "could/should" be in MM from the other age divisions. The top seeds in W2 and W3 would be top seeds in MW - and the #2/3 seeds in Open Women. It simply makes no sense and dilutes the excitement of the events themselves. What's wrong with having the best of the best skiing against each other rather than positioning for podium spots?

[jimbrake]

@horton - video please.

[jdarwin]

@Wish - not sure how golf does it but I'm pretty sure that retired pros like Fred Couples aren't showing up to play at the Dixie Amateur Championships.

[Dirt]

Look at the problem with overall. I tricked and jumped (if you can call it that) M4 and slalomed MM at Regionals. I skied Tu, We and Sat. Jumped and tricked before slalom and no chance at overall medals/placement.

[cvaught]

Golf divides things between pros and amateurs as well as age. So for example you have the US Junior Amateur (Under 18), US Amateur (any age), US Mid Amateur (25+) and US Senior Amateur (55+), US Open, US Senior Open (55+) for men. Each are independent tournaments and each results in a national champion. Many elite amateurs will compete in multiple tournaments including the US Open since it is also open to Amateurs. Obviously Pros are not eligible to compete in the Amateur tournaments.

 

Each state normally has Amateur state championships for all three levels as well. Performance in State tournaments have no bearing with regard to qualifying for the national championships. Separate qualifying tournaments in each state are held instead.

 

The USGA sets minimum handicaps for each tournament to be eligible to try to qualify. For example if you are 17 year old amateur and are a scratch golfer then you can enter to qualify for the US Junior Amateur, US Amateur, and the US Open. If you show up to qualify and shoot 90 and do that a couple of times due to a bogus handicap then eventually you will be blocked from attempting to qualify. Your handicap though has no impact on whether you qualify or not.

 

A typical qualifying tournament might have 100 or more players with anywhere between 2-15 qualifying for the actual tournament depending on the size of the area around the tournament. I'm not sure exactly how those numbers are determined. In addition, for the US Open so many people try to qualify there is actually two levels of qualifying. Many though are exempt from the first level.

 

The above is really only useful to the top .1% or so of golfers since the rest are unlikely to even have a handicap that is good enough to try to qualify for one of the national championships.

 

Local tournaments is where you see various usages of the handicap to try to even the playing field. I always found this to not be very enjoyable. A better option in my view for local tournament golf was two day tournaments where after the first day of scores you flight everyone based on that score. So if there were 100 entries you might have 10 flights with ten golfers/teams in each flight. The total combined score wins in each flight so sand bagging is tough since if you end up at the back of a flight it would be harder to win. This only really works if you have a lot of golfers though such that there is a normal distribution of skill levels and almost everyone has a chance to win their flight going into the second day.

[Than_Bogan]

When it comes to Nationals, my thinking is somewhat opposite to Kelvin (and, frightening, close to Horton!). I think the elite skiers are exactly who should be going to Nationals. They are not "taking" anyone's spot except by being better. Jeff Rodgers has no fundamental characteristic that should put him into a separate category from me. He's just a LOT better than I am. Isn't that what a National Championship is about?

 

As soon as you pull anybody out, why stop? How 'bout I only compete in a group of people who's first name starts with N-A-T and whose last name has exactly 5 letters? Oh wait... :)

[Horton]

I would have a good chance of being National champ if the division was only skiers who have never gotten to 3 ball at 39. Those skiers who can get to 3 ball can ski with the pros.

[Chef23]

@Wish the overview of golf by @cvaught is right on. The one thing he didn't talk about is how are retired pros handled. There are many different classes of people that have been pro golfers. If I remember correctly there is a minimum 2 year wait time between being a professional and having your amateur status reinstated. The minimum usually applies to former teaching pros and guys that played mini tours and certainly never had a PGA tour card. There may be a period of time someone who was a jouneyman on tour could wait to get his am status reinstated but it would be several years. Someone like Fred Couples would never get his status reinstated.

 

I have played amateur qualifying events with reinstated ams and a member at my old club cashed a check on the PGA Tour when he was an aspiring touring pro. I think he had to wait 3 or 4 years after he petitioned the USGA to get his Am status back.

[eleeski]

Overall creates the problem with MM and MW. Allow the MM and MW one eventers to ski twice, in age division for no placement and in the Masters division for placement. Note that there were a couple of out of region (country?) skiers who skied at Regionals in their age division but didn't place. Or carry the Masters scores into the overall calculation. Note that this won't work for @Dirt as the time delay for the overall makes it unworkable.

 

Make the Masters division mandatory (either in or out). Carry the scores over for overall one way or another. Or carry over non qualifying overall scores into Masters. The current system really is bad for overall skiing.

 

Eric

[schroed]

This subject keeps coming up again and again and we can't seem to find a good solution. I personally think that having open divisions and masters divisions are good things. These divisions allow the elite in the sport to compete for titles regardless of age. I also think that having the best skiers in the nation attend and compete at nationals is a good thing.

 

Here are some questions to consider:

 

If we eliminated the Open division at nationals would people really want Nate Smith competing in his age group?

 

Do the M4 skiers really want Jeff Rodgers competing in his age group?

 

Do you think guys like Terry Winter and Chris Rossi would want to ski in M3 at 34 MPH at nationals?

 

Don't you think Jeff Rodgers would want to compete with guys like Greg Badal (who is out of his age group) for a national championship?

 

If we eliminated these divisions at nationals, would guys like Nate or Jeff even attend nationals?

 

If we eliminate Open and Masters at nationals should USA Waterski setup a separate national championship for these divisions?

 

I personally would not want a separate national championship for Open and Masters skiers. I think that would create more dilution in the sport and less participation in the traditional nationals. That's not what we need right now. So, my answers to these questions lead met to think that we should have an Open and Masters divisions in regular tournaments and at Nationals.

 

The real problem seems to be how we determine who skis in these divisions versus their age groups. To solve this problem, I do think there should be some sort of mandatory rule put in place to force skiers into these divisions based on their USA Waterski averages. I believe USA Waterski is considering a "level 10" be put in place that would require all level 10 skiers to ski in Open or Masters. I actually think this is a good idea and I hope it gets implemented.

 

[Bruce_Butterfield]

Heres a solution I posted back in December, but didn't gain traction. I believe this would solve the majority of the real and perceived issues.

 

Interesting idea. However I think the ranking list approach has a host of drawbacks, many of which have been brought up here. A far better approach that I brought to the rules committee a number of years ago is to make entry into MM or Open mandatory based on placement at Regionals and Nationals.

 

It would work like this:

 

For M3 and M4, the top 3 placements from each Regional Championship and the top 5 from the National Championship, who have also achieved the performance standard (2@39 or whatever) are required to ski in the MM division for the following ski year. In the following ski year, if the MM skier fails to place in the top 3 at Regionals or top 5 at Nationals, he may choose to ski in his age division or MM for the next ski year. Entry in MM is optional for any skier who has met the performance standard, but not the placement requirements.

 

Its debatable whether to include M5 or not.

 

Same rule for M1/M2 and W1/W2 for Open – maybe adjust the number of placements that are forced up due to population.

 

This approach solves several issues:

- Opens up the competiveness of less that top tier skiers in the age divisions (I think this is the major complaint of the current situation)

- Increases the competiveness of MM

- Eliminates “sandbagging” – I don’t think anyone will standup and avoid placement just to avoid skiing MM/Open

- The requirement to also achieve the performance standard will avoid forcing a lower tier skier into MM/Open by mishap, i.e. weak region or a condition blowout where the winner was the only one to run his opener.

- If a skier doesn’t make MM by placement, but has achieved the performance standard, he still has the option to step up if he wishes.

- The “less than top tier” skiers can choose to return to their age division or stay in MM after a year, so no one gets stuck if they are not competitive

- No bouncing back and forth between divisions during the ski year.

 

I strongly disagree with any rule forcing juniors, or anyone else for that matter, into open if they elect to ski open for something like a pro tour challenge, the Masters, or some other major event. A skier on the edge should never be discouraged from getting on the same water as the elite skiers. That experience in invaluable even if they are not competitive.

 

Take the example of a 16yo B3 skier who just got a PB of 2@39 (or whatever the open rating is these days), and that gives him the opportunity to take to the water with Nate Smith and Will Asher in the challenge round of some pro event coming to his area next month. Should he be penalized into competing in Open for an entire year when he is clearly not ready (yet) or have to choose to forgo what could be a once in a lifetime opportunity?

[ntx]

You can tell a lot about the character of the skier who skis ALL year as a OM/MM skier, then drops down to age group for regional and nationals. Once you qualify for OM/MM go play with the big boys. I would like to see maybe a option that would reduce entry fees to OM/MM skiers to entice them to ski there. That might add additional skiers that are on the fence to participate. Look at M1/M2 overall at Nationals this year. Storm, Dylan, John Lex, Cole, Sam (if he skis) etc etc… all should be in OM overall at Nationals. Congrats to Nick for stepping up. Awesome. For a few years there was some peer pressure to ski OM. This year it looks like they all dropped down to age group. (my son included who had lost his open rating for awhile)

[klindy]

MM, MW, OM and OW are all ability based divisions. Mixing them in with aged based divisions is confusing and creates all the issues discussed above. Part of the driver in creating the MM/MW divisions was to provide a "place" for retired pro's to ski and compete without completely disrupting the age groups. The MM/MW divisions were also developed because some skiers didn't want to "slow down" as they became older (that applies to slalom and jump). And there has historically been an undercurrent effort to find a way to make ability based competition a reality.

 

The IWWF as divisions based on age too but they are open ended - 13 and under, 17 and under, 21 and under ... 45 and above, 55 and above, etc. This allows for those who want to ski faster or on a higher ramp or whatever to do exactly that.

 

There was a rules change proposal earlier this year which would have created a level 10 in the ranking list which is the top 3% in the pool of eligible skiers. Currently level 9 is the top 7%. The idea was to leave the choice to ski age division or open (or masters) for level 9 skiers but mandatory for level 10. In addition any skier that opted to ski in open/masters was then "locked in" to ski there thru the Nationals. There were exceptions for the junior skiers but the idea was to give a skier a choice and then prevent bouncing back and forth.

 

Overall was a big issue since most overall skiers who would elect open/masters aren't rated that high in all three events. So how does that skier whose mandated to ski in open/masters ever ski overall. Anyway it was voted down this last year.

[Marco]

My daughters boyfriend went the opposite direction this year. He just got his open rating the week before Regionals, and opted to ski in open even though he knew he had no chance of challenging the top skiers. It was difficult for him not to be at the top of the food chain in M2, but how cool will it be to know that you are on the same starting dock with Nate, Detrick, TW, Rossi, etc.

[The_MS]

Do people really sand bag? Why go to an event if you don't want to achieve the best possible score? On the other hand, you see all sorts of big scores from skiers coming from back yard weeknight ski leagues but when they get to the Regional or National spotlight the scores seem to get back to reality.

[jdarwin]

There was a rules change proposal earlier this year which would have created a level 10 in the ranking list which is the top 3% in the pool of eligible skiers. Currently level 9 is the top 7%. The idea was to leave the choice to ski age division or open (or masters) for level 9 skiers but mandatory for level 10. In addition any skier that opted to ski in open/masters was then "locked in" to ski there thru the Nationals. There were exceptions for the junior skiers but the idea was to give a skier a choice and then prevent bouncing back and forth.

 

This was the best solution to date and the board voted it down. Sad.

[MrJones]

Okay. I'll give a little background and then my $0.02

 

My first year in M3 was '05. I placed second that year, was out for back surgery in '06, and placed 3rd in '07. Took off in '08 as we bought some land and started working toward building a lake. When I came back MM was more of a thing so I started skiing it and have ever since.

 

Now while I am qualified, I have only been mid pack. My only real training partners being my kids in the junior divisions makes it a bit harder than the old days. (Plus I miss Perfect Pass!) Even so, I hold myself to the standard of MM as that's where I feel I should be skiing. The division is tough and any medal there is something I would be proud of. I would also hate to knock a M4 skier that needed placement from regionals out of going to Nats because of me as Kelvin brought up.

 

I have mostly felt that MM actually dilutes the competition at nationals. Having said that, I can see a need for it. I don't want to speak for Jeff, but I need a hypothetical example. I believe he still loves skiing and wants to compete. I also think he would feel bad dropping down to M4 and beating up on a lot of guys in the division who are his buds. As it is, he now has a place to go in MM where he can ski and not feel like people are looking at him as a sandbagger. I think we have lost a lot of pros in the past who once retired felt there was no place to go even though they still love the sport and want to be a part of it. (Of course, some may not care and just drop down to age division to poach another medal)

 

Anyway, I think that if MM/WM are to be there, then participation should be mandatory. You guys have had some good thoughts on how to implement it. Keep the ideas flowing.

 

 

 

 

[Chef23]

I am not a nationals qualified skier and may never be but I do have an opinion. I like the concept of having a level 10 and potentially combining it with @Bruce_Butterfield's idea.

 

I think a level 9 skier who has the scores to compete in a BigDog event but not be competitive shouldn't be forced to compete in MM at Nationals. I also agree that juniors should be able to compete up but still compete as a junior at Nationals.

[Horton]

@Dirt you should not jump and trick

[Chef23]

I don't think retired pros care about getting a medal. I think the ones that compete really love the sport and want to be out there skiing and supporting the sport. I know they all want to be competitive and win but I would be surprised if medaling is their focus.

[Bruce_Butterfield]

Deleted

[MattP]

Side note - KC Wilson has never had a tournament round in M1. Therefore he has never been on the M1 ranking list.

Something to think about.

[ntx]

@MattP what would you say if he dropped down to ski regional and nationals in age division??? Is that ok??

[liquid d]

It was designed for Old Pros , and to allow the top end of the over 35 group to compete against each other. Before that, you only had the Super Swami! Thanks Boz!

 

It was a great division for a few years at Nationals, had as many as 20 at Okeeheelee, and quite a few skiers in stands.

[MrJones]

There have been some really good turnouts at times for MM. It's a great division if everyone shows up.

[Than_Bogan]

@ntx I would absolutely consider that OK under the current rules. Earned prerogative. However, that possibility suggests the rules should be changed.

[bishop8950]

Of course there are different issues depending on your position and related point of view. I think its great there is a 34mph ability based division that we can qualify for and elect to ski in. I do. But its also really tough on the age division guys that have to deal with skiers picking and choosing. I thought the answer was the rule proposal that once you elected to ski MM you stayed there. That is the macro solution. If it was 3 event complications that kept that from happening then we need to fix that and get on with it. This said, I am not familiar with whatever the details are that prevented this from going through.

 

If I wanted to ski M3 at Nationals I would be happy to ski M3 all year. I would be happy to publicly declare that intention a year in advance if that helped.

 

I dont think forcing qualified skiers to "ski up" is the answer. I also dont think elimination of elite divisions is the answer either.

[skierjp]

Yes, but I think even though KC skis open men, if he sets a record his score rolls back to his age group. I think!

This happened at Palm Bay.

[ntx]

@Than_Bogan KC absolutely has the right to drop down and ski M1 if he wants. Knowing KC, I don’t think there is much of a chance of him doing that. If you want to be in the conversation as one of the best, you go play with the best. Do we all agree that the best are the OM/MM???

[klindy]

@bishop8950 While forcing qualified skiers to "ski up" and whether skiers need to stay in MM/MW divisions (or Open) all year have clearly been issues to discuss, I'd say that the biggest issue/problem is what to do with overall skiers. If you force someone who's qualified at a certain level or someone who elects to ski in the higher division to stay there for the year, you instantly create a problem with what you do with overall skiers.

 

For example, one of the easiest scenarios to understand is Open Men. If you have a skier who is Open qualified in Slalom and Trick (but not jump) how do you calculate their overall points? Do they jump on a 5'-6" ramp in the age based group? Or do you make them ski OM and, by the rules, allow them to jump on a 6' ramp even though they didn't "earn" it? What about the M3 skier who can still knock out a big jump and qualify for Open. Is it fair for them to use their OM (presumably on a 6' ramp @ 35mph) score against the other M3 competitors who can't qualify for Open?

 

The point is the mix of various speeds (and ramp heights for jump) and how the NOPS scoring system works presents a bunch of difficult and seemingly unfair scenarios for overall.

 

So even the best idea tends to grind to a halt when you throw overall into the picture. I'm sure there's a solution but it's not a easy as it looks on the surface.

[jdarwin]

@klindy - how many "overall" skiers would this really affect? In reality, we are talking about M3, M4 and M5 slalom. The speeds/line lengths are the same in MM. Couldn't their scores simply be inserted into the NOPS calculation without skiing for placement in one particular event (slalom). We have some really smart people in this sport and a rulebook that is incredibly confusing and convoluted - we can come up with a simple solution. Otherwise, let's just eliminate MM/MW for Regionals and Nationals.

[ToddL]

While the math would be debatable, it seems that a NOPS conversion calculation is needed for mixed division overall. Basic idea - if a skier skis 2 events in 1 division and a 3rd event in another division, the overall score will only count in the division with 2 events.

 

If a skier skis M1 S & T, but Jumps OM and if there was a way to convert an OM Jump NOPS back to M1 Jump NOPS, then a valid M1 Overall could be calculated.

 

Thus, in order for this to work, we'd need NOPS conversions into and out of MM, OM, WM, OW back to all of the valid Age divisions for each for each event. Dang.

 

But wait... I thought NOPS was intended to level the playing field somewhat. Meaning - that an "excellent" score in B2 relative to normal B2 and an excellent score in M7 relative to normal M7 would generate similar NOPS values. So why wouldn't we simply use OM Jump NOPS unconverted to calculate a M1 Overall score per the example above?

[eleeski]

Easy solution @klindy - have the skier ski age division for overall but not placement. Then go ski Open/Masters for placement. Certainly they earned an extra ride! For those one short of qualified in all three for Open/Masters, allow an entry in the one event they are short if they choose to overall in Open/Masters.

 

Open/Masters skiers have earned special consideration. Now instead we are punished in overall? And maligned when we exercise our earned right to choose where we want to ski. C'mon, reward good performances and skiers who accept the challenges of higher competition.

 

Eric

[jdarwin]

@ToddL - let's add this to Thurston's 24 questions......

 

[Chef23]

I think @eleeski's idea makes sense as it is mostly jump for OM skiers that is the issue in the Overall discussion. If you are skiing MM slalom you are skiing 34 mph just like the rest of the skiers. I guess you do run a small risk that the conditions could be better or worse when MM runs vs the age group goes but the speed would be the same.

[klindy]

@ToddL

 

Elite Qualification -- Open & Masters Division

 

Yes Todd the NOPS system does attempt to equate B2 scores with M7 scores. It also attempts to equate a jump score with a slalom score with a trick score too even across divisions. It does a decent job of that. However what I've discussed above isn't trying to equate NOPS scores its the actual, physical differences allowable by being able to ski in a "different" division based on qualification. Overall is a 'virtual' event and we can use NOPS or something similar to equate things. But the closer the scores are the more critical any assumptions and adjustments are.

 

@jdarwin yes we are primarily talking about M3, M4 and M5 skiers and MM slalom not hyperbolic geometry :smile: . However you have a bunch of them that also ski overall too so a solution is important. And things get really squirrely when you look at OM/OW.

 

We're collectively in limbo between our age based divisions and a new paradigm using ability based groupings.

[ntx]

@ToddL NOPS score for a 190 foot jump M1 = 1314.7 @35MPH 5/5.5 foot ramp. That same jump in OM = 1068.6 35MPH 5.5/6 ramp. The same score does not produce the same results. Open scores produce lower NOPS across all events.

[bishop8950]

Thanks @klindy. I appreciate it may be harder than it appears. A math based conversion seems complex. Why not go with the @eleeski exception for overall skiers? That seems pretty straight forward and fair. It adds a few rides to Nationals but why not reward the nations best 3 event skiers by granting them a few extra rides if they choose.

 

For single event skiers, they can ski and place in their age division unless they have skied their elite division. If they have skied their elite division in that ski year they must ski the elite division at regionals/nationals.

[Kelvin]

All of these rule proposals have been looked at in the past and ultimately failed for various reasons as stated above. A simple solution as a first step is to eliminate any Masters/Open qualified scores when determining the top 5 placements at regionals that qualify for Nationals (they can have the medal, just don't take other skier's spots) - that is easy to do and doesn't affect anyone's schedule or any overall scores.

[schroed]

I like eleeski's idea of allowing overall skiers to ski in their age divisions for an overall score and still ski in a Masters or Open division for placement. I don't think trying to combine an Open or Masters score in one event to age group scores in the other two events will ever work fairly. Conditions, drivers, boats, lakes, and even the mentality of a specific event can all change scores. By mentality I'm mainly talking about a persons confidence. What if in M4 everybody is missing 38 and you're the top seed. You may start worrying about why everybody is missing 38, loose confidence, and miss the pass. Alternatively, if you're skiing in MM and everybody is making 38, you may have the mentality that if everybody is making it, then I can do it too. My point is, it's way to difficult to equate scores fairly for a single event like slalom even if the rules are the same.

 

There is another option. Why not let people qualified for Open or Masters in one event ski in all 3 events for overall if they want? To me, that seems like the easiest solution and may encourage more overall skiing at the Masters and Open divisions. I know of one MM slalom skier that would have skied MM trick and jump for an overall placement if he was allowed. Right now at nationals there is nobody in the MM jump division and only 3 people in MM trick. Would the trickers mind if there was another skier in their division to ski against who was there mainly for an overall score? I wouldn't think so.

[MrJones]

I'm not sure how it would be implemented, but it really seems that an ability based set up (for everyone) would be better.