Supplement to the promo boat poll...

[Wish]

@OB1 I'd actually like to see them go tawards rankings. What you have described is some folks coming over for the day or a club with a bunch of paying skiers or a "Fun" class tournament. We have those. No point in allowing PP if it does not count. Now, I'd say an asterisk may be needed next to the name in that class C score and perhaps a 1 buoy penalty. As for level playing field I have not heard anyone argue the fact the PP is far from well...perfect and I fully agree accept for Clasic PP. I believe the argument is the steady decline of tournament participants and the lagging promo boatt market. Add in the rule(s) that you have to have a certain ZO boat or fill out paper work for an exemption seems limiting. As said, a PP boat may never get used and good for that but why restrict them. Yes this could be a slippery slope and one has to create a bottom limit but it seems that if there is a need and the bottom does not drop to hand throttling, I still can't see the down side to allowing access if the demand is there. Have no idea if it is. But ya never know, a sliding scale boat rule could actually drum up some more and NEW tournaments across the country. How cool would that be. That's more $s coming into the AWSA. Once you start down a path of hosting one, odds are you'll try and make the next one better..better divers, better judges, better boats and so on. Your tournaments are a testsamate to steady improvement. But you're well connected. Have access to newer boats through clubs. Now if none of that was available, but there were skiers wanting to participate, help host and start something good, wouldn't you want better access through less limitations?

[Roger]

They (ZO) upped the gate speed a couple of years after inception to more closely match the PP system as that was the most common complaint they got. If I watch the speed at the gates when set for 34.2 (2016 Prostar), I usually see 34.7 on average. The original system was near 34.2 at the gates and many skiers with PP systems in their boats were missing the gates due to this.

 

Getting consistent times with PP Classic requires a driver that understands both the skier he/she is pulling and the wind conditions. There are many drivers that simply cannot handle it...

[LeonL]

@Roger kinda what I said about PP Classic on page one of this thread. You're right, some drivers can't handle it, but should be able to if they apply full attention to what they're doing.

[Wish]

@OB1 I'll be glad to pull you with some of those 17.10's for practice....COME ON DOWN.. B)

[RazorRoss3]

If I'm at a tournament I want to have confidence in my speed control. I have skied PP classic, and stargazer, and ZBox, and unless they are perfectly calibrated I do not have that confidence. I go to tournaments to compete against my best and raise my average so for my purposes I want ZO in any tournament I attend.

[Wish]

@RazorRoss3 That's perfect for you and you should. Skip all and any tournaments with PP or older boats with ZO or a brand you don't care for or what every reason you may have. That's the great thing about sports that include vs exclude based on availability...you get to choose. Right now, there may be skiers that do not have a choice and choose to not participate based on a whole host of things. Or sight that would like to have a tournament but not have access to what your needs are. Why should they be excluded?

[RazorRoss3]

@wish, the only reason I could think of that isn't "wah, I don't like older speed controls, waaaaah!" is for the sake of the rankings books. So ignoring the people who simply don't want to ski tournaments behind non-ZO boats I think the only real reason would be for the sake of the rankings/record books. On that I can site two possible problems.

 

1. PP classic: PP classic almost certainly has a wider course time variance than ZO, so if you were to get lucky and have planned your hardest pass for a head wind and get a boat time at the extreme slow end of tolerance behind PP and run it, that is not fair to the skier who set their hardest pass up in the headwind behind ZO and got a perfect boat time to the .01 and missed. The solution would be to not have the scores entered or for them not to count towards the ranking list.

 

2. Older boats: At the decade plus end of older boats you start losing horse power to the point where a big skier can quite literally slow the boat down. @Razorskier1 and @6balls can comment further on that. Again, a boat that you can slow down could potentially give you a very slow but just within tolerance boat time which is an unfair advantage to skiers who were at tournaments with a ZO boat with 350+ horse power that they cannot slow down. Again the solution would be to not have the scores entered or for them not to count towards the ranking list but still show up.

 

I can understand the problem with having difficulty getting current boats to a tournament, like I said earlier, we had to fight with that problem at Iowa every tournament we hosted. But that unfortunate situation should not disadvantage skiers who go to tournaments that happen to have access to ZO boats. So I'm ok I guess with older and PP boats being used but it should have to be disclosed in the sanction and the scores, if entered into the rankings list, should not be able to count towards the national ranking.

[Wish]

@RazorRoss3 read my prev posts. I suggested a 1 buoy penalty. Or something along those lines as I agree. But the entire idea is pointless unless it counts for something. Somewhere.

[LeonL]

@OB1 , 17.10 would be legal in a C if inadvertent. If intentional it becomes illegal.

[harddock]

just an opinion and suggestion. AWSA dictates the specs for a tournament boat. Length, power, etc, and each mfg make only 1 model promo boat. Testing would be less $$ and consistency might be better. Mfg's can still offer similar but different variations, like open bow, power options, towers and other upgrades to the public. Making several different models is highly unnecessary just for tournament skiing.

[jdarwin]

@RazorRoss3 - there are current National records on the books that were pulled by Perfect Pass. Should they now be disallowed? Should an asterisk be placed beside the score indicating it was set behind PP?

[Wish]

Good point @jdarwin. I'd like to see that list. There has to be a bunch if u include State and Reg records.

[RazorRoss3]

@Jdarwin, I see your point and certainly those scores should not be nulled out, they were put up when everyone was skiing PP and if you put up a score 10 years ago that holds today, well done. But time is a variable that we have no control over. I can't change that we used PP back then or that we use ZO now. Outside of some rare circumstances related to boat availability that @wish has delved into I don't believe that the norm should be to have a system that is no longer widely used in tournaments re-introduced. The last thing we need in this sport is more variables.

 

 

[jdarwin]

@RazorRoss3 - I agree 100%. But, when you speak of rankings list, consider that ANY IWWF event can be pulled using Perfect Pass. So, is it fair for skiers in the US to compete for placement on a world rankings list with skiers using Perfect Pass?

[RazorRoss3]

@Jdarwin, you will have to excuse a slight lack of knowledge regarding IWWF/world rankings list. Do you need to ski IWWF to get placed on the world rankings list? Do my usa waterski scores count towards that? I simply don't know. My initial thoughts are that if IWWF can use perfect pass and only IWWF scores go in the world record book then everyone is playing by the same rules and they all know them so while I'm not a fan of PP in tournaments I don't believe it is unfair if the rule is established. If IWWF scores are directly compared to usa waterski scores and the IWWF was pulled by PP then no, I do not believe that is a fair comparison as I have said in my back and forth with @wish about maybe a PP deduction. I remain against the wide spread re-instatement of PP/Stargazer/ZBox into the tournament setting because I believe ZO gives the best and most consistent ski ride and on account of that should pull the vast majority of events.

 

I do have another question in addition to my two above; how many IWWF events are actually pulled by PP boats? How many events attended by skiers in meaningful positions on the world rankings list are pulled by PP boats? My reason is that if it's in the rules but never happens does it matter that it's in the rules?

 

 

[Kelvin]

Just looked at the latest 25 or so Dossiers for the Class L/R tournaments on the IWSF website. All were pulled with Zero Off. Most were version R, but some were version Q and some were unknown.

[jdarwin]

@Kelvin - I wasn't saying PP is widely used. My point was that it "could" be used to pull an L/R event. In fact, a world record could be set behind a 1997 SN using Perfect Pass anywhere in the world....except the US. My point in stating this is to show the higher (expensive) standards we are held to in the US simply because of sponsorship dollars funneled to USAWS.

[klindy]

Zero Off and PP are listed in the IWWF rule book. The written rules regarding speed control systems are more prescriptive in nature and recognize "two major manufacturers" (without name). However there is an extensive table outlining the acceptable parameters for both ZO and PP (by name).

 

Important to note however the IWWF rules are fundamentally different than AWSA rules in that they are largely written to accommodate the various "World Championship" tournaments - Junior, Open, Under 17, Under 21, 35+, etc. That's important because even though there are two acceptable speed control systems noted in the rules, the tournament must announce which system and version will be used for the tournament.

 

Likewise, the tow boat rules (both AWSA and IWWF) require that at least two boats are available in case of a breakdown. There are specific rules in each event section as well as some general rules. There are some exceptions but generally speaking you need two.

 

Couple that with site prep, I wouldn't want to have to have the slalom course set up to use magnets (PP Classic) and deal with the extra overhead.

 

Advancements in programming and setup are pretty consistent so I'm struggling to allow any and every possible speed control system. It seems for consistency sake and for fair competition, it may be that using the latest and greatest may be the most pragmatic option. Of course we can always amend our system/rules to include some kind of declaration of what will be used at any particular tournament (especially Class E and above).

 

Also note that for Class L and above tournaments now (@RazorRoss3 - Class L and above are required for your score to hit the IWWF ranking list) the TC is required to post the speed control system used for the tournament. I've never, ever seen a tournament where more than one system was in use.

[MillerTime38]

@RazorRoss3 I guess I don't understand why you would not want the scores to count toward the rankings list. The purpose of allowing PP to pull a class C tournament would be to improve participation at tournaments and get more people attending tournaments which would help grow the sport. the mindset of "It has to be ZO pulling tournaments" is the same mindset that has made this sport exclusive as opposed to inclusive. Could some drivers "cheat" and pull boat times on the slow end of tolerance, sure, but I have also ridden in the boat during a tournament where the driver does not fully engage ZO and ZO chirps the whole way down the lake letting the driver know it needs more throttle. Is this considered cheating? Or what about drivers that will give their buddy a little weave?

[RazorRoss3]

@MillerTime38, I understand what you're saying but the idea of ZO in tournaments being the factor that limits participation in our sport is something I disagree with. What's limiting participation is the extreme difficulty of gaining access to water and a slalom course. The sports problem is the inability to help young skiers get on the water before they lose interest. Collegiate skiing participation grew last year, most of them are unable to continue participating after graduation.

 

As for record books, older boats and boats with PP can have potential advantages because they can potentially give slow but in tolerance boat times that could yield additional buoys that would not have been skied behind ZO and high horsepower boats. So I'm ok with a penalty on PP scores like there are when you haven't skied 3 tournaments. But of the question is inclusiveness and accessibility, this is not our problem. Our problem is access to practice water.

[Razorskier1]

Ya, I don't think the speed control system is what limits participation. It's access and money. This sport is expensive. Need a boat and course access -- boats are expensive, and courses have largely been relegated to private sites. Skis and other equipment alone can run easily into the few thousand dollars. Tournament skiing is no longer a sport for the masses. Not sure how you solve it, but to me it is a problem with a large economic component.

[MillerTime38]

@RazorRoss3 and @Razorskier1 how many more people would host tournaments if they did not have to find a promo boat or a boat that fit into the AWSA requirements? The over regulating from AWSA is what kills the sport. More tournaments = more opportunities to attract new blood into the sport.

 

Why does everyone think ZO is so much more difficult than PP? I have trained behind perfect pass for 10 years and been ranked in the top 15 in M2 a lot of those years and even got on the podium at nationals a couple times. My practice PB with PP is 1/2 buoy better than my tournament PB with ZO and I have WAY more sets behind PP

 

 

 

 

[Horton]

@MillerTime38 Maybe is is a bigger deal at 55k. I can overpower a Perfect Pass boat and run passes I would never run behind a ZO boat.

 

The think most 55k skiers would agree that Perfect Pass is easier to muscle through. More technical skiing maybe favors ZO.

 

To me it is for sure not all the same. With PP times may or may not be exact.

[MillerTime38]

@Horton I will find out next year what 55K is like and have heard people say that it is a different animal when making the jump between PP and ZO. Agreed that times will have more variance with PP, but lets remember we are talking about class C tournaments here. Not Records or Regionals or Nationals. If a driver cannot get the times close to actual than get another driver in the seat. If someone wants to go ski only class C tourneys with PP because they feel they can inflate their average on the rankings list, I say go for it who really cares. If it helps get more people skiing tournaments and participating than that is the goal, right?

 

[Horton]

I think there are a few totally separate issues that are in conflict.

 

Allowing PP boats means lower cost of entry to the sport and more access. That is a good thing at a time when participation is down so far.

 

The flip side is standardization. The rankings list is only valid if we all ski under the same rules and standards.

 

I do not think we can have it both ways. ZO has been in all new boats since 2008 so the cost of a used ZO boat is not as ridiculous as it was 5 years ago. I am conflicted because I want to see new skier train behind a 15K PP boat and then be able post legit scores in tournaments but I just do not see how that happens.

 

It is sort of a slippery slope. Currently some skiers travel to ELR events to get the best drivers, judging and the most legitimacy. If we went back to allowing PP would some skiers flock to events where the boat times are at the bottom of the tolerance? Next thing is ropes as long as possible, balls as narrow as possible and boat paths that look like the snake river? I am just saying that standards are what makes the rankings list interesting.

[Wish]

Pot stirring; I think there is to big of a span between an F tournament..counts for nothing no where and is essentially meaningless and a class C..goes in the books for all to see always. That's a big leap from F to C. Should there maybe be a class "D" ?? Something maybe in between where there are rules, regulations and accountability but not as much as a C. The scores DO go in the books but have penalties. PP and older boats can be used, single boat judge is good enough. Especially in areas willing to host one but see all the hastle in getting one going. I do see the validity in not opening up a class C to older boats as the promo teams would dry up. But the gap between a C to an F seems larger then needed.

[ToddL]

If we needed the scores from rankings to be based upon standard conditions, then a lot would have to change. I think there are many more uncontrolled variables with impact than differing speed controls. Regardless of the speed control, the pull has to be in tolerance when all is said and done.

 

What about water temp/sediment, lake depth, rollers/shoreline condition, wind levels/direction, whitecaps to ripple, length of season/geographic location benefits? All of these affect the scores de jour or the skiers. Maybe the elite skiers can be unwavered by those variables, but I believe they are real and mortal skiers who train at and compete at certain sites have an advantage and others have a disadvantage.

 

I bet that analytics would show that on average some sites produce better scores than others for like-for-like level ranked/skilled skiers. Should scores from those sites be adjusted to normalize against that one site that skis like crap? Standardization could get out of hand.

 

My point is that if the tolerances are good enough, then any current or formerly approved boat with a vaiable speed control which can meet the tolerance should be allowed.

[bkreis]

I'd be curious to know how many M4 skiers on the ranking list train using perfect pass todays world.

[ToddL]

@bkreis make a poll.

 

Suggested answer options:

I'm a Mens skier aged 45-60 and train more than 50% time behind hand driven, no speed control

I'm a Mens skier aged 45-60 and train more than 50% time behind PP Classic

I'm a Mens skier aged 45-60 and train more than 50% time behind PP StarGazer

I'm a Mens skier aged 45-60 and train more than 50% time behind PP SG with Z Box

I'm a Mens skier aged 45-60 and train more than 50% time behind ZO

I'm not a Mens skier 45-60 and train behind ZO

I'm not a Mens skier 45-60 and train behind something other than ZO

 

With those options, everyone can participate in the poll but you will get your target audience (plus M5) and more specific details on type of control. Since some skiers train but don't compete, by listing the age range, the non-competitive skiers will know they are the target scope.

 

 

[Horton]

I just did it made it super simple.

[MillerTime38]

@Horton I do not think it is as slippery of a slope as you are stating. Why does everyone think that if PP is used at tournaments all the times will be on the low side of tolerance? It has been a while, but it seemed like a lot of boat times were on the hotter side of tolerance because drivers took pride in being able to get actual times and not being "that guy" that drove on the low side of tolerance.

 

 

 

[ToddL]

Maybe I got off focus, but I thought part of this discussion was an assumption that ZO control requirement was limiting tournament offerings and participation. If that is indeed a question we are wanting to verify or investigate, then wouldn't a poll need to allow for non-competitive skiers to participate? Aren't they the audience we want to understand better? As such, wouldn't those skiers lack a ranking list score (regardless of skill level)? Horton's poll is meaningful. Not saying otherwise. I just think there is even more to learn from a larger/different audience.

[Horton]

@ToddL in the time it took you to write your last post you could have created a pole

[Horton]

@MillerTime38 I agree with your point.

 

I am biased because I believe that if I go to a tournament perfect pass I'm going to run like 3 more balls than usual.

 

If I'm wrong in my negative attitude towards perfect pass it is better for the sport. The waterski world would be a better place if everybody's boat cost less an old boats were just as valid as new ones.

 

I just have trouble believing that somebody running the same score as me except I ski ZO and they are perfect pass is really equal. We currently have a super narrow standard and it just makes me nervous do you have various standards.

[Wish]

@Horton but, as stated in some posts, so what if let's say 2 balls were knocked off that score as a penalty for that "easier" ride? Since the start of ZO I've always skied PP 95% of the time. Pretty much hung around the 100 buoy average in rankings doing so. I may be an anomaly and I get that but we are talking access. More tournaments. More involvement in them. No idea of having a class "D" or just opening things up to PP (with penalty) based on demographics would garnish one single competitor or tournament above what we have now. Just have not heard of a better plan to entice competitors to tournaments or for new tournaments to come on board.

[Horton]

@wish that whole concept is just too messy in my opinion. Way way way too many shades of grey. I'd rather see perfect pass used straight up than do that.

[Horton]

I haven't read every word of this entire thread so I don't know if this is already been mentioned but for a new skier in the sport all the way up to around 32 off I do agree the difference between zero off and perfect pass is far less critical.

[RazorRoss3]

Making tournament rules more lax will not grow the sport. The number of people skiing I'm a course that don't ski tournaments is very small and allowing PP boats to drive is not going to be there determining factor. Collegiate skiers don't drop out of the sport because there aren't enough tournaments but because there isn't a way to get on the water on a budget. More clubs need to allow for memberships and club dues should be put towards club boats. If you want sport growth, you need to do something to get the next generation of the sport some water time.

[MillerTime38]

@RazorRoss3 no one said make the rules more "lax". So all the tournaments pre-ZO were lax?

 

So you and I both run 35 off and both times are 16.08 since you ran it behind a boat that cost 40,000 more than the boat I skied behind your score is better and my score is more lax? Sounds like an elitist

[RazorRoss3]

@MillerTime38, how is using an out of date speed control not a relaxing of the rules? As @horton has said, PP boats and older boats can be "pulled down" by the skier. The same score behind a PP boat and a ZO boat, neither are lax, however the two skiers are not playing the same game.

 

To the question of elitist, I'll admit I take some offense to that. I grew up on public water, until 2014 my practice boat was an '05 Mastercraft with Stargazer/Zbox. In college the Iowa team skied a public river, with a course that had warped arms from the current, and over inflated buoys because of how much the water height fluctuated. I have always skied any boat, any course, and on any water but I believe that tournaments should be pulled by the most current speed control technology. I would gladly ski an '08 anything with ZO in a tournament and you wouldn't hear a single complaint from me, I don't think that asking for a boat made in the last 8 years is elitist.

 

If the argument is PP would grow the sport, I disagree, this isn't "if you build it they will come". If the argument is PP would allow more tournaments to be run, we don't need more tournaments, I've skied more tournament rounds than practice rounds since I've been in Texas. There is no world I can see where we are better off as a sport by using PP in tournaments. As I have said, what we need is to make a larger effort to allow access to the water.

[6balls]

...and to teach people to ski and ski better. Tourneys are the same people...need to expand that. Need to get rec skiers bit by the buoy bug. Need to get people skiing in the first place.

 

There is no way that suddenly having a hand driven or PP tourney we up the enrollment. I'm a PP skier in training, I've got some big ZO scores and PP scores...it's different. If you ski ZO all the time and come try PP it's tough and vice-versa. I'm for ZO at tourneys.

 

I'm also for clinics at tourney sites that get new people involved...not Wade Cox shows up but something for the community to grow the sport.

[The_MS]

If the GOAT would have just made a ZO 16.95 feel like a PP 16.95 there would be no problems and we would not be talking about this.

[Wish]

Still pot stirring...Lets toss this out there. Is there anyone or group that would consider hosting a NEW tournament if the regulations/requirements were relaxed a bit. Example..older boats with PP and just a boat judge to make the calls and knowing the scores would count but lets say with a 2 buoy penalty. Or perhaps a group or individual that used to hold tournaments but quit do to regulations/requirements as in no ZO promo boats available or not enough judges or cost prohibitive. Odd's are very good the cost of the tournament would be much less and perhaps entry fee also less.

 

Note: really not trying to water things down. This is NOT needed even in the slightest in FL. But elsewhere....who knows.

[The_MS]

I dont know anyone with a PP boat that would want to put 6-8 hours on it in 2 days.

[Razorskier1]

@MS - I'd bring you a ZO boat if you were in a pinch.

[skierjp]

If you want to have a tournament with PP go ahead but it should no way count for any scores on the ranking list. I still don't think this is the problem with tournament entries. Here in Florida most all the events have a waiting list. I really don't think with the level of skier that we are talking about are worried about a ranking list or the Nationals. Remember, the INT? This is something on the order that Wish is thinking. As far as I know it has flopped. I think the real issue is access to slalom courses! Has anyone tried to get a permit lately? Upkeep on a course on public water can be a nightmare. Even if you have a course on a public lake your ski time is limited due to fishermen and jet skis. No one ever said this is a affordable sport.

Also, if you want a Promo Boat at your event it really should be listed in the Regional Guide! 2 weeks notice that you're having a tournament anytime after Nationals is not good. We are looking for a few good Team Members.

[dave2ball]

skierjp is correct. Getting access to a course and then securing a permit can be challenging. Permits are hard if not impossible to get now a days. It took me over a year and a bunch of red tape alone with a friend who know how to answer questions and give them what they are looking for.

 

 

 

[BraceMaker]

That's a huge place where USA waterski needs to be representing skiers. State by State USA waterski needs to be lobbying and educating DNR/State lawmakers for course access.

 

In re: perfect pass and tournaments - I think the only way the pull is going to become similar to ZO is through development - I think if the force was there (legality in rule book) then the compliance would follow.

[dave2ball]

@BraceMaker PP can or will only develop so much. They have not had a peice of the new boat market since 09. It just happen to that MC had both systems I'm there boats in 08. With the older boats getting up there in hours soon PP may not be around much longer. The owner of an older boat will do one of 2 things. A new motor which will include ZO or a newer boat that will have ZO already in it.

[elr]

Just tighten the tolerances to what ZO typically runs + or - .03.