Rankings vs Ratings, how has rankings killed the sport?

[JeffSurdej]

I often hear that rankings has been the downfall of AWSA? I came into the sport in 1993 when we had ratings. And to be quite frank I do not know how ratings was more competitive than rankings. I totally get it from a nationals qualifications standpoint and not knowing when you will be qualified, I get that and agree. But outside of that , couldn't one argue that rankings has allowed skiers to be competitive across the nation every weekend, couldn't one argue that it may be the only thing we have left to hand on to, the one thing that encourages skiers to ski each weekend and move up the rankings?

[Horton]

@JeffSurdej I think the problem is that a rankings list culture diminishes competition at the day of the event. Personally I go to tournaments solely to post scores to the rankings list. Sadly that is also driven by the fact that there is so little competitive skiing in So Cal. I am 6 balls ahead or behind most of the guys locally. We are in sad shape out here.

 

To me it is water under the bridge and now the world we live in. We live in the age of the internet so as much as I am not sure it is the best thing we are a rankings list sport.

[aupatking]

Being a guy newly on the list, I like it. I want to see how far I can move up this year.

[lpskier]

If there are only a few folks in your division, it's the ranking list that makes tournament skiing interesting. Slalom is one story, maybe, but trick and jump is fifferent. M6 jump is an example.

 

There are 24 M6 jumpers in the country, two in the East and only me in NY. I have really one shot all year to compete for placement other than for first or second, and that's Nationals. With the ranking list I have completion every time I go to a tournament.

 

If we were grouped based on ability, we have a total of 34 men's jumpers in the East, M1-M7. If I was grouped with everyone that has a ranking list score within 15 feet one way or the other of me, the group region-wide would have 11 skiers, so at least Regionals would be interesting, but on the other hand six of the 11 would be aged 34 or less (Corey Vaughn being one) and they would really feel discouraged if they took an ass pounding from a guy that's 60. ;-)

 

Other than States, Regionals and Nationals, there are no prizes for "winning." I've said this before that I always keep track of who skis about like I do at a tournament and keep mental track of how I'm doing against "the competition." Unless there are awards, what's the point of placement except at the "Big Three?"

 

So bottom line for me: I like the ranking list.

[Texas6]

I think Horton nailed it. Rankings work great in lieu of a competitive local tournament. Optimally winning your age group against other age group competitors in a local tournament would be the goal. But today, that format is called regionals and nationals, as that's really the only tournament that brings enough age group competition. I don't think rankings have hurt anything, and I think they can co-exist with local format changes. But bringing real competition back to class c would improve the local format. Even if that means competing against other age group members around the country at different tournaments at different lakes on the same day. Now it's not only about rankings (and I do ski for a ranking), I'm still competing that day and there is a winner.

[6balls]

I'm no longer a young dude...but I'm relative young compared to the larger skiing demographic just older than me. With that, I remember being the only one or one of two skiers in M1 and M2 a lot of the time. "Hey, I won the state title" "Really, how many skiers did you compete against?" "Well, one and he wasn't any good...the only other good guy in my division didn't show or I would have taken second".

In years where I ski enough tourneys, I like seeing the rankings and where I fit. It sets goals for me, too, ie) maintain a tourney avg over 100.

[sunperch]

I like the rankings list. I compete against myself and trying to move up on the list, even if it is only 1-2 places. I love the rankings list for the kids. It allows them to see where they stand and is a great motivator for them . Even over the winter, my kids access the rankings list on their own to set goals for themselves for the upcoming season. Seeing someone else jump up the list also works as a little kick in the pants for them to try a little harder.

[RazorRoss3]

As I have said in other discussions, I didn't compete against another M1 skier all season last year except at my old college team's summer tournament but I beat all the M1 skiers there with my opener so it doesn't really count. The ranking list is nice because it lets me see how I stack up against other M1 skiers I know and who I am competitive with but we just don't end up at the same events very often. It was also fun this year since I was able to join the 100 buoy average club for the first time.

[JeffSurdej]

@OB1 Ability based divisions is definitely something we are looking at, its being tested this summer, we have come up with 13 ability based divisions vs our current 34 age divisions thus hopefully increasing competition and #'s per division. Barefoot just changed to ABD for m1-m6, juniors and older are still age based. I agree that we need ABD for level 6 and under for sure. my wife runs 2 buoys, and she gets put in a division with kelly Zoellner and brandy nagle, so guess what she does on weekends? sits on shore b/c she is not going out there against 35 off.

 

I'm curious on class D, why not just make class C an easier , less officiated, inexpensive class?

 

I'm also curious on your current class c expenses, in my LOC experience the sanction fee is a small small portion of expenses, are you paying your appointed and chiefs to come? I find more expenses in porta johns, lunches, gas, club members that ski free, awards.

 

 

[disland]

@JeffSurdej class D or class C call it anything you want. Your right sanction fee is not my problem. Its the hassles I want to eliminate. At our lake we would have at least 3 more tournaments a year if I didnt have to worry about rounding up officials and computers and so on. Then I have to try and juggle the officials and drivers so they can ski and not get burned out in a boat or tower all day.

 

All I need is;

 

1. Scores count on the ranking list to qualify for Nationals and so on

2. Promo boat owners get credit.

 

Done

[John Brooks]

I like what @OB1 & @disland mention. For a Class C or D, whatever you call it, at least in slalom, just put someone in the boat, 16 or older, to count buoys and be an observer and let the skier submit their own scores online. Use that system to qualify for your regionals and nationals.

 

As far as record tours, let those only apply toward world rankings. Record tours would count the same as class C toward nationals.

[Jody_Seal]

Rankings is a good gauge for competition purposes and for skiers to understand and better their capabilities and performances. However where the rankings has been a problem and has actually caused a small number of skiers to withdraw from AWSA is the floating number needed for qualification to championship's, State , Regional and National. Make the cut off percentage the day after the national championships skiers will know what they need to do to make qualification rather then the floating number. Skiers will be able to better make plans to attend the Championship events with their respective family's in tow.

 

I know there will be lots of disagreement on this side but there is a difference between a homologated class REL tournament and a class C. Did some research with Slalom skiers that skied both class C and record , in some age groups there was as much as 3.5 buoy difference between Class C and REL with the better scores in the class C Tournaments. One can even see where the better scores were established geographically speaking. I and many other's are of the firm belief that Class C Slalom scores are a bit inflated VS the Class ELR Scores, However this was not the case with Trick and Jump. Again make qualification score effective the day after nationals and nobody cares about the inflated scores then it is only down to seeding at the championship events..

 

Inclusion rather then exclusion should at the for front of this sport!

[MattP]

I am in the boat of @RazorRoss3. I entered M2 after Nationals this past year. I will be the only M2 skier in my state and will more than likely not ski against anyone in my division unless I attend Regionals or Nationals. For me the Ranking list is what I am skiing against every weekend. I am usually one of the only guys skiing 36 too. So I cant even compare my self against another division at the same event. I would say the rankings list is keeping M1 & M2 skiing alive. Note: I never skied during the time of ratings.

[skiinxs]

+1 on reducing the judging requirements for a class C. At my lake, I pretty much have to set up for an ELR to run a C, as there is no easy place for judges towers. It is easier to utilize telemetry boat video and video gates than to try to construct some temporary judges towers. Since that is already set up, I might as well add end course video and record all to a DVR to provide some good driving feedback. This is one of the reasons I went ahead and sanctioned as an ELR last year. All of this hassle and the work involved in securing officials for the CELR last year is the reason I haven't sanctioned a tournament this year (yet... still considering). Last year I set a pull limit, allowed entries considerably above my pull limit, and didn't quite get it all in due to 5 1/2 inches of rain that weekend. I even had a waiting list with over 40 pulls that I could not get to, so the demand was certainly there. If I could to it much simpler, I would be much more likely to do it again.

[gt2003]

I agree with @OB1 on ability based Class D events. Sounds like when I used to shoot skeet. I was in my 20's and could very well be paired with others in their 30's, 40's, 50's and 60's (if not older). It provided good competition and the camaraderie was still there. I'd be much more likely to jump in to a tournament, even if I was only running 4-5 buoys at 15 off provided I knew I had the chance to be competitive and even win the division if I had a good day on the water.

[brettmainer]

I like the rankings list for all of the above stated reasons. I don't like that I am currently looking up at @Horton on said list.

I liked having the cut off for an Open, EP, Masters be a fixed score subject to annual readjustment. I don't like the percentile deal, although it does encourage getting new people involved in the sport. If I can get 1000 new people worse than me in the men's divisions, I can get a MM rating without actually having to improve myself.

[ToddL]

Crazy thought... Why not do both?

 

Establish a performance level for Nationals qualification.

Continue the current rankings list math.

HIDE the rankings of any skier who has qualified for nationals.

Those trying to move up from the bottom still get the cool factor of seeing their efforts in context.

Those who have qualified will have to attend and compete to see who wins bragging rights.

[Dirt]

+1 for Jody and Brettmainer with the rating/cutoff set and not floating. I have heard this so many times and it is another example of an obvious problem that never gets solved. Probably due to bureaucracy.

[bojans]

Slightly off topic on ratings, but the mention of the class d type tournament may get our club back in the tournament game. We used to host one 3 event tournament per year, always had a great turnout. We stopped having tournaments for a few reasons, getting enough officials was difficult, there was a lot of planning and work, other members with no interest in tournament skiing didn't want to give the lake up for a whole day. Lessen the officials requirement, make sanctioning easier and I could see our club hosting some slalom only tournaments. If it were easy enough I think having an afternoon tournament, maybe 40 pulls and end with drinks and some burgers would be a great way to grow the sport and get together with fellow skiers.

[ForrestGump]

DING DING DING! We have a winner! Why limit entries to whatever that floating number is? If the qualification is 3@35 off and 70 people qualify, so be it. Let them pay their entry if they want to come. Who cares if they got it at a C and were seeded a few higher at regionals and nationals than they would have been if they got it at a ELR. They still have to perform at the national stage like everyone else. I've been one of those people knocked out at the last week before because the score moved. If it were a set score, me and a few more people would have come that year.

[sunperch]

@ToddL So if I qualify for Nationals, then I don't get to see how high (or low) I am in the Level 8 rankings list?????? What does that accomplish? I think if you have worked hard enough to be Level 8, then you are probably a pretty competitive person and will continue to strive to improve and will still want to monitor the rankings list.

[ToddL]

@sunperch - one of the arguments against the ranking list is that since it exists, the top skiers do not attend nationals to find out who really is the best. That's the reasoning behind killing it. But, others benefit from it.

 

I get what you are saying. Whenever, I see an "either or" question, I always challenge the presumption that they can't coexist.

[eleeski]

I was strongly opposed to the use of rankings for qualification. But the reality of how rankings were applied has quieted my fears. Not a perfect system but workable.

 

In reference to the title of the thread, Rankings vs Ratings has had no effect on the health of the sport. TV poker, video games and public water restrictions are damaging the sport. Other sports are suffering more. Thanks Jeff and the others at AWSA for keeping us afloat.

 

Eric

[unksskis]

Ranking list has done a great job at keeping it competitive among the top level skiers, although it does make it less intriguing to ski local/State competitions other than for needed rankings scores. Bottom line, as has been said, it moved the competition to be more online, outside of attending Nationals. Plus you know where you sit, so maybe less likely to take a shot at going to a bigger tournament. I still think it's much better than ratings, and is more reflective of what other sports utilize.

 

One thing I would like to note, couldn't help but notice when the Rankings list leaders were published in the magazine the other month, Pro skiers, like Nate Smith, won our amateur divisions EOY Rankings. How is that promoting anything encouraging?

[BRY]

I am one who likes the ranking list. Actually I have friends all over the country and it allows us to compete with one another. I find it inspiring and humbling at the same time. I do not see it as a downside to AWSA at all, but a strength.

Concur with those pro comments above.

 

 

[klindy]

@BRY how do you "compete" with friends all over the country via the ranking list?

[unksskis]

@klindy when there is no competition at the local tournament, you go on and see how you did compared to your fellow skiers/friends, being a small sport, you're usually friends with most of your competitors. It also helps gauge how you may be progressing compared to others you are familiar with.

[JackQ]

Before, many were concerned that EP qualifications were ruining the sport, and ranking lists were designed to help improve competition. Everyone is different, but I am interested in my ranking and what I need to improve, but at a tournament I strive to beat everyone in my division and all the other 34mph divisions. Unfortunately I more often that not fail to meet that objective.

[BRY]

@klindy I believe class C and above are homogenized enough that scores at different tournaments are equivalent. So we compete on who has more buoy's on the ranking list. Easy, don't have to be in same physical location. Works across Divisions for us, all 55K.

[Kelvin]

Its been said before, but I believe we could have the best of both worlds by moving the cut-off-date to the week before the previous year's nationals. That way, you know exactly what you have to do for the entire season without having the rug pulled out from under you late in the season.

[Horton]

@BRY well that is the rub. There always stories about stretching the rules at some sites. If we compete across the country then we all must absolutely must follow the rules the same way.

[JeffSurdej]

@Horton anyone know how golf does it where people can enter practice scores? is that just to get thier handicap or are they competing against other golfers in the nation each round they play?

[Jody_Seal]

@Horton

Exactly! To much funny business and more then most realize. And it runs deeper then most realize.

So! if the cut off percentage date is the day after nationals the funny business does not really mater as much. So what then if there are EP mills again and more skiers are qualifying and paying their entry's to regionals and nationals. These skiers know what they are up against when they enter the big shows, no funny business just a straight up event but they got there!

strange in another Thread "We Need Members"!! Deregulate, make it more inclusive and less Anal and we will get members to participate. After all! All a skier wants is to ski and participate. Most all of us are participants and not spectators!

Other wise keep it status quo and watch the membership continue to dwindle or watch skiers regroup and proceed to try and start something anew outside of AWSA!

[klindy]

@JeffSurdej As you know I've recommended we find a way to enter practice scores on the ranking list. What we do with them or how is something we can discuss and debate. Here's everything you wanted to know about golf handicap scores.

 

We also discussed how to add relevance to scores from Regionals and Nationals (and perhaps other tournaments) on the ranking list. As a start, I suggest we basically have 3 columns - Practice, Class C and below and ELR scores. We already have a column for Regionals and Nationals placement (not sure why but its ok).

 

Once we have 3 columns of scores we can see trends, make comparisons and potentially compile some kind of combined score. I've worked on various weighting schemes and it's difficult but it's possible to come up with something as long as the "core" scores aren't lost in the mix.

 

For slalom it's pretty easy as long as there are some kind of honor system rules to entering them. Obviously they don't have the weight or significance of a score from Nationals or wherever but they do have some value. For tricks, it would be very cool to post a video online and have other judge it for you. Take the score after 5 judge the pass and post it as a practice score. It would be GREAT judging practice, it would allow for a lot of tricks to be captured on video and has potential to be great fun for those who participate. For jump it's a bit more difficult obviously, but maybe there's some possible solution.

 

Anyway, what we'd gain (even if just for slalom) is data. Capture the skier, location/lake, and score. That data can be used for all kind of potential competitive uses - virtual competition, handicap schemes/systems, etc.

 

It's out of the box, it's different. What's to lose?

[Kelvin]

@klindy I like it.

[klindy]

I personally believe that because the ranking list is dynamic and literally up to date daily, it reduces the need to show up to see how you would stack up against others on the list. Granted any skier can potentially beat any other skier on a given day, but it allows all of us to rationalize whether it's worth the effort of showing up.

 

If someone is perpetually ranked 15th or lower on the M4 slalom ranking list, what potential does that person really have to win M4 slalom at nationals? However, in the ratings era, you may know of 8-10 people who are above you on the list, you may even know who moved into or out of your divisions this year but you had little idea of how they were skiing (and they had little idea on how you were skiing). When you showed up at Nationals the first thing was to see how you were seeded which typically started to 'sorting' process on where you think you needed to ski to get on the podium and who you'd have to beat. It might of even made you ask questions about the "new guy" who you hadn't heard of or who was never seeded that high before. Point is you had zero clue until you ACTUALLY showed up! With the ranking list you can probably predict where you'll be seeded and probably be pretty close on who will be on the podium just by checking in online anytime after Regionals.

 

That said, the ranking list has value and is a good thing. That it can be updated virtually in real time is great for tracking purposes but I think it diminishes the competitiveness. What concerns me is we have a ranking list that can be updated daily yet we only update or adjust the ranking list level thresholds annually AND a full 8 months AFTER the calendar year has ended. The threshold adjustments which were technically approved at this last board meeting based on the 2016 calendar year data wont go into effect until AFTER the 2017 Nationals. Why is it we can't make those adjustments much more concurrently to the actual performances on the water?! This can be especially important for 3 event skiers and is impacted when a strong skier moves into an older division.

[Jody_Seal]

Great Keith lets convolute this even more!! That's going to grow membership For sure!!

[klindy]

@Jody_Seal convoluted how? By adding practice scores?

[walleye]

@JeffSurdej If more attendance is what you want then let everyone ski Regional /Nationals with no qualification. You can always bring qualification back if needed.

 

Not sure this will help but if anyone wants to go they can. I will count for one that would attend nationals.

 

 

[MattP]

@walleye before we do that. We need to figure out the purpose of Nationals. Is it a festival for the masses or an elite championship like the European Championships where there is a team and individual event where skiers are sent from their respective states. If we want to grow the sport personally I believe that States should be a required event to ski Nationals and Regionals should go by the wayside. It's too expensive too close to Nationals to make it a requirement. I'm off topic now. @JeffSurdej should we start a thread on the purpose of Nationals?

[walleye]

@mattP we have already made nationals a festival by letting people qualify 3 event overall. Look at the rankings list of people that qualify tricking and jumping. To me Nationals is a place for elite skiing not side slides & 40 foot jumps. Slalom is the most competitive but overlooked in the Midwest Region. I have kids that are one event slalom. They have brought home National metals, Regional metals and best slalom skier in their division. Yet cannot make the Midwest Junior Team because they do not 3 event.

 

To the point of the thread the cutoff for jump and trick are way to easy killing the ability to have elite skiing at Nationals. Embarrassing watching old men jump 40 foot and kids with 1000 dollar skis doing side slides. The Rankings list is great but should NOT grade on a curve when the curve dips below par.

[teammalibu]

Got 3@39 in practice last nite and then I woke up!

[jcamp]

If we can just enter practice scores, why ever go to a tournament?

[BRY]

@Horton Yes, "There always stories about stretching the rules at some sites." Some are probably true. But what I have experienced and choose to believe (perhaps head in the sand) is that most are on the up and up, people trying to do it right. I do not believe the sport is rife with cheating, though I am sure a few do. Knowing my friends I believe they don't and they would shut down any crap they see, we are all officials. So matching my scores against theirs is valid for me and works for me.

 

On that note if there actually is significant cheating going on, enough to essentially invalidate the ranking list, going to an "honor" system is better? There is a lot to do to cheat a C or better tourney. Self reporting is better?

 

My experience in competition, sports and otherwise:

-There are those who will always cheat, even if they don't need to. It's what they do. Their justifications are awesome. Their personality type (flaw).

-There are those who will cheat, even if they don't need to, if they think they can get away with it.

-There are those who will cheat if they think they can get away with it and when they see others doing it, not cheating but "part of the game".

-There are those who will not cheat.

 

There is a likelihood to get busted by an honorable person at a class C or above. Several people involved at minimum to pull it off. So risk/reward for cheaters. The Dentist great example, actually a pretty good skier but just had to cheat and took risk. For many others risk too high to cheat (humiliated, banned ect) for reward (it's just amateur skiing). Self reporting pretty much eliminates risk so many more will "inflate" their scores. Enough to my belief that the list itself becomes meaningless.

 

Back to the OP, I like the ranking list. I believe it helps greatly to keep us going and is not a detriment.

[bbirlew]

You guys are making me think about how a 'strava' for skiers might work!

[Broussard]

@walleye That is a result of more people choosing just to slalom ski instead of three eventing and sites removing their jump ramps due to maintenance costs etc. But that's a whole other issue.

[disland]

Big difference between a tournament with only a boat judge and a practice score. I am not a fan of allowing practice scores for the ranking list. I am in favor of reducing the judge, safety, scorer requirements for tournaments.

[klindy]

My recommendation was to include practice scores on the ranking list in a separate column. I'll post more details later. I am NOT a fan of a single aggregate score without some type of normalization.

 

[fu_man]

@bojans I skied that tournament and I miss it. So close to home at an awesome site with friendly people. There was a beach area for the kids to play at too so it was easier to bring the family to that one. I would definitely ski that if it comes to pass and it would be my 1st tourney in about 3 years.

[ToddL]

Is that "off the dock, no mulligan, behind a 3yr old or newer ZO equipped boat with approved prop driven by a trained driver" practice scores only?

 

Or the more prevalent "furthest I got today on any number of attempts going some speed close to what works for me behind any boat at our lake driven by someone who is allowed to sit in the driver's seat according to the owner" practice scores?