Recend level recent level 10 policy / rule

[Jody_Seal]

Recently new ruling and policy came down from the AWSA board to institute a level 10 and ZBS scoring.

Please check out the link

 

And vote and please include your AWSA # when you do.

 

By the way this came from a Florida's counsel person.

These skiers that could be impacted by this level 10 rule had no idea this was to be instated and were given little if any prior info pertaining to this rule.

 

A ZBS petition is soon to be installed.

 

 

[Jody_Seal]

Just getting it started!!

[Horton]

@Jody_Seal I think you need to take a deep breath and explain the problem with this rule. I understand why you are fired up but I do not think 99% of the readers have any idea why this matter to you.

[Jody_Seal]

@Horton it is not me it's my kids. This was started by Monica! However my beef is the lack of prior information or lack there of before the winter meetings and the fact that membership was poorly informed if informed at all. The ZBS issue right now is drawing far more flack then the level 10 but I told Dr. Moe I would pass it on to BOS as well as SF and FB.

And thanks for shortening my link!

[Horton]

Ok @Jody_Seal what I am saying is that most Ballers can not guess why anyone would dislike the new rules besides the fact that we did not know about them in advance.

 

How do they hurt anyone?

 

 

[Jody_Seal]

@Horton What are the advantages of the new rules?

There are a number of jumpers, tricker's and overall skiers that will be impacted. The bulk of the BOS readership are slalom skiers so I tend to agree with you what will it hurt BOS skiers?

On the flip side as it stands a jumper busts out a 190' jump the skier will get thrust into open division and will have to ski against the sports elite at a national championship. If a male trick skier goes over 7000 points again gets thrust into having to compete against the worlds elite if they enter the national championships. there are many young overall skiers that will get thrust into open division just because they went over the nops and became level 10 overall.

For me, I could give a rat's ass because the new rule mandates that 34 mph skiers with a score of 106 or more get thrust into Master's Men! that takes about 6 or 7 out of my division and opens the door for me!! LOL!!!! Crap!! LOL!!!! Had to double laugh!!

 

Again the great AWSA Structure Failed many of it's members in not provideing prior information to their membership for consideration before knee jerk or personal agenda proposals were put in play!

[Kelvin]

So, 190 feet and 7000 points may or may not be the right cutoff, what cutoff would be appropriate to force them into competing in open at nationals?

[Horton]

@Jody_Seal I had a dream today. In that dream an oracle from the mountain top came to earth and told me to tell you to "not freak the F**** out" because the performance ratings may not be what you think.

 

It was just a dream so meh. Who knows what the levels are. On the other hand I still do not believe in Open or Masters at Nationals.

[Jody_Seal]

@Horton but you did not answer the question!

What are the advantages of the new rule?

[Horton]

meh.

[lpskier]

@Jody_Seal l Deleted again!

[Jody_Seal]

@lpskier John you are off topic. This about the level 10 being instituted with out proper prior membership information and approval.

somewhere in the neighbor hood of 30 skiers will be affected and "Forced" to ski elite competition both open and masters divisions. Not sure where this will help membership growth.

Will start another thread and poll on ZBS, two separate yet still same story membership had no prior knowledge nor availability to provide feedback or direction.

 

@Horton Still waiting! Meh does not cut it! Where does instituting level 10 benefit the sport?

I answered your question!

[skidawg]

so....lack of communication from awsa to the membership????? sounds like a reoccuring problem!

[skier2788]

OK I would like to play devil's advocate a bit here. I am a slalom only guy and I am not sure I understand the backlash against this.... If you ski open in one event can you not ski age division in other and score overall in age division? Is there anyone that is open rated in all 3 events? I understand stand the logic behind this rule when I see Nationals score like this....

Open division. Age division

1. 4650. 10220

2. 4550. 8500

3. 1950. 5640

 

Kinda feel bad for the people that placed 6-9 in age division. If the top three had skied open they would have gotten a medal.

 

I don't know if it's right or wrong just trying to understand both sides.

[Jody_Seal]

for a men jumper who jumps over 187' will be moved up to open division and have to ski against the likes of a professional athlete. Open division in jump (or any event ) should not be forced upon a skier. Most all the open jumpers jump 6', how is it competitive for a skier mandated to ski against Freddy and Zack and Taylor when they jump at 6' and just because you are a good jumper in your age group at 5'6" have to ski against that for a championship?

Same with men's tricks, trick over 7000 points you have to ski against Russell or Jimmy none the less these guy's are world level athletes.

The Women's side is a lot tougher as in comparison, the Bar is percentage wise much higher yet there will be a few women mandated to ski open or masters women. rough estimate is that it will Impact about 30 top tier age group skiers.

Open division should be just that a option division and no one should be forced to ski those division's

If the rankings level 10 score's was based off of international rankings for open then it would be more palatable.

But the fact still stands this again was shoved down memberships throat with out any feed back and with very little up front time for counsel and directors to digest to take back to membership and make a decision.

Just Piss Poor leadership Period!!

 

Funny! I am a APBA (American Power Boat Assn ) member and receive a mag called the propeller. Each year the magazine issues that precede the winter meeting have all the proposed rule changes per class listed so as the membership can instruct their directors and leaders to proceed, then the issue after the winter meeting list's the official rule changes .

 

AWSA continues to blind side their membership with little or no prior notice or post meeting info other then after the fact...

[Dirt]

I don't mind this rule for my own situation. I chose to ski only MM slalom last year because so many skiers don't like MM skiing age divisions and screwing up the rankings lists. Now I can ski overall.

 

I see what Jody is saying also. It is going to have some negative impacts.

 

I think @JeffSurdej has acknowledged communications problems and is committed to fixing it. I worry that he will get frustrated and throw his hands up and we will have no voice and no chance of change.

[lpskier]

@jody Seal I know I was off topic. I deleted that post within seconds of posting it. @horton is scheming against me. He wants to make me look bad and give me another panda.

[lpskier]

@jody Seal I know I was off topic. I deleted that post within seconds of posting it. @horton is scheming against me. He wants to make me look bad and give me another panda.

[Horton]

@lpskier i have no idea what you did wrong but don't do it again

[Horton]

@lpskier i have no idea what you did wrong but don't do it again

[eleeski]

@Horton @MattP Please fix the spelling: "rescind" and "institute" in the title and poll.

 

The marquee events need a decent sized field. It's currently a problem. A bigger field would be an advantage.

 

@Jody_Seal Is the issue one of openness in AWSA? I would say get more involved but I know you are an insider so I can't really comment on how the rule was made. To me, it looked like rule making as usual. Try something to deal with problems well known and debated at length.

 

I don't know exactly how the rule will work. I am the bubble skier who will be significantly affected. Last year I skied M6 until I got my skiing qualified for MM. With my new hip, I might be in the same situation this year. But honestly, it isn't that important to me. If I qualify, I hope to ski MM at Nationals. The only times I haven't skied MM at Nationals was when chasing an overall score. Hopefully that got addressed in the rule.

 

The wording I've seen and the lack of reflection in the rankings makes this confusing. Until things get clearer, I'm not ready to rescind or embrace the rule change. At least something is being tried.

 

Eric

[eleeski]

@Horton @MattP Please fix the spelling: "rescind" and "institute" in the title and poll.

 

The marquee events need a decent sized field. It's currently a problem. A bigger field would be an advantage.

 

@Jody_Seal Is the issue one of openness in AWSA? I would say get more involved but I know you are an insider so I can't really comment on how the rule was made. To me, it looked like rule making as usual. Try something to deal with problems well known and debated at length.

 

I don't know exactly how the rule will work. I am the bubble skier who will be significantly affected. Last year I skied M6 until I got my skiing qualified for MM. With my new hip, I might be in the same situation this year. But honestly, it isn't that important to me. If I qualify, I hope to ski MM at Nationals. The only times I haven't skied MM at Nationals was when chasing an overall score. Hopefully that got addressed in the rule.

 

The wording I've seen and the lack of reflection in the rankings makes this confusing. Until things get clearer, I'm not ready to rescind or embrace the rule change. At least something is being tried.

 

Eric

[sunperch]

Does anyone have copies of the rule changes for 2017, including Level 10 and ZBS scoring? They have not been posted on the USAWS website yet. I would like to see the details of the rules changes.

[sunperch]

Does anyone have copies of the rule changes for 2017, including Level 10 and ZBS scoring? They have not been posted on the USAWS website yet. I would like to see the details of the rules changes.

[JeffSurdej]

@Dirt thanks dirt

[JeffSurdej]

@Dirt thanks dirt

[JeffSurdej]

http://www.usawaterski.org/default.asp?Display=2594

[JeffSurdej]

http://www.usawaterski.org/default.asp?Display=2594

[Bruce_Butterfield]

@JeffSurdej has the skiers qualification committe set the level 10 criteria for all events yet? If not, what will be the guiding rule for choosing the criteria? Will that be retroactive for performances already achieved?

[Bruce_Butterfield]

@JeffSurdej has the skiers qualification committe set the level 10 criteria for all events yet? If not, what will be the guiding rule for choosing the criteria? Will that be retroactive for performances already achieved?

[JeffSurdej]

@Bruce_Butterfield should be out soon, we found some hiccups in the data so we are fine tunning and making sure they are accurate according to the rule that passed.

[JeffSurdej]

@Bruce_Butterfield should be out soon, we found some hiccups in the data so we are fine tunning and making sure they are accurate according to the rule that passed.

[sunperch]

@JeffSurdej The link on the AWSA page takes me to the 2016 rule changes.......

[sunperch]

@JeffSurdej The link on the AWSA page takes me to the 2016 rule changes.......

[JeffSurdej]

@sunperch just tried it, works for me?

[JeffSurdej]

@sunperch just tried it, works for me?

[RazorRoss3]

This is our first step towards ability based divisions rather than age which is a big step forwards in my book. I would lean towards refraining from excess criticism of the rule in its maiden year and after 2017 Nationals look at ways to adjust it for fairness to 3 eventers, juniors, and (sorry to our age advantaged friends) seniors, and to expand it to apply ability based divisions to more of the skiing population.

[RazorRoss3]

This is our first step towards ability based divisions rather than age which is a big step forwards in my book. I would lean towards refraining from excess criticism of the rule in its maiden year and after 2017 Nationals look at ways to adjust it for fairness to 3 eventers, juniors, and (sorry to our age advantaged friends) seniors, and to expand it to apply ability based divisions to more of the skiing population.

[Chet]

Rescind rule

If it were up to me I would completely eliminate masters divisions. I would attempt to keep age based skiing alive and well. It has served this sport so well for so long and has given people something to work for and aspire to. Throughout my 55 years skiing I have seen some exceptional young people that have been incredibly talented. I remember a young, young Cory trick skiing in juniors and having one of if not the highest scores of the entire Nationals. We did not quit nor did we stop competing. We worked even harder. Cory went on to become one of the greatest of all time. It made the sport better and as a result the level within the sport grew.

Now I see Anna, Nate, and a plethora of others that are so exceptional and they are hard to beat at present.

Most of the people I skied with in college never skied again and never plan to. Many of the young people I coach have yet to decide weather it will be a life long passion. Many of the older people I work with like Steve Raphael and Skip Dunlap did not want to drop to slower speeds but they did. And it was hard. They worked and are still working hard to see just how good they could get. I remember young Chris Parish, Cory Vaughn, young Regina, young Karen Truelove, young April Coble, young Abelson brothers young Matt Rini etc etc. etc.

They all grew to maturity in age based skiing and are still active in the sport today. I think we have something really special. I like that young compete against young and old against old. Some excel some strive on and on and never win but the journey of trying is in no way failure.

Choosing to ski open is an honor. Being good enough to ski open is amazing but choosing to ski your division is in my opinion a training ground for some of the greatest skiers that have been and are yet to come.

Keep the speed categories and keep the age based competition. It is only one mans opinion but skiing is hard and takes a lot of work.

Hope this did not go too far off topic but for the fist time in a long time many of the people I work with are representatives of the current base of competitive skiing and they are concerned.

 

[Chet]

Rescind rule

If it were up to me I would completely eliminate masters divisions. I would attempt to keep age based skiing alive and well. It has served this sport so well for so long and has given people something to work for and aspire to. Throughout my 55 years skiing I have seen some exceptional young people that have been incredibly talented. I remember a young, young Cory trick skiing in juniors and having one of if not the highest scores of the entire Nationals. We did not quit nor did we stop competing. We worked even harder. Cory went on to become one of the greatest of all time. It made the sport better and as a result the level within the sport grew.

Now I see Anna, Nate, and a plethora of others that are so exceptional and they are hard to beat at present.

Most of the people I skied with in college never skied again and never plan to. Many of the young people I coach have yet to decide weather it will be a life long passion. Many of the older people I work with like Steve Raphael and Skip Dunlap did not want to drop to slower speeds but they did. And it was hard. They worked and are still working hard to see just how good they could get. I remember young Chris Parish, Cory Vaughn, young Regina, young Karen Truelove, young April Coble, young Abelson brothers young Matt Rini etc etc. etc.

They all grew to maturity in age based skiing and are still active in the sport today. I think we have something really special. I like that young compete against young and old against old. Some excel some strive on and on and never win but the journey of trying is in no way failure.

Choosing to ski open is an honor. Being good enough to ski open is amazing but choosing to ski your division is in my opinion a training ground for some of the greatest skiers that have been and are yet to come.

Keep the speed categories and keep the age based competition. It is only one mans opinion but skiing is hard and takes a lot of work.

Hope this did not go too far off topic but for the fist time in a long time many of the people I work with are representatives of the current base of competitive skiing and they are concerned.

 

[Kelvin]

@Chet, but then you have some that go out and win the age division on their opening pass. How is that good for the sport?

[Kelvin]

@Chet, but then you have some that go out and win the age division on their opening pass. How is that good for the sport?

[Chet]

Kelvin

I don't like what appear to be abuses but I don't like encouraging sandbagging either. The few that can win very easily will hopefully find their way to their appropriate competitive designation.

I strongly feel that each and every skier should work to the top of his or her potential. I believe winning is great but the continual strife towards excellence is paramount.

To answer your question I don't think making the sport better vs growing the sport which often get mixed together is an easy task. Is that particular scenario good for the sport ...no.

I would frown on the skier that has that much ability not maximizing their potential in a higher division as long as they have potential in the division they are opting to. Otherwise they will be thrust into the same environment they just left only reversed.

My friend Jeff Keptcha trained and skied super hard last year. The problem is he skied too good. Now headed for Masters Men. Should he or will he go to Nationals, I don't know. He has never won a title but would love to try. He is very competitive In men 4 if he skies his very best ...I wonder if he will get to find out.

 

[Chet]

Kelvin

I don't like what appear to be abuses but I don't like encouraging sandbagging either. The few that can win very easily will hopefully find their way to their appropriate competitive designation.

I strongly feel that each and every skier should work to the top of his or her potential. I believe winning is great but the continual strife towards excellence is paramount.

To answer your question I don't think making the sport better vs growing the sport which often get mixed together is an easy task. Is that particular scenario good for the sport ...no.

I would frown on the skier that has that much ability not maximizing their potential in a higher division as long as they have potential in the division they are opting to. Otherwise they will be thrust into the same environment they just left only reversed.

My friend Jeff Keptcha trained and skied super hard last year. The problem is he skied too good. Now headed for Masters Men. Should he or will he go to Nationals, I don't know. He has never won a title but would love to try. He is very competitive In men 4 if he skies his very best ...I wonder if he will get to find out.

 

[Zman]

@Chet convinced me. Good post.

[Zman]

@Chet convinced me. Good post.

[BRY]

+1 for what Chet said. As usual he puts it very well with clear understanding.

 

I don't understand kicking people out of their division because they are too good. WTF? It's just a moving target. Get rid of the top 10 in division and the next 10 just kick ass. In M4-M5 the other 290+ skiers don't have any more chance of winning than they did before. So do we then kick the next 10 up to MM because they are now too good? The number 9 and 10 guys just went from being competitive in their division to unlikely in MM, and the number 11 guy, a lesser skier, just went to likely champ. By a rule, not by dedication, effort and/or skill.

 

My first tourny in FL I went off the dock right after Kyle Tate. He went .5 at 41. With my little 3 or 4 @35 at the time was I disheartened, intimidated? No. I thought it was awesome! Incredible to be on the dock get to see that, inspiring.

 

(Used top 10 for example, the rule is in place and yet the bump is still unknown. WTF)

[BRY]

+1 for what Chet said. As usual he puts it very well with clear understanding.

 

I don't understand kicking people out of their division because they are too good. WTF? It's just a moving target. Get rid of the top 10 in division and the next 10 just kick ass. In M4-M5 the other 290+ skiers don't have any more chance of winning than they did before. So do we then kick the next 10 up to MM because they are now too good? The number 9 and 10 guys just went from being competitive in their division to unlikely in MM, and the number 11 guy, a lesser skier, just went to likely champ. By a rule, not by dedication, effort and/or skill.

 

My first tourny in FL I went off the dock right after Kyle Tate. He went .5 at 41. With my little 3 or 4 @35 at the time was I disheartened, intimidated? No. I thought it was awesome! Incredible to be on the dock get to see that, inspiring.

 

(Used top 10 for example, the rule is in place and yet the bump is still unknown. WTF)

[ForrestGump]

I needed a triple "like" button for your post, @OB1.

[ForrestGump]

I needed a triple "like" button for your post, @OB1.