L10 35+ only M3 and M4?

[LeonL]

After reading the news item on USAWS website, I see that only M3 and M4 will be impacted by the L10 ruling. I wonder why not M5? Currently there are 6 skiers in M5 with scores (108) that qualify them for L10 and mandatory inclusion on MM.

[John Brooks]

I also wonder why this rule is worth implementing with so little impact?

[skibug]

yea....me too!!

[MISkier]

@LeonL, I believe they are using M3, M4, and MM scores to do the calculation for Senior Men cutoff scores for L9 and L10. They are subsequently applying that cutoff across all divisions M3 and up. They just did the calculation from a smaller pool. Those 6 skiers in M5 would be included in L10.

 

That is my understanding. There are others than can confirm or refute this.

[LeonL]

I guess I misread.

[Jody_Seal]

Like the Zero based scoring this level 10 will be short lived. Mandating a skier to ski in an elite division will only drive more members away.. This was not well received in the southern region. Another personal agenda item from the top of the AWSA food chain.

[dave2ball]

@Jody_Seal if the MM were forced to stay there division at regionals and nationals wouldn't that increase the numbers in M3/M4 skiers into the regionals and nationals? At least some people may feel they have a shot.

[Chad_Scott]

It is the National Championship @OB1 We shouldn't make it easier to win a national title. Why did the sport have some of the biggest numbers when chuck Forrest was winning men's 3 year after year. People weren't whining to move him to another division because no one could beat him. They kept showing up and giving it their best shot he was just better and people did not leave the sport because of it This new entitlement generation. No one person in men's 3 or 4 has dominated since Forrest. When he was whipping everyone they had 180 skiers chasing him in men's 3

 

AWSA should focus their efforts on getting local municipalities to dig a lake for skiing instead of a drainage pond Can you imagine if there was an Okeheelee park like facility in Atlanta, New Orleans Houston Dallas and many other small Towns across the country . They build recreation parks all over he place Most of these parks have retention lakes. AWSA should be proposing and educating these facilities to dig the lake longways and open it for skiing. Okeheelee park should be a model for AWSA to present to local municipalities and encourage the construction of these lakes You want to add numbers to the sport add that type of exposure around the country. that's the way to in tease memberships and participation Someone with a bigger vision than changing rules and trying to make it easier for people to win rather than compete All of this other bullshit is doing more to turn people away from what's left of the sport We need leadership with vision and energy to increase exposure by increasing availability to the public

[LeonL]

@GK, I don't know who's fault it is that there are no M3 skiers in KY. As for me I give free entry to anyone skiing their first tournament and offer GR with a mulligan in every round. Could be there just isn't any skiers in that age group. Nevertheless, when you get all those extra buoys that moves you up 20 spots and get to Nationals, good luck skiing up to your seed. Now, I don't intend that to sound mean spirited, but you get my point. EDIT. Oops!! Posted to wrong thread. Maybe it will be seen by those interested. Too lazy to repost in correct thread.

[Chad_Scott]

That's why you need an organization not an individual pushing for these things. AWSA should have an organizational plan and use the membership numbers to promote this. I agree it's hard for an individual to do this. Get the governing body behind it. You go to Okeheelee all the time. I am friends with a mayor in a small town. He is interested. The thing that he has looked at is the numbers a national or regional championship would bring in. People hotels and tax money. If the organization had the stats and numbers it would be possible. Maybe not everywhere but it can happen. I mean it happened in west palm beach. Problem is what you just said. It's just you trying to do it. We have to have a bigger vision and plan as an organization to turn it around. Focusing on level 10 and ZBS isn't going to fix the issues which is lack of exposure and access period.

[Chad_Scott]

Haha @OB1 Yes too busy adding to a rule book because that's the key to bringing people to the sport. Good luck with zoning board. Places like yours do increase exposure for the sport and hopefully you will have plenty of new members. Build it. They will come (after u do all the work). See you in wpb

[LeonL]

Okeehelee has been there for quite a while. I wonder if that could even happen in today's world.

[Jody_Seal]

To mandate a 60 year old to ski against a 36 year old is bad for the sport period! A better idea would have optional yet if one selects to ski at the Elite level they stay there for one ski year.

Also the mandatory division is not well balanced as scores for slalom inclusion is pretty much on par with world standings list in all world age group rankings list's .Jump and trick are far from the same percentages off the world standings list. Mandatory elite inclusion for men1-2 is 187' under new rule! How can a 5 and a half jumper be competitive with a world class 6' elite/ pro jumper?

Would hope the AWSA leadership will re

address this policy before more members bow out or even jump ship to another organization.

 

Viva La Revolution!

[klindy]

Fully agree with @Chad_Scott!! There's another thread around here where I suggested something similar with knowing where EVERY lake is and having a clear and worthwhile advocacy strategy to protect AND GROW public and private waterways throughout the US. Great comments Chad, couldn't have said it better!

[MISkier]

@Jody_Seal, if a person of a certain age can achieve a score/rating worthy a certain division, why is it an issue that another person of a substantially different age achieves that same score/ranking and the two are participating in the same competitive division simultaneously at a tournament?

 

Let's assume we have the elite division even adhering to the traditional max speed for MM, or Open, or whatever was in place before any discussion of ZBS. For example, in MM, is the 34 mph faster or slower, depending on the age of the skier being pulled at that 34 mph speed? When the rope is on the green loop for each skier, does the older skier have a longer or shorter rope?

 

If both skiers have the ability to achieve comparable performances, why should the number of times the Earth has circled the Sun before their respective births be an issue?

[MISkier]

I also agree with @Chad_Scott that public water access is a mammoth issue. In fact, the topic of course permitting and restrictions was just discussed at a local water ski governance meeting recently.

[Chad_Scott]

Along with skiing I play in a flag football league There's s reason I play in the 35 and older groups. While on some days we might be able to play with my sons team There is a reason the leagues are divided by ages as well. Lots of strong opinions on here about competition. I sure hope all you guys with strong opinions back them up by showing up at regionals and nationals. If you have such strong opinions about competing make sure your ass is standing on the dock when it matters. During the survey more than half of those in favor don't ski in regionals and nationals. So I'm sure with alll these strong opinions on here there will be an increase in attendance at nationals. @MISkier look forward to seeing you there as well

[MISkier]

I have to qualify first. That is the reason I haven't been there.

[MISkier]

One other thing @Chad_Scott: I do have a sense of competition against different age groups. We do it every year in the Ability Series. I know it does not have the prestige of Regionals or Nationals, but we are on the dock, nonetheless. We don't even go by raw buoy count or match speed, we just consider passes with a specific rope length.

 

I have gotten beat by teenage girls and boys and by guys approaching 70. I still enjoyed it and never felt it was a mismatch, as we each had achieved a comparable ability level. I even enjoyed moving from one ability division to another, even if I got shellacked there. It was achievement and progression that fostered my competition with myself.

 

My Ability Series medals (for the rare occasions when I placed) are the only ones that I have for water skiing and I was happy to receive them.

 

I would like the ability groupings to be by buoy count, no matter which speed and rope length combination is used to accumulate that score. But, the current method is OK.

[Chad_Scott]

Personally I want to compete against my peers. People my age with similar life experiences. I would not take any joy out of competing with a child and winning or losing. My son and I can do that in practice. Do you think kids want to compete against adults. Not a chance. Half of the battle with keeping kids interested in waterskiing is finding tournaments they can attend to compete against other children their age . I have brought two children into the sport. I can assure you that skiing with Dad and all of his friends every weekend is not appealing. Nor is competing against me and my friends. For many years my son Tyler could beat most of my friends when he was skiing in boys 2. He still wanted to compete in his age group. He is still in school and if he skied would probably qualify for level 10 with just a couple tournaments. I can tell you that he would not want to ski in level 10 as he is struggling with time and attending school. As a full time med student he should not be forced into level 10 to ski against Nate Smith who skis for a living And akis everyday. Nor should Stephen seal be mandated to jump against Freddy who also skis for a living. Stephen who also works daily

 

The level 10 came about because some people who have a major voice or position at AWSA want a chance to win a slalom title. They can't do it with ability like the most of us did. They want to force skiers out so they can have a chance. None of which will help the sport with membership growth. It will just help a few have a shot at a title. Obvious by making it only mandatory for men's 3/4. Just as many guys in men's 5 run 39 but not included in level 10. Humm!!!!

 

Personally I think it's all about personal agendas. You want to make MM an elite group. Change the speed. Make it 35 mph. Give open guys a place to retire to and those who want to ski a little faster a place to go as well.

 

 

 

 

[sunperch]

+1 @Chad_Scott My kids said they will quit skiing if they have to compete against adults. They said it would be no fun . There are far too few kids skiing as it is, all my kids want to do is ski hard and have fun with their friends at tournaments. We traveled to Alabama from KS so our kids could ski with friends over spring break, friends they made from attending Nationals.

The question has still never been answered - what are we trying to accomplish by changing the rule book? I don't think that these changes will increase membership, all it is doing is making the majority of current active core of skiers mad. A lack of a real answer leads me to believe that it is a way for some to increase their rankings by getting rid of some of the better competition. Same with ZBS, a way to increase bouy count by overspeeding because they could not get it done with traditional scoring.

[Chad_Scott]

We are trying to make it easy for some to podium. Plain and simple. Anyone that believes rules rules rules will increased participation has lost their minds. Or it's some of the same people and mentality that have watched as the membership dwindled maybe that's the point fewer participants maybe I can podium finally What happened to work hard with dedication.

 

As I said in another post. Access is the key. Our efforts need to be spent attracting new members not pissing off the existing

[MISkier]

I think my attempt to relate to competing across multiple age groups (with the only example I have) became misconstrued as a proposal to do it that way always. The Ability Series is a side competition, not the main method at the tournaments. But, there may still be a need for ability-based segmentation without going to the extreme example I had.

 

The better example, which I didn't get to experience, is the Cold Water Shootout class F tournament we had a couple of years ago. Invitations were to men's skiers with averages above 95. Head-to-head competitions with score-based seeding. I think our age range was something like 16 to 63 or 64. 34 mph and 36 mph. At the end, we had a skier in their 50s, a skier in their 60s, and a skier in their 20s on the podium. The competition was tight, the weather was awful (50 water, 40 air, 20+ mph wind). 38 was run multiple times. To my knowledge, nobody declined the invitation because of the age gap. And, the really young guys didn't appear to be upset that they lost. I think everyone was happy to ski among some solid competitors, whether they just got their driver's license, their AARP card, or their Medicare application.

[klindy]

I'll say this again ... Whether ZBS is enacted or not, slalom, trick and jump are all judged and scored the same way and a "final score" is the same whether the ranking list is based on levels (as-is) or ability-based. In other words, we currently have a big batch of scores and they are first sorted by age (M1, M2, M3, etc) and then score (level 10, 9, 8, etc). We can just as easily sort by scores only (pure ability based).

 

OR we can sort some subset of ages first then score (Juniors, men/women, seniors, vets). Make the "age" groups as large or as small as make sense. Basically this is IDENTICAL to what we do today but we go back to larger age groups - anyone who's been around for 20+ years would remember the age groups. MM/MW and Open could be calculated the same as today or, be incorporated into the larger age groups and simply be just the top ability-based grouping.

 

Tournaments too can be run anyway the site wants to run them. Grouping by ability (within any or all age groups) can be done today! The speeds are the same, rope the same length and buoy scores judged the same. Even the baseline "starting speed and rope length" can be adjusted after the fact (as it is today since IWWF and AWSA have different starting rope lengths.

[Triplett]

L10 is something that is needed for amateur competition. I can understand the arguments of skiing against Nate Smith, but if you are running into 41 on a consistent basis you are in the top 35 in the world, in most every sport this a 'professional' level. If you question this, look at the October 2016 list, it applies to 36mph and 34mph. The L10 rule requires you to compete against your peers, as @chad_scott wants to. There is no reason a person that is in the top 30 in the world should be competing in the same division as a guy who isn't even top 30 in the country. It has nothing about making it easier for people to win, it is making it fair and increase competition.

 

I would say this is less about getting more people in general, but getting more people to regionals and nationals. I do think this will help, it will also make the elite divisions truly elite divisions, almost like a pro tournament within regionals and nationals..

[BRY]

So from the FAQ from the news on the front page of www.usawaterski.org the L10 cutoff is set to the following:

 

EM - Open Men (M1-M2) 114 (6@39) 7400 pts 199–6’–35, 187-5.5’-35 2906 NOPS

EW - Open Women 99 (3@38) 5690 pts

SM - Masters Men (M3+) 108 (6@39) 4930 pts

SW - Masters Women 97.5 (1.5@38)

 

Level 10 FAQ Page

 

They really need to update the FAQ page off the Ranking List, where this should be. Still has just Level 9 stuff there. But does reference ZBS....

[BRY]

If this rule is about getting more people to Regionals and Nationals, looking at it through a 2016 lens, it's kind of stupid and moot as applied.

 

For M1 & M2 all those with a 114+ who skied did ski Open at Nationals. There would have been no change with the M1 & M2 competitors or results with this rule.

 

For M3 the winner would have been bumped with his 108.17 average so at Nats everyone in M3 would have moved up 1 spot.

 

For M4 the 2nd place would have been bumped with his 108.00 average so at Nats everyone in M4 would have moved up 1 spot. The winner had an average of 107.50 so he would remain in L9.

 

For M5 no change in results.

 

For M6 the winner would have been bumped with his 108.17 so at Nats everyone in M6 would have moved up 1 spot.

 

The guys getting bumped are not Pro's or ex-Pro's, nor crushing the rest of the podium.

I just don't see how this, as implemented, will bring in anyone new much less enough new people to move the needle at all.

 

Skiers with a 110 to 113.99 and a 104 to 107.99 are still in the stratosphere of those who go to Nats. Ensuring they are on or at the top of the podium by rule does nothing for the sport, nothing. If were going to have it, give it some teeth and some effect. Put the bump at 110.1 and 104.1 (an average of anything over 2@39). Consistently past 2 ball @-39 is a big deal. Make the real -39 skiers all ski it out, have a top group with more than a handful of skiers. Put the podium in range of -38 skiers, there's a bunch of them and more out in the country to pick up.

[klindy]

@BRY All that is true. But the 3% cut off for level 10 this year can simply be adjusted to 5 or 6 or 7% next year. Establishing the framework may not be the last step.

[eleeski]

MM

[eleeski]

MM tricks at Nationals last year was 3 people. MM slalom was small as well. So many skiers are qualified but the events draw badly. Maybe it's because the slalom was off on the practice lake late. No idea why tricks was so small. I don't even know if there was MM jump - it certainly wasn't a featured event. It's been like this for years.

 

Making MM mandatory might make the event big enough to give it some respectability. Maybe people will come to Nationals to watch the top skiers compete with one another. It's something to try at least. Note, they come to watch Big Dawg.

 

Eric

[LeonL]

@rico I don't read it that way. ZBS, yes at discretion of LOC. L10, I don't see that to be discretionary.

[BRY]

@eleeski "Making MM mandatory might make the event big enough to give it some respectability" There is a mandatory bump for tricks in all Men's and in Women 1-2. Apparently not enough Women trickers W3+ and rule only needs 4. For this to work at all you have to have the mandatory group big enough. Are there even enough trick skiers to do that? I don't know, you probably do and you understand levels that make sense. Would the rule as is have changed anything in 2016 if it had been applied to tricks? Work the numbers and post for us please. I did for slalom and even with the number of skiers in slalom the rule is pointless as is.

[BRY]

@eleeski Also you state "Maybe people will come to Nationals to watch the top skiers compete with one another." I don't think so. The top skiers who are going to show, show already. Some great skiing to be had there, I've watched it. But I have not seen any appreciable number of people come to watch who aren't already tied to Nat's in some way, even in WPB (5.8 million in metro area). 2018 is in Kansas, metro area almost identical to Boise (664 & 644 thousand in metro area). How many people came out to watch who weren't already there as part of Nat's in Boise? For MM tricks? Just don't see a lot of people flying into Wichita to spectate.

 

"Note, they come to watch Big Dawg." Not that I have seen. At the stops I have been to mostly crickets though awesome skiing. Only appreciable crowd I have seen was when Big Dawg Finals was tied to Nationals and pulled in the Nationals crowd or in Finals in a major metro area that did advertising. Advertising made a difference, any advertising going on for Nationals to draw spectators?

 

I'm all for change but the change has to have value. Needs some reasonable rationale that a defined desired outcome will happen. Just try it and see, hope is works, cause gotta change isn't good enough. Change for changes sake or personal interests is the road to destruction. This rule is in that category.

[eleeski]

@BRY I've seen a couple of Big Dawgs at Nationals and they have been reasonably well attended. But you are probably right, nobody came just for that.

 

A lot of trickers are overall skiers. The rules prevented them from participating in MM. That is addressed in the new rule. That alone makes the rule worthwhile.

 

Perhaps adjustment of the qualifications will be needed to get a big enough field. Sometimes an idea needs to get in play to be properly evaluated. I'm not sure who is driving this but good for them for trying something. As long as the rule is not set in stone and can't experience needed tweaks.

 

Eric

[Jody_Seal]

"Mandatory"! Not really good for the health of the general membership. Again for other then the slalom skier it is a lop sided bad solution for the better non elite or non pro jumper or tricker. Again look at the scores for the mandated MM slalom skiers against the world rankings list then look at the men 1 or 2 jumpers and trickers they do not make it on to the world ranking list maybe # 40 and they potentially have to ski at regionals and nats in open??? Where is the equality in that? At least these AWSA MM slalom skiers are the world's best in their international age divisions. To Mandate is again a not so good idea, it was tried way back when and did not work then ?

 

[nate93]

Or us -38 skiers can keep training like the guys ahead of us! I've been trying to win a national title since 1988....I don't want one "given" to me. Seems like it wouldn't be a total let down.....I also am not a fan or participation trophys either.