Who's really the best pound for pound or in this case, inch for inch?

[So_I_Ski]

No doubt I am not the first person to think of this but wouldn't it be interesting to handicap one major tournament each year so that we could see who really was the best pro skier on the circuit? Considering the height and reach advantage that someone like Chris Parrish or Nate Smith has over Terry Winter for example, perhaps inch for inch, Terry or one of the shorter skiers is actually as good or better than Nate.

 

It would be an easy thing to handicap simply by measuring the highest vertical reach of each skier and then have short sections of rope made up that are added to the handle section. So the tallest skier, say it was Chris, would ski on the standard rope and every other skier would have the difference in their reach from his added to their section. I believe that Chris is 6'4, whereas Terry is 5'8. Chris probably also has a 2" reach advantage so Terry would get to add a 10" section of rope ro his passes. Completely fair, easy to do and it would be fun to watch. We would get the answer to who really is the best technician on the water, for that weekend anyway.

[ski6jones]

It would be interesting but I'm not sure that's all there is to it. For example, shorter skiers have a lower COM and therefore on average should have better balance than a tall guy. It would be fun to see in any case because Terry is a bada$$!

[The_MS]

Regina

[RazorRoss3]

There are a lot of other factors to consider regarding height, weight, leverage, reach, etc but it would still be an interesting event to watch and could put the men's and women's pros and big dawgs on the same field if you felt like it.

[Drago]

Still Nate.

Not that simple to adjust rope lengths

[Horton]

Terry

[Than_Bogan]

Dammit! STOP trying to take away the ONE friggin' genetic advantage that I have for this sport -- orangutan arms!!

 

But being more serious, @ski6jones hit the nail on the head and obviously @MS is right that Regina is the best relative to her size.

[RazorRoss3]

Ooh, that built up binding idea sounds terrifying! I can't even imagine how much that would screw with your balance if your feet were 3,4,5 inches higher off the ski.

[Bruce_Butterfield]

Not this again.......

 

Ok if you want make physical differences equal, give TW a longer handle, but he also has to strap a 50 lb weight inside his vest to make his weight the same as CP's.

While we're at it, the more coordinated and agile skiers will have to chug 3 beers to make their physical coordination equal to the less agile skiers.

 

There are many physical factors that affect a skier's performance outside of reach. And reach is not even at the top of the list.

[Than_Bogan]

Now you've made me curious how many beers Nate has to chug before I can beat him. That could be a cool handicap #. Top pros would be 0.5s, probably, and I'm thinking I'm around a 3?

[ToddL]

Nate can probably run 41 off while unconscious.

[Horton]

If it is booze slalom, my money is on @Chad_Scott

[matthewbrown]

Yes I think if you added 5 to 6 inches to Terry's handle to even out Nate's height advantage, their scores would be very similar. @MS surely you are joking about Regina, while simultaneously proclaiming what a bad ass she is for even being in the conversation. If she added 5 inches to her handle to match Terry's height, what would she run at 36, 3@39? That would still put her a pass and a half behind Terry.

[So_I_Ski]

@Bruce_Butterfield, a bigger man has all of the added musculature including strength to support his frame relative to a smaller man so respectfully, the 50 lb comment doesn't fly. As a poor example, I weigh 165 and I road bike with a guy my age who is 2 inches taller but 20 lbs heavier and in the same shape as I am. He can hold his own even on the hills because his legs are simply as strong as mine pound for pound. So if we were in gym he could squat more than I.

 

And with respect to agility or coordination and speaking of biking, that in my opinion may be the only sport that requires less agility or coordination than waterskiing in terms of overall movement. The best skiers move very very little from ball to ball. The only noticeable movement to a lay person would be the arm we reach with. The rest are subtleties like timing. Yes, there are slight physical factors but isolating those would be the point of levelling the field by removing the reach advantage which is significant and frankly unfair. That's why jockeys have to ride at the same weight, to remove an obvious unfair advantage. Height and reach in our sport is a glaring advantage.

 

As proof of how unfair it is, consider how many more times that Chris Parrish has run 39 and 41 off compared to Terry Winter and yet, like Horton, many other ballers would agree that Terry is technically as good or better than Chris. If what you propose were true, Terry would be matching Chris on his passes but we all know it's really the reach handicap, don't we?

[liquid d]

and so the old argument comes up again....best way to solve is to ski overall!

.....and somehow work golf into the equation! Yeah, that's how rockin Ron Thompson and I used to settle it- take a set, and then go play nine to see who pays for beers!

[Bruce_Butterfield]

@So_I_Ski the point is that there are a myriad of physical differences between athletes that affect their performance. It is patently unreasonable to attempt to compensate for 1 difference without also compensating for all the rest.

 

Your logic for "As proof of how unfair it is, consider how many more times that Chris Parrish has run 39 and 41 off compared to Terry Winter" simply doesn't make any more sense than comparing how many more times Regina has run 39 than Horton. There are way more factors involved than just reach.

 

Also IMO "reach" is far from the most important physical attribute for a slalom skier. If it really is as dominate as you claim, go get a few 7 footers from the NBA and see how many years it takes before one of them can run 38 off, let alone 39 or 41.

[So_I_Ski]

@Bruce_Butterfield, "compensating" is entirely the wrong definition of eliminating a glaring external advantage of "reach". The entire point would be to remove that advantage so that all that is left are the "myriad of physical attributes or skills" of the different athletes. And I agree that there are many more factors besides reach which is again, why I say let's isolate them. I also agree that "reach" is not the most "important physical attribute" and never implied that it was. But among high level skiers who have spent many years honing their craft, if one has an overall 10" reach advantage over another wouldn't it be interesting once each year to level the playing field to see who comes out on top?

 

Just for interest's sake, and to remove the monotony of Nate dominating the tournament with the usual suspects accompanying him on the podium, if nothing else. I would wager that among the ballers there would be a great deal of interest in watching such a tournament. And no, I am not suggesting any more than one such tournament each year.

[6balls]

Taller has reach, shorter has COM closer to the water. More muscle may have more strength, but perhaps less power to weight ratio. There is a happy medium in there somewhere for an ideal build...otherwise those with certain genetic forms should (and do) leverage what they have available.

 

This is a little off topic of the title of the thread...but who is the GOAT? Who is the only one we currently see who, at the end of a career, may unseat him? Technique, understanding, drive, physics...and body build all combine to make a champion. What are the similarities to their physiques? What are the similarities in their techniques/drive/understanding? It takes ALL of it not just one piece of it...to be the very best of the very best who are all gunning SO hard.

[So_I_Ski]

@6balls, with regard to off topic, perhaps the title of my discussion did not place the focus where I intended. I did not intend to open a discussion on who is best skier in light of their respective reaches. What I really intended was to suggest that it would be very easy to have one handicapped tournament each year that would remove that advantage or disadvantage from the equation.

 

It would be interesting and fun to watch and it really is simple to accomplish. For my money, I still think Nate comes out on top but Terry or someone smaller like him might be damn close. Perhaps one day one of the major companies will sponsor it.

[Than_Bogan]

Ok, I'll try to address the topic more directly: This tournament format would not interest me and I would be VERY disappointed if it replaced a real event.

[So_I_Ski]

@Than_Bogan - fair enough and that's one vote against.

[Wish]

I would love to see this. Terry gives me hope.

[thager]

Never mind!

[Bruce_Butterfield]

@thager you deserve something alot worse than a triple panda for that.

[dbressel]

I believe Gordon Rathbun did a tournament series around this same concept. I skied with some of the skiers who were issued their custom length of ski line to add to their handle. Don't know how the results were, but maybe someone on this forum does .

[rfa]

I'm with @Bruce_Butterfield on this one...too many variables to be able to discern the impact of skier height/reach alone. (Although for me at 5'5", may be it would show I'm really better than my 6'2" ski partner...lol). If @So_I_Ski would like to do this for fun, no harm done. However, as a "real" test I don't see it proving anything...(for all I know one of the skiers - short or tall - might miss his opening pass gates). Consistency and ultimate score or PB are different things...there's an ongoing related tread here.

The answer to the question is probably in the database of ski scores for the short and tall athletes, e.g. "has Terry ever beaten Chris"? In my mind, a more "valid test" would be to have the skiers ski for awhile with longer handle (short skier) or shorter handle (tall skier) and see how much their scores equalize...

[ozski]

I honestly can't see why this should not be put to the test just for fun. It would certainly create some interest and possibly settle a few arguments. I would wander over to the shoreline to watch ... Who would be opposed to a bit of fun in our sport? With regards to the platform on the ski comment - WTF? :)

[So_I_Ski]

As per @ozski, I would also bet that the skiers would be all for it. They are competitive guys, they know and respect each other and I'll bet they would find it fun to embrace a new challenge and for the taller guys, prove that their reach is not the defining factor over the shorter skiers. Doubtless, the shorter guys would be all in! Let's ask Terry and Chris.

[liquid d]

Yeah, I bet Chris would love to give a minimum of 6 inch extra rope to all his competitors!

[Ralph Lee]

Guessing Terry reaches around 5'10ish wingspan, Nate around 6'3ish wingspan. The skinny kid still beats everybody

[LoopSki]

I'm willing to bet no takers unless someone puts up some cash

[ski6jones]

Would be fun. Only need one high level (39 off or shorter) skier with a shorter/longer handle section to ski that way for a few sets and see how it impacts their average. It still proves exactly nothing, but would be interesting.

[So_I_Ski]

@Ralph Lee, I met Terry about 10 years ago. I'm 5'10 and if memory serves me correctly Terry is a good 2" shorter than I. So when you factor in shorter arms he may pick up 8 to 10 inches on some guys. Having said that, I agree that the "skinny kid" still wins.

[Ralph Lee]

@So_I_Ski I meant to say wingspan.

[Rob]

Terry Winter.

[LeonL]

If you give Terry 10" more rope you've now made 41 into 40' 2" (approx, since we should really be talking meters) and who knows how many more buoys that will give him. Say three more and he's still three short of Nate.

[Roger]

When was the last time a male skier under 6 feet of height held the world slalom record? Reach matters...

[T_C]

I Have watched Terry run 41 in practice many times (I know it doesn't count). His height and reach make it almost impossible to get outside of 1 at 43. Give him 10 more inches on the handle he picks up 6 buoys not 3. He got around 4 in a record tournament a few weeks ago. He will run it soon.

[Than_Bogan]

I feel I should point out that on the women's side, you'd be taking the most dominant skier -- possibly the most dominant ever -- and giving her extra rope...

[MAD11]

Regina. The only person with less reach than her is Marc Shaw :D ask him. Sorry @matthewbrown

[matthewbrown]

@LeonL Terry now virtually gets to 3@41 in every record tournament and has recently made his way to 4 ball. I watched him run back to back 41's in practice recently with slight boat movement, certainly not 6 inches. You give him 6 inches, and those 3 @41's turn into 6 @41.

[Drago]

Body height is not reach. How long your arms are is reach.an orangutan will destroy a t-Rex. It's not fair that short skiers with long arms have a leverage advantage through the wakes.

It's not fair that some skiers live on a lake

It's not fair that some had good driving all their lives.

I think Dr Michaels' scores should count, he was kinda short and was on a Monza

[slow]

I wounder what Mapple could have run on today's skis in his prime. His combination if strenght and athleticism were remarkable.