Level 10 Ratings for 2018

[JeffSurdej]

 

[Drago]

And Crickets.

I don't ski that well anymore, but will this just be a Regionals and Nationals thing?

MM is lonely at local tournaments .

(MW is lonely world wide and frankly doesn't make sense to me because of lack of speed change)

[brettmainer]

I have a question that could probably be answered if I looked the rule up. Do you become Level 10 if you equal the cut off once, or if your average equals / exceeds the cut off?

[lpskier]

I hear through the grape vine that a sizable contingent of Southern Region skiers may sit out the '18 Nationals if the Level 10 rule remains in effect. They may host a competing but unsanctioned cash prize event instead.

[JackQ]

Unless my math is wrong, it looks like only 12-15 skiers (going by last year scores) would be effected by this, of which 5 are from the southern region. Not that many folks running 1 or more at 41. In this case a sizable contingent maybe 2 or three skier.

[eleeski]

@lpskier OK. Why? And does it matter? Did any of them actually ski this year? Jon Travers for sure - and he is a real asset to the sport. There might have been a few other slalomers but no trickers or jumpers. Oh wait, I'm only talking about Open and MM. Those affected by the L10 rule. I don't care if those who didn't participate in the last few years don't participate next year - they already abdicated their responsibility.

 

As long as I qualify, am physically able to and other priorities in my life allow, I'll be back to ski Nationals. Sometimes it doesn't work out but I always try.

 

Eric

[AdamCord]

As someone who is right on the edge of reaching the L10 score for OM(best score this year so far 5@39), I can't see how someone could be upset about this.

 

First off, not many people are affected. Secondly, if you think that we SHOULD have Open and MM/MW divisions, then it's very hard to argue against creating a way to force top tier skiers into these divisions. Isn't the purpose of these divisions to let the absolute best skiers compete against each other?

 

The question of whether we need Open or Masters divisions is a different argument, and it's separate from this L10 debate. So long as we do have these divisions, L10 is a good thing.

[lpskier]

@eleeski I'm just reporting what I've heard from other prominent people in the sport from the Southern Region who are bummed out by the rule. Personally, I have no dog in this fight.

[Horton]

This makes me want to trick. If I really really worked at it I bet I could get up to 4300 points.

[brettmainer]

So, since nobody answered my question, I looked up and read the rule. I still don't know the answer. It is clear Level 9 is based on your ranking list average (avg of top 3), but the wording is different for Level 10.

 

To be put into Level 10 in MM, do you have to average 1@41 or just get lucky and run 39 once and stand up 1 ball?

[JeffSurdej]

@brettmainer not an average, its a rating, if achieved once you are L10

[Drago]

And @brettmainer , cut to 41 and "just stand up 1 ball", it's harder than you think

[John Brooks]

@lpskier I'm a little disappointed by my comrades in the Southern Region. It feels like their are too many that only want us to stay the same as we have been for the last 30 years, no changes, but any logical person can see, the results have not been healthy. I have seen a number of changes the last couple years that I believe have been healthy steps toward the future. Are any of them perfect, no, but I believe we really need to look outside of our own personal preferences to find what is best for the sport. Although it is, for the most part, an individual sport, I believe we need more of a team or family attitude to find approaches that are best for the majority.

 

[brettmainer]

@Drago, agreed. I took two cracks at 41 a couple of weeks ago and got zero both times. I haven't been to 3 ball at 39 in a tournament this year, so I am not worried about Level 10 affecting me. I do believe though that someone good enough to run 39 can get 1 at 41.

[JeffSurdej]

@John Brooks spot on John, very well said. "Change nothing and nothing changes". Let's try it, if it fails it fails, at least we know what works and doesn't. People lost their minds over ZBS and it turned out to be a good thing. If we can make elite great again, perhaps our sport keeps moving in a positive direction. The main reason skiers do not want to ski elite is that the age division is more prestigious to win b/c that is where the competition is, perhaps if elite has 20-30 skiers and we highlight them as the main event, then L9 and L10 becomes a goal and everyone will want to be there. As long as we have these elite ability based division then L10 or some form of it is needed, you can not have an ability based division and give skiers a choice, that defeats the entire purpose so unless we get rid of them then L10 should be tried. But this only works if L10 and elite divisions becomes a big deal. NCWSA has nailed this, we have built a atmosphere where teams would rather get last in D1 than win D2, its beautiful, this same concept is a must for L10 to work.

[JackQ]

I am not sure I would lump in the opposition to ZBS with the opposition to L10. The vast majority of the opposition to ZBS was the concern over skiing at a speed greater than the max speed. I.E 36 mph for Men's 3-6 and no basis or analysis for a 6 buoy handicap.

[Bruce_Butterfield]

@jackq is right

"People lost their minds over ZBS and it turned out to be a good thing."

 

That was a completely different situation for serious competitors who would be put at a significant disadvantage if they didn't go all the way to 36. I don't think there was ever any real objection to zbs for below max speed.

[MillerTime38]

Yeah remember with ZBS everyone was going to get hurt and 6 buoys was too many..... fwiw I started M3 after nationals and my first practice set was 3@39 1/2 @ 55k which is 7 buoys above my average @ 58k and ever since skiing 55k my back has hurt so it's actually the opposite of what you expected @Bruce_Butterfield. 6 buoys is not enough and skiing slower speeds is more dangerous

[skidawg]

Welcome to the sore back club

[klindy]

@MillerTime38 Wait until next spring. Most of that 7 buoy bump typically goes away! Ski 'em while you can!!

[MillerTime38]

@klindy for the sake of my back I am going back to 58k

[LeonL]

Yeah, what @JackQ and @Bruce_Butterfield said. The over speed situation was what had people upset and not ZBS in general. I know a couple of adult skiers that are having fun skiing at 32mph and shortening instead of going 34. Granted they are the kind of skier that currently maxes out at 22 off or barely into 28, but the like it.