Towline Tension

[Edbrazil]

Anyone out there have some information to contribute, about how much towline tension a SL skier generates?

Some years back, Dave Benzel had a computer-interfaced system, that measured tension and other factors.

I did some work at times with a Dillon Force Gage. Eay back, Jim Sylvester (AWSA President, Technical Committee)

did some measurements in the 1960s.

 

I have heard a figure in the range of 900 lbs. max. Don't know if this is accurate; sounds like a lot.

[A_B]

That system was called LISA and there was an article in Spray or WSM. 900 was the max that Andy put on the line at 39 Off right behind the boat. The plotted pull force started with deepwater starts, which also put a fair amount of load on the line.

 

I am only guessing, maybe 250-300 pounds if I am remembering right. One thing that stood out was how consistently Andy peaked and where he peaked compared to some other decent non-Pro tournament skiers. There was quite an increase as all skiers headed into the wakes.

 

I wanted to get a copy of that article but WSM doesn’t have back issues, and had posted the approximate date of the article before, requesting all those guys who still have stacks of old magazines to look for it.

 

The only magazine I had was one where Benzel ski school was advertising to “come ski with LISA”. Not the article.

 

I’d love to see the article if any Ballers can post a copy.

[ALPJr]

I think Syderhoud measured the lbs of pressure on the rope in the West Coast Slalom video with Marcus Brown and Terry Winter.

[6balls]

In college when I was stronger and skied even more improperly than I do now I used to go through about 3 straightline brand ropes/year that were tensile rated at something like 1000-1200 lbs.

 

Always carried a new one in my trunk in case I skied with friends so I could give them a rope after (often) breaking theirs. Broke two in one day once and broke one at collegiate regionals. When I was a kid @razorskier1 broke three in one day--the one we were using, our spare, and the one we bought at the marina that day cuz we were out of ropes.

 

My guess is with all the understanding of efficiency now the amount of line tension on top skiers may be less than before? Dunno, in any case I bet it's still a very big number.

 

 

 

 

 

[eleeski]

If I remember right (it was back in college - a LONG time ago), just riding a trick ski was about 75 pounds pull, the smoothest O was 150 and a sideslide was 25 pounds. Any wake trick or hard pull went off scale on our 500 pound max scale.

 

Remember the Saf-T-Pop automatic trick release? With such wide variations in load, no wonder it didn't work.

 

@6balls Ropes are much better nowadays. You braggart. (I'm still impressed.)

 

Eric

[pregom]

I'd like to see visualizations of the pull force through a pass in the course. Maybe something like this GIFwith the rope that changes color as the load gets higher? Or a 3D plot where the x- and y- axis represent the handle path and the z-axis represents the load? and all this with real data coming from different skiers?

[AdamCord]

@tap

[Jordan]

Wondering if modern skis are more efficient at turning resistance to the boat into acceleration and therefore reduce tension on the rope?

 

[mwetskier]

buy borrow or steal a copy of suyderhouds ' west coast style ' instructional video. theres an entire section on video analysis of terry winter and marcus brown skiing shortline and some of the clips have a time readout and strain gauge window that give real time values of elapsed time and rope loads. that may very well be some of the most accurate and reliable data you will ever find on the subject.

 

 

[tap]

I've measured skiers anywhere from 400 to 700 lbs. force across a pretty good range of skill level. In general, the better the skier the smoother and higher the load.

 

Some previously posted data.

 

 

[mwfillmore]

Resurrecting this thread @tap @AdamCord can we see what kind of hurt @adamhcaldwell puts on pylon

[MDB1056]

Didn't they just measure that at the last couple of majors as some new stat? Thought J Travers took top slot with some ridiculous amount of pull

[AdamCord]

@mwfillmore he pulls hard but not as hard as @FWinter

 

 

[Dacon62]

Whats going on here? That is a heck of a lot of load/weight. There is no way I could hold almost a 1,000 lbs in my hands if I was standing straight up with good posture.

In the West Coast video I recall that 400-500 lbs was the max measured range. It went up slightly with each shorter pass. How did we get to 900+ pounds. Is the way the load is measure in the post above measured differently?

Does the boat provide some of the measured load as it moves forward. Obviously, it does provide load that is how cross course speed is generated. I guess what I am asking is only half the load amount felt by the skier because the other half of the load is taken on by the boats forward momentum?? Anyone understand what I mean?

[elr]

Interesting that 2 of the 3 scores into -41 were at the bottom of the list.

[Dacon62]

lighter guys, less swing weight I'm guessing.

[ReallyGottaSki]

Yes although the raw numbers remain impressive, I'm sure it's been mentioned normalizing the measured peak force to body mass better delineates some skier efficiencies in accelerating. Also a skier maintaining less peak force but for over a longer duration can apply more total power , and if applied in the right locations, accelerates in better shape and gets to the buoy earlier.

Also a 'save' on a turn/cut can really load the line so one would have to be certain to compare only 'normal' turns and trim the flyers for all groups, analyze what is typical before any technique and style comparisons

 

 

@Dacon62 , I believe it's legit, the force is the same both ends of the rope, else there would be separation of the two points occuring. Their movement relative to the observer is not a factor, and the ropes mass is negligible

[aspski]

Mostly you can endure it for very brief periods of time. If it was several seconds no way, but 1000lb for 0.01 seconds the human body is capable of that. I remember seeing sports science clips showing forces of skiers and snowboarders landing large terrain park jumps. The force of landing was 2,000-3,000 lb in some cases, but only lasted for very brief period of time.

[Than_Bogan]

It's surprisingly important how long the measurement is integrated. Otherwise, what a person would call vibration and/or "instantaneous" deformation can register as a massive peak force.

 

That said, it's pretty sensible that if 500 is routine for these guys, then somewhere around double that would breifly appear during an Oh Crap Moment!

 

So my hunch is the measurement interval on TWBC stats is reasonable.

[buoyboy1]

I have always wondered why TWBC rewarded the highest rope tension load since it takes more skill to NOT peak ZO and try to stay as light/invisible as possible. TWBC should take the 39 off pass for men and 38 off pass for women and use the smallest load number to determine the "smoothest skier" award. I think we all are really good at spiking ZO when we are in scramble mode.

[chrislandy]

@buoyboy1 I think it's more that the rope sponsor can prove the tow line strength, although I did notice that towards the end of the season they changed it a bit so it wasn't just the highest tension, wasn't it highest tension "while in control" or something like that?

[Adam Caldwell]

I completely disagree that the goal is to be "light on the load" and that HIGH numbers are bad. Efficiency in this sports has absolutely nothing to do with being "light on the line".

 

You don't have to be scrappy and out of control to spike the boat and/or create load.

 

"Efficiency" doesn't mean being 'easy' on the pull. To me, Skiing the course efficiently means to use the mass, energy, and power of the boat to do the work for you, and to be in a body position that can handle the forces without compromising your body and subjecting yourself to injury .

 

During the Malibu open, 'peak' load for me occurred at 3 ball on my 38off pass - a hair under 900lbs. When I saw that on the monitor it was almost comical to me as it was one of the easiest 38s I have probably run in a tournament.

 

By EASY - what I mean is I was WAY up course, running a super early line with a lot of width, angle and energy moving through the back of the ball. Just how I like to ski.

 

The high 'load' doesn't mean I took a hit, OR that I was working hard. It just means that I was in a ridiculously strong position on the back of the ball with a lot of direction/momentum going to CL, but not a lot of down-course speed. The "load" registered, was merely the boat accelerating my mass to CL while I just stood there to take the swing into CL. I didn't even feel the 890lbs that was recorded.

 

What I DID feel, was the hookup at 1 @41off (and I still felt it 3 days later). I was crushed on the back of the ball because my hips were back due to a mistimed swing off the second wake putting me super narrow at the ball. I just was not anywhere near the right body position to handle the hookup and had to work ten times harder to survive the swing to 2 ball. The load on my body was nearly too much to handle and recover from.

 

Conclusion: There's a ridiculously huge discrepancy between "perceived" load versus "actual" load. Poor body position will magnify the perceived forces and load on your body, whereas and 'ideal' body position will minimize them.

[AdamCord]

But I thought I was supposed to hide from Zero Off!! ;)

[JackQ]

I think many skiers look at this the wrong way, it is not so much peak load. It is the "area under the curve" the pull from the ball to CL, not just one point (peak). No one is going to run 39 off by just standing up after the buoy.

 

The goal in my experience is to get as much angle and load at the buoy you can "comfortably" maintain to the centerline, better to have a little less than more. Typically though many skiers bite off more than they can maintain, spike line tension, ZO reacts and they get pulled up or out of position.

[Horton]

@adamhcaldwell Here is how I see it. Tell my if you disagree.

 

I want as much angle as possible and I need take enough load in the rope to maintain this angle but any load in excess of what is needed is to my detriment. Excess load in my hands at centerline diminishes my ability to stay in control after centerline.

 

Assuming I leave the ball in control and in position it is generally not to my advantage to drive my upper mass farther away from the boat approaching centerline.

 

( I am not talking theoretical ideals what might work for a SUPER ELITE skier trying to run 41 or get some at 43. I am talking about the rest of us mortals. )

[slow]

Well said

[Adam Caldwell]

@Horton -

Angle

"I want as much angle as possible and I need take enough load in the rope to maintain this angle but any load in excess of what is needed is to my detriment. Excess load in my hands at centerline diminishes my ability to stay in control after centerline."

 

The purpose of "angle" through the finish of the turn is fairly simple and straight forward. To decelerate down-course speed to maintain an EARLY line back to center. Period.

 

You only need angle one time - and thats through the back of the ball.  Once downcourse speed is bled off and your connected into the pull, there's no need to work to try to build more. Swing speed is what will get you early to the other side, you just need to put the body/ski into a position to accelerate effectively. To get acceleration and swing speed doesn't mean you have to load excessively by any means. It just requires more awareness of our position on top of the ski.

 

Excess or unproductive load is almost always caused by a body position of top of the ski that has turned the ski into a tail digging anchor rather then a high speed planning hull. In addition, being 'separated' from the handle often creates 'overload' when crossing CL. If we can use the mechanics of the system to our advantage, then we should be able to attack into CL as aggressively as we want, without any negative overloading side effects. The speed and trajectory away from CL will ultimately govern if a heavy load will lead to loss of control or a more productive up-swing.

 

Upper Mass

"Assuming I leave the ball in control and in position it is generally not to my advantage to drive my upper mass farther away from the boat approaching centerline."

 

For sure..... If under control out of the turn, and you are going to hit CL early enough to have space and width into the next ball, you don't have to be as "aggressive" in your body lean/pull to keep the pass and energy going. But if being more aggressive in this situation causes a problem, the its probably highlighting something you can work on before you shorten the rope.

 

I look to drive my "upper mass" but not away from the boat. Instead - I am looking to drive it both away from the ski aka "standing up" and also out beyond the edge. The goal is to have the upper mass both high above the water, and away from the boat - but moving in relationship to the ski at all times.

 

Moving the shoulders 'away from the boat' is the wrong frame of reference. In one moment "away" from the boat might create an ideal position at the initial hookup, but a fraction of a second later the ski has built angle/direction or speed and left you in the back seat before you hit CL and leading to a overloaded/uncontrolled position. No bueno!

 

What I am looking for is that a skier is to be 'stacked' with the leading shoulder crossing the centerline a fraction of a second before the feet do - and then continuing to keep that leading shoulder moving out over/above the feet past the outside edge of the whitewater. The later is hard to accomplish, but pays dividends as the rope gets shorter.

[Rednucleus]

Between Adam & Horton I now have a brain ache

[slow]

They have a lot of time on their hands

[Horton]

@Rednucleus & @slow the conversation I'm having with Caldwell is exactly what I built this website for. This is why I'm here.

[Adam Caldwell]

Sorry @Rednucleus. @Horton should know better by now.

 

@slow

Ball of spray = procrastination. Not free time.

 

HUGE difference!! hahaha

[slow]

Agreed

[Horton]

@adamhcaldwell I think your above post from Jan 28 is really really good stuff.

 

The one thing I am unsure of is

I am looking to drive ... out beyond the edge

Is this specifically about increased ski edge roll?

 

In my mind I want at least "enough" ski edge roll but the less my upper mass is beyond the edge the more control I have after centerline. I am willing to give up a little speed in exchange for more control.

[Adam Caldwell]

@Horton Yes - in short, driving or reaching my shoulders out beyond the edge is about managing/controlling ski roll. As simple as it sounds, I think this is a fairly confusing thing to grasp.

 

My objective is to use my body more as a linkage in a system rather then needing to be the source of power. I want my body to act as a lever that I can use to control, overcome and utilize the force vectors with. But I have to know what forces I am working with first, before I can go out and have intention with my efforts.

 

In reality, the boat has all the energy we need. We just want to capture/utilize as much of that energy as we can, with as little physical effort as possible. Being in the right body position means I can do much more "work" with much less 'output'.

 

Now- to your point on giving up "speed in exchange for control" - I believe the following to be true. The faster we can accelerate - the slower we can go. In other words, the quicker we can get moving toward CL from apex, the further up course we will cross CL and the less speed is necessary to reach max width before the buoy. You literally have more time to get there and so we can be moving slower without any detrimental issues. Failure to utilize proper timing with the boat will make this concept a mystery. Without the right 'timing', no amount of physical effort will overcome the inefficiencies at short-line.

 

Now, to take the 'roll' concept further (and procrastinate some more)… keep reading

 

The forces

Regardless of the skis roll angle out of either turn I am always looking to drive with my legs to stand my body/upper mass away from the ski. WHY? To make sure that my body is not 'absorbing' swing energy from the boat on the way into CL. Centripetal force from the boat (aka the line tension) AND the resultant force on the ski are effectively acting in opposite directions of each other. These are the forces that compress our body if were not careful. Fact - the more we are 'compressed' in the down-swing, the more separated we will be at CL, and the harder we need to work out to the ball. So, to focus on standing tall and driving the upper mass away from the top of of the ski, we can overcome the detrimental compressive force early before it overloads and separates us at CL. The added benefit is this also helps us get the core as close to the handle as possible on the way to CL. Both are really good things and critical for optimizing both swing speed & height after CL.

 

Roll angle

After I get some "extension" in my body off the ball and before the 'load" hits, I then focus on my "roll angle". To do that, I am looking to use my upper body as a simple lever to overcome the edge pressure of the ski and control the roll. Its important to understand that the water flowing under the ski is working to "flatten" the ski via a torsional moment, and this is what we must "leverage against". Our body IS the lever. To have maximum leverage over the ski with the least amount of input, we simply need to be the longest possible lever. This is exactly why tall guys are naturally better at this sport. They have a WAY bigger lever without even trying. Most skiers are trying to leverage against the boat. This is WRONG. We must use our leverage to overcome the torque on the skis edge, and connect our COM effectively to the boat to produce swing energy and potential.

 

Being the Lever.

From a tall position extended vertically away from the ski (being the biggest lever I can be), I then make the effort to reach my shoulders laterally beyond the skis edge in order to create a "torque" over the ski. This allows me to put the ski on edge where I want it. From a tall extended position, the further I move my shoulders out over the edge - the more torque and thus the more edge angle I have without losing the connection between my core and handle. If more 'edge angle" equates to 'more disconnection" at CL then its a big sign you failed to get "stacked" prior to the load coming on, Else you are overlooking the compressive forces acting on your body entirely.

 

When running late in a pass I may need to create more "force" against the boat (to get more throttle before CL). To do that, I might look to take my levered position more then 45degs. However in an ideal world, typically my aim is to find a 45deg position with my body and stay there. Beyond 45 degs we are more of a resistance against the boat with and lose a lot of efficiency, and it delays the boats ability to help stand you back up at CL to "unweight" the ski. Timing wise by CL I want to use the centripetal force -aka rope tension- to bring me out of the lean to aid unweighting the ski. That transition is much easier when our body is coming up and out of that 45deg lean by CL/second wake.

 

Stacked , Leveraged and Connected

Once I essentially "connect' with both a tall extended (stacked) position and a "leveraged' position into the white water, I am then focused on harnessing the boats 'pull' to initiate the skis turn as I cross through CL and into the early stages of the swing. At 35 off and up, if our timing is with the boat is really good, its possible that the swing can start before we even hit the first whitewater.

 

If we are well anchored to the handle and not in an excessive lean at CL, the centripetal force will start standing us up to unweight the ski, and also begin to rotate the leading side of our body and thus YAW the ski into the turn. Said differently, we can use the pull of the boat acting on the body to get the ski turning earlier. If we can stay connected while doing this, we will be using the "swing" of the rope to achieve the width we are looking for while at the same time turning the ski.

 

If we are separated (meaning the core and ski are pointing in two different directions - aka west coast style), then our upper body will open into the turn, but the ski will keep moving outbound. This is bad because it ultimately kills the "swing" and causes you to give up your potential energy too early.

 

Its my opinion that the downfall of the "open to the boat' concept of west coast slalom is that it taught skiers to leverage against the boat, with little to no regard with what's going on between the body and the ski. There's a reason you don't see those types of skiers with a long career skiing shortline. HOWEVER, I will state that there is a very real and effective concept of "opening" to the boat through the final stages of the downswing, but only after a tall, stacked, leveraged and connected position has been established before the first white water.

[MarcusBrown]

First off, I'd like to commend @adamhcaldwell (& @AdamCord) for freely giving so much of their time and passion to the water ski world, here on BOS and elsewhere. It has been fun to follow along with some of their theories.

 

But I'd like to straighten something out, hopefully for a final time, as I've been sensing some friction between the Denali boys and WCS for a few years now.

 

West Coast Slalom was a set of theoretical principles based in Physics, that Mike Suyderhoud, @twhisper and I collectively spearheaded....beginning in 1996. This was at a time when it seemed like literally NO ONE in the ski world was looking objectively at the physics and dynamics. We took concepts of CM placement, force vectors and anatomical realities and tried to formulate our best guess of how to ski based on Science. Coaching and theoretical approaches to skiing, up until that point, were usually anecdotal in nature, and never truly got to the real question of "What are the Physics of Skiing?" During the late 90's and early 2000's, we were able to share and refine WCS with some of the best skiers of the day: Jamie Beauchesne, @Chris Rossi and others. For those that don't remember that period of skiing, some of the best skiers in the world were somehow involved with or implementing much of what we were experimenting with during those times. Did we get things wrong? YES. Of course. But the WCS video came out in 2006, thats 15 years ago. A lot has changed. A lot. However, I'd say that ultimately, some of the concepts and principles that GUT seem to be rooted in, do closely mirror the essential bones of WCS, from so many years ago.

 

So I do truly appreciate the evolution and elevation of the discussion around slalom technique and theory. I hope it continues, because It's been my life for almost 3 decades...and the quest to simplify and streamline slalom skiing for the masses is often what keeps me tossing and turning at night. Healthy banter and challenging of ideas through forums like this are how we all evolve our concepts of "right and wrong" and thereby improve our performance on the water.

 

However, if you wish to continue to dispel WCS circa 2006, go right ahead.....that WCS, which continues to receive shots over the bow, is a Ghost,....an empty ship....no one is defending that anymore.

 

As for the following comment regarding those who based their careers on elements of what we developed during the WCS years, I believe it to be false: "There's a reason you don't see those types of skiers with a long career skiing shortline."

 

-There's actually a real reason you haven't seen Jamie B ski since 2012, and I believe it has nothing to do with WCS....

-Rossi was dangerous all the way until he decided to quit chasing the podium and focus on family.

-My brother @matthewbrown had a long career, finding the top of the podium at some Big Dawg events, before other things captured his attention.

-Terry?...well, maybe you guys should come out West and see for yourself....yesterday, here at my lake with 58 deg air and prob 58 deg water, and wearing only a wetsuit top, I pulled him through back to back 39's at 55 k, and his body seems to be holding up quite well.

 

And if you do make it out here to The Ridge, maybe we can sit down and compare notes....see where our theories line up and where they don't, and collectively come away with a clearer picture of how slalom skiing actually works.

 

Our dock door is always open.

 

MB

[Andre]

Very well written @MarcusBrown !

Can't wait to see more stuff from you and flowpoint tv! Great work and keep it up!

[MarcusBrown]

Also, with regard to this thread topic and Towline Tension as it was originally asked by the late great Ed Brazil....

 

Efficiency, at its root, should always be about how effective you can use towline tension from the boat:

 

All things being equal, if two skiers have 500 lbs of tension on the rope at a given instance in the course, the one who has their body in a more effective "shape" (athletic stance vs squatted/compressed) and who can place their body in a more effective position relative to their ski/feet, will be the skier who gets more acceleration out of that 500 lbs....OR more effective upswing into the next preturn.

 

That is a simplified look at efficiency. And from this frame of reference, more (towline tension) is not always better.

[Than_Bogan]

As a career inventor (just filed my 15th patent), I very often have people ask me what is the key to invention or innovation (which aren't the same thing, but close enough for this comment). If I had to answer that in literally one key it would be:

 

A healthy disrespect for all ideas that came previously -- including my own.

 

The need for this way of thinking can sometimes make it seem like you disrespect the people who came up with those ideas, or are somehow suggesting they should have known better. Speaking only for myself, I never mean either of those things. (Ok, almost never.)

[Adam Caldwell]

@MarcusBrown - nothing but respect for your intention within the sport. We all share the same passion. None of this conversation should be taken personally. The goal here is to help other people gain a different perspective as all see things from different angles.

 

There is no friction against ANYONE , and while WC may have been preached 15years ago - like you said - it was the only thing out there - Unfortunately, since guys like Mapple (who did dominate the sport) weren't sharing their knowledge to the masses, WC is what took a very strong foot hold - for better or for worse. WC is very much a large part of the conversation for a huge number of skiers and it is far from gone and is very much still an active philosophy and ultimately people are more confused then ever.

[The_MS]

I always related WC to GUT and thought of it basically as the same stuff

[DW]

Grab the popcorn and get @adamhcaldwell & @MarcusBrown on a podcast:-)

 

Many thanks to you guys for lots of great technical dissertations and the time spent promoting, educating and communicating the technical side of the sport. Please keep it up, I think I can say for many, we all enjoy and learn from it.

[Adam Caldwell]

@MS, a lot of what was written in the intro to GUT article is very basic - so from a very basic standpoint, there is a lot of crossover. The body mechanics and execution we have not “officially” written much about, is where a lot of the difference come into play.

[MarcusBrown]

@adamhcaldwell I hear you, and I again respect what you and Cord have tried to create with GUT and sharing your knowledge freely with the ski world.

 

I can't defend 2006 WCS. If people are still functioning off that information or directly referencing it in analysis, and have not tuned into how we've evolved our understanding and what we've been talking about since then,....I'll take some of the blame for it.

 

However, I just cannot agree with your comment that "ultimately people are more confused than ever." Because of WCS?? That doesn't align with anything I hear in the real ski world, at water ski tournaments, nor with any of the multitude of Pro and Amateur skiers I have the good fortune of working with.

 

The fundamental questions that WCS was built on, still hold up to this day:

 

-Where is your CM in relation to your ski?

-Where is your CM in relation to the load from the boat?

-How are you optimizing the movement of your CM, at different points through the course, with regards to those 2 inputs?

 

IF that is what "a large part of the conversation is for a huge number of skiers" maybe you can help me understand why this isn't a good thing?

 

Regarding body mechanics and execution, nearly nothing from 2006 WCS remains. Again, I've done my best throughout the years to update and inform skiers as the concepts have been refined.

 

This is an iterative process....ever changing. I know from experience that no one has all the theory flushed out to its simplest components. I know that you and Adam are still evolving your theory, as some of what you speak of in this very thread is different than what was put forth just a year ago. That's all part of this process....that's why we love it. And I'm guessing thats why you guys love the challenge of finding things out as well.

 

Yes, I'm more than willing to get @adamhcaldwell and @AdamCord on a FPM podcast. Again, I think it would/could strengthen everyones understanding of the finest details of this highly technical sport.

 

And if anyone is confused about WCS and wants to ask me anything regarding this topic, feel free to DM me or send an email.

[Adam Caldwell]

@MarcusBrown

 

I can fully understand why people don't seem confused to you. Lots of people have followed your methods for a very long time and that is what they know.

 

The difference I think is that ultimately you and I see this sport differently. Which is completely "okay". So to me, a lot of people are lost. We're on a different page. And that is fine.

 

Fundamentally there are going to be similarities, just like some of the ones you listed. But as you said, this is a complex sport that goes way beyond fundamentals, and the execution behind it all.

[Horton]

 

[Bruce_Butterfield]

Holy Crap! First the Existential Threat of Climate Change has been eliminated (-2F in north Texas on Monday), and now @Horton posts a Ven diagram that perfectly illustrates the confusion in slalom theory. I may yet live to see World Peace.

[MarcusBrown]

@adamhcaldwell I don't believe we have actually ever met, so I don't want this conversation to come across wrong, but I'd like to think I'm pretty approachable. Actually, I've made a point throughout my career to be an open book and try to simplify skiing as much as I can, so that people are not confused. On a yearly basis I probably have more conversations with a broad and diverse demographic of water skiers than most others in the sport, because of my continued level of involvement in multiple domains within the industry. I concede that maybe there's a shitload of people out there that are too intimidated or scared to mention how confused they are because of things I've said or technical information I've put out into the collective consciousness, but all be damned if I've heard hardly a single mention of it in the past 10 years, as I've traveled from lake to lake mingling with skiers of all ability levels. I've been skiing, thinking about and conceptualizing in this sport at a very high level, for decades, so naturally I've got a past that includes mistakes in reasoning, thinking and coaching. But the quest has always been the same: Find the simplest explanation, because its usually the right one....and because most people don't have engineering minds like you and I and/or don't care to take the deep dives.

 

I respectfully disagree with your statement that ultimately you and I see this sport differently. If you are truly rooted in a scientific approach to finding things out (which I believe you are), and if your goal in finding things out is to simplify slalom so that the most people can get the most out of your concepts, then you and I are on converging paths....not diverging paths.

 

BTW, The "so called 'pros'" that you referenced in your last comment, that I've had the pleasure of working with, are exactly that. Professionals. Nothing less

 

If you want to take this discussion elsewhere, I think you and I would have a lot to talk about on a FPM Podcast. Just let me know when, and I'll try to clear out a couple days on the calendar and up my internet bandwidth.

 

MB

[BraceMaker]

@MarcusBrown I thank you for all your work in the field and commitment from so many angles. Like any science you had a hypothesis and went with it. That's the method eventually you reach a point where some limit is hit or some new knowledge is obtained. The father of handwashing was ridiculed went mad and died in an asylum - wasn't wrong about hand washing didn't get the cause right but his body of work proved to move the chains forward. So does WCS.

 

With out going down a path you don't get to know where it goes. I sure watched your videos and I watch the Denali videos. Its part of a body of work and is fun to absorb.

 

All of you keep it up!

 

Maybe 10 years from now flaws in GUT will be discussed wouldn't be a bad thing either way.

[AdamCord]

I'll jump in here as I think I see a few fundamental issues in this conversation that could use some clarification.

 

First Off @MarcusBrown I don't think Caldwell had you in mind when he initially mentioned WCS and skier longevity. I was in no way a waterski insider at the time, so this is pure speculation on my part, but if anything WCS in my mind was mostly a Mike Suyderhoud creation, and to me it seemed like he was somewhat riding on your and Terry's success to make WCS known.

 

Since then I know ideas evolve and change, but there have been a few key tenants (or misconceptions of tenants?) of WCS that have persisted for the past 15 years+, namely skiers skiing excessively open to the boat, excessively counter rotated, and excessively in an ass back position. I know this was never the goal of WCS, but WCS does seem to have been a big part of skiers moving to this style of skiing. To this day I coach skiers who look at me like I'm insane when I tell them they need to counter rotate LESS or they should close their hips off more to get stacked more easily. These ideas persist despite your or anyone else's efforts, which I think is where the original sentiment in this thread started.

 

As far as seeing the sport differently, I can elaborate to some degree on that. From what I understand of FPM, the key aspects are about the skier and his/her relationship with the ski. Please forgive me for oversimplifying or completely missing the point, I've only seen some of your more recent videos... But from what I gather FPM is based on the idea of an athletic stance, and moving your body efficiently with the ski in order to accelerate, create speed, and maintain balance. Again I'd be happy to have you correct me on this because I'm sure I have butchered the concept.

 

As far as GUT, the basic concept is rooted much less in the skier's relationship to the ski, and much more in the skier's relationship to the boat. We have found that the focus on timing with the boat, swing, and connection seems to be the lowest hanging fruit, and is also the least understood and least coached aspect of the sport. By taking 1,000ft view of the course and starting with the geometry of a skier swinging around a pylon, and then working from there, we are taking a completely different viewpoint from FPM.

 

I believe that is what Caldwell is getting at when he talks about seeing the sport differently. Now, considering those two different viewpoints, both concepts expand and work out from there and move into more of the minutia of the technique/physics of skiing. From the conversations I've had with you in the past I think there is a good deal of overlap in that area.

 

Let me know when you're ready to record a Podcast. Sounds like a good time B)

[B_S]

Welp, the thread title sure has taken on an entirely new connotation...