What boat rules have gone to far for class C tournaments?

[Wish]

To a point brought up on another thread, Why do we need ZO as a mandated entity for class C tournaments vs including all the way back to PP days (which by the way ..prob won't get used)? Why do we have only late model boats as options to use? Why not allow gear all the way back to 1997 if that's what's available? In 1997, were the AWSA rules just that out of touch for class C?

 

It's been said that the latest tugs make better ski machines and increase skier performance. The slalom records have been broken yr after yr in evidence of this. So that should make PP and older boats harder to ski behind right?? Shave a buoy or 2 off an average score. If so then why the wall? What are those boat rules really for when it comes to a class C?.

 

Should we restrict skiers to only late model skis and boots in tournaments? Seems as illogical. I have a friend who can smoke 39 on his Monza (not @MS) with Willey raps. Should he be forced to upgrade to a 1 or 2 yr old ski if he skis tournaments to make it fare or equitable.?

 

How are boat restrictions outside of AWSA boat qualifications back in 1997 a good thing for sport growth?

 

One could speculate that the more boat options out there for tournament use, the greater the potential for new or more tournaments in areas that will be affected by the promo problems or worse.

 

The above is targeted to open a discussion. My comments and questions may or may not reflect how I feel or what I know. Rather they are to spark conversation, your opinion and questions.

And, it's winter in many parts soooo....

[Horton]

Your assertion that ZO boats increase performance is simply false. ZO boats are more consistent and give perfect times but they are not easier to ski behind. ZO boats seem to be easier to ski behind today then they were in 2008. Maybe we have all just learned to ski behind them. Gimme a 1997 ProStar w/ PP and I am going to run a LOT more 38s than I would behind any ZO boat.

 

If we could pivot to a mindset where we again cared about how one skier skied against another on a particular day then PP boats are fine but as long as we think the rankings list is the measure of a skier then ZO is required.

 

I do not see anything wrong with old ZO boats but if we go back to PP then you have to retool the whole mindset of the sport.

 

 

[skierjp]

I'm not going to pay $100 to ski a tournament with a 20 year old boat. I'm all about the new boats but that's kind of what I do, LOL

[Wish]

@skierjp you live on FL. You don't have too. Sorta referring to the none ski capital of the world type places. $100 for a class C?? Heck, I won't pay that for a class C. Not sure if that's the going price but if a local guy can put up an older boat, perhaps the need for higher cost Cs won't be needed.

 

@Horton.. mah. I can find a letter/number combo that puts me right at and sometimes above my average in practice. Can also find one that will kill me. I suspect if PP skiers could spend some decent time playing with settings they could come close to, as you suggest, the ease of PP. I suspect a good chunk of PP owners never get that opportunity. Took me a good bit of time to find what I really liked. The boats back then tracked worse, several had worse wakes so that may make up for performance being easier?? My assersions mostly reflect what may get people talking. Maybe and maybe not the way I feel or what I know. More accurate times...can't argue with that. And yes to skier of the day vs skier on a list for PP. Retool the whole mindset...in what ways? That may actually make for a better discussion or did you just mean skier of the day vs a number on a rankings list? With dwindling promo boats and the folks left being less likely to drive longer distance to a tournament in states that are not TX FL and Cal...what's the alternative?

 

 

[bigskieridaho]

I can say that I owned a PP boat which was fine. However, getting pulled behind that boat and then skiing in a tourney behind a ZO boat just wasn’t comparable. Sold it, and now own a ZO boat for that reason. The accuracy and pull of ZO is awesome and it would be like going from a new BMW compared to a classic car. PP is doable, but the boats have moved on. Just my .02

[jcamp]

"Should we restrict skiers to only late model skis and boots in tournaments? Seems as illogical."

 

Quite possibly the most panda-worthy comment in the history of BOS.

 

[Wish]

@jcamp. Giving it my best shot...haha.

[MillerTime38]

@Wish I hear ya and agree mostly. Haven’t run a 38 in practice (behind pp) since probably September showed up at lake 38 for tourney in December and hammered a 38 first round. My practice scores are comparable to tourney scores, I find that if you are in good position behind boat, keep your hips up and counter at the buoy it really doesn’t matter what is pulling you down the lake.

 

Also I ski on a D3 x7 (well over 1000 sets) so I better go pick up a new stick and a new boat

[6balls]

Becoming less of an issue now that ZO boats can be had 10 yrs old.

 

ZO is a good system and to train for tourneys I'm sure it is helpful to train on it...that just hasn't been me so far mostly due to expense.

 

It would be detrimental to change speed control now as ZO boats in the used market become more affordable...so I hope that does not happen.

 

I do think for class "C" a variety of older ZO boats should be allowed...having said that there may be many high end amateurs that wouldn't feel that was good enough. Conundrum.

 

I have no problem running any behind a ZO factory hull. (no problem @thager behind your SN either just opens a can of worms on what's allowed).

[lpskier]

@skierjp Three round Class C slalom in NY is $50. Three rounds of slalom, two each trick and jump for $75, and dinner is included in the entry fee.

[dave2ball]

If a tournament is going to run a boat with PP or PP WITH Z box I would hope that they would put that I’m the comments. I would be courteous to see how many people enter knowingly. The unknown issues are what kind of condition is the boat in???

[Horton]

@dave2ball I am not the kind of guy that would do this but.... If I was willing increase my ranking list score at all costs I would look for events that use PP boats.

[dave2ball]

@lpskier so what are you saying?? you mention 3 Rounds of slalom in NY cost 50.00 and you get dinner. Yet you promote skiing your tournaments in fla that cost 150.00 for 2 rounds of slalom class C and no dinner. If that because you have a promo boat here in fla vs a non promo in NY? Sounds hypocritical

Would you spend 150.00 for 2 rounds of class C here in Florida if you had a boat with PP?????

 

[Wish]

@dave2ball all good points re older boats but again, what's an alternative to dwindling promo programs and other barriers coming down the pike??. Especially in areas of the county that are down to one or none in promo boats? Is it a "to bad so sad" kind of sentiment?? Have we squeezed ourselves a little to much with boat rules and made it all even more elitist? If we need an asterisk next to a name of a guy that ran a PP boat..I'm ok with that. Let that guy slide up the rankings. Good luck at States, Regionals or Nationals. But odds are, skiers that choose an older boat/cruise system because there is now actually a tournament close by where there never was one before won't be bothering with States, Reg or Nats. @Horton, have at those rankings with PP but you're not "that guy" as you say and would not take advantage of it. I'd say most if not all skiers are like you in that regard. Just some food for thought and to spark more debate.

 

Point being a binary choice of outside the box thinking to expand and make the tournament scene more accessible or stick with status quo and toss in some more restriction and narrow the accessibility even more. Has that not been the complaint from most everybody with regards to dwindling participation in tournaments? . Kinda a cut a dry choice.

[aupatking]

I think the increase in tournaments needs to happen at the class F level, where PP boats can be used. It is class F, right? I think once we get to class C, and obviously above, ZO should be the standard.

It should just be easier to hold tournaments. AWSA should be helping, nay, bending over backwards to help, anyone willing to put on such a tournament.

They should be helping, or launching their own initiative to help get clubs started. The lower classes bring in the new people. Class C is great, but that means trying to mix in Grass Roots skiers, which is difficult for the judges, officials, and drivers to keep up with who gets mulligans and the such. There should be tournaments where everyone gets a certain number of passes, make or fail. That could be factored into scoring, if a skier runs up the line at his speed, that’s a real score. I get that the time would increase, greatly, for the boat returning to fallen skiers, but that has to be factored in to the number of skier limit on the tournament.

I like your question @Wish, I just think that class C is what it should be.

[Drago]

@Wish seems boat restrictions have softened, no?

@Wish and @dave2ball --get yourselves a spell check, check out the grammargirl podcast, something please!

[eleeski]

I have never slalomed well behind any GPS version of PP. PP Classic has my top tournament scores but the drivers really knew it then. Stargazer has always felt horrible and the one Class F tournament with Zbox I'm blaming the boat for the sub par ride. I wouldn't knowingly go to a slalom tournament behind a Stargazer or Zbox boat.

 

But I won't knowingly go to a trick tournament behind a Nautique 196 - and that's allowed now.

 

I hope we do get informed of the boat options.

 

Eric

[Wish]

@drago yes it has but is it enough? Maybe it is. We will see I guess. Also fat thumbs and no auto correct. I ignore others typos and such and just assume the same. But will try to do better so it doesn't bug ya. ;)

 

@aupatking Agree if there's enough ZO boat owners and promo guys to fill the class C need in the coming years or just expand on what we have. Hate to see less C tournaments. If participation in tournaments is down and boats are harder to come by in certain areas do to rules and promo boat trends, then that's a big problem.

[aupatking]

Yeah, @Wish I know our nearest Nautique promo guy is in Nashville, 7 hours north of here. We had to use a lake resident’s boat at the last Class C at Ski Watch. I’m pretty sure every boat onsite there is a ZO boat though.

[lpskier]

@dave2ball You misread my post. The dinner included tournament is the three rounds of slalom,two rounds each trick and jump for $75, but you can just ski slalom and still stay for dinner. The three rounds of slalom for $50 has a nice lunch and you chip in what you think of fair.

 

Your observation, though, is a good one. First, you can’t compare NY and FL. In NY and most of the Eastern Region, most, indeed virtually all tournaments excluding Regionals are solely class C. Everyone pays an entry fee, including officials. There are no cameras, no TC etc. in FL, the tournaments are almost all L/R that offer a C. The C entry fee is always less than the L/R but always more than a C in NY. The L/R might be $60 per round and the C half that. How come?

 

In FL appointed officials (usually about 14 total) are comped an entry, fed and often put up in a hotel. So about a third of your skiers aren’t paying an entry. In NY, just about all the skiers do some job during the day.

 

Second, sites run tournaments to make money. In NY, it would be unusual to not be able to get into a tournament at the last minute. In FL, there is always a wait list, so if you don’t get your entry in early, you may not be able to ski. The law of supply and demand says you can charge more in FL than in NY.

 

I would support anyone in FL that wants to have an inexpensive class C only tournament, but that’s not as easy as it sounds. The FL federation has a 100 mile rule. If someone is having a tournament on a given weekend, you can’t sanction another tournament that would compete with the first within 100 miles of the first tournament. (Other states have similar rules.) several weekends are permanently assigned to certain sites (a protected weekend, ditto other states). Unless you go to the Winter federation meeting and bid for a weekend for your tournament, you are most likely out of luck.

 

I’m not saying this is good or bad. I’m saying that by and large, that’s the way it is. You can’t compare N.Y. and FL. I am reluctant to put it this way but it’s “apples and oranges.” Why am I reluctant? NY is a huge apple producer; well, I don’t need to explain what they grow in FL...

[dave2ball]

@lpskier I appreciate the long explanation. I live and ski in fla. I know the drill well.

My point was or is reguardless of what boat comes to the tournament the price would still remain the same for C tournaments or even may increase because the TC should compensate the boat owner if it is a private party that runs his boat.

[dave2ball]

@Wish I get what you are saying. As usual it’s all about the money. I can’t speak for MC or Malibu’ programs but Nautique is putting boats where the majority of tournaments are. The are not worried about 1 or 2 tournaments in the middle of know where.

Where should USA WATERSKI draw the line? I believe that the reason they AWSA picked 08 is because of ZO. that has really been the biggest change is skiing as far as boats go. If you include PP then why don’t we include hydrodyne twin riggs also which were used in the 70’s. USA WATERSKI was nice enough to allow boats back to 2008. We should be greatful.

 

@Horton I do agree with you about PP. my best scores have been with ZO just because of improvement. I would like to see what I could do behind PP today.

[Wish]

@dave2ball any time you want a crack at PP, just let me know.

[bishop8950]

I still ski both in practice. PP feels easier. The older softer engines are easier. But when I am skiing well I can run at least the same scores behind ZO. I just have to be skiing better.

 

Ultimately, I want to compete and I will ski behind whatever is there. These days the boats all feel different to me so sometimes I have to find the right make/engine combo to train behind. It’s a pain in the ass but I want to compete. I try to ski such that my style is less boat dependent but the boats still feel different.

 

Back to @wish question, should we have PP boats in Class C? Not sure the reasons or politics not too but it would be fine with me. But if we want PP tournaments make it an F (I assume then PP is ok) or don’t sanction at all. Our club “the pond” has non sanctioned events and all the boats are PP. entry is about $25, we have fun formats and they are a great time. So rather than fight the governing body, I would just do my own thing. Maybe I should fight for the cause but not sure I have the energy on this one.

[aupatking]

I guess if the argument were “ZO is more accurate” why not go, any approved hull with ZO? I’d say a 98 196 repowered and ZO’d would be fine.

[Wish]

@bishop8950 my question really isn't centered around PP as much as it is with rules pertaining to type of boats used. PP vs ZO is just easier for folks to debate I guess. The real question is if rules pertaining to tow boats for tournament use have been piled on over the years to the point where boat access is becoming to hard to come by in certain areas of the county. Could it become a much worse problem considering the insite into promo programs shrinking on another thread? What's a solution? Is using boats all the way back to 2008 enough??..maybe.

[dave2ball]

@aupatking you are right. If irs a repowered 196 then awsa should make it legal for class C.

[eleeski]

Repowered 79 American Skier?! Coming soon!

 

I'll have to try for the exemption. Might be tough for an L tournament...

 

Eric

[Horton]

If the sport as a whole pivoted away from the new boat mind set it would be a very good thing. We would also need to get away from a ranking list mindset.

 

Unfortunately I think the Genie is out of the bottle. The rankings list is how skiers get their competitive fix. If the rankings list continues to be central to the sport then everything else needs to be as equal as possible from tournament to tournament across the country.

[gregy]

There has to be balance of sustaining the sport, boat manufactures, and the tournaments. They're all intertwined and must each be considered for the continuation of the sport. I don't know what the answer is.

 

Boats aren't like cars where they just wear out and need replacing so there are a lot of good older boats out there but seems like to me the promo boats have probably been the major of tournament boat sales. I talk to local dealers and I've have some tell me they can remember the last time they sold a direct drive. I don't think dealers are all the sudden going to sell more DD boats because some promo guys were cut. It more likely will help the used market in my opinion. It might be that the manufactures want more mold time for the higher profit boats. Either way looks like we are going to have to be more creative as for boat supply for tournaments. Older boats might be an answer for some.

 

Malibu Response LX was still being offer up until last year by Malibu. So if you had a 98 repowered for ZO its the same things as a 2016 RLX in theory. I doubt to many people will complain about skiing behind a 99 196 with ZO.

[dbutcher]

2008 with ZO is a very practical, common sense solution for right now. Leave it that way. In 2028 we can ski with 20 year old boats if we so choose.

 

[kurt]

@lpskier , sounds like florida is the home of the good ol boys . If there is not enough officials to do a class c the same day as another tournament in that state ,then they should be developing more officials not restricting tournaments.

How do they expect to grow the tournament scene if you have a family of 3 or 4 skiers dropping $6-800 on one tournament just in entry costs? Thats just insanity.

 

[bishop8950]

@wish first, We will have to see how much promo program revision impacts tournaments going forward. The NorCal schedule for next year looks the same for 2018. Maybe getting boats will be harder but we will see.

 

Second, if there is a problem and we are seeing less tournaments sanctioned, would allowing older boats increase the number of sanctions. Is that your question? If yes, maybe and would be fine with me.

 

Alternatively we can just do our own thing and run events by our own rules and use whatever boats we want. Or sanction as F.

 

The following is ok with me: If I want a world ranking score I have to ski at least an L (current model year boats). If I want a ranking list score I have to ski at least a C ( whatever the age rule is for these boats). If those are not important to me why not ski F (any boat you want?) or non sanctioned. I don’t have the energy to get AWSA to let us use older boats in Cs. That said, it would be ok with me if they did. Might mess up the rankings a bit but if the upside was more events and less stressed boat owners and event organizers then I would clthink it’s a win. Go get em and submit a proposal.

[skierjp]

@kurt, Good Ol Boys? In Florida many of our Record tournaments start the day out as F and C at a very reduced price. This gives the techs a chance to get all the cameras set up. Problem is, in Florida you have a hard time fillings class C tournaments, some even have been cancelled. Palm Bay and Swiss do a excellent job at this but get very few C or F skiers. FYI, Florida has more then enough officials to run multiple tournaments in the same weekend!

[lpskier]

@skierjp It’s the promo boats that are hard to get. I’d almost challenge you to try to run tournaments at Orlando, Palm Pay, Miami and Jacksonville on the same weekend. The proposed changes in allowable boats could change that, but I can tell you that we have occasionally had to rely on athlete or ski school boats to hold an event. Also, if you are running a record, there aren’t that many TC’s. If you are running a straight C, no TC is required, so that would be a different story.

[aupatking]

How many new tournament boats are bought outside of the promo program vs. how many are bought through it? Just wondering if the programs have actually been translated into the final, primary sales, rather than the driver of secondary sales.

[ski6jones]

I was able to get an exemption to use an older than 08 repowered ZO boat for a class C. Didn't use it (tournament cancelled due to weather) but it was approved. Also feel that it would be nice for tournament organizers to let people know in advance when older boats are planned (when possible)

[skierjp]

@lpskier I'm aware of some of the situations. I'm the person responsible for scheduling boats in the South and East for Nautique. One of the issues is, when these events are scheduled in Florida no thought is given for Promo Boat avalibilty. We had 5 boats in Florida last year and we have 3 this year. Also, if your tournament is not in the Regional Guide it may not be considered for a towboat. I already see a conflict with 2 events in May that will conflict with the Big Dawg. Nautiques goal this year is to maintain the same percentage as last year but we need some cooperation from LOCs.

FYI, as to your comment about challenging me. Last year we COULD cover Jacksonville, Orlando, Palm Bay, Okeeheelee, and Mulberry all in the same weekend! Also, if I we utilize the ski school boats we can do McCormick, Swiss, Rini, Kiwi, Pickos and Travers. 10 tournaments in the same weekend

[dave2ball]

@lp skier your statement about having to use athletes/ ski school boats are some what false. Promo boats ware available for your tournament. Because of your request to have 6.2 L boats caused an issue because all promo boats in the area had the smaller 5.3 motor

 

[lpskier]

@dave2ball That’s correct. I understand that all 200 promo boats will be 6.2 in the future.

[lpskier]

@skierjp I think I got off on the wrong foot here. My point simply was that we have a lot more judges, scorers, drivers and safety directors than we have promo boats and TCs. There are probably enough officials in Orlando to have 10 class C tournaments in a weekend. If you are having an L/R, you need a TC and a couple promo boats, and those types of tournaments absorb a lot of the available resources. I’ve seen the same problem in other states; it’s not just a Florida issue, and I’m not saying it’s an “issue,” either. It’s just a fact of life.

 

I apologize if I said anything that sounded like a complaint. We are all grateful for the support given our tournaments by the boat companies and promo boat owners.

[kurt]

@skierjp , i was referring to the 100 mile radius rule and the preference dates that some sites have already locked up @lpskier was referring to.

After reading your post about having enough boats and officials to handle many tournaments why the 100 mile radius rule?

In Michigan we have a scheduling meeting in the fall for our tournaments but there are no rules. Out of respect and courtesy to other sites we try not schedule the same day but it sometimes happens.

Also we have gone to a round robin type scheduling where a different site gets first choice of a day each year.

As a tournament director i sometimes dont get the date i want , its no big deal .

Work together for the betterment of the sport.

If someone wants to schedule a C and nobody shows that tournament will not be happening the following year it cannot sustain itself.

I am not trying or attempting to understand Florida vs Michigan but there are some similarities , just asking questions if it was me that was a site owner in Florida instead of Michigan these are the questions i would ask or bring up.

[skierjp]

@ Kurt, I was just referring to having enough boats. As lpskier said we wouldn't have enough TCs

[skierjp]

Florida has similar rules for scheduling

[klindy]

If there’s a waitIng list to get into a tournament that’s a sign there’s more demand than supply. It suggests that the 100 mile or protected weekend policy is restricting growth. The question is whether those “on the list” are after a L/R tournament or if a class C is enough. If class C is enough for some there shouldn’t be any problem with having two nearby on the same weekend. If there’s enough demand to fill up two class L/R tournaments in the same vicinity, it’ll tend to grow the pool of officials and boats.

 

Guess bottom line is (with some reasonable approach) policies like protected weekends and “100 mile rules” may be part of the growth problem.

[lpskier]

@klindy Not to mention the antitrust ramifications. Since people or clubs organize tournaments to make money (often to reinvest back into their club or site), I think there is a real argument to be made that such rules are in fact conspiracies in restraint of trade, quite possibly in violation of both criminal and civil federal antitrust laws. That is something a state federation might wish to consider when refusing to approve a sanction for tournament X on a given weekend.

[Horton]

@lpskier it is just water skiing. Sadly there is a bureaucracy involved in our sport and all bureaucracies are imbecile incubators. Egos and agendas are the enemy of our sport and are alive and well in our bureaucracies but for the love of skiing please do not go off the deep end with comments about " criminal and civil federal antitrust laws".

[lpskier]

@Horton Nevertheless, the behavior may well fit the definition of the prohibited activity.

[MISkier]

@lpskier, how does a state federation prevent someone from merely submitting a sanction with USA Water Ski/AWSA? It seems that the sanction is through that body, not at a state level. I've never sanctioned a tournament, so I am unaware of the actual paperwork (digital or otherwise) required to do so. It did seem like the sanction is from USA Water Ski, though.

[Horton]

@MISkier there are in fact State and Regional approval processes