Tournaments that produce unexpectedly high scores may require additional scrutiny.

[Horton]

Tournaments that produce unexpectedly high scores may require additional scrutiny.

[Ilivetoski]

I say no but it depends on your definition of “unexpectedly high score” and how often that score is achieved in tournaments. Is everyone skiing 2@43? Yeah let’s look into that. Did people ski passes they are capable of running? Meh, I’m sure most of us have skied in tournaments where a lot of people skied well and even set PBs

[lakeaustinskier]

Considering that there are currently two big score controversies I'm voting no until I receive more information. Horton is doing his job stoking the discussion and driving people to his site. Very smart. Looking forward to the next Distance from Center episode.

[eleeski]

It is unsportsmanlike and petty to question good results without hard evidence. Instead, enjoy and learn from it!

 

Eric

[Horton]

@lakeaustinskier I guarantee you that I am not trying to piss off the whole water ski world to drive traffic. I am sure as shit not making friends this week.

[lakeaustinskier]

@horton I should have been more clear. My point was I appreciate you pointing out hard subjects and the willingness to take abuse. Regardless of the outcome I respect you for not avoiding the controversy. Sorry about that.

[Horton]

@lakeaustinskier I appreciate that

[Horton]

@eleeski from anybody else in the skiing Community I would be offended by a unsportsmanlike conduct accusation.

[ozski]

What would the additional scrutiny involve? Its already enough work putting on a tournament.

[thager]

TSA

[Bruce_Butterfield]

@horton, good question, but a big can of worms. For starters:

1. What constitutes "unexpectedly high scores"?

2. What kind of "extra scrutiny" should be applied?

3. WHO decides on the above 2 items?

 

We have a fat rule book, surveyed courses, review of end course video and a long list of experienced officials already. If there is evidence of something out of whack, it should already be covered by the existing rules/officials. I don't see how any kind of super secret scrutiny would do anything except create swirl and piss people off.

[skidawg]

If the playing field was the same for all skiers participating then?????

[Horton]

@Bruce_Butterfield fair points. I just mean that if scores seem unusual should we all just accept it as fact or should we be inquisitive?

[Horton]

@skidawg in terms of mano a mano competition I 100% agree but what if the scores impact who goes to Regionals or Nationals or Worlds or the Masters

[Dirt]

I don't want more rules. I think it is good to talk about it. The dentist with the long rope and shrinking slalom course is why people question everything.

[thager]

Perhaps double secret probation would help! And a toga party...... Actually should have voted no. Skis are better. Boats are better. Technique is better. Kids are better. Athletes in general feed off the vibe of those around them. A good day can become a great day, a bad day a disaster! Of course we don't talk about bad days here.

[ALPJr]

No suggests that qualified, well rounded officials are in place and the playing field and equipment meet spec'.

[PurdueSkier]

No. This is 180 degrees opposite the Life on the Water image that USA Waterski is trying to promote. We already have an exclusive and elitist community. If we want to bring people into the sport we should celebrate the successes of the sports best not doubt and further scrutinize. According to this site practice doesn't count and now neither do Class C tournaments or any tournament at any level when someone unexpected skis well and wins. Not how we grow the sport

[Edbrazil]

Back 15+ years ago, one site had scores averaging about a full pass on their Class C course vs. their R course. Some corrective measures were taken.

[ForrestGump]

Oops. I meant to hit the no button, but hit the yes button instead. It's a game. We take this crap way too seriously.

[Bruce_Butterfield]

@horton “I just mean that if scores seem unusual should we all just accept it as fact or should we be inquisitive?”

 

So the “we” is a bunch of skiers on the internet who were not at the event, many of which are not officials, have never been to a major event, but have authority to demand “extra scrutiny” all based on someone else performing well?

 

Yep, bring on the Spanish Inquisition and hang a few of those skiers who dare to perform better. That’ll show ‘em.

[skidawg]

@Horton -pretty sure these pros are all qualified for worlds! My comment was aimed at pro events mainly. If amateur skiers have super inflated scores it will show at nationals

[disland]

IMHO the only events that should require end course video, video anything, surveys and all that should be pro events with a decent sized purse.

 

For those Pro events we have enough rules.

 

Like @tfin says lets focus our energy on getting more prize money and putting on more pro events.

[BraceMaker]

In general I would think it doesn't hurt to re-verify certain aspects. What would they even be though? ?

 

Naturally I would think that the individuals in charge of verifying the course dimensions, rope lengths and boat speeds are going to give a little extra criticism to high scores and more so the more they matter, and if athletes feel a grievance they would have the ability to air it if they felt inclined to do so.

[MattP]

@horton the only thing we can scrutinize after the fact is ECV & the survey report and yes a new survey can be done. We have enough rules...

12 officials from 6 countries signed their name and reputation to this event. If there was something going on I would hope someone would say something. To be associated with controversy is a way to not be invited back to big events in the future or for skiers to attend your events.

[Horton]

@mattp maybe I used the wrong words.

 

Should we blindly accept all results or when results seem extraordinary should we wonder if there is an unknown factor boosting results.

[ALPJr]

I thought we weren't allowed to talk politics?

[Horton]

Waterski politics only.

[Andre]

@ALPJr

:) lol!

[Deke]

They already get additional scrutiny... right here on BOS!!! Seriously, there is a system in place already. Do we have to check the checks?

[LoopSki]

At one point few years ago , I was all gung ho about skiing tournaments. I wanted to ski a lot, train and get better. I've now said screw it. Tournaments are boring! Im never gonna be competitive skiing against guys that get into 39 in my class. Skiing to compete against myself is lame. So now, I just stay home , ski and drink some beers.if I ski well , great . If not , who cares. Way more fun ! Things would need to change a lot to draw me back in. I will however ski one tournament at Pleasant Oak Ski Party. That event is fun.

[eleeski]

@MattP is right. @Horton delete this thread and all the controversy posts from the other thread. The sport does not need this "fake" news. Your new words seem even more inflammatory.

 

In my experience, the variables work against the skier. Best results happen when everything is spot on. If there's added attention, it should be to publish what they are doing right for the skiers.

 

Eric

[skidawg]

@eleeski - not fake news, not done for site hits. @Horton is only stirring conversation. If there were guys on site saying it was fishy, then eventually it will come out in the wash. Open discussion never hurts anything (except feelings and those don't count in the south)!

[Drago]

@Edbrazil

Crap, is that why I scored better in Ls? Actually, I remember a lake like that, but that's when (I was told) the spec's were different (can you verify-- more than 15 yrs ago).

There have been many more incidences of bending the rules, or full on cheating, than Dr Michaels in this sport, collectively and individually. this is why we have many of the rules in place today.

 

[Bruce_Butterfield]

@horton I guess my heartburn is with your wording and implications.

 

“Extra Scrutiny” implies something illegitimate and needs to be corrected.

 

“Inquisitive” is simply wondering if there is something that can be repeated, i.e. magic water, awesome new boat, superb driving, skier psychology (very real), or something else.

 

As an example, I was at a Trophy Lakes tournament in 1997. If memory serves, at that time there were 4 men in the world who had run -39 in a record tournament. In a span of 2 hours that number went to 10, with another skier getting 5 1/4. On the surface, that may rise to your level of “extra scrutiny” or “inquisition”, but conditions were perfect and everything was legit. However there was a common factor that was a major, if not sole, contributor.

[Horton]

@eleeski thank you for your your comments. The more you disagree the more I know I'm right

[RazorRoss3]

100% No.

If there is a grounded reason to expect cheating then that specific route should be pursued. If a skier simply had the best tournament of their life they should be given a round of applause from the shoreline and that's it. End of story.

[Horton]

@RazorRoss3 if you personally go to a tournament and score six balls above your previous pb you would accept that as legit?

[skiinxs]

As long as the rules have been followed, I don't believe high scores are an indication of anything other than the environment and group adrenaline that can sometimes happen when everyone starts skiing well. It seems to bolster everyone's performance. I have seen it work in the opposite direction as well.

[RazorRoss3]

Considering in 2016 I set a new PB by 4.5 in tournament at Lakes of Katy, then repeated it at SMRR, then repeated it again at the BOS cash prize at Aquaplex... Now maybe I just bring my A game to tournaments, after all, of the 7 -35s I ran that year 4 were in tournament and 3 were in practice so I might be outside the norm.

 

Yes, if I were to have another event where my PB gets boosted by 4.5+ I'd be through the moon excited, might have to double check the that the rope was on the correct loop, but short of them telling me they forgot to shorten the line I'd buy it.

[DefectiveDave]

I would say yes, but with pretty significant caveats.

 

1. Without additional evidence, there would need to be an objective statistical threshold so that politics wouldn't enter the discussion (say plus-minus 4-sigma for the entire event with respect to contestants average scores)

2. A 3-month waiting period (or so) to see if scores start creeping up near the outlier tournament

3. A record would have needed to be set or someone would need to file a protest

 

We have to trust the systems in place, but it is potentially good policy to investigate outliers if warranted and necessary. It's not a perfect comparison, but medal winners in the Olympics are subjected to some additional drug testing scrutiny because they are the outliers.

 

The key to this additional scrutiny would be that no one is being accusing of foul play. There are so many things that can cause this type of clustering and I would argue that the majority of them don't involve foul play on anyone's part. One benefit of such scrutiny might be that we are able to identify site, weather, and boat conditions that perhaps result in higher or lower scores and allow us to provide skiers with more consistent conditions and a more level playing field during competitions.

[Nando]

Well,yeah, but how would we retroactively police things? Boat path video? Send out a TC to measure the course? Check the angles of the jump? Review trick video? I think we've gotta trust that our officials are playing fairly. I know rules have been played with, but we're can't make a fun sport paranoid.

[thager]

It's not paranoia if it's true!

[Moffattra]

Do tournaments that produce unexpectedly low scores require additional scrutiny?

[Horton]

@Moffattra yes. I've been to tournaments where everybody skied unexpectedly bad and we definitely stood around afterward and asked what the hell just happened.

[Moffattra]

@Horton, totally, but usually we don't decide the rules were broken. I'd like to think that the weird combination of variables that makes everyone ski shitty, can reorganize and make everyone awesome. Or at least me...

[JackQ]

I do not think there are as many "questionable" tournament's/sites as may have occurred in the past. It becomes obvious after a while, and doesn't really help anyone if the scores aren't legit individuals get exposed at the Regionals/Nationals. Some skiers have had averages a full pass better than mine, but at the same site and conditions they would always seem to score behind me. Maybe they were just consistently unlucky?

 

I do believe most skier know, when something is not right. Example: About ten year ago I attended a tournament in the Eastern Region (that will remain nameless), where I ran 38 all three rounds and 4@39. At that point I would run 38 in a tournament maybe 1 or 2 times a year and if I had a great start and turns I may get to #2@39. At this tournament 38 was easy and I was waiting for the buoys at 39, even #4 where I was so surprised, I never made it to #5. Occasionally skiers set their PB at a tournament but it seemed that 1 in 4 were setting their PBs at this tournament.

 

I knew it wasn't right and never went back to the site, and don't consider 4@39 as my PB.

[bishop8950]

@Bruce_Butterfield at Trophy, was that before the course was put to target spec or while it was still at the lower limit? I assume the latter. If so, its a good example of why inquisition is important and as far as I understand the story exactly what happened.

 

Not addressed at Bruce:

 

I just said this in the other thread, if I were an official of an event experiencing exceptional scores I would support investigation. Quick check of the rope. Anyone been watching the driver? Beyond that not much you can check. But I also suspect that will catch most causes of exceptional performances short a course being out of spec or true athletic execution combined with statistics.

 

In a collegiate tournament we had people running PBs by a pass. After @JeffSurdej ran something like the first 38 of his life, we stopped and found out there was an extra section in the rope. Better that than soldier on while entering false exceptional results.

[JackQ]

When PP had the switch the opposite occurred where a switch rope would be on a boat without a switch. After ever skier in the 1st round of a tournament skied below their average and the 35&38 skiers were way below norm, it dawned on us. Wrong rope! Thank goodness the rope switch died, just a band-aid for PP algorithm shortcoming and a way to sell more equipment.

[Bruce_Butterfield]

@bishop8950 at that time several world records had been approved at trophy, so I can only assume the course was within tolerance.

 

The common denominator for my example was every one of those skiers was riding a Goode 9100. That’s definitely something most skiers would be inquisitive about, but nothing worthy of extra scrutiny.