Who is going to Nationals?

[Bruce_Butterfield]

@JeffSurdej

“I think the idea around L10 and forcing some level of skier into open is important for our sport as the # of complaints of sandbagging over the years has led to loss of members”

 

I adamantly disagree with that statement and mentality. Exactly who are the lost members who left due to someone else “sandbagging”? Are they the ones who can’t handle competing against someone who happens to be a better skier? Are they simply vocal complainers? Seriously, who has left the sport because there are better skiers than them skiing in an age division? If everyone had that mentality the membership would go to zero pretty quickly.

 

The situation that mandated level 10 has created is pissing off the exact people who are key to the growth you are working hard to achieve. Those skiers are the ones others look up to at local tournaments, train hard and push themselves to excel. Yes, a few are ready and willing to step up, most will grudgingly compete in masters or open and won’t like it, and the rest will say screw it. Exhibit A is the fact that there are 2 masters women registered for slalom at nationals. Explain to me how that is good for the sport.

 

The SCR did a survey last fall on level 10. If memory serves, there were 8 affected skiers. ALL were against the mandate. Does anyone at USAWS care?

 

If the organization remains hellbent on pushing open/masters division, a far better approach is to use a carrot instead of the stick. It should be an honor and privilege to qualify. It should something skiers WANT to do, not something they are forced into just because a vocal few complain about sandbagging.

 

The current implementation is beyond stupid.

[Jody_Seal]

@Horton

Yes please move it if you want but for many in the sport this Mandate is a serious issue. If it does get moved just make sure it gets moved for all to read and comment on.

 

 

Should the sport have Elite divisions? yes ! should the sport grow these Elite divisions? Yes! Mandating is the wrong direction making the Elite divisions overly accessible is the wrong direction also, the ladder must be climbed. To achieve Elite status should be an Accomplishment not a mandate!

 

 

 

Who the hell is schroed? and why did you let him in your boat? must be a left coast thing!

 

[Bruce_Butterfield]

@JeffSurdej

Here’s another situation for you. My daughter tricks over 6000 pts, but is in college and didn’t practice toe tricks until June and didn’t score over the level 10 threshold until after the cutoff date. She’s not going to nationals for other reasons, but if she did, she could compete in W1 tricks and have a good shot at gold. So my questions to you are: “is that sandbagging?” If it is who decides if it’s sandbagging? And most importantly, who is going to leave the sport if she won gold at nationals?

[lpskier]

@Chad_Scott I thought the genesis of the Open exemption from Regionals was due to a regular Pro Tour conflict during the traditional weekend for Regionals. The Open skiers were exempted so they could ski the pro event without being DQed from Nationals.

 

Since there is no longer a conflict, wouldn’t the better solution for the sport be to do away with the exemption so as to increase Regionals participation and prestige, rather than to further exempt even more of the best skiers from Regionals? Most folks don’t go to Nationals. For them, Regionals is the big dance. Why make it a lesser tournament by exempting more good skiers from participation requirements? I think the better idea is to do away with the Open exemption because it’s reason for existence is now gone and it will make Regionals a better tournament for more skiers.

[John Brooks]

Seems like this is just waterskiing and we do it for fun and no good reason to get all worked up about it. It's more fun to enjoy the banter between @Horton and @schroed . Maybe that will end up as a jello wrestling match.

[Jody_Seal]

It goes deeper then "it is just waterskiing!" It is a sport lifestyle many choose and for most skiers they live their lives around the competition. They train to the level of competition they can either afford or their capabilities. Open /Elite Level competition should be a reward given to the athlete that aspires and qualifies for that level not a mandate on a very very low qualification number/score. To Mandate an Ageing skier into a no win situation is truly unfair to the individual and it degrades the sport. To Mandate a skier into elite/open competition who's capabilities will never be to that level, again is truly unfair as that skier has only the chance to win if the true elite/open skiers falls or does not show..

Level 10 Mandate is a travesty and should be eliminated.

[unksskis]

@JeffSurdej thank you for your response and interaction, I commend you putting yourself out there, and the progress that this provides overall.

[Not_The_Pug]

I think we should get back to @horton vs. @schroed and let @dirt moderate. It is fun to hear @dirt tell the story with the gleam of pride in his eye. You would think it was the shot heard around the world the way Dirt tells it. :)

[JeffSurdej]

Not sure how a simple comment on how great it is to see 58 open skiers skiing nationals turned into another L10 debate but the point I was trying to make is when is the last time you saw the names you are seeing in open at nationals? it is not b/c of L10 it is b/c of the America's Cup.

 

@Chad_Scott Just to clarify you can achieve L10 in open with class C as well, only difference is that for open its an AVG not a one time score and as far as treating them like Open, you know I agree with you 100%, if L10 is going to work we have to treat it as an honor, rules committee passed and proposed to let MM skip regionals but it was voted down 25-0 at the board meeting.

 

The shame about this entire situation is that we have created an atmosphere where skiers do not want to be in Open or MM, it should be an honor and skiers should want to ski there, they should take pride in placing 10th in elite vs winning an age group, I am not sure how to fix that but the fact that so many elite skiers stay in age groups is one reason L10 became to be.

 

@Bruce_Butterfield no your daughter is not sandbagging and 6000 is way too low for L10, I agree.

 

@Jody_Seal I think we could debate this for years, and lets face it L10 is a very debatable subject, obviously. There are good points on both sides, and much like politics people are going to be on one side or the other. There are certainly flaws in the current way it is being done and I hope we can smooth those out as we progress, but I stand behind the fact that I think elite level skiers should be skiing in elite divisions, as long as we have those divisions in existence there HAS to be some rules around how and when you must ski them, if not then no one will move up when they should as we saw for years. If this is the case then we should get rid of elite divisions, but you cant have them and let it be an option, no other sport does that. L10 should be a higher mark, get rid of overall, and maybe add some criteria in there around placing at pro events and I think it would work much better.

 

Everyone has their own opinions, Mr bedsole doesnt want to ski against 35 year olds, I get it, he would rather ski against someone his age who tricks half is run, than there are others who would rather ski against anyone any age and have great competition, neither is wrong or right, its personal preference on what drives you in this sport.

 

The true answer is ability based skiing, some combo of age and ability, but I don;t think our membership will ever take that massive leap and break away from age groups.

 

Level 10 is not going to save the sport, but I will tell you as president that I had received plenty plenty of hate mail over allowing "elite" skiers into age groups over the years, that there is no doubt it drove many away from the sport or from competing at regionals and nationals, that being said I probably have received just as much hate mail from L10'ers so its probably been a wash in the end.

 

FYI we did survey the skiers last fall on L10, here is the result of last years survey.

 

 

[Horton]

@Krlee the best part about the stories that @dirt tells is that they are never more than 49% true

[schroed]

Would my handle pop on @Horton's boat be considered a Level 10 handle pop? I specifically aimed for the aluminum vent rather than the gel coat. @Horton - Is your boat going to Nationals or to the Ball of Spray tournament? If you want, I can aim for the gel coat next time to try to show my control of hitting your boat and achieve a Level 10 handle pop rating.

 

BTW - just so you know. I had a lot of money riding on that round and I needed the extra half buoy.....

[Chad_Scott]

@lpskier and @JeffSurdej I hear the argument that the exemption was due to the pro tour. Which hasn’t existed in the past 20 years. So we have maintained it based on the pro tour that doesn’t exist. As for doing away with the exemption, I don’t see that as good either. Most of the open skiers get no real benefits from supporting nationals anyway. It’s 165 for one round no money America’s cup is a great idea this year. But why force open skiers to go spend another 130$ plus travel for one round with no benefit at a regionals I’d say without a cash tournament you would lose many open skiers at the nationals if they were forced to do both. Having the likes of Nate Smith, Freddy Krueger is a good thing for our nationals and the kids attending nationals So doing away with the exemption all together I don’t think is good for attendance either

With all that said. You can’t force people into this elite status and then have the same people who voted the level 10 mandate vote to say that 1/2 of the level 10 do not receive the same exemption. Your elite but not really. We just don’t want you in our age divisions at regional and nationals because we can’t beat you.

 

The exemption is in place for level 10 or elite skiers from the open division. If it’s not across the board then it should be done away with. No pro tour, or give it to anyone in an elite division.

But the crybabies that don’t want to compete with better skiers their same age also don’t want the better skiers to have the option to skip regionals because they can’t.

 

Don’t see how it can be both ways. Your in an elite division and you get the perks.

[eleeski]

@Horton Boats are supposed to be used. You've gotten enough mileage out of your handle event that you should be paying @schroed . Flaunt that handle ding as a badge of honor!

 

I'm very proud of having had the opportunity to ski Open and MM. Thank you @JeffSurdej for changing the overall so I can ski both MM and overall (if only my knee would let me).

 

I'm bummed that the L10 mandate kept a couple skiers out of competition. But there is a decent division for MM tricks at Nationals this year - good! I personally am chasing that mandate as hard as I can.

 

Of course, if I somehow sneak into Open, I'll abandon MM in a second!

 

Eric

 

 

[Jody_Seal]

"Not sure how a simple comment on how great it is to see 58 open skiers skiing nationals turned into another L10 debate but the point I was trying to make is when is the last time you saw the names you are seeing in open at nationals? it is not b/c of L10 it is b/c of the America's Cup."

 

@JeffSurdej You are deluding yourself with that statement. Reminder in order to ski in the Americas Cup (for money) one had to enter the nationals in open division. Also as you know an edict went out that qualified open elite competent drivers will drive these elite level events at the nationals. The second statement alone is cause for an increase in open entry's provided the chief driver and the nationals officials follow through.

 

No skier I know of is happy taking 10th place in anything. I know of no other sport where Athletes are mandated into elite levels! in order to be the 165 pound Olympic wrestling gold medal winner that winner has to beat the world at that weight. in order for Roger Federer to win a world cup championships he had to beat the rest of the men's tennis ladder. your statement again could be construed as delusional.

 

"Everyone has their own opinions, Mr bedsole doesnt want to ski against 35 year olds, I get it, he would rather ski against someone his age who tricks half is run, than there are others who would rather ski against anyone any age and have great competition, neither is wrong or right, its personal preference on what drives you in this sport."

But it is ok to let Russell in MM with twice as many points then Mr. Bedsole?

 

"but I stand behind the fact that I think elite level skiers should be skiing in elite divisions, as long as we have those divisions in existence there HAS to be some rules around how and when you must ski them,"

Don't think anyone would disagree with that statement however "Mandate" with such low qualification standards in trick and jump where the current mandate in slalom falls right at the top 20 in the world standings lists is absurd. Mandating is not good for the sport period. Again it lessens the target value and it will only continue to cause division with the membership of this organization.

 

your membership knows that being fearless leader of the association has it's personal degradation and successes. You now have the opportunity to really make a positive impact

In this situation / policy and state to your board that a compromise needs to be made and if a mandatory situation is continued to exists it needs to be a compromise of equal level across all three events and not a lopsided affair as now exists.

 

Thank you Jeff for coming on this forum and stating your case and being open about issues within this organization. however unless you and your board take action and either eliminate level 10 all together this year or bring the mandate standards up to true elite qualification level you can only expect more hate mail and dissension with in membership.

 

 

 

[eleeski]

When I started skiing there was only senior men and veteran men age divisions. Now we have 10? The current age divisions are arbitrary. Masters cuts through this and selects by ability. Just the idea that was needed.

 

But participation has been poor. Win M4, M5, M6 or compete against your ability peers? I personally would rather be DFL in MM than ski the age divisions.

 

I don't understand the vehemence against skiing MM. Except for jumpers who by virtue of ramp height and speed can be massively disadvantaged. But solutions exist there as well.

 

If you qualify, ski MM. Proudly!

 

Eric

[Chef23]

@JeffSurdej made a point I agree with that it should be an honor to qualify for MM or Open and finish 10th or even 20th vs winning an age division. I am not that good a skier and have not yet qualified for Nationals but hope to one day and when I do I will go and likely finish in the bottom 1/5 of the field because I barely got in. Maybe if I was good enough to compete for my age group I would feel differently.

 

I can equate it to golf where I am a pretty good golfer that came to competitive golf after college. When I was improving I always preferred to play in scratch events against the best golfers around. I didn't care if I came in last it was an honor to me to qualify and be able to play against them. Playing against them elevated my game and eventually I was competitive for my club's championship and played in State Amateur championships. I would rather have been last playing against the best than first playing in the handicap divisions. Not everyone feels that way.

 

There will always be people that sandbag in every sport. Doing the best I can drives me not winning a medal at an event. I would never pull up in a pass I could run to keep me out of MM or OM. Just like I would never deliberately miss a putt to keep my handicap from dropping.

[Bruce_Butterfield]

@eleeski Eric I agree with about half of your comments. You are one of the few who WANTS to step up and be compared to higher level skiers - that’s a good and admirable thing.

 

When I was in my prime I skied OM and never had any delusions about beating Andy and Bob, but if I had a good day I could place in the middle of the pack - and did on several occasions. Those are some of my proudest skiing accomplishments. But I CHOSE to step up and ski Open. If I and others of similar ability, had been FORCED to ski against Andy and Bob to meet some arbitrary percentage, it would have been just as insane as the mandate we are arguing about now.

 

What I do have serious heartburn about is a small number of whiners trying to force the “better” skiers out so they can feel like they have a “more fair” chance at nationals. If Jeff Rodgers, Badal, et al are formally excluded, somehow that eliminates all those slimy sandbaggers and the skier who can sometimes run 35 off now has a chance to win nationals. But wait, it has to apply to all other divisions and events to make it look like it’s not really just about MM slalom. Except wait it really can’t be applied across all divisions or there will only be 2 competitors in several divisions. And oh by the way, a 190’ jumper and a 6-7000 point tricker aren’t really competitive in an elite division so they are just SOL. Collateral damage just as long as Chad Scott can’t ski M4 any more. Mission accomplished.

 

So again, I’m all for the elite divisions, but it is fundamentally wrong to force skiers into these divisions, short of some really high criteria. The elite divisions should be a goal and reward, not a punishment that says you are too good to win a national championship, so you have to ski against the worlds best and not have a prayer of placing, let alone winning.

 

And @JeffSurdej I do appreciate you participating (and being a punching bag) and at least trying to explain the rationale. More communication and dialog is good.

[Chad_Scott]

@Bruce_Butterfield men’s 3 and 4 used to be prestigious events. At least when I was coming up. My first 2 years getting beat by chuck and mike Morgan. I wish I would have had the opportunity to get rid of them. Oh or just keep skiing and try to get better. And I’m out. But do I have to go to regionals to ski against 4 guys. That I see most weekends

[klindy]

@Bruce_Butterfield, @Jody_Seal and @eleeski I agree with most of your comments and certainly appreciate the vantage point where the comments are based.

 

@Bruce_Butterfield I do disagree with your comment - "What I do have serious heartburn about is a small number of whiners trying to force the “better” skiers out so they can feel like they have a “more fair” chance at nationals." How is that not precisely the basis of your thought about being forced into L10 and not be competitive. Isn't that exactly what happens to us middle of the pack skiers in the age divisions when those who can (should? want to?) ski in MM or OM ski in their age divisions? I'm being "forced" to ski with someone significantly more talented and skilled than I am and I have no option to go into another division unlike the MM/OM skier.

 

It's a tough one. As @JeffSurdej said, the likelihood of switching over to an ability-based system. But even then sounds like some skiers who are similarly ranked don't want to ski against someone who's 20-30 years younger. Dilemma...

 

What are the suggestions to improve what we have? Raise the entry requirements for L10 and keep it mandatory? Make elite divisions completely voluntary? Something in between?

 

Clearly having an incentive like the America's Cup tournament "added on" to another event like the Nationals helps draw OM/OW skiers. More of the same would be great if the sponsorship was available.

 

[JeffSurdej]

I do think some of the heartburn @Bruce_Butterfield is not so much skiers not wanting to ski against the best but rather the jumping back and forth, you have anna gay and erika lang competing at masters and us open, but then go G3 at nationals, you had big dawg skier ski MM and big dawg all year and then drop to age at nationals, I think this bothered people more than anything, its that dropping back and forth that felt like sandbagging. Some have said one good move rather than L10 might be to declare what you are skiing at the beginning of the year and stick to it

[Bruce_Butterfield]

@klindy there is a huge difference. The current level 10 mandate is taking a skier from the position of “if I ski to my potential I have a good shot at being a national champion” to “if I ski the best I can, my only chance at not being DFL is if the best 5 skiers in the world totally choke”. Now compare that to the middle of the pack skiers who don’t have a realistic chance to place, many are happy just to qualify and most are ecstatic to beat their seeding. Those are 2 very different situations.

 

Part of the problem is that the rankings list started as a good idea to let skiers know how they compare to their peers and set thresholds for nationals entry, but is has been morphed into the end all/be all standard for everything. I think that’s a bad precedent, especially when trying to take the top x% in performance or population. I would like to see solutions move away from the rankings list.

 

So for what I think are better solutions. First, can we agree that the majority of the complaints relate to MM slalom and the elite level skiers are a distant second?

 

1. Mandatory entry into MM slalom is required by the top 3 placements at each regionals and top 5 placements at nationals for M3, M4 and M5, provided they have ALSO met the performance standard (6@39 or so). This will eliminate the “sandbagging” - I don’t think anyone is going to stand up a buoy early at regionals or nationals just to avoid mandatory entry. The additional requirement of meeting the performance standard prevents the lower level skiers from being forced in once the top dogs are out. Entry for anyone else who meets the performance standard is optional. I sent this proposal with full details to the rules committee and got crickets.

 

2. Mandatory entry into open division for any skier who wins prize money at an elite professional event. This would take someone 5 minutes to update a spreadsheet after each elite event. This addresses the very unlikely scenario that Freddy or Nate would choose to ski their age division and is a much better measure of an elite level competitor. Again entry is optional for any skier who meets the performance standards and chooses to step up. Similarly, any skier who wins money (top 8) at a Big Dawg event is required to ski MM slalom. A key point of this is that it does not penalize the mid level open or MM skiers who want to go the big events for experience. Tournaments like the BOS cash prize or a backyard buoy fest that pays out a few bucks are NOT considered elite or big dawg events.

 

3. Any skier who currently holds, or who has held a world record in the past year is required to ski in open division in that event. I think that’s a high enough bar that we can agree is appropriate for mandatory entry.

 

I think if #2 and 3 are implemented, #1 would not be necessary.

 

I also think events like MM trick and MW slalom are good ideas, but need to be driven from the ground up and not forced. Set a criteria and see how many entries are received. If the number is small (2-4) give the competitors the option to switch to their age division at the last minute for nationals. Maybe Eric can coerce a bunch of old trickers into joining him.

 

But I know this is too simple and logical. It will never work.

[JeffSurdej]

@Jody_Seal if we go top 15 in world to set L10 any suggestions on what to do in the over 35. I know 35 plus jump the 15th guy is under 100 feet. And trick is 3095. Slalom is lower too at 3@39. Might have to go higher in 35 plus ?

[Texas6]

My hat is off to Jeff for having this conversation and clearly listening

[Jody_Seal]

@JeffSurdej

 

If you look at the AWSA mens 3 rankings down to #8 (Webber 155' / 47 M) all of those boy's have jumped over 150' all but a couple were in class C events and of course Class C does not show up on IWWF rankings. So! you have a competitive group of men 3 jumpers why mandate a competitive group? so if the MM mandate is higher then 3@ 39 ( however not sure where you got your info as Menasci is #15 with 5.5 on the 10.75 line) why worry about that group of men 3 slalom skiers? One template does not fit all divisions..

 

As I posted in an earlier comment The Florida Federation will not adhere to level 10 for it's

State championships in 2019. What we are planning to do though is set up our tournament to allow skiers to ski against each other on a true equal basis. another words we will invite the men 5 and 6 slalom to be seeded and ski against each other with their scores going to their respective age groups and overall. We will invite all the 5 and half jumpers including B3 and men 3 (new jump rule 2019) to be seeded and ski against one another again with scores going to their respective age groups. I know Corbin and Steve would love to take a shot at taking down the Rocket on an equal playing field with out having an uneven field with Scott skiing 6 foot as would be mandated!

 

This level 10 BS has opened up a far bigger can of worms then had it just been left alone. level 10 was not outside the box thinking. competitive fairness was thrown out the door for a few whinny influential squeaky wheels. Funny the one skier that broke the camels back with these whiners (Boise) is qualified to ski age division, Masters women and open with out a level 10 mandate! unfortunately she has decided at this point not to ski nationals.

This years nationals has truly limited practice available yet a skier who is skiing for overall and mandated potentially has basically what amounts to a practice ride!

Then there is the possibility that a mandated skier is skiing on the same lake at the same time! what then? we had that happen at our regionals with Mark Shaw. he skied almost three hours after his age division skied! oh but wait!! we cant have a skier skiing under different conditions in the same division later in the day!

 

Suggestions:

1. Please read what Bruce suggested, pretty straight forward and practical.

 

2. open level mandate all events qualification based off of #15 on the IWWF rankings list all three events and overall. the open level qualification for AWSA can be whatever the SRC comes up with and hopefully it would be a more lofty qualification then what is currently in place.

 

3. men/women 5 and above no mandate at all however if skier chooses to ski MM/MW they declare and submit for 1 calendar year.

 

4 . A, Men / Women 3/4 Slalom mandate based off #15 on world standings list.

B, Jump and trick overall no mandate yet set MM/MW bench mark and require qualified skiers to declare and submit for one calendar year. Also for world team qualification / consideration skiers must compete in MM/MW divisions. Another words if a skier is qualified to ski at a world championship based on R,E,L scores then a skier should ski MM/MW through out the year.

 

5. As for overall allow skiers to carry scores over to age division or to or from Open/MM/MW provided scores are performed under criteria prescribed for division. "Note" this can of worms has already been opened and the worms are wiggling freely as described above with the Mark Shaw event at our regional!!

 

And yes thank you Jeff for your continued diligent leadership and providing input and listening as this forum is the only one (period) that skiers have an opportunity to put forth their ideas and issues.

I know going into that board room Monday you will have a few dedicated functional directors but you will also have a number of warm body directors that are truly clueless as to what and why they are their. hopefully you will stand up to what is right for our membership as a whole and not let the whiners continue to dictate for their own personal gains.

 

Jody Seal VP/FWSF, also part time councilman!

 

 

[Horton]

@Jody_Seal how about if we just eliminate Open and Master divisions and find out who the national champion is per each division? That would give us real national champions.

[Jody_Seal]

@Horton

Yea they had that opportunity a few years ago by addressing the rule there shall be no distinction between amateur and professional. Also what do you do with 6 foot jumping?

Also reminder the MM divisions came about when a number of aging 36mph and real good 34mph skiers wanted a format where they could be competitive on equal grounds, But they wanted their cake and to eat it too! they also wanted the speed to be 35 mph.

Our membership is small enough now that your suggestion is a valid one but alas you are truly barking up the wrong tree with that suggestion.

[Horton]

@Jody_Seal

ANY set of rules is going to benefit some and punish others. Can not make everyone happy. Do it my way and I will be happy :- )

[MarkM]

So......who’s going to Nationals?

[Horton]

Me!

[Jody_Seal]

@Horton .

Your yappy as long as you got tacos

[lpskier]

Just arrived. Checked out the site. Things look great, and Wichita looks fun!

[Horton]

I am at LAX waiting for a flight. See you guys at the MasterCraft booth.