B5/G5 Passes AWSA Board...takes effect now!

[MattP]

I don't have kids so I don't really have a dog in this fight. I am for less divisions, BUT somehow this year the Southern Regionals had record level attendance in Jrs. 86? I am not sure if this is due to the current environment where there are less events to be going to outside of skiing or if more skiers qualified through their State Championship podiums.

 

*note Southern Regionals almost had over a 12 year record in attendance.

[Jody_Seal]

This topic was talked about at dinner last night. We all had kids or current juniors competing in the sport either now or in the past.

Overall agreement was that in the past when there were three divisions there were more juniors skiing at a far higher level then what we have now.

Competition in the junior ranks was good and kids looked forward to skiing against better skiers, it made them better skiers.

Now we have one or two real good skiers in all divisions and a give every kid a medal ideology in the sport.

Again in this sport a perceived problem was addressed by a few squeaky wheels..

The experiment continues!

 

[Bruce_Butterfield]

@unksskis

 

If you go back over the last 10 or 15 years, you will find a surprisingly high number of kids who have won titles or placed high in their first year or 2 in an older age group division. Physical maturity is pretty far down the list of attributes you find common among the better/winning skiers.

 

If you have a kid in the first year of an age group and are looking at how you can place, that’s a really bad perspective. (JMHO as a parent and competitor). Competition is about improving, striving to be better and working your way to the top. Challenging yourself against better athletes is an incredible way to learn. If you are at the bottom and work your tail off to get to the top, there’s nothing like it. If you practice a little and show up and get a 3rd place trophy, what do you learn and instill in a young athlete?

 

If we had hundreds, or even dozens of kids in these groups, I would be all in favor of 2 yr age divisions. The reality is we have single digits (many times less than you can count on 1 hand) in each division at each Regionals. That is NOT competition and is NOT in any way, shape or form beneficial for a young athlete.

 

If the goal is to increase involvement – and I’m all in favor of that – small divisions and diluted competition is just about the worst thing the organization can to do to achieve that goal.

 

Side note - some parents have expressed concern about increased speeds for young kids. The ability to use Zero Buoy Scoring (ZBS) completely solves that concern and negates the supposed benefits of smaller age divisions.

 

 

[Hallpass]

Recently, my daughter had a particularly good run during practice. I said to the coach, a well-known, top-ranked skier, "it's a moral victory." The coach said to me - "that's why we do it - it's not for the money or the medals."

 

Something hit me instantly. I knew that coach was right. But still I continued to think on it for a couple of weeks.

 

Sure you may save a couple kids by diluting divisions and making them winners. But, since there is almost no money or fame, you won't keep many long term. You need to focus on the kids that already understand that this is mostly about moral victories, and those that crave real competition. Creating artificial awards by diluting age brackets does neither. My $.02

[klindy]

I appreciate the discussion on the topic. I know it was discussed at length in both the Jr Dev and Rules committees as well as at the board level. It’s never a clear cut answer. Clearly the 2 year divisions and graduated boat speeds help sync up the sport parameters with the physical maturity of the kids better than larger groups. That said it certainly does spread out skiers and sets up scenarios where there can be few skiers in an event.

 

@brettmainer your comment that “either you love to ski or you don’t” should mean it doesn’t matter if there are lots of age groups or none, one competitor or dozens. In other words, if the comments is true, none of the rest should matter to you, yet clearly it does. You advocate for fewer groups and “more competition” which is certainly valid and popular with others. At the same time, others believe the opposite, that doing our best to match up physical parity in a sport where clearly physical ability matters seems “fair”. In other words both scenarios are logical and have support. And again if “either you love to ski or you don’t” is true, either situation should be good.

 

Perhaps the better question is which scenario is the least desirable. As @MattP said, in the Southern Region in a challenging year we had record junior skier numbers. Too early to tell if the division changes had anything to do with it but it was awesome to see full and happy podiums. At this point I can’t see the harm done by the changes but again I am trying to keep an open mind.

 

I find it interesting that NO ONE seems to take advantage of the opportunity to move up to any older division @brettmainer you can certainly exercise your option and have your daughter ski in G5 right out of the gate in a couple weeks.

 

Perhaps a compromise solution. What if we leave the divisions where they are today and allow for any region to combine groups at their option based on entry levels, regional council decision or whatever. National could be setup where the age divisions/events will be combined if there are fewer than 10(?) skiers. Combined groups have the option of skiing at the higher division speeds (both slalom and jump).

 

The idea is to give the regions options from I’d hope input from skiers and parents. After a couple years we’ll see where the consensus is on the subject.

[sunperch]

@klindy if you guys truly want the input of the junior skiers, you may consider an alternative to sending an email. How many of them actually check email? How many of them have their email address attached to their membership instead of their parents?

[klindy]

@sunperch I understand that and in fact that highlights another wrinkle in this discussion. Everyone of the juniors are minors a s while their opinions are certainly important, the parents are the ultimate decision makers. Therefore the email addresses that would have been used are the parents.

[sunperch]

@klindy In my world, yes the kids are minors but they hold all of the control as to whether they want to continue to ski or not, regardless of what my decisions/opinions are.

[MISkier]

Maybe the parents should ask the kids what they want before responding to the survey.

[elr]

Well this dad would have sprung for two more Regionals and four more Nationals under the new system. Regionals and Nationals are $1,000+ tournaments and the money was better spent on coaching.

[brettmainer]

I’ve made my opinion known and I hear and understand the other side as well. Now that we have all seen the new divisions in action for a year, I hope the powers send out a clear, well advertised poll (I do not recall hearing about or seeing last year’s poll) with two simple choices: keep the current 5 divisions or go back to 3 divisions.

 

Publish the results for all to see and go with the majority. That is the American way.

[MISkier]

@brettmainer, we don't do that majority thing in water skiing. A couple years back, there was a question on the ZBS survey that asked if ZBS should remain as originally written (all tournament classes), as a protest had ensued about that rule change that had already taken effect. There was a majority that said it should remain all tournament classes. The rule was rewritten anyway to exclude exceeding your divisional max speed in the Regional and National tournaments and it was basically only allowed for class C.

[unksskis]

@MISkier isn't it only class L that can't use ZBS (world rankings)?

[MISkier]

Rule 10.06B says the following. Item 2 essentially says you can exceed your division maximum speed and receive the commensurate score for it in a class C only. You can ski above your maximum speed at the other tournaments, you just won't get the proper buoy credit for it.

 

The maximum allowed boat speeds shall be as follows:

1. A skier may elect to start at a speed higher than his division maximum speed, up to his respective Open Division maximum speed, and may not return to his division maximum speed on subsequent passes. Any passes skied at that higher speed shall receive credit for buoys as though they were being run at his division maximum speed.

2. In Class C tournaments, the skier may opt to ski at higher maximum speeds, up to 58kph (36mph) for male divisions and 55kph (34.2) for female divisions, excluding juniors, at their discretion. In this case, the skier shall receive credit for the buoys run at the higher speed.

[MISkier]

Back on topic, though.

 

It seems that folks want competition and want the medals to mean something.

 

Under 18 years

18 - 49 years

50 -74 years

75 years and older

 

Only one max speed in slalom - 36

No separation of gender

Just 1, 2, 3 placement

12 medals total per event - believe me, they will mean something, if you get one

[Jody_Seal]

2003

Some insite on the junior age groups topic.

This young competitor was jumping 180' as a 15 year old in what is today's boys 4 division. There were nearly 10 boys three of that year that were jumping that distance.

Slalom for that year was intense, 14 year olds were knocking down 35 off and tricks better then 8 boys three could trick better then 5k.

The girls side had even more performance depth across all three events.

 

Competition builds better skiers. However with performance ranking ideology and everyone gets a metal, competition then is diluted as does the level of competition to win. Or at least widens the competitive performance gap in many cases.

 

With this organization always an experiment.

Carry on!

 

 

[JeffSurdej]

@Jody_Seal experimenting is better than trying nothing right :). Junior skier attendance is the same at Nationals this year as last year while overall attendance is down 22%. Maybe it's b/c of lack of summer sports due to COVID but its a great sign anyway you twist it. As for comparing scores 20 years ago to today, there is no doubt they are way down but are you suggesting it is down b/c people are literally not getting better b/c they do not have to get better due to lack of competition?

 

I have not posted on this thread much but have been watching. We will see if the 5 groups is good, too early to tell but a good start so far, maybe we should have done 3 year groups instead of 2. But I will say something, having large numbers does not always equal competition, competition comes also from close scores. Having 50 B3S skiers when the scores range from 38 off to 15 off is not competition, having 2 groups of 25 closer in scores is better competition, ok yes more get medals, but its also motivates skiers to compete, participate and get better. I guess all I'm saying is that for every junior who does not like this I can find one that has come up to me and told me they love it and have stayed in the sport due to motivation to be competitive every year instead of getting kicked in the rear for 2 years until they are good enough to compete. My 2 cents anyways, we shall see how the experiment works!

[brettmainer]

So what is the verdict on the experiment? Are we keeping the current 5 kids divisions, going back to 3 divisions, or going to Jeff's 4ea 3yr division idea? Or, are we going to get to vote on it, majority rules? I might actually side with @JeffSurdej and vote for the three year divisions.

[JeffSurdej]

@brettmainer There are no proposals on the table (rules meeting Nov 7th) for any changes to junior age groups so its staying.

[JeffSurdej]

sharing a message I received....Jeff,

 

Haven't been able to post in the thread regarding kids age groups but I've messaged John w my USAWS number so I can.

 

Just wanted to share, I voted for the change, and as a result of the change all 3 of my kids are now planning on skiing tournaments. One of my daughters just skied in her first this past weekend and is just a pass away from nationals eligibility. The other 2 are close. The division change has lit a fire that did not previously exist because PRIOR to the change, when we'd talk about tournaments, with the ultimate competitive goal being nationals-eligible, they became discouraged just looking at scores online...hence, they essentially said what's the point. They would say, I like to ski, why would a tournament be any more fun when its just going to prove that the kids with more opportunity and access can ski better than me. They knew that already. They didn't need to go to a tournament to prove that to them, and it certainly did nothing to further inspire their interest, and for that matter, pushing their improvement. They each play multiple other sports and as a result of their perceived lack of competitiveness water-skiing got put in the "hobby" category.

 

The tighter divisions caused all of 3 of my kids to watch the nationals webcast and say, "I can do that! They're all my size! No one is embarrassing themselves starting at longline! And most importantly, I WANT TO BE THERE!." Maybe they will all be at nationals next year, maybe not, but regardless, as a family, our lake time went up, became more focused and goal-oriented, and we have had more fun together. The curmudgeon perspective that likens this to the "everyone gets a medal" mentality is ludicrous to me. Are the motivations for the 60 Mens 6 competitors at nationals the same as 11 year olds? Of course not. "Most" of those MEN know they have no chance to podium, they ski because they love it and want a sense of camaraderie and competition. And that's completely fine. They earned the right to ski nationals and by God they're enjoying their best life doing what they want to do. Great. Kids are motivated by thinking they "really can" do something if they put their mind to it, but that has to be tangible, which this change allowed. For the long term health of interest in water-skiing, this change will organically spur more and more interest from the next generation. I steadfastly believe that/ Wouldn't it be awesome if kids' tournament participation raises to be so high that a discussion about one year age groups has to be had?! I applaud the change. It is spurring more ski interest in my household than we have ever had, and for the extraordinarily few kids (parents) who feel like this in any way diminishes podium finishes (who would be finishing on the podium regardless), I can only offer that I think there's a heckuva lot more kids and parents who are inspired by the change. 20 years from now, they'll admit this was worth it. Well done.

 

[buechsr]

What Jeff posted was from me. I gave Jeff permission to post it. I appreciate the perspective of others who have had kids come through the ranks and their view that in the past, elite kids who move up in division to get whipped for a year or two can/should use that for motivation. That is fair (and true for many), but it skews its catering to the elite skiers (it seems), who are (and would be) members and participating already...and times are different. If membership and meaningful participation is a concern, then the next generation's engagement is a concern, and it at least needs to be asked: what framework helps spur more youth skiing that will be sustainable? I always thought that was a (the) goal. If there is an example of a regional this year at which there was one participant in G2, is it really that much more fulfilling if G2 was a spread of 4 years and there were 5 skiers? From my cheap seats that's an overall participation problem not a bracket problem The fact is childhood is busier than it has ever been for many people. Between dance teams, state lacrosse, travel club soccer, golf teams, and other stuff, we're stinkin' busy, and much of today's generation of kids are similar. They're far from the tv-addicted stereotype so many make them out to be (sorry boomers). Those that are, are not our target "market" anyway. TVs aren't youth skiing's enemy, it's the now overwhelming youth sports "machine", that is so demanding yet appealing to so many kids. Skiing's seat at the table for the kids considering their limited time for their athletic endeavors is bolstered by this change, in my view.

 

I find it hard to believe that elite junior skiers will be pushed away for lack of motivation, but since I don't have one, maybe that's true. Nonetheless, ample elite opportunities exist for their motivation including Jr Open, Masters, Pan Am, elite teams, worlds, etc. A silly analogy but true: just because the US Golf Association runs the US Open doesn't mean they don't understand that annual rounds and the demographics thereof are any less important to their mission.

 

If there is legitimate concern over the elite feeling a lack of challenge, how about an "Open Junior" division decided not based on pure buoy count given speed differences, but by line length? Notably, the winners of B3, 4, and 5 last year were separated by just 2 buoys at 11.25. Just another thought...Or maybe that's "too many" medals. lol

[6_Buoys]

@JeffSurdej and @buechsr Dividing up the middle groups into the new G/2 and G/3 as well as the new B2/B3 was a good idea. Not for competitive reasons, for safety and skier development reasons with the significant speed increases that no longer exist. Adding the 5th bracket was a step too far. Kids don't need to be "competitive" every year, they do need to see a challenge of getting better. The junior on the varsity team, who is better as a senior because he/she spent a season playing a step below the big boys/girls. I just finished the whole junior thing, now off skiing in college and I couldn't be prouder. As for nationals, already too diluted (but that is another thread).