Nate - 3@43

[BraceMaker]

@rayn of course but many sports have played with how seeding is done to change how the events look. This goes back to the concept of how do you make the webcasts of the top pro events more compelling watching. And personally it is making sure the end of the event isn't someone running out the clock.

[klindy]

@BraceMaker … @Stefan and @dave2ball have it right. Jeff and Patti at Silver Spray are NAutique dealers but that shouldn’t connect him to a brand directly.

 

And whoever thinks my comment above about the strength of “the field” currently is “off topic”, I’d sure like to understand why it’s off topic.

[dvskier]

@dave2ball @klindy I’m aware there is no direct connection to Nautique, only clarifying a tight alliance.

[swbca]

@lpskier I don't think that anyone can argue that slalom records will keep marching on in large increments. As slalom gets closer to hitting a wall, the increments get smaller. 1/2 point in 8 years ? So judging "the best slalom skier" by who advances the record the most points isn't valid.

 

Slalom has a structural limit based on the current rules, unless you think the progression of records will be earned indefinitely by skiers getting taller in 1 foot increments.

 

On the bright side, this will never affect most skiers . . . just a few of the pros.

[lpskier]

@swbca Cant argue with that, but my point is what metric do you apply to come up with the “best skier ever” label. IF it’s how far you pushed the record, Nate loses.

 

How about most slalom World Championships won? Andy won six, Bob five and Nate two. Andy wins by that metric.

 

Masters wins? Andy 14, KLP 7, BLP 5, Nate 5, Will Asher 5. Andy wins again.

 

Pick another metric. Pro tour wins? Not a fair comparison because today’s tour is so much smaller than the every weekend tour that used to exist.

 

I don’t have data to conveniently compare the number of tournament 41’s Nate has run vs the field, but I’m willing to assume that he has run more than all others combined and agree that, compared to everyone else except CP, he makes it look easy while the rest make it look as hard as it truly is. IF that is your metric, Nate wins.

 

BUT what is the right metric. I think that if you were to amalgamate all of the above data and assign points for how you finish in each category, Andy wins, as i think he should. For Nate to win, you would have to apply weighted averages for points, and you’d have to give significantly more weight to the most 41’s than any other category. I don’t think that is right. If anything, World Championships should get greatest weight.

 

I have nothing at all against Nate. I respect him as a great skier. I just don’t think that we can apply objective metrics and conclude, at this point in time, that he is the greatest ever. That could change, as he has a lot of time left to dominate the sport and change all of the above metrics. As of today, I believe the honor of “best slalom skier” goes clearly, unambiguously, and deservedly to Andy Mapple.

[swbca]

@lpskier Great points . . I acknowledge your point of taking every measure of the skier into account. I am biased toward measuring a handful of a skiers best performances. and comparing them to others skiers on the same basis. For me it has the simplicity of whos the fastest 100m sprinter. Not saying that's the right way to look at it.

[slow]

The only guy that surprises me when he doesn’t run 41

[AdamCord]

The question I often ask in the Andy vs Nate goat debate is this: if Andy were the same age as Nate and they were competing head to head today, who would be winning more events?

[S1Pitts]

The way I see it is nobody would be skiing the way they do today without Andy - just like so many other top athletes have inspired the young in their respective sports and moved their sport forward with their innovation.

[The_MS]

14 masters titles

[JackQ]

Better skier or better competitor, to me not necessarily the same. But if Andy was brought up with today's skis and equipment he would be even a better skier than he was.

[rockdog]

Andy about 14 Moomba wins as well give or take.

[scuppers]

I’m a big fan of Andy but then “hey who isn’t”. Ever since the mess surrounding Nate (I’d say about two years worth) he has performed at the very top of his game (anyone’s game) and with the extreme burden of dislike, distrust and (based on some of the posts right here on this forum), dare I say hate. Most super star athletes fold under that kind of pressure. One tennis spoiled brat can’t even handle an interview.

I don’t know about saying the greatest of all time, but in the end you’ve got to hand it to him.

[UCFskier]

yep, good skier

[randy meny]

200 plus 41 0ff passes, all other skiers together are less than half that.

[rockdog]

that illustrates perfectly how difficult it is to even get past one ball at 43.

[LeonL]

@rockdog is right. I've seen Nate run lots of 41's. Some of them looking pretty easy, and then get .5 at 43.

[BTheis]

I think Jamie Beauchesne said that skiing at 41 off is like skiing on a path about as wide as a sidewalk, were the 43 off path is about as wide as a garden hose.

[lpskier]

@randy meny Randy:

 

Not quibbling with you, just asking: Where does your data come from?

[rogerw]

@swbca

i remember seeing technical articles in the 70's wondering if any jumpers would break the 200' barrier.

[swbca]

@rogerw The only barrier in jumping is when the skier jumps so far ahead of the boat, the rope is pulled out of hand by the boat.

 

The structural barrier in slalom is when the rope is so short an 8' man cant get his ski outside the buoy when he is 90 degrees from the boat path. Try 50' off.

[Cnewbert]

Just thinking out loud here. Since -43 is a physical impossibility for skiers with insufficient reach to get around a turn at that rope length regardless of their skill, I wonder if the next step beyond a completed pass at -41 should instead be -41 at increased speed, upping it maybe 1 or 2mph.

[lpskier]

How about a reconfigured slalom course with the buoys at 12 meters from center instead of 11.5?

[randy meny]

lpskier sorry 148 and counting rakings list. my mistake.

[skierjp]

Changing the slalom course measurements would be terrible. I would need 4 courses adjusted and surveyed. Think how many courses there are in the world. Maybe the handle length is adjusted to the skiers height or reach?

 

[Wish]

With Terry W, Adam C and Dane M, I’m not sure reach is a huge advantage.

[CBR51]

Wouldn’t the easiest and less complicated way would be to have a line off somewhere between 41&43?

42 maybe? Or just leave it? I think it has been talked about lots before.

[swbca]

@Cnewbert @lpskier @CBR51 @Horton

Change open men to 61 KPH (38mph)

There is resistance to increasing speed and to changing the slalom course. Changing speed is fuel consumption and safety. Changing the course is the hassle of changing every course in the world, though adding a little width to cable courses could be fairly simple. But that would mess up the history of performance records for all divisions.

 

Its only the Open Men that are getting bunched up with parity in performance and with non-linear barriers for increasing the records over time. Each new world record for men is going to take longer to advance. When the current record holder retires it may take years to advance with an alternative record holder.

 

Consider changing open men division to maximum speed to 61 KPH / 38mph. The boys division skis at 36. How crazy would it be for the Pros to ski at 38 ?

 

I watched a world tournament on TV in Mexico decades ago where they didn't shorten the rope. They just ran the speed from 36 to 38 to 40 mph. Shortly thereafter I tried it and was able to complete a pass at 38, but 40 was too fast.

 

38mph for Open Men would preserve all the other rule metrics for a long time and end the stagnation in men's slalom performance records.

[BraceMaker]

@skierjp does make sense but then again they don't lower the hoop to let everyone dunk.

 

38 would be impossible on short and or high altitude lakes and falls would suck.

 

 

[BG1]

If a change must be made the only change that make sense to me is to have the line length to decrease by .25 of a meter starting after 10.25 meters (41 off). Line lengths longer than 10.25 meters would stay the same as they are now. So pro men would ski 13 meters, 12 meters, 11.25 meters, 10.75 meters, 10.25 meters, 10 meters, 9.75 meters, 9.5 meters and so on. Way back when it was decided to shorten by a half meter after 11.25 I don’t think they had any idea the degree of difficulty a full half meter less rope would be after 10.25 meters (41 off). As a spectator of pro waterskiing, I would love to see this change. Maybe put a freeze on the world record for a period of time to give everyone equal opportunity to establish a new record at 10 meters or shorter then put an asterisk in the record books. That would give the 55 KPH and 58 KPH record holders the opportunity to “defend” their old records and not have their length of time holding the record interrupted.

[lpskier]

@swbca @skierjp There is precedent for changing course dimensions. “Back in the way back” (we miss you Ed), there was the American course, mostly in America, and the metric course, mostly everywhere else. In the mid-70’s, we phased out the American course and changed all non-metric courses in the US to metric dimensions.

 

@Wish Why do people think Dane is short? He’s no CP but he’s not short “by any stretch of the imagination.” ;-)

[Wish]

? @lpskier He is below 6 foot is he not?. I was the “Am” at a Pro-Am event where we were partnered. Felt like we were the same hight.

[ral]

Other disciplines, like high jump, do not seem too concerned about not breaking world records for quite some time (they were set in 1993 for men and 1987 for women). World records are supoosed to be difficult to break, not something that should happen every year, or by a large margin.

[rockdog]

Yep why don’t we just leave it the way it is and get on with competing. I’m fine with a WR every 30 years even if we have to wait for that one guy who’s 7’2”.

[Than_Bogan]

Fwiw, I personally am not concerned at all with breaking world records. My concern is that this particular sport, as it reaches the limits of what is possible, accidentally begins to rely heavily on the driver. Proposals that decrease the significance of the driver are of interest to me!

[skierjp]

@BraceMaker lol, I was going to use the same analogy. I’m all about leaving things the way they are. It would be interesting to know what Nate and other pro skiers practice scores are at 43.

[BrennanKMN]

Body type plays an absolutely massive role in competition at the elite level of any sport. I don't see other sports changing the rules to make it any easier for other competitors; why should we?

 

Do you have any idea how much of a slap in the face that would be to any current and past record holders to have the bar changed. Especially as there is no real valid reason to change the bar other than 'we want more world records or because he isn't tall enough'.

 

Unfortunately life isn't fair. If you're not physically tall enough to run 43' you might as well wipe that off your dream list.

 

Who knows, maybe in 30 years a 7'6" guy will come along and find that slalom is his sport and he will stroke 43'. Should we change the game then because it's too easy for him?

[swbca]

@ral @Than_Bogan I shouldn't have emphasized breaking records. My underlying point was the structural limit in the sport. As Than_Bogan suggested, as the rope length approaches impossible, other variations in conditions related to the boat and driver become a larger factor in scores.

 

Alpine racing, Track and Field, Swimming and many other sports don't have artificial limits.

Higher boat boat speed for open men skiers would get them further from the impossible boundary built into the slalom event, without messing up other divisions.

[jjackkrash]

I am curious to see what sure-path-robo-steering is going to do to the record hunt. I suspect auto steer is not going to give skiers single digit plus measurements on every ball and scores are going to go backwards a bit when its implemented (and a lot of bitching about it will ensue).

[klindy]

Now that elite athletes make up 33% of the committees and board. Is this the perfect subject for them to weigh in on and leverage their votes?

 

Not too long ago a top ranked trick skier and former record holder floated an idea where trick scores should be calculated ‘per judge’. Meaning if 3 of 5 judges said “credit”, then the skier got 60% of the points and so on. It would make setting a trick record much more difficult but it would also tend to improve the “quality” of the skiing. It doesn’t correlate directly to slalom except that there are some interesting thoughts out there.

 

If I recall, @drew had circulated some very detailed ideas in what to do with slalom course/rope dimensions and some explanation of the relative challenges of each idea.

[BraceMaker]

The physics of the wider course make sense but as mentioned changing all courses globally is both am expense and I do feel that many new slalom skiers are discouraged already by the initial difficulty of the current wakes at slower boat speeds as well as the overall width of the full course.

 

If you were to want a handicap clearly the handle segment is where to do it skier specific and easily modified. But is it really height or is it reach. We generally assume that all persons have a height around their wingspan, I'm pretty square 6' .5" 6' tip to tip. Wingspan. My mom is 5' 7.5" with nearly a 6' wingspan.

 

I would think based on modern thinking the advantage would be both tall and with a long reach which both lowers the your handle and gives you reach. Be very interesting measuring athletes in this way. Id wager lots of the best had long wingspan to heights as well.

[UWSkier]

Slalom skiing is hard enough and course access exclusive enough already. Changing course dimensions just because a cohort comprising 1/1000 is getting bunched up at the upper echelon the vast majority of skiers will never achieve will only serve to hurt the sport even further than we already have with gated private lakes and ZO requirements.

 

Who cares about WR? If we're having too many ties, change the runoff rules so a coin flip doesn't give someone such a distinct advantage.

[klindy]

@UWSkier good points. Since there is only one skier (each for men and women) who currently hold the record and ties are rare …ls there really a problem? If there were 3, 5, 10 (or whatever) all tied at one score it might be a different discussion.

[skierjp]

@jjackkrash If a human can drive single digits and we can, I’m sure a computer can. The problem might be the computer would be to tight.

[elr]

The WR has not changed but competition has gotten better -- I think that's a win.

[dave2ball]

If the overall thought process is to change the course and make it wider that will hurt 99% of skiers. Think about shorting the handle bridle. That would be a whole lot easier and easy fix for all.

[jjackkrash]

@skierjp my bet is sure path will drive straight as an arrow down the course. What it probably won't do is attempt to make the pull "softer" or "better" or [insert euphemisms here] for driver steering input that stays in tolerance but that helps improve skier performance.

[mike_mapple]

Debating on Nate and my dad is like Lebron and Jordan. Its two different eras of skiing you cant compare them.

[klindy]

Regarding course adjustments … @mike_mapple comment above reminded me of a conversation I had with Andy once. He said that for every 1” lower you make the buoys is roughly equivalent to making the course 4” narrower. That said (and potentially safety concerns aside, adjusting the buoys 1-2” higher (or making them bigger) would have an effect on making the course wider. Same thing, lowering them another 1-2” would make running 39 and shorter “easier”. Obviously there’s a practical limit.

 

Not necessarily advocating for that solution but my point is there are other things that can have an effect.

[dave2ball]

@mike_mapple I agree 100%. Andy Bob and Kris La Point skied there prime in a different era. No cruse control. Skis were 20 lbs the technology was not where it is today. Fins were pretty much non adjustable. Although Andy did did ski in the modern era with PP and was a big part of the development of ZO he was on the tail end of his career and the tour as he knew it was non existent. So to say who is the best is very hard to say. It all depends on what era we are talking about. Comparing todays scores with the scores of the 80’s and early 90’s is not a fair comparison. One other thing to take into consideration is Nate grew up with ZO or later PP days. Most others had to change and adapt to the new technology of PP and then ZO.