Line lengths & world records - what am I missing?

[So_I_Ski]

Considering that 43 off might just be impossible and this sport needs all the news it can generate, is there a reason that the powers that be haven't reworked the line lengths? Currently, virtually all of the top skiers run 10.75 in every tournament. Then it drops a whopping half a meter or 19.5 inches which only a handful have ever run in a tournament. At 9.75, progress in reducing the world record grinds to a halt as does the excitement of watching Nate Smith attempt it on occasion. I don't understand why they don't reduce those progressions to .25 after the 10.75 which is still a significant drop of almost 10 inches. Wouldn't it be a lot more interesting to see who could run 10.5 off? And could Nate or someone else actually run a10?

 

Not to mention how much more interesting and challenging it would be for the skiers when improving their best by only a ball or two might mean completing a line length they had never run before. Furthermore it would dramatically reduce run off's where a bunch of guys get the same 3 ball count on 10.25.

 

Hasn't it been long enough for the officials to realize that even if some freak did manage to run a 43 off, tournaments would still be the same ol' boring collection of guys struggling to make their first and likely only 41 off?

 

I have no doubt I am not the first person to bring this up so what am I missing here?

[ski6jones]

I would be very interested to hear what the elite skiers who would be impacted think of this. if the overwhelming majority of them think it's a good idea then investigate further.

[RazorRoss3]

You don’t need a new world record every two years to have the sport be interesting. Right now we have the highest level of competition we’ve seen in the sport in a very long time. Nate, Will, and TGas frequently to or past 4, then huge bubbles at 2&3, it’s awesome to watch because the podium is literally anyone’s game where in past years it was fairly predictable. On the women’s side we have skiers running 39 and not being on the podium for the first time in history. Also every line you add in a 24 skier event is effectively 3 skiers in terms of time and we’ve seen a lot of events running short on that.

[Jordan]

Given that several skiers have skied into 43 off, I think it's a minor issue.

[andjules]

@So_I_Ski no you're not the first person to bring it up, although we've had more discussion about adding a 10m line, not a 10.5m one. As @RazorRoss3 points out, that would make events even less spectator-friendly/boring, unless we also make skiers start at 12m or even 11.25 at elite events.

 

Personally, I think 10m would make watching Nate Smith more interesting, as well as a future generation of skiers who (hopefully) start figuring out 10.25 with more consistency. I think it would make the next few decades more interesting. Put it another way: I've noticed, as a spectator, it's really fun to watch someone run 10.25. So far it hasn't been much fun to watch them barely squeak around 1 @ 9.75. I'm not sure how many times someone has gotten outside of 2 @ 9.75 in the last 24 years since Jeff Rodgers first ran 10.25, but it hasn't been many.

[DavidN]

I like the idea, but think it’s mostly bureaucratic, these organizations don’t introduce changes very often and it’s a major hassle to get something that significant changed.

But also practical reasons come to mind - I don’t think it’s feasible for the rope manufacturers to build a 25cm loop. How would they even splice that?

[klindy]

As an FYI, the AWSA board and relevant committees must have 1/3 of the members be elite skiers (US skiers). So there is lots of opportunity to bring it up where it counts to get it changed. I can’t recall a serious, formal discussion about it. Certainly it may have occurred and I’m not aware of it but not at the board level.

 

And I realize that AWSA wouldn’t be the deciding entity but IWWF is under the same 1/3 elite athlete criteria and AWSA, thru the PanAm Confederation and thru being the chair of the TC committee has had a lot of influence over the years.

 

I’m confident that any changes would likely have to come directly from the top athletes to have any serious chance of happening.

[ral]

This is a recurring topic in the forum and, I believe, always attempting to solve a non-existing problem.

 

We are not having tournaments where elite skiers tied at a physical limit when conditions are perfect, but stacked at mid 41 off because of playing it (relatively…) safe (like at the worlds). And not tied at first place, but at the last qualifying places.

 

If we reduce by .25 m after 10.75, elite tourmanents would be longer and less attractive.

[So_I_Ski]

With regard to fear of lengthening tournaments, the solution is simple. Require them to start at either 35 or even 38 because they all run those lengths anyway. And most importantly I think it is always exciting to see a skier run a line length that they have never run before like when Dane Mechler ran 41 recently. Nothing exciting about only getting half way down the course even if it sets a personal best. And then there is the quesion .... who can run a 10? Don't we want to know the answer? I sure do.

[So_I_Ski]

Here's another thing. I believe that if you took a poll asking if anyone will EVER run a 9.75, you would get a resounding NO. But if you took a poll asking if 10 meters could be run, it would break 50 / 50 or thereabouts. If I'm correct then people want the answer.

[Horton]

If you redesigned the rope lengths it would not take long for the field to resettle into the new high limit and new record. The end result would be the exact same show we have today.

[keithh2oskier]

Agree. So if nate goes and runs a 10, then we are right back where we started.

[So_I_Ski]

Re: being right back where we started, point taken. But you and Horton are focusing on the wrong thing and that is my fault as I should never have introduced that aspect. My main point was that when 41 off was first accomplished, to continue to reduce the line length by .5 instead of going to .25 was simply a mistake. 20" was a ridiculous drop considering how difficult 41 was and still is. So we are now at a length that may never be run.

 

To prove my point just look at the next proposed line length if someone ever does run 9.75. The next drop is only .25 or 10". So some group of officials clearly thought that after 9.75, another drop of .5 would be too much. They also must have thought 9.75 was possible. But they were wrong. They should now go back and correct their error by putting in a 10 loop and maybe, just maybe in our life time someone might run it. Meanwhile it would be very exciting to watch skiers like Nate attempt and work their way up that pass, whereas attempts at 43 are a foregone conclusion and inevitably end at 1 or 2 ball.

 

I contend that a mistake was made and it is easily remedied so fix it. Do you agree with that premise and conclusion and if not, why not?

[MDB1056]

Uugghh. The rules and course dimensions and rope lengths have been around for a while now and things seem to be working just fine. In every sport there are metrics that define performance that have been in place unchanged. You don’t hear them talking about changing those metrics in order to keep things moving . So why here? If 43 is ever run there will be a need for discussion about another loop. Until then that’s the brass ring.

[So_I_Ski]

@MDB1056 so you agree that running the pass is the brass ring. In that case why make it impossible to achieve? Why take off 20, let me repeat that, 20 freakin inches when at 41 off the rope is well short of the ball already. Wouldn't 10 inches have been difficult enough?

 

As for other sports, I can't think of another sport that chose to intentionally set a barrier to success. You don't see high jumpers or pole vaulters being told that the next level is an arbitrary increase of 6" and take it or leave it do you? At some point, the governing body of any sport has to realize that very small increments are required due to physical limitations. So move incrementally until that point is reached. 20 freakin inches is NOT incremental movement. It's more than half the length of your arm and is insane.

[klindy]

@So_I_Ski you’re making a LOT of assumptions in your theory. Especially when the guy who’s has the most shots at it has said recently on camera he thinks it can be run. Admittedly he also said that the step change from 41 to 43 is like the difference of going from 32 to 41 so it’s really hard.

 

Again if those who have a chance to run it wanted a change they have the ability to push for it. Likewise, you can too. Assuming you’re a member of WSC, you can petition the IWWF to make a change.

[So_I_Ski]

@klindy respectfully, I don't think I am making any assumptions unless of course, someone has run it in practice. If so, please let us know. Now as the AWSA chairman, can you give me one good reason why NOT to put a loop in at 10.

[One_Ski]

@So_I_Ski; I agree with you. I think the change from 41 should not be to 43, but to something in between. 43 off is a waste of time because nobody can run it, and we have years of evidence to prove it. If it was 42 off, maybe Nate, in ideal conditions, could do more than just round 1 ball. I also think the 28, 32 and 35 passes are boring and make competitions drag on too long. I'd like to see tournaments held where skiers do all their warm-up passes (as many as they want) on a separate, adjacent lake (off camera), then start their competition run at 35 or 38 (on camera). I love what TWBC is doing, but I haven't been able to get any non-skiers interested in watching. Your suggestion could help change that, but instead it seems like we'll stay stuck in a rut. You and I will watch, but non-skiers won't.

[RazorRoss3]

I think the webcasts have been great. In terms of getting non-skiers to watch… outside of the olympics when was the last time you live streamed gymnastics? Track and field? Archery? Almost no one watches niche sports unless they participate.

 

The argument “no one can run 9.75” only goes so far with me. It’s not like 6 guys run 10.25 every event, at most it’s two and more often it’s one or none. The competition is happening at 10.25 not shorter. You’re making a change that impacts one skier per tournament. I’m not opposed to 12m openers for the men but I know some of them have suggested that it’s a tough sell only have one pass before 11.25 and I’d rather watch their 13s than watch them get injured.

[Obrienslalom]

If you want to make sure nobody runs 43' off, add another loop. Think how many fewer looks there will be at 43.

 

I get your point about adding another loop after 39.5 to avoid the ties at 41, but it's a tough sell since I enjoy watching them get a crack at 41. I believe adding another pass will decrease the parity, and a smaller set of people will be consistent enough to run 10.75, 10.5 before competing for the podium at 10.25.

 

If you want to convince more people to watch pay attention, tell them they need to put a TWBC audience prize entry in for you. That has gotten a few non-skiier family members watching and interested (and we've won 0 times).

[andjules]

I don't think @So_I_Ski's only argument is that "no one can run 9.75" and I think the idea that any fiddling with line lengths (adding a 10m loop) is futile because (@Horton) "the end result would be the exact same show we have today" nor that (@keithh2oskier) "if nate goes and runs a 10, then we are right back where we started."

 

There is some nuance here that needs to be teased out.

 

It's true that there is not an urgent issue right now: no one other than Nate is getting through 10.25 (-41) with any regularity, and most tournaments bunch up around 3@10.25, as they have (increasingly) for several years now. Maybe that will continue to be the case — that every tournament bunches up around 3@10.25 (-41) for the next two or three decades, and the sport doesn't 'progress' much. Personally, I'm still excited anytime someone actually turns 3@10.25 and makes a real attempt at 4, but I suspect it won't be as thrilling (at least for me) if that's still considered a great score in, let's say, 2031 or 2041.

More to the point: if we ever start seeing skiers run 10.25 more often, we have 24 years of evidence that suggests that what comes next (9.75m/-43) won't be that exciting: it seems incredibly difficult to do anything more than 1 @ 9.75 and we could find ourselves stuck there for eons. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe some ski designer makes it easier… I dunno.

To be fair, it's true that other sports' world records can get stuck for a long time and the competition is still (somewhat?) exciting (Track & Field's High Jump has been stuck @ 2.45m since 1993; Pole Vault got stuck for 25 years but last year made a bit of progress).

On the other hand, the rule to go from 10.25 to 9.75m is arbitrary (we could change it if we all agreed!) and if skiers ever start running 10.25 with any regularity, we may regret having decided that 9.75m is the best, next line length. Adding a 10m line length would improve the chances that we might start seeing skiers-not-named-Nate turn 2 or 3 or even 4 ball @ 10m over the next couple of decades.

I could be totally wrong, of course: maybe every few years someone adds a 1/4 ball to the record @9.75m in the coming years. But over the last 24 years, threats to the world record have been few-and-far between, compared to 1980-1997 when the world record was being threatened regularly… a way-more-fun era for the sport, in my books.

[BG1]

Shortening to 10.75, 10.25, 10.00, and then 9.75 wouldn’t cause the tournament to last longer. By the way, I’ve not seen anyone suggest adding 10.50. Nate would have a shot at running 10.00 I think but it would be rare. I would think the average score at 9.75 is 1 buoy. I’ve seen a lot of zeros and very little past 1 ball. The boat is going to finish the pass anyway so no extra time at 10.00 with maybe a couple more outlandish buoys to enjoy watching. If someone were to every run 10.00, I think that would be extremely entraining plus the “impossible” shot at 9.25 as a bonus. As far as too many passes, watch it after the tournament and skip all you want. I enjoy watching every single pass starting at 13 meters. Remember, these athletes are performing at a level comparable to any sport out there and mostly for the love of the sport, not for you or big cash prizes. Let them get their bearings with a couple of warmup passes, at least for the first round of the day. If the top 10 were making between 1-10 million a year like some sports then yes, make the pro tournaments strictly for the spectators. For free, we’re getting to watch the very best in the world do what we love at the highest level. By the way, no one is even close to Nate in understanding how much harder 9.75 is than 10.25 and he says it’s like going from 13.00 to 10.25! Imagine all the whining there would be among skiers if the rope went from 13.00 to 10.25, and rightfully so. That would be dumb, and so is going from 10.25 to 9.75 only to drop the shortenings to .25 meter every shorting after 9.75.

[So_I_Ski]

Here's my last comment. When @MDB1056 used the "brass ring" analogy for a full pass at 43 as the target, he inadvertently made my point for me. The "brass ring" in this sport for every skier at every level is a full pass. Nobody gets very excited about another ball or even two when they are trying to improve. You don't remember the time you added a ball and you don't forget the time you finally got that brass ring. My closest friend took 8 years to finally run his 35 off and that was the wahoo moment. And like I said before, just listen to the announcers when Dane ran that 41 and watch his reaction emphasizes my point. I don't know about you but I watched it again about 6 more times.

 

So if they were to put in a 10.5 and a 10 loop it would definitely add excitement for both the skiers and the spectators each time a skier completed a new pass because that is the "brass ring" everyone is striving for. To leave it at 43 where most likey no skier will ever run it is to take the "brass ring" and that wahoo moment out of the sport and for no really good reason at all.

 

A "brass ring" is something you reach for in sport but it's only meaningful if it is or at least might be attainable.

[chrislandy]

@So_I_Ski I think if the record had never exceeded 1/2 buoy @ 9.75 then there would be an argument to introduce a 0.25m i.e. 10m.

 

Thing is, it isn't/hasn't. with the world record at 2.5@9.75, a few have matched it and just the other day Nate Smith got the extra half to make his tournament PB 3@9.75

 

Considering most of the time, you may only get 1 or 2 skiers complete a 10.25m run (if at all) it's a bit of a non issue IMO.

 

If you constantly had runoff after runoff with 6 skiers all making 1@9.75 then it would probably be something to consider in terms of "normal" competition rather than world record

[RGilmore]

@So_I_Ski and others - One aspect not mentioned so far is the significant difficulty of tying two loops (secure enough to take major loads) in a total length of only "10 inches". It can be done... probably - OR maybe there's some special way of grabbing the rope at those tiny length changes that doesn't require extra pieces somehow spliced into each other in the length of less than a foot. Which, by the way, happens to be 0.3048 meters (for those who think Americans only understand the correct system).

 

Now, before you dismiss this concern outright, go getcha one of your old ropes and try it. Gonna be harder than you think. But once you do figure that part out, what color are are you gonna make your new loops? Cuz we're about out of those, too. Chartreuse? Magenta?

 

As always, IMO.

[klindy]

@So_I_Ski I believe you’re making the wrong argument. Adding a 10.00 line will be like @Horton says - the same rare full pass at 10.25 will be unchanged and there will still be a pile up at 2@41. While the run-offs are very exciting they alone don’t significantly improve the competition. This last weekends run-off was skipped (with good reason) which frankly dulled the completion (read: “the show”).

 

Adding a 10.50 length adds an interesting dimension. There are quite a few men who are running 10.75. Adding 10.50 would likely spread out the log jam at 2@10.25 enough to reintroduce some strategy again (I’ve seen few starting length changes and almost no opt-ups to set up the wind advantage - I believe it’s because everyone “expects” the cut to be a 2@41). At 10.50, there would be a lot more skiers affected by the change.

 

Finally it would also greatly improve the future potently for the women. Late this year they had “all 4 finalist women run 39 for the first time”. So (obviously?) their “impossible pass” is 10.25 currently.

 

I believe adding 10.50 could be a smart move. From there shortenings would be 0.25 at a time.

 

To address the concern @RGilmore brought up above, it would take some creative rope design. Either some new ideas to tie the rope similarly to today (sliding loops?) or perhaps some kind of “tail” where a shortening loop would actually attach to a “mainline” - kind of like branches off a tree trunk.

[Drago]

@So_I_Ski This sport will eventually have a world record that cannot be broken unless more than 1 athletic 7'-tall skier comes along.

It's a competition between individuals. If you threw an intermediate loop in there, likely only 1-2 guys could run it anyway, then the odds of them trying at -43 are the same as they are today.

Your friend should quit now since -38 ain't gonna happen.

[ScottScott]

I think 10.75 to 10.25 is ok, don't see much need for 10.5. Right now, there's no need for a 10 before 9.75 as so few complete 10.25. But it won't be long before more are, and tournamnets will be decided at 9.75. I think adding a 10.0 before skiers regularly complete 10.25 would be good, not for world record purposes, but to seperate the crowd a little beyond 10.25.

[klindy]

@ScottScott I think we need to separate the crowd a little BEFORE 10.25. Every significant tournament this year had a pack at 2@10.25. Any changes after that won’t make a significant difference.

 

To add more to my point above for a 10.50 loop, I think it adds a layer of strategy to the mix since the “extra pass” would certainly factor in a head/tail wind pass. It also layers in a fatigue factor which would tend to make skiers start at 12m more often (maybe even 11.25).

 

Also the whole run off picture would change. With all the 2@10.25 run-offs this year the they started at a fairly consistent 10.75 start. If 5-6 guys were in the run off, at least 3 or more ran the pass with most times all but one running it. If the same 2@10.25 pile up occurs, the run-off start pass would be 10.50 adding a level of “difficulty” missing today.

[ScottScott]

@klindy I don't disagree, based on the past year/current situation. But, It won't be long before more and more are getting farther down the line, running 10.25s, and 10.5 will just be another pass, while starting at 12. Maybe a 10.5 and a 10.0 are good additions.....

[So_I_Ski]

@Drago you are mistaken about my friend. His first successful 35 was 4 or 5 years ago but once he figured that out, within 2 years he was running it about 20% of the time and even got around 4 at 38 and inside 5. His form has continued to improve so he does a lot of things right plus he's 6' 1 and very strong.

 

Now bear in mind that this is not tournament skiing so he takes multiple stabs at a line length. He is also 63 and 25 lbs overweight so I have been trying to convince him to get serious and drop the weight to he can make that 38 before he ages too much. So persistence can overcome a lot of obstacles.

[The_MS]

It’s going to be a long, long winter.

[ISP6ball]

Florida has winters??

[Drago]

Re -43: persistence can overcome a lot of obstacles.

[So_I_Ski]

@klindy I agree completely with your analysis of why adding a10.5 would have a number of positive effects. I had initially considered the thinning out and the strategy aspects myself but decided not to include them in my first post as I thought it might muddy the waters too much. With so many running 10.75 it would certainly stop a number of skiers from advancing right there. Most likely you couldn't advance without completing 10.5. Only the elite would be left in the hunt after the preliminary round which is as it should be.

 

One thing I am curious about that at least a couple of ballers could get the answer to is what would Nate, Will, Freddie and handful of other guys who have run 41 think of getting a crack at 10? And do they think it could be run?

[APB]

With the depth of field right now and the high scores/cuts… I think pro men should start at 35 off. That was a good shake up this weekend.

[aupatking]

Any change to these rules should come from the guys affected. Not us

[dvskier]

@aupatking I agree. This matter should be left up to the pros. We'll never get close to it presenting an issue for us.

[klindy]

@aupatking i agree too and that’s why I pointed out earlier that the elite athletes make up 1/3 of the AWSA, USAWSWS and IWWF boards and committees. They have a direct conduit to making this happen if desired. To provide an additional thought, “those affected” are also those who are sponsoring the tournaments and producing “the show”. There has to be a balance between the technical aspects and the ability to keep it competitive and interesting for those of us who watch and are fans. That said, it still funnels up to the elite group of skiers to guide any changes thru the system.

[aupatking]

@klindy I appreciate reading your input about the board having a sizable contingent of current elite skiers. To your second point, see Malaysia 2019 Worlds for examples of how the pursuit of “a show” can go wrong. There are a lot more, as you know. I’m definitely not meaning to beat up on you. I think we agree, in our different ways of saying it.

I honestly like the idea of 10.5, 10.25, 10, 9.75 but we’d still end up where we are, only we’ve stuck ANOTHER pass in there. The world record is at -43, nothing is changing that. So putting in an extra, longer pass, just puts the record even further away. I’m also 100% against telling these guys what line length they have to start at. It’s unsafe to send a guy off a plane into 11.25. In other sports we don’t have to watch their warmup, in ours we do. Oh well.

I’m definitely not watching these TWBCC webcasts thinking “no record was broken, not worth watching”. We are simply reaching a physical limit to the slalom course. At some length (and close to where it is) we just can’t reach the buoys anymore. I’m ok with that.

[klindy]

@aupatking i agree with all your saying. My point was not to focus only on “the show”. But we should be careful that we don’t end up expecting an mass run-off at 2@41 every tournament. While I think run-offs are great and fun to watch there’s not a lot of variability (first skier sets the pace and anyone after has do ski 1/4 buoy better). So if the skier gets a good #1, they make a stab at the pass. If not, they pull up at #2 and “make sure they’re in the run-off”. I’d like to believe a 10.50 pass spreads out that field a bit where it’s hard to run but harder enough than 39 that it’s not a sure thing.

 

Either way, we’d agree that it’s not all about “the show”. Just trying to find a way to add some strategy.

[swbca]

There may be no urgency, but at some point The current slalom format is going to need an adjustment for the top tier skiers as more skiers get jammed up when the rope length gets closer to impossible. Changing the course is a bad idea because it would adversely affect beginning skiers. Adjusting speed for the top tier skiers is one possibility that could extend the the viability of the current slalom course indefinitely.

[andjules]

@aupatking, you say:

I honestly like the idea of 10.5, 10.25, 10, 9.75 but we’d still end up where we are

Why do you think we'd still end up where we are?

What problem(s) are we trying to solve for?

a stuck world record and very rare threats to it?

every tournament getting a pile-up around 2 or 3 @ -41 (and resulting time-consuming run-offs)?

slalom's spectator problem (too many warm up passes before things get interesting + too many runoffs)?

a future possibility that more skiers not-named-Nate may figure out -41 consistently but find -43 near impossible to make much headway

what else am I missing?

[MDB1056]

There is no problem here that needs to be solved. Wholeheartedly agree with the statement by @aupatking and echoed by @klindy that initiating anything like this should be left to those affected. The pro's, not us mere mortal armchair commentators. 43 is the wall currently being slowly scaled.

[Horton]

@swbca

 

 

[chrislandy]

@swbca WTF! sounds nuts - bit like ski-fly, but would be fun to watch.

 

I'm sure there are a few who practice either slightly quicker or work up to a shortening using smaller increments, it's not a new concept for practice

[buoyboy1]

I always thought the best way to eliminate a bunch of 2 or 3's at 41 would be to implement a 3/4 buoy. If you S-turn after a buoy to get back to the wakes you get a 3/4. If you turn the buoy and ski inside of the next one then you get a full buoy. Right now the way its scored is that a skier will actually be penalized if they try to turn the buoy to get the next one and end up in the water as they end up with only 1/2. The skier that now takes it safe and does an S-turn is rewarded by not taking the risk as its scored the same.

[ALPJr]

Sometimes I wish there was a laugh button.

[aupatking]

Your point is noted @andjules. What is it we would be trying to accomplish? Like I said, i’m not against it but, do you think 10.5 would sort out the 2-3 pileup at 10.25? It may.

Ending up in the same place is; Nate is rounding 3 ball @9.75, he’d run 10. He’d just be on pass #8 by the time he got to 9.75. Do we think that would make it more likely that a world record would be possible? I don’t see that.

Those who can run 11.25 regularly are really the only ones who can say whether they should start at 12, instead of 13. If you were only on your 3rd pass at 10.75, would that likely end in less successful 10.75’s? It would be my bet that we would see more early pass falls, and I just don’t see how that helps viewership.

I do agree with @buoyboy1 that it sucks that someone turning and going for the next ball is penalized more than the guy who safety-turns and goes back to the wake but the turn going to the next ball and the turn just trying to get back to the wake are very different animals.

Honestly, I just don’t see the current show with the current rules being bad. It’s crazy-high level skiing we're seeing. And it still beats having to understand Trick scoring

[klindy]

@aupatking i think that adding additional rope lengths would see some strategic changes. First we’d see skiers starting at 12m more often to reduce the number of passes they’d expect fo ski. Second, I think we’d see more opt-up scenarios. A skier (like Nate) could skip 10.50m and go from 10.75 to 10.25 just like today. Or go from 11.25 to 10.50.

 

Third, as mentioned above, it would add another pass for the women which would add another dimension for them as well.