Line lengths & world records - what am I missing?

[So_I_Ski]

@aupatking, stating definitively that Nate would run 10 is a leap. I think at best he would have a 50/50 chance of running it considering that he only runs 41, maybe 10 or 15 percent of the time? That's my guess but someone can come up with that answer. If so that leaves very few opportunities to attempt 10. Regardless it would be fun to watch him try. But if he or someone else did eventually run it then they would have the distinction of completing a whole pass that no one else had. This would really set them apart and be the target for the other skiers to accomplish.

 

And once again, @klindy has demonstrated that he has given this the most thought with regard to strategy and opting up scenarios, even more likely with headwind and tailwind conditions. Want another wrinkle to strategy? Limit the number passes to 5 or even 4 with a 10.5 and a 10 in the options. Then you would see most starting at 12 and some at 11.25 with lots of opt ups and strategizing to reach their hardest pass.

[klindy]

@So_I_Ski in the US alone, Nate has run 10.25 19 times in 41 rounds (46% in the last 12 months). He’s gotten around #4 or farther 2/3s of the time. So your assumption needs adjusting. He may only have a 50/50 chance or running 10.00m but he’ll get a lot more than a 10-15% chance or trying.

 

And except for some specific tournament requirement, limiting the number of passes is probably a non-starter. Besides it’s self limiting - physically it’s likely you won’t see more oasses than today (4 or 5). Again the strategy of deciding which pass go skip is something that could ‘spread out the field’.

[So_I_Ski]

@klindy I stand corrected on Nate's percentage. That's pretty high for running 41. Now I am curious to know how often the next best skier runs it.

[ral]

I fail to understand why should we be concerned about “the next best skier” when discussing about the world record.

 

I also fail to understand why something that is not a problem should be fixed, and I fail to understand why I get involved in discussions supported by either fake statistics or just guesses out of somehwere…

 

I am failing way too much, considering I am facing summer and not winter.

[JackQ]

Each successive shorting should be in smaller increments, something like: 13, 12, 11.25, 10.75, 10.5, 10.3 as the difficulty between passes becomes essentially exponential.

 

The outlier of today, is the same shortening between 11.25 and 10.75, as there is between 10.75 and 10.25. Seems that their are a lot of opinions both ways on this question/issue, most from those who have never skied any of these passes. “A test is worth a thousand opinions” I suggest that this would be a good “demonstration tournament” for next year and see how the pros and spectators accept it. Even Formula One is trying new things to test the acceptance from their teams and audience. @klindy ?

[Bruce_Butterfield]

I recall years ago when the current increments of 0.5m after 10.75 were put in place, the reason was simply that the rope manufacturers couldn't make loops in the ropes at increments less than that. With the current way loops are fidded into the rope, that's still a very real limitation. It would take some creativity to enable shorter increments.

[klindy]

@Bruce_Butterfield tie them like branches on a tree trunk. A 0.50 meter “branch” tied at the right place will give you the right loop spacing. It’ll be a cluster of rope at the boat end but it’ll work. Dealing with the shock tube might be tough but make it bigger around if needed.

 

@JackQ there already is a Class X sanction - which is free - for experimenting. Scores do not go on the ranking list but all the same insurance and safety protocols are in place. Only “cost” is some kind of feedback/report on what the goal was and the results (did it work as intended). The idea was to test things like no far side exit gates, different speeds or rope lengths, novel scoring ideas, etc. it can also be an “extra round” at a tournament. So schedule a regular tournament and, given time, pull an experiments round. Again the structure exists today.

[So_I_Ski]

@Bruce_Butterfield, while not a convenient or elegant solution, having a second rope with only a 10.5 and a 10 loop would work. For efficiency, I guess the skier would have to provide 2 handles so the boat crew could quickly reel in one rope and toss out the other. Like I said, not a great solution but if nothing else would work .....

[Horton]

@So_I_Ski

 

[So_I_Ski]

@Horton, I'm honored and was wondering how you get one of those. So now I have four all at once! I hope that I also have the distinction of being the first or one of the few to get four. Those guys are too cool.

[ral]

@So_I_Ski , although I believe the quadruple panda most likely captures the general opinion on the dual rope idea, have you realized it implies changing the first sport rule of waterski in both IWWF and AWSA (definition of a fall)?

[So_I_Ski]

@ral, Nope, I didn't realize that since I am not a tournament skier and have never entered a tournament but I am guessing that the rule you are referring to has something to do with letting go of the handle. Am I correct?

[ral]

Losing possession of the tow line.

[So_I_Ski]

@ral and while I really do like the award, since I clearly stated that I didn't think my solution was a good one even in the face of possibly no other solution to an idea that will likely never come to pass, Horton, in good fun, took the liberty of overlooking that comment.

[Horton]

@So_I_Ski

I clearly stated that I didn't think my solution was a good one

 

yet you have posted 15 times in this thread promoting your idea...

[So_I_Ski]

@Horton you misunderstood my comment. The "solution" that I stated was not a good one, was the two rope idea. I stand by my original post suggesting a 10.5 and a 10 loop in particular is something that should be adopted.

[ral]

@So_I_Ski , if you spend some time with the rulebook, and also in the boat, tower and at the dock in L/R tournaments, you would get a better perspective on rule applications and potential rule changes.

[So_I_Ski]

@ral my reasons not to spend time as you suggested are too numerous to mention but the first would be that there is not a tournament within 4 hours of where I live and that might be 6 hours. Regardless, my post was from the point of view of a spectator and I think that there were enough ballers who thought there was some validity to give it merit. Clearly you were not one of them and I respect your opinion.

[Bruce_Butterfield]

Uhh what am I missing here? A person who is not a tournament skier, has never entered a tournament and espousing solutions to elite level issues.

 

[MDB1056]

Carnegie101- Know your audience. 102- Know your topic

[So_I_Ski]

@Bruce_Butterfield, aw you were a cute tyke, weren't you Bruce, but not too co-ordinated.

 

So what are you missing? Just about everything. I'm the spectator which makes me the customer, which means you can bet your pablum the smart sponsors are very interested in keeping people like me engaged in their sport. Ditto for the smart athletes because wthout spectators they ain't got a prize purse. Perhaps it is elitist attitudes like yours that are the barrier to changes that might make the sport more interesting. God knows, at the pro level, purses could not be any smaller or fewer and further between.

 

Furthermore, it's a forum Bruce, which means Horton, being the smart businessman that he is, wants everyone and not just people with tournament backgrounds contributing. My dollar is as important to his sponsors as yours. If not and if this is just an old boys club, then he can let me know and I will be on my merry way.

 

Now why don't you consider my suggestion on it's merits instead of playing the "what could you know, you're not even a tournament skier" card. Weak, Bruce, very weak. And it has not escaped my attention that you reserved your derision for me but took no shots at some of the other ballers that thought there was some merit to the idea of a 10 or 10.5 loop like @klindy. Would that be because you respect his tournament background and have nothing to do with the topic?

 

[Horton]

@So_I_Ski

 

I know can’t speak for Bruce but I suspect he will agree with some or all of the following paragraph..

 

The forum is for everyone and the sport needs consumers and fans. At the same time, a forum like this one is best when it is somewhat of a meritocracy. This forum provides the most value to everyone when the guys with the most knowledge and experience answer more questions than they ask and the guys with the least experience and knowledge ask more questions than they answer.

 

Your original idea was worth a moment's consideration. It is not a stupid idea but upon reflection, it solves a problem that almost no one but you thinks exists. You have asked the question. You have campaigned for your idea.

 

You are not the first to float an idea to have it rejected. Lord knows I have pitched a lot of ideas that have come down in flames. ( Don’t get me started on the trick points.)

 

Why don’t you put this to bed with a poll. Do the readers of BallOfSpray think there should be a 10m loop added? If it gets overwhelming support I will submit it to the rules committee for you. If it goes down in flames you let it go.

 

[klindy]

@So_I_Ski since you brought my name up, I’ll chime in. I also know @Bruce_Butterfield pretty well but don’t want to speak for him directly.

 

Like @Horton, I am sure Bruce is focused in improving competitive waterskiing for everyone - athletes of all abilities, sponsors, anyone with an interest in getting involved. He is a respected AWSA board member who provides valuable input. I’d wager his frustration is similar to mine when we debate/discuss valid topics with people who have little to no skin in the game. That said, you’re right, you’re a fan, a customer as you describe it and someone who obviously wants to improve things where they can be improved. Over the years there have been lots of ideas tried - some work, others don’t - and I hope more ideas come forward jn the future. Frankly almost no one in this forum including me, Horton and Bruce will be directly affected by any rope length discussion above.

 

I personally like the concept you initially proposed. I do, however, think it’s focused on the wrong target. Slalom by definition will have a physical limit which will be impossible to cross. Not sure if we’re there yet but I do suspect we’re close (I think 9.75m can be run). As noted above, I think the focus needs ro be at 10.75 and shorter where there is real potential to change and enhance the strategic dynamic of the event. That’s why I suggested the 10.50m length and 0.25 increments from there shorter.

 

Hopefully the discussion caught the attention of the elite skiers who do have a vested interest.

[Bruce_Butterfield]

@So_I_Ski I don't consider the 0.25m shortening increments crazy or even a bad idea. The point I was calling you out on was [paraphrasing] "just put 2 ropes in the boat and have each skier bring 2 handles, problem solved".

 

Anyone who has skied a tournament and particularly anyone who has boat judged, will immediately see that as a nightmare scenario with a long list of problems that WILL, not potentially, but WILL go wrong. That comment is worthy of a meme beyond even a triple panda or triple Brittany.

 

By all means, spectator and other skier's ideas are welcome, but please recognize the limitations of your knowledge and don't get offended if an idea gets called out as unworkable.

 

[So_I_Ski]

@Bruce_Butterfield, if that was the point you were calling me out on, why didn't you restrict your comment to that instead of the approach you took? Second, there is nothing more frustrating than responding to people who don't pay attention to exactly what you are saying as well as the context. Reread my comment and you will see that my response was prompted by a technical issue about whether it would be possible to add a loop in those increments. I clearly stated that my solution was NOT a good one and I said it not once but twice and therefore don't take it seriously. How much clearer could I be?

 

Regardless, following Horton's triple panda, I cheerfully accepted the award for even floating an idea that I acknowledged in my post was a poor one. Wasn't that enough for you and why beat a dead horse? Why didn't you focus on what I was proposing in my original post that made no mention of the possible physical contraints of tying shorter loops and which was entirely incidental?

 

Lastly, nice job of paraphrasing to add insult to injury!

[Horton]

@So_I_Ski

 

I am starting to feel like you are here for an argument.

[So_I_Ski]

@klindy thank you for chiming in again. From the outset ou have been both respectful and courteous in your responses to my post. Even still, I find that you have inadvertently misrepresented my original post by not rereading it before commenting. My focus as you mentioned was NOT on the wrong target. I placed equal emphasis on adding a 10.5 and a 10 and had the same thoughts on the 10.5 that you did which I mentioned in a later post but did not elaborate on originally for fear of "muddying the waters".

 

The 10 loop became the focus of others like Horton who posted subsequently and who chose to ignore the 10.5 issue. This tended to derail the discussion and you were one of the few who kept his eye on the ball.

 

But here is the real reason for my post in the first place. Since I am 68 and have a lifetime of experience recognizing how slowly bureaucracies move to implement change even when it is obvious that change is required, I thought that as fultile as my post would really be, it would at least start some people thinking about it and maybe just maybe it would trickle down to the athletes. The truth is the ONLY people that I am really interested in hearing from are the athletes but I don't have access to them although I have met some of them over the years.

 

I love doing sports not watching them. So it has always struck me that if I were competing at that level, in lieu of where there are now so many skiers who are close in ability and with the world record set on what might be an unatainable line length, I would welcome those changes both for the reasons that you stated and because achieving a new line length is a progression which assists the skier when tackling the next line length.

 

Horton suggests a poll of ballers but that will accomplish little or nothing. What I would like to see is a poll of pro level skiers. I find it hard to believe that many if any of them would say that they were happy with the status quo or turn down the opportunity to see if they could actually run a 10.5 or in some cases, a 10? And I find it hard to believe that any of them would find it an impediment or a step back in the progression of the sport.

 

So in the final analysis, we are once again in agreement and hopefully it caught the attention of the elite skiers who have a vested interest. If they aren't interested then I will gladly admit that I was DEAD WRONG from the outset.

 

 

 

 

[Horton]

@So_I_Ski as i said before before it is not a stupid idea but it just does not have legs. Elite skiers as well as members of the rules committee read this forum. If there is any excitement or interest we would have heard about it. There was no more than casual interest when you brought up the exact same proposal 5 years ago as there is today.

[One_Ski]

OK, @Horton, let me get this straight. Five years ago, @So_I_Ski proposed a rule change because 43' off seemed impossible. Five years later, nobody has run 43' off, and it looks like nobody will. Nate is the only one with a realistic shot at it, and after 19 attempts, has made virtually no headway (e.g., BORING). Instead, we're waiting for a 7' tall skier to be born; until then, we'll be watching 1@43' off. So, subsequent to @So_I_Ski's original post, we have five years of new evidence that his proposed change is worth considering. When did that become a reason to shut down a conversation? Also, I must have missed it, but when did the criteria for a rule change become 'elites get excited about it' or 'rulemakers get excited about it'?' My guess is that elites and rulemakers put themselves at risk if they push back against the status quo. I doubt they'll get on board unless fans demand a change. So, if there's going to be a change, it should be driven by us. We pay the bills. I think @So_I_Ski has done a good job arguing his point, even though some responses to him have been out of line. Disagree if you want, but pose a reasonable argument. IMO, @horton, you haven't.

[ral]

I do not know why, but I will bite again.

 

@One_Ski , having 10.5 added as line length will diminish the chances of breaking the record, not improving them (only effect is adding an additional pass to get to world record territory).

 

“Resetting” the world record and adding 10m will most likely result in Nate or someone else running 10m, and then back to the same, BUT with the added difficulty of having to run a far more complex pass than 10.25 before attempting the record. So less chances of record improvement.

 

So I fail again to see how adding line lenghts will make a difference for the world record, why is it important to have the world record broken often (see how often they are in e.g. high jump) and why not breaking the world record often makes waterski boring.

 

Nate ran 3 at a Class C tournament BTW.

 

Just for the sake of statistics, @One_Ski are you a judge and/or competitive skier?

[So_I_Ski]

@One_Ski thanks for jumping in again and I couldn't have said it better myself.

 

@Horton, I hardly think you are encouraging contributions with your "meritocracy" approach. As a matter of fact I find it rather insulting to base the merits of someone's contribution on their so called "credentials". As though those of lesser ability should sit at the feet of the more accomplished skiers waiting anxiously for them to drop pearls of wisdom. Contributions should be considered solely on their merits regardless of who is putting them forth. Critical thinking is not the sole purview of the more accomplished skiers or those who are more involved in the sport. And some topics such as this one have ZERO to do with either.

 

And your comment ".... it solves a problem that almost no one but you thinks exists", is patently false. If you had done any real "reflecting" you would have taken the time to note just how many members commented either partly or wholly in a positive manner to my post. That number is 7 by the way. On top of which there were 10 "likes" and 3 "awesomes" some of which were almost certainly from people that did not chime in. It reflects poorly on your credibility when you misrepresent the facts.

 

On a lighter note, I find it hard to believe that I repeated myself as you have suggested I did by posting the same thing 5 years ago. I never repeat myself or forget something I did 5 years ago. Or wait .... truth is I have trouble remembering something I did last month so I find that pretty funny and not only believable but likely. Too bad I won't be a member in five years cause I could look forward to doing it all again.

 

In lieu of the meritocracy crap, it does appear to be an old boys club so I will be on my merry way. You can save your breath with a response because I won't be back. Please delete my account.

 

Ironically, you may be right after all since I was hoping that the pro skiers would see the advantages of a 10 and or a 10.5 and campaign for it. But you have stated that many of them read these posts and I am not the first to have brought this up yet they have remained silent.

[One_Ski]

@ral, I don't watch tournaments to see the record broken; I watch because I enjoy the competition at the most competitive line lengths. Watching a single competitor run either one or two balls at 43' is not why I watch. I'd like to see fewer warmup passes, more skiing at shorter line lengths, fewer logjams/ties, and fewer giant runoffs. I'd also like to see line lengths after 39' graduated based on the associated, exponentially increasing difficulty levels, rather than our inability to make ropes with closer loops. Back in PerfectPass days, we shortened ski ropes to make up for the 6" (or so) required to operate the load switch. Why can't we use something similar (i.e., something on the pylon) to shorten the rope in 1' increments, starting at 39? Like @So_I_Ski, I'm not sure this is the best idea, but surely we can figure out something, right? This isn't rocket science. I'm not a tournament skier or a judge; just a lifelong fan who'd hate to see us not overlook an opportunity to make this more of a spectator sport.

[ral]

@One_Ski , one aspect is to consider the toll that starting at shorter line lenghts and more passes at short line would have in the skier’s bodies. I believe we would see an increasing number of opt-ups and also we would make training more difficult.

 

Personally, I like run offs, provided they happen in the same skiing timeframe (not like at the past Worlds…).

[VONMAN]

So the problem is two fold. 1 you would like to see the world record broken. 2 you like to see a more competitive outcome at Pro Tournaments. As long as Nate keeps skiing injury free what's his incentive? Until the rest of the Field can run 41 off with the consistency of Nate, it is what it is. The rest of the Field are fighting over second and third place. Changing the rope might improve the competition over time. The world record will stand as long as the Field lets it. The Woman Pro Skiers have the same outcome but the scores are tighter.

The following is just kidding, I'm not serious: To make the final scores tighter for first, second and third why not have Nate ski 36 mph and the rest of the Field ski 35.5 mph. And once a skier from the Field gets 1 ball at 43 off goes back to 36 mph at the next tournaments. Just Kidding no Panda required.

[One_Ski]

That's a reasonable point. Conversely, smaller changes at the highest difficulty levels might improve skier safety by not pushing them to (or beyond) their capability limits so quickly. Some 41' off falls are scary. I'm OK with run-off's too, but when they become the norm, it seems worth looking for a better way.

[rogerw]

So, about the line lengths...err, what was the question again?

[VONMAN]

No record broken at the Miami Pro, but great skiing by the rest of the Field. Nate sure makes 41 off look easy.

[scoke]

What a brutal thread.

 

So many memes I'd like to post from Idiocracy. I'll go with this one:

 

[rockdog]

@scoke if the two buckets are joined together with a 10.0m line then the answer is 40off. Pretty sure..

[One_Ski]

I'd still like to see 39.5, 40.5, 41.5, and 42.5. Just sayin'.