brettmainer

@MarkTimm, I was not given a choice of ropes at the Western Regional Tournament. Sounds like Steve wasn't either. Maybe that is because M4 was the first event of the tournament and that choice wasn't in place yet? That said, I did not notice the rope as a factor in my skiing that day.

This is all just for fun and to increase the dock chatter. The scores will still go into the rankings list in the appropriate age divisions. Therefore, I think super scientific but hard to follow algorithms and handicaps are unnecessary. Who cares if Skier A truly averages 2 more buoys than Skier B. Close enough, we aren’t skiing for money. Pleasant Oak used to group skiers by a never made format (NM -15, -28, -32, -35 and -38+). It was fun, if for no other reason it was a slightly different group to be on the dock with. Horton’s 2 ball cutoff idea would result in basically the same groupings. We have run tournaments that use rankings list averages to set handicaps, which is certainly more accurate but is hard to follow in real time (Skier A needs to beat Skier B by 2.68 buoys but needs to beat Skier C by 5.34 buoys to win, etc). Nobody other than the spreadsheet operator actually knows who is winning and losing, which defeats the point. We had fun Sunday with four of us skiing for a $4 pot ($1 to enter). We had a G4 skier who maxes out at 2@35, a M4 skier who maxes out at 2@38, a M4 skier who maxes out at 2@39, and an open skier who typically gets 2@41. He spotted me 6 buoys, the other M4 skier 12, and Makayla 18. Turns out the 2@38 max skier ran his 35 for the first time in a month, got 1.5@38, won, and went home super pumped. That is the feeling we should be trying to create.

I thought it was great. I’m glad I kicked in my $20. I was happy with the production. Since suggestions were asked for, here is mine. Post the leaderboard more often. Every pass, maybe not during live action, but during the replay or down time. I have always appreciated regional and national tournaments that gave announcing air time to the leaderboard, even when there were 20 skiers left and everyone knows that the current leaderboard is not going to finish in the top 5. Kind of a shout out for those who showed up knowing they wouldn’t place but still skied to or beyond their seed.

Jon Travers is obviously a great skier, but his ski set up vs the shallow site or something looked off. He ski was not working for him. This is not a negative commentary towards HO in any way; just sometimes we get our settings outside of our ski’s performance envelope.

Where I believe SN failed is that it needs complicated micro-tuners in the first place, and even with them, the boat has a worse slalom wake than either the MC or the Malibu. To me, that means it wasn’t the best hull design. To be clear, the wake is by no means a bad wake and is great at -35 and shorter. It is just not a wake worth paying $20k more for unless you are a high end, money is no object, trick skier, in which case the new SN is clearly the best boat.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. For example, @jjackkrash's new boat looks awesome to me. The new Nautique is certainly the best trick boat and probably the best jump boat. However, it is my least favorite to slalom behind; clearly worse than my 2016 200. I can get the same score behind all three brands, so perhaps the fact that it is my least favorite to ski does not matter any more than my opinion on the looks. However, add it all up and even if all the boats were priced evenly, I would not choose the new Nautique. The fact that it is way more expensive and not better at anything other than trick skiing makes it fail, but not an epic fail, in my book.

I had the same thing last year. Golfer’s elbow. It took the fun out of skiing. It went away over the winter. Until then it was pain tolerance. If intolerable, you could switch your grip for the rest of the season. Awkward at first, but the bouy count will be the same after a couple of sets. Kristi Overton and others skied very well with the “wrong” hand up.

That is a nice looking boat. You chose well. Truck and 5th wheel look pretty nice too.

Once a week or so, to check my release, I purposely take a relatively low speed twisting out the front “fall” as I am gliding back into the dock. Seems like every 6 months, it is a little loose (plastic wear probably) and I give it 1/8 to 1/4 turn to tighten. After 5 years, I didn’t want to tempt fate and replaced the release. 7 years now in a Reflex front, the first 6 on a soft rubber rear and the last year an R style, and the Reflex has never pre-released and always released when I needed it to.

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.

@onside135, my first thought was to agree with you. Captain obvious. But that is not what I was getting at. There are lots of skiers, myself included, who have plenty of time on the water. That should translate into better technique and time to optimize one's ski set up, but how often do we do that? The definition of insanity is doing the same thing expecting a different result. I, and many others, should use that time more thoughtfully, not just taking another ride. And yes, this is about having fun, and we shouldn’t lose sight of that. Skiing is not just about running more buoys. But, it is more fun when we do.

@unksskis, my issue is that I believe it is better to have a deep pool of competitors at tournaments rather than divisions with not enough competitors to make it interesting. Podiums are meant to be the tip of the pyramid, not the entire pyramid. I would be more likely to travel and attend a big event that had 80 contestants in my division than I would if there were four and I was basically just getting a participation award. Also, it is perfectly acceptable for families to take a break from Regionals/Nationals their first year in a new group if they want to. Heck, maybe they will take a houseboat trip or go to Disneyland or whatever rather than spend those two weeks of vacation at Regionals and Nationals AGAIN. That might even be healthier for the kids and the sport, so it is certainly not a negative. Far worse is the case of the poor girl who traveled to Idaho this year for Regionals and turned out to be the only one in her division. What kind of competition is that? You either love to ski or you don't. If you have the passion, you work to improve and not getting a medal doesn't make you quit. If a kid is so on the fence about the sport that not getting a medal at Regionals is going to drive them to quit, they are going to quit anyways. I had two kids who skied in the B1 and B2 divisions who quit skiing competitively around age 14/15. It wasn't because of the competition or the jump to 36mph; they just found other things that they liked better than skiing (Crazy, huh?). I don't think being a big or little fish in a pond has much to do with it. Kids are smart enough to see that if you make the pond into a tiny fish bowl, it does't matter whether they are a big or little fish, as there are just not enough fish to make it interesting. My youngest is 14 and will be moving into the old G3 (now G4) in two weeks. She does not like the new smaller divisions, and she is the exact demographic that the new rules were supposed to cater to. She would rather ski with 17 and 18 year olds in a big division than ski against just a couple of other girls closer to her age. Her friend and ski partner is only 2 years older, but they will never get to be in the same division until W1. That seems wrong.

THAT is what makes Regionals my favorite tournament. It was disappointing my daughter was injured from a different sport and couldn’t go and ski with Aspen and the other girls this year, but I am glad the Hall family went, and I’m glad they enjoyed it. Aspen Hall is one of my favorite skiers to drive. “Go tow boat!”.

Cascade Lake above Emerald Bay in Tahoe. Hard to top that.

The primary focus of the change was to encourage ski age 10 and 11 year olds so they wouldn’t have to compete against 12 and 13 year olds. At the Western Regional Championships, there was exactly ONE G2 skier. How satisfying are those four first place medals? I suggest resending whatever poll was sent out last year (I must have missed it last year).

I was remiss in my my original post for not giving a shout out to Steve Grubbs, the Western Regional M4 slalom champion. He looked great out there. The best skier won. I will also say that the second and third place finishers, Darren Mason and Brent Eaton, also looked very solid. All three of them are excellent skiers.

Athletic ability. Technique. Ski set up. Strength to weight ratio. I was disappointed in my ski ride at regionals yesterday. 15 years ago at regionals I got the exact same score skiing 2mph faster. How much gas have I wasted in those 15yrs? I had an 8hr drive home to think about it. We are all given a natural athletic ability, some better than others and maybe drills on things like balance balls can improve it, but generally it is a static input for each individual. Technique, which is the most often discussed topic on this website, is huge, but hard to change for people like me who have 40yrs of ingrained mostly bad habits. I think I need to stay at 32off and try to change things, but how many times in the last 15yrs have I done that with no noticeable difference? I will try harder. Looking at the photos of my skiing yesterday, there is a lot of room for improvement. Based on the photographic evidence, I was lucky to get as far as I got. I changed my set up several weeks ago on the advice of a great coach who is a far better skier than I could ever hope to be. Was it right for me? It felt better at earlier passes, but I haven’t run 38 in those 3 weeks after running it earlier in the year. Is there a better set up? Probably. I will change things up and see. I like beer, but it doesn’t help with the 5am wakeup to work out before work. If I weighed 175lbs and could do 30 pull-ups like I could 15yrs ago instead of my current 185lbs and less then 10 pull-ups, I’ve no doubts I could ski more buoys, everything else being the same. Will power and effort. No excuses, just do it. I think that is all that matters.

I don't know how to set a poll up and don't want to spend the time to figure it out, but this issue seems ripe for a poll. Two choices. Do you prefer the old 1/2/3 format or the new 1/2/3/4/5 format? If the majority prefers the new rule, then I will accept that I am in the minority and move along.

@disland, I don't see any reduction in junior numbers this year in NorCal. If anything, the kids are skiing more because there is nothing else to do. That said, we don't need to look at only this year's numbers. Look at last year or the year before. Regionals and Nationals. Split the actual historical number of competitors in B/G2 and B/G3 in half and that is what you now have. The numbers are too low. It would be great if we had huge numbers like soccer, but we don't. The path backwards is just as easy as making the change in the first place. Have a poll, and the majority rules. A mistake is only a mistake if one persists in it. @jcamp, yes, there is a huge difference between 10 and 13 year olds, but this isn't football where that difference is physically dangerous. I understood the logic for splitting the old B2, but was against it. I don't feel every kid should automatically get a medal at every competition so their feelings don't get hurt. Why don't we split up B/G1 while we are at it so 6 year olds don't have to compete against 10 year olds? That difference is just as great as the difference between 10 and 13 year olds. I wouldn't be as strident about this issue if it was just the B/G2 split. Even though I didn't agree with it, the move has its merits and I would have quietly accepted it. I do not at all support splitting the old B/G3. That split seemed to be tacked on at the last minute without the same level of reasoning and discussion that went into the B2 split. Many non contact sports, even with big numbers like swimming, have 15-18 as one group. There was no valid reason to split B/G3. A random thought. If the divisions are in place only to insure fair competition due to physical maturity on both ends of the spectrum, then why is there M1/M2? There is no advantage to being 19 vs 34. Just combine them. The biggest numbers in the sport are currently in M4-M7. Back when we were in the juniors, we only had Junior Boys and Boys. Apparently none of us got discouraged and quit the sport over the way things were back then. M1 started at 17, which meant I was skiing in M1 the fall before my 17th birthday. I thought it was cool to ski against college kids, even though I got my ass kicked. I liked the move 20+ years ago to go to the 1/2/3 format, but the new move to 5 divisions doesn't work because the numbers aren't there.

I'm not impressed with the numbers. I understand but don’t agree with the move to split the old B2 so the 11/12s can go 32mph (ZBS solved that problem). The rest of it just dilutes the competition. Imagine if M1/2/3/3/5 was split into 2yr groups? How unappealing would Regionals and Nationals be? My daughter will be in her first year of G4 next year and she wishes it were the 4 year group of years past, even though she will be the youngest. I haven’t spoken to a single person who likes the new 5 junior divisions. Perhaps there is a proponent who can put forth an eloquent argument for 5 junior divisions and I am willing to listen, but right now I think the powers that be should scrap the new arrangement this winter and go back to B/G1, B/G2, B/G3.

If you can get 40 of the 50 skiers for a 2 round slalom to each pay $50, then that $2000 should show a profit after deducting gas and sanction fees. The tournament ropes can be used for several tournaments and then “sold” to a LOC member for half price or so at end of year. Ropes need not be a major cost. The local C tournaments that don’t break even are the ones that don’t fill up or have too many non paying skiers. As a side note, my favorite tournaments used to be weeknight one rounders with 40 skiers or less. The weekend isn’t killed and I don’t need more than one round, as the ranking list only counts one round per tournament anyways. The economics of those small tournaments are disproportionately impacted by the sanction fees.

I would not want a 2000 MC. We used to call it the Death Star 190. The worst wake and worst driving boat of any put forth by the big three in the last 30 years. Try to get a 1997-2004 Nautique 196 instead. Or a 1996 or earlier MC.

All of the new boats are good, but IMO, the best wake ever at that speed was the Carbon Pro

?

@luckyone, California is a big state. Where in California? There are several fantastic options if you are in Northern CA.