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.

@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.

@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!

@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?

@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.

@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 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.

@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?

@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.

@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 .....

@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.

@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 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?

@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.

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.