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.

@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.

@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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

Ah shit! Two grand and I still need a drop ski. Wife will be pissed.

@wilecoyote , all documentaries are "agenda based" in so far as they are attempting to inform. That is a given. The real question is: are the authors or researchers promoting a particular agenda because they stand to personally benefit monetarily? And or, why would they be intentionally misleading the public in their presentation? There are many people making documentaries that are truly just trying to help the public by presenting information or research that will be beneficial or by drawing attention to an injustice such as the literal theft or water rights by a company like Nestle. As I stated earlier, I found both Esselstyn and Campbell to be highly credible and I could not conceive of any significant financial benefit that would induce them to be misleading in their research or their presentation. The same would apply to all of those interviewed in the movie and to the producer of the movie since it was clearly never made to play to a mass audience. As for Denise Menger, again like Kessler, she simply does not have the credentials to challenge Campbell although he graciously acknowledges her contributions. She is not a researcher and is neither an MD or has a PhD. She is a blogger. Here is a point by point response to her criticisms from another MD. http://proteinaholic.com/a-response-to-denise-minger-part-1/

@wilecoyote, so just as I asked Luzz, what is the source for your claim about the rats dying from liver disease? Please provide. Regardless, there is a problem with your argument. Since we know that milk is not normally a part of a rat's diet, by feeding them casein all that has been proven is that it kills them one way or the other. Low amounts of casein kills them because they develop liver disease faster than they develop cancer. In part, likely because they weren't getting enough protein from any other source such as something they would naturally consume. However, on a high casein diet, their livers continued to function long enough for the cancer to kill them. I don't see this as a good news story in either case. One might easily conclude the answer is to simply not consume casein. After all, why are humans consuming milk, a supercharged growth food, designed to add weight and strength to a calf in a shortened time frame? We're not cows and our nutrient needs are drastically different from theirs.

@skispray, thanks for posting this evisceration of Kresser, the "acupuncturist". As I noted earlier, if you don't get your information directly from the horse's mouth, which in this case is the scientist / researcher, then you risk putting too much credence in the validity of the claims without knowing who is really behind them. Mike does an excellent job of exposing how the corporate food industry is behind many of the questionable studies referenced by Kresser.