RGilmore

From the finish of the one ball thru the wakes you are putting in a ton of energy to build speed and angle. And then, as if you decide that's all you needed, you release - WAY too early - and ride a super-soft rope out to apex. As a result, at the ball, your reach is almost like an afterthought. So you built up all of this potential energy off the one ball turn, only to give half of that energy away during a decelerating glide to the two ball. Consequently there's no way you can release and ski "out to the end of the rope" with full extension. Compare your reach at the one ball to your "extension" at the two ball - there's a night-and-day difference. And because you fail to maintain your potential energy out to apex, your two ball turn is pretty much a disconnected free fall up until the rope goes tight again. So you drop your right shoulder and drag your elbow in the water to force a fast hard turn - which you are excellent at, by the way. But that kind of skiing at 32-off will not get you through 35 off very often, and you can forget about 38. Ski boats (and Zero Off) these day are way too powerful to let you muscle your way through the course like that. The fix is to keep both hands connected to a tight line, and your upper body away for a fraction of a second longer. Then, when you release, try to imagine your ski shooting out around the two ball while your right arm is stretched out at full extension. I know is seems as if you don't want the rope tight at full extension; after all, what if the boat yanks the handle right out of your hand? That won't happen. What will happen is your ski will snap around underneath you and bring your free hand right back to the handle on a tight line. "At the apex of the turn, your reaching arm should be fully extended, your upper body and head should be facing down course, your core should be engaged... At apex, your reaching arm should feel a slight pull (that's how you know you are at apex). [Chrsi Rossi, 2009]

@Ski_Dad Get a new handle for yourself and keep this one for the kids. It should last many more years, cuz they're not the ones who have been wearing it out :) Rough up with 150 grit sandpaper and let it live out the rest of its life in its forever home.

The first question that occurred to me, which so far nobody has asked, is what's your annual weather like? Do you get a winter snow load, and if so, how much? That factor could make considerable difference regarding the limits of your existing beam.

@75Tique Ah yes, Regina. You'd be hard pressed to find a better skier to emulate. Pull up that video and freeze it at 0:34. Notice how her pelvis (hips) and the handle are so close together? If you go back and pay attention up to that moment you'll see her hips were NEVER back behind her. That's not an accident As she rolls into her gate turn in she is obviously applying forward pressure on her hips to keep them forward and driving into the turn. The handle gets lower and lower until her upper body is leaned away, straight in line with the rope, the handle just naturally settles in to a nice low, locked position as she accelerates toward the wake. Near perfection for sure - and that's her "warm up" pass. Now go back to 0:34, and memorize what her entire body form looks like. Notice the angle of her ski, the openness of her shoulders, how the spray comes off the edge of her ski. Go to any one of your own skiing videos and find that same moment in time (more or less). If you don't look like she looks, you're probably not gonna get what she gets. I can't tell you what to think about or focus on, or how to trigger yourself into achieving a similar position at a similar point in the course. No one can. No one except YOU. You have to embrace and visualize your goal - which, in this fantasy scenario, is to have that same hips-up, hands low, arms straight, shoulders square and back. Visualize that, and then go out an try to get it. Forget running buoys. Every pass through the course offers you three opportunities to pull out, glide, turn in, and go. Spend a week doing nothing but that (I know, BORING) and video every set. When you can freeze a video and find yourself seeing what you see when you freeze Regina's video, congratulations - you will have found yourself at a whole new level. Chet Riley, a GREAT coach, has often described the progression of learning thus: 1) Unconscious Incompetence - you aren't doing it right, and you don't know why 2) Conscious Incompetence - you aren't doing it right, but you know why 3) Unconscious Competence - you ARE doing it right [sometimes], but can't repeat at will 4) Conscious Competence - you're doing it right, and CAN repeat at will You're at stage 2; probably have been for a while. Everything you've done up to now brought you to this point. If you want to progress beyond this point you're going to have to try something new. Otherwise you'll just keep doing what you did, and getting what you got.

Sending videos to online coaches practically guarantees you're just going hear the same old thing - that your skiing posture is diametrically opposed to what you're trying to accomplish (fancy talk for "Get your butt in"). So here's an entirely different approach. Get set up with a Wakeye, Ski-Doc, or home made camera system. OR have your 2nd-BFF shoot video (while your 1st-BFF drives). Whatever. Just capture video of your skiing. But in between video shoots, carefully study video of one good skier you'd like to look like. Could be Terry Winter, or Rossi, or even Freddy Winter. Try to figure out why they look different from you - which, in this case, could be that their hips are forward, up, and "connected" to the handle. Now, go out and ski, with the singular goal of LOOKING like what your chosen skier looks like. That's all, just try to imitate what you've been watching. Of course, you need video of each your attempts, and you should pause frequently to watch it. As you continue to try to imitate your goal skier, forget about counting buoys, and ESPECIALLY forget about any tips you've been given. Your singular goal is to LOOK like your "hero". How you do that is irrelevant, because if you LOOK like a good skier you will SKI like a good skier. Sound silly, doesn't it? It's not. Again, if you LOOK like a good skier you'll SKI like a good skier. In other words, say you notice that Terry Winter always has his hands very close to his hips during his pulls / wake-crossings. Does it matter if he drives his hips up to the handle - Horton's "hump the handle" - OR if he's stretching his hands down toward his hips - Rossi's "push the handle down"? As long as you find a skiing posture that has you looking connected hips-to-handle like Terry Winter (or whomever) you'll be skiing with your hips and handle connected. Or, suppose you notice that Freddy Winter always drives his inside hand forward as he releases his outside hand while initiating a turn. Is he "counter-rotating", OR is he "reaching forward"? Doesn't matter. The closer you get to looking like Freddy Winter the closer you'll get to skiing like Freddy Winter (caveat: within the limits of normal human ability). Now, before I get a bunch of "dislikes", let me just say that I agree getting video coaching is a very good idea - maybe best. But remember that you've kind of rejected that, due to past experiences... so here's something different that you haven't tried. You can't LOOK like you're getting your hips forward (on video) unless you ARE getting our hips forward. It'll be up to you to try different ways of accomplishing that until you like what you see. And if you DO like what you see, it's then time to figure how to repeat that until your body remembers what it feels like ("muscle memory"). Again, this advice is certified to be worth every penny you've paid for it.

My advice is that you should saw the front 12 inches off your ski and put it up for sale on ski-it-again. Though it may not bring a high price, you can honestly advertise it as "Never Used". Seriously, you are very far from being balanced over the top of your ski - and THAT is killing you. Because you're riding so tail-heavy you can never build much speed or angle, and with your butt so far out behind you you're extremely vulnerable to breaking at the waist. This was evidenced at the 3 ball on your warm up pass, when you engaged more tip than you're used to. Your shoulders were forward and your butt was sticking out behind you, so there was NO way you could avoid breaking at the waist when your tip engaged. Result... OTF. However, there are good things too, most obvious being your near fearlessness at attacking the wake. You hammer through the wake like it wasn't even there, and that is no small thing. If you had a solid "stack", where your shoulders and hips were aligned with a point somewhere between your feet, you might - scratch that, WILL - reach the level where the pull is coming from your hips instead of your shoulders. NOW you can put that power to good use. Several posts on this forum, some from Horton himself, give detailed explanations of what a good, aligned, stacked pull should look and feel like. Alignment and stack are THE necessary components of this sport; without those you may very well be hitting your lifetime ceiling where you are right now. That's my two cent worth... but for you today, it's free.

@skibrain I've had the same problems as you, with all 3 Assault-type suits I owned. (one was an HO brand, undoubtedly private-labeled from another maker) After many years of experimenting with various repair methods I came to realize the primary reason they all eventually leaked was because whatever treatment had made the nylon top waterproof simply breaks down over time. So while it may seem as if it's the seams that are leaking, it's really the nylon fabric right at the edges of where it meets the seams. Fully coating the entire inner fabric surface with a "Flex-seal" type product did work for me for a while, but ultimately failed as well. So eventually, I gave up on the hybrid type suit and went to a Ski Warm full bag suit. Best choice I ever made. But I didn't throw away my last Assault suit, Instead, I cut off the legs just above the knee area, and use them like "spray legs" over the bag suit, Results: very low drag while skiing, and bone-dry clothes when I take it off. For a few sets at each end of the season it would be hard to ask for much more than that.

There was a great series of posts on the forum a few years ago about canting your waterski bindings to compensate for bowed legs. Well researched and very thorough instructional piece. "Canting my bindings on the ski helped me overcome years of problems" Note: the illustrations above show a cantable snow-ski boot, and do not relate to water ski bindings

Personally, I believe that the more consistent your connection to the boat - throughout the entire pass - the more "efficient" you will be. - Chriss Rossi on staying connected to the boat -

To get the kind of connection you would want, versus the high weight of magnets in general, you almost necessarily need to use rare-earth magnets . Unfortunately. rare earth magnets are extremely prone to corrosion, which is why they are generally nickel plated. Even so, underwater the nickel plating will quickly flake off, leaving you one hell of a rusty mess. So you'd probably have to encase them in some sort of bedding compound in order to have them last more than one season. Also, forget the idea of having a hanging magnet dangling off the top of the sub-buoy - you could find yourself "fishing" for hours trying to get two magnets-on-a-string to find each other. Instead, permanently affix the largest RE magnets you can afford to the tops of the sub-buoys, and smaller ones on the ends of the buoy lines. At 5-feet deep, your sub-buoys are gonna be safe from any prop strikes that could happen in a fresh water lake (unless they're running ocean liners on your lake). And finally, you will quickly learn that two strong magnets can form a VERY secure bond that will resist the strongest "in-line" tug you can muster. However, they can quite easily be slid apart in a sideways fashion. So you're probably gonna have to devise a way to slide the buoy-line magnet sideways off the top of the sub-buoy

I had an engineering professor in college tell me that, if you have a 1" steel cable strung between two buildings under a 1,000 pounds-force tension, and a fly lands on the cable, it will bow (deflect). We may not have instruments precise enough to measure the bow, but it will be there. Under that logic, a fin change of 0.001" will change how it skis... but it's doubtful you'll notice the difference. Therefore, I think anything within 2 or 3 thousandths of your target number will be good enough. And to put the whole discussion into perspective, legendary slalom skier Chuck Forrest, who has put up scores in -41', has been said to routinely set his fin "by eye".

First? May it also be your last.

@Ski2000 Out of curiosity... and perhaps for the sake of a cautionary tale, how exactly did you do it?

Of all the fingers needed for gripping the handle, your palm-up index finger and your palm-down pinkie finger are the two that are most expendable. Since you ski LFF, assuming you use the "correct" grip, you probably want to preserve this finger as much as possible. That said, if it gives you trouble during (or after) the final healing process you may have some luck switching your grip for a while. Don't despair though; there are some world-class skiers who have used "goofy-grip" their entire careers (Jeff Rogers comes to mind).

@MISkier What is on second base.

@skimtb Buy a "Stay Dry" bag-style drysuit, as seen here: https://www.wileyski.com/product/stay-dry/ Cut the legs off an old wetsuit or your so-so hybrid (if you can get past the fallacy of sunk cost), right at the knee, and use them like "spray legs" over your bag suit - guaranteeing no floppiness where it counts. BOS member Richard Doane has been doing this religiously for years. Remember to take the spray legs off before you try to peel the bag suit off your legs, or you'll be cussing your own forgetfulness. Ask me how I know. Also, remember to condition the bag suit seals now and then with the silicone gel sold for that purpose.

At 66 she was relatively young. I remember her being a household name when I was young; at least, in our household.

@Horton - I was NOT opining that it can be done with enough phone calls to anyone. In fact, I doubt it can be done at all - at least, not from any kind of skier-initiative baseline. But I did want to point out that it's not entirely impossible. It would just take several unlikely scenarios to coincide at a fortuitous point in time, AND a patron with lots of dough and a love of the sport. Nobody is ever going to invest the time and $$ required thinking there will be a financial upside. At least, nobody who isn't insane. That said, I would have thought it unlikely that a brand new sport combining extreme skills in gymnastics, parkour, and overall strength would ever become a multi-million dollar fan-based industry - but here we are with American Ninja Warrior.

I suggest you research this through your state's DNR. Many states allow for Lake Management Plans, designed and voted in by the residents surrounding the lake - i.e., any landowner within 500 feet of the shoreline (or whatever). Within the state guidelines you may very well find that there are limits and exceptions that can be mandated and controlled by such a LMP. For example, in a state where I used to live, on lakes up to 75 surface-acres the nearby residents can ban all motorboats over 10 horsepower, but on lakes larger than 75 surfaces acres they are required to create a "timeshare" plan wherein certain days of the week allow the use of unlimited motor size (e.g., ski boats). Even larger lakes are actually prohibited from limiting motor size completely. If your research reveals such favorable rules in your state, you might very well be able to use a state program to do an end run around the city.

@Horton- I don't even like arguing in person, let alone online, but I also don't enjoy being called a liar. So I'll just respond once here and then be done with this discussion. And, by the way, although I have worked peripherally in television and on a few Hollywood films during my long life, I've never invested in either. So I'll leave you to argue with someone who really does know what he's talking about in the film industry. https://www.forbes.com/sites/schuylermoore/2019/01/03/most-films-lose-money/#8324dfa739f2 In case you don't want to read the article, I'll summarize it for you (spoiler alert): about 80% of all commercial film projects lose money. Now, who's money do you suppose is lost? I can tell you - it's the investors. And they absolutely know the likelihood that most projects will lose money. They invest anyway. Go figure.

@Horton - Which part of what I posted do you consider so stupid that it deserves a Panda? - I DID, after all, point out that someone trying to follow a known path for getting something onto television might never see a positive ROI - which I assume is your exact point as well. As for people who will "just throw money away", you probably don't know this, but in the motion-picture industry MOST investors in any given film project will lose much (if not all) of their investment. They usually have other motives, such as adding a "Producer" title to their resume, or promoting an up-and-coming actor they have a personal interest in, or whatever. The point being, out in the real world there are a LOT of people who will "just throw money away" for whatever crazy reason works for them. Who knows if there's someone sitting on a pile of Daddy's money who might just love waterskiing enough to throw [away] money at it...

You can get almost ANYTHING on television if you bring "them" two important things: 1) a completed content package, and 2) advertising. A semi-example of this is the show "How It's Made", which is produced by the Canadian company 'Productions MAJ, Inc.'. If you've seen the show you'll know that it features various manufacturing companies doing their thing, with detailed footage of how those companies manufacture their product(s). In the US, Productions MAJ provides completed episodes (plus some advertisers) to 'The Science Channel', who also has their own stable of advertisers. Interestingly, a portion of each episode ($25k last I checked) is put up by each of the manufacturers featured in that episode. SO, if someone was motivated enough, they could probably "get water skiing on television" by putting together 1) content, by partnering with TWBC, MB, etc. and 2) advertising solicited from industry manufacturers (SN, MC, Radar, etc), watersports retailers (Perfski), and general sports-related companies (Under Armour, Oakley, etc) and similar. This would be a huge undertaking, and would undoubtedly require a single (or group) patron who was not afraid to lose money for a while - or maybe NEVER realize an actual profit.

@75Tique Most floating courses have a polyethylene centerline, which floats. If your centerline is non-floating, then as you say, it can sink to the bottom on its own and my suggestion would not work (for the exact reasons you stated). Also, though it is irrelevant now, the buoys I was suggesting would be firm foam, not inflatable balls. Foam buoys are much less buoyant than hollow buoys, so under the normal tension of a straight course they have very little ability to lift the centerline beyond the depth it's already at when the course is up.

@75Tique When a floating course is on the surface it should be under a good amount of tension, so the course is straight. Consequently, when it's on the bottom there is significant slack in the line. If you attach a small float to the mainline near the anchor, say 3 feet away, the result will be a loop of mainline that's pulled up off the bottom. If you attach a second float to the mainline, but 3 feet from the first gate, the result should be a length of mainline that's suspended above the bottom between the anchor and the first gate. This length won't be a full 3 feet off the bottom because that would requite the rest of the course to be pulled toward your moveable anchor by these floats, which is impossible. Using the WAG method, I would estimate the elevated line might be 6 inches to 1 foot off bottom. Depending on your water depth in that area, you should easily be able to grab it with a small grapple, or maybe even a boat hook. If you get this working, you could replace your 30-lb anchor with something far more substantial, like a pair of concrete-filled construction blocks, and never have to move it again. Also, when the full course is floating, the tension should be sufficient to keep both floats (and the section of mainline between them) plenty deep enough to avoid a prop strike.

@75Tique How often do you need to tension the course by dragging the anchor, and why so often?