boarditup

Just outside of the buoy line...

While I disagree with Marcus on his (assumed) point, I really like the discussion. Controversy that does not destroy anything or demean anyone is good. I will likely disagree with everyone on this board over something or another, but I am still good friends with a lot of them. So - bring it on. It is worth discussing. From a demographic perspective, it is really interesting to hear the 18-30 age group talk and discuss these matters. They do have a very different life perspective than I do a couple of decades and three kids more experienced. Sometimes you just smile internally knowing what you had to learn by experience. My dad is a genius.

Just for discussion - what if the max speed for pros was 36 and the rest of us mere mortals was capped at 34? That would make a clear division for the pros. Or, how about 38? I know it would take dramatic rule changes in the IWWF. However, it is a clear distinction. Any merit?

One thing to think about - there is no single organized organizer for professional waterski events. Anyone can meet the USA Waterski and IWWF standards, put up money, and host a tournament. Very few people do - Dana Reed (please pray for his recovery from cancer surgery) is an exception. The Big Dawg was created by a person with the gumption to make something happen. So, I support it. I also support anyone who has the gumption to make a go at organizing a pro event or another segment of tournament (say female jumpers, Little Dawg, etc.). I'll even provide the site - and I mean that.

While on a construction site, I saw two excavators operating in the same general area. Each operator was getting the job done. One operator was much smoother than the other. He had a "touch" that the other operator, or I, could not reproduce. It was interesting to watch excellence at work. Same with skiing. I enjoy watching excellence - even knowing I will never run 39-off at virtually any speed. There will always be a place for the upper fraction of any sport. The combination of genetics, circumstance, training, hard work, equipment, psychology, and a host of other factors makes some people and performances freaks of nature. I won't get into the discussion of what makes a "professional" waterskier, but I sure do enjoy watching them ski. As a sport we are richer for them, I only wish they could be appropriately compensated for the extreme level of performance they offer us. Marcus Brown, Chris Rossi, Matt Rini, Jodi Fisher, Jeff Rodgers, Nate Smith, Chris Parrish, Will Asher, Freddy Kruger, and a whole host of other pros that have skied my lake have been class acts. A few need to mature a bit, but age and life experience takes care of that fairly soon. I don't think the Big Dawg takes away from the Pros. I think it does add another outlet of excellence that I like to watch. I think the sport is richer every time someone sets a new Personal Best, Tournament Best, Tournament Win, Lake Record, and World Record. It is all very good.

Agreed - another big difference. Why does the government subsidize those sports? Because they are popular with the voters - for the reasons listed above. However, early in the 1900's they were not subsidized, either. Subsidies came later - after they got big. Extreme sports are not typically government subsidized other than neighborhood skate parks and boat ramp maintenance. We are on our own.

There is precious few dollars for professional extreme sports athletes - with a few very visible exceptions. I do classify slalom, jump, and wakeboard as extreme sports. The main reason is spectators, venue, and identification. The most successful sports are football, and NASCAR. They have large stadiums, highly organized presentations of a limited time duration (most of the time), and fans want to identify with them (teams, players, mascots, etc.) That does not work as well in extreme sports. Those that do work well include skateboarding (especially vert ramp), arena-cross, and snowboarding vert ramp. All have a lot of elements of the most successful sports including a compact venue, a short duration, and colorful characters to watch (Shaun White, Travis Pastrana, etc.). Marcus Brown is getting there in terms of character development, but is slalom enough of a show-sport to get it done? I think it will be really tough to attract enough external money to make a lifestyle for most "pro" skiers. We have to support our own.

The average spectator cannot tell the difference between 36, 34, 39, or 43. Slalom is generally boring to the un-initiated spectator. They want to see jump and wakeboard. Not enough of us travel and support slalom events to generate a crowd with critical mass for external sponsors to be interested. If our events regularly drew 5,000 people, our skiing community would be very different and flush with external cash.

What is the approximate number of spectators at Big Dawg events?

There is a chemical reaction that keeps on going, so he is right. If you use a good wax with UV inhibitor, it stays dark a lot longer. Red is the worst, blue the second worst for fading. Waxing every few weeks during the summer will keep it good for many years, but it is maintenance intensive. I use Nu-Finish and it works extremely well. For after skiing wipe downs, I use 303 (it does leave a little streaking on dark colors), based upon another skier who has an '80's MC whose gel coat still looks new.

I grew up on a public lake without any access to a slalom course. I built a private lake and am only 4-miles from access to the Grand River, upstream from Spring Lake, and within 100-miles of over 100 other lakes. I have the best of both worlds.

How about the differences between various levels of skiing? What gets you through 22-off many not be the same as 35-off or 41-off. It seems like different skill sets may be in order. For example, at 250-lbs my turn completion looks very different than a 150-lbs skier.

As a bigger skier, I use C3 most of the time and C2 on just a few boats with larger motors. I always thought that PP did not apply enough throttle during the completion of the turn into the acceleration phase of the cut. For me, the ZO is a dramatic improvement in ski-ability.

Global has the best and only policy that fully covers tournament use. It is relatively inexpensive and they are easy to work with. I have an umbrella policy through my homeowners that kicks in above my boat and auto limits that will protect me if the numbers get big. Ski lake insurance can be written by many different carriers. You typically need to have specific language for tournament or competition use. My lake is run as a site condo, so we get very good insurance rates.

I noticed my site is down. shoot me an e-mail at rider@boarditup.com and I'll quote you a price.

Here is what I heard - 3rd hand. The wake will not have a bump at 22 or 28. Tracking is dramatically improved. Fuel economy is better than the CC 200. The hull layup will be more consistent from boat-to-boat. The hull will not be introduced until it is right from both a performance and manufacturing perspective. MC knows this must be a "home run" boat. Expect a very refined product - not shortcut or cut rate.

Simple - in tournaments athletes push the ragged edge. That leads to injuries. As an individual sport, the safety director can only manage the environment around the athlete. The athlete makes split-second decisions whether to take the risk or not. In practice, the decision is usually the safe one. In tournaments, it may not be. Also, the number of pulls and athletes are significantly greater in a tournament than in a school or practice scenario. When I have pro-level tournaments, I have EMTs on site. I don't for a family day behind the boat.

Sap is fairly thin. It takes a lot of boiling to evaporate the water to make syrup. Most that I see don't use the submersible pumps, but the Jabsco transfer pumps with a flexible, and replaceable impeller. They are $300 versus $60, but may be cheaper over the long run.

Attwood Tsunami have the greatest lift. It is what the wakeboarders use for ballast due to speed.

I passed the on-line trained driver class. I have the card in my wallet. I have also passed the USCG Nav-Rules exam - closed book. This is the same exam used for a licensed captain in the under 500 gross ton class. As a USCG officer charged with marine safety and as designated Investigating Officer, I had to know the rules. I also spent time serving in all positions on a tugboat and then on the Eagle (sailing tall ship). As a teen, I passed the Michigan DNR boater safety class. There was nothing in the USAWS class unique to waterskiing that was not also taught in another forum. My point is the current setup is what you would find from the USCGA or Power Squadron course. We should have a hands-on practical that should be demonstrated to another USAWS member. The skills should be towing specific: pulling up a skier, dropping a skier, recovering a fallen skier, basic course driving, basic open water pattern driving, show ski patterns (yes, it is valuable to know), double up driving (again, good to know), etc. This does not have to be a formal clinic with an administrative burden - just a driver and another member who sign off on a demonstrated skill.

I think one of the purposes of USAWS was to provide cross discipline potential. I have a ski jump, but do not go over it - too old to start. I do however show ski, slalom, wakeboard, wakesurf, and occasionally kneeboard. I believe you would find that most of the B/G1 to M/W1 skiers are also wakeboarders. In the INT you can compete in slalom and wakeboard on the same day, same organization. USAWS and the AWSA has not responded to the change in culture and facilitated new combinations of events to draw the next generation of skiers. So, from a discipline perspective, I am AWSA - because I have to select one. I do, however, cross over many lines within USAWS. So, instead of breaking apart AWSA from USAWS, perhaps we should be discussing a re-organization to react to the change in culture we see around us.

http://m.thegardenisland.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/florida-pill-mill-owner-family-arrested/article_b79db098-514b-11e1-8e1d-001871e3ce6c.html He was a former Wakeboarding champion and 3-event skier - and a 2010 inductee into the Waterski Hall of Fame. He came to wakeboarding through trick skiing. I've met him before and he seemed like a decent, nice guy. He really made some bad choices that he will suffer the consequences from.

Don't give John an idea for an ice-breaking fin. That may generate a whole new business for him.

The Grand Valley State University Ski Team proposed to start a high school ski club at Allendale Public Schools. Last night the Athletic Director agreed if I would sponsor the club - being the site owner - and supervise the activities. So, we have an agreement for starting the club. The goal is to have an instructional and fun time culminating with a tournament so the kids understand what competitive skiing is all about. I don't think we can get other schools involved right now, maybe in a year after proof of concept. Any advice?

My perspective is I cannot offer criticism without being part of the solution. I have offered some changes that I would like to see made to the benefit of the members and I am willing to put my time and effort into making those changes happen. I have been in contact with HQ and have visited various staff. I am willing to be part of anything that I suggest. I will keep my mouth shut about anything that I am not willing to participate in improving.