elr

Ran my first pass in 3.5 yrs yesterday - multiple surgeries. Better than a PB!

@Chef23 - Cory's. Over the years we've also had Russ Stiffler (early on) and Taylor Pavur available locally (Houston) and Bennetts (Storm and Herman) has helped alot.

@Chef23 - Thank you and your son is looking really strong. The picture really does make me smile. We've been blessed by his natural ability (all from his mom) and exceptional coaching. We have also worked trick alot waiting for him to get stronger. TF is normally more difficult than TB so that could be a sign of something special for your son. RTB is a very hard gateway trick that normally takes a lot of water time and good coaching. My son is working hard on his next gateway trick - wrap in TO - and finally got a few that would have scored last week! (Amazing what bribery and exceptional coaching will do.)

My son - 2011 Nationals

@skinut - speed increases are harder on the parents than the kids, as are division changes. My 14 y.o. moved to B3 this year, weighs about 80lbs and never ran 34 in a tournament, Guess what - he likes 36 better than 34. The rules provide access, desire to compete is personal.

So . . . its OK to provide an advantage to the smaller skier that is useless to the bigger/stronger skier?

I am failing to understand the correllation between maximum speed for a division and accessibility of the sport. The minimum start speed for all divisions is 15.5 MPH and you don't even need to run that to participate. A few years ago the minimum start speed was 6 MPH under max speed or 28 MPH for B2 - that was an accessibility issue but it was corrected. Maybe a more widespread use and intermingling of Class F in tourneys would help, My son's first year in B2 he had a bunch of fun running about 4 @ 30MPH, getting a bunch of new tricks, and learning to jump. The best advice I got for my son was to have him start 3 eventing - something good is always happening - and he's never bored at tournaments.

I think you're still allowed to opt up - I really think a cap is a better solution for this.

@ToddL - I'm sure it will NOT become available - not with 10/11 year old girls running currently running into -35, no, NOT going to happen. . .. I'm sure Brenda would NOT make one for me if I called. Pretty sure those girls could NOT hold up a standard line either. Two year old on tied together trick skis at Nationals - not in our life time.

I guess we will just have to disagree - I do think that some B2 skier will figure out how to use the up to 6 inches of extra rope @ -39.5 the light line offers at current 4.0% elongation specs. I also believe that if you are shortening beyond -15 at max speed your line isn't dragging the water. Another solution would be to have manufacturers formulate a light line that meets the 2.6% elogation spec.

@ToddL - no worries. I like the light line @ LL and -15 up to max speed - you may want to consider re-casting your proposal from that perspective as opposed to start speed. And, yes I think a handle hit from Tyler Scott (when he was a B2 at 34/-39) hurts just as much as a handle hit from Chad Scott going the same speed/line and the risk could be excerbated with a rope that stretches more. I've been around highly competitive athletes for a long time and they will use ANYTHING within the rules they feel will give them an advantage. A national record is highly prized.

@ToddL - I guess I just don't understand the correlation between greater youth involvement (everyone can start at 15.5 MPH) and max speed for a division.

@ToddL - thanks for the links I already have both rule books on my computer. Just wanted you to see that the light line doesn't meet either the IWSF breakage or elongation standards - and be able to address those facts in any proposal you may have. I don't know that I would like being the boat judge or driver when the "bearded" B2 competitor is trying to hold on to three ball at 34/-39 with a light line. Don't know that I would like to be the B2 record holder that whose record gets topped by a competitor using a light line either. I just think that consideration needs to be given to both sides of the bell curve.

Like the light rope - this is also an IWSF issue. U17 boys run at 36. U13 boys run at 34MPH. Why should age group in the US not be similar? When my older son (22 now) started sking tornaments as a B3 the minimum start speed was 30MPH (6 MPH) less then max speed. AWSA made a fabulous accomodation to beginner skiers by lowering the minimum start speed to 15.5 MPH which my younger son (14) took advantage of. However, I believe that age group skiers in the US should not be disadvantaged internationally.

Do the light ropes meet the IWSF breakage and stretch specs? I don't think you can look at one end of the spectrum of skiers without looking at the other. I remember my son's first tournament in B2 (he weighed less than 60 lbs) after he took a look at one of the other boys in his division he turned to me and said "dad he has a beard." B2 kids at the other end of the spectrum run short line at 36 MPH in IB.

I owned the '96 version of that boat - w/o tower. Hull is the same as the CB except that the motor box is in a different location leading to a different prop shaft angle - which some say makes for better slalom wakes then the CB. The trick wakes on the NWZ nautiques are wonderful - but that means the slower speed slalom wakes are not up to the '97 and up 196 standard (they are still better than alot of boats out there). It also mean that its a great beginner wakeboard boat. But, if slower speed slalom wakes are really important to you a 97 or later SNOB may be the ticket.

So we are driving home from the lake last night and my wife says to me - Our 14 year old son goes 36 MPH -- how can they call themselves "Big Dawgs" when my little puppy skis faster then them, why don't the old guys go 36 MPH? I see a certain logic that the elite classes/tournaments - MM and Big Dawg - be run at 36 MPH, while age group championships be kept at 34 MPH. From a marketing perpective I don't think the scores would change that much and the differentiation would be of value.

This seems like the perfect place for running a Class F group [could be for one skier] within or in conjunction with your Class C or above tournament.

Since LL/-15/-22 appear to be so different than -28 and shorter - is there validity in working with junior skiers at -28 and slower speeds?

@KTM300 - Your daughter isn't imagining things, my M7 ski partner starts at 32/22 and says the rooster tail is right there behind the '07 196. We haven't played with anything yet but I'll let you know if we find something that works.

Amazing place -- Nobody works harder than Cory.

@Horton thank you for keeping this up for all of us.

@OB Its all an insurance issue - you don't need a rated driver/background check unless you need the USAWS insurance or the insurance is required to host a santioned practice, event, tournament. I do not rely on USAWS insurance when I pull my family and friends. To make the insurance less expensive USAWS will need to implement some of the safety measures ShaneH talks about - I think that is how USAWS can best help waterski venues such as yours. INT probably has some form of insurance for their events and that could be another avenue.

Looks like you will never understand my position either - but the underwriters do and they are the ones that count with regard to this issue. To spell it out for you I don't want someone who has a history of making bad motor vehicle choices to pull me on Sunday morning after they've partied all night Saturday - no they are not drinking on the boat, they just have a history of getting behind the wheel of a motor vehicle when they shouldn't have and IMO that is a safety concern.

@ShaneH - I and apparentely the underwriters don't think "driving records are a feel good measure that has little or nothing to do with safety." From the National Institute for Health - "Drunk driving recidivism rates are high: approximately one-third of drivers arrested or convicted of DWI each year are repeat offenders. A 1994 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine concluded that drivers involved in alcohol-related fatal crashes were eight times more likely to have had DWI convictions in the previous 5 years than drivers randomly selected from the general population of licensed drivers." I will probably never will understand your position on this as it controverts data. Like it or not underwriters and regulations will drive what we have to do. The best thing USAWS can do is act on it own wrt safety issues as you suggested and lower loss rates so insurance remains available and potentially less expensive.