Than_Bogan

Surprisingly fun video.  Still surprised you had no success on the 3.1.  Loved that thing.  Not as good as the 5.3, of course.  (I suppose that's my #1 "oddball" ski.  Had the privilege of testing that out one year and it was freakin awesome.   Personally I liked it more than the c65 -- although the c75 left both in the dust.)

Just listened to TWBCs Face-to-Face with Joel P.  Joel states that MC told him to go and set records behind every boat.  If that is truly MC's approach, then HUGE kudos to them, and it couldn't be in starker contrast to the embarrassing behavior of SN with Jacinta.

If we're doing "comps" now, I feel like we have to go way back to Wayne Grimditch to find another male with this combination of raw athleticism and dedication to waterskiing.

Wow my favorite slalom skier of each gender just won the World Championships!

Thanks for all the fun times rooting for you Jaimee and Freddie!

CONGRATULATIONS!!

P.S. Apparently I am deficient in nationalism, seeing as neither is U.S.  I do love rooting for Regina and Corey, too, but as @rayn pointed out, how could I not root hardest for the engineer!?

P.S. Is there a video angle that explains how that wasn't 1/2 at -43?  I didn't hear any complaining, so perhaps there is video that shows a clear miss of the 1 ball (or the gate, I suppose)?  From just the video I saw, I'd certainly have to call 1/2.

@Horton already posted this exact link, but SURELY a guy who runs freakin' 41 off deserves his own thread!?

https://www.instagram.com/p/CyWnr5jpZVs/

If this guy is the face of our sport now, we're gonna be just fine.

That makes sense.  Glad I asked.

@Horton Did this get put on hold?  I was a bit surprised to see your post about the Connelly so soon after the Pineapple Preview.

Wow, my list is very similar to @Wish.  Probably my Peeked Interest List, in order, is:

1. c95 -- yeah, yeah, I'm sure everyone is gasping in shock now, but it really does sound kinda awesome!
2. Works 02 -- I'm becoming a massive Jamie Bull fan, and this ski certainly has top-notch results!
3. Pineapple -- I just love crazy ... um ... stuff.  And Parsons was probably the brain behind the N1, which still accounts for nearly all of the '38s that I've run in my life.
4. '24 Vapor -- I'd never have time to get to the 4th ski on my list, but this sounds like it brings a unusual combination of abilities, and I look forward to seeing @Bdecker run some -38s on it!!

I think part of the definition of the (fictional) MOASS is that it works great for everyone.  It's pretty much in the name Mother of ALL Slalom Skis.

@ Bdecker That's a subtle but remarkable endorsement in my mind.  Many skis are really hard to get to feel right at all in cold water, much less with the same settings used for very warm water.

(Off topic, but this is the one thing that prevents the Goode Nano One from being my clear favorite ski ever:  That ski was so amazing when tuned perfectly, but settings seemed to not translate from lake-to-lake, and it also fell off a cliff in cold water.)

The jump is inside the buoy line and I don't have a particular problem with that.  However, I do have two things to add related to slalom geometry:

1) An S-turn sometimes actually sends the ski wider than the course width.  Remember the problem is carrying to much speed, and the second move of the S turn is to go back outbound to lengthen your path.  Of course, at 9.75 it's not possible to be any significant amount wider than the course width!

2) It's surprising how late you can appear in an S-turn and still make it back before the gates.  The sneaky thing is that you'll be travelling quite a bit backwards relative to the boat as you swing from up high to back behind the boat.  I think theoretically, with enough momentum coming in, the path could actually go backwards, but more commonly it just goes forward much less than you'd think.

I like the season points a lot.  Obviously it's not the main reason to watch, but it's probably the most meaningful ranking of the pros as pros.

@Jordan Like today maybe!

Can you take your ski off at the end of your ride without loosening your laces?

Yes.  Indeed that is typically what I do with my T-factors, and it's not even that difficult.

I, too, have spent a LOT of time thinking about bindings.  I've even designed some and actually patented an attachment method (that I am no longer pursuing for reasons that may become obvious as you read on).

The two most important factors to consider in choosing the safest double-boot setup FOR YOU are:

1) What do you do as a skier?  What type of falls do you take?  How often do you take big crashes?

2) What level of care and maintenance are you realistically going to do?

Each system has potential liabilities, and you need to try to select the liabilities that are the least likely to be a problem for you.

Releasable boots inherently have the possibility of releasing when they shouldn't.  This can be made less likely with vigilant inspection, testing, and maintenance.  But these kind of falls can be very dangerous.

Fixed rubber boots are unable to release in certain specific scenarios, especially sudden-stop OTFs and certain extreme twists.

Personally, I average less that one "big crash" per year, but I am terrible at maintenance.  Given this combination, I conclude that releasable boots actually increase my chance of injury significantly.

T-factors will never release when they shouldn't, and generally will release when they should.

18 hours ago, swbca said:

Riding over shall be defined
as hitting a turn buoy with the ski so as to move it significantly from its position or temporarily sink it.

Soo, upon reading this rule for about the 5th time, I actually now DO seem room to call this 1/2.  There are only two things that should cause us to call it a ride-over (and therefore a miss).  Otherwise the rule clearly states that we're awarding points.

1) Move it significantly from its position.  Nope, I don't see that here.  Crushing a buoy is not changing it's position much at all.

2) Temporarily sink it.  Also nope and for the same reason: the buoy gives and therefore does not sink.

So now I'm claiming that this should be 1/2, and that if we want crushing of modern safety buoys to be called a miss, we need to add that explicitly to the rules.  Personally, I'd prefer that this situation score, and for that perhaps a "clarification" should be added to make it obvious that crushing is neither displacing nor sinking and therefore points.

The text of the rule surprised me a bit as it doesn't mention the feet/boots at all.

If that is indeed the governing rule, then I'd say no points for that buoy.

But I had the same impression as many others: that it could be scored depending on where the foot went next.  Did we all just imagine that rule?

I completely disagree with this sentiment.

In a sport that doesn't require an opponent, head-to-head is just superimposed in an illogical way.  Just like all of the field events in Track & Field, it's just you against the event.  Whoever does the most/highest/furthest is the winner.

Head-to-head in slalom produces results that make no sense, like someone getting into the next round with a far worse score than somebody who was eliminated.  In tennis, there is no choice but to play head-to-head, because the sport requires an opponent.  We are forced to live with the possibility that somebody gets a weirdly easy path through the tournament.  In sports that don't require an opponent, we don't have to let that happen!

And, thanks to other rules of slalom, there is a HUGE incentive for the second person in a head-to-head bracket to do "just enough" to move on, and I never never never want to watch one of the best in the world simply stop doing their sport.  Heck, the worst part of even non-head-to-head format is when the last skier does just enough to win and then skis home.  I'll say it again: I tuned in to watch people ski, not stop skiing.

In fact, the head-to-head format actually encourages the first skier to stop skiing.  Unless you're up against Nate, do you really want to risk turning the 3 ball at -41, knowing that 3 is gonna be really hard to beat, but 2.5 may allow the second guy to just "take the win."

If there are folks who love watching head-to-head, then have some events for them.  But PLEASE do not make all pro events head-to-head!

My thought is that *most* of the discussion should assume an expert audience.  If anyone is seeing serious waterskiing for the first time, the main takeaway should be that this is a serious sport, and that is best achieved simply by *treating* it as a serious sport!

The only "nod to the newb viewer" that I think might be a good idea is to point out the specific hard parts.  I was recently reminded that even a VERY good technical athlete, seeing slalom for the first time, focuses on the turns, thus completely missing the most fundamental challenge of strength and technique.  Pointing out the massive forces the skier must hold and the incredibly short amount of time to get from 30ish to 60ish mph, are things that anyone can grasp and be amazed by -- but that aren't obvious just watching it.

It's tempting to try to explain that shorter ropes are harder, but actually the viewer CAN see that.  They may not know why, but it's obvious that longer lines look very easy and eventually shorter lines lead to failure. 

It feels terrible, especially on my on-side, if I use a dead-straight rear boot: Balance is a problem and even the good turns seem too hard to reliably hold.

However, this kinda bums me out because the rotated rear boot also exaggerates my bow-leggedness and makes it really hard for my knees to go where they ideally should.

For some reason I read this entire thread, and I don't think anyone mentioned that in your videos you are trying to get up on very rolly water.  This is MUCH harder, especially for a first timer -- it's constantly moving you around, adding to the difficulty to get set.  So in addition to all of the other very accurate advice (most importantly to just drive to Corey's and get this done!), you really want to learn on calm water.

If you ever have a chance to take ski video again, do it from the boat and WAY more zoomed in.  I'm amazed people were able to come up with any relevant advice from those videos.

Now get in the car and go to Corey's!! 🙂

Nice skiing there, Dr. Jim! 😉

But seriously CONGRATULATIONS!!

Really enjoyed this discussion!

The Masters is so far off my radar (no TWBC == not worth watching) that I didn't even realize there had been an "incident."  Had to search around.  Overall, found Bob Marley's comedy to be most informative :).