ral

D3 is making a really good life vest (by Camaro).

@braindamage , on your second link you can find the affiliated clubs: https://www.waterski.ch/index.php?page=23

@Jody_Seal , I believe you have conflicting points of views. Your last phrase is what I hear from the left in latin america. Do you also think that it is immoral for a top level waterski whose family can afford tuition to accept a scolarship at e.g. ULL? BTW soccer, as a sport, cares very little about the olympics. And, as stated many times in this forum, the Olympic games are only one part of the Olympic movement.

@Jody_Seal , so you state that USAWS is socialist and at the same time steals from the poor to give to the rich? I get you are not happy with the waterski governing bodies, but if someone in the sport wants to spend cleanly earned 10k in a bar tab, or build a lake, what is the big issue? After dedicated training instead of going to parties like her classmates, my oldest daughter got a training grant from our federation (from a much poorer country than the USA). I do not see why I should not take it, although I can afford to pay her sets.

I do not believe the system is intended to have a driverless boat, as speed control does not replace the pilot either. It will allow more consistent pulls, especially when a top 5% driver is not available.

@Horton , but most in this forum at least watch the Worlds. You do not care about USA athletes competing internationally, and world and Pan Am tournaments being held in the USA? Do you feel that competitive kid skiers mostly get motivated by skiing with dad and mom, not by trying to get to the National teams and represent USA in international tournaments? I know you care about all the above, so I am struggling to see where you are coming from in this thread. For USA Waterski to fulfill its mission of organizing ans governing the sport of competitive waterskiing, it needs to be affiliated to USOC and IWWF. @Jody_Seal , I do not know who in IWWF you asked the question to, but Federations affiliated to the IWWF need to be recognized by the respective country OC. You cannot deny how tightly related IWWF is to the IOC:

@Horton , as @ski6jones points out, being disconnected from the rest of the waterski world and not being able to compete in e.g. PanAms and Worlds would be the result. Discussing if that has or not a personal benefit for each and every member might derail very quickly in a political discussion.

Furthermore, I see only @Luzz and I, both foreign AWSA members (so cannot even participate in USA Nationals), believe AWSA should stay affiliated with USOC. Edit: Poll got more votes, so the above changed. @ForrestGump , if you polled the same 100,000, how many would know what are the 3 waterski events?

@Horton , correct. Proportionally, much more difficult for e.g. athletics, where an even larger vast majority will never be able to attend. I do not see that as a reason for USATF to sever ties with the USOC. I see many posts suggesting USAWS should leave IWWF, and now a majority vote stating it should leave USOC and, by extension, the IOC. I struggle to understand why.

@JackQ , Gymnastics???

And the Pan Am games are not of interest for USA skiers?

Ready for another tourney…

Hi @Skiphreak , not many here would use the Evo Axis. However, it would be a great skier for free skiing, more durable and better at rougher water handling than the regular Evo or the Ion, and will save you USD 600 to invest in coaching. If you are jumping into the course, I would size up, as you will be spending time at slower speeds.

There is a cheaper 8mm Masterline.

Winter?

@One_Ski , one aspect is to consider the toll that starting at shorter line lenghts and more passes at short line would have in the skier’s bodies. I believe we would see an increasing number of opt-ups and also we would make training more difficult. Personally, I like run offs, provided they happen in the same skiing timeframe (not like at the past Worlds…).

I do not know why, but I will bite again. @One_Ski , having 10.5 added as line length will diminish the chances of breaking the record, not improving them (only effect is adding an additional pass to get to world record territory). “Resetting” the world record and adding 10m will most likely result in Nate or someone else running 10m, and then back to the same, BUT with the added difficulty of having to run a far more complex pass than 10.25 before attempting the record. So less chances of record improvement. So I fail again to see how adding line lenghts will make a difference for the world record, why is it important to have the world record broken often (see how often they are in e.g. high jump) and why not breaking the world record often makes waterski boring. Nate ran 3 at a Class C tournament BTW. Just for the sake of statistics, @One_Ski are you a judge and/or competitive skier?

@So_I_Ski , if you spend some time with the rulebook, and also in the boat, tower and at the dock in L/R tournaments, you would get a better perspective on rule applications and potential rule changes.

Looks like there was a scoring system mistake. Now it appears as 3.25@10.25.

Losing possession of the tow line.

@So_I_Ski , although I believe the quadruple panda most likely captures the general opinion on the dual rope idea, have you realized it implies changing the first sport rule of waterski in both IWWF and AWSA (definition of a fall)?

Here is the live results link. http://www.iwwfed-ea.org/competition.php?cc=T-22PANA01&page=live If we want the sport to grow, we should show interest in our young guns, as well as in the best of the world, they are competing there.

I fail to understand why should we be concerned about “the next best skier” when discussing about the world record. I also fail to understand why something that is not a problem should be fixed, and I fail to understand why I get involved in discussions supported by either fake statistics or just guesses out of somehwere… I am failing way too much, considering I am facing summer and not winter.

This is a recurring topic in the forum and, I believe, always attempting to solve a non-existing problem. We are not having tournaments where elite skiers tied at a physical limit when conditions are perfect, but stacked at mid 41 off because of playing it (relatively…) safe (like at the worlds). And not tied at first place, but at the last qualifying places. If we reduce by .25 m after 10.75, elite tourmanents would be longer and less attractive.

The “coordinates” of each buoy needed to be 20 inches inside their usual place…