schroed

The answer to this poll should be both 1 and 2. If you limit the number of skiers to only a handful of the top skiers you will also limit the overall number of people watching/attending the event. Unfortunately not that many people come out to just watch skiing, but they would come out if they were able to participate. I have skied nationals and regionals where there weren't that many people there and where there were lots of people there. I personally find it way more fun when there are lots of people there. I think the ranking system works better than the old EP system and USA waterski should find ways to help encourage more participation at the nationals. The best skiers will still come out on top even if there are more people.

I'm not sure any rule that would force a skier into a certain division is the right way to go. I would think that peer pressure would work well enough. I've seen it work with a few different skiers. Also, I'm not sure adding another level to designate someone as "Pro" would be effective. It's pretty easy to look at the ranking list and see who those people are. I think forcing those people to ski in MM or OM is a mistake. Are you going to force a 17 year old B3 skier to ski against Nate Smith even though he's never won a national title? That doesn't seem right.

What color is it with the wrapper off?

I agree that TW is a great coach. I've taken numerous lessons from him over the past few years and it has greatly helped me out. He always seems to find one thing to work on and explain it simply so that I can apply it during the lesson.

Cut off moves based on percentages. It looks like it's 104.25 average right now. So you need a 2@39, a 2.25@39, and a 2.5@39 to get a MM rating.

Where is this tournament? You never know what state @dirt will be skiing in.

@boody, I've been skiing at Liquid Zone for the past couple of years.

I've had a MM rating for a long time and have traditionally skied in M3 in regionals and nationals. I've never won a regional title, but have come in 2nd many times. I don't consider myself to be competitive with some of the other MM skiers in my region like Greg Badal and Matt Brown because those guys run 39 almost every time and I've only run it once in my life in practice. Funny thing is last year I skied in M3 and some people were calling me a sandbagger (jokingly, but still saying it none the less). This year I skied MM at regionals and a bunch of people were asking me why I wasn't skiing M3. I don't think there's really a problem with the system today. I think the only change I would make is that if you've won a national title in your age division, and you're qualified for OM or MM, then you should be forced to ski in MM or OM.

It doesn't look like there were any M1 or M2 skiers. Is that really true?

Nice work @dirt and thanks for the hospitatlity at your site pullling me for a couple rides at my old stomping grounds and bringing a couple cold beers!

Nice 3rd place too @boody

He did get a reride after that and I'm pretty sure he won that head to head.

I'll be there at least for Friday and Saturday.

Here's some scores from memory: Round 1: Beaman 5 @ 38 vs. Todd Johnson 4.5 @ 38; Eric Kelley 4@38 vs. Michael Robinson 3.5 @ 38; Scott Larson 6 @ 38 vs, Dave Goode 1.5 @ 38; Bruce Dodd defeated Dave Bentall (Can't remember scores); Todd Ristorcelli 6 @ 38 vs. Steve Schroeder 1.5 @38; Seth Stisher 2@39 vs. Drew Ross .5@39; Dave Miller 3.5@39 vs. Todd Kuykendall 3 @ 39 (I think); I also know that in the finals Scott Larson ran 4@39 and Todd Ristorcelli ran 4.5 @ 39. It was pretty windy, cool, and rolly with long waits on one end so scores where down a bit.

Thanks @bishop8950. My time in the final didn't last too long, but I'm stoked to be going to the finals in FL. I'll see you there.

Let's just say that you would have won money if you bet the "under" on @dirt this weekend. I think he skied a bit too much before the tourney.

Dirt just set a new PB at the record at Shortline yesterday with a score of 4.5 @ 39. He's on fire this year. Nice work Dirt!

I've seen a number of pictures just like the one above when tournaments have used bubble bouys including the Diablo Shores Pro Am and Nationals. I agree that bubble bouys are the safest option out there, but I think they do have a flaw. The basic problem is that since they don't move or get displaced in the water, they are very hard to judge in real time. I would bet that if you watched that pass the picuture was taken of JT you may not even think to review it. I wonder if they could be redesigned to move more in the water so that they'd displace towards the shore if you run over the inside of the buoy.

Jason skied awesome, but it would have been nice to have been in a run off. I think Chad has had some bad calls take away his chance at a national title in M3. I personally think there should be video in the boat for regionals and nationals.

You want your wing to fit like a flesh tuxedo otherwise it will sink in the water like a pink torpedo.

@liquid d : Current COA average for open is 108.83. That's .83 buoys at 41 off @ 34 mph. So, I don't think you can sign up for open "once you run a few at 39 @ 34 mph". You could ski at 36 in MM or in your age division, but you get scored like you were going 34 and hence you wouldn't be competitive. I don't see how dropping in age divisions would mess up regionals and nationals. I think it might make the M2 slalom event more competitive. I understand that many of the older dawgs are former tour skiers, but I would argue that most of those guys can reach the COA for open at 34 mph and would most likely not ski in an age division simply to go 36. However, I do think there are a lot of guys that are around 35 years old that still want to go 36 mph and can run deep 38. Those guys are forced to slow down to 34 mph and to ski either MM or M3, or choose to be at a disadvantage by going 36 in those divisions. Why not let those guys continue to ski in M2?

Did we all just agree to petition USA Waterski to let 35+ year old men ski in Mens 2?

This problem has been bothering me for a couple years and I believe it brings up a broader issue of speed, age divisions, and the ability to properly handicap skiers skiing at different speeds. I do believe that there is basically a 6 buoy difference between skiing at 55K versus 58K, but this starts to break down at 39.5 and 41 and hence, causes problems for getting open ratings. I think a simple solution that would make people many people happy would be for USA Waterski to not set an upper age limit for age divisions. In other words, if someone is over 35 years old, allow them to ski in Mens 2 at 58K. This would allow for proper scoring of people over 35 that want to qualify for open, not hurt the rankings list for M3 and other 55K skiers, expand the M2 division to more than 165 skiers nationally, and give skiers who don't have their open rating, are over 35, and do not want to go 55k, a division to ski in. I know that when I turned 35 I didn't want to stop skiing at 58K.

I skied 4 tournament rounds behind a carbon pro this weekend and on one round I got my second best score ever. I really like skiing behind this boat. I think the biggest advantage of the CP is that there is not trough and a narrow wake at 38 and 39. This seems to allow me to change edges earlier and have a much smoother edge change.

This whole thread brings up a couple points I've been frustrated about over the past few years. One, I think the bubble buoys should be redesigned so that they displace when they're hit by the ski. I have seen numerous instances where the buoy was run over and the skier was given the score. It's too hard for the judges to tell if the skier ran over the buoy or not when the buoys don't move. I believe you could redesign them so that they would move in the water easier, but still deflate when they're run over. Second, for regionals and nationals, I think video should be required for slalom. This would give the skier an opportunity to challenge a call. It should then be up to the ACJ of the event whether or not they'll review it. Right now there is no recourse if a bad call is made.