buechsr

https://www.usawaterski.org/rankings/view-scores_usa.asp?NSL=&sMemberID=100000047&EventSelected=S&pvar=ByMember In looking at her scores in the last year, other than Malibu Open and Regina Jaquess Open (at Lymanland), it sure seems like her Malibu-pulled opportunities were limited (in comparison to MC and SN events). And last year was even somewhat an anomaly as I seem to recall OW drew Malibu at nationals, hence (I seem to recall) she skied Malibu at the FL States and Southern Regionals.

I’d suggest looking on skit again to see if Skip Dunlap has a tumacs waterline cover pattern.

Loved it...especially the drone shots to compare with boat-cams. as for the next comparo...anyone else on syndicate team would be great! That said, preference here for JT or the Tower.

I've read the lawsuit. I'd say its going to be a slow boat sales season if Malibu terminated its dealership agreement with its largest dealer network, responsible for 33% of sales. Call me Warren Buffet.

Water skiing ski fjording?

https://nautique.com/article/dockside-chats-scot-ellis Either way, I don’t see a worlds. It would appear Brenda belongs for sure: https://www.usa-wwf.org/Hall-of-Fame/brenda-nichols-baldwin

I show Scot won Masters in 98…I can’t find a worlds though you’re right. Brenda Nichols

Scot Ellis?

@Cnewbert I didn’t say there’s not passionate equine hobbyists who spend plenty on their horses. Of course there is. But hobbyists showing $100,000 horses that are not expensing vet, board, meds, training, grooming, travel, etc. are few. I said a (significant part) of the equine world is used as a “tax haven”. I stand by that. And while eventing/showing/jumping can get pricey, that world doesn’t hold a candle to the thoroughbred industry. I can’t imagine a racing stable thats’s not expensing and depreciating their assets to serve as a tax mitigation strategy for their owners. Heck, I know that in Florida there is no sales tax on horses, no sales tax on boarding, “ag” exemptions make significantly-sized farms virtually property tax-free, and there are others before one even gets into accounting tricks. I agree that there’s a lot more people who spend a lot more money on horses (and related expenses) than the 400 or so annual buyers of $100,000 ski boats, but the comparison has nuance. I’m very familiar with last week’s Longines event. A relative jumped in the finals for a European country. In the good ol’ days of skiing (late 80s-90s), tour events routinely drew as many people as were at WEC last week.

A 2012 197 for $54,000 is lower than one would think?

I agree that there are many more factors than the price of new boats when it comes to the number of skiers these days. That said, comparing it to the equine world is not quite fair. In the equine world, virtually every expense associated therewith is a business expense. Even the horses themselves are on a (steep!) depreciation schedule. The equine world (a significant part thereof) is a tax haven (read: tax avoidance strategy). EDIT: and upon quick google search, it appears USEF show participation are down significantly. Obviously thoroughbred racing is in steep decline too. In any event, my personal philosophy is if everyone teaches 2 people to ski a year, everything will be OK.

I suggested that.

I just can't get on board with him on a Senate (any Senate) at his level and speed. As butterknife no longer available, and if he wants to stick w Radar, get him on a terrain or session and slow the boat down. He's got to learn the rhythm and width of the course and getting at best, 1 ball per pass, is not helping that. Heck there's a video I think of Matt Rini running 38 on a butterknife (as I recall). Learning the course, at his level, on a Senate, is just not a recipe for learning the course IMO. The Senate, even the alloy, is a "real" ski, designed for 34 mph. Sure it can be ridden slower, but it's hardly an "ideal" shape for someone at 28mph just learning the course. If you were using the sequence at "your" speed, I bet it felt terrible. It's for a slower more forgiving ride. I'd have him go back to that if he didn't want to add another ski, and go 24 mph. Bottom line, slow the boat as slow as needed to allow him to get 6, and use a ski as large is as needed to support him to do so.

got it...but I think you meant slalom not small.

Appears he won worlds (slalom and overall) in 1959, too. Hence "tied" with T-Gas and deserving of being listed? Hell of induction photo into Long Beach State HOF. Wish my hair (ever) looked that good, let alone at 1 ball lol. https://longbeachstate.com/honors/hall-of-fame/chuck-stearns/70

Hard to run the course if you don't get wide enough around 1 ball. What ski is that? Seems awfully narrow (read: draggy) at that speed. While there's plenty of form improvement to be had, he needs to be on something more stable and less reactive in the turn to learn width and the "shape" needed to run the course. Obviously that shape changes dramatically as speed goes up and rope gets shorter but as he was not even close to running any of those passes, I'd suggest a radar butterknife, slow the boat to 26 and let the rope all the way out. Its a wide and soft ski that will be more consistent at those slower speeds. There's a reason those slower boat speeds and 75" exist. He's got to learn to get wide, and that doesnt happen at 28 like it does watching pros.

You're not alone. My recollection, which fails more often than I'd like to admit but nonetheless I will rely upon, is that one option that gained "some" momentum on BOS was a sort of secession-mutiny with a new organization, new rules, and most importantly, no safe sport requirement. None of which solved the problem that was addressed AD NAUSEUM by USAWS and AWSA leadership AND our insurance brokers that coverage would be impossible without a program "like" safe sport. AIG, or Lloyds or WHOEVER is not going to tell USAWS this is a requirement or we cannot source coverage for you, then magically be able to source coverage for the "we protest safe sport water ski association". All this belly-aching about it solves nothing. Ideas and alternatives are a starting point, but once again, there's still, to my knowledge, none offered that are VIABLE. As @DvarianDan Johnson correctly put it, as an organized body we require certain things. One of those very important things, a little thing called insurance coverage, imposed requirements on "us" and millions of others. We had an option to exist and function with SS requirements, or not. It is mind-bending to me that people have quit supporting an organization over something that was out of their control. All over a 1 hour video...?

Couldn't agree more. Hence it's such a shame that anyone would pick this hill, when there was not an alternative.

lol...yep that'll be me doing my update as well (if that's what that's supposed to be a caricature of, I guess you could have picked other animals had you wanted to be mean). Actually will be the first year I've had to do it "for" USAWS. My prior "courses" through Safesport were for other organizations, which required far more than what USAWS requires. Thankfully, they carried over. It is what it is Jody. No doubt you were also on the zoom call with USAWS brass in which it was explained we can't get insurance without an educational program and as Safesport is obviously a leader (if not monopoly), seems like a good fit. Where is there room for criticism? If your homeowners insurer said we're not providing coverage unless you watch a property claim mitigation video every 2 years that's an hour long, we'd all do it. This no different in my view. A perfect solution with problems, you bet, but it IS a solution, for which there were no options. Your proposals of a new organization still doesn't get around this reality now that every NGB, sport, organization, etc. is aware (on "notice") of these issues that are far too rampant.

While I'm no safesport apologist, I can appreciate their tall task. They have 117 employees and a budget of $21M. They field 150 reports a week. 20 a day. Think about how crazy that is. Examples of problems abound, but doesn't i mean its not anything other than overwhelmed...which is the problem, not safesport necessarily. Seems abundantly obvious to me the problems have long existed with solutions long overdue. And I'll happily watch an hour long video to be part of the attempt to help the requisite solution, monopoly or not.

It was actually a 244 page report. The problems are here already. In the last few years massive amount of SA uncovered, decline in youth sports participation, major funding deficiencies and at the same time explosion of elite programs that preclude some of our best athletes from opportunities. I fail to understand how this report causes more problems than those that are here now. That said, it's just a report. Action is needed in many areas. Equity and reimagining are not boogeyman words. As I live youth sports issues in the present, they are very legitimate issues.

Uh, you quit competitive skiing over an hour-long video. Do you not see the irony?

Your counterpoint involves little league and "recreational snow skiing" as indicative of, what exactly? Uncle Sam didn't buy you new Rossignols? And that's somehow congruent to high schools not providing football helmets? As to the childhood obesity problem, I am suggesting that more kids than ever skip sports as a normal part of childhood, and that for many that's a result of unavailability and financial preclusion, in stark contrast to generations that came before them. That's an awfully broad brush with which to paint in my opinion. Adults have responsibilities to the next generation. Can we all agree on that? I would respectfully disagree that this commission is in any way demonstrative that "this younger generation" wants someone else to make the "hard decisions". In this specific context, they just want to be able to play the sports their elders had the opportunity to, an outcome that benefits everyone.

I totally disagree. This thread is about a report that has the potential to impact NGBs including skiing. One person opining that said report’s recommendations require sacrifice of “freedoms” does not make it a political discussion.

All that has happened is that a committee has issued a report. There has been no implementation of anything. What's political about this? I didn't see D's and R's mentioned? Here’s a far better article on the report. I find it pretty hard to disagree with much. https://projectplay.org/news/olympic-reform-commission-report-analysis-next-steps From that article: ”Policymakers should be motivated. Through its Healthy People 2030 initiative, the federal government has set a youth sport participation target of 63% by the end of the decade (it’s currently at 51%, according to the latest data). Last week, computer modeling experts, working with our Aspen Institute program, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services and researchers from five universities, released a peer-reviewed study showing that reaching that target will unlock $80 billion in direct medical costs saved and worker productivity gains due to improved physical and mental health into adulthood, plus another 1.8 million Quality Years of Life lived by today’s 6-to-17-year-olds.” Seems reasonable to me. We’re all familiar with our military recruitment deficiencies, largely result of recruits’ inability to pass requisite fitness standards. No doubt the lack of school fitness and sport support has led to that national security issue. That’s not political. That’s simply a statement of fact. It would seem whether you’re 68 years old, or 16, that reasonable efforts to improve the health and fitness of a fighting force is a reasonable goal.