buechsr

Yeah, thats technically true I suppose, but typecasting Carl and Johnny as simply "drug dealers" is incomplete. They're cops. In Carl's case, a long-time cop. But I am not naive enough to expect DEA agents to be squares, nor to think the world is better with Chad in jail.

I have. Was good road trip entertainment to Okeeheelee.

Battery powered steel pad/wheel. I think Milwaukee makes it. Or dremel.

Well, it is a "real, actual way" to propose solutions. Is it the most "direct" way? Perhaps not, but it is nonetheless a healthy way for ideas to be tossed around and debated without tying up a large groups' time for an extended period at a meeting. My posts, both last year and this, have failed to stimulate any agreeable solutions, anyway. Maybe there are no good ones except finding a local wedding dress maker like in Illinois... but I'm willing to throw them out there, and have y'all tell me how dumb they are. What's your idea, by the way? Discard Nationals' webcasting because we can't raise $15,000 (the number provided by lpskier last year)? If so, that's fine, but I want to strive for better. In response to your questions directed to me, I'll answer them in order: I was at my region's winter meeting. I was at my region's summer meeting. I have a vote in my region. If you mean contacting my regional rep for AWSA, I did not, as I didn't know this was an issue. I did not email Charlotte. If I'd have known that web casting was a budgetary issue that she could resolve, I would have. I did not know until recently that there would be no webcast, anyway. To be frank, I don't know her personally, but would have offered ideas, some of which I've offered here in the past, all of which, according to the collective peanut gallery, stink, anyway. Furthermore, I can also appreciate that a 4 lake setup would too much to webcast regardless of a funding solution. I did not email Nate at USAWS, as, again, I did not know this was not being webcasted until recently. Even if I had known, from the education I have been afforded from others as to the shouldering of the expense, I would not have emailed him regardless. If I asked my local dealer to contribute, trust me, he would. I actually offered that idea in last year's webcast funding thread. Just 15 dealers paying $1,000 would have solved it. $5,000 from the big 3 boat manufacturers would have solved it. $3,000 from each region or $500 from each state would have solved it. I have brought all of these alternatives up previously here. There's myriad potential solutions. Only one is needed to work. I agree with MDB, this is just coming up too late to resolve. I will be letting the appropriate people know that I'm willing to do all I can to help find a solution for webcasting next year. No, that does not mean I'm assuming responsibility for making it happen, but I'll spare time and coin to try.

I'll find you on the dock Wednesday or Thursday and let my daughter tell you. Regrettably, my other daughter can't ski (not coming even though she's qualified and skied regionals). By the way, this is not the first time I've said this publicly here, but I know you read a lot of posts.

110% accurate on both (with the exception that I wasn't glued to the webcast all day, I was at work, my kids were after I set them up on the webcast). I know you must read a LOT of posts, but this is not the first time I've said this here. The biggest thing for my kids was seeing that you didn't "have" to be a Regina protege to belong at nationals. Hence, we started laying the groundwork to get there.

I can only speak for myself but I've been to the last 3 nationals as a DIRECT result of the webcast in Zachary. And by direct I mean direct. As in, my kids said at the end of each day, "this is way better than watching a pro event with you Daddy, can I do that next year?" I said sure, skied a fall tournament in 2020, and they've skied competitively since (with the exception of my son who hasn't skied much in the past year). All this came about literally as a result of watching nationals being webcast. In the youtube shorts age, I think video exposure, particularly for kids, in invaluable outreach. Furthermore, I've taught countless kids to ski since then, as a direct result of watching nationals replays. Most of whom said 3 years ago "Whats waterskiing?" Show them a webcast of kids and every one asks to learn. Some of them now have boats (parents). Are they competing? I can't think of any necessarily, but I think webcasting nationals has a profound impact on the organic growth potential. Certainly way more than another pro event. Heck my parents thought it was a hoot watching mens and womens 7 last year. There is NO way they're watching a pro event. Furthermore, I actually started skiing tournaments (badly) for the first time in 20 years to ski with my kids. We wound up joining a club, buying another boat, I'm close to being an assistant scorer and judge, got my safety rating, and serve in some other capacities. So, as we're all experts on our opinion, my opinion is quite literally that the webcast of 2020 created 4 new consistent competitive skiers, a new official, and industry support. I respect opinions to the contrary, but I am walking proof of the outreach that the nationals webcast has had. I looked at last year's thread on this. Per lpskier AWSA was looking for an additional $15,000, actually much less than expected. $20 a skier easily pays that. This year is of course different with 4 lakes. I get it. But it seems far from an insurmountable amount for next year when a local charity golf tournament can easily raise that in 4 hours.

You and I just view things differently. If an average ski year costs an average competitive skier $5,000 (obviously some way more some way less), I just don't share the skepticism that at the penultimate event of the year, a podium finisher would be offended by being asked to throw in $100 (less than their hotel that night!) to webcast their event. I don't think waterskiers, as a whole, are 1) that tight 2) that selfish 3) wouldn't want to show friends and family what they've been doing all year training 4) wouldn't see the bigger picture than unless 3 event competitive skiing gets more exposure, there soon may not be anyone to ski against. I'm not saying its the best idea. But it is an idea. If you've got one to share, lets hear it.

I understand. AWSA did in fact fundraise last year in order to webcast it, apparently successfully. There are solutions to funding problems if that's the reason TWBC wasn't feasible, but the starting point is ideas. I've offered many in the past, from budget allocation to the regions, voluntary contributions, and event based contribution. Scoke's responses to me are pretty much par for the course I've gotten here. To generalize: "That's stupid". Well, maybe...but unless we start thinking differently, outside the box, how can we expect anything to change, let alone get better? I've made the argument ad nauseum that webcasting nationals is the best marketing outreach we have. I'm all for watching the European events but try to get a non-skier to watch more than an hour. Contrast that with nationals coverage, I got a number of kids skiing last year as a direct result of their watching their friends on the webcast. Non-skiers can relate to amateurs, and spurs at least some interest, and while we all love watching pro events, it's not doing anything to grow the sport. I'm very glad Okeeheelee is hosting, and also that so many lakes will be in use. People can be disappointed without being critical. I'm in that camp. I'd imagine virtually all skiers, families, and fans are in that camp, actually. It's an awesome place, will be hopefully well-attended, and know it will be a great 4 days, just sad to see it not being webcasted. Is that unreasonable?

Admittedly not on the dock, I said it on the shores of multiple tournaments and regionals last year when there was discussion about the significance of continuing to webcast nationals when funding for 2022 was an issue. No one laughed, in fact, it had agreement. Since we're not privy to the exact expenses per day, it was hypothesized that podium finishers chip in a relatively nominal amount, say $100, a pittance in light of the expenses of a ski season to have their event group permanently memorialized. Balance can be made up with traditional TWBC sponsorship. You can disagree. But I'm more than happy to float ideas to keep nationals being webcast even if some result in online mockery. I even think a "suggested donation" of $25 or $50 at time of national entry fee would be better received than one would expect. ...but I'll ask again next week when I'm on the dock. Admittedly, I'm not skiing, but my daughters are. They, and their friends and family, are just disappointed there's no webcast. Webcast from 2020 was the catalyst that caused my kids to starting competing.

Disappointing, particularly in light of the viewership of nationals vs pro events. I don't recall any fundraising efforts this year to make it happen. I can appreciate that 4 lakes would be quite difficult anyway, without regard to cost. I floated several funding options in the past on here. Apparently none were compelling. I think the number of people who'd be willing to contribute $100 would be large. My other idea was that podium finishers were asked, not forced, to pay their proportionate share of their event group. I got told that was punishment for doing well.

That sport is a fine boat, problem is, its no good at anything. Yeah, it could be a ski boat, but it likely has all digital gauges that are shot by this point, likely 5.8 (hard to get parts), and the wake, well, not good. Unfortunately, even though that hull was the original Air Nautique and then later Pro Air Nautique, it's really not a good wakeboard boat either. But it's a heck of a run around boat for 11k. $2,000 for a trailer? Please provide a link. Current trailer prices will blow your mind.

..the driver WAS found to be 75% at fault.

It's funny how perception works. On one hand, people use an open bow, lined with vinyl, seating, carpet, and grab rails to do precisely what the objective presumption is its for, while said manufacturer's engineers testified they never performed testing to see what weight, speed, or usage would be reasonably safe nor provide a modicum of guidance or warning as to what that would be. Tragedy ensues, 7 year old killed, and the post-mortem commentary is that "people", presumably the parents (who were not the driver) to "quit blaming others for their own stupidity". Again, the driver was in fact found to be 75% at fault. Had Malibu done testing, provided a bow capacity sticker (like they do now), and the same thing happens, I'm right there with you, Vernon. But even boat manufacturers can't presume that all of their users have 1000s of hours of experience to know what we might, through experience, much of which has come through close calls ourselves. How many times we collectively been hit with a handle and yet how many people religiously use a shock tube every set? How many handle-related incidents have occurred and yet scores of people refuse a handle guard? It's unfortunate, but sometimes behavioral changes come as a result of a terrible scare or outcome. Forgetting to put the plug in is trivial, and stupid to forget, but yet I bet we have ALL done it before. It is too broad of a brush to say that open bows can't be used when underway, even in direct drives, big lake or small. Personally, I'm shocked Malibu ever took a picture of anyone riding in a response LXi bow (03-06). You could stuff that bow on a tournament lake in an emergency powerturn easily. That said, a sunsetter lxi, or sport nautique, even a prostar 205, are quite different. I think the point for the OP is that you "can" use open bow comp boats, but they are far from a stern drive when it comes to their usage when in their intended purpose. Be conscientious, but there's no need to steer clear of an open bow Malibu (except an Rlxi, lol).

I'd say quite busy in Chicago and Maize, but I can't recall whether times were scheduled or whether it was a free for all. That said, sounds like Okeeheelee "could" be using as many as 5 lakes if I'm reading it right. Seems to be a lot more kids seeking practice sets than adults if you're asking on your daughter's behalf. So, I bet Thursday night will be crazy. Earlier in the week, much less demand I'd imagine.

My .02 (again) as in 3 years I've gotten 3 kids from running no buoys to one now 34/22-28, one 32/22 and one 28/15, soft skis help a ton at their weight. A2 sounds pretty stiff to me but if it works, so be it. TRA always seemed quite stiff for a true course-beginning kid. A lightweight ripper who could get it to flex in the turn? Absolutely. For what its worth, mine did great on my wife's butterknife due to its width AND soft flex in the turns. For what its also worth, the HOs with the clean edge definitely helps the ski ride higher at slower speeds. All this to say, it's complicated. The rather large proportionate speed increases for their weights make it all the more challenging. The MOST important kids equipment recommendation I have is to get a lightweight AND mid-weight rope. I did not know they existed 3 years ago. IT is a HUGE difference maker for them. My "normal" rope was heavy enough to literally create slack at virtually all times for my 50 pounder. They make a HUGE difference. Again, HUGE! lol

TRA is great but my kids picked up 3 passes virtually immediately when we switched to a substantially wider design at their slow course speeds. One used an HO CX, the other I don't recall, but that got them through and up to their current short D3s once they could run 26.7/15. If you're spending any time in the low 20s, I think wider is better than the TRA. Once mine "re" tried the TRA after getting on their D3s, they didn't prefer it. YMMV. I think once the TRA is no longer "dragging", it really wakes up. It's just that kids spend so much time going so slow learning the course, more surface area was helpful. Not uncommon to see kids in tournaments riding VERY wide shaped skis.

Employees quite literally acknowledged that they did little/no testing, provided no weight guidance, and laughed in videotaped depositions. It's Malibu, unfortunately, who "didn't think it through". Money no replacement for the death of child. For what its worth, driver was found 75% at fault.

A while ago in Georgia. Provided much fodder for discussion at the time of the trial.

that is a diamond but thats a 23 footer. Big difference in wakes.

It's big. if you're looking for a skiable vdrive look for an 01-04 malibu sunscape/wakesetter 21 (LSV) with the diamond hull or any VTX. Much better ski wakes.

Gary Storey of Storey construction would know. I've never skied there but have been in the boat long ago. also try Allison Poulsen

So what you're essentially proposing, again if I'm understanding, is the creation of more but smaller regions, with the benefit being that it makes, in theory, all regional tourneys drivable and doesn't require skier-dense states to leave their states? Just for fun of the discussion, what do you do with the problem that not all divisions/events have full fields as it is now? Doesn't regionals placement get watered down?

So keep regional participation requirement for all but the most skier-dense states? Florida obviously has its own state titles already. If I'm understanding correctly you're proposing FL skiers (and CA, TX, maybe a couple others) check the box of regional participation (for purposes of nationals qualification) but everyone else needs to go to a regionals? I'm trying to follow how redrawing regional maps eases the travel burdens for anyone not in skier-dense states? I ask that with an open mind.

End of Edged in Water