andjules

Sport involvement grows through kids. Getting them their first experience, and then giving them (their parents) a route to grow. A summer camp, or a ski school nearby that offers an affordable package of sets, etc, or if they're lucky, growing up on public water with parents who encourage them to work at things that are fun-but-difficult, vs flopping on to a tube. For the most part, parents are waiting to see what their kids gravitate to and then (going broke) supporting it (or, pushing their kids to do whatever sport they prefer).

I think we're seeing built up frustration from the skiers for the 2nd World's in a row in a major city with 2nd rate conditions but where no spectators showed up. They're speaking out because they don't want the IWWF to keep doing this, and that's a fair position. But I don't believe everything I've heard about 'dangerous' conditions. I'm happy to be corrected but while there were three injuries (Luca Spinelli, Joel Howley and Jack Critchley), the chop and backwash weren't out of the ordinary for a metro-site tournament (ie not at a man-made ski lake). These skiers happily book their tickets to Moomba every spring and ski on conditions that produce scores as low or lower than this tournament. But they ski in front of thousands of spectators. If they'd been skiing in front of thousands in Paris (2017) or Malaysia (2019), I suspect we wouldn't be talking about 'dangerous' backwash and chop. If the IWWF wants $250k and to host in a big city, they're going to have to help the organizers promote and draw a real crowd.

@Zman I have mixed feelings about the venue/spectators. For one, I've had some conversations with the organizer in Malaysia, and he seems like a good guy, one of a handful of passionate promoters in Asia, where the sport is growing (albeit in relative terms, from 'almost nothing' to 'really small'). As noted in another thread, the lake (& his ski school) has has more protected areas, but obviously you use the already-built grandstand area for this kind of tournament. It makes some theoretical sense to try to have major events in large metropolitan areas — even if that means sacrificing perfect man-made-ski-lake-in-the-middle-of-nowhere conditions — in order to promote the sport. On the other hand, if you've ever been in a business selling something consumers don't seem to want, you know it can feel like "pushing on a piece of string". The IWWF seems to have a mandate to promote waterskiing around the world (see below), but that doesn't mean the world is "buying" (ie. non skiers coming out in droves to watch big tournaments, like non-racing spectators come out to NASCAR races). Remember, if we complain about important tournaments being held in crappy sites in metropolitan areas, we don't get to also complain about how our sport isn't growing outside of our passionate little community of folks who either live or drive out to exclusive/expensive man-made sites to ski (there's of course a lot more to the problem of our sport not growing, of course). For reference: 2019 Worlds: Putrajaya is a planned city in the outskirts of Kuala Lumpur (~8 million metropolitan area), accessible by public transit; 2017: in the outskirts of Paris (~12.5 million metropolitan area), accessible by public transit (crap weather unfortunately, so again, poor spectator turnout) vs 2015: man-made lake in Lake Chapala, Mexico, an hour's drive from Guadalajara (~5m people), no public transit (IIRC, this was a last minute thing after Italy pulled out from hosting?), and 2013: man-made lake on the outskirts of Santiago, Chile, kinda-maybe-accessible by commuter train. 2011 was outside Moscow, 2009 was a club site outside Calgary. The last time it was hosted in the US was 2003 (Florida), and before that, 1989 (Florida).

@Horton "crossover" used to be a meaningful term, but as often happens when marketers get their hands on a word, over time it has become meaningless. A "crossover" product is something that is supposed to perform reasonably well at two distinct things, usually where there is a reasonable expectation that it would be difficult to be good at both. Take, for example, a boat that throws a great slalom wake and a great wakeboarding wake. That's a good use of the word. (High-end) free-skiing isn't inherently different than course skiing. If you're great at course skiing, you're probably great at free skiing. It's not a different sport, it's just course skiing without the course. I think @escmanaze's point is that in ski marketing materials, the term 'course' and the term 'crossover' have been bastardized and actually lead consumers in the wrong direction. A 'course' ski is really a proxy for 'expert' ski, and a 'crossover' is really a proxy for 'intermediate' ski. If you're an expert free-skier, you should buy an expert ski; if you're intermediate course skier, you should buy an intermediate ski. But again, typical marketing use of 'course' and 'crossover' (instead of 'expert' and 'intermediate') actually mislead the consumer.

Thread summary, courtesy of @Than_Bogan (what @Horton is really trying to say?): What your eye should be drawn to is the unusual height of the green bars, which indicate the percentage of running -41… In Spain and France, they are outlying on the high side -- more than triple the percentage of completion of -41 than in the US, Germany, and Italy.

@whitem71 it should be noted that the second clip you posted is from Indonesia, not from the 2019 Worlds' site in Malaysia.

@escmanaze you're on to something. Good job. I also hate the 'crossover' language — except for something like a Katana or Freeride, which really are marketed to cross between traditional skiing and wakeboarding/hot-dogging. As a marketer, calling wider, softer skis 'crossover' is basically trying to make a novice/intermediate skier feel more excited about (appropriately) buying a novice/intermediate ski. One thing that you hint at, but I think is really important in terms of $$: - freeskiers don't really need the same side-to-side speed - Radar and HO have, over the last few years, experimented with selling the same shape in variations with different layups/stiffness, with different price tags In other words, high-end free skiers should seriously consider skis like the Vapor Alloy/Graphite, or the non-Syndicate Omni. Much lighter on the wallet, somewhat similar turning characteristics, but doesn't rocket you to the other side quite as quickly, but if you're not worrying about space before the next buoy… who cares?

a) I agree with @DW: most dedicated ski boats from the mid-90s on are fine (and some from even earlier). If you ski significantly worse on one vs another model in this category, there's something significantly wrong with your techniques through the wakes. Exceptions: b) there are lots of direct-drive but larger/heavier/deeper-hulled family-oriented and hybrid (wakeboard/ski) out there and that's where it gets tricky. Some are great, most are not, and while many won't agree with me, the companies that are best known for (a) are often terrible at (b). c) on this site, you need to beware reading too much about which boats are the best: we're often talking exclusively about shortlines @ 34/36mph, and usually in the context of skiing sets off the dock on a private lake, with a driver and at most one other person in the boat, and completely dependent on the latest speed control (e.g. 'zero off'). If you (or people/kids in your crew) ski below 32mph (or like to wakeboard, etc), or you ski from the boat (vs dock) on a public lake spending hours on the water, your use case is different and your priorities should be too. There are boats that are great for the latter use case and they are not the same as the former. Most of the gems people have mentioned above have great wakes at slower speeds but may also be a bit stripped down if you're spending hours skiing from the boat. @escmanaze I agree with a lot of your insights. To answer your question, the Response got the diamond hull in '98, although in '99 it also got the rear trunk which can be helpful if you ski from the boat on a public lake.

Coincidentally, I went from a 66.5" S2 to a 2018 67" Connelly GT and noticed the same thing. The 67" may be a smidge shorter!

@quinne would a MC PS190 fall into the category you mentioned earlier regarding wakes being "less fun" at lower speeds and longer line? No, the PS190 falls into the "tournament quality 3-event" boat category (Mastercraft is generally good at that). But as @moski points out, it's actually a PS197. While it isn't one of the Mastercraft models where they compromised too much trying to please families, skiers, wakeboarders, etc., it also wasn't their best hull as I recall.

@quinne, here's a nerdy breakdown on Responses & Sunsetters (and a few related models): - In 1993 Malibu designed a new hull shape ("SV23") that was pretty great for the time; the boat was called the Echelon. By 1995 the same hull shape had found itself into the slightly simpler Response and the bigger, heavier Sunsetter (and a smaller, ugly low-budget thing called the Tantrum, which eventually evolved into the Sportster). While the hull was basically the same, the weight made a difference: Sunsetter and Sunsetter LX tend to have a pretty hard/big wake compared to the Response and Response LX (in Malibu's world, "LX" and "LXi" mean open bow, with "LX" sometimes indicating a walk-over open-bow). - In 1998 the Responses switched to a new variant on the hull shape ("SV23 diamond") that really improved the slalom wakes (at some expense to the wakeboarding wakes). - Here's the important part for you: from '99-'04 (thanks @UWSkier), Malibu made a Sunsetter LXi with the SV23 diamond, and it was a bit of a family-friendly unicorn: a bigger 21' boat with lots of interior space, but soft and awesome slalom wakes (the Sunsetter LX stayed on the old hull and was more of a wakeboarder's boat). - From '04 '05 onward, the Sunsetter lineup got even bigger and in general, less slalom-friendly

My 2¢: - If you're free-skiing in open water and have a young family, you want to put an emphasis on slower speed wakes. 'Best wakes' on this site often means something like "at 34mph from 22-35 off", so what you read here might not get you what you want at 15 off 26-32 mph. - there's a lot of love on a site like this for Mastercraft and especially Nautiques, and with good reason; they make great tournament-quality 3-event boats. That said, for your use case, I usually come back to Malibu (and sometimes Moomba) for all-around family fun and value: typically great wakes through the speed range, lower used prices, good family-minded interiors (important if you're spending afternoons on open water, instead of skiing short sets off a dock), and in the case of the Malibus, the wedge is great if someone in your crew takes an interest in wakeboarding or surfing. I personally was disappointed with many of the family-oriented/hybrid Mastercrafts & Nautiques. And you might find a Carbon Pro a little too stripped down for long afternoons on open water. - if your kids are comfortable and able, don't write off the Response LX' walk-over (vs walk-through bow); depending on the family size, I actually liked it better than most walk-throughs; kids in the bow, adults and toddlers in the more comfortable main seating area.

Fun! (I hope they're having lots of it, behind a boat) *note: I do feel a little sadness when it's one of those modern swoop-forward towers that's mounted way back on the boat, where it would interfere with even moderate slalom.

Pretty good, similar discussion from a couple of years back: The Good Old Boys

@MillerTime38 in alpine ski jumping, it seems to be surface area to weight ratio, rather than momentum that helps (at least once in-flight); in other words (and given equal takeoff velocity), less weight is an advantage when using your body and skis for lift/float. I don't know for sure if that translates to waterski jumping, and it's interesting (to me, at least) that the abstract above only mentions "early flight" (not the whole flight).

@aupatking I think the IWWF results just show the first two round performances, and not the head-to-heads. This should take you to the final brackets/results on screen in the webcast:

@mfjaegersr where did you see Malibu as a sponsor? Nautique at @rico's link. I missed the pro men's final… was it a head-to-head for the final 8?

Two other tips for making the most of freeskiing: - focus on a progressive pull, feeling your lean get more intense, hitting max at the first wake/centreline. When freeskiing at your level, you need to fight the temptation to take it easy at the wakes - develop a habit of what to do with your eyes. Without the balls, you need to be systematic. Pull out for your setup, look straight down the lake, then passing your gaze to the back of the boat as you turn in, then picking a spot wide-and-in-front of the next imaginary ball for your pre-turn: somewhere that will take effort and angle during your lean to get to. As you get out there and begin the preturn, look momentarily down the lake and then repeat the process. Over time it will help you establish a course-like mental rhythm.

Fungliss results Does anyone know anything about Jaime Metcalfe from New Zealand? 15th on the women's elite rankings, but 4th on the world ranking (and won Fungliss this weekend). Does anyone know why Manon didn't ski the finals? She got another 1@-41 in the first round.

@normanwenzel on the software side, there are a number of potential solutions for prepping/compositing/encoding the stream; here's a pretty good comparison of the big three: https://www.dacast.com/blog/streaming-video-software/ The stream then gets sent to a broadcast platform (at one extreme you can set up your own broadcast servers, at the other are turnkey platforms like youtube live) that manages distributing the stream to the viewers.

Folks are being a bit vague/generalizing here about Moombas/Outbacks (some of which are great) I think we're talking about a 2002 Outback (98-02 hull I think, with the round tail). Does anyone have specific experience with that hull? @pjnyk you might want to check out the Moomba Forums. Nonetheless, if you're freeskiing, the suggestions above are valid: - try any length between -15 and -28 off to see what works best - keep working on slicing through the wake on edge with hips up, weight neutral (not back), arms straight but low to your hips as you lean away from the boat; when your technique at the wakes is right, the wake won't make much difference - if it has a wake plate at the stern (I know they showed up on later Outbacks), lower it a little - consider trying about 100lbs in the bow and see if helps or hurts

@Horton I appreciate the data analysis, it is helpful. That said, I noticed you left out (or as per world rankings, left in) the (european) San Gervasio results. I presume that's because — roughly speaking — people skied less exceptionally (although Descuns ran 5@-41 twice; and Freddie ran into -43 the previous year), but if-and-when we cherry-pick data, we should probably state why. And all of us should keep in mind what @Horton mentioned earlier in the thread, which is that Bordeaux's round 4 (Freddie's 1.5@-43, Descuns 5@-41, Baroni's 3@-41, Poole's 2@-41) was allegedly not-sanctioned (C class?).

This may seem way off topic (a comment from 2014 about the then-new Jobe trick ski). https://www.ballofspray.com/forum#/discussion/comment/151966 Except I'm pretty sure the Jobe trick = the KD trick (same mold, etc) and I'm not sure much has changed over the years.

I was an SSLXI owner and yes, they're great, but if the Moomba was the better deal, you've probably done a wise thing. I didn't ski behind the 98-02 generation (with the rounded tail), but I did a lot of skiing behind an 04 and 07 and they were capable boats.

It was a great day. For me, the minimum 4 passes was the clincher. I'm way too likely to fall on my opener to take a day and drive out to a traditional tournament.