MarcusBrown

@AdamCord you are pretty much spot on! Truth be told, 99.9% of competitive skiers (myself included, along with almost all of the skiers on BOS) have more fundamental issues than the octane of the fuel they put in their boats. Near as I can tell, springing for more Octane at the pump is about the lowest ROI move most skiers could make when it comes to breaking PB’s.

@Cooper_Trelawney 1998 nationals on the Bayou in Monroe: -Parrish - Monroe -Dimitri Gamzukoff - ASU 1999 -Beauchesne - Sacstate -Scott Smith -Tony lIghtfoot - ULL

@Fastguy888 those were good times at Lang Lake! I’m glad you shared this because I have never seen it before. Our 1999 collegiate nationals men’s slalom team was Beauchesne, Terry, myself, JR Wheeler and Austin Woo, I think. Jason Paredes was late 80’s-Early 90’s Also, Collegiate is potentially the biggest hope for our sport.

@adamhcaldwell I don't believe we have actually ever met, so I don't want this conversation to come across wrong, but I'd like to think I'm pretty approachable. Actually, I've made a point throughout my career to be an open book and try to simplify skiing as much as I can, so that people are not confused. On a yearly basis I probably have more conversations with a broad and diverse demographic of water skiers than most others in the sport, because of my continued level of involvement in multiple domains within the industry. I concede that maybe there's a shitload of people out there that are too intimidated or scared to mention how confused they are because of things I've said or technical information I've put out into the collective consciousness, but all be damned if I've heard hardly a single mention of it in the past 10 years, as I've traveled from lake to lake mingling with skiers of all ability levels. I've been skiing, thinking about and conceptualizing in this sport at a very high level, for decades, so naturally I've got a past that includes mistakes in reasoning, thinking and coaching. But the quest has always been the same: Find the simplest explanation, because its usually the right one....and because most people don't have engineering minds like you and I and/or don't care to take the deep dives. I respectfully disagree with your statement that ultimately you and I see this sport differently. If you are truly rooted in a scientific approach to finding things out (which I believe you are), and if your goal in finding things out is to simplify slalom so that the most people can get the most out of your concepts, then you and I are on converging paths....not diverging paths. BTW, The "so called 'pros'" that you referenced in your last comment, that I've had the pleasure of working with, are exactly that. Professionals. Nothing less If you want to take this discussion elsewhere, I think you and I would have a lot to talk about on a FPM Podcast. Just let me know when, and I'll try to clear out a couple days on the calendar and up my internet bandwidth. MB

@adamhcaldwell I hear you, and I again respect what you and Cord have tried to create with GUT and sharing your knowledge freely with the ski world. I can't defend 2006 WCS. If people are still functioning off that information or directly referencing it in analysis, and have not tuned into how we've evolved our understanding and what we've been talking about since then,....I'll take some of the blame for it. However, I just cannot agree with your comment that "ultimately people are more confused than ever." Because of WCS?? That doesn't align with anything I hear in the real ski world, at water ski tournaments, nor with any of the multitude of Pro and Amateur skiers I have the good fortune of working with. The fundamental questions that WCS was built on, still hold up to this day: -Where is your CM in relation to your ski? -Where is your CM in relation to the load from the boat? -How are you optimizing the movement of your CM, at different points through the course, with regards to those 2 inputs? IF that is what "a large part of the conversation is for a huge number of skiers" maybe you can help me understand why this isn't a good thing? Regarding body mechanics and execution, nearly nothing from 2006 WCS remains. Again, I've done my best throughout the years to update and inform skiers as the concepts have been refined. This is an iterative process....ever changing. I know from experience that no one has all the theory flushed out to its simplest components. I know that you and Adam are still evolving your theory, as some of what you speak of in this very thread is different than what was put forth just a year ago. That's all part of this process....that's why we love it. And I'm guessing thats why you guys love the challenge of finding things out as well. Yes, I'm more than willing to get @adamhcaldwell and @AdamCord on a FPM podcast. Again, I think it would/could strengthen everyones understanding of the finest details of this highly technical sport. And if anyone is confused about WCS and wants to ask me anything regarding this topic, feel free to DM me or send an email.

Also, with regard to this thread topic and Towline Tension as it was originally asked by the late great Ed Brazil.... Efficiency, at its root, should always be about how effective you can use towline tension from the boat: All things being equal, if two skiers have 500 lbs of tension on the rope at a given instance in the course, the one who has their body in a more effective "shape" (athletic stance vs squatted/compressed) and who can place their body in a more effective position relative to their ski/feet, will be the skier who gets more acceleration out of that 500 lbs....OR more effective upswing into the next preturn. That is a simplified look at efficiency. And from this frame of reference, more (towline tension) is not always better.

First off, I'd like to commend @adamhcaldwell (& @AdamCord) for freely giving so much of their time and passion to the water ski world, here on BOS and elsewhere. It has been fun to follow along with some of their theories. But I'd like to straighten something out, hopefully for a final time, as I've been sensing some friction between the Denali boys and WCS for a few years now. West Coast Slalom was a set of theoretical principles based in Physics, that Mike Suyderhoud, @twhisper and I collectively spearheaded....beginning in 1996. This was at a time when it seemed like literally NO ONE in the ski world was looking objectively at the physics and dynamics. We took concepts of CM placement, force vectors and anatomical realities and tried to formulate our best guess of how to ski based on Science. Coaching and theoretical approaches to skiing, up until that point, were usually anecdotal in nature, and never truly got to the real question of "What are the Physics of Skiing?" During the late 90's and early 2000's, we were able to share and refine WCS with some of the best skiers of the day: Jamie Beauchesne, @Chris Rossi and others. For those that don't remember that period of skiing, some of the best skiers in the world were somehow involved with or implementing much of what we were experimenting with during those times. Did we get things wrong? YES. Of course. But the WCS video came out in 2006, thats 15 years ago. A lot has changed. A lot. However, I'd say that ultimately, some of the concepts and principles that GUT seem to be rooted in, do closely mirror the essential bones of WCS, from so many years ago. So I do truly appreciate the evolution and elevation of the discussion around slalom technique and theory. I hope it continues, because It's been my life for almost 3 decades...and the quest to simplify and streamline slalom skiing for the masses is often what keeps me tossing and turning at night. Healthy banter and challenging of ideas through forums like this are how we all evolve our concepts of "right and wrong" and thereby improve our performance on the water. However, if you wish to continue to dispel WCS circa 2006, go right ahead.....that WCS, which continues to receive shots over the bow, is a Ghost,....an empty ship....no one is defending that anymore. As for the following comment regarding those who based their careers on elements of what we developed during the WCS years, I believe it to be false: "There's a reason you don't see those types of skiers with a long career skiing shortline." -There's actually a real reason you haven't seen Jamie B ski since 2012, and I believe it has nothing to do with WCS.... -Rossi was dangerous all the way until he decided to quit chasing the podium and focus on family. -My brother @matthewbrown had a long career, finding the top of the podium at some Big Dawg events, before other things captured his attention. -Terry?...well, maybe you guys should come out West and see for yourself....yesterday, here at my lake with 58 deg air and prob 58 deg water, and wearing only a wetsuit top, I pulled him through back to back 39's at 55 k, and his body seems to be holding up quite well. And if you do make it out here to The Ridge, maybe we can sit down and compare notes....see where our theories line up and where they don't, and collectively come away with a clearer picture of how slalom skiing actually works. Our dock door is always open. MB

Also, Cody and Mike did this about 12 years ago....

Here's Chuck back in 2011 doing the same thing at Jaws. Dude is a legend. He and I have spoken a couple times now about doing a FlowPointTV episode...

@pregom consider it done @horton if you actually send it, will you please send my lion-print pillow case as well?

What if it won’t fit over my dreads @Horton ??

@Horton do you remember the old days, when the 1st round felt like heaven (with Jack Wilson driving) and the second round felt like the boat was reverse slaloming the boat guides at 40 mph?? Somehow I don’t think a broken ZeroOff could feel as bad as some of the hand-driven rides from the pre-perfect pass days, but I get your point. @rq0013 yes! When you asked “Are you saying as long as the skier has generated speed to centerline and not overloaded themselves, the longer they keep their handle and feet distance "close" through the transition, the higher on the boat they will ski?” The short answer is yes.... Regarding shortline slalom (28 off and shorter) One thing to realize, is that a good downswing (from buoy to centerline) requires input. Not leaning or loading AWAY from the boat (we are skiers, we’ve learned to do that no matter what) but rather finding an Athletic Stance where you leave your feet behind the rope, and move your mass in the direction you want to go —> towards centerline. If you can master this move, you will create max speed/acceleration with minimal rope load. Then, and only then, will you be able to feel the benefits of swinging higher on the upswing, by managing the movement of your ski away from the handle. But, as @bishop8950 has pointed out, the big question is always HOW do you limit the movement of the ski outbound on the upswing? Here’s the simple concept: do whatever you can to maintain tension on the rope as you move into the upswing, without continuing to cut/edge. The region from Centerline to the edge of the whitewater, is usually where most skiers lose this battle. It’s too easy to anticipate the energy built up in the ski, and to simply “let it go” by compressing the legs, dropping the butt, or pushing the ski in front. ALL of these things will ultimately ALLOW the ski to shoot away from the handle and onto the turning edge too quickly, killing your upswing. You MUST maintain an Athletic Stance, through the transition zone: The more you use the energy from the ski, to LIFT your body (hips/shoulders) higher above the lake through the transition zone, the more controlled the transition will be, and the higher you will swing. Here’s a similar analogy....water ski jumping....lets not focus on anything but contact with the ramp, and I’m going to equate riding over the ramp with skiing through the transition zone in slalom. Those who jumped (or have seen a bit of jumping) know that to go farther, you must stay over your feet, kick the ramp, and not get crushed. If those conditions are met the skier transfers all the speed they carried into the base of the ramp, into vertical momentum when they hit the ramp. However, if they get crushed, or allow their skis to shoot in front, or to the side, OR slip behind....well, we can guess that they waste a lot of energy and bad things happen...shorter jumps or uncontrolled crashes. This is basically what most of us slalom skiers have learned to do. We’ve learned to become comfortable with getting “crushed” or “slipping our feet in front or out the side” through the transition....and basically wasting all of that energy we so diligently built into centerline. It’s that simple. When a jumper comes into the base of the ramp out of position, the safest move is to absorb the ramp and not try to kick it. If a jumper comes into the base in good position and tries to kick the ramp, but is not balanced, the skis will slip out. In slalom, it is my opinion that learning to precisely maintain Athletic Stance through the transition is the most skilled move of them all. It’s akin to kicking the ramp. And just like jumping, to really nail it, you have to come into centerline with things set up pretty well, AND you have to be willing to resist (the “kick” in jumping) the ski shooting, and figure out how to ride it outbound. Let me know how that sounds. The jump analogy might not make as much sense to some, but I think it pretty clearly illustrates the fundamental mechanics of how to maximize the upswing. MB

This is awesome!

@rq0013 that is a great question, and something that is surprisingly counter-intuitive. Try to keep it simple: To swing outbound, requires energy....and the most abundant energy source, when water skiing, is the 350+ hp boat! So, to swing outbound as efficiently and effectively as possible, you MUST stay connected to the boat from centerline outbound. That rope tension is what continues to swing you up on that boat and into the "correct relationship" with the boat. To do that, you MUST control the movement of the feet outbound, relative to the handle (you may have heard @AdamCord @adamhcaldwell discuss this...they are spot on): if your feet move too far "out" and away from the handle too soon, the tension on the rope (and you're connection to the boat) immediately goes to ~zero....and you simply CANNOT swing up to the correct position on the boat. Of course, there's a lot more to it than this (i.e. what you did on the previous turn, how well you moved into centerline and how you are standing on the ski). But to keep it as simple as possible, I would say this: The better the skier is at managing rope tension the better that skier will ski = the more buoys she/he will run. Heading outbound, you want to maintain rope tension as long as possible....if you do that, then you will be in the correct position relative to the boat, at apex, to have the freedom to negotiate the change in direction you desire. The fallacy in thinking, for many years, was that you needed to be "free" from the boat to swing outbound. The problem with that thinking is it doesn't work with the physics of how skiing works. A graph of tension on the rope between any 2 buoys, ideally, should look pretty close to a standard bell curve: ~50 lbs of tension on the rope at either end (buoy) and max load somewhere in the middle....with a nice progressive curve between the 3 points Let me know if this makes sense....trying to keep it simple, but can dive deeper into any aspect of it, if you want me to! @Dano @Clydesdale thanks! and thanks for listening to it! MB

@Charliesav7 if you want to work on your carving turn, you HAVE TO get to a wider point on the boat. From these pics, it looks like you are simply too narrow to give yourself a chance to be free enough from the boat to implement all the good tips you are getting in this thread. If I were coaching you, I would simply have you work on a better Athletic Stance (hips over feet, shoulders over hips) when you pull into the wakes, and I would encourage you to make sure you hold your edge through the center of the wakes.... Its my feeling that this should help you swing up beside the boat, to a higher point, and give you the freedom to feel more balanced into and out of each offside (or onside) carve.

@Bruce_Butterfield thanks for taking the time to share some ideas. I appreciate it. I’ll work on adding as much of this into the podcast as I can! MB

@Dano Thank you. Getting this FlowPoint Method podcast off the ground, so interested in what ski-specific topics you all would you like to hear more of...?

@Horton come on man... ?

@Horton @Deanoski yeah, that’s the magic setup: 6.929 2.535 DFT (does it really make a difference after those first 2 numbers??) Wing prob 11 or a bit more. Shoulda taken a “try new things often” page from Will’s playbook much earlier in my career...

This quick tip gives you three simple actionables that you can apply TODAY, that can immediately improve the effectiveness of your fundamental stance on the ski, and ultimately, your performance! Knowing what you need to do and understanding how to get your body to do it, are completely different things. Sometimes grasping the concept is the easiest part... but getting yourself to learn how to actually achieve the concept on the water ends up haunting us,...sometimes for years. Here are some quick, easy and simple points that can change your skiing, starting now.

Thx @chrisroddy !! Corey does a lot of stuff right!

@jordanh roger that

@jordanh Thanks man! FlowPointTV has been a fun passion project thru the years. What kinda stuff are you looking to see more of?