klindy

The new, improved 12' tall Freddie on 174" jump skis...

@Ilivetoski @SHill @LeonL - the only other (maybe best) option would have been to poll the event judges to determine if he was adversely effected by the malfunction. As Shane mentioned I was ACJ this year and in fact was on the dock for B3 at the time Ryan skied. Given the chance to repeat the scenario, I'd likely poll the event judges and go from there. But we did discuss ZO as discussed as the problem occured between each pass to find a cure and I did have a stopwatch on the time it took to remap.

@Ilivetoski I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. The rule is if you have two rerides you can request a 5 minutes rest. The only time you can start over is if there is a 10 minute delay (or you can ask for a warm up pass). Since I wasn't in the boat I can't know exactly what the told him. All that said, he did make a decision that was within the rules (continue at risk) and he was able to complete the next pass with a good time.

Haha. I'm in M4 but was ACJ on the Turnpike lake that day. I probably changed the ropes, radioed on your starting speed/rope length or simply old you to ski well or have fun as you flopped off the dock.

Over the top

@Ilivetiski not exactly... you get the chance to start over only after a 10 minute delay (weather or tournament supplied equipment). Or you can have an unscored practice run in the opposite direction (any speed/rope length) before you continue in the next logical speed/rope length. In the second case te score is protected. A missed time is treated as a slow time and the skier is given the option to continue at risk (which he did). If a skier continues there has not been a reride, merely the option of one. If a skier gets two rerides (actually rerides the pass), he is offered a 5 minute rest where he would go back to the dock an go again after the next skier continuing where he left off. In Ryan's case the same boat was used for G3 just prior to his event. The boat called in the missed time (first pass) and was asked to confirm ZO was pointing to the right lake and showed an asterisk on the screen (confirmed by the driver). After the second pass it was determined ZO somehow lost the mapping. The driver is quite capable, the previous event drive was on the dock and part of the discussion along with a third experience driver. The delay was approximately 5 min 45 seconds beyond the 45 second set down time until he was on the platform getting back in the water. The boat judge offered him a reride after each pass which he opted to proceed at risk. When it was decided to remap we didn't want Ryan to sit in the water for safety and other concerns. He was asked to get into the boat where he could have been dropped at the dock or just ride along. As said he opted to proceed at risk and was able to complete the pass with a good time. It was an unfortunate issue which was handled as best as possible. That said it would be preferable that it didnt occur at all.

@Kelvin you're right! I had forgot that!!

I wasn't sure who was part of BOS or not so I didn't try to introduce myself randomly but I was the tall guy on the dock Great skiing!

@MAD11 congrats Bailey!!! Fantastic skiing!!

@Ilivetoski Ryan had two options he could rerun the second pass with the "no time" result or he could opt up. He could not restart the set. @Pat M I agree the run off in G3 was the best "untold" story of the tournament. Both scores for Taylor and Samantha were better than the 1st place score of the event. Both ran 32 and 35 off the dock to get to see 38 and, I'm told, it was a pb for both of them. Samantha even commented before going out that she didn't think she could beat Taylor since it was a buoy better than her previous best. Needless to say there was lots of high fives and cheering on the dock after the event. Very exciting.

@Wish which lake did you ski on?

First and foremost what we're talking about is competitive waterskiing which I believe is fundementally different than just cutting up a lake (with or without a course). By design the tournaments especially at the higher levels - state, regionals and nationals - should be structured to be competitive. At the same time, these tournaments are revenue sources for the sponsors/tournament directors - clubs, states, regionals, nationals. Finding the balance between economic goals, competitive goals and promotional goals is difficult to say the least. We're a self-funded sport for the most part with an age-based competitive system and limited market. Generally speaking our 'system' has been pretty much the same for a long time. I also think there are different motivators for different people at every level. Some folks will go to the regionals/nationals to win, others will go because they finally qualified and still others just enjoy skiing, tournaments and/or the people. What's mostly common however is people go to ski and not to watch or browse the sponsor booths (with some notable exceptions of course). Point I'm making is to grow I believe the focus should be on growing more participants which means bigger tournaments and not more restrictions. That path tends to dilute the competitiveness and certainly runs against legitmate logistical challenges. So let's think out of the box - As has been pointed out in other threads, we're largely an age-based sport and not ability based. MM/OM/OW are the exception and, in reality, are all virtual divisions which can be minipulated and/or created as needed. What if our regionals and nationals were all open tournaments open to whomever shows up and pays an entry fee (and the obligitory USAWS membership etc.). Everyone, regardless of ability, skis in their respective age groups and placements/awards are handed out accordingly. In addition, there's a virtual scoring system taking place whereby the "elite" skiers of that tournament are allowed to ski in the "Open" divisions (ability based groupings - OM/OW, MM/MW, etc.) on the last day or two of the tournament. Think an age based Nationals with the "US Open" on the last day. So what about logistics - "too many will compete"...we need the numbers to go up to be sustainable. Who says we need to hold the nationals (or regionals) at a single location? Let the US Nationals be held at 3 locations simultaneously. The dates are the same as are the schedule of events. Each location has a "site winner" and there is an overall winner. Things like ties can be run-off at seperate sites as well. Since the locations are known well in advance and there wouldn't be any restriction to where you ski, things like weather and conditions are the skiers risk. If you don't like site "A" then go to ski at site "B" instead. Other sports with similar growth issues - like trapshooting - have done this successfully for years at least at the regional level. Other, perhaps more controversial, tactics to increase participation can include skier funded purses. Again using trapshooting as an example, there are multiple optional purses which cost $5 or $10 that pay out only to those participating in the purse. Some are ability based - the "class purse" pays to the top 1 (or 2/3) score in an individual class. So for us, all class 8 skiers ski against each other and the top score wins (probably NOPS points or something). Other purses like the "Lewis purse" pay based the scores at that shoot/tournament and to some extent everyone has a good opportunity at something. Attached there's a PDF which explains it in more detail. Other ideas include things like Calcutta's which is an auction with 50% of the funds going to the participant and the other 50% going to the "buyer" of the winning participant(s). Or develpment of a handicap system similar to golf where your practice "performance" is self reported and can be used to develop some really interesting tournament formats. The goal is to increase participation! Never before have there been more tournament capable sites. More of the same hasn't been the answer...maybe some new ideas (or borrowed ideas) can make a difference.

Awesome!!! Next time introduce yourself to Horton first!! In sure he'll promise you a beer after you ski and spend at least one group judging or on the starting dock! Glad you caught the bug!!

@MS - I believe all chief, appointed and assigned officials have a hotel room reserved for them. Some more days than others depending on what they do (TC is there a day/two early as an example). Choosing the host hotel is always a decision point but the more paid rooms by people using the group code (or whatever) generally provides more free or discounted rooms. I see there were at least 4 hotels listed on the tournament notice.

@MS really? *start rant* I promise you this isn't a free vacation for me this year....Being an appointed official certainly helps with costs (hotel rooms as you pointed out) but if I showed up and skied and left it would be FAR cheaper than staying the whole week "on your dime". My entry fee didn't go down, I still need to rent a car (for twice the days than if I ski and go), I still need to eat, extra vacation days, even extra banquet tickets are at the standard price. The tournament puts enough skiers and families into enough rooms that the hotels offer discounts and, perhaps, a certain number free rooms. Not saying the LOC's hotels costs are zero - I have no idea what they spend vs. what's discounted. But that same volume of hotel rooms is what provides EVERY skier a discounted room too in most cases. That's how the hotel industry works and is nothing special for waterskiiers (same things happen for tradeshows every day of the week!). I agree it's a volunteer sport and we both do our share of volunteering! There's enough tournaments basically every weekend near my house that I can pretty much stay at home and get all the skiing I want. *end rant*

Slow boat, long rope, narrow course or sun spot activity! Maybe that new Mars rover is causing some gravitational anomaly. :) Great Skiing @Than Bogan!!

Rule 5.03 - http://www.usawaterski.org/pages/divisions/3event/2012AWSARuleBook.pdf Excel spreadsheet referred to above by @ntx - http://www.usawaterski.org/pages/divisions/3event/NRCALC12.XLS As stated the spreadsheet WILL change next year based on the formula in the rule book.

@disland it's not all one or the other. Part of the rationale (at least it was when I was on the committee) is to encourage participation. Better to bolster the younger ranks than it is the older groups. I believe the best still find their way to the top of the podium. Much more likely to see the 95th percentile skier end up with medals than the 80th percentile. Actually if the goal was #3, why limit skiers in any way? Let every one ski if they attend and pay the entry fee.

Just put bindings on a standup paddle board......

@Brody Ski Haven already exists as a two lake site in Justin, TX

The Snake Pit

From the boat the best visual is "Rhythmic Violence"

@RIPnSIX I can't view the video. Says "This video is private"

Two other cues that often work. To "lean into the ramp" think about going up a set of stairs. If you go up the stairs on your heels you'll fall backwards. Natually you "lean into" the stairs to maintain your balance. The natural reaction seeing that Big Red wall headed toward you is to lean back to 'take' the hit. Do that and you'll fall backwards - every time! For body position all you've said sounds pretty good. Another way to 'get the feel' for your body position on the ramp is to stand about 2 feet from a wall (or post) looking down the length of the wall left shoulder facing the wall. Feet shoulder width apart handle in hand like you'd be at the ramp (left handed baseball bat grip). Now, while keeping your upper body basically vertical and head up, lean over to the wall using your hips and knees, weight on the balls of your feet. If you can maintain that kind of "edge" into the ramp (assuming we're past the basic plop jumps), you're in good body position.

@Than Bogan I've skied and run over both the bubble buoys and the Wally buoys (in fact I ran over the exact same buoy @skibug posted pictures of in another thread). Both performed similarly in terms of reducing impact energy and, therefore, potential injury. So to answer your question in terms of performance, I'd say they are functional equivalants. There's plenty of other information advice about cost/color/maintanence on this forum.