klindy

That video doesn’t look real. The boat is standing still about 50’ from the shore. Then it accelerates fast enough to almost completely get out of the water over a truck and trailer. That’s a huge boat to get that much speed in that short of a distance. Also a boat that big has a draft that means the prop probably hit the concrete ramp about the time the bow hit the trailer. Not saying the accident didn’t happen but it at least seems like the video speed has been altered to make it look more dramatic.

@skidawg Your statement is exactly the struggle with the mandate. With waterskiing there are lots of opportunities for interaction with juniors. The law requires special attention to any time an adult has influence over and interaction with a minor (I didn’t write the law nor am I debating the logic). For many sports that’s pretty easy to define. Either participants are athletes or coaches, trainers, referees/umpires/etc. Many times waterskiing skiers are judges and the judges ski. So the “net” cast under the definitions gets bigger and more complicated to manage. For example, for show skiing essentially everyone has contact with and ‘influence’ over minors, so a 100% requirement is easier to understand. Three-event is less straight forward but still lots of potential so the USAWSWS board saw fit to simplify and make the requirement applicable to everyone (hence the language of being “proactive”).

Question I posed are still unanswered — 1) why do people think USAWSWS ARE affiliated with USOPC (so far the answers are a) Olympic pipe dream and b) money; and 2) why have any organization at all (what’s the purpose of USAWSWS)? Surely there are more reasons people think we are associated with USOPC, right? There are several reasons we are affiliated with USOPC. I’m trying to understand what the people perceive or understand. I also find it interesting that two foreign members see value with the affiliation with USOPC. As @ral said very few in ANY sport participate in the Olympic or Pan Am Games (an related Olympic event). So why would any sport stay affiliated if it only benefits an extremely small number of members?

@ToddL yes, I will list several compelling reasons. But I’m trying to get to some level of understanding on where things stand right now. Perhaps another associated question — why do we need or want ANY kind of association or organization relative to “waterskiing” (towed water sports)? What is the purpose of USAWSWS? Incidentally, I agree. Thinking waterskiing will ever be included in the olympics is a pipe dream and highly likely never going to happen.

@Horton so if that’s really the case, what were the reasons to be affiliated with the USOPC initially?

@ToddL can you please list the reasons you think USAWSWS is affiliated with USOPC? And then why they are not compelling enough to remain affiliated? Surely there are more reasons than just the money.

Varying the handle diameter and straight/bent will help too. Using different handles, within reason, will change things up to where the issues don’t become chronic. It doesn’t take a lot of difference. I know Masterline can bend the handle to whatever angle you want.

@Keith_Menard that’s a lot of leverage.

General Motors looks to make a splash with electric boating investment Nov. 22, 2021 11:46 AM ETGeneral Motors Company (GM)HZO, BC, ONEW, MPX, MBUU, MCFTBy: Clark Schultz, SA News Editor General Motors World Headquarters RiverNorthPhotography/iStock Unreleased via Getty Images General Motors (GM +3.2%) announces that it took a 25% stake in electric outboard motor player Pure Watercraft in an effort to extend the company's zero-emissions goal beyond just automotive applications. The auto giant says the collaboration will leverage Pure Watercraft’s innovative marine propulsion technology and experience in the commercial marine industry with GM's engineering, supply chain and manufacturing capabilities. Looking ahead, the two companies will develop and commercialize battery electric watercraft by integrating GM technology into a variety of applications. Specific product offerings will be disclosed at a later date. The size of GM's investment was not revealed. "Building upon GM's existing efforts to strategically deploy our technology across rail, truck and aerospace industries, the combined expertise of these two enterprises should result in future zero-emissions marine product offerings, providing consumers with more choice than before," notes a top GM exec on the electric boating play. Boating sector watch: MasterCraft Boat (MCFT +1.3%), Malibu Boats (MBUU +1.9%), Marine Products Corporation (MPX +2.4%), OneWater Marine (ONEW -1.3%), Brunswick Corporation (BC +1.9%) and MarineMax (HZO +0.7%)

How about rather than complain constantly online, get on a committee or board and implement your ideas?

@ForestLake

@So_I_Ski since you brought my name up, I’ll chime in. I also know @Bruce_Butterfield pretty well but don’t want to speak for him directly. Like @Horton, I am sure Bruce is focused in improving competitive waterskiing for everyone - athletes of all abilities, sponsors, anyone with an interest in getting involved. He is a respected AWSA board member who provides valuable input. I’d wager his frustration is similar to mine when we debate/discuss valid topics with people who have little to no skin in the game. That said, you’re right, you’re a fan, a customer as you describe it and someone who obviously wants to improve things where they can be improved. Over the years there have been lots of ideas tried - some work, others don’t - and I hope more ideas come forward jn the future. Frankly almost no one in this forum including me, Horton and Bruce will be directly affected by any rope length discussion above. I personally like the concept you initially proposed. I do, however, think it’s focused on the wrong target. Slalom by definition will have a physical limit which will be impossible to cross. Not sure if we’re there yet but I do suspect we’re close (I think 9.75m can be run). As noted above, I think the focus needs ro be at 10.75 and shorter where there is real potential to change and enhance the strategic dynamic of the event. That’s why I suggested the 10.50m length and 0.25 increments from there shorter. Hopefully the discussion caught the attention of the elite skiers who do have a vested interest.

@Bruce_Butterfield tie them like branches on a tree trunk. A 0.50 meter “branch” tied at the right place will give you the right loop spacing. It’ll be a cluster of rope at the boat end but it’ll work. Dealing with the shock tube might be tough but make it bigger around if needed. @JackQ there already is a Class X sanction - which is free - for experimenting. Scores do not go on the ranking list but all the same insurance and safety protocols are in place. Only “cost” is some kind of feedback/report on what the goal was and the results (did it work as intended). The idea was to test things like no far side exit gates, different speeds or rope lengths, novel scoring ideas, etc. it can also be an “extra round” at a tournament. So schedule a regular tournament and, given time, pull an experiments round. Again the structure exists today.

@horton I’ve advocated for years for USAWSWS to make the WOTUS issues their #2 most important topic (membership growth and retention is #1). What @dthate and @Wish are saying is COMPLETELY relevant! I was directly involved in some of the political/environmental actions over the past few years and I assure you it’s a FAR FAR bigger threat than the vast majority of people realize (I include you in the uneducated masses). Currently USAWSWS basically “outsources” the effort and monitoring of the situation to the WSIA. That’s ok but we should have someone (committee?) assigned to monitor and engage AND we should have regular, frequent and transparent reporting on what’s happening. Tangent and included in the above is knowing where all the slalom courses and jumps are in the US. It includes knowing which states or congressional districts are under pressure or at risk. It includes monitoring lawsuits and other legislative proposals to restrict water access and use AND actively supporting those who oppose restrictions. And it includes permit support and guidance for those who want a slalom course or jump on public water. You’re right … there are politics in this issues. But it’s important.

@So_I_Ski in the US alone, Nate has run 10.25 19 times in 41 rounds (46% in the last 12 months). He’s gotten around #4 or farther 2/3s of the time. So your assumption needs adjusting. He may only have a 50/50 chance or running 10.00m but he’ll get a lot more than a 10-15% chance or trying. And except for some specific tournament requirement, limiting the number of passes is probably a non-starter. Besides it’s self limiting - physically it’s likely you won’t see more oasses than today (4 or 5). Again the strategy of deciding which pass go skip is something that could ‘spread out the field’.

@aupatking i think that adding additional rope lengths would see some strategic changes. First we’d see skiers starting at 12m more often to reduce the number of passes they’d expect fo ski. Second, I think we’d see more opt-up scenarios. A skier (like Nate) could skip 10.50m and go from 10.75 to 10.25 just like today. Or go from 11.25 to 10.50. Third, as mentioned above, it would add another pass for the women which would add another dimension for them as well.

@aupatking i agree with all your saying. My point was not to focus only on “the show”. But we should be careful that we don’t end up expecting an mass run-off at 2@41 every tournament. While I think run-offs are great and fun to watch there’s not a lot of variability (first skier sets the pace and anyone after has do ski 1/4 buoy better). So if the skier gets a good #1, they make a stab at the pass. If not, they pull up at #2 and “make sure they’re in the run-off”. I’d like to believe a 10.50 pass spreads out that field a bit where it’s hard to run but harder enough than 39 that it’s not a sure thing. Either way, we’d agree that it’s not all about “the show”. Just trying to find a way to add some strategy.

@aupatking i agree too and that’s why I pointed out earlier that the elite athletes make up 1/3 of the AWSA, USAWSWS and IWWF boards and committees. They have a direct conduit to making this happen if desired. To provide an additional thought, “those affected” are also those who are sponsoring the tournaments and producing “the show”. There has to be a balance between the technical aspects and the ability to keep it competitive and interesting for those of us who watch and are fans. That said, it still funnels up to the elite group of skiers to guide any changes thru the system.

@ScottScott I think we need to separate the crowd a little BEFORE 10.25. Every significant tournament this year had a pack at 2@10.25. Any changes after that won’t make a significant difference. To add more to my point above for a 10.50 loop, I think it adds a layer of strategy to the mix since the “extra pass” would certainly factor in a head/tail wind pass. It also layers in a fatigue factor which would tend to make skiers start at 12m more often (maybe even 11.25). Also the whole run off picture would change. With all the 2@10.25 run-offs this year the they started at a fairly consistent 10.75 start. If 5-6 guys were in the run off, at least 3 or more ran the pass with most times all but one running it. If the same 2@10.25 pile up occurs, the run-off start pass would be 10.50 adding a level of “difficulty” missing today.

@So_I_Ski I believe you’re making the wrong argument. Adding a 10.00 line will be like @Horton says - the same rare full pass at 10.25 will be unchanged and there will still be a pile up at 2@41. While the run-offs are very exciting they alone don’t significantly improve the competition. This last weekends run-off was skipped (with good reason) which frankly dulled the completion (read: “the show”). Adding a 10.50 length adds an interesting dimension. There are quite a few men who are running 10.75. Adding 10.50 would likely spread out the log jam at 2@10.25 enough to reintroduce some strategy again (I’ve seen few starting length changes and almost no opt-ups to set up the wind advantage - I believe it’s because everyone “expects” the cut to be a 2@41). At 10.50, there would be a lot more skiers affected by the change. Finally it would also greatly improve the future potently for the women. Late this year they had “all 4 finalist women run 39 for the first time”. So (obviously?) their “impossible pass” is 10.25 currently. I believe adding 10.50 could be a smart move. From there shortenings would be 0.25 at a time. To address the concern @RGilmore brought up above, it would take some creative rope design. Either some new ideas to tie the rope similarly to today (sliding loops?) or perhaps some kind of “tail” where a shortening loop would actually attach to a “mainline” - kind of like branches off a tree trunk.

Correct @Bruce_Butterfield Glen Thurlow, 61.57m (202’) in March, 1983 at Moomba.

@So_I_Ski you’re making a LOT of assumptions in your theory. Especially when the guy who’s has the most shots at it has said recently on camera he thinks it can be run. Admittedly he also said that the step change from 41 to 43 is like the difference of going from 32 to 41 so it’s really hard. Again if those who have a chance to run it wanted a change they have the ability to push for it. Likewise, you can too. Assuming you’re a member of WSC, you can petition the IWWF to make a change.

Almost 40 years after an Australian male went over 200’ as well. Interesting they both with 202’. Jacinta will go farther. I believe this is probably still the ‘most likely to be broken’ record.

@Cnewbert after Tony announced they would “share second place” this is the podium picture -

It was declared a tie. They both stood on the /nd place step.