klindy

@Wish maybe that’s why you haven’t run 41. You just need to slow the boat down to slo-mo to figure it out. ??

As an FYI, the AWSA board and relevant committees must have 1/3 of the members be elite skiers (US skiers). So there is lots of opportunity to bring it up where it counts to get it changed. I can’t recall a serious, formal discussion about it. Certainly it may have occurred and I’m not aware of it but not at the board level. And I realize that AWSA wouldn’t be the deciding entity but IWWF is under the same 1/3 elite athlete criteria and AWSA, thru the PanAm Confederation and thru being the chair of the TC committee has had a lot of influence over the years. I’m confident that any changes would likely have to come directly from the top athletes to have any serious chance of happening.

@dbutcher the electricity grid gets more emission friendly all the time. ERCOT is actually one of the most clean grids in the country. On a total energy consumed basis, an all electric boat used and charged in TX currently will be more emission friendly.

You’re in MI, right? Reach out to some of your MI buddies and borrow a SportsTube. Several are at the MasterCraft Pro tournament this weekend so once they get back they’ll likely have their travel gear out anyway. Worth a try.

@Jody_Seal as you know Sure Path has been used in the Southern Region for more than a year. I’d say few have had complaints and the scores have been incredibly high. The recently completed Worlds (Open, U17 & U21), Malibu Open, etc. all had consistently high scores. Two skiers running 41 this year for the first time ever. Several PBs in men’s and women’s open. All that suggests there are fewer “freight trains” on the rails. Back to the original topic……

@6balls hold your cards, we have a winner.

@The_MS or anyone else, what do you think the AWSA Board should do?

@lpskier which shouldn’t be confused with Polar Coordinates.

@Horton, This is what I see when I (presumably) click on a users profile which is marked private.

@jgills88 question I don’t know the answer too … what Zack practicing at an USAWSWS member club/ski school? What practice sanctioned?

And I’ll remind everyone that the mandate is that 33-1/3% of the committees dealing with competition and the board are elite athletes. Meaning they have a SIGNIFICANT voice and a LOT of leverage to make changes or adjustments THEY feel are warranted. If they want a run off score to be eligible to count as a record, the athletes have the leverage to make that happen.

@Wish as @lpskier said everything is viewed and reviewed just like it would be in a tournament. It IS “in the books”. What it is not is it is not a regular round of a tournament. In this case only the prelim and final rounds are included as “eligible” rounds for the world ranking list. The score is legit. The path was fine. Run off scores are ONLY used to break a tie. They are not eligible for anything else including a world record. Speaking of records, @skierjp Dane’s score is NOT a record. It is a PB most certainly but not a record. So I’m not sure what you mean by your last sentence above.

@jpattigr even at 4 people per car that’s 1000 cars. Where did they park? Where would they park at almost any of the premier private sites?

@lpskier points out the important technical issue. A run off is only meant to break a tie. It’s not meant to do anything else. In fact, let’s assume Dane went last, he would have never even got a shot at 43 since something deep into 41 would have been enough to break the tie. He could have run 41 but the return pass would have been straight back to the dock. So for this discussion (“which skiers have run 41?”) you can obviously add his name to the list. But what is his “final” score? Just 6@41?

So what if the runoff skier for 2nd/3rd has a score higher than the winner? Should that skier also get MORE pro points than the winner for that tournament even tho the finished in a lower place?

@aupatking semantics maybe and not to split hairs but the runoff passes are judged just the same as if they are in the tournament - including video reviews, boat path monitoring, timing, etc. I don’t know all the details of the T-Gas scenario but for Dane the pass was a legit as if it was in the tournament. HOWEVER, while it did resolve the tie, runoff’s are not eligible to be records. In other words if he ran 4@43 it wouldn’t have been reviewed for a record. Whether it counts on a “list of all skiers who ran 41 list”, is not up to IWWF or AWSA. It’s clearly a tournament quality performance (e.g.- not a practice score). The score IS in the scorebook just noted as a runoff score not one from a regular round. What I’m saying is he clearly is on my list of who’s run 41! Awesome skiing!

@Bruce_Butterfield she did ski fantastic! You guys have been working hard! So awesome to see her compete at Worlds when I can remember her barely getting started skiing! Tell her to enjoy getting the career in motion! Exciting times, milestone events!!

Run off scores only apply to break a tie. No “official” score is recorded. That said, it doesn’t make it any less real! Ir was hugely impressive and completely legit!!

@Horton when I clicked on someone’s icon before the screen said “profile is private” and displayed no other info. That’s why I asked the question.

Now we can set the profile as “private”? Who are the authorized users who can see the private profiles?

@ScottScott i disagree. I’m not saying it’s a bad idea or a good idea but, especially as 11.25 and shorter, managing the rope at #6 is a pretty fundamental slalom skill. If you were able to make a “normal” turn and disregard the ‘inside’ exit gate ball, it would definitely change how EVERYONE skis. Again I’m not saying it’s a bad idea, just saying it would change things.

@ScottScott imagine how much things would change if you could turn #6 exactly the same as you turn #4. In other words, go around #6 just like every other buoy by making a full turn as if you were going to buoy #7. I personally think that would fundamentally change slalom.

@Jody_Seal you’re right, you have the right as a member to voice your opinion. You have. You and I have even talked multiple times about a variety of subjects - some we agree on, others we don’t. However I also think you’re over the top with some of your comments (no, I’m not Jeff’s protector but as Board Chair and previous Southern Region EVP and SC Region director before that, I have fingerprints on some of these issues and therefore have an equal right to reply). Your criticism of Level 10 is odd since you seem passionate about abandoning the “ratings list mentality” and advocate for “real competition “. AWSA was setup years ago as an age based organization with the goal of allowing members to “compete against their peers” regardless of they were 8 or 80 or anywhere in between. With a large growing organization we saw lots of competition within those age groups with few outliers who were exceptionally better than their peers. Those who were “that good” typically skied in the Open divisions which were equally competitive. Likewise, before the days of online rankling lists a member had no real idea how well some else in their division was skiing unless and until they showed up at the Regionals or Nationals and COMPETED against each other. Today, just look online and the whole history is there. Completion has changed. You and I would agree that it’s largely disappeared. As time evolved AWSA did try to adapt. Masters Men was an ability based division just like Open. Then Level 10 (and level 9) evolved to “improve” competition and, with Level 10, keep the age groups competitive. Obviously it didn’t work as conceived. The drop in membership and reduced number of skiers coming to regionals/Nationals complicates things even more with fewer and fewer skiers in more and more divisions, making those outliers even easier to spot. So today AWSA is “stuck” between being setup as an aged based competitive organization or an ability based organization. Trying to be both isn’t working (in my opinion). My confusion with your comments is you want it to be ability based but you don’t want the ability based divisions. (masters) or support attempts to keep the age based divisions competitive (level 10). I agree we can’t be both but we also can’t go ack to the way things were 20-30 years ago.

I have a set of their poles too. Also bought them 30+ years ago when They were still in MI. What put them “on the map” in the s of ski world was light bent poles for Olympic downhill. I’ll bet someone remembers the year.

I think the cut is a piece of 3@41 (2-1/4 or more). Too 5 are Freddie, Will Asher, T-Gas, Adam Caldwell and Nate. There are a LOT of guys who are skiing really well and the competition should be amazing! I don’t remember a time where there was more parity in the top 10-15 skiers in both the men’s and women’s slalom groups! No doubt there will be a lot of run-offs. You could easily swap any of the names above with others but I think these are the guys who know how to get it done!