Triplett

Damnit, I read it, understood it, then read it again and misunderstood the question. I do not think Regionals should be mandatory for Nationals. I think reginoals should be a L7 and below event, with the option if you are L8+. I have some really good memories from Regionals, but when the podium is loaded with L8 guys who already earned their spot to nationals, what is the real point of regionals. At least with L7 and below there would be some real competition, since a placement would mean a trip to nationals. If we wanted to make nationals more exclusive, or more prestigious, we should make regionals the qualifier for Nationals. It would be pretty cool, dreams granted or crushed, as long as you are L6 you can go, figure out the placements for each division based on number of people you want at nationals. If you cant commit to nationals, the next guy/girl goes.

I like the push from behind method as well. I am right handed but I play hockey/golf left, and ski left foot forward. Even in Olympic lifting I am left foot dominate. Try having him quickly move one foot forward and one foot back in a jumping motion, this might present a more comfortable foot forward. Another way to phrase it, what is more comfortable for him. He may have the ability to use either foot, but one way might feel more natural.

L10 is something that is needed for amateur competition. I can understand the arguments of skiing against Nate Smith, but if you are running into 41 on a consistent basis you are in the top 35 in the world, in most every sport this a 'professional' level. If you question this, look at the October 2016 list, it applies to 36mph and 34mph. The L10 rule requires you to compete against your peers, as @chad_scott wants to. There is no reason a person that is in the top 30 in the world should be competing in the same division as a guy who isn't even top 30 in the country. It has nothing about making it easier for people to win, it is making it fair and increase competition. I would say this is less about getting more people in general, but getting more people to regionals and nationals. I do think this will help, it will also make the elite divisions truly elite divisions, almost like a pro tournament within regionals and nationals..

@kurt I foresee the vast majority of the events in Michigan allowing 36mph for men and 34mph for women. This will most likely be for states as well. Our state board was all for the original ZBS rule.

@bry, the argument that everyone would speed up is a good hypothesis that wont be tested now. I understand where you are coming from. Anyway, I encourage LOCs to utilize the rule to its full extent, then make judgement if it is wrong or not. I believe the slower speeds will help and the faster speed option might add some fun competition! Also, it might be helpful if in the comments for your tournament that you indicate if you are using the full rule, it might help with rules confusion.

@MrJones that is one thing I missed and 100% agree with, always scale appropriately. No reason to be a hero and become injured. Front Squats are great for working the core!

@leonL, would Kentucky revisit this decision if a group of M7 age skiers wanted to go 34mph and not 32mph? Or a W5 wanting to go 34mph? I think we all got caught up in the 36mph debate and forgot about the rest of the skiers.

I would say squats and deadlifts at a bare minimum. And I will echo that proper form is key to moving the weight safely. Honestly, Crossfit.com has some really good videos breaking down the movements. I have had athletes tell me similar concerns about knee and hip issues that with some instruction in the lifts and working on mobility have never had an issue since. Obviously if you have no cartilage left you cant stretch that out, but sometimes pain comes from lack of mobility/tight muscles. I would recommend some type of yoga, or yoga like program. I follow RomWod, which is a daily 20 min yin type routine that helps open your joints and become more flexible. I feel the Olympic lifts, Clean and Jerk and Snatch, are some of the best for waterskiing, but these require lots of time and really good instruction so you don't hurt yourself.

If the rules of ZBS are being followed then it would be a mandatory re-ride. You cannot go down in speed. Anyways, the score be the same buoy count because at a slower speed the score is the same as the previous pass made at a faster speed. @LeonL I dont understand reasoning of an LOC not allowing faster than divisional max. I run multiple C and L class tournaments in Michigan and I see no reason not to allow it. What is your reasoning in not allowing the use of faster than divisional max?

Sometimes you just need to hear it from someone else who explains it differently. I will tell a person I am coaching variations of the same thing until one of the variations fixes the issue I am seeing. Can be confusing if not explained up front but I have had some major success with it. Edit: Clarity

@Deep11 Knowing where you are at on the ski is very important. I don't use pressure feed back much, but I use more of how the ski feels underneath me. If I start to feel like I am creeping forward faster than I would like I am probably overloading the tip of the ski. If I feel narrow and fast I am probably back. In general, I think you are correct, the pressure needs be in the ball of your foot or closer to the toes. Once you are loaded behind the boat I would argue this pressure doesn't change much. You will use the back leg more, but you still need to be moving into the first wake.

@scoke I find it interesting you think Surdej is trying to kill nationals to push through an agenda. No change, or attempt of change will not reverse the downward trend. I have been involved with the sport for the vast majority of my life and nationals has been getting more expensive and less people are showing up. The biggest change that I recall was the Levels and online ranking. We do need something different, if it is just for C class, cool, but how do we score it for national competitors, or aspiring national competitors? All that aside and slightly off topic, there are major barriers to entry of the sport. I am not sure about the insurance thing, but I haven't hear of this being an issue, at least in Michigan. The price is high to compete, sure, but this something to discuss on the state level. I am proud to say Michigan hasn't raised entry fees more than a few dollars in the past 10 years, and we are doing fine. The difficulty to run the big tournaments is real, but I think this is less of a deterrent, more people coming would justify the work. The biggest thing deterrent, in my mind, is age divisions. We need an ability based system, this would bring more people to nationals and ultimately in the sport. To be a top skier in any age division takes a ton of dedication and years of water time. We need to be welcoming to every level of skier while not taking away from the dedication we all put in. It is unfortunate to see the backlash to ZBS be rooted in the age divisions because it is really a stepping stone to a better, more inclusive, way of competing. @jackq, that would bring people into the sport. Ohio's Buckeye buoy tour and Michigan's slalom series are great examples of how this grows the sport. If ZBS is the wrong way to get there, and make it simple, we need another idea.

@dirt With the opinions expressed in this thread, it is not the people who would gain by going faster, but the people that would lose by others going faster. @Bruce_Butterfield Your point of placement does not necessarily help or hurt the argument. I hypothesize the majority of people wouldn't go faster and it would probably be your top guys, I think we agree in this point. I would say in each one these divisions the top guys train faster than their speed anyway. So how much of a disadvantage is it? If you never ski 36mph and you decide on the dock at nationals to try it out, you probably are not going to beat your 34mph score. Also, if we are talking about qualifications to comment, we might as well only let the top 10 in each division have a say. Nothing would change, because any change might upset their chances of a regional/national championship. Also, Class C is a competitive tournament! The Midwest has, maybe, 5 tournaments that are E/L/R, that includes regionals. So would you propose we allow 'over speed' in Class C, would overspeed scores not count, or would you count it as it is today, where you just ski faster but get the same score as your divisions speed? I would suspect we are not getting opinions from where we need them because people feel they are not 'qualified' to comment. @MISkier's opinion holds as much weight as @Chad_Scott's. This is a forum and thread for opinions from everyone, not just the elite. If anything, this rule is more for guys of his caliber, not for us, even if does seem to slightly negatively affect us.

@MISkier exactly where I learned it from. This is something I do every time I get up. I move into the right position before the gates. Glad it made sense.

@Than_Bogan I do agree with the data. That is the right thing to do. I have done the same.

The key is to be square to the ski. You need to rotate your back hip forward to square up the hips. This will naturally cause knee bend and put you on the front foot. How we stand on a slalom ski is not natural, so we have to learn how to stand on it properly. My favorite cue is that you don't walk down the street with your hips angled to one side or another, you square up/point your belly button in the direction you want to go. If done correctly your back heel will want to lift off the ski, the water will break farther forward, and the ski will be more efficient. This is what @wish is feeling. This might not make much sense, so if it doesn't I will work on a better explanation, it is much easier to talk about it and not type.

@Than_Bogan What I guess I should have clarified is I believe your higher level skiers are capable of taking full advantage of the 36 rule and improving their score more than 1-1.5 buoys. I don't think your middle of pack will see an advantage in going 36. 36mph is a higher level of difficulty. I am guessing, like everyone else in here, that 36 will only help top tier guys improve their overall score. We have data from Jeff that suggests there is no advantage going from 34 to 36 (M2-M3). So, if my hypothesis states that I believe @chad_scott can have a higher overall score at 36 than 34, then I am wrong, given the data we have. If we cap max speeds to current levels, we still don't know, we never completed the experiment. If we keep ZBS the way it is written and in 2017 Chad and his peers ski 36, and get substantially better scores then my hypothesis is correct. At least in some posts I am seeing a want/need for data and when the data is presented it isn't good enough or isn't representative. So how do we get the data if we never try ZBS as written today? If we limit to just C's, my guess is your L8s L9s never actually use the rule, and they will not go to 36 for placement or rank, since it wont matter. Obviously, from my previous posting I am for keeping it how it is written. But, objectively, and being an engineer, I have to look at the data that Jeff presented and right now it does not support the hypothesis most have on here. And without ever trying this out, in all divisions and sanctions, we will never know if the collective hypothesis is valid.

@jweber I just don't foresee a lot of guys in M4+ going 36, high or low ranking. The people I have spoke with in Michigan about this are in @MISkier's camp, sometimes 36 but not all the time, and some of these guys are knocking on the door of a national championship. I am a fan of choice, go up or down, do what works best for you. The podiums may change, but if you are chasing the top spot at Regionals or nationals wouldn't you like another strategy? Also, I don't think 36 is as big of crutch as most of the guys on here think it is. It may not be 6 buoys, but I would say 4, at 38/39. Your L9 and high L8 skiers will benefit the most from going 36, so I don't think you will see the competition at the top change too much. Another point regarding IWWF alignment, why are we concerned with this? Unless you ski L/R's exclusively and are chasing a Senior World Championship or World Championship spot, why would this be of concern if you go 34 or 36? If we wanted to align with them we would have an 18+, 35+, 45+, etc.

@unksskis It would be added to 34mph 22off score. Count it as a you went to 28off. So your score would be 82 buoys. With ZBS as long as you are moving down or right, it will be adding to your score. It is only complicated if you think too hard about it. edit: Changed up to down, mental image of chart was reversed.

@BRY If ZBS makes a sizable amount of skiers leave AWSA there is something more going on than just ZBS . I disagree with the statement in the letter saying this a fundamental change. A fundamental change would be going to ability based, which is what we really need and ZBS is a part of that.

@sunperch ZBS was in the kids divisions last year. So this isn't contradictory, just states you can ski any speed up to the set max speed. I think increasing the max speed for juniors is an entirely different topic.

@Chad_Scott I can understand the argument, and I know my support seems flawed when you put in terms of the 1% of skiers and the fact the faster case doesn't affect me. This rule may adversely affect the L9 guys completely differently than the L8 and below in the M3/W5 and up divisions. My concern with discussing the rule and how it relates to the top guys take away from the guys in the middle, who this may help. From what I have noticed in Michigan, 6 buoys is applicable for the guys moving divisions that change speed, either 36-34 or 34-32. I don't think we could ever get a perfect handicap for an increase in speed. With tons of data crunching and time we could and people still wouldn't like it.

@Chad_Scott My all time PB in practice 3@ 41 - 36 and tournament is 2@ 41. Most recently is 4@39 (tournament). Could I best my all time PB at 34, no. Could I at least tie my best score in a tournament from last year, probably, with time.

@Chad_Scott not sure, never had a reason to give a try until now. At first, probably less than what I can get at 36. With a few weeks of training, probably similar buoy count wise, within a buoy or two. I don't think after training at 34 I could get the same buoy count as I have at 36, its just a different animal. @walleye what do you mean? I can choose to ski 34mph all next year if I want now. Hell, I could go to 32mph. We are getting sucked into thinking we can only choose faster, but the reality is we can choose to ski slower if it suits us better. The whole point of the rule is to ski where you want to and to your ability.

With the new rules it is fair. Anyone can ski 36, so if you choose not to and another guy does, that is your choice. Also, I don't think @miskier's scores are the norm. To @RazorRoss3's point, it probably will, in M3. Is it really a bad thing though? A guy in M2 could be really good at 34 and win nationals at a slower speed, isn't that the same as a M3 guy winning at 36? I still don't see the older guys going 36 and winning, but if they do, great. We are getting stuck on going faster but there is some argument that could be made for going slower and winning, especially in a division like M2 (I use this because the scores to win are normally around 2@39 and 2@4-34 is completely achievable for a high end M2 skier). In the end, like I have expressed before, we have to try something to know if it will work. If it fails and all the champions at nationals are skiing 36 and people are getting hurt, then we will know something needs to change but until then we cannot be certain. The only data we have is from many posts ago comparing L8 guys moving from M2 to M3, and that data doesn't really support the argument for repealing ZBS.