Triplett

@sunperch shame on me for assuming, haha. @Chad_Scott, IWSF allows anyone 18+ to ski 58k and you are lumped with all people skiing 58k, at 35 you get to make the choice but are not forced to go 55k. ZBS allows for people not to slow down, similar to IWSF, it just puts them in the same division. At our L class tournaments we have had multiple skiers 35+ compete at 58k just because the score would actually count as such. There is a lot of concern in this thread about how the L9 guys will be affected, but this is a very small portion of skiers in our sport. I know quite a few people that shorten the line below their max speed for safety and for their own enjoyment. I know others that prefer to go faster than their capped speed for the same reasons. As @MISkier has said, it just makes the faster speeds count. If you are really in the running to win you are going to do whatever is necessary, but for the other 95% of the membership, they are not going to go 36mph to get a small advantage at the risk of getting hurt.

@sunperch I believe it has been said that for IWWF sanctioned events you have to adhere to the international rule book. So that would leave class E and C events being affected. In these you can already choose to ski 36mph if you are 35+, you just ask to entered in the scoring program as IM. This seems to be a stepping stone to ability based divisions, which is why it seems clunky and awkward for the age divisions (assuming at least). After some thought, I do believe that you cap MM to 34mph. This keeps the division for what it is, since a 36 cap on this would make it 35+ Open with similar scores. For 35+ guys that qualify for it, it would allow a level playing field like @chad_scott and @dirt feel they are losing. I do not see anything in the rule change for this, I am not sure if that is implied or not.

@chad_scott I understand that 1 @ 39 - 36mph could be easier or harder than 1 @ 41 - 34mph and with this rule it would be the same 109 score. This would force a decision for you to either get 1 @ 41 - 34, 1 @ 39 - 36, or 1 @ 43 - 32. Both take high levels of skill, they are just different approaches to the same score with varying degrees of difficulty. I don't see how this changes the playing field at all, it changes your approach to the task at hand. You get the choice to ski the speed you want to get the maximum amount of buoys. @walleye I don't think you will see score improvements of more than a buoy or two, but I could be wrong, depends on if we see the rule. 34 and 36 are different animals and switching all the time is not an easy task. *edit: second comment

This rule is just allowing us to use the score sheet that was implemented years ago. Tournaments the public sort of cares about (Malibu Open, etc.) already have rules regarding where you can start and what speed you can ski. I don't think the concern for AWSA at the moment needs to be how to engage the general public. No matter what we do, short of a major overhaul, will make a dude off the street understand how we score things with out a long explanation. We first have to grow the sport from the inside, involving the kids who skied in college in AWSA events, novice skiers who started later in life, and hope these skiers spread the sport to others. This rule will hopefully do that, and if we don't try then how will we ever know. We simply cannot be afraid of change. I have been in AWSA for 21 years this year and it feels like there have been no significant changes, except the ranking list. We have to change to grow.

I unfortunately do not have any pictures but we had a similar problem at our lake years ago. I do not know the size, but we put small field stone around the lake to eliminate this problem (the rocks fit in the palm of your hand for the most part). We just dumped the rock, no fabric, and haven't had any issues in 15+ years. The bottom and shorelines are all sand as well. They are not the most friendly for climbing out but we have no erosion or backwash issues. We have about 15-20ft of rocks since out water level drops quite a bit from spring to fall.

I agree with @RazorRoss3, nationals isnt really a cap on the season for me. To @horton's seemingly missed point, yes, a pro tournament would need to be accompanying the festival to make sense.

So it seems we need a BOS waterski league. That would be pretty cool.

I commented on another post about this rule before it was released. This is a step in the right direction. I can see where everyone is coming from, as there is a good argument for either side of this. Age divisions work great when you have a lot of members, but we do not. I still think if you are L9 you shouldn't be able to ski your age division, but the L10 rule at least gets some movement in the right direction. Getting the best of the best out of the age division does bring in another set of high level guys but I would say it helps. We need to take the steps to increase membership, otherwise we fade into the sunset.

@disland I did think of this after I posted. It should not be required, but I don't think it is a good idea to allow an on demand score to be equivalent to a C class score unless the site pulls tournaments and you have a trained driver.

There needs to be some sort of penalty for any lake and boat being used. The only way you can guarantee your course is correct is with a survey. I could have a huge average because my course is narrow then show up to a tournament and lose an entire pass consistently. This isnt fair when it comes to tournaments where seeding is important, as well as qualification to ski. I also believe that you don't need to have a judge in the boat for the score that is slightly penalized, you would need to submit video, which would be the verification of the score anyway. Now the way to not be penalized is to have your set with at least an assistant driver on a tournament lake with an AWSA approved boat for tournaments. The judge wouldn't be necessary for the reason above. We still have to place importance tournaments. It is one thing to run up the line where you are comfortable with everything, and something completely different in a foreign place with the stakes higher. An idea like this has to expand the membership and support the local tournaments.

@LeonL I would disagree with it not driving membership. Using Crossfit as an example, I have no chance of ever going to regionals, but I still sign up for the Open to see where I stack up against people in Michigan, the US, and the world. Some people just are not competitive, but I would bet there are good chunk who ski but don't want to waste every weekend spending 50 bucks for 8-12 passes, where this would be a fantastic option. To @Than_Bogan's point, tournament skiers are going to use this too. I don't think it would change much.

@rayn I was planning on typing your exact reply as I was reading. It works pretty well in the Crossfit world. Only certified judges can approve the video, and that is an hour online course. If it is an outrageous score then you will get Crossfit looking at it. Some "pro" level athletes have had their scores pulled. Maybe a way to get around any course or driver discrepancies would be to weight the score differently than an actual tournament. It would be pretty easy to tell if you are cheating if you have a tournament score. AWSA could require a tournament minimum for qualification to nationals, or maybe one of these scores at a known, accurate, site with a certified driver and judge in the boat, along with video. Wouldn't be hard to do for most people. I would be more than happy to pay 5-10 bucks per video submission. Could be limited to number of times in a month, might get a little hard to validate scores if you get a crazy amount of scores in.

I am with @horton on this one. It needs to be either an elite event where it crowns the best of the best, or it needs to be a festival. I would think that the manufacturers would prefer the festival event over the elite event. To be honest, we aren't the people that spend money at nationals.

If you are interested in Clio, it is a bit of a drive, but its an awesome site. I am always looking for members. PM me for info. Brent

@Than_Bogan This is why I said this is not a good idea. L9 should have taken care of this. When you become open rated you shouldn't have the choice to compete in your age division, you are now able to ski in pro events, you should have to compete against your peers in amateur events. This would apply to MM as well. You have done your work, here is your reward. Disclaimer: I have used the ability to choose my age division while in Level 9. I was never the best by a pass or even top seed.

Since I am the only guy to say bad idea I might as well explain myself. While I think forcing a certain level to a higher division a good idea, I don't understand why a L10 was created. For me, and from what I can see in the 36mph groups, L9 would have been good metric go use for a forced entry into open. Considering L9 in the age divisions, this would add 15 skiers to OM, most of which are already on the list of 29 OM skiers (L9 OM). For 34 mph it would add 31 skiers, some of which are part of the 35 MM (L9). In my opinion this makes Open and Mens Masters into two divisions, almost like a super Open or super masters.

My practice boat is a 2016 200 with the 5.3L single puck. I will say it is a beast. I struggled with the feel for a while, but I suspect there were other factors involved, like being a test dummy for the Adams. Overall, I like the feel now, and it doesn't feel terribly different from the 5.7L in the single puck TXi and ProStar, and the 2013 CP 6.0L dual puck. There are guys I ski with that switch boats a lot that feel a difference, but their scores don't really change. You'll be fine Horton, just have to finish better than your seed.

@Than_Bogan I am interested in how you like the ARTP. I dont feel like it would be tight enough. My loop starts to rip after about two years of use and it always affects my skiing. Plus I feel like I am going to die because my foot will just slip out. For reference, I have a radar RTP, which is very similar to a Wileys, just with a soft, foam like foot pad. Very adjustable. Also a life long user of the kicker.

So I moved to B3 and I am getting a much better feel from the boat. Seems to be direction a few other guys I know that were at C have went to at least B, some to A.

@Razorskier1 I nearly ran 39 my first set on it. @Than_Bogan It seems that people are liking the bigger skis. I am a bit too big for a 66.5, but still was ok with, it was just touchy. But I do agree with @Razorskier1, the 67.25 gives me a bigger window of success, or as I like to put, the ability to scrap out a pass.

Thanks @Horton. Our hoist has been broken so I haven't been able to see the prop number. I have thought more about @B_S's comment with DI being more responsive. This would mean C is actually on you earlier than on the Port injection boats. So moving to B or even A might not be a bad idea.

@Roger I will take a look tonight.

Alright, thanks guys. It must be the way the 5.3L works with ZO, just was curious of why it was different.

I have no problem with the letter. I am more concerned with having the correct software on the boat. I just checked the version and it's at E1886400R.

C1, figured C2 would give me more rpm earlier, giving me more release out to buoy. It worked, kind of. Still, the SN is a lot of work, but I don't miss the 5.7L.