BRY

Text of the approved motion: Motion: the ZBS proposal that was passed by the board in January remains, but is modified to cap maximum speeds as per the current Age Division Maximum speeds as defined in rule 10.06(A). However, LOC's may opt to allow higher max speeds, up to 36 MPH for male divisions and 34 MPH for female divisions, excluding juniors, in class C tournaments, at their discretion. All other aspects of the ZBS proposal passed in January remain unchanged. The motion passes, 14-9-0-2.

@skier2788 Gotta disagree with you. Never seen this lake, probably never will, but have seen many like it. You say "Most will only tube or surf. It is a party lake." You are absolutely correct there. But some will ski and therefore the others will be exposed to it. The vast majority of the guys I know in tournament skiing did not ski buoys (or even know what they were) as kids. Came to course skiing later. Most skied behind the family outboard at local lakes (aka party lakes) as kids/teenagers/college. But too much pressure (other boats, regs, ect) on public water and too little volume at "real" tournament lakes now. This type "towed watersports" club with larger membership might be one of the ways forward. They will have a course so it only takes 1 buoy head skiing there to infect a couple more. With 110 members if Red Ball Fever can spread to even 5 or 6 that's a win. And the other 105 will be way more knowledgeable about it. Places like this can be and should be breeding grounds for the scarce, endangered and reclusive AWSA Skier. So AWSA sending an e-mail to current and former AWSA members at Zip Codes say 200 miles around this club announcing it has a potential upside. Costs essentially nothing. Or at least add a short blurb in the e-newsletter AWSA sends out. Easy, cheap, promotes our base.

+1 to @Bruce_Butterfield with "My first reaction is that the overall ski design and not any 1 or 2 particular attributes." Though to his second part I don't think weight has anything to do with it. Some skis from Goode: Rev6 68"-190 lbs. and up 29.75” (+- 1/8) Nano1/Nano XT 66.75″–195 lbs. and up 29.25” (+- 1/8) Nano1FT 66.75″–195 lbs. and up 29.00” (+- 1/8) Vapor 68" 180-220 lbs 30.25" though Rossi posts 30" and Brooks set mine there at Nationals. 30" seems to work better at 36 for me.

Rule 1.01 (D) in it's entirety: D. IWWF class events (L & R) conducted under USA-WS sanctioning will be conducted administratively by applying AWSA rules and, in instances where skiing conditions are affected, by applying IWWF rules when different from AWSA. 1. The intention is that performances, considered for placement on world ranking lists or for world records, be conducted under conditions identical to events conducted elsewhere in the world (i.e. a level playing field). 2. Examples of administrative issues where AWSA rules would apply: a. Tie breaking rules. b. Tow rope specifications or skier supplied allowances. c. Starting line lengths. 3. Examples of skiing conditions where IWWF rules would prevail: a. Trick falls before the course. b. Waiver of conditions encountered in jump. Also 1.02 (B) touches on this: B. All tournaments are further classified as: 1. RECORD CAPABILITY (Class R, L and E) Class R – World and National Records may be set also all IWWF and AWSA ranking lists performances may be earned. Class L – National Records may be set also IWWF and AWSA ranking list performances may be earned. Class E – National records may be set and only AWSA ranking list performances earned. 2. CLASS C - Standard local tournaments in which all AWSA ranking list performances may be earned. 3. CLASS F (Grass Roots), primarily for beginning skiers, which allow wide variations from the requirements of the other classifications. To add jumping to a Class F (Grass Roots) classification a minimum of a State Safety Director and Regular Driver is required. 4: CLASS X - Used for experimental formats; i.e. change in course configuration, different boat speeds, etc., where scores WOULD NOT be placed on the ranking lists. Also see Rule 1.09 C. Rule 10.06 seems to conflict with the above rules directly and within itsself. 10.06 Boat Speeds and Line Lengths (***May be used for all Classes but certain scoring options do not follow with IWWF scoring i.e. skier will need to make complete pass at maximum speed before the pass will count on their ranking list). 10.06 (B) The maximum allowed boat speeds shall be as follows: 1. Boys 1/Girls 1 - 49 kph (30.4 mph). 2. Girls 2 - 52 kph (32.3 mph). 3. Boys 2 and all females Girls 3 or older - 55 kph (34.2 mph). 4. All males, Boys 3 or older - 58 kph (36.0 mph). AWSA maximum speed for M3 up, now 36, differs from IWWF. Yet 10.06 says "skier will need to make complete pass at maximum speed before the pass will count on their (IWWF) ranking list". This is not so for M3 up, skier needs to make a complete pass at 55K, below maximum speed. and not higher before the pass will count on their ranking list. 2017 Rules Changes Summary Looks like some additional adjustments needed based on Changes Summary. Haven't seen a 2017 full rule book out yet. The Slalom Buoy Quick Count chart needs to be pulled or updated also as it is now incorrect.

@MattP All AWSA tournaments are now ZBS. FCEL&R, everything. Question: What are the new max speeds for divisions? Answer: The maximum allowed boat speeds are as follows: 1. Boys 1/Girls 1 - 49 kph (30.4 mph). 2. Girls 2 - 52 kph (32.3 mph). 3. Boys 2 and all females Girls 3 or older - 55 kph (34.2 mph). 4. All males, Boys 3 or older - 58 kph (36.0 mph). Questions: Which divisions can use this? Answer: All AWSA divisions can now use this, in 2016 it was only for juniors at Class C tournaments. Question: Can I do this at Regionals and Nationals? Answer: Yes ZBS is how all skiers will be scored in all classes of events.

@Wish Send your ripped piece to Wiley's and they can probably match fairly close if not exact. They have many thicknesses of rubber. Chances are they have a stamp to cut it also.

The actual motion in play below: Motion: The Southern Region motion would be to change ZBS from MANDATORY for all Classes to “OPTIONAL at the discretion of the LOC for Class C only”. Sent: Monday, February 20, 2017 9:54 PM Subject: Southern Region Request to Rescind ZBS Slalom Rule Jeff After careful consideration, the Southern Region Directors (EVP and all three Directors) are requesting reconsideration of the ZBS slalom rule as presented at the recent AWSA Board of Directors meeting. There are others on the AWSA board that have expressed the same sentiment that we do, but we prefer to let each speak for themselves. First, most of us were under the mistaken impression this rule was for Class C only. I personally thought it was OPTIONAL for Class C, not mandatory. We are not sure who was on the prevailing side in regard to the vote since no written roll call was made, simply a vote by holding hands up and counting. However, because of the impression that this was to be for Class C only, some of our Directors voted in favor of the rule. Therefore, we are of the opinion the Southern Region Directors have standing to request reconsideration and bring this before the board. We feel the application of ZBS as mandatory for all tournament classes is inappropriate. ZBS was instituted on a trial basis in 2016 for junior age divisions only. There were no tournaments in the Southern Region that used ZBS in 2016. I am not sure how many tournaments used ZBS last year in 2016, but my impression is that very few did use it. To now make this rule mandatory for all age divisions and all tournament classifications is premature. We do not have sufficient data to make this rule mandatory. We suggest that ZBS be made optional for 2017 in order to determine to what extent there are issues and how widely accepted ZBS may become. Forcing the membership to accept such a broad fundamental change to our sport will not be looked upon favorably by the membership base. The Southern Region Directors have heard many complaints about the mandatory imposition of ZBS and you have been privy to many of those complaints. These complaints are being aired by skiers that have been passionate about the sport for years. They are not simply expendable pawns and many are not in the so called 5% top of the pyramid that seems to be a recurring thread in the discussion. We think ZBS has its benefits if made optional, especially in the junior ranks for Class C events. ZBS does not belong at IWWF tournaments. It is for sure we do not need two scorebooks (IWWF and AWSA) nor do we need different people on the podium dependent on which score book used (IWWF or AWSA). The idea that many new skiers will flock to the sport because of this rule change is a bit of a stretch. Maybe a few more juniors, which is a good thing……but ZBS is not the panacea to membership growth that a few claim. Show me the numbers instead of making claims based on opinion and not fact. The Southern Region is not resistant to change in the sport, but this is not the time to be making wholesale changes to our sport in the “hope” of getting a few more members without one iota of validation for that claim. Please forward this request to the AWSA Board for consideration. Time is certainly of the essence in this regard. Many thanks for all you do. AWSA President is not an easy task, as you have found out by now. Best regards,

AWSA MEMBERS! MAKE YOUR POSITION ON ZBS KNOWN TO THOSE MAKING THE DECISION! Proposed Resolution #2017-2: Rescind ZBS Slalom Rule The mandatory 10 day discussion period ends at 5 PM on Saturday, March 4. Love it, hate it, think it needs modification let your Regional Director(s) know! Just send an e-mail. Can be just a yea or a nay or full dissertation. But let your Director know what you think (or feel for Westcoasties). The more everyone chimes in the more representative of what the membership wants will prevail. CLICK HERE

@Triplett You are a young 36mph guy, a phenomenal skier, so 34 or 36 doesn't make much difference to you. In 30 years you are likely to have a different opinion. 36 just beats us old guys up a lot more, it does me. Just by doing it, falls aside. You yourself don't subscribe to your position, that you can get more buoys just by going 34. That's why most are focused on the speed up. I feel I can say most M4+ guys do not want 36 but most will gain buoys just by going 36. So going 36 is not really a choice if one wants to just hang with the guys one goes against now. Not just at the top, but throughout Level 7 and Level 8 for sure. Your situation supports that conclusion, I gain buoys just by going 36, Chad Scott believes skiers gain buoys just by going 36. It's go 36 or get dropped by those that do. There is a danger to tournament skiing by this rule. If old guys, largest group of skiers, have to go 36 we will lose a fair number. Not at the top but in the middle, where the volume is. As the motion to repeal states "These complaints are being aired by skiers that have been passionate about the sport for years. They are not simply expendable pawns and many are not in the so called 5% top of the pyramid that seems to be a recurring thread in the discussion." Once gone, not getting them back, they will be riding bikes or something.

"you have excellent error management" first thing a coach once said to me at a clinic

Cheat sheet for ZBS, informative little document I came across. Question: What is the advantage or disadvantage to this? Answer: This depends on the skier; some skiers may enjoy shortening the rope before going faster or some skiers may want to ski at faster speeds and get credit. Slalom is now all about total buoys regardless of how you achieve them. Question: Can I do this at Regionals and Nationals? Answer: Yes ZBS is how all skiers will be scored in all classes of events. Question: What about records? Answer: The age division maximum speeds shall be retained for National Records, Men 3-6 (34.2mph-55kph, Men 7 (32.3mph-52kph), Men 8-10 (30.4mph-49kph), Men 11 (28.6mph- 46kph), Women 5-6 (32.3-52kph), Women 7-10 (30.4-49kph) and Women 11 (28.6-46kph). Regional and Area records will still remain up to those areas. Interesting that "Slalom is now all about total buoys regardless of how you achieve them" and Regionals and Nationals can be won with the new max speed, but a record can not be set? Bit of a disconnect. Someone could win Nat's with a new all time buoy count and it wouldn't be a record? Huh.

In M4 (45-52) there are 160 L7 and L8 skiers (3.5@-32 to 3.5@-39) In M5 (53-59) there are 194 L7 and L8 skiers (3.5@-32 to 3.5@-39) Each of these groupings independently is larger than most other divisions total number. All these guys are going to feel competitive pressure to go 36. I am starting my second year in M5 with a 97.33 average. I and my friends are in the heart of this group. I and the friends I have talked to about it feel we need to go 36 or will be outscored by those that do. I have been skiing 36 now. But none really wants to go 36. We all think we will lose a good number of L7, L8 skiers who won't take the jump but get trounced by those that do. There are a lot of scenario's where ZBS may be good but each one only affects a handful of people. In M4-M5 alone affects far more skiers and in a negative way. As far as membership goes, this will be a net negative.

As @GK touched on, there are very few skiers into -39 IRL. Some bunched in low -38, a lot piled in -35 and -32. At the tournaments I go to in FL and went to in WA skiers of that level in M3-M6 are the bulk of the skiers. And make up a bulk of the officials, and buy more boats and gear due to having the money to do so. As @GK also touched on, a lot of these skiers did not ski M2 or earlier. They just came to the sport later in life. Most of my hard core skier buddies didn't compete (or even know what it was) when they were younger. Quite a few waited til M3 to start competing as they specifically did not want to ski 36. My experience going to 36 so far is these M3-M6 skiers are going to have to go 36 to hang with the guys they used to be equivalent to. For M3-M6 tournament skiers: It will be interesting to see if the "never 36" guys speed up, accept dropping behind those around them that do, or if they leave. It will be interesting to see if guys with physical issues where 36 is too much will accept dropping behind those around them that go 36, or if they leave. It will be interesting to see if guys for who 36 is unsuccessful will accept dropping behind those around them that successfully go 36, or if they leave. Unfortunately I think we will lose more than a few, particularly in M5-M6. Once they are gone they find other things and that's that. I believe this rule will be a net loss as far as membership goes. Hope I am wrong but my current assessment. @MillerTime38 As an M5 guy my view is the opposite: "But that's my point, I think this will affect M3 and MM and I think we will see a lot of M4 and M5 guys skiing 36."

@MillerTime38 "if skiing at 36 is so easy and it's an automatic free 6 buoys than why not ski at 36? Take advantage of the rule change" As @RazorRoss3 said "On the men's side, 36 can be extremely physically demanding." I have found this to be true as I have been going 36 now (after almost 2 decades of 34). I feel it the next morning in my back where at 34 I did not. You M1-M2 kids have no idea, truly no idea, but you will... It's going to beat up a lot of older guys. I find the extra line length trumps the extra speed for which is easier, i.e. the extra 3 feet at -32/36 trumps the slower -35/34 for having time/space to recover from errors. I believe going 36 and longer is easier than 34 and shorter for the -38 and longer crowd (almost all skiers).

@dave2ball Well if you haven't seen you haven't been watching... I stand by my initial post. "Cool, point out and support the advertisers who support this site. To take a shot at a quality ski industry company is uncalled for." It is possible to support something or someone without having to tear down or denigrate it's opposition. Masterline does many good things for the industry and makes great products both of which can and should be touted. Knocking on In-tow, particularly when incorrect, is not necessary to do so. @Horton Sorry you feel my post was over the limit. Was just meant to be a direct rebuttal to a post I believe to be incorrect with a few points to show why incorrect. Open debate and discussion usually supported on this site. No worries, your site, your rules. @MickeyThompson I'd tell you but they are not an advertiser, already in the doghouse. Do a BOS forum search on WONE.

@jayski Yoiur a bit off the mark with your last comment. Cool, point out and support the advertisers who support this site. To take a shot at a quality ski industry company is uncalled for. In-tow is innovative, and man its ropes. Not a whole lot to innovate there. Her crossbar is a great offer and really works. Beautifully done spectra handles. That neat tie off at the loops Masterline now uses also on its top ropes. She is always looking to improve the product. In-tow is pretty much a one-woman shop and will make a rope any way you want, half loops, additional loops, only to -28 and the like. With great care and great accuracy. Every rope is to order so you won't see her products at your local ski shop. But you will find them on the docks across the country and the world. As a small operation pretty sure she has no budget for advertising. Her product does her advertising for her. BTW, you getting off your WONE and on a Radar, Connelly, DBSkis, Goode, HO Syndicate, Mapple, or O'Brien any time soon? When it comes to support for competitive skiing with sponsorship and innovation over the years gotta give it to Goode.

I don't understand why it "needs to be either an elite event where it crowns the best of the best, or it needs to be a festival." Why can't it be both? I can't seem to see the reasoning here. Just because a festival is going on doesn't mean there can't be serious competition also. Every Nationals I have been to the skiing for the win seemed extremely good and very serious in every event I watched, the Open Men's particularly. Not sure how the mid-pack and bottom pack skiers degraded the top skiing. Quite sure how those lesser skiers contributed to the event though, great bunch of skiers interacting with other skiers they never otherwise would meet, volume to bring vendors, more money to sponsoring club and community.

@OB1 :) Not sure how you took that from my post, meh. But @JeffSurdej is posting and soliciting for BOS'ers opinions on BOS now. Lots of on the fence potential tournaments skiers lurking. Perhaps more influence in mindshare than it should have. Just wanted the give the conversation a kick.

This whole thread has taken a turn to the absurd. The Level 10 rule is a rule in of its self, it stands on its own. It simply shuffles around a very few (relative to numbers of AWSA skiers) at the very top. It is nothing else. It is not "ability based" for the masses. It does not give "average joes" or "mid field skiers" a shot at podiums. It does nothing to promote new members (very few people out there deep -39 and shorter to add as members) Projecting wishes and desires for change on it does not change what it is. It is a reshuffling of the top half of current Level 9. Nothing more. In of its self and standing alone I think this is a bad rule. I have not seen a clear explanation of why it is needed, what it is supposed to accomplish and what the affected skiers think about it.

+1 for what Chet said. As usual he puts it very well with clear understanding. I don't understand kicking people out of their division because they are too good. WTF? It's just a moving target. Get rid of the top 10 in division and the next 10 just kick ass. In M4-M5 the other 290+ skiers don't have any more chance of winning than they did before. So do we then kick the next 10 up to MM because they are now too good? The number 9 and 10 guys just went from being competitive in their division to unlikely in MM, and the number 11 guy, a lesser skier, just went to likely champ. By a rule, not by dedication, effort and/or skill. My first tourny in FL I went off the dock right after Kyle Tate. He went .5 at 41. With my little 3 or 4 @35 at the time was I disheartened, intimidated? No. I thought it was awesome! Incredible to be on the dock get to see that, inspiring. (Used top 10 for example, the rule is in place and yet the bump is still unknown. WTF)

+1 for what Chet said. As usual he puts it very well with clear understanding. I don't understand kicking people out of their division because they are too good. WTF? It's just a moving target. Get rid of the top 10 in division and the next 10 just kick ass. In M4-M5 the other 290+ skiers don't have any more chance of winning than they did before. So do we then kick the next 10 up to MM because they are now too good? The number 9 and 10 guys just went from being competitive in their division to unlikely in MM, and the number 11 guy, a lesser skier, just went to likely champ. By a rule, not by dedication, effort and/or skill. My first tourny in FL I went off the dock right after Kyle Tate. He went .5 at 41. With my little 3 or 4 @35 at the time was I disheartened, intimidated? No. I thought it was awesome! Incredible to be on the dock get to see that, inspiring. (Used top 10 for example, the rule is in place and yet the bump is still unknown. WTF)

Check every time. Usually nothing but frogs and lizards occasionally. If I didn't leave them out in the screen room....

Check every time. Usually nothing but frogs and lizards occasionally. If I didn't leave them out in the screen room....

@elr no worries. But hey, your reading the thread. What do you think regarding the OP? We need your input!

@JeffSurdej Thanks for the post detailing exactly why we need 8K members, how that affects seats and why we should care. This thread and others lately have me rethinking my position on AWSA/USAWS. Seems USAWS demands ultimate control (nats, ect), takes the majority of our money yet pushes all the work and expenses off to AWSA (with its unpaid, underappreciated volunteers). So what does USAWS really do for AWSA? What AWSA does and cedes to USAWS is measurable ($) and specific (control of our nat's with closed contracts, ect). Is anything USAWS does for AWSA measurable and specific? And if so, is that worth what AWSA gives to USAWS? Was never a proponent of AWSA breaking from USAWS but for me that view is changing. Perhaps AWSA would be better served by separating from USAWS. Seems AWSA could afford a couple full time people. We are paying what, 40% of 6 or so people? Seems a couple paid dedicated AWSA people plus the hardworking volunteers would be much more beneficial to AWSA than paying USAWS for employees who only slough everything AWSA off on our unpaid volunteers.