Graduating Skier/Scoring Rule

PurdueSkier

Can someone please help me understand the reasoning behind the graduating skier rule for scoring? This year I transitioned from M2 to M3 and my max speed dropped to 34 mph. My current ranking includes both 2016 tournaments (36 mph) and 2017 tournaments (34 mph). My average didn't match what I thought it should, until I read further and found that all M2 scores (even though listed at full value) are actually reduced by 6 when calculating the M3 average.

According the FAQ section on the ranking list:
Graduating Skiers: For the Rolling 12 Month timeframe, those skiers who have changed Age Divisions during that period will be shown in their new Age Division. In most instances, performances recorded in the previous age division will be equivalent and will contribute to the skier's rankings in their new age division. Where the maximum slalom boat speed in the new Age Division is lower than the old one, those scores will be adjusted in accordance with AWSA rule 10.06(c) to be compatible with the new Age Division.

According to Rule 10.06c
A skier may elect to start at a speed higher than his division maximum speed, up to his respective Open Division maximum speed, and may not return to his division maximum speed on subsequent passes. Any passes skied at that higher speed shall receive credit for buoys as though they were being run at his division maximum speed.

I don't understand the logic here. I thought the reason for all starting speeds to be consistent is that a score of 94 is a score of 94 regardless of what division it was scored in.

ToddL

Total buoy scores are counted from a static starting speed 25kph (15.5mph) and long line. Since max speeds vary, 2 @ -28 is represented by many diff total buoy counts due to diff max speeds.

ToddL

Quick buoy counting chart

ToddL

Personally, I'd prefer a method where [email protected] -28 is always the same buoy count.

Horton

@PurdueSkier

I like round numbers so....

100 balls = 4 @ 38 at 34 mph
106 balls = 4 @ 38 at 36 mph

When you are at 36 any line length is worth an additional 6 balls.

Your number score may have gone down but your balls and some line length is kept. Since your future scores should go up at a lower speed I do not see what you could be unhappy about (except a little confusion).

PurdueSkier

@Horton The issue is when going the other way, you lose 6 balls on a score you already have:

Here are my current scores

94 @ 34 mph = 4 @ 35 off
93 @ 36 mph = 3 @ 32 off
92 @ 34 mph = 2 @ 35 off

Current average SHOULD be 93 (94+93+92/3)

However, what rule 10.06c says is that my M2 score of 93 ([email protected] off @ 36 mph) is actually carried over to M3 as an 87 ([email protected] off @ 34 mph). My average is a 91 (94+87+92/3).

Horton

yea that is right. Trust me, soon enough you will have 3 scores mid 35 and you will not care anymore.

PurdueSkier

@Horton Hopefully that happens and it won't matter. My 32s are now very consistent. It just seems like a strange rule that scores are carried over at a penalty. Not sure why a score of 93 just doesn't stay as a 93.

Horton

@PurdueSkier I totally follow your issue but from a design perspective I think the lists less problematic the way they're designed. If they did it the other way around and you didn't ski better with the speed change you would have an inflated average.

Drago

[email protected] / 34 mph
[email protected] / 36 mph
Makes sense--Most people are at or near 1 pass better at one slower speed.

PurdueSkier

@Drago @ToddL Thanks for the comments, but I think my point is being missed. I completely understand and agree with the scoring in M2 and M3 and understand the quick buoy chart. My issue is that scores remain relevant for 12 months. When I moved from M2 to M3 my scores I already had in the score book were all reduced by 6. The quick buoy chart no longer applies.

my current score of 93 from a run of 3 @32/36 mph is now an 87. I am not talking about running 3 @32/34 mph in a new tournament, I am talking about existing scores.

To put it another way, the day after Nationals, my top 3 score average went down by 6 balls without me skiing in any tournaments.

LeonL

Your point may been missed, but I don't think so. At least not to me. Your concern is the presumed loss of 6 buoys off your average. I don't know any way to better explain the situation than has already been brought forth. Let me try however. Scores at 36 carry an additional 6 buoys just due to the fact that starting at 15.5 (as @ToddL mentioned) and adding 6 for every pass completed then you get an extra 6 over 34. That was Mr. Obvious time. You can't just carry over that extra 6 going into a 34 division due the rule you quoted, 10.06c. The last sentence in your first post is true, 94 is 94 no matter what speed, it's just what it takes to get the 94. You have to run [email protected] @ 34 and only [email protected] @ 36 to score 94. (@Drago made a slight mistake in quoting the scores.) Some say you'll score 6 more at 34, like its automatic or something. I can tell you that not everyone does that. Since you mentioned that you have tournament scores for 2017 at 34, what are those scores?

ToddL

Just FYI...

Max Speed	Buoy Count for 6 at Max at LL	Buoy Count Adjustment to normalize to 34MPH	Divisions in this situation
46KPH (28MPH)	48	18	W9, W10
49KPH (30MPH)	54	12	B1, G1, M8, M9, M10, M11, W7, W8
52KPH (32MPH)	60	6	G2, W5, W6, M7
55KPH (34MPH)	66	0	B2, G3, M3, M4, M5, M6, MM, W1, W2, W3, W4, OW
58KPH (36MPH)	72	-6	B3, M1, M2, OM

Than_Bogan

I think the rule is simply the most conservative possible way to map the scores. It's not completely clear how a score at 36 should map to a score at 34.

What is clear is that 36 is harder than 34, so nobody can question getting credit as if you were at 34.

Naturally, I have invented a formula that I think maps scores between 36 and 34 fairly accurately. And you just happen to be at the point where the mapping is roughly a full 6 buoys (basically my formula claims that 34/-35 and 36/-32 are of equal difficulty). However, that doesn't apply in all ranges, so the only "safe" thing the rule could do is give you credit for the balls you actually skied rather than trying to translate them to a different speed.

This would probably be a much hotter issue if not for the fact that you (or anyone in your spot) will have plenty of good 34 scores before long.

PurdueSkier

@Than_Bogan Thanks Than. I agree, I am not sure a better way to carry the scores over, unless you just carried them over as-is. I had not thought about how it relates at different line lengths. This really only impacts a few skiers each year and once you have more scores in the spring shouldn't matter.

Edbrazil

Not everyone likes going down from 36 to 34. I remember Jim McCormick saying that he
preferred 36. More recently, Jamie Beauchesne turned 35, and could have skied in M3
or MM, but didn't like 34.
For me, I picked up 2 shortline passes going to 34 and never looked back. 36 was scary
for me. However, I did have some quirky skis that were out to slam you.

ToddL

Additionally, Class C Junior skiers this year had the option of shorting the rope before max speed and would get 6 buoys per rope shortening upon running a pass.

So, a Class C Junior skier who starts at say 28 MPH -22 and runs the opener would have 48 buoys last year, but has 60 buoys this year (48 + 6 for 15 off + 6 more for 22 off).

The total buoy counts for those skiers is all messed up when compared to prior years and when mixed with E/L/R events, which do not recognize the line until after running max speed.

Not sure if the rankings address this currently.

Drago

I can't read this thread well because it trickles off the side of the page and I have to guess at 1/3 of your words ( it's really irritating), but I'm going to guess your M2 [email protected] is over a year ago. @PurdueSkier

ToddL

@Drago - width issue was likely due to the table I posted. I edited the table to make it skinny. Please let me know if that helped.

PurdueSkier

@Drago No, my [email protected] was from state tournament 2016. That is my point. M2 scores are reduced by 6, then carried over to M3 rankings.

Horton

Same concept as Zero based scoring. 3 @ 32 36mph = 3 @ 35 34mph

Than_Bogan

@Horton That's exactly what @PurdueSkier is "complaining" is not happening. 3 @ -32/36 is counted as 3 @ -32/34 for these particular purposes.

Horton

@Than_Bogan Yea yea.... I was not clear above.

Looking at his scores one more event and he will not care. It is not a perfect system but I am not sure how else you would do it. In terms of skill 3 @ 32 36mph is roughly the same as 3 @ 35 34mph

Drago

@ToddL if that was the reason, that was the solution! @PurdueSkier I see now, you got ripped off.. get used to it. personally, I think the new kid's class C rule should be across the board for all divisions.
From 35 to around 46 yrs, old, I used to ski 36 at E and above tourneys,even regionals, to get or keep my open rating (didn't matter what you did in Cs, many pro tours were class C, and open rating rules have been all over the place), never got credit for skiing 1.8 mph faster.

lagdawg

I had the same thing happen to me, though where it really hurt was overall scores. My case was slightly different though. All my scores were at 36 LL because I could run 34-15 consistently but just couldn't run 36 in a tournament to save my life. No all my scores are showing up at 34 LL when I had actually run 34-15 to even get that score. So at a minimum my scores should have been at 34-15.

So far both tournaments I've skied since moving up I've run 22 and I feel like I'll be knocking down some 28's next year so it's kind of moot point there. But my overall scores were lowered enough that I moved out of level 8. Where as with scores at 34-15 I would have been in level 8. I don't have any 3 event scores since moving up but I should be able to get my average back up. Especially if I can run a 28 in a tourney sometime.

Than_Bogan

@lagdawg Indeed, I think most agree that 36/-15 is considerably harder than 34/-22. That's an example where even a "direct" conversion of the ZBS buoy count would underrate your true capability at 34. (Naturally, my formula accommodates this .)
But for those elite folks running -39 at 36, it doesn't necessarily seem to translate to running -41 at 34, so at that end the raw ZBS buoys count probably would overrate their true capability at 34.

Not much to be done, I'm afraid. Even I can't recommend the use of my formula, because it's purely heuristical, and each skier will handle the transition differently. The only "safe" thing is to recognize that 36 is harder than 34, so you get the same-rope-length buoys carried over. Then to find out what a skier can actually do at 34, measure them skiing at 34!