L10 35+ only M3 and M4?

LeonLLeonL Posts: 1,900 Crazy Baller
After reading the news item on USAWS website, I see that only M3 and M4 will be impacted by the L10 ruling. I wonder why not M5? Currently there are 6 skiers in M5 with scores (108) that qualify them for L10 and mandatory inclusion on MM.
Leon Leonard Stillwater Lake KY - SR Driver SR Judge
«1

Comments

  • John BrooksJohn Brooks Posts: 270 Crazy Baller
    I also wonder why this rule is worth implementing with so little impact?
  • skibugskibug Posts: 1,882 Crazy Baller
    yea....me too!!
    Bob Grizzi
  • MISkierMISkier Posts: 1,854 Mega Baller
    @LeonL, I believe they are using M3, M4, and MM scores to do the calculation for Senior Men cutoff scores for L9 and L10. They are subsequently applying that cutoff across all divisions M3 and up. They just did the calculation from a smaller pool. Those 6 skiers in M5 would be included in L10.

    That is my understanding. There are others than can confirm or refute this.
    The worst slalom equipment I own is between my ears.
    nleuth
  • LeonLLeonL Posts: 1,900 Crazy Baller
    I guess I misread.
    Leon Leonard Stillwater Lake KY - SR Driver SR Judge
  • Jody_SealJody_Seal Posts: 2,150 Mega Baller
    Like the Zero based scoring this level 10 will be short lived. Mandating a skier to ski in an elite division will only drive more members away.. This was not well received in the southern region. Another personal agenda item from the top of the AWSA food chain.
    Hobby Boats can be expensive when the hobbyist is limited on their own skill and expertise.


    sunperch
  • dave2balldave2ball Posts: 344 Baller
    @Jody_Seal if the MM were forced to stay there division at regionals and nationals wouldn't that increase the numbers in M3/M4 skiers into the regionals and nationals? At least some people may feel they have a shot.
    Dave Macchi / Nautique promo team member
  • LeonLLeonL Posts: 1,900 Crazy Baller
    edited March 18
    @GK, I don't know who's fault it is that there are no M3 skiers in KY. As for me I give free entry to anyone skiing their first tournament and offer GR with a mulligan in every round. Could be there just isn't any skiers in that age group. Nevertheless, when you get all those extra buoys that moves you up 20 spots and get to Nationals, good luck skiing up to your seed. Now, I don't intend that to sound mean spirited, but you get my point. EDIT. Oops!! Posted to wrong thread. Maybe it will be seen by those interested. Too lazy to repost in correct thread.
    Leon Leonard Stillwater Lake KY - SR Driver SR Judge
  • Chad_ScottChad_Scott Posts: 357 Open or 55K Rated Skier
    Haha @OB1 Yes too busy adding to a rule book because that's the key to bringing people to the sport. Good luck with zoning board. Places like yours do increase exposure for the sport and hopefully you will have plenty of new members. Build it. They will come (after u do all the work). See you in wpb
    [Deleted User]
  • LeonLLeonL Posts: 1,900 Crazy Baller
    Okeehelee has been there for quite a while. I wonder if that could even happen in today's world.
    Leon Leonard Stillwater Lake KY - SR Driver SR Judge
    ToddLMrs_MS
  • Jody_SealJody_Seal Posts: 2,150 Mega Baller
    To mandate a 60 year old to ski against a 36 year old is bad for the sport period! A better idea would have optional yet if one selects to ski at the Elite level they stay there for one ski year.
    Also the mandatory division is not well balanced as scores for slalom inclusion is pretty much on par with world standings list in all world age group rankings list's .Jump and trick are far from the same percentages off the world standings list. Mandatory elite inclusion for men1-2 is 187' under new rule! How can a 5 and a half jumper be competitive with a world class 6' elite/ pro jumper?
    Would hope the AWSA leadership will re
    address this policy before more members bow out or even jump ship to another organization.

    Viva La Revolution!
    Hobby Boats can be expensive when the hobbyist is limited on their own skill and expertise.


    sunperchBruce_Butterfield
  • klindyklindy Posts: 1,910 Mega Baller
    Fully agree with @Chad_Scott!! There's another thread around here where I suggested something similar with knowing where EVERY lake is and having a clear and worthwhile advocacy strategy to protect AND GROW public and private waterways throughout the US. Great comments Chad, couldn't have said it better!
    Keith Lindemulder
    AWSA Vice President
    GWaterski
  • MISkierMISkier Posts: 1,854 Mega Baller
    edited March 20
    @Jody_Seal, if a person of a certain age can achieve a score/rating worthy a certain division, why is it an issue that another person of a substantially different age achieves that same score/ranking and the two are participating in the same competitive division simultaneously at a tournament?

    Let's assume we have the elite division even adhering to the traditional max speed for MM, or Open, or whatever was in place before any discussion of ZBS. For example, in MM, is the 34 mph faster or slower, depending on the age of the skier being pulled at that 34 mph speed? When the rope is on the green loop for each skier, does the older skier have a longer or shorter rope?

    If both skiers have the ability to achieve comparable performances, why should the number of times the Earth has circled the Sun before their respective births be an issue?
    The worst slalom equipment I own is between my ears.
    skierjp
  • MISkierMISkier Posts: 1,854 Mega Baller
    I also agree with @Chad_Scott that public water access is a mammoth issue. In fact, the topic of course permitting and restrictions was just discussed at a local water ski governance meeting recently.
    The worst slalom equipment I own is between my ears.
  • Chad_ScottChad_Scott Posts: 357 Open or 55K Rated Skier
    Along with skiing I play in a flag football league There's s reason I play in the 35 and older groups. While on some days we might be able to play with my sons team There is a reason the leagues are divided by ages as well. Lots of strong opinions on here about competition. I sure hope all you guys with strong opinions back them up by showing up at regionals and nationals. If you have such strong opinions about competing make sure your ass is standing on the dock when it matters. During the survey more than half of those in favor don't ski in regionals and nationals. So I'm sure with alll these strong opinions on here there will be an increase in attendance at nationals. @MISkier look forward to seeing you there as well
  • MISkierMISkier Posts: 1,854 Mega Baller
    I have to qualify first. That is the reason I haven't been there.
    The worst slalom equipment I own is between my ears.
  • MISkierMISkier Posts: 1,854 Mega Baller
    edited March 20
    One other thing @Chad_Scott: I do have a sense of competition against different age groups. We do it every year in the Ability Series. I know it does not have the prestige of Regionals or Nationals, but we are on the dock, nonetheless. We don't even go by raw buoy count or match speed, we just consider passes with a specific rope length.

    I have gotten beat by teenage girls and boys and by guys approaching 70. I still enjoyed it and never felt it was a mismatch, as we each had achieved a comparable ability level. I even enjoyed moving from one ability division to another, even if I got shellacked there. It was achievement and progression that fostered my competition with myself.

    My Ability Series medals (for the rare occasions when I placed) are the only ones that I have for water skiing and I was happy to receive them.

    I would like the ability groupings to be by buoy count, no matter which speed and rope length combination is used to accumulate that score. But, the current method is OK.
    The worst slalom equipment I own is between my ears.
    Splasheye
  • sunperchsunperch Posts: 196 Solid Baller
    +1 @Chad_Scott My kids said they will quit skiing if they have to compete against adults. They said it would be no fun . There are far too few kids skiing as it is, all my kids want to do is ski hard and have fun with their friends at tournaments. We traveled to Alabama from KS so our kids could ski with friends over spring break, friends they made from attending Nationals.
    The question has still never been answered - what are we trying to accomplish by changing the rule book? I don't think that these changes will increase membership, all it is doing is making the majority of current active core of skiers mad. A lack of a real answer leads me to believe that it is a way for some to increase their rankings by getting rid of some of the better competition. Same with ZBS, a way to increase bouy count by overspeeding because they could not get it done with traditional scoring.
    Bruce_ButterfieldsantangeloMrs_MS
  • Chad_ScottChad_Scott Posts: 357 Open or 55K Rated Skier
    We are trying to make it easy for some to podium. Plain and simple. Anyone that believes rules rules rules will increased participation has lost their minds. Or it's some of the same people and mentality that have watched as the membership dwindled maybe that's the point fewer participants maybe I can podium finally What happened to work hard with dedication.

    As I said in another post. Access is the key. Our efforts need to be spent attracting new members not pissing off the existing
    ski6jones
  • MISkierMISkier Posts: 1,854 Mega Baller
    edited March 20
    I think my attempt to relate to competing across multiple age groups (with the only example I have) became misconstrued as a proposal to do it that way always. The Ability Series is a side competition, not the main method at the tournaments. But, there may still be a need for ability-based segmentation without going to the extreme example I had.

    The better example, which I didn't get to experience, is the Cold Water Shootout class F tournament we had a couple of years ago. Invitations were to men's skiers with averages above 95. Head-to-head competitions with score-based seeding. I think our age range was something like 16 to 63 or 64. 34 mph and 36 mph. At the end, we had a skier in their 50s, a skier in their 60s, and a skier in their 20s on the podium. The competition was tight, the weather was awful (50 water, 40 air, 20+ mph wind). 38 was run multiple times. To my knowledge, nobody declined the invitation because of the age gap. And, the really young guys didn't appear to be upset that they lost. I think everyone was happy to ski among some solid competitors, whether they just got their driver's license, their AARP card, or their Medicare application.
    The worst slalom equipment I own is between my ears.
  • klindyklindy Posts: 1,910 Mega Baller
    I'll say this again ... Whether ZBS is enacted or not, slalom, trick and jump are all judged and scored the same way and a "final score" is the same whether the ranking list is based on levels (as-is) or ability-based. In other words, we currently have a big batch of scores and they are first sorted by age (M1, M2, M3, etc) and then score (level 10, 9, 8, etc). We can just as easily sort by scores only (pure ability based).

    OR we can sort some subset of ages first then score (Juniors, men/women, seniors, vets). Make the "age" groups as large or as small as make sense. Basically this is IDENTICAL to what we do today but we go back to larger age groups - anyone who's been around for 20+ years would remember the age groups. MM/MW and Open could be calculated the same as today or, be incorporated into the larger age groups and simply be just the top ability-based grouping.

    Tournaments too can be run anyway the site wants to run them. Grouping by ability (within any or all age groups) can be done today! The speeds are the same, rope the same length and buoy scores judged the same. Even the baseline "starting speed and rope length" can be adjusted after the fact (as it is today since IWWF and AWSA have different starting rope lengths.
    Keith Lindemulder
    AWSA Vice President
    MISkiersunperch
  • BRYBRY Posts: 534 Crazy Baller
    So from the FAQ from the news on the front page of www.usawaterski.org the L10 cutoff is set to the following:

    EM - Open Men (M1-M2) 114 (6@39) 7400 pts 199–6’–35, 187-5.5’-35 2906 NOPS
    EW - Open Women 99 (3@38) 5690 pts
    SM - Masters Men (M3+) 108 (6@39) 4930 pts
    SW - Masters Women 97.5 (1.5@38)

    Level 10 FAQ Page

    They really need to update the FAQ page off the Ranking List, where this should be. Still has just Level 9 stuff there. But does reference ZBS....
  • BRYBRY Posts: 534 Crazy Baller
    edited March 22
    If this rule is about getting more people to Regionals and Nationals, looking at it through a 2016 lens, it's kind of stupid and moot as applied.

    For M1 & M2 all those with a 114+ who skied did ski Open at Nationals. There would have been no change with the M1 & M2 competitors or results with this rule.

    For M3 the winner would have been bumped with his 108.17 average so at Nats everyone in M3 would have moved up 1 spot.

    For M4 the 2nd place would have been bumped with his 108.00 average so at Nats everyone in M4 would have moved up 1 spot. The winner had an average of 107.50 so he would remain in L9.

    For M5 no change in results.

    For M6 the winner would have been bumped with his 108.17 so at Nats everyone in M6 would have moved up 1 spot.

    The guys getting bumped are not Pro's or ex-Pro's, nor crushing the rest of the podium.
    I just don't see how this, as implemented, will bring in anyone new much less enough new people to move the needle at all.

    Skiers with a 110 to 113.99 and a 104 to 107.99 are still in the stratosphere of those who go to Nats. Ensuring they are on or at the top of the podium by rule does nothing for the sport, nothing. If were going to have it, give it some teeth and some effect. Put the bump at 110.1 and 104.1 (an average of anything over 2@39). Consistently past 2 ball @-39 is a big deal. Make the real -39 skiers all ski it out, have a top group with more than a handful of skiers. Put the podium in range of -38 skiers, there's a bunch of them and more out in the country to pick up.
    Bruce_ButterfieldMISkierRichardDoane
  • klindyklindy Posts: 1,910 Mega Baller
    @BRY All that is true. But the 3% cut off for level 10 this year can simply be adjusted to 5 or 6 or 7% next year. Establishing the framework may not be the last step.
    Keith Lindemulder
    AWSA Vice President
    MISkier
  • eleeskieleeski Posts: 3,035 MM Trick Skier / Eccentric Person
    MM
  • eleeskieleeski Posts: 3,035 MM Trick Skier / Eccentric Person
    edited March 22
    MM tricks at Nationals last year was 3 people. MM slalom was small as well. So many skiers are qualified but the events draw badly. Maybe it's because the slalom was off on the practice lake late. No idea why tricks was so small. I don't even know if there was MM jump - it certainly wasn't a featured event. It's been like this for years.

    Making MM mandatory might make the event big enough to give it some respectability. Maybe people will come to Nationals to watch the top skiers compete with one another. It's something to try at least. Note, they come to watch Big Dawg.

    Eric
    MISkier
  • LeonLLeonL Posts: 1,900 Crazy Baller
    @rico I don't read it that way. ZBS, yes at discretion of LOC. L10, I don't see that to be discretionary.
    Leon Leonard Stillwater Lake KY - SR Driver SR Judge
«1
Sign In or Register to comment.

Not sure how to deal with a long link?