Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

______________
12" White Stickers
______________
BallOfSpray $5 Donation
______________
BallOfSpray $10 Donation

What boat rules have gone to far for class C tournaments?

WishWish Posts: 7,314 ★★★Triple Panda Award Recipient ★★★
To a point brought up on another thread, Why do we need ZO as a mandated entity for class C tournaments vs including all the way back to PP days (which by the way ..prob won't get used)? Why do we have only late model boats as options to use? Why not allow gear all the way back to 1997 if that's what's available? In 1997, were the AWSA rules just that out of touch for class C?

It's been said that the latest tugs make better ski machines and increase skier performance. The slalom records have been broken yr after yr in evidence of this. So that should make PP and older boats harder to ski behind right?? Shave a buoy or 2 off an average score. If so then why the wall? What are those boat rules really for when it comes to a class C?.

Should we restrict skiers to only late model skis and boots in tournaments? Seems as illogical. I have a friend who can smoke 39 on his Monza (not @MS) with Willey raps. Should he be forced to upgrade to a 1 or 2 yr old ski if he skis tournaments to make it fare or equitable.?

How are boat restrictions outside of AWSA boat qualifications back in 1997 a good thing for sport growth?

One could speculate that the more boat options out there for tournament use, the greater the potential for new or more tournaments in areas that will be affected by the promo problems or worse.

The above is targeted to open a discussion. My comments and questions may or may not reflect how I feel or what I know. Rather they are to spark conversation, your opinion and questions.
And, it's winter in many parts soooo....
>>> 11.25..a different kettle of fish. <<<
jcampWaterSkier12Bruce_ButterfieldthagerToddA
«1

Comments

  • skierjpskierjp Posts: 609 Crazy Baller
    I'm not going to pay $100 to ski a tournament with a 20 year old boat. I'm all about the new boats but that's kind of what I do, LOL
    Drago
  • WishWish Posts: 7,314 ★★★Triple Panda Award Recipient ★★★
    edited December 2017
    @skierjp you live on FL. You don't have too. Sorta referring to the none ski capital of the world type places. $100 for a class C?? Heck, I won't pay that for a class C. Not sure if that's the going price but if a local guy can put up an older boat, perhaps the need for higher cost Cs won't be needed.

    @Horton.. mah. I can find a letter/number combo that puts me right at and sometimes above my average in practice. Can also find one that will kill me. I suspect if PP skiers could spend some decent time playing with settings they could come close to, as you suggest, the ease of PP. I suspect a good chunk of PP owners never get that opportunity. Took me a good bit of time to find what I really liked. The boats back then tracked worse, several had worse wakes so that may make up for performance being easier?? My assersions mostly reflect what may get people talking. Maybe and maybe not the way I feel or what I know. More accurate times...can't argue with that. And yes to skier of the day vs skier on a list for PP. Retool the whole mindset...in what ways? That may actually make for a better discussion or did you just mean skier of the day vs a number on a rankings list? With dwindling promo boats and the folks left being less likely to drive longer distance to a tournament in states that are not TX FL and Cal...what's the alternative?

    >>> 11.25..a different kettle of fish. <<<
    Than_Boganjcamp
  • bigskieridahobigskieridaho Posts: 872 Crazy Baller
    I can say that I owned a PP boat which was fine. However, getting pulled behind that boat and then skiing in a tourney behind a ZO boat just wasn’t comparable. Sold it, and now own a ZO boat for that reason. The accuracy and pull of ZO is awesome and it would be like going from a new BMW compared to a classic car. PP is doable, but the boats have moved on. Just my .02
    6ballsBG1Hortonskierjp
  • WishWish Posts: 7,314 ★★★Triple Panda Award Recipient ★★★
    @jcamp. Giving it my best shot...haha.
    >>> 11.25..a different kettle of fish. <<<
    jcamp
  • MillerTime38MillerTime38 Posts: 278 Crazy Baller
    edited December 2017
    @Wish I hear ya and agree mostly. Haven’t run a 38 in practice (behind pp) since probably September showed up at lake 38 for tourney in December and hammered a 38 first round. My practice scores are comparable to tourney scores, I find that if you are in good position behind boat, keep your hips up and counter at the buoy it really doesn’t matter what is pulling you down the lake.

    Also I ski on a D3 x7 (well over 1000 sets) so I better go pick up a new stick and a new boat
    Wishski6jones
  • 6balls6balls Posts: 4,876 ★★★Triple Panda Award Recipient ★★★
    Becoming less of an issue now that ZO boats can be had 10 yrs old.

    ZO is a good system and to train for tourneys I'm sure it is helpful to train on it...that just hasn't been me so far mostly due to expense.

    It would be detrimental to change speed control now as ZO boats in the used market become more affordable...so I hope that does not happen.

    I do think for class "C" a variety of older ZO boats should be allowed...having said that there may be many high end amateurs that wouldn't feel that was good enough. Conundrum.

    I have no problem running any behind a ZO factory hull. (no problem @thager behind your SN either just opens a can of worms on what's allowed).
    Dave Ross--die cancer die
    Wishthager
  • lpskierlpskier Posts: 2,195 Mega Baller
    @skierjp Three round Class C slalom in NY is $50. Three rounds of slalom, two each trick and jump for $75, and dinner is included in the entry fee.
    John Wilkins- Si non pro sanguine quem ludus ne. #iskiconnelly
    Wishaupatkingadkh2oskier
  • dave2balldave2ball Posts: 457 Solid Baller
    If a tournament is going to run a boat with PP or PP WITH Z box I would hope that they would put that I’m the comments. I would be courteous to see how many people enter knowingly. The unknown issues are what kind of condition is the boat in???
  • HortonHorton Posts: 25,654 Administrator
    edited December 2017
    @dave2ball I am not the kind of guy that would do this but.... If I was willing increase my ranking list score at all costs I would look for events that use PP boats.

    Support BallOfSpray by supporting the companies that support BallOfSpray

    Babes / Connelly / D3 / DBSkis / Goode / Hobe Lake / HO Syndicate / KD Skis  

    MasterCraft / Masterline / MOB / O'Brien / Performance Ski and Surf / Reflex / Radar / Stokes

  • dave2balldave2ball Posts: 457 Solid Baller
    edited December 2017
    @lpskier so what are you saying?? you mention 3 Rounds of slalom in NY cost 50.00 and you get dinner. Yet you promote skiing your tournaments in fla that cost 150.00 for 2 rounds of slalom class C and no dinner. If that because you have a promo boat here in fla vs a non promo in NY? Sounds hypocritical
    Would you spend 150.00 for 2 rounds of class C here in Florida if you had a boat with PP?????
    WishBruce_Butterfield
  • WishWish Posts: 7,314 ★★★Triple Panda Award Recipient ★★★
    edited December 2017
    @dave2ball all good points re older boats but again, what's an alternative to dwindling promo programs and other barriers coming down the pike??. Especially in areas of the county that are down to one or none in promo boats? Is it a "to bad so sad" kind of sentiment?? Have we squeezed ourselves a little to much with boat rules and made it all even more elitist? If we need an asterisk next to a name of a guy that ran a PP boat..I'm ok with that. Let that guy slide up the rankings. Good luck at States, Regionals or Nationals. But odds are, skiers that choose an older boat/cruise system because there is now actually a tournament close by where there never was one before won't be bothering with States, Reg or Nats. @Horton, have at those rankings with PP but you're not "that guy" as you say and would not take advantage of it. I'd say most if not all skiers are like you in that regard. Just some food for thought and to spark more debate.

    Point being a binary choice of outside the box thinking to expand and make the tournament scene more accessible or stick with status quo and toss in some more restriction and narrow the accessibility even more. Has that not been the complaint from most everybody with regards to dwindling participation in tournaments? . Kinda a cut a dry choice.
    >>> 11.25..a different kettle of fish. <<<
  • aupatkingaupatking Posts: 1,057 Mega Baller
    I think the increase in tournaments needs to happen at the class F level, where PP boats can be used. It is class F, right? I think once we get to class C, and obviously above, ZO should be the standard.
    It should just be easier to hold tournaments. AWSA should be helping, nay, bending over backwards to help, anyone willing to put on such a tournament.
    They should be helping, or launching their own initiative to help get clubs started. The lower classes bring in the new people. Class C is great, but that means trying to mix in Grass Roots skiers, which is difficult for the judges, officials, and drivers to keep up with who gets mulligans and the such. There should be tournaments where everyone gets a certain number of passes, make or fail. That could be factored into scoring, if a skier runs up the line at his speed, that’s a real score. I get that the time would increase, greatly, for the boat returning to fallen skiers, but that has to be factored in to the number of skier limit on the tournament.
    I like your question @Wish, I just think that class C is what it should be.
    skierjpMISkierBruce_Butterfield
  • DragoDrago Posts: 1,249 Mega Baller
    @Wish seems boat restrictions have softened, no?
    @Wish and @dave2ball --get yourselves a spell check, check out the grammargirl podcast, something please!
    SR SL Judge & Driver (“a driver who is super late on the wheel and is out of sync”)
    ski6jonesjcampBruce_ButterfieldThan_Bogan
  • eleeskieleeski Posts: 3,617 MM Trick Skier / Eccentric Person
    I have never slalomed well behind any GPS version of PP. PP Classic has my top tournament scores but the drivers really knew it then. Stargazer has always felt horrible and the one Class F tournament with Zbox I'm blaming the boat for the sub par ride. I wouldn't knowingly go to a slalom tournament behind a Stargazer or Zbox boat.

    But I won't knowingly go to a trick tournament behind a Nautique 196 - and that's allowed now.

    I hope we do get informed of the boat options.

    Eric
    nzwaterski
  • WishWish Posts: 7,314 ★★★Triple Panda Award Recipient ★★★
    @drago yes it has but is it enough? Maybe it is. We will see I guess. Also fat thumbs and no auto correct. I ignore others typos and such and just assume the same. But will try to do better so it doesn't bug ya. ;)

    @aupatking Agree if there's enough ZO boat owners and promo guys to fill the class C need in the coming years or just expand on what we have. Hate to see less C tournaments. If participation in tournaments is down and boats are harder to come by in certain areas do to rules and promo boat trends, then that's a big problem.
    >>> 11.25..a different kettle of fish. <<<
  • aupatkingaupatking Posts: 1,057 Mega Baller
    Yeah, @Wish I know our nearest Nautique promo guy is in Nashville, 7 hours north of here. We had to use a lake resident’s boat at the last Class C at Ski Watch. I’m pretty sure every boat onsite there is a ZO boat though.
  • dave2balldave2ball Posts: 457 Solid Baller
    @lpskier I appreciate the long explanation. I live and ski in fla. I know the drill well.
    My point was or is reguardless of what boat comes to the tournament the price would still remain the same for C tournaments or even may increase because the TC should compensate the boat owner if it is a private party that runs his boat.
    dvskier
  • dave2balldave2ball Posts: 457 Solid Baller
    @Wish I get what you are saying. As usual it’s all about the money. I can’t speak for MC or Malibu’ programs but Nautique is putting boats where the majority of tournaments are. The are not worried about 1 or 2 tournaments in the middle of know where.
    Where should USA WATERSKI draw the line? I believe that the reason they AWSA picked 08 is because of ZO. that has really been the biggest change is skiing as far as boats go. If you include PP then why don’t we include hydrodyne twin riggs also which were used in the 70’s. USA WATERSKI was nice enough to allow boats back to 2008. We should be greatful.

    @Horton I do agree with you about PP. my best scores have been with ZO just because of improvement. I would like to see what I could do behind PP today.
    Wishski6jones
  • WishWish Posts: 7,314 ★★★Triple Panda Award Recipient ★★★
    @dave2ball any time you want a crack at PP, just let me know.
    >>> 11.25..a different kettle of fish. <<<
  • bishop8950bishop8950 Posts: 1,019 Open or 55K Rated Skier
    I still ski both in practice. PP feels easier. The older softer engines are easier. But when I am skiing well I can run at least the same scores behind ZO. I just have to be skiing better.

    Ultimately, I want to compete and I will ski behind whatever is there. These days the boats all feel different to me so sometimes I have to find the right make/engine combo to train behind. It’s a pain in the ass but I want to compete. I try to ski such that my style is less boat dependent but the boats still feel different.

    Back to @wish question, should we have PP boats in Class C? Not sure the reasons or politics not too but it would be fine with me. But if we want PP tournaments make it an F (I assume then PP is ok) or don’t sanction at all. Our club “the pond” has non sanctioned events and all the boats are PP. entry is about $25, we have fun formats and they are a great time. So rather than fight the governing body, I would just do my own thing. Maybe I should fight for the cause but not sure I have the energy on this one.
    aupatkingWishMillerTime38
  • aupatkingaupatking Posts: 1,057 Mega Baller
    I guess if the argument were “ZO is more accurate” why not go, any approved hull with ZO? I’d say a 98 196 repowered and ZO’d would be fine.
    ski6jonessunperchMISkierHorton
  • WishWish Posts: 7,314 ★★★Triple Panda Award Recipient ★★★
    @bishop8950 my question really isn't centered around PP as much as it is with rules pertaining to type of boats used. PP vs ZO is just easier for folks to debate I guess. The real question is if rules pertaining to tow boats for tournament use have been piled on over the years to the point where boat access is becoming to hard to come by in certain areas of the county. Could it become a much worse problem considering the insite into promo programs shrinking on another thread? What's a solution? Is using boats all the way back to 2008 enough??..maybe.
    >>> 11.25..a different kettle of fish. <<<
    Golfguy
  • dave2balldave2ball Posts: 457 Solid Baller
    @aupatking you are right. If irs a repowered 196 then awsa should make it legal for class C.
    Wish
  • eleeskieleeski Posts: 3,617 MM Trick Skier / Eccentric Person
    edited December 2017
    Repowered 79 American Skier?! Coming soon!

    I'll have to try for the exemption. Might be tough for an L tournament...

    Eric
    dchristmanMateo_VargasWishBruce_Butterfield
  • HortonHorton Posts: 25,654 Administrator
    If the sport as a whole pivoted away from the new boat mind set it would be a very good thing. We would also need to get away from a ranking list mindset.

    Unfortunately I think the Genie is out of the bottle. The rankings list is how skiers get their competitive fix. If the rankings list continues to be central to the sport then everything else needs to be as equal as possible from tournament to tournament across the country.

    Support BallOfSpray by supporting the companies that support BallOfSpray

    Babes / Connelly / D3 / DBSkis / Goode / Hobe Lake / HO Syndicate / KD Skis  

    MasterCraft / Masterline / MOB / O'Brien / Performance Ski and Surf / Reflex / Radar / Stokes

    MattP
  • gregygregy Posts: 2,456 Mega Baller
    edited December 2017
    There has to be balance of sustaining the sport, boat manufactures, and the tournaments. They're all intertwined and must each be considered for the continuation of the sport. I don't know what the answer is.

    Boats aren't like cars where they just wear out and need replacing so there are a lot of good older boats out there but seems like to me the promo boats have probably been the major of tournament boat sales. I talk to local dealers and I've have some tell me they can remember the last time they sold a direct drive. I don't think dealers are all the sudden going to sell more DD boats because some promo guys were cut. It more likely will help the used market in my opinion. It might be that the manufactures want more mold time for the higher profit boats. Either way looks like we are going to have to be more creative as for boat supply for tournaments. Older boats might be an answer for some.

    Malibu Response LX was still being offer up until last year by Malibu. So if you had a 98 repowered for ZO its the same things as a 2016 RLX in theory. I doubt to many people will complain about skiing behind a 99 196 with ZO.
  • dbutcherdbutcher Posts: 286 Solid Baller
    2008 with ZO is a very practical, common sense solution for right now. Leave it that way. In 2028 we can ski with 20 year old boats if we so choose.
    HortonBruce_Butterfield
«1
Sign In or Register to comment.