Addition to the Optional Class X format - gate scoring experiment

[jdarwin]

At the AWSA board meeting in two weeks, the board will vote to add the following to the optional Class X format: No gates - entrance or exit. The skier must simply be to the left of the 55's before making a move toward one ball and must be on the right side of the 55's at the exit end. This is an experimental format to allow sites to play around with the idea and submit the scores for analysis. Personally, I like any idea that eliminates the judging of the gates (since gates don't score) but I think this could be a fun format and I intend to add a 4th round to one of my Class C events in order to see what impact it has on scores. All scores from a Class X ARE NOT reflected on the rankings list - only submitted for analysis.

[Horton]

skier must simply be to the left of the 55's before making a move toward one ball

 

So the skier needs to be outside the left wake before making a move to the right? With enough attempts I am sure I could learn to drift softly from the left across the wakes and then basically do a short gate movement around one ball. It would take some time but if I could make one ball into a sort of "zero ball" and then two ball is my first ball under pressure that would be a whole new event. Sounds like a fun goof and or a totally different event.

 

I would tell a beginner to start in the white water to the left and then just pull out for one ball super early. This would work up to maybe 28 off I think. I sort of want to try it.

 

[Horton]

If the idea is to judge balls but stop judging gates how about if we add a Zero Ball in line with 2/4/6 and 82 meters from 2 ball (same distance as from 2 ball to 4 ball).

 

Instead of going through the gates the skier has to get around ball Zero. For a lot of shortline skiers this will result in almost the same path as going between that current gates. If you really want to stop judging gates but not change the sport this should be considered.

 

Oooo Ooo and if we want to stop judging exit gets we can add ball 7. The skier has to get to the right of ball 7 to move to the next pass and it will act as ball zero from the other direction.

 

@TFIN what do you think?

[Horton]

8 Ball

[bishop8950]

@jdarwin I love this proposed experiment

 

@horton shortline (38 and beyond) skiers would have a hard time going around a zero ball on the way to the gate. Been there. Exact breaking point will depend on RFF or LFF and speed but I used to round it at 28/32, hit it a 35, and inside it at 38.

[Horton]

@bishop8950

Imagine there are no gates.

 

 

[MattP]

@horton yeah 8 ball is funny. As someone who skis one everyday. I'm with @bishop8950. Even if there are no gates getting out there is still variant on skiing style, speed and FF.

[bishop8950]

Then you will struggle to be in front of one ball

[andjules]

Does anyone find it ironic that this is being advanced by someone named Darwin?

 

I look forward to hearing how the experiment turns out. The trick is for people to really observe how it works & feels - not bringing a strong bias one way or the other to the experiment(s).

[Horton]

@bishop8950

At 35 & 38 I hit or go around a Zero ball

 

[Gloersen]

IMO with practice this format X will lead to improved TB scores. The ability to transition to 1B without having to let up or feel rushed could have a significant advantageous impact. Overall it’s an interesting concept and although I personally like it doubt it will move forward in this form beyond X status. But who knows?

 

Insofar as running an "X" round at our tournaments at Victory, they are always 3-rounders and we don’t have enough time to run a 4th round "X" with 30+ skiers. Most of the skiers, especially the kids, are eager to take advantage of every round to have a shot at improving their ranking scores and would probably not like 1 of 3 rounds being format X.

 

@jdarwin - If however the option for a skier existed to announce to the Chief Judge/Scorer in advance that they would prefer to run a particular round as “X”, I suspect we would have some do so to add to the data pool.

 

[A_B]

Isn't the real issue at 41 and 43?

How many skiers have adjusted their paths when too early at longer lines and still made the gates and the pass? I have.

I hate rules and laws made due to the minority of people causing them. Just my personal issue.

[JJVDMZN]

Get rid of the left gate buoy at 1 & right gate buoy after 6, which means that you have to enter the course within (left of) buoy 0 and exit right of buoy 7

 

I'm a beginner and find the gates very daunting / narrow but if the left gate buoy wasn't there, I would have my attention on the right and try to cut as close to the right.

[jdarwin]

For clarification, I am not "advancing this" but simply reporting what is to be voted on at the board meeting.

[bishop8950]

@horton you are RFF so no surprise. I am LFF. Try it at 39 and see if you can get to one ball. I could not. Therefore, making that a tournament format doesn't work for me

[bishop8950]

thinking about it a bit more, if that was the only format I guess I would start way on the right, turn left as if there was a gate, round zero as my first ball (I guess in this case not scoring) and then head over to one. Assuming the lake was long enough.

 

I still like the proposed Class X format over the zero ball concept.

[klindy]

@biship8950 the proposed Class X format is to provide an opportunity to test a "zero ball" concept (or any other gate/no gate/wider gate/whatever concept). The idea is to make sure what works and what doesn't gets reported somehow to collect the data on what works and what doesn't (or what's more popular than another). Of course if Class X is never used (and therefore nothing tested in a "real world" tournament environment) that may tell a story also.

 

Point is, it's not a "proposed class X format over the zero ball concept". To me it makes sense to give those who are passionate about one solution or another to give it a try.

[bishop8950]

thanks @klindy. In my haste I missed the flexibility under Class X

[ToddL]

@klindy said something important that shouldn't be over looked... "Of course if Class X is never used (and therefore nothing tested in a "real world" tournament environment) that may tell a story also. "

 

Class X is a vehicle for legitimate testing of alternative approaches to any gate solution. The significance of @Klindy's comment is founded on some folks' perspective that only truly high-demand and potentially viable solutions will be so compelling to generate a significant number of Class X rounds with data actually sent in. Testing an idea out with your ski buddies is nice, but it didn't happen unless it was at a tournament and in a Class X round.

[klindy]

To help clarify @ToddL's comments - Based on the feedback and comments at our mid-winter meeting, I believe the Class X option (rule change proposal #1) was developed to help better define what (if anything) should be changed relative to the gates. There are/were several suggestions and options each of which have pro's and con's. It seems smart to let those to run and ski in tournaments help define change (or no change) based on some legitmate data and information.

 

Since some of the options may seem to make the event "easier" it also makes sense to prevent any scores from an alternative format from getting on the ranking list. My understanding is that the scoring program will be modified to allow "class X" and therefore still be a great way to collect this emperical data.

 

Also, I understand that the "Class X" proposal is a change to rule 1.02B which means it's not simply a "slalom gate" option. The Class X sanction should be able to be used for any kind of optional format including boat speeds, course configuration, ramp changes, gate ideas, or anything else that doesn't comply with the current rules. The proposal also reads that class X can be combined with any other classification (like a class C with a class R). Which tells me that you can have a group skiing in class X in any (or all) rounds of a tournament. It also allows a tournament to add a fourth round as class X (currently all AWSA tournaments are limited to 3 rounds unless a head-to-head or elimination tournament). So again, quite a bit of flexibility to "try before you buy".

 

Finally, Class X is costs the same as Class F (which is free if santioned along with class C/E/etc.).

 

The slalom gate "experiment" rule proposal (proposal #24) is found in rule 13.04. Here is where the limitations are for what you can and cannot do to try some different gate solutions. And they're quite simple too - basically start outside the left wake after the 55m buoys before you cut towards #1 and get across the right hand wake after #6 and before you get the the 55m buoys.

 

So the combination of changes opens up a lot of flexibility to give any idea a healthy shot.

 

At least all the above is my understanding of things. That said, I'm not on the rules committee and this all will likely be discussed and debated in about 10 days at the AWSA winter meeting. So the details may change or the proposals may fail completely.