Zero Based Scoring

[Dirt]

Thanks @JeffSurdej for taking the time to read and respond to all of these posts and threads. It is nice to have leadership actively engaging the membership. You can't please everyone but with a small compromise you will most likely please the vast majority.

[bigtex2011]

@6balls that's a bold statement. I look forward to seeing that. Take care of that spine.

[unksskis]

So with ZBS, running 22'off @ 34mph in a 36mph division you get credit for passes previous? Rather than having to run it (22'off) at 36mph to not get scored at longline 36? Like running 22' at 34mph, then running 4 bouys 22' at 36mph, you are scored as 4 bouys at 36mph 22'?

[Than_Bogan]

@unksskis I sure think so. To me, that's an example of what is GOOD about the proposal and should be kept.

[bkreis]

remember under current/past rules, you may ski slower at a line length you choose and speed up to max at that line length..so if you want to i.e.. M4 go out 12m 30mph, you may, then if you make it 32 then 34..although you get scored long line til max speed pass is completed...this is fair for everyone..schnitz did it at trophy some years back at 39off..didn't do well if I recall. but I'm sure he had fun!!

[Booze]

I believe it gives a distinct advantage to the 1st or 2nd year M3 skier over the veteran M3 skier. When I moved to M3, I didn't instantly pick up 6 bouys at 34mph. I would have loved to stay at 36mph and instantly pick up 6 bouys to my score (moving to M3 for the first year). So this is a tough one...I'm not convinced it's fair across the board (as stated) but this is exactly what I was looking for in 1999. It really bugged me I had to slow down to 34....and that I wasn't good enough to ski open! ;)

[LeonL]

@unksskis look a few pages on this thread and see the matrix, or go to the rule book. The matrix clearly depicts your score for whatever speed/line length.

[GK]

You don't pick up 6 buoys when you move to M3, you would just keep the same buoy count you have already earned. If your average is 3 @ 35 off 36 mph in M2 then your buoy count is 6 buoys higher than someone who runs 3 @ 35 off 34 mph in M3.

[unksskis]

@LeonL thanks, I did.

 

Do I score 82 since 22' 34mph is 78 buoys and 15' 36mph is 78 buoys, or am I scored at 36mph long line, which would be 70 bouys (66 for 34mph longline plus the 4 buoys at 36mph), or 76 buoys (36mph longline plus the 4 buoys).

 

In other words, if 22' 34mph is 78 buoys, and 15' 36mph is 78 buoys, does running 22' 34mph count as running 15' 36mph? Now add my 4 bouys at 22' 36mph, and what do you add it to? 36mph longline, 36mph 15', or scored as 4 @ 22' 36mph (82 buoys), since 78 bouys were scored?

 

2016 it would have been scored as 4 at longline 36mph, or 70 buoys.

 

 

 

 

[Triplett]

@unksskis It would be added to 34mph 22off score. Count it as a you went to 28off. So your score would be 82 buoys. With ZBS as long as you are moving down or right, it will be adding to your score. It is only complicated if you think too hard about it.

 

edit: Changed up to down, mental image of chart was reversed.

 

[unksskis]

@Triplett Thank you

[6balls]

@bigtex2011 the caveat, of course, is my body holding up! If I were to train some at 36 and find too abusive would drop back and keep battling that stinkin' purple line...though have to admit that can be abusive, too, even at 34 for a scrambler like me.

[JohnN]

I'm with the senior statesman quoted above - the skier with the most buoys wins. I like that a skier has the option of increasing speed or shortening the rope depending on conditions, etc, and getting scored at what they run. When I entered M3 (and even M4) I probably would have run 36mph at several sites. Now, at the end of M4 I'm just as likely to run 32mph in some sites, and being able to get scored in either direction is great. Keep MM at 34 and let them set records if that's what drives them, and let everyone else have some fun. 2 additional thoughts - If we wanted a level playing field the southern guys would only set records in 70deg water, right? And, when it sounds like many of the top 34mph guys train at 36, is it really that unsafe for the rest of us poor mid-packers (who may run 36 on occasion anyway)? Let the new challenge begin!

[Booze]

@GK - (in case you were responding to me) - we may be talking about the same thing, but to say in another way... my avg was probably ~2@38@58 my last year in M2. Based on memory of first adjusting to 55, I don't think my avg right out of the gate would have been ~2@39@55 as a M3 skier at the next tournament. So I would have loved to stick with 58kph, pick up 6 bouys in the M3 score and hedge my bets that it would be better than the 'straight up' score I would post @55. So I'm pitting the 58kph 6 buoy bonus against the unknown buoy bonus of slowing to 55kph.

 

For the present, for me, this may be academic. I'm in last year of M4 ( I think....birthday 8/22/64)...but being an old-ish fogey what are the odds of skiing against other dudes opting up to 58?

But it looks like I'll be practicing 58kph this year to find out which is easier, a full pass of 35@58 or 38@55.

[Jweber]

I just completed my USA Water Ski survey on this subject. Seems the main concern is to increase membership and pull more collegiate skiers into post college ski tournaments. I really like ZBS for juniors and novice level skiers. It makes tournaments way more fun for someone who can't run a max speed pass, but I feel strongly the max speeds for age groups should not change. Don't make it a everyone needs to ski 36. Then you have other inconsistencies like big dawgs still max at 34, international won't recognize it, to set a record it needs to be done at the "old" max speeds. To me creating all these inconsistencies is foolish. Use ZBS where it's beneficial with juniors and novice skiers but leave the max speeds alone.

[MISkier]

@jweber, not everyone has to ski 36. You can still shorten the rope at the max speed (and slower) and receive credit for the shortening. And, if you want to set a record, just ski at the max speed for the division where you are setting the record.

[Jweber]

@MISkier I understand you aren't forced to ski 36, but to remain competitive at tournaments such as regionals and nationals you will have to ski at 36. Also, what I currently like about our sport is everyone has the same factors at a tournament such as conditions, boat, driver speed etc. Level playing field and person who skis farther down the rope wins. Now you'll need to be on the starting dock trying figure out who is skiing what speed. I believe we are messing with an element of the sport that doesn't need to be changed.

[Zman]

@Jweber How do I get to AWSA poll? Cant find it at their web site...

[MISkier]

@Zman, if you are an AWSA member, you should have received an email with a link in it.

[skier2788]

@Zman

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/zerobasedscoring

[Zman]

Thanks @skier2788 Survey completed. @MISkier Must have got lost in all other emails....

[Drago]

Seems cool to me. Just need better radios

[wtrskior]

Canadian rules allow a skier to opt DOWN a division or up in the case of youth (to ski at a faster speed).

 

@dirt said if a skier wants a faster speed let them go down to the division that can accommodate them.

 

We do need to allow for more skiers to ski tournaments especially at the younger ages where going 34 or 36 is too fast for many youngsters.

 

I would hurt myself at 36, was always too fast for me to have fun so I didn't get into tournaments until I was 35! This is an issue in our sport but I feel this is the wrong move when it essentially only applies to the most prestigious events.

[Triplett]

@jweber I just don't foresee a lot of guys in M4+ going 36, high or low ranking. The people I have spoke with in Michigan about this are in @MISkier's camp, sometimes 36 but not all the time, and some of these guys are knocking on the door of a national championship. I am a fan of choice, go up or down, do what works best for you. The podiums may change, but if you are chasing the top spot at Regionals or nationals wouldn't you like another strategy?

 

Also, I don't think 36 is as big of crutch as most of the guys on here think it is. It may not be 6 buoys, but I would say 4, at 38/39. Your L9 and high L8 skiers will benefit the most from going 36, so I don't think you will see the competition at the top change too much.

 

Another point regarding IWWF alignment, why are we concerned with this? Unless you ski L/R's exclusively and are chasing a Senior World Championship or World Championship spot, why would this be of concern if you go 34 or 36? If we wanted to align with them we would have an 18+, 35+, 45+, etc.

 

 

[Than_Bogan]

@Triplett I regard this statement as contradictory:

 

"Your L9 and high L8 skiers will benefit the most from going 36, so I don't think you will see the competition at the top change too much."

 

Can you clarify your intent? My belief is that the biggest (undesirable?) impact of ZBS-as-currently-written will be that L9/top L8 skiers in all adult male divisions will ski at 36, because at that end they can score slightly better ZBS-wise at 36. I can't quite tell if you agree or disagree with either my predictions or my opinions about them.

[Chad_Scott]

@Than_Bogan

You are correct in my opinion The top tier guys will be forced into 36 to compete at nationals to take advantage of 6 buoys

Again I believe the data is tainted. I know I am a better skier today than I was when I was in men's 2@36. I hope I have gotten better with much more time on the water. I don't see it as a 6 buoy handicap

 

When competing for a title. It should be the same.

 

 

 

[ToddL]

Interesting ideas and comments in this thread. My opinion thus far is that I like the following:

ZBS ability to cut line regardless of speed is a good thing

Max speeds should be limited to what was before

 

Maybe for each transition to a slower speed we need an IWWF-like division: M2+, M6+, M7+, W6+, and W8+. Those types of divisions would be beneficial in that an older skier could elect to compete in the prior division if they wanted to still ski at the faster speed.

 

 

 

[DavidP]

Since we are touching on max speeds, I'll add that I would really like to see MM slalom at 35mph so it is materially different than the age divisions.

[Beastmode]

@Chad_Scott I agree with you 100% on the speed advantage rule should not be allowed at upper levels. I can run 32' @36mph pretty consistently which is the same score as me running 35' @ 34 which I only ran 10% of the time last season. on the survey I made a comment that I think it is a great rule for Novice thru level 5 which does not qualify for Regionals. I don't feel this is a good plan for rankings, Regional and National competition. Just my opinion.

[ski6jones]

Preserve the age division maximums as currently implemented but let people ski in the nearest age division that offers the speed they want to ski. So M3/4/5/6 could ski in M2 if they want to go 36, etc. I think @Dirt suggested something like this earlier.

[Triplett]

@Than_Bogan What I guess I should have clarified is I believe your higher level skiers are capable of taking full advantage of the 36 rule and improving their score more than 1-1.5 buoys. I don't think your middle of pack will see an advantage in going 36. 36mph is a higher level of difficulty.

 

I am guessing, like everyone else in here, that 36 will only help top tier guys improve their overall score. We have data from Jeff that suggests there is no advantage going from 34 to 36 (M2-M3). So, if my hypothesis states that I believe @chad_scott can have a higher overall score at 36 than 34, then I am wrong, given the data we have. If we cap max speeds to current levels, we still don't know, we never completed the experiment. If we keep ZBS the way it is written and in 2017 Chad and his peers ski 36, and get substantially better scores then my hypothesis is correct.

 

At least in some posts I am seeing a want/need for data and when the data is presented it isn't good enough or isn't representative. So how do we get the data if we never try ZBS as written today? If we limit to just C's, my guess is your L8s L9s never actually use the rule, and they will not go to 36 for placement or rank, since it wont matter.

 

Obviously, from my previous posting I am for keeping it how it is written. But, objectively, and being an engineer, I have to look at the data that Jeff presented and right now it does not support the hypothesis most have on here. And without ever trying this out, in all divisions and sanctions, we will never know if the collective hypothesis is valid.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[MISkier]

If you ski in a lower age division, would you say that the commensurate score achieved there should be factored into your regular age division average? Buoys are buoys, no matter how you rounded them. The score you achieved needs to count, not be excluded or adjusted.

[Than_Bogan]

@Triplett Got it! Thanks.

Fwiw, I believe the data (that I have seen) is quite inadequate and does not sway me from anecdotal (but consistent) experience. But a public forum like this is not a productive place to get deep into data analysis techniques. I have shared my thoughts on that with my regional rep.

[Triplett]

@Than_Bogan I do agree with the data.

 

That is the right thing to do. I have done the same.

[Milford]

There are risks to just giving this a try. What happens when a M6 skier wants to get a leg up on the competition and decides to train and ski at 36 MPH and in doing so takes a hard crash that takes him out of the sport. Or what if that same skier is going for it at Nationals and holds onto something a little to long and takes a fall that results in a broken neck? These speed caps were originally implemented for a reason. Not sure what that reason was, but I would think that safety had something to do with it. Are we just throwing the safety concern out the window, so we can test data? What are the acceptable number of injury's that are OK? How many broken necks are Ok? If we increase speed caps, these risks are real, not for just level 8 or 9 skiers, but for everyone.

[MillerTime38]

@Milford Injuries can happen in slalom at any speed line length and ability.

 

Is there any evidence that skiing at 58K increase the risk of injury? The ski I am on tells me in bold letters that this activity may result in death.

[Zman]

Maybe we would all have 6 more buoys if all the time in this thread, typing and reading, was water time! Just saying...

[Milford]

Deductive reasoning would conclude that driving a car at 80 MPH would result in death more often than driving at 60 MPH. Speed kills. Can we all agree on that? So I think it is a fair to assume that skiing at a higher speed would result in more injury. More pressure on the body, knees, back and yes in a fall, the neck.

 

@zman it is still winter in Utah, so there is really not much skiing to be done here, yet.

[Than_Bogan]

@Milford You might be right, and indeed I think you probably are. However, it is certainly not "fair to assume" it, because we are ultimately limited by our ability. I may get into a gnarly situation deep into a 34/-38 pass. I will never get into a gnarly situation deep into a 36/-38 pass because I cannot get deep into that pass.

[MillerTime38]

@Milford deductive reasoning is different than fact.

 

Would your deductive reasoning also tell you that skiing shorter line lengths will result in more injuries? If so then everyone skiing 36 would make everyone ski longer line lengths therefore lessening risk of injury?

[Milford]

@Than_Bogan thanks! Just trying to protect the old dudes. We are all still 18 years old in our heads, but unfortuneatly our bodies do continue to age and it gets harder and harder to stay healthy each year.

 

@MillerTime38 - I appreciate your point of view, however, we are on opposite sides of the issue and I don't think we will agree.

 

For the record, I think ZBS with normal speed caps is a great thing and think it needs to happen. I just don't like the thought of skiing 36 or competing against someone skiing at 36 as it opens up a whole can of worms. Sounds like the committee will be discussing next week and will make a final decision. Whatever they decide, I will except and support.

[MISkier]

I'm surprised nobody posted this yet:

 

 

 

[DW]

@Milford : On your speed kills deduction, actually no, and the Michigan State Police has data that indicates driving or more accurately driving below the natural speed limit actually increases the probability one will be involved in an accident. In the USA, the interstate system is designed for speeds much closer to 80 mph rather than 60 mph. If you are simply referring to identical impacts and the resulting forces, correct. Speed does not kill, acceleration (or deceleration) is the concern.

[Zman]

@Milford Oh, yea, sorry. :smile:

Guess that explains the length of several threads right now... :smile:

[eleeski]

The energy of a moving object increases with the square of the speed. Things happen more dramatically than the incremental increase in speed would suggest.

 

So yes, injury potential is significantly higher with the speed increase from a pure engineering perspective.

 

I do support allowing overspeed choices. But an incentive to stay at the age division maximum needs to be in place. Throw a couple buoy penalty for the overspeed and the clear advantages dissappear. Those who ski more comfortably faster or those aligning with IWSF ages will still have the option.

 

Eric

[MISkier]

@eleeski, I don't agree with any penalty for an overspeed score. The skier achieved a pass that has a value already assigned to it. That is the value they should be awarded and that is the value that should be factored into their average.

[Roger]

I'm still not seeing the half and half for/against Jeff mentioned earlier in the thread. We had our club meeting last night and discussed the new proposal. Our club has many members from the midwest and other areas besides Florida. Of about 40 members in attendance last night, only one was for the rule as is. When asked about the rule with existing speed caps in place, nearly all were for it. If it's really about getting younger skiers involved, then leave the speed caps in place and bring the rest in.

[ALPJr]

I think it's likely to bring former tourney skiers back into tournaments as well as helping to keep juniors involved. Just don't get the logic behind allowing skiers to exceed the max speed for the division.

[Chad_Scott]

@Roger Yes I can't find the half in favor of either. Everyone I have talked to echoes your thoughts. Speed caps and let's proceed. Great for juniors and newcomers

[MillerTime38]

@eleeski I don't see the correlation between more energy and more risk for injury. So you are saying just because someone is has more energy they are more likely to be injured?

 

Take football as an example. So me 180 lbs ran full speed (not real fast) and ran into a 6'4" linebacker hitting me at full speed running a 4.4 40 yd dash.

 

Now take another person say 200 lbs and a lot faster than me, he then runs into the same linebacker at his same speed. W

 

So we would agree the other person is carrying more energy than I am, who would be more likely to get hurt? I would say me the guy with less energy