Zero Based Scoring

[Drago]

I am half for and half against ;)

[MISkier]

I don't understand why some are so torqued about overspeed and feel the need to retain current max speed caps.

 

I guess it is the fear that someone in an age division with less wear and tear on their body will ski faster and beat those who can put up a good score at the lower speed/current max.

 

But, isn't the competition also about athletic conditioning and risk/reward of pushing boundaries?

 

The higher speed must be harder in some way, as there would not be all the concern that the older skiers will try it and be breaking their necks at every tournament. So, rewarding that additional difficulty seems appropriate.

 

If the best athlete that day is because they were physically capable of enduring the higher speed, they should win or at least should receive the score assigned to the passes they completed at the rope length and speed combination.

 

Some will not want to ski faster and maybe shouldn't. This is why I posted the Dirty Harry clip. Each person needs to make their own decision. Having the option to make decision is what ZBS is about.

[eleeski]

There are three options.

1 Allow everyone to ski 36

2 Cap the speed

3 Incentivize skiing at the age division speed but don't prohibit overspeed

 

Regarding 1, the course and buoys are the same for everyone.

 

Regarding 2, this sport is hard enough on aging bodies. Adding energy will make it worse. And if you want to win, you will be at the max speed. Old guys will get hurt at higher speeds.

 

Regarding 3, there are good reasons to not hard cap the speed. IWWF age alignments, needing a new ski for a slower speed and cutting off competitive options are good reasons to allow exceptions. But some sort of incentive must be in place or the exceptions will be the standard. There are lots of ways to do this, a couple buoy penalty, division dropping, ranking list adjustments and others I haven't thought of.

 

@MISkier Personally, I think a 3 buoy penalty per overspeed is a fair adjustment to reward the overspeed but not assure that you must overspeed to win. @JeffSurdej might have other insight or ideas.

 

I know lots of skiers who want to ski faster. Some do even with the current 6 buoy penalty. But a couple years into the slower division, they like the slow speed. Lots of complaints about skiing slow, none enduring. I think @Chad_Scott and @Roger might have a more accurate assessment of the support for this change, as is. The idea will have support if modified.

 

Eric

[eleeski]

@MillerTime38 as one recovering from an injury, I can assure you that speed and the massive energy associated with it does in fact increase the injuries. After skiing 34, I could barely walk. At 30, I was OK after a set. This is just from the normal loads of skiing, not a high energy fall.

 

I do agree that your skill is a bigger factor than the energy of the speed. That is why I support allowing overspeed. But as written, the rule gives too much incentive to overspeed. Just trying 36 will probably break my hip - and I'm just stupidly competitive enough to do that.

 

@MISkier Open exists for all age divisions. Qualifications are even factored for slower speeds. The best athletes are in Open. Other divisions are still fun for competition - partly because of the limits imposed.

 

Eric

[MISkier]

@eleeski, you might have applied the faster than max option to assume only 36 mph, which is what Open requires. My comment about an athlete exceeding their age division max did not necessarily mean skiing at 36 (e.g., M7 skiing at 34 would be above their max, but not Open speed).

[eleeski]

@MISkier M7 or even M8 going 36 is the biggest worry. I know a couple of those guys who absolutely would ski 36 - skeletons be damned.

 

They might have a shot at MM. So 34 should be an option - but not a requirement for winning the age division (as it is with the current state of the rule).

 

ZBS is a great idea, the rule needs some adjustment.

 

Eric

[Bruce_Butterfield]

@MillerTime38 for your football analogy which would you rather get hit by: the 6'4" linebacker running a 6.1 40yd dash or the same guy running a 4.4?

 

@MISkier I thought the concerns were made clear, but i guess not, so I'll summarize my complaint. Let's assume the top 15 or so skiers in each M3-M6 division at nationals has a realistic shot at a medal. The difference in score between 1st and 15th is frequently less than 6 buoys and the difference between say 3rd and 8th may be 2-3 buoys. The point is that just a couple of buoys makes a huge difference in placement at nationals. So if just 1 of the top 15 skiers chooses to go 36 he will gain a advantage if he can score just 1 or 2 bouys more than he would at 34. So the remaining group of contenders would have to go 36 or put themselves at a disadvantage. This essentially forces anyone in the hunt for a placement to go 36.

 

I can see how a 28 off skier who doesn't ski nationals either wouldn't understand this or wouldn't care. If you were competitive or 50-60 years old you may get it.

 

Again I have no complaint with zbs for class C, non competive tournaments. Its a good experiment and if it makes more people interested in tournament skiing, that's a good thing.

[Chad_Scott]

@MISkier Obviously there is no swaying your opinion and no desire to compromise. As for the majority of the top tier level 9 skiers I have spoken to all are opposed to competing at different speeds. It's why the big dawg has been so successful it's based upon competition. Truly competitive individuals want to compete with equal conditions. And since AWSA and the rules committee has also forced the level 10 into such a wide age range of skiers the majority of these guys are all opposed to adding 6 buoys and enticing people to take advantage of the handicap.

 

Do what you want at s backyard class C event. Leave it out of what are supposed to be competitive events.

 

Well said @Bruce_Butterfield

[scoke]

@MISkier

 

For perspective, did you ski nationals last year and if so in what division? If not, what division do you ski with what typical buoy counts?

[Dirt]

Are the skiers in favor of max speed increases the ones who would gain an advantage by remaining at the higher speed when moving into a new division?

 

This seems simple. Let them ski in the next lowest division that goes the speed they want to compete at. A M7 wants to ski 36, ski in M2. A M8 wants to go 34, ski in M6.

 

As for speed not equating to more severe injuries, look at vehicle/pedestrian injury data. Talk to any ER doctor or nurse who has treated motorcycle/jet ski/snowmachine/etc accident victims and ask if speed equates to more severe injuries.

[6balls]

I'm sure as hell glad that when my ski broke at the wake last year the boat was going 34 and not 36. I was concussed, lacerated and knocked out of skiing for 3 weeks due to what it did to my back. Velocity matters.

[Bruce_Butterfield]

@scoke all you have to do is click on miskier's profile. For those that are too lazy: Tournament PB 3@32 off (34.2 mph), 5@28 off (36 mph)

[MISkier]

To answer the other questions:

 

1. No Nationals

2. No Regionals (I did qualify last year).

3. M4

4. 51 years old

5. 5' 7"

6. 145 - 150 pounds

7. Bald

8. Blue eyes

9. Married 28 years

10. 5 kids

 

I realize (here more than anywhere) that I am still at the beginning of the path of slalom and not at the pinnacle of the sport. Perhaps, those considering the ZBS rule or the request for rescinding it will view my position within the sport and disregard my opinion or its value. Either way, I am thankful of the original consideration of the change.

[Triplett]

@dirt With the opinions expressed in this thread, it is not the people who would gain by going faster, but the people that would lose by others going faster.

 

@Bruce_Butterfield Your point of placement does not necessarily help or hurt the argument. I hypothesize the majority of people wouldn't go faster and it would probably be your top guys, I think we agree in this point. I would say in each one these divisions the top guys train faster than their speed anyway. So how much of a disadvantage is it? If you never ski 36mph and you decide on the dock at nationals to try it out, you probably are not going to beat your 34mph score.

 

Also, if we are talking about qualifications to comment, we might as well only let the top 10 in each division have a say. Nothing would change, because any change might upset their chances of a regional/national championship.

 

Also, Class C is a competitive tournament! The Midwest has, maybe, 5 tournaments that are E/L/R, that includes regionals. So would you propose we allow 'over speed' in Class C, would overspeed scores not count, or would you count it as it is today, where you just ski faster but get the same score as your divisions speed?

 

I would suspect we are not getting opinions from where we need them because people feel they are not 'qualified' to comment. @MISkier's opinion holds as much weight as @Chad_Scott's. This is a forum and thread for opinions from everyone, not just the elite. If anything, this rule is more for guys of his caliber, not for us, even if does seem to slightly negatively affect us.

 

 

[eleeski]

@MISkier is the perfect example. He gains a couple buoys by the ZBS. But he backs down a line length. Hmmm.

 

Personally, shortline is fun! I'd rather shorten than speed up.

 

@Triplett has great points regarding who benefits vs who is hurt. The top skiers will probably speed up. Some of these top guys are old enough that the injuries that sidelined Nate and Freddy for a while would end the career of an older athlete. That's the downside for them. Carries some weight for their point.

 

@MISkier , 5 kids? No wonder you are tough enough to handle 36!

 

Eric

[JackQ]

As one other skier stated, " the madness of this rule, is that I could break the National Record at the Regional or Nationals and loose to another skier who chooses to ski at 36." Try explaining that to an non avid skier

[MISkier]

@eleeski,

 

The 5 are spread over a wide range: 28, 25, 18, 14, 7 - all with the original (and only) wife. So, I've had time to recover from each a little.

 

As I stated in a much earlier post, my PBs are different, but my average over the last 12 months is only a .33 difference between 34 mph and 36 mph. And, it is the 34 mph average that is higher.

[walleye]

I am a mid pack skier on the bubble to make nationals, I need one more buoy. Going 36 I believe I can make the cut, but only if other M-5 skiers choose to stay at 34. No I do not want to go 36 because of risk of injury.

 

Why are we not focusing the real problems of loosing membership. I listed problems and couple ideas earlier in this thread and nobody has mentioned any of them. The Insurance issue is the biggest loss of membership. We are making more rules when we should be focusing on relaxing rules in class c. How can we solve problems when we cannot identify the problem. At my club I have skied with college kids for 20 years.. This is the first I have heard of anyone quitting because they wanted to cut line before max speed. Nor have I heard it from any juniors. I can tell you why college kids leave the sport but I am not important.

[scoke]

 

@Triplett

 

Logic bust is apparent. This statement is absolutely false.

"I would suspect we are not getting opinions from where we need them because people feel they are not 'qualified' to comment. @MISkier's opinion holds as much weight as @Chad_Scott's. This is a forum and thread for opinions from everyone, not just the elite. If anything, this rule is more for guys of his caliber, not for us, even if does seem to slightly negatively affect us."

 

Everyones opinion has weight but it's the context where the weight is applied. Chad Scott has weight talking about his competitive peers just like miskiers opinion is skewed and based on his competitive peers. It's not the same thing even though it's a ripple affect. miskier hasn't stood on the dock as the 6th seed at nationals pressing to podium. How can that skier talk about something he has never experienced? Makes no sense.

 

Or change the perspective, what if I want to institute rules for girls1 and boys 1 which parents do not want. Well according to you, my opinion carries the same weight as the parents even though I don't have kids? logic bust.

 

ZBS:

As others have stated, shorten the rope, speed up, do all that you want to to make tournaments fun again. Prove it at Class F/C tournaments that the skiers will "flock" back to tournaments. Then using the data implement it in ELR tournaments at a later date.

 

But to come out and force it on everyone across the board mid-season? Mistake. In fact, the numbers at nationals will be going down which is what Jeff S has been wanting all along.

 

If there are seeds at nationals skiing at 36mph in Mens 3, I wont be attending as that moves away from the competitive spirit and intention of having the same division skiing amongst peers, friends and mentors. Class C, knock yourself out.

 

Current mens 2 guys who are national competitors, this doesn't affect you and you really don't have a dog in the fight.

 

[Dirt]

@Triplett for the record I respect everyone's opinions. I only liked Bruce's comment above because he called scoke lazy.

[Bruce_Butterfield]

@Triplett I disagree that the top guys in M3-6 train at 36. Some may do it occasionally, but I bet you could count on 1 hand the number over 40yo that ski 36 consistently. I seriously doubt any contender will decide on the dock at nationals to go 36 - they will be practicing all year. That's what I will be doing if the current rule stands.

 

I will bet a case of your favorite adult beverage that if the current rule stands, more than half of the top 10 seeded skiers in M3-5 will be skiing 36 at nationals. Is this a good thing?

 

I hope my comments on miskier aren't misconstrued. His opinion is as valid as anyone else's, the thing is that he has no perspective on how this affects the guys at the top on which to base that opinion. It's the same as my opinion on max speed for W6 jump - i can have a valid opinion, but i certainly don't have the same perspective as those it affects and I would readily defer to them.

 

For mid level skiers I think that we are mostly in agreement that zbs is a good thing. It needs to be tried for a few years before thinking about forcing it at the regional and national level.

[bishop8950]

What at @Chad_Scott , @Bruce_Butterfield and @Dirt said. Not because they are good skiers, it's because it makes sense.

 

I am glad we are considering and implimenting change. I like experiments rather than indefinite debates. But in this case I don't think we got it right.

 

I love the Class C experiment of ZBS. But ZBS will be bad for medal determinations at Regionals and Nationals.

 

Also, if ZBS does not apply to National Records, why should it apply to National Championships? I don't like that inconsistency as those should be held to the same standard IMO.

[Dirt]

I agree with scoke. Why would a 28 year old have a say in whether a 50 year old has to ski 36?

[JackQ]

Bruce is correct. No one is suddenly going to decide to ski at 36mph. If the rules stands (not likely) once I get in the swing of things I will start skiing at 36, or at least trying. I know that increased beating at 36 will take a toll on my 60+ old body. 30 years of attempting or running 38 and 39 has already taken a toll and don't think 36 in anyway will help. Not well thought out rule, in middle of ski year equals much debate

 

As Scoke discussed this is only a bandaid. The real issues of participation are: lack of access to public waterways, ever increasing cost of sport, increasing rule complications and cost of competition. Nationals and Regionals are too difficult and costly to run, therefore entry fees too costly and USA waterski needs to beg to find a Nationals host.

[skier2788]

@Dirt @scoke hey now I slightly resemble that M2 skier. I say bring it on old guys. You might beat me today but I will be able to get out of bed tomorrow. I am totally joking. People need to lighten up around here.

[Dirt]

@skier2788 I am not upset with anyone. This is an interesting topic and good discussion. It's still somewhat cold here so not much skiing yet. We will all get off the internet and ski soon enough. I just need to know what speed to train at.

[skier2788]

@dirt 36 mph. Then when you slow down it will feel nice and slow.

 

I really think that most will try this at one or two tournament's and then go back to the way it has always been. How many of the top M3 or M4 skiers ski big dawg or go after world ranking/ team? I would guess these guys will train and ski tournament's at 34 mph. I wouldn't want to bounce between the two speeds all the time.

 

I wonder how many people we will upset with a rule that in my opinion is going to be a fad. Give it two years and all but a small percentage will be back to normal.

[Triplett]

@scoke I find it interesting you think Surdej is trying to kill nationals to push through an agenda. No change, or attempt of change will not reverse the downward trend. I have been involved with the sport for the vast majority of my life and nationals has been getting more expensive and less people are showing up. The biggest change that I recall was the Levels and online ranking. We do need something different, if it is just for C class, cool, but how do we score it for national competitors, or aspiring national competitors?

 

 

All that aside and slightly off topic, there are major barriers to entry of the sport. I am not sure about the insurance thing, but I haven't hear of this being an issue, at least in Michigan. The price is high to compete, sure, but this something to discuss on the state level. I am proud to say Michigan hasn't raised entry fees more than a few dollars in the past 10 years, and we are doing fine. The difficulty to run the big tournaments is real, but I think this is less of a deterrent, more people coming would justify the work. The biggest thing deterrent, in my mind, is age divisions. We need an ability based system, this would bring more people to nationals and ultimately in the sport. To be a top skier in any age division takes a ton of dedication and years of water time. We need to be welcoming to every level of skier while not taking away from the dedication we all put in. It is unfortunate to see the backlash to ZBS be rooted in the age divisions because it is really a stepping stone to a better, more inclusive, way of competing. @jackq, that would bring people into the sport. Ohio's Buckeye buoy tour and Michigan's slalom series are great examples of how this grows the sport.

 

If ZBS is the wrong way to get there, and make it simple, we need another idea.

 

[Mrs_MS]

I personally do not want to see my Men's 5 @MS going "balls to the walls" at 36mph!

Thank you!!!

 

He's crazy enough to do it... :/

[sunperch]

@Mrs_MS I don't want my M5 skier to go 36mph either - we will be the one who have to take care of them if/when they hurt themselves. Besides, I don't want my boat driver to be out of commission!

[skibackwards]

Sooooo, do I see that if the normal max speeds are left alone and we use ZBS scoring at C tournaments only, then we can say OK, let's use it ? ?

 

[ToddL]

In any proposed change, we each apply it to ourselves in terms of will I benefit or be hurt competitively by this change. However, we should put that aside and consider if the change would make sense over all. I think most of us are trying to balance this.

 

I'll probably get an off topic for this... but Brent's comment above suggested "we need another idea".

I keep going back to divisions with some sort of ability level cooked into them. Maybe we should consider a hybrid of larger age groups with ability groups within. Ponder: Youth, Adult, Senior times Novice, Competitor, Advanced time men vs. women. That 18 divisions vs. the 31 divisions of today. Top Novice skiers in each age group compete in their novice divisions at Nationals. Seems pretty attractive.

 

Another way to think about it is:

What if we were talking about snow skiing and us water skiers were considering starting to compete? Would we be more attracted to join in by age divisions or by ability divisions? OK, maybe we are all also kick butt snow skiers. Apply the same question to any other individual sport: Cycling, Power Lifting, Archery, Tennis. Should all 30 yo women have to compete against Serena Williams just because she happens to be 35 year old?

[LeonL]

Not an opinion in this post, but those of you that advocate trying ZBS / increased speed in class "C" only, what do you do with the scores? If you don't allow the scores to go into the ranking list, there's no incentive for anyone to speed up and thus no data. If you do allow the scores to go on the ranking list, but do not allow increased speed at Regionals or Nationals you've got really skewed ranking lists and some skiers who would have qualified maybe would not if they stayed at division max in all their tournaments. That being said "trying" it out a class "C" doesn't seem to be viable.

[Klinger]

It seems that a majority, at least here on BOS, are for ZBS if age division max speeds are left in place. I really don't see a downside in letting a M1 or M2 guy shorten at 34 as I don't think he'll be able to podium at Nationals by doing so. Meaning, I don't see a reason not to allow this at E,L and R tournaments, assuming age division max speeds are left in place.

[Mrs_MS]

 

@sunperch

We will have to wrap them up!!!

Lol

[unksskis]

@scoke this will effect scores in M2, rewarding more buoys for shortening at 34mph, which actually would have drastically helped me in Overall at Nationals last year.

 

[skidawg]

@ToddL - off topic awarded!!!

[ALPJr]

At this rate the record setting 2016 Radar Vapor thread is toast.

[ToddL]

I knew I could count on you, Ward. Thanks!

[MISkier]

@Chad_Scott, I thought a lot about your comment regarding compromise. I think there might be some refinement that would allow overspeed ZBS while still providing incentive to stay at age division max speed.

 

Today, there is a penalty for having less than 3 separate tournament scores in your ranking average, if all are class C (and other options for less scores from tournaments higher than class C). This provides incentive to ski more tournaments and/or more higher level tournaments.

 

A similar approach could be used for rankings factoring in overspeed scores. It could be something like:

 

1. Overspeed scores post with the original value assigned to them as if they were achieved in the age divisions where that speed is the max speed.

2. No penalty for one overspeed score and two other original age division max speed scores (all class C).

3. 5% penalty for two overspeed scores and one other max speed score (all class C).

4. 10% penalty for three overspeed scores (all class C).

5. Some variation of this for class E, L, R to specify penalty or no penalty for a mix that includes an original age division max speed score and overspeed scores from tournaments of varying levels. Need to think about this more.

6. If the skier has several separate max speed scores and several overspeed scores, the ranking should still employ the "do no harm" approach and include the overspeed scores, if higher, then determine if the penalty produces the highest average or if including some lower speed scores with a mix provides the highest possible ranking. Yes, it's complex, but it drives the behavior of skiing what will provide the best ranking with the penalty considered.

7. Underspeed scores would receive the credit and commensurate score for shortening before max speed.

8. No penalty for underspeed scores in the ranking. The skier may include as many as they wish and receive full credit in their ranking average for those scores. If combined with overspeed scores, these would be treated as if they were achieved at max speed for the division.

 

I also think MM could/should be restricted to a max speed of 34 mph. It is a special division requiring special qualifications to compete and, therefore, should be exempt from ZBS. Retaining the specific and unique parameters in such a division, as is done in Open, is appropriate.

 

The ability to select the max speed (over, under, equal to original age division max) should still be allowed round by round.

 

The key here is that all scores post with their original assigned value. Any adjustment is done within the calculation of the ranking average.

 

I don't have any recommendations as to what could be done to ease the concerns about Regionals or Nationals. I'm open to discussion there. If I were to actually attend, I would be so stoked (at least initially) that I wouldn't care what I had to do there. I can't say that opinion wouldn't change. It probably would. I'd probably be so nervous that I would miss my opener.

[Zman]

I keep promising myself not to open this thread. It keeps giving me a headache. But, after a couple days and another pile of posts, I give in. But, after this last peek my head exploded, I am really done this time. Promise.

[klindy]

@Mrs_MS weve been pulling @MS 36mph for years and not telling him. We all like to watch the spectacular crashes.

[The_MS]

@klindy I knew you were behind my epic wipeout at Cottonwood.

[GK]

The biggest complaints are regionals and nationals. The best compromise in my opinion are to require the current age caps in "Record Capable" tournaments (which would include regionals and nationals). Leave ZBS for all other events and allow ZBS to be calculated into the rankings list. This satisfies both crowds. The people against get their "fair" competition at Regionals and Nationals and the crowd who wants to ski above max can try to get some benefit by improving their rankings and seeding for Regionals and Nationals. It's a win-win for both sides.

[LeonL]

@GK in your scenario, those who want ski to above max, "can try to get some benefit by improving their rankings", won't this potentially cause some who ski the normal age division max to be pushed out of Level 8 and thus out of Nationals? Now admittedly those who might be pushed into Level 7 aren't likely to place at Nationals, but is it right for them to not qualify and then at Nationals the speed they skied all year be the standard? Just doesn't seem right to me.

[MarkM]

6 buoys does not equal exactly 2 mph.

Our sport has been steered toward such precise scoring that our boats are tracked by satellites in space and video cameras are recording boat paths.

But 6 buoys is mathematically equal to 2 mph?

 

[klindy]

Another unanswered question is what happens to NOPS points. It may be simple to calculate the NOPS points for the total buoy count but if, as argued, 6 buoys does not equal 2mph how does that potentially effect the NOPS points for slalom? Without getting into a technical discussion, the higher your score the more NOPS points you get PER BUOY. This can have a real impact for skiers skiing overall, especially at Regionals/Nationals.

 

A few years ago at Nationals, the top 4 positions for M4 overall was decided by approximately 100 pt (from 2410 to 2529). It doesn't take a lot to make a difference. All the overall skiers are pretty much mid-pack slalom skiers.

 

All the top overall skiers ran mid -35 to mid -38. So the potential for skiing at 36mph and scoring 3-6 buoys more is possible. My primary point is that it has consequences beyond just the top slalom skiers.

[GK]

If people get bumped on the bubble then that's just the way it is. Add more novice to intermediate level skiers because of ZBS and the amount of Level 8 skiers will increase with more people qualifying for Nationals. In other words, ZBS realistically could get more people into nationals than what we're seeing now. There is no point in arguing whether someone might get bumped or not because that could happen with our without ZBS. There is nothing unfair about it.

 

Same goes for NOPS points, maybe it will help someone improve their rankings but it's not going to affect Regionals and Nationals if max speeds are restricted in "record capable" tournaments.

[MISkier]

Does anybody know when the vote on the request to rescind ZBS will occur and when the decision will be announced?

 

I believe the survey results will be a lot closer than what everyone on both sides may think.

 

I'm ready to move forward, whatever it is.

[Chad_Scott]

Survey results were in favor of class C and cap speeds at regionals and nationals. A lot of the people who voted are those that do not ski regionals or nationals.