Zero Based Scoring

[lpskier]

@MISkier So it seems. It may make a small amount of difference in ranking list order, which in turn maybe will make a slight seeding difference at Regionals and Nationals. I strongly doubt it will effect Ranking List Champions.

 

@LeonL it will be interesting to see how many C's end up having 36 as top speed. My guess is that it will happen only where someone asks for it.

[LeonL]

With ZO it's unlikely to have a slow time, but you raise an interesting point.

[Triplett]

If the rules of ZBS are being followed then it would be a mandatory re-ride. You cannot go down in speed. Anyways, the score be the same buoy count because at a slower speed the score is the same as the previous pass made at a faster speed.

 

@LeonL I dont understand reasoning of an LOC not allowing faster than divisional max. I run multiple C and L class tournaments in Michigan and I see no reason not to allow it. What is your reasoning in not allowing the use of faster than divisional max?

 

 

[jcamp]

You'd be able to change your speed preference for each round, right? If so, I might ski 34 most of the time but throw in a 36 for a tournament's third round just to see how it goes.

[MISkier]

@jcamp, you can do exactly that. I plan to mix it up, whenever possible.

[walleye]

Is zero base scoring for a people to improve thier score or grow membership??? It appears to me a way to gain an advantage.

[Chad_Scott]

Exactly

[lpskier]

When I go to a tournament, all I ask for is a simple, fair advantage.

[MillerTime38]

@walleye I believe the idea was introduced as an idea to increase membership but no one thought about how unfair the rule was for the old guys. Apparently everyone will ski 36 mph and everyone will get hurt

[JackQ]

Millertime38, I feel your attempt of sarcasm smacks more of a smart ass. As some one that does not compete you have strong opinions on what those who do should do.

[lpskier]

I for one was happy to leave 36 behind 25 years ago. I had no plans to re-live my youth.

[LeonL]

@Triplett since you asked, based on the rule that allows this in class C but disallows it at Regionals and Nationals I don't think it's fair. Already two of the four tournament sites in KY have decided not to allow it at their tournaments this year. We're waiting to hear from the other two. We realize that we will make no impact nationally, but we stand firm in our belief that it's not a good rule and we will exercise our option to disallow its use at the tournaments we sponsor.

[Triplett]

@leonL, would Kentucky revisit this decision if a group of M7 age skiers wanted to go 34mph and not 32mph? Or a W5 wanting to go 34mph? I think we all got caught up in the 36mph debate and forgot about the rest of the skiers.

[BRY]

@Triplett How is raising max speed in M7 or W5 different from raising max speed in M3-M6? Particularly now it is only Class C (therefore IWWF list issues are moot)?

 

If just a few decide to step up max speed then the rest (majority) will feel pressure to do the same, even though they don't want to. Just as true in W5 and M7 as M3-M6. So I don't think we forgot about the rest as the concept applies to all. 34-36mph was the focus due to the numbers of affected, 1100 M3-M6 vs 190 M7+W5.

 

If most W5 and/or M7 want to raise their max speed, then that should be addressed specifically. Does a large majority of W5 and/or M7 want to speed up? Don't know but I don't think so. Though I know a few do (small minority). Perhaps we should ask them all and know for sure. Specifically for KY, @LeonL speaks directly for 50% of the M7 there and I am sure the 1 (one) W5 there can speak for herself.

 

There is an issue with W5 speed and IWWF rankings. Was specifically brought up by one of the Directors who proposed the ZBS rule as a reason for it. Seems a specific rule to fit AWSA/IWWF speed mismatches would be better than a blanket AWSA speed up.

 

[Triplett]

@bry, the argument that everyone would speed up is a good hypothesis that wont be tested now. I understand where you are coming from.

 

Anyway, I encourage LOCs to utilize the rule to its full extent, then make judgement if it is wrong or not. I believe the slower speeds will help and the faster speed option might add some fun competition! Also, it might be helpful if in the comments for your tournament that you indicate if you are using the full rule, it might help with rules confusion.

 

[Than_Bogan]

@Triplett Wait, are you saying there are OTHER PEOPLE besides me?

[LeonL]

If the ALL the skiers in a given division, in a placement tournament, were to request to use increased speed I suppose I would be inclined to allow it. However I don't see that option available in the rules. My interpretation of the rule is all divisions or none. I do believe I could score more buoys at 34 than 32, but it still isn't reasonable to do this in class C and not Regionals or Nationals.

[MISkier]

@LeonL, I agree with you. ZBS should have been remained across the board as originally written (all tournament classes).

[escmanaze]

If I'm understanding what I'm reading correctly it looks like this:

 

About half the people arguing against ZBS are arguing because they think in increase of 2 mph should be worth more than 6 balls. The other half of the people arguing against ZBS are doing so because they think an increase of 2 mph should be worth less than 6 balls.

 

Hmmmm...

[MISkier]

@escmanaze, I don't think those that are for or against ZBS believe that the increase is worth more than 6 balls. I don't.

 

The scoring chart shows the value of completing passes at specific line length and speed combinations and that is what you should earn for those achievements. If someone skis faster and obtains a higher score than someone skiing slower, then that is a function of the choice each skier made and their ability to complete the passes they chose.

[escmanaze]

Hmm, maybe I'm misunderstanding what I'm reading then. It seems like some guys here use the case of going really slow on really short ropes such that a "worse" skier could get a better score as the reason we shouldn't do it. Then others make the argument that a "worse" skier could get a better score by going faster on longer ropes as the reason why we shouldn't do it. It seems to me that they are trying to play both sides of the fence here, but I could certainly also be misunderstanding something. There is 13 pages after all.

[MISkier]

I think most supported the ability for a skier to go slower than their divisional max speed on a shorter rope. The real point of contention was skiers that would opt to ski faster than divisional max speed on a longer rope.

[GK]

In Ohio we like to have FUN at our tournaments. I will be encouraging all Buckeye Buoy Tour Stops to give skiers the OPTION to ski above max speed. God forbid we have FUN and get credit in the rankings list for challenging ourselves. I can't wait to move 20 spots in the ranking list over all those KY skiers who will be forced to ski at 34. Well...at least I would if KY had one single M3 skier. Come on KY!!!

[escmanaze]

Heaven forbid we allow a 36 year old to go the full 36 mph. So he takes a higher risk and comes off as the better skier. That happens in the X games all day every day. Guys take higher risks and if they pull it off, they come off as the better athlete.

[Than_Bogan]

@escmanaze. True. But many of us who have been at this forever simply don't want to have to do that in order to be competitive. Since this sport has essentially zero spectators, decisions generally should be made based on what the athletes want. I gather there wasn't a clear consensus on that, but I think a sensible middle ground was found -- for now -- and I hope we'll continue to consider "interesting" changes seriously in the future.

[jcamp]

@GK So Vermont has more M3 skiers than Kentucky (1 vs. 0)? That's my nomination for most depressing stat of the winter.

[MISkier]

Actually. @Than_Bogan, there was a question on the ZBS survey that asked if ZBS should remain as originally written. As of the 1270 responses a moment ago, the result was 51.33% in favor of retaining ZBS as written (all tournament classes). While not a landslide, it is a consensus. And, at the time of the vote and discussion on compromise, the results still had a consensus favoring original ZBS.

[MarkM]

2 mph does not equal 6 buoys. It might equal 4.67 buoys, or 6.33, or 7.12456. But not 6.

And it's especially not equal to 6 buoys at every rope length.

 

[GK]

...and skiing in FL does not equal skiing in MI, and skiing at a manmade lake does not equal skiing on a gravel pit, and skiing behind a MasterCraft does not equal skiing behind a Nautique, and skiing behind Driver A does not equal skiing behind Driver B, etc, etc. It's just another variable that skiers have the option to use if they want to ATTEMPT to ski a higher buoy count. Have fun with it.

[MarkM]

In a tournament, skiers within a division have the same boat, same driver, same lake, same temp, etc.

 

Pick whatever you want. I'm going 34. I've got enough injuries.

 

 

[GK]

Well lucky for you the tournament can choose which rule they're adopting and Regionals/Nationals are capped at max speeds. As for the Ranking List there are variables all over the place so to say this somehow negatively impacts it is a bit of a stretch. The board made the BEST compromise they could have in my opinion.

[Than_Bogan]

@MISkier Not sure why I'm bothering to argue the meaning of words, but typically "consensus" means broad, general agreement, not a slim majority.

[MISkier]

@Than_Bogan, in reviewing the definition of consensus, I agree with you. We do not have consensus. I retract my original statement and thank you for keeping me honest.

[Chad_Scott]

Let it also be noted the majority in favor do not compete in regionals or Nationals So why take a stance on something you have no involvement in.

[walleye]

I skied 36 today did we gain any membership?

[MISkier]

Yes, somebody told me they read your post and sent their dues in.

[eleeski]

@Triplett is right. There are reasons for certain skiers to need higher speeds. Alignment with IWWF speeds being the foremost.

 

The speed isn't worth 6 buoys for the top skiers. That's what bugs @Chad_Scott because he's forced to ski 36 to win.

 

How do we make a rule that works for the skiers who need IWWF scores and want to compete fairly here? Just as forcing a higher speed on the skiers is wrong, screwing the overspeed skiers is just as bad.

 

Eric

 

@walleye They saw your post and your avatar picture. They wanted to catch fish faster!

[TLAB]

How about this;

 

Let men over 35 yrs old, who want to ski 36mph, stay in Men 2 as long as they want.

Women over 53 who want to ski 34mph, stay in Women 4.

Similar for Men 7&8, and Women 8&9.

For the Boys and Girls who want to stay at lower speeds, Have separate divisions; Boys 3-34, Boys 3-36. Similar for the Girls.

 

In the interest of fairness, and rankings that mean anything, we simply can't have different speeds in the same division.

 

Don Aschenbrenner

 

[MISkier]

@TLAB, we still would have different speeds in the same division. Everybody is so focused on the max speed that they forget ZBS also allows you to ski slower than that max and shorten the rope. So, even in your M2 example, you can have some M2 shortening at 36 mph, some at 34 mph, some at 32 mph and so on.

 

[ski6jones]

@TLAB has the right idea, as was suggested earlier by @Dirt. If you want to go slower than max speed and can turn that into an advantage (doubtful) then fine. Does anyone really think it's a good idea for us old farts to ski 36? I can tell you at 56 y.o. I know it would shorten my skiing career, so not going to happen. If I were competitive for a national title I'm pretty sure I would feel the need for speed in order to remain competitive. Let people ski in the nearest lower age division that offers the speed you want.

[ToddL]

The question that I can't quite figure out is this: How will the higher speeds rule increase participation at Regionals/Nationals or not? If it affects rankings, then it will definitely impact who qualifies.

 

Maybe it is no big deal for most, but there will be that small number of skiers in each division who have always been right on the threshold of qualifying, chose to ski "traditional" speeds this season, and possibly end up not qualifying this year. Just remember for every new person who qualifies because of this rule change, there is another person who doesn't qualify due to the rule change.

[MISkier]

@ToddL, the way that ZBS finally ended up, it won't do anything for Regionals or Nationals. If it had remained as originally written (not optional, all tournament classes), then it's possible those that might have qualified before, but not attended, would see some new strategic options to interest them in participating.

[ToddL]

I am pretty sure that the new rule says that the skier must either shorten the rope and/or go up in speed at the end of each pass (and implicitly assumes that if one is progressed, the other stays the same). So, I don't think this is allowed.

 

However, if the intent was that each pass attempted was pursuing the next 6 buoys in ZBS, then this should be fair game: What if the skier wanted to drop a speed and shorten the rope 2x? This is still moving forward in terms of ZBS.

 

Example: (notice the scoring is still linear)

Skier goes -15 34 MPH, runs it (72 buoys)

Skier goes -22 34 MPH, runs it (78 buoys)

Skier goes -32 (2x shorten) 32 MPH (down in speed), runs it (84 buoys)

Skier goes -35 32 MPH, gets 3 (87 buoys - final ZBS score)

 

Compare this to the traditional path:

Skier goes -15 34 MPH, runs it (72 buoys)

Skier goes -22 34 MPH, runs it (78 buoys)

Skier goes -28 34 MPH, runs it (84 buoys)

Skier goes -32 34 MPH, gets 3 (87 buoys - final ZBS score)

 

I'm not sure if this was considered when writing the rule. However, in this new paradigm of fun and skier choice, shouldn't this be allowed?

 

Also, I assume if a skier elected to both shorten and speed up, then this is just an "opt up" scenario with the traditional risk/reward scoring.

 

[MISkier]

@ToddL, I think you misinterpreted my post. With ZBS not allowed at Regionals or Nationals, the only option there is traditional speed increase to age division max followed by shortening. No other strategy can be used, which may have been an incentive for some who qualified to attend.

 

I am in no way proposing going backward in speed or lengthening the rope from pass to pass. I don't know if anyone wants to consider it. If they do, it could make things very interesting.

[ToddL]

@MISkier - I was writing the 2nd post above before I ever saw your response to the Reg/Nats post.

 

However, my 1st of the two posts above was not about the rules during Reg/Nats. Rather, it was about the impact upon qualification due to impact to the ranking list. If someone can find a competitive advantage and use that to bump a safer/older skier down in the rankings such that the safer skier drops a level, it may impact qualifications.

[Horton]

 

 

[Gar]

Pick up that baby!!!

[BRY]

Geez, so much passion (good) but failing to read the rule (bad).

2017 AWSA Rule Book

Check out pages 48-50

No, you can't go down in speed or longer on line. Faster and/or shorter only.

Yes, ZBS is applicable to Regionals and Nationals, max speeds were just retained as previous.

[MISkier]

I read it just now. I'm hoping some skiers get the opportunity to use it in the Regionals or Nationals situation. I also re-read the FAQ. I should have known the underspeed shortening was allowed at Regionals/Nationals. My oversight.

[ToddL]

Thanks, @BRY