Jump to content

Symetrical Slalom Course


Boatman
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Baller

It is my sworn duty as a Math Nerd to point out that the current course is radially symmetric. If you think of a point on the centerline between gate 3 and gate 4, then for every ball in the course there is another one (of the same type) that is exactly reflected across that point.

 

As far as having symmetry about the boat path line, I think that would be a ton of effort for little-to-no gain. Both LFF and RFF skiers have been very successful over the years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it should be done- BUT the way to do it would be similar to an 8-buoy course setup (with an extra set of gates) - so rather than having turn balls on each side at each boat guide a skier that is skiing the mirrored course would just enter the course at a different point.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller
Such a couse might create a problem with short lakes depending on how it is configured. If the 55s and gates were left the same and the reverse buoys were installed opposite their counterparts, there would be no change in length. On the other hand, adding an extra six buoys to a permitted course on public water could be a permit modification nightmare.

Lpskier

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller

I dont see why it could not be implemented on existing course's that could facilitate this.

Also should be allowed in competition where sites can facilitate.

Being left foot forward my preference would be to go from right to left if available.

 

Funny, in a tournament two years ago at milton I was not feeling the bouy ideology and it was morning round. I pulled out to the right and ripped off 6 free ski turns going in the gate and out the gate.... got to the end and the judge was laughing and said he did not know how to score that. I responded gates with big spray..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller

@Jody_Seal - wouldn't that be a bigger disparity? If you were for instance skiing at your home site that was a 12 ball symmetrical course and you get to a tournament on a site with turn islands and a hard right hand dog leg into the gates, even if they could have symmetrical turn balls you're going to be trying to be ready on the inside of the turn coming into the 55's and pulling out against the counter turn of the boat.

 

Other lakes simply have docks, jump courses, vegetation or other obstacles that make the symmetrical course problematic so I would assume you would still rather practice the standard course just to ensure you had the same set up everywhere.

 

Although maybe the real solution is to allow "opposite" courses to be installed and have all competitors occasionally ski LT hand courses, occasionally RT hand courses and occasionally you get to pick - could be a more interesting tie breaker run off to force skiers to switch sides in the run off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller
Not so sure there would be a desire to have this among skiers unless you grew up with it already. I've skied a reverse course. Crazy awkward with a muscle memory wanting to exit the gates from the rt side....aka ball 7.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
I don't see what problem this "solution" solves. There seems to be just a reasonable distribution of RFF and LFF skiers being successful. It also seems like both the gates and one ball are critical to a successful pass, so, If I am RFF I get an onside gate shot, if I'm LFF I get an onside one ball.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller

Does not solve any problem, does not fix any issues, does not impact those that do not or are not interested in this option and if it can be facilitated why not ? Would truly make slalom more interesting if where this option is available a skier has option to ski from right to left as well as left to right!

 

 

Optional direction Sites Maybe even throw in a house rule where in a event the skier "has to switch" at some part of their set.

 

Critics of this option are just plain scared they might get beat !

Bring it!!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller
The more I think about it the less I like symmetric courses and the more I like the idea of having LT hand courses and just force people to ski both orientations. Only certain large venue events would then be symmetrical or have to alternate orientation periodically.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@JackQ unless I am missing something the course isn't any longer the only change would be there are 12 turnballs in the course one on each side of the boat guides in between the entrance gates. Overall length of the course doesn't change at all.

 

Not sure if it really makes a difference I am not sure there is a huge benefit to LFF vs RFF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller
@cheff23 is correct about the course being the same length. At Andy's tournament the only skiers that could make their first pass in "reverse" were the Pros and maybe a handful of others. Did not matter if it was LFF or RFF. He had a built in mulligan rule for your first pass of you missed cause he knew a lot would...I did.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller
I was thinking the same thing as Chef. Course takes up no more room and the whole thing can be accomplished with 6 extra balls. But....do we change the set up to accommodate peoples preferences? Inside vs outside lane in track, clockwise vs counter clockwise in track (or NASCAR?) completely rearranging the gates in snow skiing? Left handed monkey wrenches?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you really wanted to make it interesting and require skiing both orientations: add a 7th turn ball so the gate shot orientation flips with course direction- then skiers would have to strategize pass selection for course orientation as well as wind direction.

 

That being said....I am all for keeping it as is- just going along with the concept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller

I really don't see why this concept should not be accepted for competition where "fees-able". measurements remain the same, rope lengths remain the same and boat paths remain the same (down the middle). at our site we could accomadate optional side course and are planning on installing hardware to do so.

Class C no brainer Where Fees-able.

And yes so should Texas style jumping be available where it can be accommodated..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought about this during the years when I competed in college, but ended up justifying it with, "if turn-in/1 is offside, then 5-6 is onside". I know for a fact if, 5-6 was on my offside I would have not made the pass on plenty of occasions. If I was somewhat late to 5, I was usually able to "pull my guts out", and make it around 6, and back through the gates... but there were also plenty of "too late to 6" scenarios where I didn't even try to get back to the gates.

 

It would be interesting to see though!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

You haters are way over thinking this. It would so much fun to change things up. Whether adding a 7th buoy or 6 more turn balls (who cares), it would help change up the craziness of repetition we have with the current setup.

And the fun of new challenges without a major change to slalom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...