webbdawg99

@Texas6 Its a sport psychology technique. For each pass, you should focus on 3 things to do to ski a successful pass. For Matt, his 3 keys tend to be patience, soft knees, hips to the next ball. Everyone's "3 keys" will be different, just depending on what you're working on. It is important that the "3 keys" are always actions to take, not actions to avoid. For example, one of your keys may be "wide gate". That is very different than "don't start narrow". For whatever reason, if you tell yourself to "don't" do something, your brain/body tend to ignore the "don't" part and you end up doing exactly what you were trying to avoid. Never think in the negative. I say my 3 keys to myself over and over as I'm sitting at the end of the lake, getting pulled out of the water, pulling out for my gate, rolling in for the gate, etc. I'd say that this mental training technique improved my skiing more than anything else I've done in years. I'd say its also working for @MattP‌

True @ShaneH But if D3 was wanting to sell the new 45, wouldn't they make the top sheet look like the 45, even if it wasn't? I know Nate stayed on his old X7 for years. Maybe this particular ski is his new favorite

I was looking at some pics from the California Pro-Am. It appears that Nate is still skiing on the Quest and not the Quest 45. Can anyone confirm? If this is the case, I wonder why.....

@Waternut Bring it!

UPDATE: The airline has mailed me a check to pay for the replacement of my D3 and my Sport Tube. Good job Delta!

Dave Wingerter skied on one in the M2 division at nationals.

Again, back to the participation theme. If ALL your scores were averaged, you may be less likely to participate in more tournaments at the prospect of hurting your ranking score. However, under the current system, you can only HELP your score, not hurt it.

I think there are several reasons. First, its to encourage participation. If you could go to one tournament and get all three scores, you may be less likely to attend other tournaments. Second, it shows more consistency of performance when your score is achieved on different days, at different sites, with different conditions and drivers. My $0.02

Glad to see you "get the monkey off your back"! The good news is that the mental/physical approach that we've been working on, is the same approach that will get you through your first tournament 35! 3 keys!

Im actually on a 68 @SkiJay. Proportionately, you have a lot more fin in the water than I do. My Reflex is at about 30 3/8"

@skiep is the owner

You definitely have to run a different fin setup than you did on the previous Quest. My fin is longer, shallower, and more forward than my previous ski. Quest #'s - 6.925, 2.500, .740 Quest 45 #'s - 6.930, 2.490, .760

M2 is 25-34 inclusive

I personally dont care what entry fees are. It doesnt impact me at all. You have 2 different sides of the argument though. You have the kids hosting the events upset that they are losing money, making them less likely to hold more events. Then you have the kids complaining that entry fees are too high. So if the choice is raise entry fees or stop having tournaments.....which would you choose? Cause I gotta tell you, its heading that way in the SAC. Something's gotta give

@RazorRoss3‌ The entry fee should be the same for all tournaments in your conference to avoid situations like that. I know in the SAC, the entry fee is standardized

@RazorRoss3‌ I'm a bit confused. You voted $35 and then go on to say you've canceled tournaments bc the math doesn't work. So you'd rather keep entry fees low even if it means no tournaments?

@chris_logan I agree that an attendance and/or financial commitment from each time is a good idea.

Those same clubs you're referring to @E_T also provided and or housed ALL the officials for the tournament. Do you know what the hotel cost was in the Spring? Zero. Trust me, I'd like to see the policy change....and I'm working on it.....but you can't ignore other facts as well.

Maybe $35, but I'll error on the high side. Simple logic. Either EVERYONE pays a bit more, or the few that put on the tournaments pay a LOT more. Last Spring, KSU LOST over $200 that was divided among 3 club members. The entry fees are not sufficient to cover the costs associated with hosting a tournament. Period.

My new "Quest" for redemption begins today....

I disagree @chris_logan‌. Can't afford a $40 entry fee....but can afford all nighters at the bar. If you can't afford it, it's not your priority. I don't expect raising the entry fee to impact attendance at all. It's been $25 for over 15 years. The price of everything else has gone up....gas, boats, hotels, food....all costs associated with putting on an event. The hosting teams shouldn't be the ones footing the bill when the event loses money. Everyone needs to step up and do their part.

@MattP Looks like @waterskispreads mentioned an entry fee of $40 and potential "team fee" of $25. If the SAC implemented these types of numbers, everyone who hosts should make money.

I dont think any of the teams in the SAC make any money on any of their tournaments. But its hard to make a profit when you only charge $25 entry fees for a 3 event tournament! What are other conferences charging for entry fees?

If you know something is happening and you don't do anything about it, you're not only being tolerant....but accepting.