Skimstyle vs Surfstyle

Interesting concept, not dissimilar to the way the INT league does it...although the implementation strikes me as being difficult in practice, they require riders to have attack sheets and there are separate judges for calling the trick, etc. Mac thanks for chiming in, I aprreciate the different perspective.

One aspect of the difficulty ratings is reaching consensus. Take for example just the surface 3, when I started in with determining the difficult level for surf and skim I got the surf folks saying that the surface 3 was harder on a surfstyle board because of the fin depth and the skim style folks saying it was harder because of the lack of fin depth and the over-rotation. Literally I couldn't get a single trick's difficulty level determined.

So I'll pose that question, is this benefical to the sport? Developing a judging system that requires this differentiation between skim and surf with some adjustment factor rather than separating the two disciplines? Also, when I jump into the contest on my 8 ft long board...how will that impact scoring?

dennis ,
If it was just time then I think each style would get each a different timed run. I'm using DD. to separate the two in a 10 trick timed run. Your Question is valid you could just use time.

If it was just time using the same DD. for all styles it might look some thing like this.Skim
25 sec. run surf 30 sec. run, long 35sec. run.
Kind of a handy cap system.

First off, there is no offence taken here. This is a discussion, not an argument.

I'm all for divisions. Obviously you can't throw everyone into one division and call it macaroni, but I would still like to see an Unlimited division at some point. Hell, I think it will evolve that way anyways just through board design. That is the future however and I'm a patient man. I'll be the first to admit you guys have a way better grip on this thing than I do and I trust you will do what needs to be done. Hopefully you won't mind if I throw in a low budget dirt bag opinion once in a while.

Nick, no self-degrading allowed, I am sure I speak for everyone when I say "Thanks" for taking the time to post. I appreciate it. The more input we have, the better the final system will be.

The future of board design is attached Just wait until I spin a 3 on this! Although I should probably yell some warning to folks in the boat first, huh? DUCK! I throwing a three!

Hey I want in the drag race division.

We just don't have those toys around here. Some one at work threw out a long board about a week before I finished Recycle This!! They would have given me the board had they known.

Too big to bother taking on board the boat, right? Well I guess not you guys are riding them.

Dennis is that the junkyard windsurfer? That looks like it rides well. I love the slot on the deck

Ed, you know when we go out we literally have more boards than you can shake a stick at in the walk thru. The longboard was what, Dennis - 9'6"? Anyway, it was huge...I wouldn't say that it's anything less than "cozy" when we bring along the BIG BOYS...but it's doable.

Jeff,
That board is 10'2" 25" wide and 4+" thick ultra "cozy". yep the junkyard board rode well.

I'm gonna have see if my buddy still has his Bear. I don't want get knocked out in the first round of SURF DRAGS!!! SUNDAY! SUNDAY! SUNDAY! IT'S GONNA BE WIIIIILD!

The Arizona contest isn't going to have this ridiculous split will it?
(edit: I'll be bringing several riders to that one)

(Message edited by caskimmer on March 29, 2007)

Sean, are you referring to the longboard noseriding division? I don't believe that such a division will be created in AZ.

The folks at the AzWA are exceptionally accomodating and attuned to the needs and wants of their participants. It is my understanding that there is no plan to split between surf and skim at this time. Last year, when Jaime Lovett appeared the folks in AZ did create an advanced division, on the fly if you will, to allow a separation for Jaime and James. The intent was to create the most equalized divisions and allow for the most consistent and objective judging.

Hope to see you there.

Hey Sean,
Just happened to read the thread on hybrid boards that someone brought back up and found this post by you. "'m didn't mean to come off like I was "hating". In fact I would REALLY like to try one of those out in the ocean and they look the closest to what I would ride if I used a surfstyle board behind the boat. (hmmm, maybe if they divide the disciplines hint,hint)"
What changed your mind about dividing the classes now?

I don't see where I said I was happy about it or that it was the right thing to do. I'm sorry but I still think you guys are handling this totally wrong.

For the 5th time where does the difference in styles exist at the intermediate level? You guys still haven't explained where the huge discrepancy lies that calls for a split in styles at the amateur level.

How many shuv-its and bigspins were done at the 6 INT contests last year? How about the skim to surf ratio, were there enough skimstyle riders at any contest last year (besides wakestock) to fill a skimstyle division? How about last year's spring break contest?

Hey Sean,
Last year was last year and the level of riders has increased greatly. I am positive that shuvits will be done this year. Last year at the spring break contest there were enough skim riders to split the class. I also believe that this year at this contest we will need another division ( intermediate-advanced). I think that the level of riding will be much better.
It sounded like you wanted a split in disciplines last year, maybe I was wrong.

Well, seems to me you should be making changes with actual contest experiences not what you think might happen. All other sports make changes accordingly when a problem actually occurs not when they think "it might". These things are also usually conducted in rider meetings.

and no, I most definitely did not ever want a split. There's another even older thread where I go at it for some time with Jeff and Alan about the same thing. IMO-the solution is simple. Use more knowledgeable judges. Ones that understand the difference in difficulty. I mean what problems are you really diverting? Sounds like there are still going to be "skimstyle" riders in the surfstyle division and your still going to have to differentiate difficulty of tricks among different riders.

hi does anyone know if xtreme is still in business..cant get jon to return emails or answer phone....trying to get 2 boards they owe me for

125's dont race 250's for a reason...separating surf style from skim style is a no brainer.best thing since picante sauce!

Here is my take on the surf vs skim Most of the skim style riders @ tulloch needed the boat to run at a slower speed than the surf style i believe the skim speed was about 9 to 10 mph surf style 12 to 14mph skim prefers no switch blade as surf welcomes the switch blade, do to the thickness of the boards, rocker,and tail thickness & floatation there is a lot of variation between the board types the quick spins, shuvs and other tricks that that are easier on a flater small finned board . With the surf style you get more speed & drive do to the thickness & length among other design traits but it takes longer to set for these tricks so for the surf style it is a harder trick.Some tricks are exclusive to a style of board . Sean is right about the judges but with a new sport it will take time to polish the system
remember the A.S.P just started scoring airs on the world tour a few years ago and now all CT surfers boost airs, So this means you have to have alot of tricks in your bag & land them then you should win . If the most difficult tricks were landed you should win .Both style's need to be scored on difficulty and scored on the difficulty of the trick on that style of board Jamie won on both styles at Tulloch so he got 2 checks which is all good not trying to start a skim vs surf war

IMHO, this is much ado about nothing. Everything trick that I've ever seen in my limited surf experience, I've seen it done on a surf style and skim style board. It might be easier get huge air on a surf style board and to do multiple spins on a skim style board but there isn't enough difference between the boards to make a big differentiation. What can you do on one board that can't be done on another? I think it is probably more of an attitude than anything else. I heard a highly rated wakesurfer say,"I don't squat, I surf", in reference to a skim style rider. BTW, the squatter is now World Champ. Way to go Bri!

I think the two styles have two separate origins. Surf style from ocean surfing. Skim style from skimboarding, and possibly wakeskate/skate board.

Let me attempt to define the origin sports. Forgive my inaccuracies, I’m not often near the ocean. I'm sure many of you can refine these statements.

An ocean going surf board is generally about 2 inches thick and maybe 6 to 10 feet long. An ocean surfer paddles out catches a wave and surfs it in. The ocean surfer can carve hard turns and catch air. They surf a fairly massive wave for 15 to 60 seconds. I assume that ocean surfers take to surf style surfing more than skim style.

Skim boards are relatively flat, short and wide. I’ve seen skim boarders run along the sand throw a board down on just an inch or two of water and then skim on top of the thin layer of water. Skimmers might spin, and they might head to deeper water and catch the last curl of the wave before it crashes on to the beach. It seems like wakeskaters and skate boarders take to wakesurf skimboarding, a reasonable statement?

If these are reasonable statements then is it reasonable to say that these source sports define the essence of wake skimming and wake surfing or I’m I completely off the mark?

If we establish the source of the identity of these two styles can we then begin to define what skill most represent these styles?

(Message edited by Bigshow on September 06, 2007)

When James Walker competed at the Nationals, his Open Skim run looked a lot like his Open Surf run. There might be a lot of differences between the styles on the ocean but I just don't see the big differences on a boat wake.

How did you guys completely blow off the longboard division?! That was the best time ever! You have to include that division in this dialog.

Rather than going over and over the same issue, and if anyone truly wants to revive this 4 month old thread - what are valid reasons for NOT having 3 style divisions?

Here is another division Shawk Board system to see who can land the flip, I know Chase was pretty close last time he was at naci , There are a few crews out there that have them now . Or the Grinch surfing Big Air Division

Skim first appeared late year, right? Long board early this year, right? Until Bri can pull a 1080 on a 10 foot long board I don't see much confusion between skim and long board. Yes, long board is cool, new, and should be defined. I really enjoyed long board.

However, I think there is quite a bit of confusion between skim and surf. I think this is a discussion that needs to be revisited now that the '07 season is winding down.

in my opinion the spliting of devisions is the best thing that can happen to the sport. there are huge differences between surf and skim. the major issue is the rocker. skims are flat. when you go backwards on a skim its just like riding it forwards. you can go for days. surf style boards loose all speed when they are pointed backwards because of the rocker. its basicly pushing water rather than flowing well. thats why you dont see guys on real surf style boards doing a shove and riding until they are stable and then throwing another one or reverting it. i have been trying them for days now and its all split second stuff. you catch it land it and the fins catch and you spin whatever way the board decids or you loose your speed and fall out of the wave. i can do shov's on a skimboard no issues.

pluss a split in the devisions means any one can enter a skim devision and spin your brains out, and then enter the surf devision and punt a few airs, and then enter the longboard devision and hang 10, or in jeffs case hang 15 all day long.

and as for prizes, who caes if you dont get as much its all about having fun. with time and a split the sport will grow bringing in more sponsors and thus more prizes.

Ed? Why? There are literally only 2 folks in this thread that have an issue with the split. Sean Ward, but that was at the beginning of the year and Roy, who admittedly said he has little experience and as I remember was silent when all of this was developed.

The overwhelming majority of folks say YES! You were involved in the rules discussion, you know that virtually ALL of those folks were behind this division. I can't see that two folks should dictate an ongoing discussion unless there is a significant reason. None of which is being offered other than - "I don't get it". Further: professionals, amateurs and manufacturers alike all said - they were behind the divisions.

Also, the rules that the AWSA promulgate (which is what this discussion was about) do NOT force a division, that is up to an organizer. If an organizer so chooses they can offer just one division and leave it at that. What would be the justification for LIMITING the number of divisions in the rule set, if it's not FORCED upon an organizer? Think about the motivations behind that.

Revisiting that concept, because it's incredibly important...If there are NO restrictions on the divisions made by the rules, what is the argument about? If you are a competitor and don't like the splits, don't enter. If you are an organizer and don't like the splits, don't offer them.

But to argue that the split should NEVER be offered or considered in the rules is, besides controlling, motivated by something other than greater representation of disciplines in the sport or confusion of styles.

Unless there is a significant argument to justify limiting the number of style divisions, this continued discussion has no merit. The divisions are in place, the majority of folks are behind it. The most skilled and involved folks are behind it. AND, it's not forced on anyone. At this point the argument seems to be - don't even allow the potential to exist in the rules. Sorry, in my opinion, that is pure folly.

NOW, if folks want to start another thread that politely asks (which does NOT mean making toxic statements like: "I don't squat, I surf"). I'd like to understand the nuances between surf, skim and longboard divisions. As an informative
thread, that's a different matter.

J.L. - best trick? Or maybe a strapped division?

Johnny, I told you not to tell anyone about my 15 toes!

Ed, I do understand your desire to clear up confusion, but it doesn't belong here, my dear friend, PLEASE start a new thread that asks for an informative discussion of the differences. The rule set is in place and it's not exclusionary, I just can't imagine that there is ANY justification for making those rules exclusionary...but if there is a reason or reasons, THAT should be brought to light for consideration by all.

Well, then where is the increase in participation from outside professionals. You did state that was the intended cause of the split. Well I happen to know for a fact from talking within the skim industry that this had the exact opposite effect (seems like a pretty legitimate reason to me) The lack outside participation of professional athletes at the Worlds speaks volumes. (less is bad)

that and except for a handful of riders the difference just isn't there.

Roy, no reason looking too hard because the difference just isn't there at the amateur level.

Also I believe Roy's son and I are the only ones in this conversation that are actually affected by this decision. (since James can no longer compete in Amateur competitions)

There was no split in divisions in the two open division at the World's, so your ASSUMPTION doesn't hold water and in fact, would tend to shoot holes in your "fact".

I question your "fact" because the folks that I talked to have said the split is great...in fact Jaime Lovett pronounced it on the podium at Tulloch.

I cannot fathom how you made the leap from a non-existent split to a lack of professional riders. Josh Sleigh had a wedding to attend, my understanding is that Jaime Lovett's mother passed away and he wasn't much interested in contests. I would think that there are myriad other considerations.

Nonetheless, an organizer does NOT need to require the splits. They can have just one division and call it a day, why anyone would have a problem with this freedom is beyond me, other than motivations of winning and money from sales.

Now, I am sure that everyone is willing to discuss the definition or skills required, but limiting the consideration of opening a division or not allowing for that freedom within the rules seems, IMO, to be prejudical and without merit.

If Sean were to organize, he doesn't like the split, he just doesn't offer it. It's just wakesurfing, period. If I organize and I want to allow more water time, get additional folks involved I can offer the split in each age group and both genders. Denying me THAT freedom, would be JUST as bad as requiring Sean to HOLD a contest that required all the splits.

This is such a NON-ISSUE I can't even imagine that it still carrys any energy at all.

...and one of those considerations was the way the contest was being organized. I have talked to multiple people that do share that feeling. The skim community is a LOT larger than 1 pro rider
(Message edited by caskimmer on September 07, 2007)

(Message edited by caskimmer on September 07, 2007)

and they won't attend an event because there is a separate surf, skim and longboard division? That sounds so...I don't know, so segregationist, like the deep south in the 50's. "I'm not attending any event with those dang longboarders!"

I'm sorry Sean, that just doesn't make any sense to me. Again, nonetheless, the rules allow for this sort of prejudice. If an organizer wants the divisions or doesn't...they can make it that way.

Sean, I hear you on the last comment. Is that why Beaker stopped attending after '03? James has an autographed poster with Beaker on it, that boy can rip.

well that's what is happening and you stated the opposite was the intention so...

IMO if we had competant judges that understood the difference then there is ABSOLUTELY no need for a division.

How about posting a video of the "skimstyle" runs and "surfstyle" and explaining where this huge difference exists and why the judges aren't able to judge accordingly.

We have that ability now, so your point is what? Why should we eliminate the freedom to offer separate divisions?

because there's no need. The difference between the 2 styles at the amateur level just isn't big enough to warrant a split. The difference becomes apparent at the professional level but that's where the split is being implemented.

Again, why should we eliminate the freedom? The rules allow for the implementation as you suggest (organizer says - sheesh, there are only 2 TRUE competent skim folks, I'm not going to offer it). We HAVE the ability to do just what you say, completely exclude any an all divisions. WHY would there be ANY reason to not allow it if an organizer wants to? I want one reason that justifies eliminating the option TO allow an organizer to offer it. The fact that IN YOUR OPINION, it's not necessary doesn't mean that some organizer somewhere might want to and in HIS OPINION it's legitimate. If we stipulate only 1 division, we take away that organizers freedom. That simply isn't right.

We can achieve just exactly what you say. We can also offer the freedom to those who don't share your opinion.

IMO, that is reasonable.

Jeff I'm not trying to limit anyone's freedoms. I'm just asking someone to demonstrate WHERE the big difference in style is at the amateur level because I don't see it. IMO this is creating a division within the community that doesn't need to exist.

It's not that I'm not open to the other side of the discussion. All I'm asking for is an explanation other than "it's my right as a organizer" on why there is the need for a division.

Sean, yes you are attempting to limit freedoms, in practice. If your contention is that there is NO need for a split and therefore the divisions should NOT exist and should NOT be considered within the rules, at an amateur level, that is specifically asking for a restriction on the formula. A restriction on someone's freedoms to allow it.

The rules, as stated, allow the organizer to offer divisions for surf, skim and longboard, or not, and to open or offer any combination of those divisions as they warrant. That is FREEDOM.

The explanation is pretty clear, we allow it because there are (see above) folks that want it. We don't REQUIRE it, because there are folks like you, that don't want it.

Personally, I don't believe that offering a longboard division creates any division in the community. If folks can accept THAT, why can't they accept surf vs skim? There isn't a single cry from folks saying - NO LONGBOARDING! There's no difference! If you can accept THAT style, recognize THAT difference, accept "those" folks, the rest can be accepted too.

To NOT allow, to NOT recognize that there are multiple styles of riding, is restrictive and prejudical. To FORCE multiple divisions is also prejudical.

We allow the freedom, and as is stated, repeatedly above, folks want the FREEDOM to select the divisions they organize. I don't see that as driving a wedge between different folks. In my experience - what happens in practice, is that folks, like Mikey K, enter all the divisions and get more time in the water, they share boards and have a blast. It fosters a greater level of involvement, IMO and actually causes some folks to try a different style of board.

Again, we are allowing the freedom to organize and choose as needed, to participate or not as deemed appropriate by the contestant. To do otherwise, as stated repeatedly above, is what creates dissention, IMO, not the offering of freedom of choice.

So then where is the added outside participation from outside professionals that this change was suppose to bring? Even if we add your 2 examples to the equation participation from outside professionals was down considerably from last year. ( despite the fact that last year there was a professional skim competition the same weekend and this year there were no prior obligations)


and where is the big difference in style at the amateur level? that's all I'm asking.

I'll stop now. It's apparent that the AWSA (aka Jeff Walker) is inflexible in it's viewpoints and unable to entertain outside opinions.

Wow, I don't have enough hours in a day to track this. My end goal here is information, a description of the difference, one that can be widely shared.

At Nationals amateurs competed on Saturday and the open divisions were on Sunday. We made no skim/surf division for amateurs but we did make this division for the open divisions. Nationals was held in Ohio, far from the coast. I wanted the amateurs to see the pro riders in both skill divisions ride so they could learn the difference. To accomplish this education I encouraged the pros to ride – kind of free ride – with the Ams on Saturday. Also I encouraged the locals to compete against the pros on Sunday.

I saw both Bri Chmel, world class skimmer, and Jessica Oswald world class surfer, ride on Saturday. I can’t imagine how you could objectively compare these two riders at their own surf/skim style.

I required at least two entries per division, we ended up running a total of nine divisions. Sunday morning of Nationals I split the Women’s division to surf and skim. We had reasonable turn out for Women’s open skim and I had some skimmers willing to compete in the surf division. I only asked for an additional $10 to enter a second division and another $5 on top of that for a third division. I made entering multiple divisions easy. I did this because I had plenty of schedule and because of what appeared to me to be vastly different riding styles displayed by the women on Saturday. The only thing at stake at Nationals was the title and a trophy, there was no purse. It cost me practically nothing to split the Women’s division.

As far as the amateurs go I think it is meaningful to identify what surf and skim divisions are. I think it’s really beneficial to provide the Ams a chance to watch the pros ride in each style. What better way for an amateur to learn the difference in the divisions?

With my untrained eye, I’d say with the exception of one rider at Nationals, most skimmers sets appeared to be mostly surf and not skim. That’s not saying those surfers didn’t do skim tricks, but I am saying that most of what I saw appeared to be surf. Let me also say I wasn’t in the boat watching all of the tricks and I wasn’t a judge.

Bottom Line: what I’m looking for is a stronger and deeper description of the division between these two styles. Many things aren’t white and black. One trick, or a whole family of tricks might belong to both categories and should be weighted the same. I go back to my post from yesterday, what is the essence of surfing, what moves are most representative and reflect that essence. A set that best reflects whatever surfing is should be something that can be defined, practiced and then appreciated. The same goes for skimming.

I’ve got to get back to work I’m surfing (or am I skimming?) after work I’ll see where this dialog goes lunch time tomorrow.

Regards,

So then, you agree that allowing the freedom to offer the various divisions is an acceptable practice, beacuse if you are attempting to argue that freedoms shouldn't be allowed because of your perceptions, we'll be right back to this place.

If your contention is that surf vs skim is what reduced particpation, I would suggest that NOT allowing for it is what reduces participation.

Our last INT League contest offered the split and longboard and best trick (although we had to curtail due to time constraints)...and this is a little rinky dink contest, mind you..and we had 55 entrants, including Czchein? I butchered his name. No advertising, per se. I would suggest that our divisions are what caused the SINGLE LARGEST amateur sole wakesurf event in the country. Tulloch had a huge turnout and that had divisions also. The evidence strictly points to it. I believe with a cash purse, and the funds to advertise, I could have easily doubled that attendance and drawn professional riders, you can't suggest otherwise.

Doesn't matter if there is or isn't difference, in riding competence (but there was a kid at the world's throwing 3 shuv's) the ability to choose is what the rules are about. Also the ability to NOT choose.

The contest that WE were responsible for organizing, the participation it provided easily demontrates that. But again, that isn't the point here, we are talking about the freedom to allow divisions as deemed appropriate, any sort of conclusion or reference that RESTRICTING options increases participation is hyperbole and eveidence to the contrary exists (the worlds this year, again there was NO division for skim, surf in the opens and no longboard and ATTENDANCE was down, vis a vis, not allowing for these divisions reduces participation is a reasonable conclusion, but not accurate - just as your assertion isn't accurate. Tulloch was up and allowed divisions, our last INT league doubled and we allowed divisions).

The question at hand is about the rules, why you insist on changing that, or diverting it so that you can come back around to rationalizing there ISN'T a need for freedom of choice, doesn't make sense to me, Sean.

History is riddled with evidence that a LACK of freedom of choice is problematic, not the contrary. Our heritage is steeped in it, from the Boston Tea Party forward.

So, again, I won't let YOU divert this to forcing me to justify. The rules allow the freedom, if NO DIVISION is what is deemed appropriate, it can happen. You have YET to justify even 1 iota the reason for NOT allowing the freedoms, other than your personal opinion which isn't shared by some.

Further, there is substantial evidence that participation is increased when separate divisions are provide for.

Anyway...there is NOTHING within this dialog that offers anything credible that freedom of choice reduces participtaion, OR that RESTRICTING freedom of choice is benefical to furtherance of the sport.

I've enjoyed our...debate, but I can't participate any longer today. Stupid work thing.

Oh and btw, James really likes those TALL arch bars, thanks for the 'bro price. For folks looking for a taller arch bar, the boardroom, right? or is it part of grabbag boardbags? offers double thick arch bars.

if Tulloch was such a success then why didn't those people show back up for the World's. Attendance of skimboarders was down this year at the World's because of the division that happened at Tulloch not the other way around. You're only talking to the people that are at the contests and not the ones who didn't go because of the way it was ran. I have.

Jeff, Why do you continue to debate with someone who never shows for the contest anyway? At least the last 7 in CA. Chase vs Drew in "Open", Alec vs FL. kid in "boys" , Bri vs Jessica in "Open Womens", Linda vs Judy H. in "Masters womens". The "Split" is needed more every year.

What's wrong with debate? Why can't I have an opposing opinion without being vilified? Maybe there's a reason I don't go to the events. I've already been ostracized for merely presenting an opposing opinion on an internet forum. I can't imagine how I'd be treated if I actually showed up to one of your events. Why should I support something where I'm personally attacked for having an differing opinion?


Also I only re-entered thus discussion because my name was brought into it.

i think as soon as the world gives chase the props he deserves for maken his surf board do what others can only make a skim board do.the respect line will be drawn.time and rider progression is all thats needed for this to happen.look at the jetski world..it took 20,000 3 seater jest ski owners 15 years to finally give the stand up skis the respect they deserved,now there is a huge stand up ski resurgence.unlike never before.as for the future of the wakesurf contest, i think the pro open will turn into the hot class for spectators.as for the pro,he wants to win his dicipline aswell as the open.happens in a bunch a sports all the time.

Jeff, I want to clarify my previous post. I have no problem with having an open surf and open skim division in a surf event. I actual like the idea because it gives riders more opportunities to compete. I really liked the way Ed sets up the divisions at the Nationals and would recommend that it be used as a model for future events. My point was except for a handful or riders, I don't think there is a big difference between the two styles. If an event has two divisions, there should be a specific criteria on how the two should be judged. Still not sure what a skimstyle rider can't do, that a 99.99% of surf style rider can do.

I do have another related question. What defines a Pro wakesurfer?

Maybe compromise is the best answer..

I enjoyed the format at nationals..no split divisions on one day, then open skim/surf the next. Also with the addition of the longboard class. This opens up new opportunities for riders to experience boards that perhaps they don't have. I would have competed in all 4, had i been able to. ( I had a severely sprained knee and could hardly ride for my two events, let alone four).

Day one, you have your open skim and open surf competitions, completely separate. THEN on day two, take the top riders from each division and put them against each other (top 3-5 from each depending on turn out?), judge them regardless of board type. Which ever rider surfs the best to the judges wins on day two. All after surfers and skimmers have their own contests the day before.

Hey Roy, sorry I misunderstood your point. The format of the Nationals was great, wasn't it? Like Robbie points out, the extra water time was great fun. If you've ever been to a contest where you only get a 2 minute ride after a 6 hour wait, you know how much more fun this format was.

The rules allow pretty much any format an organizer wants to run, in it's current iteration. Heats (top 3-5) like Robbie points out, so much of it is dependent upon turn out, etc. Regardless, the current format of the rules is extremely flexible and can accomodate just about any scenario.

We attempted, at first, to define the divisions based upon board definitions, but that got out of control.

We had length and width and rocker limitations and fins, etc...it really got to a point where attempting to implement that set of rules would have kept the judges so busy checking boards, that you couldn't run the event.

So we opted back to a style component...now I'm not ready to argue in favor of the current rules and I think that some refinement needs to take place, because, as Roy is pointing out...it's not always clear.

As Johnny pointed out one of the BIGGEST differences in riding is with the board revert. A typical skimboard will have a pintail, and a single fin mounted at the center and rear of the board.

You saw Bri start her one run switch backside with the board revert (tail first) and then do a 540 to wind up regular frontside.

This would be virtually impossible with a surfstyle board. The inside fin catches in the wake when ridden revert for any period.

James, has one trick segment on the skimboard where he throws a shuv, then does a surface 3 with the board revert and then finally shuv's back out. He has difficulty riding his surf style board revert, and of course the revert surface three becomes impossible with the fins forward.

Alternatively, HUGE aerials with double grabs are tougher on a skimstyle board, at least for James, they aren't in his aersenal on the skimboard.

So, there are tricks that aren't possible, or are so difficult as to be nearly impossible on the two different style boards and NEITHER of those can be done on a longboard

We suspended the discussion of what a pro wakesurfer is, last year as we hadn't reached any sort of useful concensus. It was tabled until - shoot, checking my notes...Novemeber of this year.

Again, the rules don't restrict the allowability of pro riders in a contest and that would be up to each organizer to either force a bye or allow the entry to place. One of the concerns expressed was that there are so few contests, and contest experience is helpful for riders that to completely eliminate their participation didn't seem prudent at this time.

So...that's all I really have on that topic Roy.

i wasnt at worlds because i had school sean, and cody wasnt there for the same reason, and tyler becuause he didnt want to go, and josh burran and josh sleigh had other obligations, obviously jamie had something more important to attend to. gavin probly didnt go because josh didnt go and so on and so forth. i dont think the split had any thing to do with the fact that the turnout wasnt as good.

Sean,
Let me get this straight. The Pro skimboarders didn't go to Tulloch because of the split division in the open and they didn't go to the World's because there wasn't a split. Sounds like they just don't go to wakesurfing competitions, so why are we discussing this for people who won't show up anyway.

definition of a pro..dosent matter if your racin pidgeons,once you have won money,you are now a pro..ask the i.r.s..or if you sign up pro with the hopes of winning money.

i think the whole surf n skim thing has been decided.imo the topic we should be debating is judging.how can we make it fair when their are so little qualified to do it,especially ones who have no ties to the contest, industry or riders.soon there will be contests with $1000 guaranteed pro purses,riders(worldchampions)from all over the world will be coming to these.do we keep it compulsory style?or do we make the rider call his run(olympicstyle).do we fly the same panel like the x games or gravity or velocity games?how do we keep em fair?

The "Pro" issue isn't quite that easy. We have tons of contests without cash prizes, but win a $500 board and sell it you have made some money. What we've done to avoid that issue is hand out trophies to winners and raffle boards - OTHERWISE the Garcia kids from the INT League would have been considered pro's 2 seasons ago.

Even then, they should have filed tax returns declaring the winnings if the total value of the prizes were above $400 in the year - SE tax and all. There just isn't anyway that RJ should be considered a pro at this stage. Next year maybe.

Other issues that came up were discounts and free boards. If a rider is provided a free board, from the IRS's standpoint that's earnings subject to taxation, is that a pro? What about if it's just a discount? What if a rider pays a dollar for the board, it's not free. So there are ways to get around this and we could reach a consensus and the taxation issue and the RJ example prevented us from using taxability as the guideline.

But more importantly, so what? Does that limit them to only contests that offer cash prizes? Or do we offer an open/pro division at every contest?

Still lots to be discussed and the IRS guidelines on taxability isn't the best guidance.

The judging system that we use avoids the issue of independence because it is a panel of judges, we typical use three. It CANNOT be less, more works, but is a PITA. The system is modeled after the appelate judical system in that the three judges establish a baseline at the beginning of each division (like calibrating a guage) and then at the end, confer and recommend placement. Much like judges rendering an opinion on a legal matter, the wakesurf judges render placements. In this way a single judge can't effect placement, the other two tell him/her they are out of line.

In this way, if all three judges are from different companies, or have different riders then they can't intentionally show favoritism. They can't lowball a nonaffiliated rider and they can score their own rider high...well thay can, but it doesn't mean anything because at the end of the day, they confer, the other judges discuss and those individual scores are meaningless. They are balanced by the other two.

In practice, the judges that I have picked are so careful to avoid the appearance of favoritism or a lack of independence that they typically rank any rider they are associated with LOWER.

Also, the numeric system that we use is only a representation, it doesn't mean anything by and of itself it's only a reference so that when the judges confer, they have a guideline. If this isn't kept in place, the system comes apart.

The system works very well - hard to understand for folks that aren't familiar with independence and judical systems, but for those that are, they applaud it's simplicity and elegance.

Billy, you guys are using it in TX, I'm sure...or at least have the rules. Give me a shout and I'll go over it with you in detail.

Other systems that are constructed for sports that only have 12 tricks in a run simply don't work. In wakesurfing, top and bottom turns or even pumping are tricks. If you DON'T include that in the scores, you encourage folks standing there. If you ask a rider to call his run you end up with something like 426 pumps, 237 tops turns, etc Plus, if they pump out of sequence? DQ? Downgrade the score? The subjective nature of the sport doesn't lend itself well to tricklists and attack sheets. (Tim if you're reading this you were right! )

The system we have in place works well, but it's really hard for folks to get their heads around it because it's a distinct departure from what is commonly used in board sports, but also...wakesurfing is a distinct departure from other sports that are judged at this stage.

surf contests use groms, junior and pro am devisions. the categorys are seperated by age, groms are 14 and under, juniors are 15-17, and pro am is 18 and over. i am not a pro surfer, but i do have to surf against the pros which is a bummer because i dont surf that good obviously but no matter what its fun. wakesurfing should be similar. and i dont think the judges are the problem. it litteraly is comparing apples and oranges, if you towed a skimboarder and a surfer into a wave in the ocean they would not do the same thing on the same wave. you couldent judge that against eachother. same with the lake just the waves smaller. and i dont think trick lists are at all reasonable for the fact that the waves constatly changing, with speed intersecting waves and wind. and a good wakesurfer will use the changing wave to his advantage to do different manouvers. the thing is its unpredictable when and where in your run these things will happen, so you need to let your run flow and not be limited by "i have to do a 3 after i do this air" thats just my input.

Completely agree with Stieg, you can't put skim and surf style against each other in a competition simply b/c they're different tricks and styles of riding... one of the big factors in surfing (& wakesurfing) judging is style (use of the wave, trick-flow, flair, etc) and a skimmer just rides different from a surfer. WHY NOT have 1 division for each.. if there are enough competitors??

I liked the way Tulloch was split, but didn't like the same riders on the same boards entering both sides of the contest b/c you're either on a SKIM style board or on a SURF style board and entering both styles with 1 board just shows greed, imo. However, if you're good enough to ride both skim-style on a skim-style board and surf-style on a surf-style board then more power to ya. Just as skimming is a completely separate sport from surfing, it makes sense to offer both categories for wakesurfing b/c it draws more competitors and larger crowds.

Ex: Saying skim and surf style should compete together at contests is like saying wakeboarders should compete side-by-side with wakeskaters (they both hold the rope so it must be the same/comparative, except its not b/c the tricks).

I agree with making the separation a choice of the event coordinator b/c that promotes more events (less rigidy, more creativity, more riders & entries) vs. saying everybody has to ride side-by-side no matter what, that's just stubborn and closed-minded. If nothing else, the best benefit is probably that it just makes judging easier. Plus, More divisions = More prizes so More people go home happy and looking forward to the next event, right?

I like having a surf and skim style division because if provides more opportunities for competing. Don't think you can limit the boards that can be used in each style. Judging should be based on the skills/tricks (surf tricks vs skim tricks) that are performed. If you truly believe that there is a big difference between the styles, doesn't it make sense that a person riding a skim style board would be at a disadvantage in a surf style contest and vice-versa. Since a person theoretically would be at a disadvantage using the wrong board, why should the board be restricted. Here is another problem with boards. I have a Broadcast and Walzer that are capable of being ridden with 0 to 3 fins. If I use three fins are they surfboards that suddenly become skim boards if I use 1 or no fins. In theory, classifying boards makes sense but I don't think it works real well in the real world.

Roy,
While some tricks are at this time are only being performed on a skim board ( 3 shuv's, 5shuv's, big spins, etc.) a lot of tricks are done on both ( 360's, airs, 180 shuv's) a rider performing a shuv on a surf board would score higher than on a skim board just on degree of difficulty. If either board were allowed in either class then judges would have to see the board prior to the run so they could score properly. That is why there is a discussion on board type. New judges would have to know how difficult each style trick is for that style and the other style. Splitting divisions seems right to me if the organizers want to split the divisions.

Dennis, I agree with what you are saying but isn't the judge going to have look at the board no matter if you have a board criteria. Who is going to determine if the board is a surf or skim board? I believe the judge is going to have to make the determination. With all of the different boards and fin combinations, I think this will become a difficult task. My broadcast with 3 fins might be considered a surf board put with no fins It could be a skim board.

Roy,
The board issue would be taken care of at the dock not by the judges if the classes are split. The hybrid boards such as the Walzer and others could create some discussion. The problem IMO is inexperienced judges seeing a trick that is common on skim boards i.e. 180 shuv and rating it more difficult than it really is. Your Broadcast would not be considerd a skim board because type and number of fins is not the only criteria.

Hybrid boards will be a problem. The person making the determination at the dock will also have the same inexperience problem as the inexperienced judge. At the Nationals there were defined criteria for surf and skim boards. The problem with this is some boards didn't meet either criteria and some boards could be modified to meet both. I'm all for having two divisions. Actually I would prefer three, Surf, Skim and then have the top three from each compete in an all round final. The rider chooses their style they want to be judged on and rides whatever board they want. Give trophies for Skim, Surf, and All round.

The dock judge would have pretty specfic rules as to what is and what isn't. The inexperienced judge would not have specific point values for each trick in each style. A point system for tricks would not work very well. I could see a final of only the best in each division competing for best all around.

Roy, Dennis, you both have email, or should, shortly.

Roy is at a disadvantage here. Most of this was covered way back when. The same conclusion was drawn though. Board specifications become a huge problem, it also creates a weakness in the system - folks focus on beating the "system" - plus...it's really difficult to implement. Further it's contrary to the AWSA's mission to grow the sport and contests. In a small grassroots contest, we just can't place the dock judge requirement on folks.

The final iteration of the rules is very similar to what Roy states above.

The all-around sounds very interesting, but you folks HAVE to stop omitting longboard! The rules currently provide for that division, we need to include that, and any others as they are developed and adopted, in these discussions.

Also, to clarify one point that Dennis is making. The AWSA has no inexperienced judges. We have, in the past, been asked to provide judges and systems in support of various events. However, organizers have chosen to modify these systems and appoint judges that were not trained by the AWSA in to their events. Certainly this is an organizers perogative, but is inconsistent with the systems, procedures and mission of the AWSA.

To reiterate, there are currently NO inexperienced judges within the AWSA.

longboard rules,we love it,were gunna always try n have it depending on ryder count.as for the boards divided up,it should be a foam to glass ratio.foam core with a wooden stringer guaranteed surf stlye(rail sharpness does not matter).high compression molded,ectruded semi foam core presses(rail sharpness does not matter),skim stle..the fin choices and placements shouldnt matter in either.