Dear Mr. Bishop - why do you dislike comp skiing?

ElbowkushIsn't all progression good progression? Is there such thing as bad progression?

There isn't such thing as bad progression. That is called regression. This issue with skiing is that people have different ideas about what progression is with our activity. For some, progression is with tricks (trips/quads), or for others progression is with growth popularity or mainstream exposure (olympics).

For me, progression has more to do with strengthening our industry and ensuring the survival of the genre of skiing that I love. That happens from supporting people and brands that support the skiing I want to see. I wouldn't buy something from a company that makes race skis. Even if they sponsor your favorite skier, they are only here for your money. A lot of people hate on Saga, but last I checked they gave money to half of the dope film projects that have come out in the last 5 years. I run my own clothing brand but I've still got love for Tall T Productions because they sponsored The Bunch, HG skis, and Andy's Tell A Friend tour this year. Thats the sorta shit that'll keep this sport alive.

It took a while for me to come to these conclusions. I had to be around and figure this out myself. I understand that not everyone will see things exactly as I see them, but the overarching concept should be relatively agreeable.

Look at Matt Walker for instance, he is big name is the ski world. One of my favorite for sure. When he blew up he was signed to Salomon and I be he got a nice travel budget from them for quite sometime to make things happen. When he made the decision to switch back High Society ( http://freeskier.com/the-wire/matt-walker-signs-with-high-society ) his reasoning was that he felt he could make more of an impact with the brand. Image though if Matt had been on HS the whole time. Where could that brand be now?

I've rambled on a bit, sorry if anything is unclear or off topic.

Dear Mister OP,

Couldn't you have just sent him a message asking him this?

mmmkay


bye


- theabortionator

style

Why people hate on either comp or film skiers is stupid.

Like there isn't enough fucking god damn FREEdom in FREEskiing.

I like: robot style, b&E style, jock style, big air dave style, big mountain you name it.

TallxTFor me, progression has more to do with strengthening our industry and ensuring the survival of the genre of skiing that I love. That happens from supporting people and brands that support the skiing I want to see. I wouldn't buy something from a company that makes race skis. Even if they sponsor your favorite skier, they are only here for your money. A lot of people hate on Saga, but last I checked they gave money to half of the dope film projects that have come out in the last 5 years. I run my own clothing brand but I've still got love for Tall T Productions because they sponsored The Bunch, HG skis, and Andy's Tell A Friend tour this year. Thats the sorta shit that'll keep this sport alive.

This is quite interesting I think as it's looking at the sport just from a freestyle perspective. If we want the sport to grow we need more people in the sport and if were being honest those new skiers will probably start by buyin the bigger brands. Once they are in the sport ten tey may switch tI the smaller core brands so if anything I would say it's the bigger brands doing the best job of pulling new blood into the sport.

Most non skiers will never see a park film but they may watch x games or the Olympics so that is what is drawing the people in. In general it's the bigger brands with the top athletes as they can afford to pay them so most people first exposure is from skis from the big guys. anyone buying new skis is good for out industry and if it's the big guys selling te most they are certainly doing somthing right.

and im im not sure I agree about big brands not giving back. Salomon have sponsored msp and poor boyz films for years and have for sure sunk a lot more money into our sport per the years then probably any small brand.

They also have the exposure to launch new riders. Do you think Matt walker would have got half the exposure he did if he was on a small brand from day one?

so really I understand the whole want to be core but don't discount what the big guys are doing for skiing as a whole.

Comp skiing sucks. Who wants to watch the legions of red bull riders all send the same runs with the same grabs and the same "perfect" style. Don't know why that would be something that people would want to be a part of either, except for the money and exposure involved.

I always remembered contests being around your friends and throwing down. Isnt that what they still do?

The problem now is repetition in contests. Its sick to see a dub, but when everyone is doing nothing but the same dub, it get boring fast.

Judging is another problem because it's criteria. They have to see your trick like grading an essay paper. There is such a thing as a perfect score...freeriding doesnt.

tomPietrowskiThis is quite interesting I think as it's looking at the sport just from a freestyle perspective. If we want the sport to grow we need more people in the sport and if were being honest those new skiers will probably start by buyin the bigger brands. Once they are in the sport ten tey may switch tI the smaller core brands so if anything I would say it's the bigger brands doing the best job of pulling new blood into the sport.

Most non skiers will never see a park film but they may watch x games or the Olympics so that is what is drawing the people in. In general it's the bigger brands with the top athletes as they can afford to pay them so most people first exposure is from skis from the big guys. anyone buying new skis is good for out industry and if it's the big guys selling te most they are certainly doing somthing right.

and im im not sure I agree about big brands not giving back. Salomon have sponsored msp and poor boyz films for years and have for sure sunk a lot more money into our sport per the years then probably any small brand.

They also have the exposure to launch new riders. Do you think Matt walker would have got half the exposure he did if he was on a small brand from day one?

so really I understand the whole want to be core but don't discount what the big guys are doing for skiing as a whole.

Awesome reply. I am certainly speaking from just a freestyle perspective. I feel like we are our own sport, at the very least different from racing. With that in mind I think we deserve our own brands to represent us. From what you said it seems like your idea of progression is having the sport grow. I agree that having larger brands, or events like x-games make growth possible. I would argue that we don't need to grow as a sport to become self-sufficient.

There are many other opportunities for the general population to become familiar with our skiing. The biggest example that comes to mind is One of those Days 2. Over 16million views on that video, released on Candide's youtube account. The total viewership for X-Games in 2012 was 35.4million. Thats counting all events. So I would assume the skiing event viewer count is much less.

You say it is the bigger brands with the best athletes because they can afford to pay them. What if these athletes elected to stay with a smaller brand and increased the sales for that brand. Then they grow into a bigger brand. If Matt Walker stuck with HS through his whole career obviously things would have played out a bit differently for him. My argument is that we need to be willing to sacrifice a little bit of ourselves in an effort to improve the whole industry. The same concept as supporting your local shot instead of buying things online, but implicated so that freeski brands are the local shop and Jarden is the online megashop.

TallxTAwesome reply. I am certainly speaking from just a freestyle perspective. I feel like we are our own sport, at the very least different from racing. With that in mind I think we deserve our own brands to represent us. From what you said it seems like your idea of progression is having the sport grow. I agree that having larger brands, or events like x-games make growth possible. I would argue that we don't need to grow as a sport to become self-sufficient.

There are many other opportunities for the general population to become familiar with our skiing. The biggest example that comes to mind is One of those Days 2. Over 16million views on that video, released on Candide's youtube account. The total viewership for X-Games in 2012 was 35.4million. Thats counting all events. So I would assume the skiing event viewer count is much less.

You say it is the bigger brands with the best athletes because they can afford to pay them. What if these athletes elected to stay with a smaller brand and increased the sales for that brand. Then they grow into a bigger brand. If Matt Walker stuck with HS through his whole career obviously things would have played out a bit differently for him. My argument is that we need to be willing to sacrifice a little bit of ourselves in an effort to improve the whole industry. The same concept as supporting your local shot instead of buying things online, but implicated so that freeski brands are the local shop and Jarden is the online megashop.

Yeah I guess I look at it differently. Living an working in the industry in a resort town having more people get involved with skiing in general would be good for everyone here and would be the easiest way for things to improve across te industry in my opinion.

More re skiers overall means a percentage are likly to get into park. These new skiers will need equipment so they may look at the smaller freestyle brands. Having more people involved in skiing as a whole can improve every aspect of our sport.

More people in resorts means more money to the hill which means more potential for growth. People argue resorts don't put money back but if you look at how the whistler bike park has developed over te last decade that ha almost all been made possible by a large increase in numbers riding te hill.

although we like to think we are our own sector we are pretty relient on the rest of the skiing public. If the weekend warriors who buy passes an spend money in the lodge stop coming then we are all in trouble.

TallxTThere are many other opportunities for the general population to become familiar with our skiing. The biggest example that comes to mind is One of those Days 2. Over 16million views on that video, released on Candide's youtube account. The total viewership for X-Games in 2012 was 35.4million. Thats counting all events. So I would assume the skiing event viewer count is much less.

You say it is the bigger brands with the best athletes because they can afford to pay them. What if these athletes elected to stay with a smaller brand and increased the sales for that brand. Then they grow into a bigger brand. If Matt Walker stuck with HS through his whole career obviously things would have played out a bit differently for him. My argument is that we need to be willing to sacrifice a little bit of ourselves in an effort to improve the whole industry. The same concept as supporting your local shot instead of buying things online, but implicated so that freeski brands are the local shop and Jarden is the online megashop.

This is a great topic in general, I hope more people chime in on this.

To your first point I quoted, it is becoming easier for a YouTube video to get success than it is for a show on TV. People are more likely to take the time to watch a short 4-minute video on YouTube or their FB feed, rather than turn on their TV and watch ESPN for an hour. So that the TV event got over 35 million viewers to tap into it is very impressive.

Secondly, it is a sad fact that the ski industry in general is not growing and freeskiing represents a very small portion of that non-growing market. Winters are shorter, winters are warmer and this is not exactly inspiring consumer/retail confidence. It is becoming harder for all companies to keep doing what they love. It's hard to say that HS would have grown solely because of Matt Walker staying with them, and also if he would have been better off staying with them. Things might very well have been different but they are big hypothetical questions that are ultimately unanswerable.

To Tom's point about which type of company grows the industry, that's an interesting one... Personally, when I think about new people coming into the industry, their first brand exposures are most likely going to be with larger brands simply because their presence is much larger. It's very difficult for a complete noob to know what the cool new companies are and as such they are more inclined to buy from a larger company simply because they are easier (and usually cheaper) to find.

TallxTThere are many other opportunities for the general population to become familiar with our skiing. The biggest example that comes to mind is One of those Days 2. Over 16million views on that video, released on Candide's youtube account. The total viewership for X-Games in 2012 was 35.4million. Thats counting all events. So I would assume the skiing event viewer count is much less.

You say it is the bigger brands with the best athletes because they can afford to pay them. What if these athletes elected to stay with a smaller brand and increased the sales for that brand. Then they grow into a bigger brand. If Matt Walker stuck with HS through his whole career obviously things would have played out a bit differently for him. My argument is that we need to be willing to sacrifice a little bit of ourselves in an effort to improve the whole industry. The same concept as supporting your local shot instead of buying things online, but implicated so that freeski brands are the local shop and Jarden is the online megashop.

This is a great topic in general, I hope more people chime in on this.

To your first point I quoted, it is becoming easier for a YouTube video to get success than it is for a show on TV. People are more likely to take the time to watch a short 4-minute video on YouTube or their FB feed, rather than turn on their TV and watch ESPN for an hour. So that the TV event got over 35 million viewers to tap into it is very impressive.

Secondly, it is a sad fact that the ski industry in general is not growing and freeskiing represents a very small portion of that non-growing market. Winters are shorter, winters are warmer and this is not exactly inspiring consumer/retail confidence. It is becoming harder for all companies to keep doing what they love. It's hard to say that HS would have grown solely because of Matt Walker staying with them, and also if he would have been better off staying with them. Things might very well have been different but they are big hypothetical questions that are ultimately unanswerable.

To Tom's point about which type of company grows the industry, that's an interesting one... Personally, when I think about new people coming into the industry, their first brand exposures are most likely going to be with larger brands simply because their presence is much larger. It's very difficult for a complete noob to know what the cool new companies are and as such they are more inclined to buy from a larger company simply because they are easier (and usually cheaper) to find.

Karma_PoliceWhy people hate on either comp or film skiers is stupid.

Like there isn't enough fucking god damn FREEdom in FREEskiing.

I like: robot style, b&E style, jock style, big air dave style, big mountain you name it.

Agreed.

I find it quite odd that in this "freeskiing" movement people have negative opinions towards other simply because they have found more of an interest in a slightly varied discipline within the same sport.

I just don't understand that, I'm a ski instructor so naturally "correct technique" and "racing" is a big part of the way I ski because that is quite literally how I make a living 9 months a year.

Having said that, my passion is in the big mountain scene, where I am also fortunate enough to do a lot of coaching for. I fucking suck at "freestyle" or "park skiing" I can hit big jumps no worries but I don't spin, like ever, and I have never hit a rail, but I ski backwards better than most people can forwards - purely because I find it really fun and therefore I do it all the time.

In terms of media, a typical night in for me involves watching some technical skiing clips of guys demonstrating different turn shapes and performances (boring as fuck to most skiers), then I'll watch some Freeride world tour replays, then I'll watch Ted ligertys winning GS run from Sochi, then I'll watch a faction collective edit, personal favourite being S1E1, and i might finish by watching some big air or slopestyle clips from x games or whatever.

TL;DR I just really fucking love skiing and watching all skiing and i think it's funny more skiers don't feel the same way and sometimes even feel threaten by other ideas

Killer discussion, folks. Really appreciate seeing good stuff like this on NS, and IN THE SUMMER? Damn.

Lots of great points already. I'd add that skiing is big enough, and diverse enough, that we've all got room to support and push our own things. You like big tall tees and edit driven marketing from your favorite brands? Support them. You like quad flips and massive energy drink sponsored folks? Follow them and stay impressed. You want to be a racer? Great. Perhaps you like walking up mountains? Terrific. You want to buy movies from the big production companies? Cool.

There's room, people. We're stronger together. Try to appreciate the variety of what skiing is to so many different people instead of getting wound up in how you don't like what somebody else is doing. Pick your thing, and invest in it.

ElbowkushIsn't all progression good progression? Is there such thing as bad progression?

There's two issues here that we need to separate and clarify.

First off, I do not implicitly hate competition skiing. I think the idea of getting together with a ton of your buddies / new dudes you meet that day and competing is fantastic.

There are loads of awesome competitions in skiing.

What I do not like is the direction that the main stream competitions are going in. In my mind, this simply is an issue with what types of tricks are awarded high scores that subsequently award high sums of money.

Currently, all the emphasis is put on degree of difficulty. This is so ingrained in skiers souls that I would bet when you make this thread stating "Isn't all progression good progression?" that you mean more flips more spins.

That is the problem - a 4 flip trick in so much of our minds can't beat a 1 flip trick or no flip trick. Its treated like mathematics. As much as people say style matters - when your only definition of style is if you held the grab or not and the criteria is more of a check box than a sliding scale - you're back to Form.

This is where Aerials went. You maintain one perfect form and then do as many flips/spins as possible.

What happens? Boring to watch.

Now these things come together in the second point - Yes there is absolutely such a thing as bad progression. Bad progression is when the professional athletes in our sport reach the limit and start becoming dead or quadriplegics. Or, they influence a massive generation of kids to do crazy tricks and they all end up dying. Terrain parks as we know it are turned into Olympic training zones, controlled massively and only for the purpose of getting to the Olympics.

This has all happened once. Hot Dogging was just Freeskiing. It turned into the highly regulated sport it is today because of safety concerns, and all the Hot Dogging terrain parks / jumps that used to be everywhere at resorts were either shut down due to insurance concerns or regulated into Olympic training grounds.

Its ignorant of us to think we won't follow the same process because we're grabbing our skis and they weren't. Its not enough of a difference.

The thing is - there's a simple solution:

Define style as a smoothness of motion, not only as whether you got the grab or not. You can see a perfect example of this in the Snowboarding game Amped 2 - where how slowly and smoothly you moved the sticks acted as a mathematical multiplier to your score. In that game you quickly realized that you would ONLY score big points if you were one steezy-ass motherfucker.

If we shifted judging in competitions to this new definition of style as well as changed the scoring system to have style act as a multiplier vs. a small part of the score - bam - problem solved.

In the end you'd see competitions where a few people try to 'progress' by hucking quads - or doing it for the crowd as a stunt - but en masse you'd see a much more varied bag of tricks come out of the athletes as they used different forms of rotation that worked for them to achieve a zen-like state of perfection. Crowds would - and do - love it. Crowds hate when tonnes of athletes destroy themselves trying to all huck the same shit. I mean aerials sucks to watch because its all the same flippy-spinny bullshit.

So my friend note - I do note hate competitions. I just think its sad that a snowboarding game from 2003 can solve this problem instantly where we real skiers can't do the right thing.

I mean look at this video of some game reviewers playing it. They lock into style instantly and start throwing dope tricks for big points. Its all in the system. 2:22 is where they start talking about it for those of you who don't want to watch the whole thing.

https://www.newschoolers.com/videos/watch/773037/Let--39-s-Play-Amped-2-Part-1--Millicent-1

Mr.Bishophttps://www.newschoolers.com/videos/watch/773037/Let--39-s-Play-Amped-2-Part-1--Millicent-1

JESUS - Look at 4:14.

Mr.BishopJESUS - Look at 4:14.

At one point the video game guy says "Now, on a rail you can hold in the triggers halfway to do a rail style, which actually I'm going to say right now gets you a TON of points."

Mr.BishopDefine style as a smoothness of motion, not only as whether you got the grab or not. You can see a perfect example of this in the Snowboarding game Amped 2 - where how slowly and smoothly you moved the sticks acted as a mathematical multiplier to your score. In that game you quickly realized that you would ONLY score big points if you were one steezy-ass motherfucker.

This is whole reply is great, the only thing is that I think that style is completely subjective. There is no way to really compare phil casabon and cole drexler's styles objectively, even though they are both fucking ill

mlzmlz99This is whole reply is great, the only thing is that I think that style is completely subjective. There is no way to really compare phil casabon and cole drexler's styles objectively, even though they are both fucking ill

Watch the Amped 2 videos I posted above.

The thing is - there's a simple solution:

Define style as a smoothness of motion, not only as whether you got the grab or not. You can see a perfect example of this in the Snowboarding game Amped 2 - where how slowly and smoothly you moved the sticks acted as a mathematical multiplier to your score. In that game you quickly realized that you would ONLY score big points if you were one steezy-ass motherfucker.

Boom. Im going to go play some Amped 2 now thanks Doug!

Im going to go play some Amped 2 now thanks Doug![/QUOTE]

^^training

Mr.BishopThere's two issues here that we need to separate and clarify.

First off, I do not implicitly hate competition skiing. I think the idea of getting together with a ton of your buddies / new dudes you meet that day and competing is fantastic.

There are loads of awesome competitions in skiing.

What I do not like is the direction that the main stream competitions are going in. In my mind, this simply is an issue with what types of tricks are awarded high scores that subsequently award high sums of money.

Currently, all the emphasis is put on degree of difficulty. This is so ingrained in skiers souls that I would bet when you make this thread stating "Isn't all progression good progression?" that you mean more flips more spins.

Interesting points as ever bishop. My concern with the whole style for points is I actually think it would get more stale that way. Sure the tricks may look a bit better but no one would really be pushing new stuff perhaps as much as making what they have look better.

take the crankworx slopestyle (yes it's bikes I know but similar in a lot of ways) as an example. last season really all but two guys were on level playing field. they all had similar tricks and the only real difference was how they throw the tricks. Awsome to watch don't get me wrong but it never felt like they were really pushing for the win. Semenuck and rheeder on the other hand tried tricks no one else even considered and this got the crowds excitement up. Everyone wants to see someone try somthing at the edge of what is possible. Get it right you take te win get it wrong well that is the risk. So it's risk vs reward. Personally this is why I watch events. I want to see the best in the world push the sport as far as it can. you want style I would agrue they still look good but if not then there are many videos and edits just of style skiing but why try to make comp skiing and film skiing the same. I think comps should be where the very latest and greatest is showcased infront of the world.

Ill admitt a lot of my opinion is personal as I love competing. I used to DH mountain bike race and then slopestyle for ski and for me a comp was always the most fun and would push my skiing or ridin the most.

Mr.BishopThis is where Aerials went. You maintain one perfect form and then do as many flips/spins as possible.

What happens? Boring to watch.

Now these things come together in the second point - Yes there is absolutely such a thing as bad progression. Bad progression is when the professional athletes in our sport reach the limit and start becoming dead or quadriplegics. Or, they influence a massive generation of kids to do crazy tricks and they all end up dying. Terrain parks as we know it are turned into Olympic training zones, controlled massively and only for the purpose of getting to the Olympics.

.

stating that it's "boring to watch" is simply an opinion. A stupid opinion at that. You're basically saying that it's not entertaining enough for your time. Which is completely fine, go watch your homie stomp that k-fed with ooh effortless style.

Bad progression.... Are you fucking joking? So Travis Pastrana shouldn't have attempted a triple backflip because it's going to lead to the deaths of other hopeful kids? Billy Morgan is a shame because that's what other kids will compare themselves to, Undoubtedly leading to severe injury or death? That's just idiotic. We're all in the same realm, we can all make our own decisions. Style might win over the judges at the b&e invitational or another friendly comp., but when it comes down to it technicality beats style EVERY TIME. It's just the reality. And I find it highly entertaining. If you don't then fuck you, u don't deserve to watch this incredible sport.

HP123.

stating that it's "boring to watch" is simply an opinion. A stupid opinion at that. You're basically saying that it's not entertaining enough for your time.

The problem is when everyone does the same trick.

I don't by any means hate watching a triple - just not the same trick every single time. Comps need variety.

Aerials would have a massive following if doing almost exactly the same massive trick over and over and over would entertain crowds.

If you calm down and really read what I'm saying then you will understand I'm not asking for the end of rotations... just variety.

threads

Mr.BishopThe thing is - there's a simple solution:

Define style as a smoothness of motion, not only as whether you got the grab or not. You can see a perfect example of this in the Snowboarding game Amped 2 - where how slowly and smoothly you moved the sticks acted as a mathematical multiplier to your score. In that game you quickly realized that you would ONLY score big points if you were one steezy-ass motherfucker.

If we shifted judging in competitions to this new definition of style as well as changed the scoring system to have style act as a multiplier vs. a small part of the score - bam - problem solved.

Bishop, my only question with this is how do you define style? For example, B-Dog's creativity is insane, and extremely stylish. Khai Krepela's rail game is so smooth, but he stays more along the line of your typical rail tricks. Both are so sick. How do you determine what style gets a higher multiplier without the crazy computer algorithm that you have in a video game? How does a judge at real time create this multiplier and apply it equally to all styles?

Aharrelson358Bishop, my only question with this is how do you define style? For example, B-Dog's creativity is insane, and extremely stylish. Khai Krepela's rail game is so smooth, but he stays more along the line of your typical rail tricks. Both are so sick. How do you determine what style gets a higher multiplier without the crazy computer algorithm that you have in a video game? How does a judge at real time create this multiplier and apply it equally to all styles?

You change the definition of style from 'dope' to 'smooth fluidity and controlled motion'.

That is what Amped 2 did. Its not a crazy algorithm, they just scored you really high for moving the sticks consistently. Rock the sticks all the way to the edge to billionspin - bad score. Make a fully calculated roll through the flip/spin motion which executes with perfection from takeoff to landing - multiplier.

You would then remove the subjective element of style and insert objectivity. You couldn't hate someone's style because you 'didn't like double grabs' but you would score someone really high that did the smoothest cork 5 ever without moving their eyeballs and sent it to the bottom of the landing.

The guy that did the quad cork 2520 would by default have hucked the living shit out of it just to get it around, and he would not receive the multiplier because his rotation was so quick and *almost* uncontrolled.

At the very least, the cork 5 and the quad cork 2520 sent both to equally deep spots on the landing would have a chance against each other. The athlete with the 2520 would have been insanely technical, but the athlete with the cork 5 would have had the most flawless execution and the technicality of maintaining that level of composure in a trick like that takes a skill not found in hardly anyone.

Then, you'd be watching the X-games where Max Hill was duking it out with Bobby Brown.

the truth is everyone is going to start skiing like jesper taterjer and that is a scary thing.

skiing needs to go a creative route and it needs to be done in urban settings

all this park contest stuff is boring and repetitive yet it is easy to make a tv show and contest in such a lame format which is why the "fans" have been so keen on seeing moar flipz because thats what the people who sponsor these events have been telling the "fans" to think

Mr.BishopWhat I do not like is the direction that the main stream competitions are going in. In my mind, this simply is an issue with what types of tricks are awarded high scores that subsequently award high sums of money.

Currently, all the emphasis is put on degree of difficulty. This is so ingrained in skiers souls that I would bet when you make this thread stating "Isn't all progression good progression?" that you mean more flips more spins.

That is the problem - a 4 flip trick in so much of our minds can't beat a 1 flip trick or no flip trick. Its treated like mathematics. As much as people say style matters - when your only definition of style is if you held the grab or not and the criteria is more of a check box than a sliding scale - you're back to Form.

This is where Aerials went. You maintain one perfect form and then do as many flips/spins as possible.

What happens? Boring to watch.

Now these things come together in the second point - Yes there is absolutely such a thing as bad progression. Bad progression is when the professional athletes in our sport reach the limit and start becoming dead or quadriplegics. Or, they influence a massive generation of kids to do crazy tricks and they all end up dying. Terrain parks as we know it are turned into Olympic training zones, controlled massively and only for the purpose of getting to the Olympics.

This has all happened once. Hot Dogging was just Freeskiing. It turned into the highly regulated sport it is today because of safety concerns, and all the Hot Dogging terrain parks / jumps that used to be everywhere at resorts were either shut down due to insurance concerns or regulated into Olympic training grounds.

Its ignorant of us to think we won't follow the same process because we're grabbing our skis and they weren't. Its not enough of a difference.

The thing is - there's a simple solution:

Define style as a smoothness of motion, not only as whether you got the grab or not. You can see a perfect example of this in the Snowboarding game https://www.newschoolers.com/videos/watch/773037/Let--39-s-Play-Amped-2-Part-1--Millicent-1

I totally agree with your criticisms of competition. I feel like we've got to the stage where a lot of the time, skiing is no longer the number one skill involved and for me personally at least, that makes it boring to watch.

I do think a change in scoring might help but I'm not totally sure that your style modifier would really change anything from an interest point of view. That's not to say it wouldn't mean that I enjoy watching the tricks thrown with style scored highly more, I just think we'd end up in a similar situation of near identical runs from most of the competitors but instead of 2pretz2s + dubs/trips, you'd get identical bio 9 blunts and laid out tailpresses or whatever.

The real challenge is to come up with a competition scoring system and format promotes variety. For me that relies on a couple of things. Firstly in any situation where you have a fixed scoring criteria, whatever it may be, and a fixed (or near as makes no difference fixed) course, you are going to end up with a tendency towards a norm. Because whatever that scoring system is, people are going to work out how to best exploit it and repeat the formula on the identical courses and thus win money.

If you want to bring style and creativity in to the picture, what you have to change isn't the scoring system, it's the uniformity of the courses. There is no reason, outside of FIS having sticks inserted rectally (and nobody likes them anyway), that every slopestyle course shouldn't look drastically different. Where are the hips, the rollers, the step downs, the quarter pipe hits, the banked slalom sections? There are plenty of ways to build a slopestyle course that would make it impossible to win just by having a certain set of tricks, be they style tricks or tech tricks.

Imagine for example you have a 6 feature course, each feature scored equally with whatever style vs technicality modifier you choose to come up with.

But instead of 3 rails 3 jumps, you have say a multiple rail feature (1), a roller (2) in to a 2 way hip (3) in to either side wallrides (4) then a jump (5) in to a qp (6). You'd have to blend the different aspects of skiing, including actually being able to ski if the features were set out cleverly enough, you couldn't win based off just your jump tricks and you'd have to think outside the box a bit.

Now obviously that setup couldn't be the norm either or people would get used to it, nor is it the perfect example, just one I came up with quickly off the top of my head. But by having different features all the time and combining them differently, you wouldn't give riders time to perfect a certain way of doing tricks at the cost of all else, meaning a variety in runs.

You could have a uniform scoring system as your sell to whatever governing body you chose, but by varying everything else, you end up with a different competition each time.

TwigIf you want to bring style and creativity in to the picture, what you have to change isn't the scoring system, it's the uniformity of the courses. There is no reason, outside of FIS having sticks inserted rectally (and nobody likes them anyway), that every slopestyle course shouldn't look drastically different. Where are the hips, the rollers, the step downs, the quarter pipe hits, the banked slalom sections? There are plenty of ways to build a slopestyle course that would make it impossible to win just by having a certain set of tricks, be they style tricks or tech tricks.

Iiiiiiiiiinteresting.

That is actually a really good idea / way of looking at this. Now, there is some logistical concerns with this - in that the main problem with a slopestyle course is the resource level necessary to construct it. Most of the time when you're building a slope comp, you need to make sure its a functional park afterwards. Even the X-games course gets knocked down a bit and turned into Buttermilk's (mountain in aspen X is at) main park. Same with Dew - This event essentially pays to get Breck's park kicked off early season.

Within a park, your average user expects a certain type-ish of setup. They like having a few jumps, a few rails. Super creative is bonus and awesome - but if your mountain had a park with no jumps and all creative features you might be inclined to go to another one that has a jump or two.

I know this from my park staffing days. Slopestyle was an easy contest to do - because it just used your park with maybe a few polishes/tweaks. You got to keep the stuff afterwards so the mountain was stoked and usually footed a big part of the bill for the build. The ultra custom stuff can be awesome - but often has to get knocked down right after the event. Perfect for the event - as long as they have the money to make this happen.

Your solution is perfect for the big ticket events - and I think we're already seeing this as a solution at that scale with B&E, Nine Knights, the old Candide Invitational and for a period of time the JOI. However for the events that can't afford a super custom course, and can't find a mountain partner willing to just push up all kinds of custom stuff - I think we end up at the same issue.

Adjusting the judging takes minimal effort and has maximum effect within the already available infrastructure. I still stick to my guns that adjusting the judging to incorporate style in a more objective fashion would have huge instant effect. You're right that there is a major risk of everyone ending up just doing the same stylish trick - and I can't ignore that as a possibility - but my theory is that if you tuned the formula right you'd have Bobby Brown's trip cork 18 blunt score well against Max Hill's switch cork 7 shifty.

Get the balance just right, provide instruction to judges around the globe and bam - you make contests from slopestyle to pipe to big air more entertaining across the entire planet. No matter if your resort had the resources to construct the B&E course in a one-time fashion or if you've got one 15' jump at the bottom that you're holding a big air contest in where the winner gets a hat.

Now.... all that being said... if we could change the entirety of park skiing to focus on creative features vs. the same jump/rail combo we've always seen... that is a different debate entirely. Bigger one, but one that could work.

I don't get it too.

Mr.BishopYou change the definition of style from 'dope' to 'smooth fluidity and controlled motion'.

That is what Amped 2 did. Its not a crazy algorithm, they just scored you really high for moving the sticks consistently. Rock the sticks all the way to the edge to billionspin - bad score. Make a fully calculated roll through the flip/spin motion which executes with perfection from takeoff to landing - multiplier.

You would then remove the subjective element of style and insert objectivity. You couldn't hate someone's style because you 'didn't like double grabs' but you would score someone really high that did the smoothest cork 5 ever without moving their eyeballs and sent it to the bottom of the landing.

The guy that did the quad cork 2520 would by default have hucked the living shit out of it just to get it around, and he would not receive the multiplier because his rotation was so quick and *almost* uncontrolled.

At the very least, the cork 5 and the quad cork 2520 sent both to equally deep spots on the landing would have a chance against each other. The athlete with the 2520 would have been insanely technical, but the athlete with the cork 5 would have had the most flawless execution and the technicality of maintaining that level of composure in a trick like that takes a skill not found in hardly anyone.

Then, you'd be watching the X-games where Max Hill was duking it out with Bobby Brown.

Do you really expect judges to be able to tell who has the most fluid motions and spins though? In theory that's a great idea and I'm sure it would be obvious if you're comparing henrik to some young park rat, but overall fluidity is incredibly subjective and when you have a lineup of amazing park skiers the judging is just gonna be a shitshow of "I think that guy was the smoothest" "No that other guy was definitely way smoother".

This is obviously a very large reason why the comp scene is the way it is: the number of spins and flips someone does is concrete and objective as is the perfection of grabs and the "stillness" in the air. While judging style, creativity, and fluidity of motion may work great at a contest like the Bunch's where it's effectively a get together of friends and whoever wins isn't that big of a deal, if you use the same approach on a national scale at say, the Olympics, there's gonna be massive controversy because of the subjectivity

Mr.BishopThe problem is when everyone does the same trick.

I don't by any means hate watching a triple - just not the same trick every single time. Comps need variety.

Aerials would have a massive following if doing almost exactly the same massive trick over and over and over would entertain crowds.

If you calm down and really read what I'm saying then you will understand I'm not asking for the end of rotations... just variety.

but you say you hate the direction of the big comps, then say you hate watching the same trick over and over. 10 years ago all the big comps were switch 10, switch 10, switch 10, switch 10, switch 10.

Look at the latest big comps now. Like the Olympics. I don't think any of the same trips were thrown. Had nose butter trips, switch trips, trip corks, trip rodeos. And the dubs and singles all had the same variety.

Or look at any of the city big airs. From switch 10 sw 10 sw 10 sw 10 to dub 10/12's to now more variety.

bighomieflockDo you really expect judges to be able to tell who has the most fluid motions and spins though? In theory that's a great idea and I'm sure it would be obvious if you're comparing henrik to some young park rat, but overall fluidity is incredibly subjective and when you have a lineup of amazing park skiers the judging is just gonna be a shitshow of "I think that guy was the smoothest" "No that other guy was definitely way smoother".

Absolutely judges could detect this - they're professionals and receive tonnes of training. You just have to score it a bit higher.

VinnieFbut you say you hate the direction of the big comps, then say you hate watching the same trick over and over. 10 years ago all the big comps were switch 10, switch 10, switch 10, switch 10, switch 10.

Look at the latest big comps now. Like the Olympics. I don't think any of the same trips were thrown. Had nose butter trips, switch trips, trip corks, trip rodeos. And the dubs and singles all had the same variety.

Or look at any of the city big airs. From switch 10 sw 10 sw 10 sw 10 to dub 10/12's to now more variety.

Hah - I was incredibly vocal in the switch 10 days as well. That sucked. Right before that there was all manners of different rotations, but then the athletes naturally locked into the switch 10 as it started to win contests. In between physical limits there will be variety, but once a new physical limit is reached - and the judges are scoring high for a specific set of rotations/flips - bam you get stagnant again.

I mean you already saw a case of this in X big air this year. All the athletes hucked themselves to death and crashed everywhere trying to get very similar triples. Henrik got broke the fuck off chucking a triple in the slopestyle. The judges actually did recognize Vinny for his fluidity over top of just having more rotations. The athletes noticed this I guarantee it.

I'm not proposing a complete and utter disbandment of contests or the banning of all flips over two. Far from it. I'm suggesting a minor tweak to the scoring system and a cultural shift towards embracing more diversity.

Mr.BishopAbsolutely judges could detect this - they're professionals and receive tonnes of training. You just have to score it a bit higher.

I disagree. It's too subjective. That's the reason why all other major competitions in action sports weigh technicality over style: because it's objective and quantifiable. Look at street league in skateboarding. Nyah wins because he's the most technical even when there's guys not too far behind him with great style, like Luan Oliveira.

I think in the end that major competitions are not suited for stylish riding because the judging is way too subjective. Skateboarding has gotten along fine with leaving the creative, stylish riding to movie parts and smaller, less competitive contests.

bighomieflockI disagree. It's too subjective. That's the reason why all other major competitions in action sports weigh technicality over style: because it's objective and quantifiable. Look at street league in skateboarding. Nyah wins because he's the most technical even when there's guys not too far behind him with great style, like Luan Oliveira.

I think in the end that major competitions are not suited for stylish riding because the judging is way too subjective. Skateboarding has gotten along fine with leaving the creative, stylish riding to movie parts and smaller, less competitive contests.

Style is something only people in the industry can define. I don't watch skateboarding that much so I don't know what's "stylish" so when I watch Nyah at X I don't think euhhh x skater should of won because he's more stylish I think, well that was super technical and cool.

Exact same principal with skiing, your average joe watching X isn't watching thinking that a dub 10 is more stylish than a dub 14 they just see rotations and think oh cool.

I think most comp skiers have tunnel vision when it comes to jumps. id say at least 80 percent of jumps executed in major slopestyle comps are reg/sw dub corks and switch dub rodeos. maybe 10 percent are those tricks but triples. the other 10 percent can go anywhere, just very few skiers have the balls to go there, and when they do, the judges are clueless on what to do so they just throw out an average score instead of rewarding them. If more pros would quit skiing for the judges as much and start skiing for themselves and their buddies at the top of the hill more, then the style and uniqueness of each of them will start to flow and they will start to progress in the style area as well as technical area.

what i am ultimately saying is pros need to throw (or float) their best tricks, tricks they think are unique to them. for example a quad, dub flat 12, dub bio 16, dub 9, while not forgetting grabs, shifties, or whatever the hell will make a girl wet upon sight. If they do this, judges will score style more heavily and comp skiing will come to be what everyone wants it to be.

idk what else to say but add on or correct me or completely disregard everything i just said because i basically just threw some of my thoughts down on where progression should go aand it may or may not make a ton of sense

I think most comp skiers have tunnel vision when it comes to jumps. id say at least 80 percent of jumps executed in major slopestyle comps are reg/sw dub corks and switch dub rodeos. maybe 10 percent are those tricks but triples. the other 10 percent can go anywhere, just very few skiers have the balls to go there, and when they do, the judges are clueless on what to do so they just throw out an average score instead of rewarding them. If more pros would quit skiing for the judges as much and start skiing for themselves and their buddies at the top of the hill more, then the style and uniqueness of each of them will start to flow and they will start to progress in the style area as well as technical area.

what i am ultimately saying is pros need to throw (or float) their best tricks, tricks they think are unique to them. for example a quad, dub flat 12, dub bio 16, dub 9, while not forgetting grabs, shifties, or whatever the hell will make a girl wet upon sight. If they do this, judges will score style more heavily and comp skiing will come to be what everyone wants it to be.

idk what else to say but add on or correct me or completely disregard everything i just said because i basically just threw some of my thoughts down on where progression should go aand it may or may not make a ton of sense

take a look at the snowboarder who just landed the quad cork. he wasnt a crazy well known boarder. but he is now. he never competed in x games or dew tour he is just some guy who was able to quad cork and he raised the standards o what snowboarders should be able to throw. now all the boarders are gonna have to learn that trick by the x games in order to compete. it just forces competitors to learn a new trick to compete. I dont think its good progression cause it takes the fun out of skiing and replaced with the stress and fear of trying to quad cork. how many people have the facilities to practice a quad cork. and even then when the under rotate trying it for the first time and land on their head on an insanely big jump needed to land the trick they are gonna die. I dont see the point but maybe thats just me.

S.J.WStyle is something only people in the industry can define. I don't watch skateboarding that much so I don't know what's "stylish" so when I watch Nyah at X I don't think euhhh x skater should of won because he's more stylish I think, well that was super technical and cool.

Exact same principal with skiing, your average joe watching X isn't watching thinking that a dub 10 is more stylish than a dub 14 they just see rotations and think oh cool.

This is well said. I think it's important to understand that different events are intended to reach different audiences. The B&E comp for example is influencing the pro class and elite level freeskiers, where something like X games or Olympics is aimed at little 10 year old Johnny who's on the couch with mom & dad and he's seeing it for the first time ever.

The kind of skiing media that will hook little Johnny and make him "one of us" is exactly what skiers are railing against these days. Let the robots do their thing, and get these kids off the couch off the playstation and on the snow. Once they're in, then they can learn about style and work out who and what they like most.

This is why the comp skiers get sponsored by the less core, more corporate companies.....that's where the money is. If Johnny's mom & dad can't walk into the local ski shop and see Brand X's skis, there's no sale and no money to pay for pros. But once the kid is in, he can work out who to support and what gear he wants. The core companies still gain from corporate sponsored dudes doing triples in the X games, when those kids stay hooked and step it up.

So I'm saying that, instead of wanting diversity within one event, respect that there's diversity in the range of events that skiing supports. It makes the sport as a whole stronger.

bighomieflockComp skiing sucks. Who wants to watch the legions of red bull riders all send the same runs with the same grabs and the same "perfect" style.

me

bighomieflockI disagree. It's too subjective. That's the reason why all other major competitions in action sports weigh technicality over style: because it's objective and quantifiable. Look at street league in skateboarding. Nyah wins because he's the most technical even when there's guys not too far behind him with great style, like Luan Oliveira.

I think in the end that major competitions are not suited for stylish riding because the judging is way too subjective. Skateboarding has gotten along fine with leaving the creative, stylish riding to movie parts and smaller, less competitive contests.

Why should we be like all other action sports? Why couldn't skiing for once be a trailblazer?

Fluidity of motion is not subjective. You could debate whether or not this leads to style, but its absolutely an objective criteria. Watch the video game that managed to use mathematics only to create a point system that awarded style.

https://www.newschoolers.com/videos/watch/773037/Let--39-s-Play-Amped-2-Part-1--Millicent-1Watch from 4:14.

Ahh amped 2, that game is glorious

Bishop, I'm confused. I get that you don't like hucked triples and the general "spin to win" idea and you want to see a different way or scoring based on style.

What I don't understand it why you care about that being in comps? To me that kind of like;

" i don't like F1 racing because they don't get points or a time reduction for having a styly drift turn"

Its simply not the aim of the game. Hence the B&E invitational, they wanted a style based event, so they they made it. Comp skiing is what it is - pushing the technical progression. Plus you'd have to be pretty ignorant to think guy like Bobby and Gus couldn't pull out just about whatever styled out sub 700 degree rotation they wanted too in the blind of an eye.

What's the different between an athlete doing the same 3 cork over and over again and another one doing the same dub/trip/quad over and over?

I also imagine the athletes might look at these discussions and think "what the fuck? spinning as fast as i can and getting as many flips in the same trick is fun as fuck and that's what i wanna do.. why do these guys have a problem with that?"

I hate to post to massive comments in a row but i couldnt leave it.

Mr.BishopThere's two issues here that we need to separate and clarify.


What I do not like is the direction that the main stream competitions are going in. In my mind, this simply is an issue with what types of tricks are awarded high scores that subsequently award high sums of money.


What happens? Boring to watch.

Now these things come together in the second point - Yes there is absolutely such a thing as bad progression. Bad progression is when the professional athletes in our sport reach the limit and start becoming dead or quadriplegics. Or, they influence a massive generation of kids to do crazy tricks and they all end up dying. Terrain parks as we know it are turned into Olympic training zones, controlled massively and only for the purpose of getting to the Olympics.



https://www.newschoolers.com/videos/watch/773037/Let--39-s-Play-Amped-2-Part-1--Millicent-1

That was actually painful to read. "Boring to watch?" "What I don't like is..." what about what the athletes like? fuck dude, i love watching athletes having fun, best thing ever.
Bad progression because of injurys? It's an EXTREME sport, these dudes are sending themselves 100+ feet through the air, not fucking shit injurys are gonna happen :p

HP123.

stating that it's "boring to watch" is simply an opinion. A stupid opinion at that. You're basically saying that it's not entertaining enough for your time. Which is completely fine, go watch your homie stomp that k-fed with ooh effortless style.

Bad progression.... Are you fucking joking? So Travis Pastrana shouldn't have attempted a triple backflip because it's going to lead to the deaths of other hopeful kids? Billy Morgan is a shame because that's what other kids will compare themselves to, Undoubtedly leading to severe injury or death? That's just idiotic. We're all in the same realm, we can all make our own decisions. Style might win over the judges at the b&e invitational or another friendly comp., but when it comes down to it technicality beats style EVERY TIME. It's just the reality. And I find it highly entertaining. If you don't then fuck you, u don't deserve to watch this incredible sport.

Just quoting that coz i couldnt agree more, fucking dumb his comment got down voted.

Mr.BishopThe problem is when everyone does the same trick.

I don't by any means hate watching a triple - just not the same trick every single time. Comps need variety.

Aerials would have a massive following if doing almost exactly the same massive trick over and over and over would entertain crowds.

If you calm down and really read what I'm saying then you will understand I'm not asking for the end of rotations... just variety.

Same trick? Wut? I get that a skier like bobby will do the same run a lot, but there is absolutely a difference between a left dub cork 10 mute and a right dub cork 10 japan, sure they look kinda simpler, still different tricks, executed by a skier who WANTS to do it. how many dudes out these are doing dub rodeo screamin seamans or whatever the fuck nick calls it?

Again; these comps exist because - The athletes WANT TO AND LOVE TO #spintowin. And power to them!

jakeordieThis is well said. I think it's important to understand that different events are intended to reach different audiences. The B&E comp for example is influencing the pro class and elite level freeskiers, where something like X games or Olympics is aimed at little 10 year old Johnny who's on the couch with mom & dad and he's seeing it for the first time ever.

The kind of skiing media that will hook little Johnny and make him "one of us" is exactly what skiers are railing against these days. Let the robots do their thing, and get these kids off the couch off the playstation and on the snow. Once they're in, then they can learn about style and work out who and what they like most.

This is why the comp skiers get sponsored by the less core, more corporate companies.....that's where the money is. If Johnny's mom & dad can't walk into the local ski shop and see Brand X's skis, there's no sale and no money to pay for pros. But once the kid is in, he can work out who to support and what gear he wants. The core companies still gain from corporate sponsored dudes doing triples in the X games, when those kids stay hooked and step it up.

So I'm saying that, instead of wanting diversity within one event, respect that there's diversity in the range of events that skiing supports. It makes the sport as a whole stronger.

this, I think Xgames, Dew, the olympics etc. dont necessarily have to change, but we need to focus on making sure kids who get into the sport learn about style and all the core companies and stuff. There are tons of kids just getting into park at my home mountain, but to them the extent of creative skiing is travelling circus. TC is definitley awesome and really creative, but there is so much more and it helps if we share it with them. Not aggressively push it down their throats while shitting on comp skiing, but just telling someone about NS's homepage (not even the forums) provides them with a huge variety of content.

Otherwise we end up with a bunch of kids skiing for a while, getting frustrated they won't make it cause they can't do a blind 6, and quitting.

SkiingsnowWhat's the different between an athlete doing the same 3 cork over and over again and another one doing the same dub/trip/quad over and over?

I also imagine the athletes might look at these discussions and think "what the fuck? spinning as fast as i can and getting as many flips in the same trick is fun as fuck and that's what i wanna do.. why do these guys have a problem with that?"

Variety is what I'm campaigning for. I don't want to see shifty 1's all day and only that... I want variety. Its been a natural trend in the sport since the beginning to go through waves of innovation in contests and then settle back into the way it was before. The only reason I care so much is that I came from a time where freestyle was lame as fuck due to this exact challenge we're facing.

If dudes want to quad their brains out all fucking day go right ahead - I don't give a fuck. If the competition scene (which is what a lot of people see when they decide to start doing this) is allowed to stagnate back into Aerials then fuck that - we need a new revolution. Skiers who you all look up to broke off of the old freestyle game Because it got stale and regulated.

Remember - I'm not advocating new ideas here, I'm trying to argue that the current Hot Dogging movement needs some tweaks if we're not going to get stale.



Events like B&E are awesome for sure, so is watching films. But hey, why can't the contests represent the whole sport a little better? Some tiny tweaks and you're empowering everyone to do what they want, not end up being forced into a circus monkey doing flips for dollars.

Anyone in here that is calling me ignorant / stupid / etc - please read up on your skiing history a little bit more. Also trust that I do have these conversations far and wide in the industry - athletes included.

Some agree, some don't - but all don't want to go back to being classic freestyle ever.

SkiingsnowAgain; these comps exist because - The athletes WANT TO AND LOVE TO #spintowin. And power to them!

I'd just like to point out this is far from universally true. I've travelled round a bunch of comps this season and spoken to a lot of the 'athletes' over my travels. While there are guys who genuinely love to huck their meat and see what happens, by far the number one complaint I've heard is that you have to do certain tricks to win comps regardless of whether that's what you enjoy doing or not. I'm not going to name drop here because if guys want to come out and say this shit publicly, that is their prerogative, but that includes guys who are winning and are making a lot of money off doing said tricks.