L1 rail jam

asparagusEven IF the woman’s field is easier to win

pay women less because there’s less competition —> less incentive to compete therefore less competition —> pay women less because there’s less competition 🔁

it’s a loop guys

I wouldn't expect OP to understand this simple logic, hes clearly got a smooth ass brain.

I’m interested to know where else in the world high levels of competition aren’t rewarded with higher levels of compensation

eheathI wouldn't expect OP to understand this simple logic, hes clearly got a smooth ass brain.

We can't be acting like everyone has an equal chance to win anyway because of skill levels. As long as there are some top quality riders on the podium, why does it matter how many mid skiers they beat to be up there? Worse comes to worst, if there aren't many people, the word gets out for the next year.

It would be super sick to see a prizes for best trick that is funded by a percentage of the entry fees of that category that is voted on by the riders.

Professor-ModeloI’m interested to know where else in the world high levels of competition aren’t rewarded with higher levels of compensation

You're dumb as rocks kid

Professor-ModeloI’m interested to know where else in the world high levels of competition aren’t rewarded with higher levels of compensation

Most Olympic sports, freestyle skiing being a prime example. People will train their entire life to be the best in the world at some obscure sport, compete against thousands of people all over the world, and receive very little compensation.

when it comes down to it, pay/compensation in sports is directly tied to marketing. If you can sell more shoes, skis, surfboards or whatever, that is how you earn cash. Not by being the top of a competitive field. There is a reason why golfers are making millions while olympic gold medalist archers probably have second jobs.

this rail jam is no different. It all comes down to marketing. I’m willing to bet most of the prize money is coming from goodr, ain’t no way L1P has that kind of cash lying around. Goodr makes sunglasses, all of which are unisex. So to maximize profits, they need to market to both men and women. So they need both to show up, so they can give them free shades and cash, so that up and coming skiers will see them and say “hey they look cool maybe I will buy some goodrs”

like really dude, how do you think unequal pay would be received from a PR standpoint? Do you think that would help sell sunglasses??

**This post was edited on Dec 7th 2022 at 5:46:52pm

Professor-Modeloabsolutely nobody is pursuing this sport for financial gain (because there is none unless ur ahall or eileen gu). risk taking behavior is significantly more common amongst young males, leaving more young men likely to get into very dangerous activities like skiing competitively. I apologize that certain things and activities are more attractive to certain demographics, as i know this must hurt you deeply, but there are facts.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6473461/

Yeah I'm so triggered and deeply hurt by that journal article. Anyway, we all know that risk-taking is important in skiing (how else would anyone learn new tricks) but it's only one factor that ignores other aspects like consistency, style, trick selection, creativity, etc which are relevant to the judging process. I don't disagree with the claim that certain activities might be more attractive to men who, as the article suggests, might be more likely to risk hurting themselves. But rail jams and other competitions don't reward only the most dangerous tricks. And what about all the women who are willing to take the same risks? Should they get rewarded less? If the discrepancy in field sizes is a problem then we ought to think of ways to improve the situation, and I can't possibly see how offering smaller prizes would do that.

dawg don’t come on here with stuff like this, saying women should get less cause there’s less of them, even though they’re just as impressive, and then shittalk anyone guys with different opinions just cause they have a higher karma rating then you

bootspacedawg don’t come on here with stuff like this, saying women should get less cause there’s less of them, even though they’re just as impressive, and then shittalk anyone guys with different opinions just cause they have a higher karma rating then you

Worddddd. OP has troglodite pissbaby level opinion on the topic

Christian_BaleI would agree with you only based on what I imagine will be the disproportionally sized fields. However, you have to consider the consequences of having a smaller prize pool for the female riders. It would be a pretty big 'fuck you' to all the women competing. It would basically send the message that even if a female skier pushes herself just as hard (or harder) than any other male skier, she'll get less money for her effort. It would discourage participation while having equal prize pools would encourage it. I think I speak for a lot of people when I say that I really want to see more inclusivity and diversity in skiing and I think it would be sick to see an event where the fields are similar sizes.

This. I feel like having an equal prize pool will also influence a lot of creativity and progression on the women’s side of skiing, and I’m all for it.


I’m gonna pop out to the Bush one. Not to compete bc I can confidently say with my chest that I suck at skiing rails, but just to have a good time and gas up the homies.

Professor-ModeloI fucking hate you too, you 300 pound goblin

honestly dude if this is the thought you have here you should really take a break from NS. someone disagreeing about your rail jam opinion shouldn't twist you up like this

also you're trying to go all "FACTS and LOGIC" on everyone's ass but you're missing the point. the organizer wants girls to show up and is incentivizing them. it's very practical

Op probably wouldn’t once step to the rails the girls will be sessioning the whole event. What a bitch