[FCR 2003] 2003 FCR World Championships - Results

Jani Soderhall · Post by **Jani Soderhall** » Sat Sep 27, 2003 1:43 pm

2003 FCR World Slalom Skateboarding Championships
Sept. 26, 2003 - Paso Robles, California, USA
SlalomCross Final Results

Pro Division
1 Tay Hunt
2 Luca Giammarco, Italy
3 Kenny Mollica
4 Terence Kirby
5 Charlie Ransom
6 Mike Maysey
7 Barrett "Chicken" Deck
8 Richie Carrasco

Open Division
1 Richie DeLosada
2 Chris "Sully" Sullivan
3 Eli Smouse
4 Noah Heinle
5 John Ravitch
6 Marc Johnson
7 Chris Barker
8 Cliff Coleman

Women's Division
1 Lynn Kramer
2 Aria Thonpson
3 Lauren Gordon
4 Judi Oyama
5 Elisa Campbell
6 Katii Campbell
7 Lisa Woodward

Jani Soderhall · Post by **Jani Soderhall** » Sat Sep 27, 2003 1:49 pm

1970's legend Tay Hunt takes top honours in Slalom Cross. I met him as a spectator at Worlds 2002, great to see him back on his deck. Is he rookie of the year?

Luca Giammarco, Italy, takes second in a discipline he just discovers. Well done.

Kenny Mollica is up in the top as usual. No matter what the discipline, you can always count on him.

Richie DeLosada, World Champion Am class, slalom Cross. Congratulations. We met and raced last year. I took him out of the tournament that time. I'm glad you got your revenge.

Lynn Kramer, World Champion womens class. Congratulations!

Jani Soderhall · Post by **Jani Soderhall** » Sun Sep 28, 2003 11:01 am

2003 FCR World Slalom Skateboarding Championships
Sept. 27, 2003 - Morro Bay, California, USA

Slalom Final Results

Pro Division
1 Kenny Mollica
2 Barrett "Chicken" Deck
3 Richie Carrasco
4 Luca Giammarco, Italy

Open Division
1 Chris Barker
2 Noah Heinle
3 Brian Parsons
4 Michael Stride, UK

Women's Division
1 Judi Oyama
2 Lynn Kramer
3 Aria Thompson
4 Lauren Gordon

Junior Boys Slalom
1 Dylan Gordon
2 Joe McLaren
3 Josh Byrd

Junior Girls Slalom
1 Keli Benko
2 Lauren Gordon
3 Kati Woodward

Jani Soderhall · Post by **Jani Soderhall** » Sun Sep 28, 2003 11:14 pm

Corky called me in the middle of the "tight" slalom qualification on the Sunday and hopefully we'll talk again later tonight, if I can stay awake despite my boring flu.

He reported that Luca endured some back pain in yesterdays races. The course was 80 cones so it was only for the physically fit (for sure he was one of those!) but after a great performance in the slalom cross on the Friday his sometimes appearing backpain unfortunately appeared again.

It is today, Sunday, that he would have liked to do his best, but it is unsure at this moment if he'll be able to. It looked like he was not going full speed in the qualification, maybe just saving himself for later runs.

Hopefully more info soon.

Jani Soderhall · Post by **Jani Soderhall** » Mon Sep 29, 2003 1:42 am

Here's some more live news as reported by Corky on site in Morro Bay.

Tight slalom qualification:

Luca had the best time, Mollica second, Gilmour was up there in the top too, probably 3rd.

I talked briefly to Luca and he said he had strong doubts about competing this morning, but he took some pills, put on his gear and is now racing.

He says the tight slalom is easier on the body than the hybrid of yesterday. Less long and less extreme movements. He also thought that he had a disadvantage using a non-flex, rather short board in the giant.

Corky said that the long giant slalom was hard on everyone and as runs were sooo long most skaters couldn't really go full speed all along, creating less than optimal performances.

Tight slalom elimination rounds:

Chicken was taken out quite early on, either by Gary Fluitt or Eric Groff.

Gary then met Luca, but Luca made the fastest run of the day despite Garys efforts with what might have been the second fastest run of the day. After the first run Luca felt confident and it almost looked as if he took it easier in the second run, but he was probably in control, making Gary leave the bracketing and qualifying himself as the first of the top four into the semi final.

Eric Groff was then taken out by hybrid slalom World Champion Kenny Mollica who will now face John Gilmour in the semi final. I spoke briefly to Kenny too, who was feeling confident and enjoying every minute of the racing this warm California afternoon.

Michael Dong might have been the last semifinalist, but Corky wasn't sure.

Announcements were way better today with skaters being introduced and times being reported continuously. Over the mobile phone I could here the announcer warming the audience in MB and once again realized how silly it was of me to stay home when I could have been over there enjoying the race. A race is a race, and missing one is always a pity. After all racing is what this whole sport is about.

The final, later...
Before going into the top 4, they're probably running the juniors, girls and maybe even amateurs. It's close to 2 o'clock at night back in Sweden, so I may not stay up much longer. Hopefully Corky and others will give their reports tomorrow.

Jani Soderhall · Post by **Jani Soderhall** » Mon Sep 29, 2003 1:59 am

The rules

I just thought I'd pass on this piece of information as well.

a) Cone count. Not a new thing, but 9 cones was set as maximum count here. 10 and you DQ. On a course with 80 cones, that's not a whole lot. Most people would have DQ'd at the European Championships last weekend, on a shorter course. Maurus Strobel, the winner, hit 10 cones in one of his runs and still advanced, having made such a killer time.

b) If you beat the other guy by more than a second you still only get a second up on the other guy. Unbelievable. Why? Well, the idea was "to make it more interesting". Hmm, I thought the race was about finding out who's the fastest on the course.

There are rumours circulating as to the origin of these rules, but that is still unconfirmed.

Hmm, I guess there really is a need to sit down together and agree upon one set of rules to be used, whether we're racing in California, elsewhere in the US, Japan or Europe. Maybe the ISSA wasn't such a bad idea after all. Call it whatever you like, but it is getting more and more clear that we need something like it.

I'm not really sure inventing new rules each contest gives credibility to our sport.

Now back to the race and the exciting next few minutes...

Can Luca keep going and defend his qualifying position and win the world title?

Is Kenny taking another world title at this race? Doing a first ever double at the worlds?

Is Gilmour finally making it to the ultimate top in his favourite discipline?

Is Dong holding the fourth slot in the semifinal, or who is the mystery man?

Jani Soderhall · Post by **Jani Soderhall** » Mon Sep 29, 2003 3:11 am

It's three o'clock at night. I'm still up. I feel like I'm watching the Olympics or something, but this was even better.

Corky passes me the phone. A relaxed Luca says:

"I did it. I'm the World Champion!"

I was relieved. He'd done it. He had shown that California does not alone dominate the sport, not even on their home ground. Europeans can be fast racers too. And there's one guy in Ohio being an amazing racer as well.

Luca continues: "I'm really, really pleased. It was one of the most tiring contests I've done and I've had a lot of pain. With the jetlag and everything, waking up at 5 in the morning. I can't take it anymore."

Howard Gordon then adds:

"This morning he decided he wasn't going to race. He was still in pain since yesterdays race. He only came along to watch. But we did what we could. We gave him a back brace, some pain relief. Corky added some balm. As he arrived and saw the course he decided to make just one practice run. He did. Felt OK. Wanted to make one qualification run. He was taking it step by step."

Corky adds:

"Luca had the fastest qualifying run with his first attempt. As Luca was starting late he saw that nobody came close, so he simply skipped his second run to save his back for the eliminations".

Luca is the tight slalom World Champion!

Sincere congratulations, Luca! Nobody deserves this title more than you!

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Sep 29, 2003 3:24 am

I haven't smiled this much in a long long time. Luca is my hero. Congratulations!

Congratulations to Luca, Kenny, Noah, Gilmour and Michael!!!!!

So if they are giving all three events equal standing does this make...

Kenny Mollica Overall Pro World Champion with Luca runner up

AND

Chris Barker Overall Open World Champion with Noah runner up (or is it the otherway around? This one is too close to call)

?

Congratulations again guys!!!!

Jani Soderhall · Post by **Jani Soderhall** » Mon Sep 29, 2003 3:28 am

2003 FCR World Slalom Skateboarding Championships
Sept. 28, 2003 - Morro Bay, California, USA

Tight Slalom Final Results

Pro Division
1 Luca Giammarco, Italy
2 Kenny Mollica
3 Michael Dong
4 John Gilmour

Open Division
1 Michael Stride, UK
2 Chris Barker
3 Noah Heinle
4 Claude Regnier, Canada

Womens Division
1 Lynn Kramer
2 Judi Oyama
3 Lisa Woodward
4 Aria Thompson

Junior Boys:
1 Josh Byrd
2 Dylan Gordon

Junior Girls:
1 Lauren Gordon
2 Keli Benko

More details:

According to Corky, Luca felt confident in the final. He was ahead in the first run having posted clear runs almost every time. Mollica might have been first over the line but he hit cones. Luca didn't.

In the last heat Luca felt on the safe side, especially after hearing Mollica hit two cones. He still had the possibility to accelerate should Mollica come by him, but he didn't have to use those last resources.

Dong takes out Gilmour with only a few hundreths of a second.

Gilmour had previously taken out Steve Olson.

Noah was the favourite in the Open class, but as far as I understand he was taken out by Michael Stride (who placed 5th last year) replacing his UK friend Paul Price as the Worlds Open Tight Slalom Champion. UK keeps their title!!

Chris Barker, Gilmour, Fluitt, Holl used Seismic trucks on the front or both. Chris Barker, the winner of yesterdays open class, takes second today. Seismic CEO Dan Gesmer, time keeper today, is proud ad his new trucks gets the recognition they've been waiting for.

Luca like many others used 3dm wheels in all three races.

Mollica is first overall, with 2:nd, 1:st and 3:rd places over the three days.

Luca is second overall, 2:nd, 4th, and 1:st.

Corkys final words were:

"Although it didn't show up in the results today, it seems as if the Calis are secretely practising tight slalom. It's interesting as the Europeans are practising longer distances to race the Americans. I think we're coming closer to each other. There's no more need for Vlad's TS campaign."

What an evening & night (over in Europe)! I need some rest now, while the party continues in Morro Bay this afternoon and evening. It's been a pleasure reporting live to you. Hope you enjoyed it!

Thank's Jack and the others: FCR and friends, for putting on the show!

/Jani

Andy Bittner · Post by **Andy Bittner** » Mon Sep 29, 2003 5:34 am

Awesome coverage, Jani. Thank you! I was at the Worlds in '01 and '02, so missing it this year has been driving me nuts. Your coverage has definitely helped me know what I missed.

While I'm at it, I'd like to note that I am very encouraged by the broad range of winners, the emerging truth that southern California does not dominate slalom skateboarding and that we have a sport where world class athleticism can and usually will prevail over fashion and attitude.

Howard Gordon · Post by **Howard Gordon** » Mon Sep 29, 2003 8:11 am

Overall title results were announced at the gathering tonight, with Kenny Mollica winning the combined World Champion pro title, Chris Barker winning the combined World Champion open title, Lynn Kramer winning the World Champion women's title, Dylan Gordon winning the combined World Champion title for the boys, and Lauren Gordon and Keli Benko sharing the combined World Champion title for the girls.

By the way, Dylan and Lauren both ran Seismics (not to mention 3dm wheels) as well.

Gianluca Ferrero · Post by **Gianluca Ferrero** » Mon Sep 29, 2003 8:25 am

First,i would like to thx Jani,inspite of his flue,to let the others know what it was showing on World ch.2003.

Second, me,personally and as representing skateboarding in Italian Federation ,i'm totally agree with Jani about our rules: we can't organize and CHANGE RULES every race....AND IN EVERY COUNTRIES....we in ISSA worked and are still working on tese.
I would like to meeet Jack smith to sign a protocol for 2004.

THIRD-SORRY FOR CAPS LOCK, .....WE ARE ALL WITH OUR WORLD 2003 PRO CHAMPION Luca GIAMMARCO....winning a difficult race in spite of physical pains.

Many thx to 3DM's Howard Gordon ,INDIANA's chris, Silverspace.it 's Alberto for all the time spent to support GIAMMARCO in our sport

SEE YOU IN ITALY FOR A PRO CLASS SLALOM
IN THE 4th gravity games-Go to http://www.stream-games.com and have a temptative approach there!

Olimpic Italian Skateboar Fed.
Gianluca Ferrero
President

Chris Eggers · Post by **Chris Eggers** » Mon Sep 29, 2003 8:26 am

What the....!?!°?!!!!!!

Stride!

You unbelievable, insane, tripped out fast
m.............r!!!!!!!!!!!!

You did it!
Great! Sorry that I could not be there!
Congratulations!
Unbelievable!

Conrgats to Luca and all others as well. I had no doubt he would make it after seeing him twice this year.

Awesome results!

Jon Warburton · Post by **Jon Warburton** » Mon Sep 29, 2003 10:44 am

well done to luca and michael
bringing home the silverware!!
reet o proper bo!!!!!!!!

Adam Trahan · Post by **Adam Trahan** » Mon Sep 29, 2003 3:25 pm

YEAH!

World class skateboard slalom racing!

It's like reading the old, ahmm, new issue of Slalom!

Now hopefully we can have a campaign for an international set of rules as in the ISSA, perhaps we can close the gap on interpretation...

Thanks for reporting Jani, I enjoy your perspective.

adam

Pierre Samray · Post by **Pierre Samray** » Wed Oct 01, 2003 7:48 pm

Congratulations to Luca.
Great, great champion!
Italia and Europe can be pride of you.
I'm dreaming of a contest with best american against best european.

Pierre Samray · Post by **Pierre Samray** » Wed Oct 01, 2003 7:53 pm

Thank you Jani for this commentary "live"
You keep suspens till the end.

Jani Soderhall · Post by **Jani Soderhall** » Wed Oct 08, 2003 2:48 pm

Here are the complete spreadsheets from the "spreadsheet geek - Dan Gesmer" in PDF format:

Slalom Cross
Women, qual
Women, elim
Open, qual
Open, elim
Pro, qual
Pro, elim

Hybrid Slalom
Boys, qual
Boys, elim
Girls, qual
Girls, elim
Women, qual
Women, elim
Open, qual
Open, elim
Pro, qual
Pro, elim

Tight slalom
Boys, qual
Boys, elim
Girls, qual
Girls, elim
Women, qual
Women, elim
Open, qual
Open, elim
Pro, qual
Pro, elim

Now let's get into some number crunching. There's always a lot of intesting stats to pull out of results at major events like this.

John Gilmour · Post by **John Gilmour** » Wed Oct 08, 2003 4:56 pm

Looking at the TS stats. It looks like there were a lot of DQ's. Anyone have a good idea of where to set a DQ for cones hit?

The course was tight and so we could easily expect a wide range of hit cones depending on competitor pairings (closer seeds will push each other more). Keith Hollien had one run with no hit cones in an early round against a lower seeded competitor. Luca had a few clean runs. No one else had clean runs. Must have been a challenging course. (It had a few very tight sections)

The DQ was set at 10 cones and we still see a large amount of DQ's.

Of course you can try and count how many cones you are striking- but IMHO once you go beyond 6 cones you don't really know how many you have hit. Some may move off the circle without being knocked over- or one cone you hit may strike another over or nudge another off circle.

If you have low cone DQ limits then racers may race too conservatively. If you have higher cone DQ limits racers may race a little faster- with some unexpected DQ's (possibly off course DQ's due to excessive speed). If you have no cone DQ then you may have some excessive cone spray in the early rounds (near suicide runs from lower seeded racers trying to stay even). But by later rounds most of the cone spray will be gone.

It was sad to see last years World Champion eliminated by a Cone DQ (though at the time as a racer I was relieved) - and I felt if the Cone Dq was at 15 cones we would have seen faster racing in the second runs- and fewer "cruise" runs.

Should TS have a Cone DQ at all- or should a cone DQ for a more difficult TS be very high? Do low Cone DQ's discourage newer racers from trying TS?

When Olson (second Run), Carasco (1st run), Chicken(1st run), Fluitt(1st run), Hutson (both runs), Holl, McCree (1st run-usually a very clean racer), Gilmour (consolation round 2nd run), Wahl (both runs) all lose by DQ....is something wrong? Having 3 out of the 8 pairs in the round of 16 decided by DQ is high (I might expect it in the 16 vs 1 pair and the 15 vs 2 pair (Atilla raced hard in his second run and Dq'd against Mollica- Atilla's "go for Broke on the 2nd run" strategy was correct for the 15 vs 2 pair seeding). In the round of 32 it is somewhat expected to see DQ's (many seeds are further than 16 seeds apart) but in a World Championship race by the round of 16 we would expect few DQ's. The skill level of those who DQ'd is very high and that is what makes me pose this question.

Now in defense of the results. Almost all the lower seeded racers lost by DQ except Bill Wahl (round of 32) who double DQ'd against Olson. ALL lower seeded racers if they are behind on their first run SHOULD "go for broke" on their second run and either win or DQ. (a win was not possible for many since many DQ'd their FIRST run).

BUT because the DQ limit was low (for the difficulty of the course and riding level of the riders) many racers DQ'd their FIRST run....not their second run as we would normally expect.

I tried to run clean (3 cones each run) in the round of 16- only Terence Kirby (2 cones each run) and Luca (0 cones each run) ran cleaner (unusual for me). If I'm not hitting a bunch of cones....is something wrong . lol?

Perhaps making cone DQ's up to 20 percent of the cones in a TS is good. I think having a DQ of 15 cones would have greatly reduced the Dq's to 2 or 3 dq's and that I feel is an acceptable level of DQ. Until we can get a handle on setting good cone dq limits, IMHO we are better off without them especially in TS.

[ This Message was edited by: John Gilmour on 2003-10-08 11:04 ]

Claude Regnier · Post by **Claude Regnier** » Wed Oct 08, 2003 5:59 pm

It a riders choice. i haven't looked at the stats yet, (I'm about to).

Against Stride and Noah I had to try and force them to make errors by going after them right off the bat. I knew my TS running was not going to be sharp because of a few personnal reason.

They we're both runnng gheat and had i met barker I would have been forced to do the same thing. The results were go for it on the 1rst. I believe againts, Stride on the 1rst run. That was a desciosion based on not ricking another fall. i missed the the last couple of cones near the end after the last left handed offset.

Againts Noah I had to use the same strategy and only hit 8 or 9 cones. Both first runs pretty much seeled my fate but i knew they were running great all weekend.

John Gilmour · Post by **John Gilmour** » Wed Oct 08, 2003 7:18 pm

Well a low DQ cone amount will change strategy. If the cone DQ is very low you'll be best off trying to force your opponent to make errors.

Ie get a quick start- lead them into a tech section at speed etc..

But still it would involve a lot of cruising runs on the second run for the person that did not dq.

I had a run where my opponent DQ'd the 2nd run. I was thankful for the rest (saving energy), but I would have rather raced him (more fun).

Dong's strategy in his first TS run with me was to get a great cyber slalom type start, and force me to mess up....it worked, but if the DQ limit was higher I might have just poured it on instead of trying to reduce more errors and being conservative. I tossed conservativeness out the window on my next run - but Dong still knew it was coming and he raced hard on that run also. Smart racing by Dong.

[ This Message was edited by: John Gilmour on 2003-10-09 10:17 ]

Terry Kirby · Post by **Terry Kirby** » Wed Oct 08, 2003 7:46 pm

JG, of course TS should have a cone limit. 10 cones should be a max for ANY length course, even 100 cones. Its about skill, a skilled racer can go faster and cleaner. This is how we determine who is a better racer. Why even bother having a tech section in a course with no DQ limit, you could just plow the section and resume running clean when the course gets easier again. This is lame. IF the course is too difficult the racer must back down his speed untill he can make it without dqing. TK

Jani Soderhall · Post by **Jani Soderhall** » Wed Oct 08, 2003 8:04 pm

A DQ is among the most boring thing that can happen in a competition. Let's keep those to a minimum.

If the course is really difficult even a good skater will hit cones. Nobody hits cones by mistake and we do have a penalty for hitting cones. Why add another one? I just don't get it.

Those who are capable of doing clean runs will always strive to do so. Those who can't will always strive to get through as well as they can.

Limiting the number of cones hit is something you do in practice. Not while competing.

Jack Smith · Post by **Jack Smith** » Wed Oct 08, 2003 8:28 pm

Every cone I hit is a mistake, and at Morro I made way too many mistakes.

I don't limit the cones I hit in practice, I do however try to limit the number of cones I hit in competition.

Someday, I will get better. But I better hurry, the days they pass so quickly now.

Jani Soderhall · Post by **Jani Soderhall** » Wed Oct 08, 2003 8:39 pm

On 2003-10-08 14:04, Jani Soderhall wrote:
Limiting the number of cones hit is something you do in practice. Not while competing.

OK, I admit this phrase didn't really turn out the way I expected. The rest I said was correct.

Jani Soderhall · Post by **Jani Soderhall** » Wed Oct 08, 2003 8:41 pm

Administrators note:

I'll create a new Rules & Regulations forum one day so that we can separate dicussions on rules from competition memories. I'll then split this thread in two.

Jon Warburton · Post by **Jon Warburton** » Wed Oct 08, 2003 8:51 pm

hi all
just an off the wall suggestion my missus came up with while spectating at antibes, - how about a time BONUS for a clean run instead of a max cone count which leads to a dq. doesnt have to be much, say the same as a single cone penalty?
kinda like hitting the bullseye.
clean runs dont happen that often so maybe this should be recognised?
cheers
jon

Pat Chewning · Post by **Pat Chewning** » Wed Oct 08, 2003 9:29 pm

I also had DQ's from too many cones. Yep, I admit that I'm a cone whacker.

I sort of like the idea of a "bonus" for a clean run -- if that is something we want to emphasize. All the racers and spectators at the tight slalom on Sunday gave extra loud cheers for the clean runs, so why not reward the racer a little bit?

On the otherhand, it probably is complicated enough to run a race without adding more tasks to get the results done.

I ALMOST suggested that there be a graduated cone penalty with no upper limit (say .1 for the 1st 5 cones, .2 for the 2nd 5 cones, etc). Nobody would DQ on cone count, but it would sure hurt your result. But I'm not suggesting this because it would cause a nightmare for the scorekeeper.

-- Pat

Michael Stride · Post by **Michael Stride** » Wed Oct 08, 2003 10:05 pm

There were a few clean runs in the Open class. I distinctly remember Gareth Roe slamming one down (against Gorman) before we got to meet. I tried so hard to slam one down too...hitting one cone. Then in the run before we met up I cleaned it in one run against Ohm.
To me that was a clasic bit of slalom, you try to not only beat your direct opponent but do a peacock display to rattle the guys your going to come up against. My clean run set me up mentaly to battle with Gareth. Had I not cleaned it I would perhaps have lost to GR due to be less confident.

Garteh threw the gauntlet down first... en garde!

Wesley Tucker · Post by **Wesley Tucker** » Wed Oct 08, 2003 10:57 pm

I kind of like to keep it simple. A simple rule is:

"If the course has 50 or less cones, disqualification occurs if the racer hits or displaces 5 of the cones. If a course has 51 or more cones, disqualification occurs if the racer hits or displaces 10% of the cones."

It just so happens that falls right into TK's suggestion of 10 cones on a 100-cone course. Oh, and before the question is asked, ROUND UP for the next percentage point:

51-60 cones = 6-cone DQ
61-70 cones = 7-cone DQ
71-80 cones = 8-cone DQ
81-90 cones = 9 cone DQ
91 - infinity = 10 cone DQ

As far as clean runs are concerned, perhaps they should be treated the same way reaction time was awarded at 'da Farm? The skater with the most clean runs on the day gets a set of trucks or something.

Giving a penalty to someone who hits a cones is logical: theoretically, if you hit a cone you have shortened the course and therefore should take a penalty for not driving a good line. Getting a clean run, though, only means you took the longest possible route to the finish line. Why should that be rewarded with a time bonus?

Rich Stephens · Post by **Rich Stephens** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 1:29 am

I put in a few hours picking up the cones on Saturday in Morro Bay and there was a section on the saturday course in morro bay that many people missed on purpose. All part of the strategy I guess. The whole cone thing and DQ thing is confusing for the spectators though - especially since the courses are so long and there are no speakers to really hear the announcers except at the top of the hill.

How many people DQed the first run and then came back to win the second against an opponent who didn't DQ? With only a 1 second penalty for DQ, it seemed possible.

Terry Kirby · Post by **Terry Kirby** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 1:54 am

Jani Soderhall wrote:A DQ is among the most boring thing that can happen in a competition. Let's keep those to a minimum.

If the course is really difficult even a good skater will hit cones. Nobody hits cones by mistake and we do have a penalty for hitting cones. Why add another one? I just don't get it.

Those who are capable of doing clean runs will always strive to do so. Those who can't will always strive to get through as well as they can.

Limiting the number of cones hit is something you do in practice. Not while competing.

Jani with all due repect, why do you think they have the 4 ball walk rule in baseball?
Sure the walk is as boring as a DQ but wouldn't it be silly for a pitcher to throw 25 balls while the batter waited! It's just as silly for a racer to hit 25 cones on a course and still get a time. You've got to draw the line somewhere. TK

John Gilmour · Post by **John Gilmour** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 2:32 am

Is the 4 ball rule arbitrary? Well probably it was decided upon based on the skill of the pitchers, the distance of the mound from the plate and the accuracy that was expected. I don't know baseball. But the size of the diamond does not vary greatly for every game (though the ballfield may).

Our courses are inherrently different each time we set a new course its different as are different slopes surfaces etc.

To set a cone rule is arbitrary.

A 10 percent cone allowance is just plain silly for an easy course- but deadly for a difficult one.

In the end. DQ's suck. We try to avoid them. Promoters try to avoid them. The easiest way to avoid lots of DQ's is set a ridiculously easy course.

I don't have to explain my views on criddling. And we all know in an offset course criddling every cone will not get you a faster time. You still must travel the distance and pump to get a decent time.

In Sundays course there was a tight section of cones near the top. About 5 cones were very tight. If even by riding a short deck a person would have trouble making those...he may as well ride a longerwheelbase deck and plow those cones and hope to make it up in the rest of the course. Reasonably....if he thinks that if he rides a short deck and would hit 2-3 of those 5 anyhow.....he certainly should think about running a longer deck and just nailing them. With the longer wheelbase he might make up the time lost.

That is SMART racing. If it looks bad to the uninformed that's the way it goes.

I just have always felt that the 1.5 second rule as well as the cone dq rule was just "Made up" and arbitrary. Good racers will avoid hitting cones unless they feel it is worth it to hit them.

Back at Cambria during practice ONE cone always got plowed. IT was screaming "CRIDDLE ME CRIDDLE ME- KILL ME! I'M A POOR WHINING BASTARD OF A WRETCH OF A CONE! PUT ME OUT OF MY MISERY" or something like that. It would be a mistake for many of the racers NOT to hit that cone. In fact the greatest skill would be displayed by the racer that just nicked the cone to the very inside- a true display of accuracy and skill.

So the Criddling options change for racers according to their skill and speed and equipment selection. Arbitrary cone DQ's limit the racers choices. Given a choice a Racer will always elect not to hit a cone if it gives no speed/line advantage. Skilled Course setters will either set a course that gives no strategic advantage to criddling or....they might set a course that might make a racer have to think of the actual TIME VALUE of each cone in the race. That is skateboard slalom- not ski slalom.

But again- the DQ amounts in the TS would be correct if there was a very wide time discrepancies between racers- there weren't many. And again these should occur in the second run if at all.

What if there were no DQ's? No cone limits?
Sure in the early rounds you might see some plowage in the widely separated seeded pairs.
I seriously doubt a racer would hit 20 cones in the round of 16 or later. Even 15 cones would be a seldom occuring event. And every race would be a race to the finish.

Wesley Tucker · Post by **Wesley Tucker** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 3:20 am

John Gilmour wrote:A 10 percent cone allowance is just plain silly for an easy course- but deadly for a difficult one.

"Deadly?" John, get a hobby. You're taking this much too seriously.

A 10-percent cone rule is not "arbitrary." It's a "standard." What would be arbitrary is showing up on race day and taking a poll of the attendees "what's a DQ today? Is it 5 or 6 cones? C'mon. This course is tough. Let's make it 6!"

So the guy who busted ass all week and practiced like a mo-fo to increase his accuracy sees no benefit as the cone-crushers criddle everything in sight to get a 2/10ths of a second advantage.

That's arbitrary.

A standard means that a skater has a set standard to practice, anticipate and most importantly, DEPEND ON.

John, you say that on difficult courses it can be "deadly." Nonsense. If you have a STANDARD cone DQ and a difficult course, the answer is simple: SLOW YOUR FREAKIN' ASS DOWN! Not every course has to be blazed. Sometimes you have to take a course in second and third gear.

Is that boring for spectators? I doubt it. We're talking about tenths of a second here, not minutes and hours. The rules, though, would be standardized to the point that a skater wouldn't be in the dark until Saturday morning about what's going on (which is considered de rigueur in today's racing.) Anyone who has the gaul to ask what to expect is considered "bitchy" and not respectful enough of the promoter's hard work. Who wants to listen to more of that?

So, which is better: knowing what to expect, or coming up with a few hundred dollars, travelling a few hundred miles and then being told on race day things are completely different than what you expected?

You make the call.

Terry Kirby · Post by **Terry Kirby** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 3:58 am

JG said: "I don't know baseball. "

Damn straight you don't know baseball boy. That rule applies to little league, major leage, pony league, Ghetto "pitchers mound?? we ain't even got no grass mother&*^ker!" league, high school, college, pro and Farm league. The 10% rule is like the flat tax rule. Fair for everybody. But then again, you probably don't like the flat tax thing either.
From now on, I'm calling you "The Great Complicator" cause you always make stuff way more complex than it should be.

[ This Message was edited by: Terence Kirby on 2003-10-08 22:01 ]

[ This Message was edited by: Terence Kirby on 2003-10-08 22:02 ]

John Gilmour · Post by **John Gilmour** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 4:35 pm

I'm for not having a DQ limit. That isn't complicated. If we must have a DQ limit I think it should be a generous one so that people in the bottom seeding don't all expect to DQ. I think we are better off without a DQ limit.

AS for the "deadly" phrase. It is "sudden death Elimination" on the 2nd run. What could possibly be more standard than not having a cone DQ?

In practice you should can strive to hit nothing and if you do that is great. In a races where we have lots of different skill levels present and racing in the same group it is discouraging to lose by DQ and not even get to know your time. Most racers come to race to find out where they stand in the group. Assigning a cone DQ as their time denies them of this. Also many racers can not take the time and $$ to come to many races. For some they might only make 1-2 races per year. To go home with a DQ is not telling them where they stand other than in some vague DQ block. Of course if you are lucky you get at least one time and of course you can always go back to qualifying times- but qualifying times are not head to head racing.

[ This Message was edited by: John Gilmour on 2003-10-09 10:36 ]

Terry Kirby · Post by **Terry Kirby** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 5:01 pm

So whats wrong with 10%?

Wes Eastridge · Post by **Wes Eastridge** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 6:24 pm

I agree that it sucks to not have your time recorded during a cone-DQ - It happened to me at DaFarm on the GS. But a timekeeper can addopt the practice of recoding all times and cone counts, DQ, clean, and everything in between, without changing the race format.

Mickey Williams · Post by **Mickey Williams** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 6:27 pm

I disagree that DQs are the most boring thing that can happen in a race. Dozens of plowed cones are fairly boring, too. Not to mention one practical aspect - seeing that some people can't be bothered to pitch in on conehead duty, it would have been difficult to manage the time constraints while scavenging 50 cones per h2h at Morro Bay.

Speaking just for myself, I had a hard time with the TS at Morro Bay, barely qualifying into the round of 32. The course was much tougher than my usual practice, and I had to severely dial down my speed. If I couldn't have made the course at all, I would have gone home. And next race I'll be ready for a tougher course. The FCR Series isn't (and shouldn't be) a Girl Scout camp.

Jani Soderhall · Post by **Jani Soderhall** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 6:31 pm

John Gilmour wrote:
To go home with a DQ is not telling them where they stand other than in some vague DQ block. Of course if you are lucky you get at least one time and of course you can always go back to qualifying times- but qualifying times are not head to head racing.

Was the rule only applied in the head to head and not in the qualification?

Imagine being DQ'd in the qualification. How fun is that? Probably the timing guy wouldn't even tell you what time you got, so you'd go home with nothing.

Mike Cividino · Post by **Mike Cividino** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 6:57 pm

John is right, dq`ing is no fun....I learned this at Da farm. I dq`ed on more runs that I ever thought possible. I think I got one time on each course, my time on the tight was good enough to qualify 5th in the open 15th overall and I was taking it easy beacuse I wanted to at least see a time. Same thing in the gs, I got one time and it was with my bearings cranked down so i could make sure I got a time and had some idea of how I caompared to the other racers, i still finished 9th in the open. Think Jani is onto something with the no dq in the qualifying, at least we get to see a raw time improvement between wheels or line or whatever. As a newbie I just want to see a time and see how a stack up with my fellow racers..and who I can set me sights to beat next season.

Wesley Tucker · Post by **Wesley Tucker** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 7:14 pm

Gentlemen (and Gilmour),

All of y'all are getting a little bit astray here. The question is "what constitutes a DQ?" Gilmour thinks it ought to be an arbitrary decision made on race day and TK and I are saying there's no reason a standard for cone DQ's can't be established. (The "10% Standard.")

Now, what y'all are saying now is "what is done with DQ's and how are the DQ times recorded?" This is more along the lines of the "raw times vs. adjusted times" argument.

Whether or not a timekeeper/promoter records and makes available DQ's is a bit different than whether or not DQ's and the rules pertaining to such can be standardized for every course and venue. There's nothing in the rules that say ALL TIMES SHALL BE RECORDED. That can be easily fixed. Here, let me do it for you;

ALL TIMES SHALL BE RECORDED.

See? Wasn't that easy?

Don't forget, though, that if you blow out or leave the course to still get to the bottom of the hill and trip the switch. Otherwise your time will be somewhere in the two minute range. Also, not all DQ's can be recorded. What if you splatter half way down the hill and are writing in pain with blood dripping off your knee pads? That's probably not going to get transposed in any way to the record books.

Rich Stephens · Post by **Rich Stephens** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 7:48 pm

That's the problem with recording times for the DQs. It's only useful to the racer themselves. To everyone else it is meaningless. You see some guys time listed and what do you think?

Did he barely hit 11 cones and get DQed and therefore his real time with a slightly cleaner run would have been, say, his DQ time plus like .5 sec for going slow enough to not plow the cones?

Or did he just blow through cones and get to the bottom of the hill in a time that has no relevancy to what he would have gotten with an actual run?

So you have to make it a standard time penalty for a DQ (I think in morro bay it was 1 sec) and just realize that a DQ run has nothing to do with reality and you might as well not even remember its time.
---

BTW, is a skater DQed if they go around the last cone on the side that they shouldn't be on if they went thorugh the course correctly? Or can they purposefully skip a cone to set up a certain section to fall on their prefered frontside or backside?

Jani Soderhall · Post by **Jani Soderhall** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 7:53 pm

Wesley Tucker wrote:

All of y'all are getting a little bit astray here.

...contents reduced...

Don't forget, though, that if you blow out or leave the course to still get to the bottom of the hill and trip the switch.

Wesley, I think you are the one taking this topic astray.

To me the only reason for a DQ is when you blow out or leave the course, or fall. Then there is no time. It's pretty clear to all.

If I would be DQ'd because I hit too many cones I'd still be interested in my time, whether it counts or not in the results. That's what I was trying to say.

Mickey Williams · Post by **Mickey Williams** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 8:04 pm

Jani Soderhall wrote:...
If I would be DQ'd because I hit too many cones I'd still be interested in my time, whether it counts or not in the results. That's what I was trying to say.

If we're talking about the World's, then I'd have to say that I had no trouble getting my raw time from Dan after a DQ during qualifying on Saturday.

Paul Price · Post by **Paul Price** » Fri Oct 10, 2003 12:41 am

Heres my take on Morro 2003!

I was at Morro, racing Pro this year! I was on a high after good
results Antibes, France. (4th4th 5th)

But no glory for me this year. I’m happy with a 9th place against the Pro field though!
Still it was a fantastic experience to see events unfold first hand.
I wish we had more non-US skaters there. Martin Drayton and all the London/Euro skaters were missed. No Jani, Maurus Stroble or Chris Hart either.

I got to LAX after a long flight, somehow missed meeting Floyd and
Chris Charalabous who were there to meet me. Finally got thru to Floyd's cell
phone after I was at a motel. I slept on Floyds couch. The next day we
left late after picking up a big V8 US saloon rental, leather and fully
loaded.
I Drove 4.5 hours straight to San Luis Obispo at nightfall, and we
Missed any practice. Thanks to Howard for putting us up, even though he wasn't
expecting Floyd and Chris to be with me. We got a motel the next 2
nights.
And thanks to 3DM for supplying me with new wheels, Fibreflex for the
Boards and Etnies for the shoes.

Friday was the slalom cross, raced Brent Kosic, and then had to race Luca.
I was ahead of him for the first half of the course.
but one course was faster than the other on the final right hand bend.
Because the fastest qualifier had lane choice (Tay Hunt - brilliant
Result mate!) every race, it was hard to beat the person in this course. It
Was fun on the big hill though and a new racing experience, a lot more like
snowboarding. A lot of the down hillers did really well in the open
class.

Next day was a hybrid slalom. I felt my pump was not working. I got a
Lousy qualifying time of 7th. Then Mike pointed out my trucks were broken.
The allen screws holding my offset hanger on were loose and the whole axle
Was flapping up and down. As soon as |I tightened it down I was able to
Pump and accelerate. First I raced Duane Peters. I reckon DP is a living
Legend and is a great vert rider. I think he has a great attitude and raced hard.
The last time I saw him was at the US Bombs gig in the Underworld in Camden. I was on it and moved
To the next round. Then I had to race against Dong. Again! I seem to be
Drawn against him every race. On the first start I blew the gate by pulling
Too hard too early and smashing my ribs and that left me too much to make
up on the second run even though I felt fast and was accelerating. I could
have been a contender.

On the Sunday was the tight. I was looking forward to it. Looking at my
board compared to everyone elses my trucks were way too wide and I was
clipping cones. I also was using a board I wasn't used to. Then again
the odd Thursday night at Hyde Park is hardly the training of champions. I
got a draw against Luca after Hollien. An instant psychological sledge
hammer if there is such a thing. I hit 6 cones - game over. Slalom is getting
more technical and equipment testing and tuning will be paramount as races
get faster. I hate messing with equipment. I just want to ride! Can't we
have a division like formula Ford where we all ride the same board- so its the
skill of the rider that's important! Just a whinge. Also some advise to you new racers; try to
enter as many contests as possible, because you learn something from
each contest.

At Morro I learnt that racing on the wrong board for the course, jetlagged, on 4 hours sleep,
hung over, hungry and thirsty are not ideal. Make note to self.

On the plus side I had a load of laughs with Chris Charalabous and
Floyd, and we were in the bars till closing time every night. And I haven't
Been called by my old nickname "Scabie" for years. The name came from my
fall at 50mph at Brands hatch with no pads. I also seem to remember wrecking
the table in Ed Economy's hotel room at some point. Still, if you're going
to smash up a hotel room, best its some body elses. There’s a lot more to
say but I'll leave that for later!

If you have read this far you deserve an invite to my Birthday Bash -
I'm 40 on Saturday 11 October, beating Clingfilm by a full week.
If you can, make it to the Zoo Bar - Bear St - Leicester Square,
London, Earth between 9 and 10pm on Saturday 11 October 2003.
Mention my name on the door and get in for free – the club is open till 3.30am. I'll be in
A pub nearby prior and will have my mobile phone with me 07946012353.
Nuff said. Wicked. Later. Ciao. Respect. Boomshanka.

Claude Regnier · Post by **Claude Regnier** » Fri Oct 10, 2003 12:52 am

Knowing your times on DQ's? If it's a sinlge lane your likely out of luck.

As far as knowing how well your run was despite the DQ. Take a look at your oponent.

See where he is. How far a head or behind of him them you are.

It won't be any less then the time the clock show's. It doesn't count anyway, so! It's nice to take a look to see if you were going faster but would it really only be relative if you were knocking down your times in the seconds.

Relative to your own imagination that is.

Hans Koraeus · Post by **Hans Koraeus** » Fri Oct 10, 2003 1:27 am

I'm not for a cone limit. I’m all for giving a bonus for clean runs as I am punishing those harder who take lots of cones. But DQ? No. It's enough with the embarrassment.

I think some of the cone problem in Morro was also that there where one course for everyone. A pro normally can handle a big variety of courses by skill and board set-up know how. For an amateur with one board and one set of wheels this limits his ability a lot. That's why an am course should be easier. If you want more challenge it's time to move on to the pros. Another reason for lots of cone hits may have been the surface. It’s scary when you can’t trust the surface you’re riding on.

This talk about “if you can’t handle that section you just have to go slower” doesn’t work. Not with the level we have so far it seems. In a competition you want to go fast not slow. Audience want you to go fast not slow. It’s not fun seeing people holding back. We want to see them going for it, as hard as they can. The problem is not the skaters. It’s better with an easier course that makes the skaters look good than a hard course that makes them look bad. I agree that the audience may think that someone hitting lots of cones is bad. And seeing that in a World Championship you may think. “Hey, are these the best guys in the world? They hit cones all the time.”

If there are too many cone hits happening I never think: “These skaters are really bad”. I think: “This course setting does not go well with the skaters”. That may have many reasons. The hill, surface, skaters ability and so on. But whatever it is the course is what you change. You don’t try to change the skaters, at least not in a short-term perspective as on a race day. We shouldn’t be afraid of changing courses if we get the feeling too many cones are hit. If you can take down the average cone hit from 6 to 3 it’s worth it. For the racers as well as for the audience.

John Gilmour · Post by **John Gilmour** » Mon Nov 24, 2003 3:41 am

Wesley Tucker wrote:I kind of like to keep it simple. A simple rule is:

"If the course has 50 or less cones, disqualification occurs if the racer hits or displaces 5 of the cones. If a course has 51 or more cones, disqualification occurs if the racer hits or displaces 10% of the cones."

It just so happens that falls right into TK's suggestion of 10 cones on a 100-cone course. Oh, and before the question is asked, ROUND UP for the next percentage point:

51-60 cones = 6-cone DQ
61-70 cones = 7-cone DQ
71-80 cones = 8-cone DQ
81-90 cones = 9 cone DQ
91 - infinity = 10 cone DQ

My only problem with this is that it does put a limit on the difficulty level of the course. In that if you make the course hard so that some people will have trouble going fast and hitting less than 10% of the cones while you may see others not hitting any and going very fast indeed.

When you have a group of racers that are close in ability level I think !0% is alright, when you have wider ability level in the same class you either have courses that are made very easy to prevent DQ's and are not challenging to anyone, or you have large number of DQ's. I would agree with Jani that DQ is a boring thing to watch. I would also say that watching people run slower easier courses in order to make sure few people DQ because of 10% dq rate in a widely spread group of racers is also boring.

Of course we don't want to hit many cones. We could for instance have a prize for the racer who throughout the day in qual's and racing hits the least number of cones. Of course since it is a total- a guy could win even if he hit many and did not continue in elim's. But that is okay by me.

Join the ISSA 25 cone series. One cyber race every second month!

Regular sessions allow newbies to join our community and discover slalom racing.