noschoolrider

278 / 299 mm and 7 / 7,5 / 8

UPZ RC10 Shoxxter Boots - New (never used) They are the 2016 model - they have the new style tongues and buckles. The picture below is of the actual boots. Features: Booster Strap with new shoxxter system 5 Micro-adjustable Race Alu Buckles Ride / Relax Lever 4 Forward Lean Positions Forward Flex-stepless adjustable Backward Flex-stepless adjustable 5 Canting Positions inside & outside Intec Compatible Liner: Flo Genuine Leather Removable Racing Tongue Lycra Toe Box Custom Pads- Removable SOLD

Hi Dan, FYI, those events were on different days and there were differences in the jump takeoff between the snowboard cross course and the ski cross course, so comparing the time differences is not really accurate/helpful.

Are you saying the arena/courses don't comply with NASTAR's requirements, or are you saying they don't meet your desires? That's just an average. When my local resort had the NASTAR program the average par time was 24.25 however there were several days when the par times were below 18 (more than 6 seconds faster than the average par time). That's the pacesetter's Slalom handicap and it was applied to a Slalom course. On the page I linked to (for Okemo on Jan 12th, 2019) the par time for the Blue (Giant Slalom) course was 18.58 and the par time for the Yellow (Slalom) course was 16.64. The pacesetter for both courses was James Blount. Are you also going to declare that James is not honestly handicapped? As lonbordin said, "The NASTAR system isn't perfect" and an example of this can be seen on the page for the Overall Snowboard Male Ranking (2017-18 Season). On that page it shows Olympic snowboarder Mike Trapp ranked at 21. Do you really think all (or any) of the 20 people ranked above Mike Trapp are faster than him? I know you didn't ask for it, however in my professional opinion, it will be more rewarding to focus on being the best (fastest) racer you can be on a variety of courses, instead of focusing on getting the lowest handicap on easy (or what you feel are "honestly handicapped") courses.

The reason some pacesetters have two different handicaps is because one is for a GS course and the other is for a SL course. On 2/2/19 (the day you mentioned) Pat was the SL pacesetter on the Yellow course (Pat had a SL handicap of 40.99) and Ken Kimmerle was the GS pacesetter on the Blue course (Ken had a GS handicap of 23.00). If you did not like Pat's handicap then you could have raced on the Blue course. Another example of this is at http://skiracing.nastar.com/index.jsp?pagename=raceresults&race=146129&year=2019 On that day the Okemo pacesetter was James Blount who had a 16.96 GS handicap on the Blue course and a 39.53 SL handicap on the Yellow course. Also, if you go to NASTAR Nationals and make it to the Race of Champions and expect to race on an easy carving course then you'll be very disappointed. I met several racers at Nationals who thought they were really fast (they had low handicaps going into Nationals), however they found out that their low handicaps didn't help them prepare for a challenging course.

What is often referred to as pedaling in the alpine snowboard community is called twist (torsional twist) by the majority of the snowboard industry. I have had the pleasure of working with ski and snowboard instructors/racers/coaches from all over the world. Every major snowboard association's current instructor manual that I know of covers torsional twist and how it can be used in snowboarding. You can also see examples of this in the carving videos from the Japanese demonstration team and you can read about it in the Snowboard Instruction New Zealand (SBINZ) manual at https://www.nzsia.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/SBINZ_Manual_2017.pdf I don't agree with all of the teaching dogma, however I have listed some uses of pedaling/twist (even for torsionally stiffer alpine/race boards) below: 1. You can use pedaling/twist to subtlety adjust (or fine tune) the snowboard's tracking/stability (e.g. if you're running the board flat at high speed and it starts to drift/wobble you can use pedaling/twist to make the board track straight instead of committing to setting/pressuring an entire edge). 2. If you are on a set edge and you only move your back foot/ankle/knee/hip in the opposite direction of the set edge you can drift/skid/pivot the back of the board with less rotary force while keeping the board in a tighter corridor (and on a higher line) than if you moved both feet/ankles/knees/hips in the opposite direction of the set edge. 3. If you initiate a turn by moving your front foot/ankle/knee/hip in the direction of the turn (before moving the back foot/ankle/knee/hip) it can make it very easy to initiate the turn without actively transferring any additional weight. Many alpine snowboarders think they move both feet/ankles/knees/hips at the same time when initiating turns (and edging), which also might be why some snowboarders think they never pedal/twist the board. People often do not realize how much they use something until it's taken away from them - like when they get on a snowboard (or plate) that has so much torsional rigidity it won't allow them to pedal/twist the board. This is most likely why (in that situation) snowboarders feel that controlling the board becomes more difficult at slower speeds and that they need to use gross/exaggerated/inefficient movements to achieve the same results. Even racers like Chris Klug have made similar statements about riding boards that had too much torsional rigidity.

It's not just "for mere entertainment", there is clear evidence that the use of a plate improves performance. Some advantages of modern plates are: 1. Enhance the performance of a snowboard (a) increase edge hold/grip/tracking (b) increase the ability to accelerate when coming out of a turn (good for racing) 2. Reduce rider fatigue and increase rider stability by reducing the amount and intensity of vibrations the rider feels

USASA GIANT SLALOM / SLALOM Vertical drop is recommended to be a minimum of 90 meters. • Racecourse shall be at least 20 meters wide • Slalom - the distance between turning poles must be between 10 - 14 meters • Giant Slalom - the distance between turning poles must be between 20 - 27 meters USASA PARALLEL SLALOM / PARALLEL GIANT SLALOM • Vertical drop: Parallel Slalom recommended minimum of 80 meters • Vertical drop: Parallel GS recommended minimum of 135 meters • Width: Parallel Slalom minimum 20 meters • Width Parallel GS minimum 35 meters 2018-2019 USASA Rulebook: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sbhl9mGjswbkLEpLQzvG1uNzUPB1Vv88/view

The original poster was asking about "beginner carve lessons": One of the biggest (and most common) challenges for beginner snowboarders is to be able to engage the uphill edge and maintain enough pressure on that edge to control their speed without falling (e.g. while trying to perform side slipping, traversing, falling leaf or turning). You can be an expert at obstacle running or bicycling, but that does not directly equate to having the ability (strength/coordination) to balance on the uphill edge of a snowboard and slow it down, or stop when necessary. I have seen a lot of beginners who were dynamically balanced on a snowboard right up to when they hit the tree or person below them! The Whirly Board allows you to roll it from side-to-side (toe-side to heel-side and vice versa). You can stand on it with any foot angles you want (alpine stance-duck stance) and you can move up/down while balancing on it with the board tilted toward a side. This allows you to experiment with angulation while developing the strength/balance/skills that will be needed to edge a snowboard to a stop without falling. Dynamic Balance - the ability of an object to balance while in motion or when switching between positions.

If you want a balance/agility board to train for board sports then you should check out the Whirly Board at https://whirlyboard.com

The images below are from the 2018 Kayseri PGS:

WROD = Weather Report Of Deception ???

USASA Central Oregon Series - Mt. Bachelor in Bend, OR https://www.centraloregonusasa.com December 8, Saturday: Slalom/Giant Slalom #1 & #2 (4 Snowboard Comps) USASA Western Washington Series - Their website is still showing last years schedule https://www.westernwashingtonseries.org/schedule USASA Hood Series - Their website is still showing last years schedule and it's been a while since I've seen them hold SL or GS event https://www.usasahood.com/mt-hood-events

I have several custom Kesslers (I've been riding custom made Kesslers since 2010) and when I get new ones (or have ones that don't get used anymore) I sell the used ones. So, it seems you don't know what you're talking about. Why did you make that comment in my "For Sale" post? FYI, I've had custom Coilers and custom Doneks, however I prefer Kesslers for racing and for freeriding. Plus, stock Donek Revs start at $1,225 Yes, my Website URL is in my BOL profile.

In my opinion, the information I posted shows it was a fair race and I thought that information also addressed your question "if one course is so biased, what's the point of racing?". However, it helps if you understand the importance of the two run qualifiers and then consider the following: In every pairing in the finals, the racer with the faster qualifying time was in the Red course. So, from a mathematical (and commonsense) perspective it should be no surprise that approximately 96% of the races (in the finals) were won on the Red course. That does not prove the Red course had an unfair advantage - it simply shows a logical pattern that the faster racer (from qualifying) won most of the time. Also, the photo you posted of the semi-final between Kosir (on the Red course) and Lee (on the Blue course) is actually additional evidence that the courses were reasonably equal. Kosir was the second fastest qualifier (1:24.97) and Lee was the third fastest qualifier (1:25.06). Then, consider the medal results: In the Men's event the person with the fastest qualifying time won Gold, the person with the third fastest qualifying time won Silver and person with the second fastest qualifying time won Bronze. In the Ladies' event the person with the fastest qualifying time won Gold, the person with the third fastest qualifying time won Silver and person with the fifth fastest qualifying time won Bronze. The second fastest qualifier (Zavarzina) fell in the semi-final and fell in the small-final so she placed fourth. I watched the entire event and (in my opinion) the race was fair/unbiased. The bottom line is, the qualifiers are more significant than most people think they are.

They did not reset between qualifiers and finals. However, the only time they did any course maintenance was between the qualifiers and the finals - there was no ongoing course maintenance during the qualifiers or during the finals.

They did not reset. The majority of the faster qualifying times you see on the Blue course were from the racer's first run. As more racers ran the courses it became apparent that the Red course was holding up better than the Blue course (the Blue course deteriorated faster - it looked like the snow was softer in some places on the Blue course). AJ had a great first run (on the Red course) and if not for a mistake on his second run (on the Blue course) he probably would have been in the top 16.

It definitely does. The majority of the faster qualifying times you see on the Blue course were from the racer's first run. As more racers ran the courses it became apparent that the Red course was holding up better (the Blue course deteriorated faster). It looked like the snow was softer in some places on the Blue course.

In the qualifier, every racer had one run on each course (red and blue) and their qualifying time was the combined time of those two runs (see the images below). The racer with the fastest qualifying time got to choose which course they wanted in each final (1/8, 1/4, semi, small & big).

That is not correct. In the qualifier, every racer had one run on each course (red and blue) and their qualifying time was the combined time of those two runs (see the images below). The racer with the fastest qualifying time got to choose which course they wanted in each final (1/8, 1/4, semi, small & big).

A lot of what you are saying is correct. However, you should not exclude the additional experience a 40 year old has. Even when one racer has a physical advantage such as younger, heavier (it's a gravity sport), taller (more leverage), or more strength, the racer without any of those physical advantages can still win if they make better choices and apply the most effective technique for each turn/situation (turns/courses/conditions vary). JJA applied his experience and made the best choices for that course and those conditions (that course was similar to the course he won Olympic gold on). I'm 5'7", 135 pounds (and old) and I race PGS on 180 and 185 Kesslers with plates. I beat younger, taller, heavier, stronger racers most of the time, and I have also won several national championships. When someone my size and age has results like that it indicates they use a successful combination of technique, skill and experience. However, since I'm my own coach, if you want to say my results have nothing to do with experience and are only due to better coaching - then that's fine with me :) I also want to make it clear that there are several BOL members I know who are faster than me including Kenneth Boivin and Everett McEwan. Everyone I know (including me) agrees with you on that. However, carving is only quicker than sliding/skidding when that carve does not take the racer out of the faster line. Even with a blended range of sidecuts sometimes it is necessary to drift/skid/pivot/redirect - it deepens upon the offset/course. So... Why have the courses changed? It's a gravity sport, which means bigger/heavier racers have a huge advantage. If every race course was set to favor only pure carved turns (with no technical challenges) then the biggest and best gliders would always win. The changes in the courses (that made them more difficult/technical) level the playing field and give smaller/lighter/older racers an equal/better opportunity to win. In that situation, you must become a better technical racer to be successful.

The discussion was about Jasey-Jay Anderson and racing. As I have stated, the reason I included links to those articles is because they contain debatable alternatives to the conviction that the racer who carves all the time always wins. Drift/skid/pivot/redirect turns are nothing new, however they are still something that every successful ski and snowboard racer needs to be able to perform proficiently. I agree that some of the articles are lacking and have technical inaccuracies, but again I referenced them to show that (for racers) there other types of turns that are necessary to use in some situations. If you don't believe me or don't care it's no big deal. However, I will not put up will bullies or self-righteous people telling me what is or is not debatable, or what I can or cannot post. I have no respect for that type of behavior.

Like your criticism of the articles? No, I do not and I find it funny that you think I do. As I said, I was posting debatable alternatives to a common conviction. You replied, "That conviction isn't worthy of debate". I don't care one way or the other because I'm not seeking your opinion on anything. I'm not seeking your approval or agreement. I don't care if you disagree with everything I write. It does not matter to me. I do not feel insulted - your self-righteous attitude is comical. You have repeatedly attempted to position yourself as being superior to Chris Knight (U.S. Ski & Snowboard Team women's speed coach), Ron LeMaster (former technical advisor to the U.S. Ski Team), and Dr. Jim Taylor by making disparaging comments about their articles and their writing abilities, and you haven't provided any compelling reasons why I should listen to you. I do not respect that method of persuasion - you keep trying to make it about the quality of their articles when it's your behavior that I don't respect. Does little to affect me, but reflects poorly on you, and for what? I thought it was ironic and funny that you called articles written by fellow professionals 'self important' while you were acting in a self important manner. FYI, I don't need you to tell me what to think, or what I shouldn't read, or what I shouldn't share or discuss with others. I do my own critical thinking and I make my own decisions. Your behavior is the definition of self important and that is why I wrote that 'little gem'. If you can't see the irony in that, then maybe you need to work on self awareness and you might need to get a sense of humor.

The courses vary based on course setter choice, location (including steepness and width of the hill) and snow/weather conditions.

And at this point in time, that problem is almost entirely self-imposed. So, the fact that a snowboard racer can't skate in a race course, or use two edges at the same time, or move from one ski to another is self-imposed at this point in time? No, that's why I asked. How passive-aggressive of you. Knock it off. Denigrate me if you feel it advances your cause, but don't waste your time time on 'creative writing'. You feel you were criticized unfairly? I'll make a note of your sensitivity. Would you feel better if all my responses start with 'With all due respect' to mitigate the effect of any disagreement or criticism? However, if you don't like what I write and you are sensitive to criticism, then maybe you should ignore what I write. FYI, I can't think of (or find) a single instance where I have initiated communication with you. I have only responded to you when you have initiated communication with me. Also, you don't have the right or authority to tell me what I can or cannot post.