• For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.

Erik Timmerman

So much better than a pro
Instructor
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
6,304
It's pretty hard to imagine Academies wanting to add skier cross. I see above some posters saying "Oh, those ski clubs can just add a ski cross course, no big deal". It's actually a huge deal. Taking care of any race arena is a big deal, not just snowmaking and grooming, but constantly maintaining b-net and other safety devices. Plus, you are taking a trail away from the public. They already bitch about that enough. "Why can't we ski the race trail?". In addition to that, I think it has to be pretty obvious that skier cross would be hard on kids bodies - like ski racing isn't hard enough. The last thing we need is more injuries. For sure burnout is a problem, but I think there are better ways to deal with that - like shortening the season - and by shortening the season I mean cutting out the trips to NZ, Chile, etc.
 

fatbob

Not responding
Skier
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
6,288
The FIS discussion is completely separate from this national program structure discussion. I don't think anyone is seriously arguing that ski cross should be folded into the overall alpine standings calculation.

Funny because that is exactly what I took this bit from the article to mean

Officially, the proposal would support the transition of ski cross from FIS freestyle to FIS alpine and start the conversation of how to implement the sport and its programs into youth alpine development.

Which is why the whole article had the flavour of politics/empire building/funding grab to me as much as seriously wanting what was best for junior athletes.

And to the OP FWIW I like skicross as a discipline - it's entertaining, unpredictable even if the result of each race is often a foregone conclusion from the hole shot. It is just relative hard to build full facilities for compared to the ease of screwing in a few slalom gates.
 

Chris Walker

Ullr Is Lord
Skier
Joined
Dec 8, 2015
Posts
739
Location
Denver
Because ski racing isn’t dangerous enough when it’s only one at a time? This event has always seemed insane to me. :duck:
 

cantunamunch

Meh
Skier
Joined
Nov 17, 2015
Posts
21,907
Location
Behavioral sink
Because ski racing isn’t dangerous enough when it’s only one at a time? This event has always seemed insane to me. :duck:

Makes for fun ski design tho, especially when contrasted with the same mfg's GS ski models.

And yes, I totally see the possibility of cross-pollination with freeride design ideas.
 

dbostedo

Asst. Gathermeister
Moderator
Contributor
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Feb 9, 2016
Posts
18,096
Location
75% Virginia, 25% Colorado
...even if the result of each race is often a foregone conclusion from the hole shot...
I have that same problem with a lot of short-ish standing start races... BMX, Motocross, Snowcross, etc. It seems they are way too dependent on the start. That's less of a problem for longer events - F1, Superbike, NASCAR, etc. - as there enough laps/time/pit stops that the start is a bit less important.

Sometimes I wish the shorter events were just timed events, but it would change the nature of them a lot. Still... having a highly technical ski cross course with a single skier at a time making a timed run might be a fun alpine event. Wrold Rally Championship seems to do well that way.
 

sparty

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Feb 15, 2018
Posts
1,005
IMO, it's unfortunate in this regard that there are multiple NGBs involved for different forms of snowsports competition. The article also touched on big-mountain and freeride crossover potential, and given that we know that building well-rounded skiers is helpful in building faster ski racers, it would be beneficial to all disciplines if athletes could more easily cross over.

At the younger ages, I'd argue that there's a case to be made for not needing to specialize; I know of at least one program that has U12s who train racing on Saturday and freeride on Sunday, at least until the competition calendar complicates things. Encouraging athletes to dabble outside their area of primary focus, or even allowing them to split their focus at least as long as it seems athletically feasible, seems like a good thing for the competitive sports involved, and an even better thing in terms of building lifelong love of sport.

As far as skiercross in particular goes, what is the injury rate and severity? My gut feeling is "that seems dangerous", but I believe the article specifically mentioned a culture of safety in the skiercross world, and it may be one of the places where a clear level of danger results in better mitigation techniques and a better-than-guessed statistical result. I'd also expect less risk from racers joining an actual skiercross training session, with a skiercross-trained coach, versus letting them run through an open-to-the-public cross course.
 

crgildart

Gravity Slave
Skier
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
16,328
Location
The Bull City
even if the result of each race is often a foregone conclusion from the hole shot.

True but there are several heats that end up with the best wholeshotters side by side for the final. And at that level they're all good enough to capitalize on any lapse by the person ahead of them. Passing definitely happens.
 

Jim McDonald

愛スキー
Skier
Joined
Nov 15, 2015
Posts
2,101
Location
Tokyo
I have that same problem with a lot of short-ish standing start races... BMX, Motocross, Snowcross, etc. It seems they are way too dependent on the start.

I remember years ago reading that motorsports great Stirling Moss would practice with sprinters weeks or months ahead to gain a few seconds of advantage at the classic start of Le Mans because he felt being in the lead from the go was a big advantage, even in a 24-hour race.
Could be nonsense, but he was apparently quite obsessive about preparation for races.
 

Sponsor

Staff online

Top