20/07/2017
Ok, I’m going to back track for calling out a specific person yesterday on the WSL judging - it was bad form - my unequivocal apologies to Richie Porta.
But I’m passionate about my surfing and want to see the sport at its most appealing - so I’ll run through a few things from Wed 19 July’s groundbreaking day. A quick squiz through social media and the WSL in particular will highlight that the talking points for the day were:
* How good is JBay - epic conditions
* How insane is the surfing by all competitors
* The raised bar of Toledo’s 10 vs the other 10’s and the raft of questions around all that.
* How good can you surf a water patrol boat!
* What size was that shark - really - it was farkin big
* And (not least) - the judging - with armchairs, amateurs, enthusiasts and experts (such as Ian Kanga Cairns) chiming in about the overscoring and ‘WTF where did that score come from?’.
I have successfully completed Level 1 judging accreditation and been fortunate enough at my local to gain snippets of wisdom from a former WSL level judge (thanks Doug) on the significant differences there can be between TV footage and the actual wave, so I’m not completely clueless.
If the viewing public can’t get a good idea of the scoring - then:
* that is not fair on the athletes either because in all likelihood there will be uncertainty for them trying to maximise scores and make a living
* it is a failure of process:
* whether that be poor judging (as perceived by viewers/competitors - just ask Felipe & Jeremy why they got banned…)
* criteria being out of sync with the location
* or poorly explained scoring system
If anyone is going to go to the air then it will be Felipe - when he first got on the CT tour it seemed to be the only thing he could do. He is a joy to watch. However, in my opinion his 9 yesterday should never have been a 9. Why?:
* It’s 300m JBay, not a short wave ride like Portugal or Brazil. WSL criteria:
* Commitment and degree of difficulty - full marks there
* Innovation and progressive manoeuvres - he hit that one on the head
* Combination of major manoeuvres - not much - he fell off trying to complete his 2nd turn after the alley oop with another 100+m of rideable wave to go….
* Variety of manoeuvres - one air into one turn into a fall…..
* Speed, power flow - for the portion of the wave he surfed - he had that - but there was plenty more to give (as his later 10 showed)
* So now the elite level judges have boxed themselves in by overscoring - a failure of process. Felipe’s 10 was a no brainer but on the scale they’d set for the heat was it an 18….?? It was twice as good.
* I’d have given his 9 a 7.5
Lots of other competitors in those heats can do similar airs but stuck to the face and big carves - why - they are not scared of going to the air but have been advised that to max the score at JBay you need to smash it for 300m. Otherwise they would all do a big air & 2 turns then kick out for a 9. That would save the legs and the long paddle back……..
So I appreciate the can of worms that can be opened by the judging panel admitting they made mistakes:
* but admitting you “rounded down the score ‘cos they didn’t see all of Connor’s wave” is a failure of process. This is surfer on surfer with full video replay - not my local with 4 person heats in onshore chop
* This is immovable JBay - you know exactly where the wave is gonna break - every time…. so you can position judging towers accordingly
* This is the elite level of the sport - during opening statements the head judge said they had cameras down the beach to catch all the angles and rides - apparently not - another failure of process
There is talk of the WSL moving to a pay wall which I can understand. If you want me to pay then you have to minimise the level of inconsistency and uncertainty and provide better explanations of the scoring for each location.
It is in everyone’s best interests to improve the quality - the surfers are doing it in spades.
