Snowboarder forever silences skiers winning Super-G Gold

[telefreewasatch]

Go Ester !!!

Boy can you cut off line with stubby 'lil gates.

[Vitamin I]

Here's a statistic for you on WC Super-G winners:

You have had 6 different SG winners this year on the WC. There have been 6 SGs.

Does that sound like a problem regarding lack of competition?

I agree with everything you're writing, but it seems like you don't see how it all supports my stance.

6 different winners of 6 WC SG events is maximally inconsistent. It suggests that the organizers of the SG event have no desire for the SG event to be defined with an objective to determine who is the best skier for a type of course that is between a Downhill and a Giant Slalom. It really seems the organizers run the SG event with intent to favor a surprise unexpected winner---but you never know which skier will have the "most lucky" performance that day, which skier might "guess the most right" on the blind jumps, etc. If they wanted to remove some of that inconsistency and "luck-of-the-day" factor, they could allow practice runs, and do some other things. If they think 3 practice runs are best for Downhill, then why do they think zero practice runs is best for Super-G?

An event to determine who is best at flashing a high-speed course on-sight? Sounds pretty fun and requires a bit of luck. An event to determine who is best after practice runs to dial in their personal best effort and strategy for the specific course conditions? Sounds like pretty serious competition that reduces some of the "luck-of-the-day" factor.

...does it mean there is parity?

Yes, by definition, it means parity of results, but not necessarily parity of skiing ability. Maybe the way they have defined the SG event, everyone has a more equal chance in SG, even with significant differences in skiing ability. So even a worse skier can have a more equal chance as the best skier. Some spectators love seeing surprise winners. As a spectator, ideally I would prefer to see the event strive for a determination of whose personal best is the overall best. That's just me.

...every racer on the WC who is in the Olympics has the talent to win the race. The question is about consistency.

Agreed. If Racer1 has a personal best when Racer2 has a bad day, then Racer1 will win. I'm saying the way the SG event is defined, it seemingly intends to increase the role of good luck and bad luck, instead of the role of repeatable skiing performance.

This time Ledecka had the consistency to win the entire race.

OK, here I think you must mean intra-run consistency---consistent high performance from start to finish within one race. Because I don't think she's been especially consistent across multiple recent events, right?

.

[nyskirat]

I agree with everything you're writing, but it seems like you don't see how it all supports my stance.

6 different winners of 6 WC SG events is maximally inconsistent. It suggests that the organizers of the SG event have no desire for the SG event to be defined with an objective to determine who is the best skier for a type of course that is between a Downhill and a Giant Slalom. It really seems the organizers run the SG event with intent to favor a surprise unexpected winner---but you never know which skier will have the "most lucky" performance that day, which skier might "guess the most right" on the blind jumps, etc. If they wanted to remove some of that inconsistency and "luck-of-the-day" factor, they could allow practice runs, and do some other things. If they think 3 practice runs are best for Downhill, then why do they think zero practice runs is best for Super-G?

An event to determine who is best at flashing a high-speed course on-sight? Sounds pretty fun and requires a bit of luck. An event to determine who is best after practice runs to dial in their personal best effort and strategy for the specific course conditions? Sounds like pretty serious competition that reduces some of the "luck-of-the-day" factor.



Yes, by definition, it means parity of results, but not necessarily parity of skiing ability. Maybe the way they have defined the SG event, everyone has a more equal chance in SG, even with significant differences in skiing ability. So even a worse skier can have a more equal chance as the best skier. Some spectators love seeing surprise winners. As a spectator, ideally I would prefer to see the event strive for a determination of whose personal best is the overall best. That's just me.



Agreed. If Racer1 has a personal best when Racer2 has a bad day, then Racer1 will win. I'm saying the way the SG event is defined, it seemingly intends to increase the role of good luck and bad luck, instead of the role of repeatable skiing performance.



OK, here I think you must mean intra-run consistency---consistent high performance from start to finish within one race. Because I don't think she's been especially consistent across multiple recent events, right?

.

So your argument is purely based off what you are seeing as good skiing then.

Correct me if I am wrong here, but you're arguing that because there is parity in the results of the SGs then that is indicative of a lack of talent? Or is it that because of the format of the Super-G event itself (no training runs, one run, etc.) makes it so that mistakes are punished and you can get an "underdog" winner? Or both?

The first is a really bold statement given that it's purely subjective. What constitutes good skiing to you? Have you raced? Have you coached at a high level?

I'm not saying it is wrong, but it's a personal view. To me, the fact that there is such parity is indicative of the talent level across the field (this comes from watching most of the races and having raced at a high level) and that the best skier can't be determined by just one race.

That leads me to my second point. The point is, that is just the way the event is. You can get punished for a mistake in any race that has 2 runs just as easily as one that has 1 run. Mistakes are mistakes, regardless of when they happen. They will slow down everyone. Part of it is bad luck, but a lot of it comes down to preparation and talent.

Did you choose the right line? Did you inspect the key areas properly? Did you adjust your tactics after the course reports? Did you choose the right skis, wax, boots, etc.? Those are all things in your control.

Winning (or losing for that matter) is more about talent than luck. Bad luck is when a slalom gate breaks and gets stuck on your boots or a sudden gust of wind comes as you hit a flat section.

The winner of an event is simply the best skier THAT day. That is why the WC titles, be it the Overall or Discipline titles, are so difficult to win. All it takes is a few DNFs or top 30 finishes rather than top 10 or even top 5 to lose the title. You can't win it by winning just one race, but you certainly can lose it by DNF/DSQing.

I guess I see Ledecka's win as indicative of her talent but also her inability to consistently reproduce this level of skiing.

[wyeaster]

tl dr snowboarder/skier beat pure skiers at skiing. amazing competitive and athletic performance by ledecka. that's why they run the race.

[Angle Parking]

Ledecka just qualified for the gold medal final in parallel giant slalom. So she is guaranteed at least a silver. Could she really pull off the double gold?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Angle Parking]

Yep. Double gold; skiing and snowboarding.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Eluder]

impressive but yeah red course

[TurxSki]

Hang on a second.
She's not even *a snowboarder*.
She's a Hard Booting Carve Boarder.
*Almost* skiing.
[Ask anyone who rides a carving board, with hard boots.]

[rideit]

She shoulda competed in pipe too.

[Angle Parking]

impressive but yeah red course

The whole red course thing was f*cked. It was almost a guaranteed win scenario for the athlete on the red course. I know nothing about parallel racing and even less about course set up but surely that’s not normal.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[tmokes]

I heard she won the gold in skiing and snowboarding. What an amazing girl.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[MakersTeleMark]

I heards these things about some innernational comps goin on. I want to be in. Who knows sommone?

[Name Redacted]

Pretty amazing to be able to compete at such a high level in both sports and win.

[willywhit]

Hang on a second.
She's not even *a snowboarder*.
She's a Hard Booting Carve Boarder.
*Almost* skiing.
[Ask anyone who rides a carving board, with hard boots.]

what happened to Muss and Trapp ? I turned it on and it was light a highlights reel. so lame. But, we get to watch curling a skating for hours. FAIL !

[dufferdan]

So your argument is purely based off what you are seeing as good skiing then.

Correct me if I am wrong here, but you're arguing that because there is parity in the results of the SGs then that is indicative of a lack of talent? Or is it that because of the format of the Super-G event itself (no training runs, one run, etc.) makes it so that mistakes are punished and you can get an "underdog" winner? Or both?

The first is a really bold statement given that it's purely subjective. What constitutes good skiing to you? Have you raced? Have you coached at a high level?

I'm not saying it is wrong, but it's a personal view. To me, the fact that there is such parity is indicative of the talent level across the field (this comes from watching most of the races and having raced at a high level) and that the best skier can't be determined by just one race.

That leads me to my second point. The point is, that is just the way the event is. You can get punished for a mistake in any race that has 2 runs just as easily as one that has 1 run. Mistakes are mistakes, regardless of when they happen. They will slow down everyone. Part of it is bad luck, but a lot of it comes down to preparation and talent.

Did you choose the right line? Did you inspect the key areas properly? Did you adjust your tactics after the course reports? Did you choose the right skis, wax, boots, etc.? Those are all things in your control.

Winning (or losing for that matter) is more about talent than luck. Bad luck is when a slalom gate breaks and gets stuck on your boots or a sudden gust of wind comes as you hit a flat section.

The winner of an event is simply the best skier THAT day. That is why the WC titles, be it the Overall or Discipline titles, are so difficult to win. All it takes is a few DNFs or top 30 finishes rather than top 10 or even top 5 to lose the title. You can't win it by winning just one race, but you certainly can lose it by DNF/DSQing.

I guess I see Ledecka's win as indicative of her talent but also her inability to consistently reproduce this level of skiing.

The concept for the Super G was to put technical and speed skiers on more of an even footing, hybridising the two disciplines. Depending on course setup, a different specialist may be favoured, but it bring a more diverse crowd potentially into the winners mix.

While Ledecka’s post race comments suggested others weren’t as aggressive, I view it as she was perfectly prepared mentally for race day and skied a very good line in a relaxed manner, resulting in a win. I am positive every other racer did what they thought was the best line to win as well. As was said above, any racer on any given day can win a race.

That is why the race is run. Otherwise hand out the medals and hit the bar....

Also, the double gold was awesome, though the format is fcked....red track was harder and faster. Needs to be only timed or two runs total time.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[garyfromterrace]

Yep. Double gold; skiing and snowboarding.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

That is just so damn cool. I'm in love.

[garyfromterrace]

Hang on a second.
She's not even *a snowboarder*.
She's a Hard Booting Carve Boarder.
*Almost* skiing.
[Ask anyone who rides a carving board, with hard boots.]

I ride hard boots. It's snowboarding. Granted you don't ride switch, your angles are way more forward. But it's still boarding. You're out to lunch.

[garyfromterrace]

So your argument is purely based off what you are seeing as good skiing then.

Correct me if I am wrong here, but you're arguing that because there is parity in the results of the SGs then that is indicative of a lack of talent? Or is it that because of the format of the Super-G event itself (no training runs, one run, etc.) makes it so that mistakes are punished and you can get an "underdog" winner? Or both?

The first is a really bold statement given that it's purely subjective. What constitutes good skiing to you? Have you raced? Have you coached at a high level?

I'm not saying it is wrong, but it's a personal view. To me, the fact that there is such parity is indicative of the talent level across the field (this comes from watching most of the races and having raced at a high level) and that the best skier can't be determined by just one race.

That leads me to my second point. The point is, that is just the way the event is. You can get punished for a mistake in any race that has 2 runs just as easily as one that has 1 run. Mistakes are mistakes, regardless of when they happen. They will slow down everyone. Part of it is bad luck, but a lot of it comes down to preparation and talent.

Did you choose the right line? Did you inspect the key areas properly? Did you adjust your tactics after the course reports? Did you choose the right skis, wax, boots, etc.? Those are all things in your control.

Winning (or losing for that matter) is more about talent than luck. Bad luck is when a slalom gate breaks and gets stuck on your boots or a sudden gust of wind comes as you hit a flat section.

The winner of an event is simply the best skier THAT day. That is why the WC titles, be it the Overall or Discipline titles, are so difficult to win. All it takes is a few DNFs or top 30 finishes rather than top 10 or even top 5 to lose the title. You can't win it by winning just one race, but you certainly can lose it by DNF/DSQing.

I guess I see Ledecka's win as indicative of her talent but also her inability to consistently reproduce this level of skiing.

Great response. For the love of Allah Vitamin Boy, read, comprehend, stfu.

[mooseknuckles]

Stoked for Ester and her coach Justin

https://www.steamboattoday.com/pyeon...pic-gold-medal

https://www.denverpost.com/2018/02/2...cka-snowboard/

[Meanfruit]

Red course for the win, although she would have taken the race most likely if saddled with that fucked up blue course as well. Should be a two run aggregate time, one run on blue, one on red. This is the only fair way. If you go out(DNF), you incur a 1 second penalty that's tacked on to the next run in the other course. The only reason to have one run for all the marbles is to shorten the time for all of this generation's fans who can't have their attention held for 4 fucking minutes. And for the one's saying the skiing courses for the speed event's aren't gnarly enough, try going 120kmh into a compression before a big turn. I have, and it's why I wasn't much of a racer. It's takes massive cajons/no self preservation to do it aggressively enough to compete. Anyway, she rocks, we don't, and that's that.

Sent from my XP7700 using TGR Forums mobile app

[mooseknuckles]

Agreed that the new format is bullshit. Racers coming back from max penalty after a DNF and winning their 2nd runs was what makes PGS fun to watch. This was painful to watch as everyone knew the blue course was slower. The only challenge on the red course was the rut at first gate of the delay. It ate Alena up in her small final and almost bucked Ester. Nevin went round and avoided the rut in his gold medal run and rode clean while Lee charged and still came up short.

Fuck this win the qualifier and hang on crap. Just bring back the old 2 run GS from Nagano. The IOC already killed PSL for Big Air, PGS feels like it is not far behind with this format. Did anyone notice the size of the crowd at PGS vs the Big Air crowd...

[MCskid]

The crowds at all the events seemed pretty small. Poor showing by the South Koreans, even in the figure skating events there were a bunch of empty seats.

[Name Redacted]

Attendance if poor at all events because no one wanted to risk NKorea blowing the place up.

[biggins]

You goooooootta respect this. Woman is a total bad ass of the highest order. Good Christmas I love the winter games.

Gary- I see your Ledeka-love and raise you some Jesse Diggins-love. This olympics was all about the women. Awesomeness.

[Vitamin I]

So your argument is purely based off what you are seeing as good skiing then.

Not "purely" one thing. It’s multiple things. The OP claimed “SNOWBOARDER FOREVER SILENCES SKIERS”. My arguments against that are two-pronged. I argue:

1.) PERFORMANCES: Ester Ledecka's performance was not good enough, nor special enough, to “forever” silence anyone, nor prove anything forever. She proved something, but only for ONE race on ONE day—not forever. And my opinion is that many racers and national programs often underperform in this event.

2.) EVENT DEFINITION: The way the Olympic Women’s Super-G event is defined and organized, the event is set up to prove EVEN LESS than other ski racing events might be able to prove.

For #1 above, my opinions were first based on my subjective “eye test” while watching all the competitors’ runs, and my opinion is that the result was more about the pack underperforming, rather than it being about Ledecka’s performance ranking super-high among all human performances of all time (as the media hype claims). Ledecka’s own stated opinion is aligned with my opinion, yet it seems everyone else dismissed Ledecka’s opinion. Not me. I think Ledecka’s post-race opinion starts to support the validity of my previous “eye test”.

SUBJECTIVE “EYE TEST”:
It’s fine that dufferdan seems to have a different subjective “eye test” of the same performances:

While Ledecka’s post race comments suggested others weren’t as aggressive, I view it as she was perfectly prepared mentally for race day and skied a very good line in a relaxed manner, resulting in a win.

One part of Dufferdan’s “eye test” claims that Ledecka was “relaxed”. That’s fine, but my “eye test” was the opposite about that part—I think she tried more than most of the rest of the pack to subject her body to more and more g-forces at a level closer to her personal limits of control, and she grunted loudly in many sections of the course…not “relaxed” in my opinion. There’s no way to prove duffer dan’s “eye test” or my “eye test”—it’s just our opinions and interpretations. But it’s easy to disprove the “eye tests” of the Canadian TV commenters Todd Brooker & Kerrin Lee-Gartner, who very frequently assert with bold certainty that the skier on-course is completely sucking during the the top section, only to be disproved seconds later when the split time clock displays on the screen to prove that skier was the very fastest in that section…and very frequently after that, these commentators then flip-flop immediately without admitting they were so wrong just seconds before.

For the topic of #2 above, I think my opinions come across in my previous posts.

Correct me if I am wrong here, but you're arguing that because there is parity in the results of the SGs then that is indicative of a lack of talent?

No, I believe in #2 above for other reasons, but then your added point about inconsistency/parity can be seen as further supporting my stance on #2.

Or is it that because of the format of the Super-G event itself (no training runs, one run, etc.) makes it so that mistakes are punished and you can get an "underdog" winner?

That’s closer to my stance, but in general, all mistakes are punished no matter the format. I argue the format of Olympic Women’s Super-G is such that more types of mistakes can happen to any racer more independently of that racer’s skills, merits, experience, etc. (a.k.a. more “luck” involved). And the format does not do much to help bring out high-level performances near each skier’s personal limits. It's a very difficult and risky event to flash a high-speed course on-sight with many unknowns.

To me, the fact that there is such parity is indicative of the talent level across the field (this comes from watching most of the races and having raced at a high level) and that the best skier can't be determined by just one race.

OK. To me, parity itself does not indicate how high or low the talent level is or the performance level is. For example, in Olympic Men’s Basketball, there was more parity in Seoul 1988 than in Barcelona 1992, but Barcelona 1992 pretty much proved that all the previous basketball gold medals of previous Olympics were such low talent and low performances, after the Dream Team showed us what high-level human talent and human performances were in 1992.

You can get punished for a mistake in any race that has 2 runs just as easily as one that has 1 run.

I agree. Not sure why you consider that point relevant to this topic. Before, the closest topic we mentioned was practice runs for Downhill…and mistakes in practice runs do NOT count, right? Practice runs give you a chance to iron out some of your mistakes before the run that counts.

Winning (or losing for that matter) is more about talent than luck. Bad luck is when a slalom gate breaks and gets stuck on your boots or a sudden gust of wind comes as you hit a flat section.

I think it depends on the event, and how the event is set up, and how a competitor approaches the event. For example, a racer can intentionally choose to take more risks into the unknown, so that luck can play a bigger role in determining whether or not they successfully ski faster with the increased risks, or get burned by the increased risks and either DNF or add time to get back on course. If choosing not-fully-known risks, they might fall in a specific unknown way they didn’t foresee, or they might ski all sections faster in a specific unknown way that they didn’t foresee. A.k.a. "luck". If you think the current state of Olympic Women’s Super-G has low luck-factor, that’s fine.

The winner of an event is simply the best skier THAT day.

Agreed. But as a spectator, I would prefer to see the event defined and set up to position more athletes to achieve their personal best THAT day, and therefore have a higher chance of revealing whose personal best is the overall best.

I guess I see Ledecka's win as indicative of her talent but also her inability to consistently reproduce this level of skiing.

That’s fine. I see her win as a “very good” performance, but not an exceptionally high-level performance approaching human limits, and I see her win partially as a result of so very few other competitors having a good performance that day.

I am positive every other racer did what they thought was the best line to win as well.

I am not positive about that. Mistakes happen, racers get off their planned lines, etc. Also, performance can be affected by temporary unintentional risk aversion and pressure (as Ledecka said about her competitors), or other things like mental outlook, confidence, etc.

.