Freeride World Tour Shakeup

**mojorisin** · 11-01-2007, 10:53 AM

I think that a visual-only inspection would lead to more injuries for the less experienced competitors. Think of the west baldy qualifiers this year. Simply looking at the rocks/drops from the bottom makes many of them seem much easier than actually skiing the refrozen bumps. I think inspection runs prevented some serious beatering that could've otherwise occurred.

This is obviously not an issue for the BMP, and probably the reason IFSA allows inspection runs. Oh yea, and BMP's get heli-ed to the virgin goods as opposed to having to ski with the plebes.

**Atrain505** · 11-01-2007, 11:07 AM

There's one simple reason the IFSA tour does inspection besides for the making it "safer" reason. That is because most of their venues are inbounds and easily accessible. You are forced to let everyone have inspections to level the playing field. Imagine if their was no inspection a week before the event at Snowbird. The locals would win every year because most of the other guys can't afford to come a couple of weeks early to make sure they know the venue as well as the locals. Organizers are required for that reason, it would be totally unfair if they didn't allow it.

The new Freeride World Tour can afford to not have inspection runs because it sounds like most of their venues are in the backcountry, rarely skied type venues. Essentially every athlete is starting with the same fresh slate and from a level playing field and that is very important to exciting and fair competition.

**Particle** · 11-01-2007, 11:26 AM

Originally Posted by Alkasquawlik

Definitely, I've never understood the whole skiing-inspection thing. "Hey, I've got an idea! Let's go ruin the snow right before the comp!" Schweet!

Agreed...the one time I got a no-inspection run was Russel off of Berthoud on the finals. We actually did get to hike up to the top and look over the edge and a few people skied one run through it, but for all purposes it was a visual-only. I didn't ski my competition line until my run. Definitely more challenging, scary, but cool. And the snow was not beat to shit...super good stuff.

**taz** · 11-01-2007, 02:34 PM

Originally Posted by Atrain505

You are forced to let everyone have inspections to level the playing field. Imagine if their was no inspection a week before the event at Snowbird. The locals would win every year because most of the other guys can't afford to come a couple of weeks early to make sure they know the venue as well as the locals.

Thats why Bec de Rosses is closed 6 weeks before the event. I went to an event a few weeks back and locals had pretty much been skiing the lines they wanted to take all season. when you travel from overseas to get there it hard to bet those who have the line dialed, shit I dial a pretty fucking hard line if I had 3 months of riding of it to do before the event!

**Atrain505** · 11-01-2007, 05:55 PM

Originally Posted by taz

Thats why Bec de Rosses is closed 6 weeks before the event.

Exactly...that's the way it should be if the venue allows for it. The FWT can afford to do that because most of their venues are out somewhere crazy. The IFSA tour cannot because most of their venues are inbounds. No mountain is going to close a huge portion of their inbounds terrain many weeks in advance.

But there's always a catch. Inbounds, easily accesible venues are great for the sport. Better spectating, and the public, the kids, the future, potential supporters can go look around on the venue after the event right off the lift and see how truly awesome the things the athletes are doing. Every event I've ever done that wasn't in "closed" terrain you always see the "public" really checking out the venue after the comp is over. And that's pretty cool and opens people's eyes to our sport who may not have known about it before.

**clarnitty** · 11-02-2007, 05:16 PM

the whole inspection gig is a funny thing. i've been at comps where the snow is already variable and then people go and ski the shit out of their lines trying to practice. I guess that's one approach, but Alto is right--to have binocular only access really raises the bar and furthers the definition of our sport. for the sake of keeping people alive and well, as well as what A train said that the public can check it out, keep this tour at least a bit more low-key ....or something.

I'm just wondering who's going to go missing on the IFSA tour. Zila's the only one I've talked to who's stoked on it and I think your paperwork's already due...damn...hopefully next year!

**Samwich** · 11-02-2007, 07:05 PM

Originally Posted by Atrain505

Exactly...that's the way it should be if the venue allows for it. The FWT can afford to do that because most of their venues are out somewhere crazy. The IFSA tour cannot because most of their venues are inbounds. No mountain is going to close a huge portion of their inbounds terrain many weeks in advance.

But there's always a catch. Inbounds, easily accesible venues are great for the sport. Better spectating, and the public, the kids, the future, potential supporters can go look around on the venue after the event right off the lift and see how truly awesome the things the athletes are doing. Every event I've ever done that wasn't in "closed" terrain you always see the "public" really checking out the venue after the comp is over. And that's pretty cool and opens people's eyes to our sport who may not have known about it before.

I'd definitely like to echo these sentiments.

My only concern is the venue getting fucked up. At the Red comp a few years ago, the qualifiers were untracked powder before inspection. By the time the comp actually started, it was hardpack or ice.

At Louise last year, they told everyone not to actually ski any lines, or there would be sanctions. That saved the landings for sure.

It's a great way to get people into the sport, too. It makes it more accessible. I know I was scared out of my mind at my first comp, but the fact that I could go and inspect allowed me to charge anyway, and I was hooked on competing from then.

There's definitely a place for allowing inspections, but it's also pretty essential that a lot of events don't allow it.

**alto** · 11-02-2007, 11:38 PM

**powdork** · 11-03-2007, 12:08 AM

I hereby would like to volunteer my services to ski and photo both sides of the cirque in the weeks prior to the Kirkwood event. I'll capture the take-offs and landings used in previous comps, and any others I can get to. Then, everyone will have access to the same info and no on course inspection would be needed.
Sound Fair?

**adride.fr** · 11-05-2007, 06:14 AM

Originally Posted by alto

Mr. Coirier, is that you?

Yes Alto this is me.

It's nice having so much points of view about inspection.

Atrain, I don't think that would be so unfair for the non locals not to have inspections.
I remember a comp in Les Arcs in 2001 I think. I'm a local there and sometimes ski that venue, but I didn't win and no locals in the top 10!! It was a binocular inspection only. They closed the venue 1 week before the comp, and the snow changed a lot in 7 days, some cliff became unjumpable, some couloirs as well...

Another thing, somebody said on that topic that it would be more dangerous not to ski the venue before. It's not true, cause when you can't ski it before, you don't pick such a hard line, you're gonna choose some cliffs which you're sure it's jumpable. So I think that wouldn't increase accidents.

By the way I'm ok with you that non-experienced skiers would have to train on that specific inspection. That's what I do currently, Everytime I'm gonna ski a venue, I first sit for 20min at the bottom, pick a line and ski it!! For sure, sometimes I make errors, some cliffs appear smaller from the bottom than they really are. And sometimes, I have to change a bit my line, I try to always find a plan B in case, so I don't get stocked over a cliff.

Anyway, isn't it what everybody does when big mountain skiing??
When it dumps 3 feet of fresh pow, I don't think you go down slow first to check your line, you ski down and when you see a jump which appears nice, you just jump it!
I know some are gonna say, there is not 3 feet of fresh in the comps. Ok that's why you have ta adapt your skiing to the conditions. I never jump higher than 18 feet if the conditions are not good enough.

Another really impotant thing for me : Big moutain skiing doesn't mean cliff jumping!!!! I won in telluride last season whithout making any jump higher than 8 feet. To me, I way prefer to see a guy strong on his legs going super fast and jumping some stuff along his ride without stopping, instead of another who think jumping the biggest will make him score, and who does uggly traverses just to go from a jump to another.

A good freeskier is an old freeskier! Especially is you wanna make a living out of it. Sponsors won't follow a guy who gets injured every 2 seasons....

I'm just giving my point of view on that topic.

See you soon
A.C

**Tatsuno** · 11-05-2007, 09:30 AM

Woot woot!!

**alto** · 11-05-2007, 10:10 AM

I'll second that "woot woot!"

Originally Posted by adride.fr

Another really impotant thing for me : Big moutain skiing doesn't mean cliff jumping!!!! I won in telluride last season whithout making any jump higher than 8 feet. To me, I way prefer to see a guy strong on his legs going super fast and jumping some stuff along his ride without stopping, instead of another who think jumping the biggest will make him score, and who does uggly traverses just to go from a jump to another.

A good freeskier is an old freeskier! Especially is you wanna make a living out of it. Sponsors won't follow a guy who gets injured every 2 seasons....