Comments on: ASP Board of Directors Approves Clearer Pathway to ASP Top 34 Qualification

By: Jens

Jens — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 16:18:03 +0000

Don’t know, i think this system is a half-baked compromise

1.) I’m okay with axing the midyear cut. If i want to see the upcoming guys i can watch the Primes and Star events
2.) I like that the points start at 0 at the start of the year, much easier to follow whos really on top than last year
(Hey he is number 3 in the Rankings but oops he will loose around 2000 points next week and maybe another 4000 points next month so maybe he is only number 4, or 5 or 6, or … i don’t know because its too hard to calculate with all the other guys who might or might not loose point in the next weeks)

3.) I don’t get the point that they are going back to the old qualification scheme of 22 re-qualifiers and 10 qs-warriors. So for the Top15 there is no need to do a single Prime or Star Event because the Points have no value for them, they are qualified anyways. So we might get back to the situation where only the quys who struggle on the CT will do the QS-Events.

4.) I also don’t get the point of allowing only 3 events to count in the world ranking. Either allow all of them to count or none of them. a guy who is not in the top22 will not have more than 3 good world tour results anyways…It does not make much sense to me and is kind of half baked stuff, and again makes it harder to follow (will the next event count against his world ranking or not, how to find out if he already got 3 counted ??)

Basically i think the points structure of the one world ranking did work pretty well last year, so what i would have done is the following:
1.) Start the One World Ranking at 0 Points at the start of the year. Base the seeding on the One World Ranking results of last year
2.) Allow all events to count for the One World Ranking like last year
3.) At the end of the year you have 12 month of Prime,Star and World Tour Points
4.) Take the top 32 from the One World Ranking + 2 Wildcards to qualify for the next year and start again with 1)

This system would be easy to follow, attracts top-tier surfers to surf prime and star events and you still have a one world ranking at the end of the year

I think we might see a system change in 2013 again…

By: Marc

Marc — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:51:47 +0000

I don’t know why the slate gets wiped clean every year.

If you create a real world ranking system with points accumulated by results in the WT, 5-6 stars, then lesser events, you could carry over the RANKINGS from one year to the next and you would have a greater and smoother ebb and flow off and on the WT.

The top 44 surfers get invited to each WT event, keep the trials in those events (like Hawaii) that need them, 4 wildcards per sponser.
WT surfers that get poor results fall further back vs those killing it on the next tier events. They’ll need to surf more 5 & 6 stars (and get results) but almost all WT surfers will need to surf SOME too.

Results that help rankings would trail 2 years or so – a poor result in 1 event (or 2) will not knock you down too much. Injuries, births, sickness’ shouldn’t potentially kill your career.
The weighting should allow for the top 5 to battle it out, the top 10 to be there for a while, the top 25 forced to step it up and the rest just need results.

It is just simply too confusing now to the casual fan, rankings should be more like tennis or golf. Consistency is key while allowing for the top to surf the best, most visible events. It should be hard to make it in and hard to fall off (assuming you are getting fair results).
I want to see the best, that doesn’t change “mid year” or even year to year.

By: its a world tour

its a world tour — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 09:25:40 +0000

@shannon its a WORLD tour (ct and qs). having another event in crappy huntington waves isn’t exactly going to excite the world about surfing.

By: ac

ac — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 22:08:12 +0000

yeah i could never explain that to anyone..i kind of get it. but why not make it real simple.if you are not in top 22…or even 20, then you are off. back to QS/prime events for the next year.
you get dozen new good talent, and those that fell off can try get back on after a year on the QS. more chances for new talent. at end of day it is important your viewers and fans understand how it works. otherwise people get lost and don’t buy into it so easy.and then less likely to follow it.

By: Shannon

Shannon — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 16:56:17 +0000

So virtually impossible for the lower seeds to get in to prime events. And with the non-prime events (most “tentative” on the schedule) scattered around the world what is the incentive for the lower seeds to travel to those events, a financial disaster for those kids. Why even allow any competitor that is not in the top 100 to compete in the ASP at all? Have you guys even considered having the same amount of events with the same value in each of the regions to give these guys a fighting chance at their dream without having to go broke? Have the surfers who have financially contributed to this organization for years been individually notified of these changes prior to the beginning of the season which changes every year to accommodate the top 34? Meanwhile there are over 500 on the wqs warrior tour that are completely forgotten. There is one contest (non-prime) on the west coast of California this year. ONE

By: Eduardo

Eduardo — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 15:55:31 +0000

What about the seeding? How is it gonna work?

By: Henk

Henk — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 12:07:18 +0000

I do not know what the solution is and I have a idea what the problem is. My idea of the problem is that there are to many grreaaaaat talentented young surfers who are not earning enough from surfing to develop to their full potential. These surfers then resort to working which then reduces the nubers of hours in the water. Thus reducing the numbers of top contenders. This reduces the push from the bottom (that is what elevates Kelly and co to the next level).

A possible solution would be to find sponsors out side the traditional area of sponsorships. A thought would be to involve the big petro chemicals, the main suplier of the raw materials from which we make board. Big Petro Chems are already wanting out of the fossil fuel industry because 1. it is a waste to burn fossil fuels, they make more profit from funky plastics,waxxes and othe “by products”. 2. Burning fossil fuels is seen as the major contributor to global warming(which it is not- Read Deep Truth- Gregg Braden) and it will alter their immage to assosiated with surfing.

Yeah we, the surfers of this world want to be seen as trendsetters and rebels, that is part of the youthfullness of the surfing population. There are another side to this game and Kelly and Co kicked that door open. There are a whole lot of rippers now who are no longer kids(some have kids) and are top carreer athletes. Taj, Joel, Josh, Mick, Damien, Keiren, Dede, Taylor…. (has somebody sat down and and figgure the avarege age on the WCT recently) What does that mean? The market has also adjusted accordingly, I am 49 years old and most of my surfing mates are in that age bracket but we are well established, have access to financial resources. We work at professions or are respected trade people. More like F1 racing than beach bums. Just a potential source of financing.

Any way I really apreciate and vallue the fact that the ASP adapted a aproach for “ongoing improvement”.

Watch my spelling, but me thinks it the thoughts that matter not the position of the letter.

Aloha!

Henk van der Walt

By: surf fan

surf fan — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 21:59:25 +0000

Avid tour watcher, I agree with your statements. I think last year was more cut throat than we’ve ever seen and as an ASP Tour fan that makes things exciting. A good mix of contests from beachies to heavy reef breaks and guys falling off tour all added to a great year. On another note, if you head over to surfingsays.com you can write your own article on the tour and whats install for 2012. You seem like someone who would have some things to say on the dream tour.

By: Ricardo Ferreira

Ricardo Ferreira — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 18:45:12 +0000

So great, but what about the 5-6 star wqs events…they still relegated to a third level events? What ASP TC is doing to make this events more attractive to the sponsors/market because as far as I know since last year many 6 star events have been cancelled due low impact on the world ratings and by the way regional surfers are loosing money and potential points to fight for a better qualification on the ASP ratings?

By: William Da Costa Pinheiro Junior

William Da Costa Pinheiro Junior — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 15:28:34 +0000

Back to WCT and WQS, with one EXCEPTION the pipe masters. Try to explain to someone who doesn´t surf, why the pipe masters should “accept” more wildcards then the rest of the competitions.