Keeping The Ceiling
In 2014, Kelly Slater met John John Florence in the Semi-Final of the Tahiti Pro. Over the years it’s been called the greatest heat of all time, largely due to the spectacle of two titans meeting in sheet glass 8-10 feet Teahupoo.
If the performance ranked as best ever, the judging was the inverse: that heat became an example of what judges should not do in a heat.
The first wave sets the scale.
We’ve all heard that expression while watching webcasts, right? And it makes sense because the surfers are competing against each other, not the surfers in the previous heats. It also makes sense as the conditions change through the day, and what happens this heat can’t be objectively compared against what happened earlier in the day.
So therefore the first wave becomes the benchmark for all the waves that follow in that heat.
Now, here’s a lesser-known consideration.
There are 100 points on the judges scale.
Ten points split into tenths for 100 actual points for each judge to choose from.
In the first minute of the greatest heat ever, a set hit the reef with John John taking the first wave and Kelly the second. John John scored 9.90, Kelly scored 10.00.
This means that with 100 points to play with, judges set the scale at 99, then when Kelly’s wave came in better they only had 1 point to play with - that is, 1/100th of an actual point.
It shouldn’t have to be explained that, had better waves been ridden in the remaining 34 minutes of the heat, then the judges had left themselves nowhere to go. The ceiling was non-existent.
At the end of the heat - which was won by Kelly - the four scoring waves were separated by less than 3 points in a scale that stretched to 100. The final result was tied at 19.77 with Kelly winning on countback to the highest scoring wave.
It wasn't so much that the judges had given up on finding differences, it was that their judging scale wouldn't allow the differences to be shown.
John John, Teahupoo 2014 on his 9.90 that set an almost unworkable scale (WSL)
The judging didn’t have to be that way, and history shows it wasn’t. In 2018, Pritamo Ahrendt assumed the role of Head Judge with one of his first duties being to change the judging scale: reduce the overall scores, allow a ceiling for truly great waves.
“I felt if you bring the scale down, it allows the top surfers to separate themselves and stand out,” Pritamo said to Steve Shearer in a recent interview. “If you got a 9.5, that should be something that's memorable throughout a day that people will talk about later, it shouldn't just be another one of ten 9.5s that happened that day.”
For what it’s worth, Tahiti 2014 Finals Day featured fifteen scores of 9.50 or more.
In comparison, the recent 2024 Finals Day - same amount of heats surfed - had just six scores of 9.50 or more, and I couldn’t say it was any less exciting because of it.
There were times, however, where it felt like the judges were acting like surfers in a webcast comment thread. Firing off too early, sending superlatives to the ceiling, forgetting the lessons of the past. It's perhaps worth noting that Pritamo is no longer Head Judge, replaced last year by Luli Ferreira.
An example is the John John vs Gabriel Semi, with John John’s opening 9.77 supposedly setting the scale in a heat that thirty seconds earlier featured a wave from Gabriel Medina that, if it had been made, would’ve had the judges searching for attic space in a skyscraper 100 storeys tall.
The shorter the wave, the more ceiling space that’s needed as very small differences on the wave need to be reflected in the score. Two 9.5s at Jeffreys Bay, for instance, can be ridden a thousand different ways, but at Teahupoo where nothing counts but the drop and barrel, the differences are minute….but they can be the difference between a wave of the heat and the wave of a lifetime.
Also, I’d venture that there were a number of waves ridden during this contest - in both men’s and women’s - that couldn’t have been ridden just a year or so ago. That's testament to improving performances and the need for ceiling space in case John John or Gabs (or Ramzi or Jack or Yago) come crashing through.
This column may seem a week late, Teahupoo finished last Friday, except we’ll be back at the end of the road next month with arguably more at stake for the surfers to smash the ceiling.
// STU NETTLE
Comments
More importantly....
What Happened to Potz on the WSL commentary team?
Hiding in the ceiling?
Pretty tricky to handle though isn’t. You always have to give that first wave the goldilocks score. I thought maybe they could have a highest maximum i.e 8 for the first 5-10 mins so they don’t reach the ceiling but then that just backfires when a exceptional wave was caught at the start and that surfer ends up losing because of the cap.
Shouldn't lose if, a) the surfer rides the best waves, and b) that first wave sets the scale.
I agree that judges should keep it cool on the first obvious scoring wave.
How about a Spinal Tap solution (allow it to go to 11)
One louder.......
The fucken best part of that movie !
Crazy to think JJF’s been a freak for so long and he’s only 30.
“ That's testament to improving performances and the need for ceiling space in case John John or Gabs (or Ramzi or Jack or Yago) come crashing through”
Could also add LOB to this list
LOB is hard to score, makes it all look so smooth and effortless
What are peoples' thoughts on heats being scored retrospectively? I.e., wait until the heat is over, pick the best two waves from each athlete, and then score those two waves. That would solve the problem of the glass ceiling and setting the scale.
I understand that it might be confusing for the surfers not knowing what scores they need towards the end of a heat but surely this would make athletes surf to their potential on each wave rather than just trying to safety surf a 6 or 7....... By not knowing how your opponent is scoring, you'd want to go all out to give yourself the best chance. Given that many results are not decided for minutes after a heat, not much would change by doing the scoring after anyway.
some merit to that for sure. Won't happen but, maybe could be for some expression session or something
It’s a damn good idea THTTS, but won’t be considered because,
- it’s a good idea;
- possibly makes it harder to hype up each wave and dramatic flow;
- Turpel et al have to have something to talk about, and scores are easy to talk about;
- involves delayed gratification, and that’s one thing that almost nobody does anymore in this instantaneous gratification world.
I also think it would be a great way to keep viewers engaged. Imagine having to wait 5 minutes into the next heat to find out the result of the previous one. It would stop people tuning out when their favourite heats finish and would keep eyeballs on the broadcast during the ad breaks......
Brilliant piece, Stu. Absolutely spot on.
WSL could learn a little from Olympic gymnastics and Nadia Comăneci at Montreal in 1976.
As later recounted, it wasn't 'perfection' per se, just 'excellence' that was achieved on the day.
Funnily enough, I thought about Nadia Comăneci when writing this, and the dialogue around perfection in gymnastics.
Great minds, eh?
Surreal. It was the first thing I thought of, too.
Heck, you weren't even born in 1976, Stu. That shows the impact of Nadia Comăneci.
Gymnastics has judges scoring following a clear set of required routine, degree of difficulty and execution.
Nadia Comăneci exceeded these requirements and the judges scored a 10, repeatly, in the Olympics.
Now, no one in gymnasics can be scored a perfect ten, making Nadia the G.O.A.T.
In Oz gymnasics ....the coach can question the judges score...
'From time to time, there may be a discrepancy about the score awarded to a routine or skill, of which
can be raised as inquiry for review. There are restrictions about the handling and management of
inquiries, as detailed below:
9.1 'Only Inquiries that relate to an athlete’s difficulty score will be permitted.'
Inquiries that relate to a comparison between judges/judging panels, comparison between athletes
and/or groups, comparison to other events/competitions or execution scores (including Artistry) will
not be accepted.
Who can inquire? The Inquiry can only be lodged by the STA/Club coach on behalf of the athlete they represent. '
https://media-cdn.incrowdsports.com/e7697d8a-5431-4b31-b501-5c52e85d744…
I remember watching that, and the ensuing debacle.
semi related: I've always thought bodyboarding to be v similar to – what's it called, the vault? in gymnastics, where they get a big run up, launch over the pommel horse or whatever it is, do their aerial contortions and twists and flips, and land.
Except that the gymnast generally lands on their feet. If they could find a way to land on their belly then that'd be more like Bodyboarding.
You are bang on; similar situations/conditions should be referenced to gauge where to start the scale. Conditions are pretty evident days in advance, and there is time to research, they have to leave room for excellence/innovation/pure unadulterated fukery
Who knew the elite was going to come from behind, foam climb and float foam balls at 10ft chopes :-)
Or is that a redtube channel ?
Then there is the early heat at the box where Italo got an 8 for what, by the end of the day, should have been closer to a 10
There's no problem with that. A heat win is a heat win. The score itself doesn't matter.
Only if they're looking for the eski ;p
Lowball or cooler...
It's definitely better than the alternative, just looks a bit incompetent when they completely undercook it
Nigel Tufnel: The numbers all go to eleven. Look, right across the board, eleven, eleven, eleven and...
Marty DiBergi: Oh, I see. And most amps go up to ten?
Nigel Tufnel: Exactly.
Marty DiBergi: Does that mean it's louder? Is it any louder?
Nigel Tufnel: Well, it's one louder, isn't it? It's not ten. You see, most blokes, you know, will be playing at ten. You're on ten here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you're on ten on your guitar. Where can you go from there? Where?
Marty DiBergi: I don't know.
Nigel Tufnel: Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is, if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do?
Marty DiBergi: Put it up to eleven.
Nigel Tufnel: Eleven. Exactly. One louder.
Marty DiBergi: Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?
Nigel Tufnel: [pause] These go to eleven.
Bahahaha....one louder
Fully cooked !
Unfortunately doesn't translate in text form. The lengthy pause from Nigel before delivering the punchline is one of the greatest examples of comic timing.
One of the most inspired moments of comedy ever I reckon.
As a former judge I can say it's a real buzz when you're privileged to analyse and score two surfers in a tight shootout trading nine point plus rides. Of course, it's a privilege being a judge, full stop, regardless of however high or low the scores are being adjudicated. That said, you have made some valid points Stu. Setting the bar with low nines at the start of high scoring heats makes sense as it allows more room for even higher scores. However, judges need to keep in mind that, from 9.0 to 10, there are actually way more than ten points of difference to work with. If things get ridiculously tight, even from 9.9 to 10, there are still another ten points there to discern with. Professional judges should be able to use those miniscule ten points of difference if and when required. That would be excellent judging.
I think judges only score to the tenth of a point. Hundredths only come about after working out the mean.
That's true, but shouldn't matter in order to judge correctly, if and when required.
The WSL wave quality could be scored separately; then multiply this by their judges pov on surfers skills. eg.
onshore 0- 4ft 10 seconds of mogul mush; 1 x 8pts = 8 pts of slop, hop, chop and drop.
wavepool 2-3ft; 30 seconds of clean waves; 3 x 8pts = 24pts of form, function and finese.
Tahiti 2024 Finals; 8-10ft clean big barrels; 80 x 8pts = 640pts of guts, focus, form, finese, skill, mana, luck, stamina, etc
Cloudbreak 2024.... score ceiling ...tba.
tally up for best surfer for each year...
Biggest critical waves could set the scale ...for the year.
Pony club v's the WSL world's elite pro surfer's; balancing their skills and risks in these wsl comp Ltd. window screen of events.
excellent article.. how's the headshots.. JJF like a high school yearbook photo, and KS like he's self-affirming friskily in the bathroom mirror.
“Self affirming friskily”
Just when you thought you’d heard it all :)
You can almost hear his inner voice - “Hey, how YOU doin’??”
If it’s pumping pipe you gotta leave room for a possible Shaun Briley bomb.
its a 1000 not 100
a 9.99 is the same a 999
10.00 is 1000
That's correct that the final score is 1000, however judges can only award points to 100. - i.e 9.1, 9.2, 9.3 etc.
The averaging then takes it to 9.20.
but they often go another decimal point when deciding the heat.
so a judge can score on a scale of 0-100 but the average of those scores can be 0-1000.
the individual wave score is out of a 100 but the heat total is out of 2000
A person can score 20.00 points in a heat and their opponent 19.99
That's not the judges but after averaging between them.
not the individual judges but its in their combined judgment
No they don't.
Not sure what you mean by 'deciding a heat' but if they have a draw - as KS and JJF did in 2014 - then the highest single wave wins. The judges don't suddenly change their scoring.
Go check the Woz website, see the score breakdown for every wave, it's all available to view.
deciding a heat with the scores.
im not talking about a draw
every contest I have watched has decided heat wins with a range of 0-20.00 or 0-2000
JJf had 1716 point to Italos 1770 points
Here's the first wave of Italo's in the final and the score of all five judges, who scored it out of 100.
I'm not really sure where you're going, but the article was how many points the judges have to play with when scoring individual waves.
As you can see it's out of 100.
Patience of a saint Stu.
sometimes.....
Amen.
i thought the scores were all over the place in this last comp, like how was JJF best wave in the finals a 9.8.
Compared to Ramzi's 9.8 which was way better
surely they can scale from previous heats too, to some what
If the first wave of the heat is excellent, or even "perfect", give it an 8.0 flat. Then go from there. The only relevant heat score comparisons should be within individual heats: all the judges should try to do is to who won the heat, not surfer's average heat score over the comp, that doesn't decide the comp's winner
Can't fault your logic, though isn't there an emotional consideration also?
The theatre of sport is at its greatest when a performer pulls off the seemingly impossible and gets rewarded across the board - example being Barron's wave in the 2024 Pipe Pro final. If that was the first wave in the heat/final, then giving it an 8.0 is anticlimactic.
During Pritamo Ahrendt's rein, there were several examples of incredible waves that were, in hindsight, unnecessary robbed of a perfect 10 - e.g. JJF's threaded backdoor close out in the 2023 Pipe Pro R16 heat against Miggy Pupo. Pritamo's philosophy made logical sense, but arguably in this case, the theatre was diminished by it.
Its impossible in my view to come up with a rule to suit all occasions. The risk of going too long on the opening score is mitigated by the fact judges get to 'adjust' when setting the second score as they did in the 2014 Chopes Semi - its was clearly splitting hairs though I felt the end heat score and result was a fitting outcome for an incredible moment in surfing.
My thoughts exactly. First good wave is a 6.0, but if excellent 8.0.
Problem is, the emotional pull of the 9+ is strong when a bomb is made.
With the claims and the fans and the dissent and death threats from half of South America..and Qld apparently.
Or... If you think the first wave deserves a 10. Give it a 10. On the rare occasion the next one is better, go higher. Give it an 11. Do they need to stop at 10? You'll get the correct result.
With out going online and goggling this, name one ten point wave gents.
I. e fil at jbay....
Seabass at nth point
Callam Robson at Portugal?
That one is immediate.
Owen Wright’s 2 tens in a Cloudbreak heat comes immediately to my mind. Yes, Filipe at JBay. Molly Picklum at Pipeline this year.
Two for Medina: He went near perfect the year he won J-Bay and also at Backdoor Pipe.
Honourable mention for Robbo at Sunset this year, too.
JJF at Marg's also ..and Owen at The Box.
All very close to perfect. Actual scores irrelevant, but they're my waves that stick out as supremely ridden.
Have to mention, Slater has about twenty in his career ...but I reckon his best was at Cloudbreak.
And Tom Carroll should have had a couple (at least) at Pipe ...but that was before they ever started giving 'perfect' scores.
Griff kirra....
Matt McGillvray Chopes.
Shane Beschan 3 x 10's at Kirra in the one heat.
(I don't think it'd go close these days though)
I think Kelly got another 10 for a huge air at the New Jersey comp.
I'm really in 2 minds over this.
Objectively, Stu is perfectly correct.
Emotionally and, more pertinently, for the sake of posterity, I'm in favour of granting 10's, no matter where in the heat they occur.
As someone noted above, JJF was unnecessarily robbed of a 10 in a backdoor heat.
Looking back from a historical perspective those rides awarded 10's have a greater resonance.
You know my philosophy - there is no such thing as a perfect ride (but some go very, very close). To wit (!!@fr) this barrel fest we just witnessed.
Surfing as a sport needs to get serious about this as it can really ruin it for the spectator - and more importantly for the athlete, Medina went all floppy seal and might have gone on strike when JJF got the 9.77!
If they could get the athletes on board with the 6 (good) or 8 (excellent) scoring protocol for first wave (and forget the esky hype), then maybe the fans will follow.
Numbers are just a way of relating and measuring stuff. Sure, we may see some some absolutely stonking 7.87s, but if the flat 8.0 was better, so be it. We get the right winner and it would be easier for fans to follow than squeezing the judges into the mid-high nines.
Unintentional tautology and 'on board' pun.
Alternately, an 8.5 might be the best wave you've ever seen. But if was only half a point (5%) better than the 8.0 ..then that's fine.
The difficulty comes when they set the scale, then don't maintain it with all the excitement. 0.5 or 1.0 point increments from an 8.0 base would add to the accountability of the whole exercise from a judging perspective.
Noticed the competitors in the booth were using that sort of language - 1pt better etc.
Furthermore, the judges almost always have no trouble separating the first two decent waves in a heat by 0.5pts - more often by 1.0pt (before averaging for final score). Making a judgement based on your instinctive preference for one over another is what the human mind does well - then putting a magnitude on it 5 or 10% (0.5 or 1.0pts) is realistic.
The only reason they should go to the 1/10th of a point is when there are multiple waves to compare/contrast.
Fixing the scale and sticking to it is key to fixing the dissatisfaction with scoring - from competitors and spectators both.
I defy anyone to score a heat out of 100 (let alone 1000 as someone suggested) - it exceeds the human mind's ability to process. Much better to set a scale where 0.5pt is the basic unit of difference.
On the topic...
Because I was bored and curious, I planned to go through the five-judge breakdown of every wave from the Tahiti comp. Reckon I got three-quarters of the way through and in all the waves I checked, which was possibly over 200, I can't recall any of them being scored with a .1 - i.e 7.1, 8.1, 9.1.
Not sure what the takeaway is from that. Perhaps that the whole scale isn't being utilised, or that judges would rather round down, maybe humans in general don't like scores a touch over a full number?
Like I said ..judging out of 100 is unecessarily complicating it (especially after averaging), unless there is a direct comparison to be made.
Love your work for bringing this up and if you delve further, you'll see that 0.5 is the basic unit for the start of a heat, rarely an outlier like the 8.8 in your Italo example above - just makes it harder than it needs to be. So judges aren't unfamiliar with the basic unit concept.
LOL
Stu, you’re displaying genuine analysis nerd thinking there. I wonder how many score .6, equally unlikely due to a preponderance for .5’s, a rounding error.
Simple addition to the rules:
First wave score of any heat is maximum 8.0 pts.
First 'excellent' wave score would do it. Lock it in.
So Michelle Obama’s globalist lizard claws extend even as far as the control of the Woz and the ideology of its new head judge? Meaning that the previous incumbent was ousted due to perceived MAGA sympathies? Scary, but no surprise, really.
On the couch after dinner and I ran some numbers.
Even though averaging the three judges' scores allows for the *possibility* of 100 shades of grey between 9.00 and 10.00, in reality it rarely happens.
If you assume the three judges' scores are within a 1 point range of each other, (say, between 9.0 and 10.0 for the sake of the argument) then that gives you 1331 possible score combinations (11*11*11).
But rounded to two decimal places this only results in 31 possible unique scores, barely 3% of the possibility space:
9.00, 9.03, 9.07, 9.10, 9.13, 9.17, 9.20, 9.23, 9.27, 9.30, 9.33, 9.37, 9.40, 9.43,, 9.47, 9.50, 9.53, 9.57, 9.60, 9.63, 9.67, 9.70, 9.73, 9.77, 9.80, 9.83, 9.87, 9.90, 9.93, 9.97, 10.00
Under random conditions they form a normal distribution around 9.50, which occurs 91 times, compared with only once for 9.0 or 10.0.
--------
On a slightly separate note, many heats have been unjustly lost due to two decimal point rounding. For example, in a heat with the following scores:
Surfer A:
Wave 1 - 8, 9, 9 ----- Total: 8.67
Wave 2 - 8, 8, 8 ------ Total: 8.00
Heat Total: 16.67
Surfer B:
Wave 1 - 8, 8, 9 ----- Total: 8.33
Wave 2 - 8, 8, 9 ------ Total: 8.33
Heat Total: 16.66
Both surfers got the same scores from the judges. Both had one better wave each. And yet surfer B loses because of rounding.
There's so much more in this. If anyone knows how I can get my hands on the database, I'd just love to have a poke around.
Incredible work rooftop, and very interesting re those last points as well!
Thanks for sharing and doing all the maths.
aren't there 5 judges?
Count the middle 3 scores only.
Wow that's good roof top.
They only count two waves and five judges
Though do top N bottom scores still get discarded?
Rooftop, I like the cut of your nerdy jib!
Sort of the work I used to do. Very nice. Not many people really understand numbers like that.
Only an armchair expert. Unfortunately I discovered my inner nerd long after I left school.
First of all, a 10 is a 10 whether it happens at the start or end of the heat. You know when it happens, the chicken skin effect should be real. Perhaps to fine tune that final decision maybe it must be a unanimous call by all the panel & not left to the " discussion" by the head judge after the event in those ensuing moments when the score is posted. I've witnessed this anomaly.
I would favour a larger panel with headsets & monitors individually & completely cease any banter in the booth whilst on roster. The Head Judge's role is only to eliminate any obvious discrepancies, zero input to scoring should not be in his wheelhouse. Let the judge's judge, they're the experts supposedly. Sometimes I do wonder tho.
At this point I'd be happy to trust my team & if the individual can explain why his score reflection is X, he hasn't missed anything & he's not a habitual outlier, I'd let him do his fucking job. This bullshit about judging to the average is stifling progress. Who cares if there's a spread between scores, the computer will jettison it and the average will remain. The bigger panel can now filter this more accurately.
Sorry, I believe there are 3 scores you should never forget. They are, the highest score of the event daily to date, the first score of the current heat & the last score you've thrown. Basic K.P.I., a must have in the role is then the ability to recall rides to arrive at the score. Some judges are extremely good at this, almost to the extent of photographic memory. Any judge who underperforms at this level should be shown the door.
Hindsight is always easy tho & I would favour an 11, in need, given by the Head Judge only after a unanimous 10 by the panel has been duplicated for 2 or more 10's in a heat. Real drama now, the Head Judge can't hide behind the panel's skirt, he's gotta take the responsibility of the call & he has the opportunity to now always ensure that the best surfer's in the frozen moment of heat time progress in the correct finishing order. Shouldn't be rocket science really. Only problem would be ur people skillset needed with say Dane & Sunny. Other's had to.
10 pt rides aren't the problem ...
It was very hard to get an excellent score in the earlier events this season. That seemed to change at Margaret River. As was noted by Steve in his Day 2 report.
“ The other major shift, hot on the heels of Medina's opinion that Bells featured the “worst judging he had ever seen”, and was “bad for the sport” was a huge re-jig of the judging scale.
Consciously or sub-consciously it was Medina's first wave that triggered the shift: two big, clean turns and a nifty little ending seemed good but judges went straight for the excellent end of the scale and gave it an 8.5.
Griffin Colapinto noted after his heat, “the scale is pretty high out there right now.” After a sizzling three-turn combination from Ewing, one judge was so exuberant he threw a 10 at it. It was an excellent ride but if judges couldn't find a single 10 in JJF's era-defining 2017 performance, Ewing's ride did not belong in that category.
Impossible to see it as anything other than a directive from the top. Maybe to soothe Brazilian passions (Medina and Italo benefited most from the generous scale), maybe to offer fans and mainstream press more excitement. Maybe to duchess the suits from the Western Australian government who had all whipped out to get sprinkled with pro surfing fairy dust as they announced a four-year extension of government support to make the Margs Pro happen until 2028.”
Why are we stuck on this outdated system anyhow? I doubt Peter Drouin (Westerly) envisaged judges splitting hairs over a 9.99 vs 9.98. Back to expression session style comps with multiple surfers in the water.
https://www.swellnet.com/news/rearview-mirror/2017/03/14/forty-years-ma…
Should there ever be a 10 point ride awarded?
Who’s to say a wave can be surfed perfectly? And what’s perfect anyway?
I'd have no problems with introducing that rule.
The scale has been changed a few times over the years, it's never less exciting because of it - a great wave is a great wave whether it's being scored or not. Removing tens would also (I hope) remove the temptation by judges to squeeze four scoring rides into the very end of the scale; force them to really pick apart waves and reflect those differences in numbers.
What happens to the Yeti Eski's then?
Good question!
Highest-scoring wave of the comp? Coolest move..?
Doesn't have to be a 10-point ride. I mean, the esky they give away is an imperfect fit anyway, being 110 litres.
10 for 110 doesn't sound quite right. May as well be 9.37 for 110 then get Kaipo to hype it.
ha, a yeti cooler for the 'coolest move' would be a little on the nose... that's perfect.
(maybe they'd be set free to live their best life)
Scale low, yes! As long as they stick to it, which they often don’t. Probably you’re best off having your best ride at the end of the heat, perhaps a buzzer beater, rather than the first wave of your heat. I find the scale can be set nicely early but then you get some weird scores and think WTF!
I thought Slater was overscored in that 2014 final, JJF should have got it, just. I really don’t care at all, I have no skin in this game.
As for this year, they messed up a bit and over-scored some, and weirdly at times.
For mine, as good as Medina is, he was a common beneficiary of judges being a little naive. Many of his 9 plus rides consisted of a take off that was freaky to me but not exceptional in context, a slight drag, a pump, a high line that got him over the top of the foamball and then an exit. Amazing, sure, but he wasn’t really risking it. I think his special skill out there is picking the right wave, and they are rarely the bombs, usually mid size ones. He surfs that way at Chopes always.
The wave he nearly made in the final was easily two points better than any other wave he got in the contest, if he’d made it out. How are those easier waves consistently scored in mid to high 9’s when there was so much more possible. And scale from one heat to another should only change when conditions change, which they didn’t really on the last day.
Best wave completed - for mine it was JJF virtually backdooring a Chopes wave, which is theoretically impossible, and it was a bomb (was that the semi or the final?)
Behind that were probably a couple of Ramzi’s waves, but again sometimes made more dramatic by an imperfect take off leading to high drama.
The worst example was Medina getting an 8 for a wave he and others would make 9 times out of 10 without much risk, and a much longer and ropier barrel seconds later, an extra 20 metres easy, perfectly ridden from, was it LOB? came in at an 8.17.
There was a point difference in it, minimum, but Medina gets overscored at Chopes, and sometimes other places.
I don’t think it’s deliberate, just an unidentified bias. He has the judges convinced, but not me.
There’s a lot to be said for not making it look too easy. Jack Robbo, Liam O’Brien, JJF often, Parko always. Others for sure. I ventured some of these thoughts on Steve’s finals day wrap up. Excuse the repetition.