Let's make it tighter

Jim Slater · Post by **Jim Slater** » Sat Aug 30, 2003 12:55 pm

Till he "relents" I meant
PS: please make sure you bug him from your end too

Jim Slater · Post by **Jim Slater** » Sat Aug 30, 2003 12:53 pm

Too right Gareth
I will be demanding one off Michael Stide
and bugging the S**t out of him till he relaets.
Top board there....

Gareth Roe · Post by **Gareth Roe** » Sat Aug 30, 2003 7:44 am

For all of you tight slalom skaters, check out the new RoeRacing S-Camber decks!
Just what the doctor ordered!
Later-
G-

Slappy Maxwell · Post by **Slappy Maxwell** » Sat Aug 30, 2003 4:48 am

On 2003-08-29 20:41, Andy Bittner wrote:
Aaahhh..., but Hans, the name of the sport is SLALOM (look at the top of the page), not PUMPING. "Slalom" is a word of Norwegian origin that literally means "SLOPING path". So, not only is slalom on a hill NOT cheating, it could rightly be said that if it's NOT on a hill, it's NOT slalom.

Very true. But many words can change meaning when they enter the vernacular of different groups.

If fact...
Vernacular is built upon the Latin vernaculus, meaning native or domestic, which comes from verna, a slave born at home.

I learned that from the Professor on Gilligan's Island.

Terry Kirby · Post by **Terry Kirby** » Sat Aug 30, 2003 2:58 am

Andy,long time no post. You came back with a good one. When I look for slalom spots I look for Hills. Flat is OK for a drill but its kind of masochistic .Its just not fun, its like algebra.
Hills however are at the very core of our inner child fun o meter. Sliding down hills on a sled. Rolling down hills in a trash barrel.Riding your bike down the steepest hill in the neighborhood. And Finally, shooting your first hill on a skateboard.
This is only my opinion. I'd rather race tight on a hill. and hell yes you can pump a hill and a ts course on a hill.TK

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Terence Kirby on 2003-08-29 21:08 ]</font>

Andy Bittner · Post by **Andy Bittner** » Sat Aug 30, 2003 2:41 am

Aaahhh..., but Hans, the name of the sport is SLALOM (look at the top of the page), not PUMPING. "Slalom" is a word of Norwegian origin that literally means "SLOPING path". So, not only is slalom on a hill NOT cheating, it could rightly be said that if it's NOT on a hill, it's NOT slalom.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Aug 28, 2003 6:18 pm

I for one would like to see slalom move back this direction of tighter more technical course and away from longboard slalom.

If you can't make the course, tough shit, practice more.

tight + tech on flat ground is the ultimate...everything has to be 100% to be fast, you need to be dialed in. This is the essence of slalom, pumping and turning. Adding hills to the equation adds more margin for error and/or another set of skills required which is a whole different equation. Still nice to ride but seperate from flatground slalom. Even the discipline of straight cone/cyberslalom is another event. Each one of those three requires a different focus and skillset.

....these big courses that require 76mm wheels and 36" longboards are just getting lame but it is a seperate skillset that has it's good points.

--09 02 03--
I am adding to this post since I got a phone call from a friend saying that Eric Groof is mis-quoting me on ncdsa.com and twisting my words yet again. Since I no longer go or will ever post to that site again I won't see how my words are twisted or defend myself there. I'll do it here and add to this post for all those coming from ncdsa.com to see what Mr. Groff is talking about....

I have heard that I called FCR "lame" in this post? Where? I think some people are too sensitive about this. I called slalom courses that require longboards "lame" and if you want to infere that is FCR fine, I didn't intend it as such. I have no problem with courses that require 76mm wheels and a 36" longboard, they can be fun, but be honest in calling it what it is "longboard slalom". It has, llke I said above, it has it's merits and bad points, as does a tight TS courses, a flat course or a cyberslalom courses. Sure I prefer one over the other but that doesn't mean squat.

Specifically to this thread...it is about making courses tighter. i voiced my opinion. What do I get? Shit on....gee...I wonder why I am moving away from participating in message boards lately. All these little games are very unimportant to me and if it causes gossip I don't want to be apart of it. I'll go out and train and race and enjoy the time I spend n my slalom boards...what happens - happens...but if I do voice an opinion on a message board that Mr. Groff (who has a bug up his ass about me anyway, which frankly I could give a shits less about, I gave up caring about Eric's rants or his little games weeks ago..if it makes him happy to be the way he is more power to him) or anyone else finds offense in or disagrees with...tough shit..if you don't like my opinion don't read my posts. My views on slalom are definately a minority view, I realize that...just don't mis-quote me or twist my words to favor your biased opinion.

if you have a problem with me e-mail me....all my contact info is in my profile here....

Patio Mendino · Post by **Patio Mendino** » Fri Aug 22, 2003 2:42 pm

It ain't cheating unless you get caught.

John Gilmour · Post by **John Gilmour** » Fri Aug 22, 2003 4:36 am

"If I'm not cheating, I'm not having fun."

Bad H

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: John Gilmour on 2003-08-21 22:37 ]</font>

Dan Mitchell · Post by **Dan Mitchell** » Fri Aug 22, 2003 2:34 am

On 2003-08-21 19:26, Hans Koraeus wrote:
John, I've always thought that flat is the challenge. Then we're talking pure pumping. Using hills is cheating.

Cheating, maybe.
More exciting and fun-definitely

Hans Koraeus · Post by **Hans Koraeus** » Fri Aug 22, 2003 1:26 am

John, I've always thought that flat is the challenge. Then we're talking pure pumping. Using hills is cheating.

John Gilmour · Post by **John Gilmour** » Thu Aug 21, 2003 12:46 pm

Hans- I've also ridden Luca's board and it does bring me back to 1978. I think that Luca limits his turns and relies on his wheels to carry the speed. I certainly can't generate much speed with it.

In regards to loose trucks. If you ride your trucks loose you may find you can accelerate quicker at the top where time is mounting quickest. Your top end speed is not as fast though. To make your board turn you can generate a lot of downforce with tight trucks- but if there is some offset and the surface is bad- that simply won't work- you'll slide out.

So I find that you may match your trucks adjustment somewhat to the surface.

Wesley I think is refering to the Yellow Turner that Terence set up. That board did require a lot of input but was very grippy as well. My older Fullnose was ridiculously loose- mostly because the full tracks did not turn until they were very tilted- and also the trucks were pretty stable even when loose enableing me to run GS and TS gates in the same course. I think that there is a sweet spot in adjustment that varies from deck to deck- once you find it, you don't change it much for the course.

If you find yourself wiggling through cones- then likely your trucks are too tight- or more likely you are on a wheelbase that is too long for the cone spcing- you also could be using trucks that are too wide.

I of course would like to see more technical- faster tighter courses. But a good surface is required and it takes good course setting. I prefer tight slalom on steeper hills where you must continue to pump faster to maintain traction- all while the hill is pushing you to your limit.

I'm not a real proponent of flatland slalom if there is a hill available. The hill adds the challenge.

Hans started to classify the courses in another thread. I'd like to see that thread revisited.

I tried to assign a way to descibe a course by a number.

I think the first number was the difficulty level. The second number was the average spacing and the third number was the amount of offset in cone widths. It isn't a great system- but maybe a start towards a way to describe the courses. GS courses don't require this type of classification as much since the body english from cone to cone is about the same.

Hans Koraeus · Post by **Hans Koraeus** » Tue Aug 19, 2003 2:40 am

Oops! Just realized that this is the "tight slalom" forum. So... what I really meant, of course, is that tight is good, wiggle is better and loose trucks are the best. :roll:

Hans Koraeus · Post by **Hans Koraeus** » Tue Aug 19, 2003 2:30 am

I think I agree with Jani though that you have to loosen up your trucks. When Jani says tighter courses at that time when courses already were very tight means VERY tight. The technique for that is pure wiggling. I have never seen anyone doing that on tight trucks. Sure you don't get as much speed but then again you can't have much speed in such courses anyway. The only speed you see in such a course is in your ankles.

Instead what I don't agree with is "Tighter course are ... more enjoyable for the skater". I can't imaging that anyone enjoys wiggling. Oh no! Long heavy surf pumps, that's where the joy is.

Vlad Popov · Post by **Vlad Popov** » Tue Aug 19, 2003 2:24 am

Luca's board is as "dead" as his rear truck. All turning happens in the front.

Very powerfull pumper. Gotta MAKE it work.

Sortta like PlankkR.

Tigher is better.

Vlad.

Hans Koraeus · Post by **Hans Koraeus** » Tue Aug 19, 2003 2:08 am

Wesley, I think Luca is buying your theory because his trucks are not that loose as you think. There are not many slalomers (if any) that after testing his board would go... "Oh, this is a really nice board". Mostly they go... "Shit, how do you do to pump this board?". Actually they are thinking "What a load of crap, that's the worst board I've ridden since 1978". But since it's Luca's board and you know he's so fast you can't say that of course. You need a lot of thrust/muscle and technique to make it work. Actually I don't think he thinks it's a nice board either in that sence. Then you wouldn't go for a plank in the first place. But he doesn't care about comfort. He wants speed and quick response. That's what you get with hard board, hard wheels and hard bushings. It's only that your body strength and physical condition will set the limit of what you can handle. Needless to say my board is very soft compared to his.

Wesley Tucker · Post by **Wesley Tucker** » Mon Aug 18, 2003 11:45 pm

Oh, one other thing,

Then you got the anamoly like Luca. What's his secret? Without actually watching him ride, I would say rather simplistically is he combines incredible strength WITHT loose trucks and a loose board. So he overcomes the loss of pump in the board by achieving tremendous velocity with his leg strength. The result is a guy who looks like a sewing machine when he skates AND makes the tight cones consistently.

Wesley Tucker · Post by **Wesley Tucker** » Mon Aug 18, 2003 11:42 pm

Jani,

I read your article and would only DISAGREE with one point. Under "Trucks" you advised, "Loosen up your trucks and use the softest bushings you can find."

I used to believe that. I could wiggle like a madman and run a course clean. THEN, 15 years later I met Gilmour. His technique was good, and his speed phenomenal. I couldn't figure out what he was doing so much differently than me. Then I rode his board and discovered the difference: his boards are set up with short wheelbases and hard wheels, but he also has his trucks adjusted to a "medium" or even a "hard" turn quality. I realizes that if you set up your board really "soft" as you suggested in 1988, you can make the cones, but your speed SUCKS. By loosening up the board you end up with little response, an ineffective pump and your acceleration just goes down the drain. Without a tighter truck, it becomes almost impossible for a slalom skater to gain any speed.

What's the answer? I learned this also in the past year: STRENGTH. If you set up the board "hard," then the skater has to be "harder" to get it to turn. Lots of leg and upper body strength results in a stronger pump, a quicker turn and faster speeds. So in reading your article, I would say, "don't loosen up the board, TIGHTEN UP as a rider. Push harder, turn harder and make the cones with a lot of muscle."

My tight technique is good and I'm getting faster, but I'm still no where near as fast as Gilmour, Vlad and yourself. That's only going to come with a lot more work, conditioning and added muscle.

Michael Stride · Post by **Michael Stride** » Mon Aug 18, 2003 10:56 pm

Both Roe and Pocket Pistols make excellent tight slalom boards.
No doubt there are some others. Also the Radikal trucks are excellent for TS.

Even when tight was more popular the equipment was rare, often an upturned GandS bowlrider. I feel we have a great spread of gear these days. And 4ft was never THAT popular. Most UK riders preferred 5-6ft.

Jani Soderhall · Post by **Jani Soderhall** » Mon Aug 18, 2003 10:06 pm

When preparing another scanned issue of Slalom! magazine I came across this article that I wrote years back.

Although I'm regarded as a tight slalom specialist I really enjoy the wider type of slalom too. I can do tight well, so naturally I still like it, but I'm not sure I want to go any tighter.

With the right equipment we could go tighter, but the current equipment for sale is suited for a slightly wider courses.

Slalom! no 4 - Feb 1988, page 10

Join the ISSA 25-cone series. 5 international sessions per year.
Create your own local race. Discover slalom skateboarding now!

| World Ranking | 25-cone Series | Calendar