Limitations of modern shortboards (based on obs from pro tour)

Pro’s boards are absolutely the best…for pro’s. They’re tuned to the nth degree, and they know everything that’s going on with their board(s). What a pro needs is a good working relationship/collaboration with a shaper who can interpret their feedback and adjust the shapes accordingly.

The only real downside to them is their fragility.

A limited analogy might be racing bicycles for elite-level riders, where every microgram is pared away in the quest for lightness and responsiveness (but one crash and that $5000 dollar frame is “retired”).

The real design revolution is waiting for the more casual, recreational surfer.

sell the sizzle, not the steak

pay the copywriter that wrote the “want to surf like a pro” more money ((s)he’s read the classic textbooks on adwriting (benefits, not features)

the pro circuit is still viewed as the pinnacle of surfing, even though there are the “alternate” movements (Frankenrider, et al) ; huge wave hounds; danger dogs, etc.

when there’s money and rep at stake it’s pretty hard to get someone to select an “experimental” model over a tried and true one.

how difficult is it for shapers to get pro team riders to work on incremental improvements to experimental designs?

Quote:

Good rebuttal solo. I just respectfully disagree based on my perception. (I probably could have left out some of the ironic satire regarding opportunities for shapers with pro surfers.)

Probably dearest to me is my observation that within the scope of the “modern - high performance short boards” employed by the WCT pros there is substantial variation in dimensions, volume, and configuration. Big guys like Pancho Sullivan, Bede Durbidge, Leonardo Neves, Daniel Ross, and Jay Thompson are riding pretty significant volume (although certainly the same narrow nose / concave / thruster they do have the volume and the surface area of the fishy thrusters of the early 90s you were referencing.) Small guys like Timmy Reyes, Bobby Martinez, Adriano de Souza, and Danny Wills are riding really low volume boards.

Is the debate whether or not to consider those differences a design variation? I don’t know. It may not be for me to say. The answer may depend upon the culture of who is posing the question and the culture of the audience. Certainly the variations I’m talking about are a difference in design, but probably not a different design. The more relevant question as designers may be, (and I believe this relates to the subject of the thread - possible limitations of the modern short board from observation of the Australian leg of the CT) can variation in dimensions, volume, and configuration render any design functional for a wide scope of surfers in a wide scope of conditions?

What are the prototypical dimensions, volume, and configuration of a classic early 60s long board? What variations would be required to make a classic long board for a 12 year old girl who weighs 80 pounds and dreams of surfing like Phil Edwards? And what are the prototypical dimensions, volume, and configuration of a contemporary short board? And what variations would be required to make a contemporary short board for a 6’ 4" - 240 pound 40 year old who dreams of surfing like Pancho Sullivan?

I agree with Coque regarding the integrity of the ASP. I trust their commitment to being an open and transparent organization doing it’s best to provide most of the world’s best surfers with a standardized and agreed upon set of rules and criteria at a variety of venues around the world with significant variation in the critical demands each venue places on them to compete among themselves in determining an annual world champion. For a variety of reasons - good, bad, and otherwise some people don’t like contest. That’s fine.

So anyway, good debating the subject.

Kind regards,

Steve “Cornelius” Coletta

Good post Steve. What a breath of fresh air this thread is with guys like yourself, coque and lenox among others posting their thoughts in a logical well thought out and respectful manner. I wish all threads were like this.

Also…any reference I make to cheating is in the subconscience…I wantet to make that clear. Not cheating …just being effected by outside influences hard to ignore…like who someone is and etc. I think the intentions of most of the judges are honorable…only limited in scope and agenda driven. By agenda driven I mean geared towards one style of surfing and equipment. I think an alternate tour would be a hoot. Anything goes type of thing. I don’t dislike contest…only that they have an unrealistic influence on the sport at large amont average surfers and reaching the top in contest is considered the apex of surfing by many. I plan on enjoying it at whatever level for awhile I hope.

Quote:

Pro’s boards are absolutely the best…for pro’s. They’re tuned to the nth degree, and they know everything that’s going on with their board(s). What a pro needs is a good working relationship/collaboration with a shaper who can interpret their feedback and adjust the shapes accordingly.

.

Allan , I realise you are highly qualified to make this statement and I also realise it is the prevailing orthodoxy.

But is it really true?

Do they really know everything that is going on with their boards?

Are they really tuned to the Nth degree?

Couldn’t it be equally as true that a lot of pros don’t know much at all about their boards and simply accept the staus quo shapes off the name shapers?

I know that Kelly’s magic board off Simon was a case in point. He simply said to Simon “make me a 6’1” for J-bay".

There’s nothing too scientific or highly tuned about that process.

I believe that a lot of pros simply receive a shitload of 6’1" s and hope for the best.

I know that Kelly and Merrick have a higher level of understanding going on…but the rest of 'em…I’m not so sure about that point of view anymore.

Steve

This is a thought I had for a while and I think it fits in here:

Why is it that Pro surfers use more ore less the same technology/materials for their boards as your Average Joe Surfer does (PU and polyester boards).

At any other sport the Pros use equipment a recreation sports guy would not consider at all, or not be able to pay for.

e.g.: you can buy a new bike for about $ 100,- (or even less) at K-Mart but the pros use bikes that cost more than a small car! Think about Tennis, Golf, Running, Baseball, Cricket you name it… the equipment for all those sports from Beginner to Pro have a massive price range. Not so for surfing.

In surfing the cost of a Al Merrick you buy in a shop is probably pretty close to what one of Kelly’s board would cost.

Why is there no more development into superior technology? The Pros (or their sponsors) would for sure pay for it if it would be superior……

Or why are the newer technologies (firewire, surftech, salomon back then, etc.) not developed to suit the Pros?

Your thoughts?Z

Quote:

I’m done with this untill someone shows me how it is related to surfboard design and construction.

Coque.

www.worldprosurfers.com

i thought you were done with it??

but anyway ill have a go

the heading says limitations of modern shortboards

sounds like a topic about a surfboard design constructed a certain way out of certain materials and its limitations to me

which part do you think doesnt relate??

Quote:

i have been reading these boards for 9 months and have never until now felt the need to post but with regards to limitations of modern shortboards by feral dave i felt i needed to. As an ex-pro surfer living on goldcoast i ride a wide variety of boards from the top local shapers and the reason no top pros here ride Diverse surfboards is they are not up to scratch. the designs are not good enough for pros or even good local riders, thats why the best guys continue to go to the other shapers.

ha internet wankery

the only thing an ex pro has got to say on design in 9 months of reading the site is

“um der daves poo pees suck”

that there is your answer steve

Hey Lennox,

You have to remember that probably 85% of the turns Kelly has ever done have been photographed and/or videoed. Seeing a guy surf (especially him surfing that specific wave he wants the board for) gives the shaper a tremendous amount of information in regards to what he will design for that guy. I’m sure slater at least gave simon dims and simon went from there.

I would think that this vague request for a board is common when ordering from a shaper other than the one a pro rides for. This will definitely help in finding designs that benefit him/her, if he/she starts getting too specific on what it is they want then they may as well get their normal board from their sponsor. It gives the shaper more freedom to try designs that he thinks will work good, and I think that’s what pros are seeking when they get boards from other shapers. Different outlooks on more or less the same thing, but even though the differences are slight the results can be huge.

When kelly talks to Al I’m sure the conversation becomes a little more than “make me a board for J-Bay”

Quote:

This is a thought I had for a while and I think it fits in here:

Why is it that Pro surfers use more ore less the same technology/materials for their boards as your Average Joe Surfer does (PU and polyester boards).

At any other sport the Pros use equipment a recreation sports guy would not consider at all, or not be able to pay for.

e.g.: you can buy a new bike for about $ 100,- (or even less) at K-Mart but the pros use bikes that cost more than a small car! Think about Tennis, Golf, Running, Baseball, Cricket you name it… the equipment for all those sports from Beginner to Pro have a massive price range. Not so for surfing.

In surfing the cost of a Al Merrick you buy in a shop is probably pretty close to what one of Kelly’s board would cost.

Why is there no more development into superior technology? The Pros (or their sponsors) would for sure pay for it if it would be superior……

Or why are the newer technologies (firewire, surftech, salomon back then, etc.) not developed to suit the Pros?

Your thoughts?Z


Thanks for pointing that out… its one of the enduring (endearing) quirks about surfing and surfboards- that, material-wise, pros ride the equivalent of a $100 Huffy.

Mainly, I think, its because of the tune-ability of the materials. With Pu/Pe and a 4 oz glass job, the finished board is very close in dimension to the shape, (unlike a styro blank with maybe 5 layers of 6 oz cloth), and so, pretty much, what the shaper shapes is the final product (at least that what the shaper likes to think…there’s a laminator, hot coater and sander in there, too, but they’re not the “geniuses” that make the board work).

And then there’s the cost factor and the turnaround time. Pu/Pe’s are (relatively) cheap, and fast, to make. Joe pro can get a pile of boards for a few hundred bucks a piece, done in a couple of days. That’s quicker than dry-cleaning!

Back to bikes, though…and this is where the analogy starts to unravel…there could be hundreds of millions of bicycles on the planet at any given time, so there’s room for a tiny fraction of the market to accept- demand, even- very costly bikes and accessories. Apply the same ratio to surfboards, and you wind up with a very small handful of customers. Plus, there’s just more money to develop and promote new product. Whether its better or not is debatable…if you’re Lance Armstrong, then by all means ride a $10,000 bike, because every extra gram might be holding you back, but I’m perfectly happy with my 15 year-old welded steel-tube non-shock-equipped Bridgestone mountain bike.

The surfboard industry, as a whole, just isn’t that big! Whatever money there is in surfing has been in the clothes, wetsuits and accessories. Maybe more deep pockets will get involved with actual surfboard production, and we’ll see fancier equipment, but at the end of the day, they may discover that the best way to make a small fortune in the surfboard business…is to start with a large one.


Quote:
Quote:

Pro’s boards are absolutely the best…for pro’s. They’re tuned to the nth degree, and they know everything that’s going on with their board(s). What a pro needs is a good working relationship/collaboration with a shaper who can interpret their feedback and adjust the shapes accordingly.

.

Allan , I realise you are highly qualified to make this statement and I also realise it is the prevailing orthodoxy.

But is it really true?

Do they really know everything that is going on with their boards?

Are they really tuned to the Nth degree?

Couldn’t it be equally as true that a lot of pros don’t know much at all about their boards and simply accept the staus quo shapes off the name shapers?

I know that Kelly’s magic board off Simon was a case in point. He simply said to Simon “make me a 6’1” for J-bay".

There’s nothing too scientific or highly tuned about that process.

I believe that a lot of pros simply receive a shitload of 6’1" s and hope for the best.

I know that Kelly and Merrick have a higher level of understanding going on…but the rest of 'em…I’m not so sure about that point of view anymore.

Steve

Hi Steve,

I don’t how qualified i am to make statements (but it won’t stop me from making them, anyway). I have to run, right now, but I do want to get back to this…(think “tailor”, that’s what I think a shaper is…)

AG

hey guys why dont we have a ‘swaylocks world tour’ !!!

surfers can only enter if they have made the board they will ride in the comp…

bet that would change the rankings dramatically.

then we could just get the moderators to be the judges.

sure as hell would be more interesting.

reminds me of miki dora’s contest plan with a few differences. Those differences mainly being neoprene and leg ropes are allowed, the boards don’t have to be biodegradeable and the judging criteria

its been interesting reading all your posts… thought u guys might wanna see this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmRoEIaIK3c. its just a trailer though.

oh and anyone seen the merrick documentary “flow”?

Just to follow-up, here…a pro (or any surfer tuned-in to their boards) doesn’t necessarily know from concaves, toe-in, cant, rail shape, etc., but they do know how they want the board to work. And a good shaper can interpret those desires and adjust accordingly (am I repeating myself?).

Usually there’s a bit of trial and error in determining the parameters for a given rider (that’s where a trade-in program is essential).

And this is where the “tailor” analogy comes in…once the basic platform is defined, a conscientious shaper keeps some sort of record for each rider (rail templates, rocker notes, etc.), in the same way a tailor keeps patterns.

In my own experience, I’ve tracked people who’ve one from grom-hood to middle age (thicker, wider), to mid-life crisis (“I want to go thin, again!”) and so on.

Its interesting!

But, back to the pro thing, and their boards: it should be a two-way street. That is, it helps if a shaper is at least a competent enough surfer to diagnose what’s going on with a rider’s board, and to be able to project, as objectively as possible, their own experience into the mix. That kind of relationship not only allows the shaper to translate and expand their own experience (almost vicariously) to allow the really gifted surfer to realize their potential, but to take the lessons learned and apply them to the more everyman (everyperson?) surfer.

Also, if Joe Pro picks up a few boards from a noted shaper in a particular area, he’s only going to use the boards if they work for him (or her).

Having said all that (and to the point of the thread), board-builders are human, too, and as likely to jump on a bandwagon as anyone else. But I expect you’ll see a lot of shorter, wider boards in future contests.

That’s interesting Dave - I wonder how “Wanna surf like a pro” would go up against “Catch more waves”?

“you wanna surf or do you wanna paddle?”-george greenough

Greenlight, if you put every competitor on the same board i think that would be absolutely antiswaylockian!, i mean, we’re talking about how much the guys at the WCT hold back diversity in the water and you want them all officially on the same exact board? Maybe a good experiment for one event, but each surfer has it’s own preferences and sure that said design would favor some more than others. I don’t see all bicyclers on the same bike at the Tour.

Solo, you said “The idea behind the ASP is for everyone to be on pretty much the same equipment.”, i’ve been inside the ASP and i can’t buy that idea. Cornelius has feedback and close relationship with some pro surfers and i don’t think he buys that idea, no one of the pros i heard from the WCT believe that’s true, so i don’t really know how you, from the outside can be so sure of such a thing… but, of course i respect your ideas.

In fact Solo, Kelly tried to compete on a quad, why?, well i’m sure it’s because maybe putting everyone on a different fin configuration is the only thing he didn’t make in this “sport”… yet! Go figure if he won the tour on a quad!, every kid would be throuwing to the trashcan his thruster and buying a quad, that means more sales for the industry! Bringing a different valid design would be one of the greatest things for the industry i think, so holding that back has no sense for me.

Just figure how good would be for a pro if he finds that magic board that pushes his surfing to a higher level… he would take advantage of that, no doubt.

Human error: of course there’s human error!, it is on every contest, no matter how good are the judges, how good is the angle from where they’re watching, there’s always human error, no doubt. My point is that there’s no intention of favoring some surfers over the rest, there’s no intention of favoring certain brands more than others, i’m convinced of that after being inside some years. For example, many people say that Slater is often overscored and i strongly disagree with that. As Solo said i think Slater is underscored SOMEtimes because he makes some things look so easy. Everyone talks about the Slater Vs Andy J-Bay final, where everyone, from judges to pros agree that Slater deserved to win that heat with his last wave, even if he felt on the last turn, because the rest of his turns had a higher degree of difficulty and where done in a much more critical wave with more critical sections. But none talks about last year’s Bede Vs Slater heat where I THINK that Slater should won that heat. What’s the logic behind that heat? Bede just lost his sponsor, Billabong, and the judges that are supposedly bough by the brands where giving Bede the heat, how can you explain that?

Lennox, Pritamo was my first Head Judge on the ASP and he’s a young guy (young for being a judge, that is). He’s a cool guy, a really good surfer and an excellent judge. Love his attitude judging.

I have to say that i’m sorry for my words: “I’m done with this until someone shows me how it is related to surfboard design and construction.”, but at the beginning i was feeling that this thread was going to a “contest suck” discussion that adds no light and has no end, also it wasn’t my best day. So my most sincere apologies for that.

My personal feeling about all this is that we’re mixing two different things:

1.- Are the boards the surfers use at the WCT the best boards for the high performance surfing they’re developing now a days?

I think they're the best boards they found till now. In fact most pros think the subtle variations made this recent years are allowing them to surf in a way never before seen and putting themselves in places of the wave untouched previously.

2.- Are the boards the surfers use at the WCT the best boards for the average joe?

 Absolutely NOT, and that's holding back most peoples surfing ability. But that's not the WCT's fault, that's the consequence of being an uneducated surfer who bough a board in a shop with an uneducated seller. I would never buy an F1 car as my daily driver... i need the reverse gear!!!

Wow, 23:30 here boys, i have to have dinner or my wife will send me to the sofa this night.

Good night!

Quote:

1.- Are the boards the surfers use at the WCT the best boards for the high performance surfing they’re developing now a days?

I think they’re the best boards they found till now. In fact most pros think the subtle variations made this recent years are allowing them to surf in a way never before seen and putting themselves in places of the wave untouched previously.

Coque, thanks for the considered and detailed response but you are still missing the point of the original post.

The answer to the question 1 which you pose above is obviously not. They are obviously not the best boards for high performance surfing in ALL CONDITIONS.

I know this to be true because I watched Kelly Slater with my own eyes come to town with shorter, wider, thicker equipment and wipe the floor with them in marginal waves (which the tour has had ALOT of in recent years).

I saw supremely talented surfers like Jordy Smith bogging and struggling on undersized equipment for THOSE CONDITIONS.

The question is why have the pros not been able to experiment or advance their quivers to take advantage of these conditions like Slater/Merrick has?

There’s no doubt that free-surfing has advanced at a steady pace over the last couple of years but I would seriously doubt that pros are putting themeselves in areas of waves that were “untouched previously” due to subtle differences in concave depth or rail shape…this ain’t no shortboard revolution happening.

I think that much bigger performance leaps have been happening outside the WCT…in tow surfing giant waves or death slabs…now that is some shit that is hitting uncharted territory.

As far as in the contests themselves the advancements in free-surfing bought about by guys like Dane, Jordy, Julian Wilson et al. are generally speaking not being seen in heats.

Probably the best turn I saw during the aussie leg was a classic full speed power carve from Dane in his QF against Taj…it was a sick turn but it sure as hell wasn’t a rodeo clown or sushi roll , if you know what I mean.

Kelly won the Bells final with a forehand double grab air ,a move that has been stock standard now for twenty years.

I think the surfing on the WCT is looking a bit stale and formulaic.

Steve

Lennox, i can see your point and i agree with you on some of your feelings about it.

At Snappers, i think the wave looked better than it really was, judging by the footage (obviously you must know that better than i do since i wasn’t there, so most pros had to deal with inconsistent sets and waves that looked better than they where.

I think something similar happened at Bells, surfers from the sand thought waves where better than they really where and they, again, choose the wrong equipment.

My experience is that surfers on the WCT have “small wave boards” that are wider, thicker, often shorter with boxier rails. For example, i’m about as tall and heavy as Luke Egan, so i always enjoyed his boards. Now a days i own some of his JS’ and i love two of them: a 6’3’’ x 19.625’’ x 2.625’’ with a wider tail and nose, boxier rails and lower rocker, with a fuller foil, the other one is a 6’3’’ x 19.5’’ x 2.5 that has much less volume, narrower tail and nose, more rocker, foiled rails, etc… They might look really close, but they’re really different. The first was his “small mushier wave board” and the second was his “better beach break board”.

Traveling all year long with too many boards is a pain, they have to choose, so they bring these boards to Europe and Brazil, but i don’t think they bring them to Australia, Teahupoo, Hawaii… not the one for really small waves at least. That could be the case, i don’t really know.

On the other hand their job is the WCT, the “Dream Tour”, where they, supposedly, should be surfing good waves on ever single event, so they’re focused on “not so mushy waves” and develop their equipment for those conditions. So when there’s a contest in softer waves they seem to be catched off guard.

Regardless the ASP contest format not being the best to develop and show the highest performance surfing, i agree with that, and i think surfers agree with that, in fact Kelly Slater is trying his own method. But take, for example the Billabong Challenge as an example, It’s a great event to make it happen with few surfers, and for being seen later on an edited video or on the mags, but having to stay on the beach watching the event could be a pain sometimes and spectators won’t really know what’s happening inside… i think. Also, you’ll need a swell of weeks in order to complete every heat.

I think we’ll see changes about this, but i have yet to see a better format that’s really doable. But that would be a whole different debate.