As many of you in the ski and snowboard world know, pro skier Sarah Burke recently passed away after succumbing to head injuries she sustained while training in the very same halfpipe that Kevin Pearce was injured in.
I read a good blog on Agnarchy.com that brings up a good question: How big is too big? Is our constant pursuit of bigger tricks on jumps and halfpipes getting too risky?
Why jumps are getting bigger
In short, jumps and halfpipes get bigger to accommodate bigger tricks.
Tricks that were winning Shaun White the X-Games gold medal 6 years ago can now be done by the average local park kid. When everyone is doing the same trick, it’s natural for some to be thinking bigger, in this case, it means adopting the standard that’s become known in competitions as ‘spin to win’. More rotations or more cork usually means you win.
Is spin to win bad? Well, that’s a whole different blog for another time, but that’s how it is in today’s competitive world. Bigger spins require bigger jumps and features.
Why we take risks
Snowboarders and pro snowboarders in particular, are risk takers. We all take risks when strapping into our snowboard. Whether it’s dropping a hard black run or learning to go off your first jump, it’s a risk. After all, a big part of what keeps us riding is advancing our ability.
We’re risk managers, not risk avoiders. It’s natural that we push our limits sometimes. The feeling of conquering a trick or line that was risky and hard is an amazing feeling.
Has the risk become too high
I don’t think the risk has become too high, but I also think there’s a lot that can be done to avoid risk. However, it’s a tricky subject to tackle.
Jumps/halfpipes can be build safer, but would we be willing to sacrifice quantity for quality?
For starters, a lot of parks build jumps that could be safer, but are cheaper to be build as huge step-downs with higher consequences for falling. Now, they could build these jumps safer, but what if that meant they couldn’t afford to build a park at all?
This goes for halfpipes as well. The newer, bigger halfpipes are actually a little bit safer than the older halfpipes because they have bigger transition walls, which means when you fall, you’re less likely to fall straight down to the flat area. However, not every mountain can afford to build huge, perfect halfpipes with big transitions.
Who regulates the jump sizes/halfpipes?
Obviously, we can’t take all risk away. No expert snowboarder wants to go back from nicely shaped 60 foot jumps to tiny 10 foot jumps. Not to mention, snowboarders will always want to try things a little bigger or spin a little more. It’s natural to want to try new things and learn new tricks.
So, if we regulate the creation of jumps and halfpipes, who does it? Who gets to say that jumps and halfpipes have to be built a certain way? It’s a tough question to answer.
The bottom line
Much like David over at Agnarchy.com, I don’t have the answers. It’s a subject that many people will have different opinions on. My opinion is that after everything is said and done, snowboarders are always going to be pushing the limits of what we can do and even if it’s regulated, it’s in our blood to take some risks.
Should the jumps and halfpipes be kept smaller? I don’t know. Maybe, maybe not. I’m not even sure if it’d be possible to stop jumps/halfpipes from getting bigger or if I’d even want that.
Every snowboarder and skier that goes up to a 80 foot jump or a halfpipe and spins huge tricks knows what they’re getting themselves into. These are the risks and choices they’ve chosen to take and we can’t rightly tell them they can’t push their own limits.
What I do know however is that every skier and snowboarder has their own safety level. Ride within your limits and if you push the boundaries, know that it sometimes pushes back. Take risks, but take calculated risks that are within your ability.
Stay safe out there.
- Jed
|  |
Risk managers, not risk avoiders. I dig that line. But yeah, I don’t want to stir up the spin-to-win debate either
I think it’s ofte tough to keep that risk in perspective because part of what pushes progress is blocking it out.
Ultimately, yes, bigger is “more” dangerous. But it’s also true that any injury you can sustain on a 14ft pipe you can also sustain on a 22ft pipe. It might be a more risky/dangerous on a bigger wall with a smaller margin for error, but the risk is still there (or on that urban rail, or in the backcountry, or that tree line, etc.) and we can’t ever get rid of it entirely.