Josh Loubek quote

S

Sanchez

Member
Straight from the freezeonline.com Web site, following the X-Games Superpipe:

'Don’t talk to us about technical difficulty when [Dumont]’s going five to eight feet bigger than anyone else on every hit.'

Is he serious? Is that even factually correct? Does he really think that amplitude is the only deciding factor? And does he really think that the sport is going to progress by rewarding someone just for going big and not based on the technical difficulty or style of a run?

Just before the WSI pipe contest last spring, Loubek went on a similar diatribe telling the athletes they MUST go big in order to get a good score. Shockingly, this statement was just after Boyd Easley had ruined his knee on the unsafe over-vert pipe. Did Loubek even have a clue?

So why does Loubek insist that people, above all, go big? Is it because Loubek can't judge technical difficulty or style, so he makes amplitude the deciding factor? Quite possibly. After all, it was Loubek who crowned Tufflemire WSI champ with one of the ugliest, but large in amplitude, runs ever.

Clearly, the monkeys are running the zoo. When guys like Loubek judge events solely based on someone's amplitude, they lose all credibility as authorities on the sport, and especially as judges. Regardless of whether Dumont, Olsson or Crichton deserved to win the X-Games, Loubek displayed, yet again, a level of ignorance that necessitates his staying far, far away from any judging post ever again.

 
Sanchez has bitter balls. He needs to stop launching this campaign against the X-Games judges. Loubeck doesn't even judge you idiot. The judges were Pep, Rinfret, Rory Will, Shane Szocs and Joe Vallone. Loubeck is merely in the judging booth to make sure that all those guys get their scores in on time and that they see everything that went down. He is also there to fill any of the judges requests. The high and low scores ARE dropped...so there can be no biased judges and favoring going on. So basically, all you are who are bashing the judges are totally wrong about everything. The runs look a helluva lot differeny on TV and you can never even begin to imagine how small Jon's run was compared to Simon's. As for GT's run last year at WSI...the fog was extremely thick and judges were posted up along the halfpipe so they just had to judge each hit. Amplitute should be a major factor in halfpipe and all the pro's agree. No one was bitter about Simon's win (except for you losers of course). Technical runs are extremely gay...so what if someone does a bunch of spins...its so easy and stock. Unless you are landing and riding into the next wall switch, like Turpin who got 2nd at X-Quals...then you will not be judged well. Crichton lost a ski and was docked 5 or 6 points...not a huuuuuuuge deal. He deserved to win...but unfortunately he should talk to his sponsor about making sure his bindings stay on his feet. You guys are all idiots and if you don't agree with this then read it again and again...and try and have an open mind.

 
i agree but tuffy did deserve that win 15 foot 1260's are insane

--------------------------

fuck rap

biatholons are like norweigan driveby's
 
who are you guys? (sanchez, baddaboom)

-The Dr.-

Live for something, or you will die for nothing.

wc.THELAB.ln.sm.lc.sw.ildmlfsm.etsahc.c.pnwk.sic.tre.tiwiwbtiac
 
I somewhat agree with the above statements, however...boosting 5-8 ft higher then everyone else makes everything harder, especially landings. So in some aspects going bigger indirectly makes things more technical.

better to burn out...

...then fade away
 
Loubek was the HEAD judge. That means he fixes people's scores when they get out of line. He's not there to get them hot chocolate or sharpen their pencils -- he has a direct say on how the event is judged, how the winner is picked, and which criteria is used. How do you think Crichton's second run score was just a hair below Tanner's? They deliberately assigned him a second place score just because his ski fell off. Sadly, they were blind to the fact that a friggin' cork 1080 mute was stomped and the landing ridden out, and arbitrarily assigned some 5-7 point FIS-style 'deduction' for the binding release. If you dropped your pole after the first hit but ski a flawless run, should you automatically get nailed with huge deductions because you lost a piece of equipment? I don't think so. Sounds scary to me -- sounds FIS-like thinking, which is the last thing we need at the X-Games.

As for the people you listed, sure they may be good skiers, but that doesn't make them good judges. Further, and in truth, putting guys like Rinfret up there who have potential personal biases against the athletes is not smart. Also, dropping high and low scores solves nothing when they're all flawed. Plus, no one ever said to judge an event just on technical difficulty; it's the combination of air, tech. and style that should win the day. Given the years of lackluster judging at the Games, ESPN could and should do a better job than that.

Badaboom, if you're going to bring up the WSI, awesome. Yet another screw-up from Loubek: putting the judges dispersed along the pipe. Why was he sitting at the bottom in the tent where he couldn't see a damn thing (yet still call the shots) when he should have arranged to have ALL of the judges in a tent halfway down the pipe where they could see it top-to-bottom. That scoring system was insane and a joke to those in attendance. Fog is no excuse for giving thousands of dollars to the wrong guy.

And if you think me and other people who question the X-Games judging are 'idiots', then you're calling a whole hell of a ton of people idiots. Not sure why you're trying to stick up for the judges, but perhaps the reason why you don't have any posts to your name is instructive as to your motivations. Having an open mind is a two-way street.

 
Agreed, judging was fucked for pipe. Tanner had the most technical run I've ever seen, perfect style and good amplitude. Not sure how he didn't medal.

_______________________________

What is the colour of a mirror?

'Fear is your only god' - Zach Dela Rocha

NS hockey pool champion: 2003

www.theeasyrider.com
 
WHO CARES???????? THEY ALL GET PAID GOOD MONEY TO SKI, gold metal or not their lifes are made till they are too old to ski, im sure they arnt to worried so why the hell should you care

 
badaboom: technical runs are so gay? doing a bunch of spins are so easy and stock? tanner's run was very technical, and involved some spinning as far as i could see. and i guess you must be a pretty freaking amazing skier, because i think the majority of skiers would agree that the corked 1080 mute tweaked to the moon (that crichton pulled) is not the easiest trick. tanner and crichton both had HUGE amplitude. dumont WAS going huge, no doubt about it, but did no one else see crichton's first hits on each run? his runs he did a flatspin 5 (not just a straight 5 like dumont) and went like 2 feet lower.

--

 
People who watch X-Games on TV wanna see amplitude. They wanna see unfathomable unfathomableness..... A 1080 could be a 720 to the audience. Tech doesn't matter too much to the mom's and dad's. X-Games is a product.

Judging is subjective, so no one is right or wrong. I suppose Loubeck has bad taste in most of people's eyes.

The X-Games is a great place to make hero's out of the people we've seen ride for years, in the shadows. But the layout and hype surrounding it are complete bullshit. I hope we can all agree on that one thing.

Commander of the Silent Army

Viva La Resistance!

 
missy, I totally agree with you, but you're oppinion is obviously sightly biased seeing as you share the same last name as dave. :P

Life sucks, get a fucking helmet

-Denis Leary
 
i don't understand why people have a problem with skiiers being judges. who else would you want to judge? i think pep is a great judge because he knows skiing, he knows what good style is. he understands what it's all about.

dumont should have won for going that big. everyone else was afraid to go as big as he was because people were getting hurt. he should score higher for boosting higher than anyone else and still maintaining a level of technicality and style.

olenick's run wasn't very technical but he was boosting and had sooo much style. he definitely deserved to medal. in a competition like the x-games almost everyone can do the same tricks, so the winner should be the one who has the most style and goes the biggest in my opinion.

 
You are all just jealous of Loubek. If you could throw 360s Screamins like he does THEN you could talk shit. but until then, its only in your dreams. And dont forget about the pump 3s, sooo stylie

`-=`-=`-=`-=`-=`-=`-=`-=`-=`-=`-=`-=`-=`-=`-=`

'haha he told his parents ahbout his ginormous cock.... what a fag' - linemaverick540
 
040127_mskipipe15_V.jpg'


and that wasnt even his best hit.. alley-oop 5 safety travelling about half way down the pipe.. barely any movement.. are you fucking kidding me!? there is no doubt who won that comp. even if crichton's ski stays on simon still wins.

 
danp - chrichton was almost that huge, only a foot or two below that, and his run was way more tech, so you cant really make that argument

________________________

(Ross)

SRMC

cBf
 
lay off loubecks ass, him and the other judges did fine. Everybody has their own favorite riders, some who did great and some not so great at X. Think about this it sure is a lot harder to land something from 20 feet above than from 10. Dumont went huge, much bigger than anyone but Crichton, yeah Crichton, and Tanner should've medaled, but they didnt let it go and move on.

 
wow i cant believe anyone could complain about this. I mean ive never been more impressed with a run than dumont's final pipe run. all the runs were crazy. but simon put it over the top. thats so pussy to say amplitude is making the xgames like an FIS event so fucking pussy. dont complain about this win just be stoked on how sick that comp was.

 
My instant thought after dumont's First attempt: If he puts down his whole run he is the absolute winner, no questions asked.

------------------------------------------------------------

Smokey, this is bowling, not Nam. There are Rules.

 
Obviously there is a subjective aspect to any judged sport, especially one in its infancy such as skiing. Judging by the posts over the past few days, any one of Olsson, Hall, Dumont and Crichton, in various peoples' eyes should have won the event. But that's not the problem at all. In fact debating peoples' runs is healthy, and helps progress the sport.

The reason that I started this thread was because of the appalling judging that seems to keep plaguing high level events such as the X-Games and the WSI. The common thread is Josh Loubek. Obviously he's not the sole deciding reason why people placed the way that they did, but he's plays a major role.

For anyone who knows anything about judging freestyle events, telling athletes that they must do something in order to win is, without a doubt, FIS-like, whether it's amplitude, style or technical difficulty. Whichever way you look at it, it stifles both freedom of expression and sport progression.

Even if you give Loubek the benefit of the doubt and agree that amplitude is the deciding factor, you still have to question Dumont's score after his near-wipe on the 720, not to mention the insanity of ballooning the scores for the 3rd run and expecting the athletes to follow suit.

 
BallinBU hit the nail on the head...all of these guys can do the same tricks, for the most part. 9s, flatspins, 5s, they can all do them, so it comes down to amplitude and style. the higher you go, the more difficult and dangerous it is to pull off a trick, so that should be a huge factor, especially when someone like dumont goes so much higher than everyone else.

and on the subject of chricton, he had the perfect run...until his ski came off. just because it did so on a hard trick shouldn't let him place higher than those who stuck their runs cleanly. it sucks, but that's the way it is and should be.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top