Surfpolitik Big Wave Measurements Leave Me Flaccid

> 10 years ago
Reply
Register to post, see what you've read, and subscribe to topics.
doggie
doggie
WA
15849 posts
WA, 15849 posts
28 Nov 2011 4:39pm
http://www.swellnet.com.au/news/2643-big-wave-measurements-leave-me-flaccid

Yesterday Hawaiian big-wave surfer, Garrett Macnamara, rode a huge wave at Nazare, Portugal. It was a monster, no doubt, but the size attributed to it - 90 feet - just didn't seem to add up. It reminded me of an old joke:

Why do women have trouble parking cars?
Because men keep telling them that six inches is ten.

Crude, yep, but a good illustration of what's been happening in big wave surfing over the last decade. Each year bigger waves get ridden yet the criteria for measuring them gets changed along the way. The 100 foot goalpost just keeps getting lower and lower.

In January 1998, Ken Bradshaw rode Outside Log Cabins on Oahu's North Shore and jagged what was then considered the largest wave ever ridden (see image 1). In his book, North Shore Chronicles, surf journalist Bruce Jenkins said Bradshaw rode a wave that morning which "was in the mythical 40-foot realm, a cut above most of the waves ridden that day".

Bradshaw himself says he caught his biggest wave in the morning, but "I got another 30-plus wave in the afternoon." The wave sizes - 30 to 40 feet - were proportional to what was being paddled into at big Waimea and big Mavericks.

Sometime around the turn of the millennium big wave competitions took hold and wave sizes were covertly recalibrated. 50 foot became the new Code Black.

In 2001 Mike Parsons rode what was considered a 66 foot wave at Cortes Bank (see image 3). In 2008 he rode one that didn't appear any larger yet was measured at 70+ feet. That six inches was growing...

Now Garrett Macnamara has ridden a wave that the big wave valet attendants are calling 90 feet and the operation is almost complete (see image 4). Click through all the images from 1 to 4 and watch as they grow. From 40 foot to 90 foot. 6 inches to 10 inches. It's enough to make a regular big wave surfer feel inadequate.

doggie
doggie
WA
15849 posts
WA, 15849 posts
28 Nov 2011 4:40pm
Imo Garretts wave wasnt 100ft.
subasurf
subasurf
WA
2154 posts
WA, 2154 posts
28 Nov 2011 5:07pm
Personally...I couldn't care less how big someone's wave was. I have tonnes of respect for the skill and sheer balls it must take for someone to commit into some of these big waves, I really do...but for me, it's boring as bat 5hit to watch...even worse to read about.

Any wave that needs requires a tow in to ride isn't all that interesting to me. That's my opinion and I doubt it will ever change. I'd rather watch footage of Andy riding anything than watch someone like Ross Clarke Jones get towed behind a jetski into a monster. Still respect them both, just don't enjoy watching both.

Red thumbs ahoy...but that's how I feel.
Woodo
Woodo
WA
792 posts
WA, 792 posts
28 Nov 2011 5:27pm
subasurf said...

Personally...I couldn't care less how big someone's wave was. I have tonnes of respect for the skill and sheer balls it must take for someone to commit into some of these big waves, I really do...but for me, it's boring as bat 5hit to watch...even worse to read about.

Any wave that needs requires a tow in to ride isn't all that interesting to me. That's my opinion and I doubt it will ever change. I'd rather watch footage of Andy riding anything than watch someone like Ross Clarke Jones get towed behind a jetski into a monster. Still respect them both, just don't enjoy watching both.

Red thumbs ahoy...but that's how I feel.


Kind of agree but seeing guys get towed into places like Chopes, shipsterns or cyclops is pretty interesting IMO.
Ted the Kiwi
Ted the Kiwi
NSW
14256 posts
NSW, 14256 posts
28 Nov 2011 8:28pm
yeah thats a good article - I tend to agree with him.

Having said that all those waves are farkin huge if you ask me and I would probably be scared just sitting on the beach watching!

soleman
soleman
WA
280 posts
WA, 280 posts
28 Nov 2011 5:43pm
felllas, it seems to be the camera angle that makes the judgement call these days. never the less faaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrk these blokes have got some big steel balls. nice pick up on the article Doggie.
Zuke
Zuke
901 posts
901 posts
28 Nov 2011 6:22pm
66' or 70', how do you tell the difference? Anyway, huge respect and all that but paddling in and making the drop can be the hardest part and most rewarding IMHO.

NB: I know it's not possible on those waves, I was talking about surfing in general.
PaddlePig
PaddlePig
WA
421 posts
WA, 421 posts
28 Nov 2011 6:24pm
Kind of off topic, but it would be a lot easier if surfers quit calling waves based on the size of their balls. Why is it you can never say Perth is bigger than 3 foot, even if it is. I'm clearly a 6 foot bloke and there have been days when I look the wave eye to eye, and it's 2 - 3 foot. I mean, I'm happy with how things were but it would be nice if people could call them how big the face actually is.

Apparently it started from the Hawaiians measuring waves from the back (I think).

In conclusion what I am trying to say is I think the big wave contest people are accurately measuring the face and putting it into average non-surfer terms. Kind of like when I say I surfed 3 - 4 foot waves and people who don't surf think I was at Port Beach when really I was behind Rotto. I think the claim of the 30 footer was a true surfer's speak.
PaddlePig
PaddlePig
WA
421 posts
WA, 421 posts
28 Nov 2011 6:26pm
Back on topic, I don't really care about the 'feet' that the wave is claimed to be because all four of those are amazing. I'd be scared to even watch that madness happening, what absolute skill!! Amazing!
Carantoc
Carantoc
WA
7285 posts
WA, 7285 posts
28 Nov 2011 8:10pm
Probably caused by global warming.

I'll try to explain without getting too technical.

It is a two fold issue.

Firstly as the climate change increases the sea level, the sea level might rise. The waves rise proportionately with the sea level, and hence they they are higher, but without being bigger.

Secondly, as the climate changes the ocean temperature warms and the sea water becomes less dense. Back in the old days when the climate was stable and it was average everyday a wave had a certain fixed hold down ability. Lets call this hold down power A. Now come forward to modern times and the climate is unstable and no longer average. The changed density means that A is no longer A, but something else, lets call it Y. Getting techincal I know, but stay with me. Now, an old wave with A, can't be measured with Y. Why ? well A, it is no longer A and B it is now Y.

Sometimes the two factors join and you get a double up.. Nobody much likes double ups, except spongers who can fly higher than the wave, at which point A and Y become negative and the wave is infinetly high (but finitely large).

And so, in summary that is why.


subasurf
subasurf
WA
2154 posts
WA, 2154 posts
28 Nov 2011 8:13pm
Some how I don't think the density of the water in the oceans has changed so much that wave sizes have changed to a noticeable level.
Legion
Legion
WA
2222 posts
WA, 2222 posts
28 Nov 2011 9:01pm
PaddlePig said...

Kind of off topic, but it would be a lot easier if surfers quit calling waves based on the size of their balls. Why is it you can never say Perth is bigger than 3 foot, even if it is. I'm clearly a 6 foot bloke and there have been days when I look the wave eye to eye, and it's 2 - 3 foot. I mean, I'm happy with how things were but it would be nice if people could call them how big the face actually is.

Apparently it started from the Hawaiians measuring waves from the back (I think).

In conclusion what I am trying to say is I think the big wave contest people are accurately measuring the face and putting it into average non-surfer terms. Kind of like when I say I surfed 3 - 4 foot waves and people who don't surf think I was at Port Beach when really I was behind Rotto. I think the claim of the 30 footer was a true surfer's speak.


That's the way I've grown up with and the way I'll always call it. I don't like the softcock California wave face measurement system.
GPA
GPA
WA
2529 posts
GPA GPA
WA, 2529 posts
28 Nov 2011 9:09pm
Legion said...

PaddlePig said...

Kind of off topic, but it would be a lot easier if surfers quit calling waves based on the size of their balls. Why is it you can never say Perth is bigger than 3 foot, even if it is. I'm clearly a 6 foot bloke and there have been days when I look the wave eye to eye, and it's 2 - 3 foot. I mean, I'm happy with how things were but it would be nice if people could call them how big the face actually is.

Apparently it started from the Hawaiians measuring waves from the back (I think).

In conclusion what I am trying to say is I think the big wave contest people are accurately measuring the face and putting it into average non-surfer terms. Kind of like when I say I surfed 3 - 4 foot waves and people who don't surf think I was at Port Beach when really I was behind Rotto. I think the claim of the 30 footer was a true surfer's speak.


That's the way I've grown up with and the way I'll always call it. I don't like the softcock California wave face measurement system.


Agreed.

Generally, and in the main when talking 'feet' it is always measured off the back of the wave (at least in Oz). Locally, the body measurement system is becoming more popular - ie waist high, shoulder high, and if you are lucky - head high!! (recognizing that this is loosely based on a 6ft person).

PaddlePig
PaddlePig
WA
421 posts
WA, 421 posts
28 Nov 2011 9:10pm
I'd like to clarify when I said jugding waves by the size of their balls, what I meant is some waves that are called 6 foot clearly take a large amount of testicular fortitude to have a crack at as they're clearly not 6 foot. But that's how they're called.

And legion I didn't mean to sound like I wanted things changed, I just thought it might make things easier, as sometimes figuring out what one bloke's idea of a foot takes a bit.
doggie
doggie
WA
15849 posts
WA, 15849 posts
29 Nov 2011 8:56am
So is 6ft head high? Or is 6ft head and a half?
Zuke
Zuke
901 posts
901 posts
29 Nov 2011 9:20am
^^^^double head.
Sham1984
Sham1984
VIC
415 posts
VIC, 415 posts
29 Nov 2011 12:23pm
id just rather say double overhead.. rather than confuse the matter with surfers/non surfers



but in the case of the big waves in OP.. it just comes under the category of "insane"
Ted the Kiwi
Ted the Kiwi
NSW
14256 posts
NSW, 14256 posts
29 Nov 2011 12:23pm
Zuke said...

^^^^double head.


yep.
doggie
doggie
WA
15849 posts
WA, 15849 posts
29 Nov 2011 10:03am
So head and a half is four foot?
doggie
doggie
WA
15849 posts
WA, 15849 posts
29 Nov 2011 10:04am
Legion said...

PaddlePig said...

Kind of off topic, but it would be a lot easier if surfers quit calling waves based on the size of their balls. Why is it you can never say Perth is bigger than 3 foot, even if it is. I'm clearly a 6 foot bloke and there have been days when I look the wave eye to eye, and it's 2 - 3 foot. I mean, I'm happy with how things were but it would be nice if people could call them how big the face actually is.

Apparently it started from the Hawaiians measuring waves from the back (I think).

In conclusion what I am trying to say is I think the big wave contest people are accurately measuring the face and putting it into average non-surfer terms. Kind of like when I say I surfed 3 - 4 foot waves and people who don't surf think I was at Port Beach when really I was behind Rotto. I think the claim of the 30 footer was a true surfer's speak.


That's the way I've grown up with and the way I'll always call it. I don't like the softcock California wave face measurement system.


Please explain the Cali soft c@ck system mate, I havnt heard of that one.
Woodo
Woodo
WA
792 posts
WA, 792 posts
29 Nov 2011 10:36am
I've always gone by head high being roughly about 3 foot.
6 foot is starting to get up to a decent size.
I'm 6'3 and surfing a 6 footer for me is somewhere between head and half and double head.
doggie
doggie
WA
15849 posts
WA, 15849 posts
29 Nov 2011 10:54am
Woodo said...

I've always gone by head high being roughly about 3 foot.
6 foot is starting to get up to a decent size.
I'm 6'3 and surfing a 6 footer for me is somewhere between head and half and double head.


Ive always thought head and a half was four foot.
crustt
crustt
VIC
190 posts
VIC, 190 posts
29 Nov 2011 1:58pm
Dunno about Californians being softcocks, they do surf bigger meaner waves.
Legion
Legion
WA
2222 posts
WA, 2222 posts
29 Nov 2011 11:42am
Not Californians being softcocks, their measurement system is (compared to the Australian and Hawaiian system).

doggie said...

Please explain the Cali soft c@ck system mate, I havnt heard of that one.

Calling by wave face.

I agree with Zuke, Ted, Woodo, etc.

Every few months I read a forum topic where people say it's confusing and why can't we change it. It's just the way it is and always has been in my time. Take the wave face and halve it.

You can see they use both systems in webcasts of contests. The Aussies and Hawaiians generally agree and call it the same (the Zuke, Ted, Woodo, Legion method). The Americans use their system. The Hawaiians have their own system again when events are in Hawaii and the waves get big, a bit more conservative again than the Australian system.

doggie
doggie
WA
15849 posts
WA, 15849 posts
29 Nov 2011 12:28pm
So if its head high its three foot?
Agent000
Agent000
161 posts
161 posts
29 Nov 2011 1:14pm
I reckon the "measure from the back " theory will make sense when we start surfing the backs of waves. that quadruple head high beast Teahupoo is what 4ft?????

The other joy is talking surf at one of those international tourist surf destinations (you know the ones that all look like some version of byron bay) if you say a wave is 4ft to a multinational group, no one is thinking the same wave size!

language is about comunicating ideas not sounding cool. The only people who know what you are talking about when you talk wave backs (unless you state that you are) are your friends that you have already had this debate with.

which is why in my 25odd years of surfing I am happy to call head , head'n'half, double head cos it works (unless you are talking to boogers but thats a whole nuther story)

Legion
Legion
WA
2222 posts
WA, 2222 posts
29 Nov 2011 1:33pm
doggie said...

So if its head high its three foot?

Yep.

Agent000 said...

I reckon the "measure from the back " theory will make sense when we start surfing the backs of waves. that quadruple head high beast Teahupoo is what 4ft?????

It's not "measure from the back", it's measure from the face and halve it. Just the way it is.

Agent000 said...

language is about comunicating ideas not sounding cool. The only people who know what you are talking about when you talk wave backs (unless you state that you are) are your friends that you have already had this debate with.

Agreed. Which is why around here, if you've been surfing for a while (except doggie ), you use the system I'm talking about. No confusion. Same system applies to most of Australia except maybe some parts of Queensland. Not just your friends who you've debated with, it's the Australia-wide standard that requires no discussion.
Agent000
Agent000
161 posts
161 posts
29 Nov 2011 1:55pm
legion I am not trying to make you give up your surfing traditions and lore but your statment that "its just the way it is" and "its an australian wide standard" (except parts of queensland) aint true, if only due to tourism and immigration, tell me honestly that you have never had someone give you that vaguely confused look after you state a wave size. besides that the surfing world is a lot bigger than just oz.
it may be the way it is for poeple like you and me that (sorry for the assumption about yourself) grew up with ASL telling us what was hot/not and that the north shore was mecca (ok I may live a little closer to your beach than the caymans). but for the wider comunity (surfing and not ) it makes no sense (unless explained, which I would rather avoid, which is my only point).
Woodo
Woodo
WA
792 posts
WA, 792 posts
29 Nov 2011 1:56pm
Legion said...

Agreed. Which is why around here, if you've been surfing for a while (except doggie ), you use the system I'm talking about. No confusion. Same system applies to most of Australia except maybe some parts of Queensland. Not just your friends who you've debated with, it's the Australia-wide standard that requires no discussion.


CORRECT!
doggie
doggie
WA
15849 posts
WA, 15849 posts
29 Nov 2011 2:01pm
Woodo said...

Legion said...

Agreed. Which is why around here, if you've been surfing for a while (except doggie ), you use the system I'm talking about. No confusion. Same system applies to most of Australia except maybe some parts of Queensland. Not just your friends who you've debated with, it's the Australia-wide standard that requires no discussion.


CORRECT!


BUT, if its head high, its................ head high.
IF, its double over head its 6ft..
GPA
GPA
WA
2529 posts
GPA GPA
WA, 2529 posts
29 Nov 2011 2:15pm
doggie said...

Woodo said...

Legion said...

Agreed. Which is why around here, if you've been surfing for a while (except doggie ), you use the system I'm talking about. No confusion. Same system applies to most of Australia except maybe some parts of Queensland. Not just your friends who you've debated with, it's the Australia-wide standard that requires no discussion.


CORRECT!


BUT, if its head high, its................ head high.
IF, its double over head its 6ft..


All I know is that Saturday looks particularly SMALL...
Please Register, or first...
Topics Subscribe Reply