Gigs

Holy crap that girl is 17, is that a genuinly good skier from the souther hemisphere in the making? 
 
Also Brem is 5th. Please, please, please let this be the start of a return to her best. 

What even is a super-g

In the city events with only 16 skiers there have always been 2 runs in all stages of the event. It's only the events like in Alta Badia, Courchevel or St. Moritz where that wasn't the case (for god knows what reason)

Race is about to start and it isn't shortened

I agree, Hirscher overall is dominant but it always seems like he is on the absolute limit while Shiffrin usually looks completley at ease. Also, Hirscher has completely dominant races more rarely than Shiffrin and gets beaten quite a bit more often (I'm talking about Slalom here, things are different in gs) and at the same time if Hirscher gets beaten in the first run the 2nd is almost always a huge spectacle and you just gotta love that. Aside from Hirscher and Shiffrin the thing which to me is actually much more important is that currently the depth in men's slalom skiing is enormous. I mean, which female skiers can realistically win a medal? Shiffrin, Vlhova, Holdener, Hansdotter, Swenn Larsson, Liensberger, maybe Schild. It often feels like even if the skiers I didn't mention have a dream run, they are gonna get beaten anyway because the ones I listed are simply so much better skiers. On the men's side I don't have that feeling. The likelihood of a Croatian winning a medal isn't high but I wouldn't completely rule it out that one of them has a dream run and has his big breakthrough. It's just that this is the case for pretty much everyone in the top 30 who hasn't had his breakthrough already. Everyone is capable of beating everyone and that's really exciting. 

Well, this didn't age well

This gets even weirder when you click on the video and realize you've been in the hotel where the video was filmed 

Little (or actually not so little) rant about some developments in alpine skiing incoming:
I always really liked the alpine combined as I think it's dramatic in a very unique way. Like people always complained the combined isn't thrilling enough because in the slalom run there are lots of riders without a chance to win between the favorites but really in Slaloms or GS' there isn't a skier with a chance to win before the top 10 or even 5 of the first run start, yet I don't hear anyone wanting to cut the 2nd run to 10 skiers. Moreover it was absolutely unique that bib 1, bib 10 bib 20 and bib 30 of the slalom all could be among the favorites. A slalom doesn't have a 2nd run where the favorites are spread over the whole starting list, a combined usually does.
So in other words, I like this event and I don't want it to die, but if every combined is like todays I'd have a hard time arguing for its existance. I'd say a combined in Are will always favor slalom skiers as the downhill slope there will never generate huge time gaps as it's generally on the easier side, but with it being extremely shortened plus the slalom slope being in a pretty bad condition this race was a joke before it even started. Now unfortunately the success of the combined is always meassured on how good the race at the last world championship or olympics was and as we haven't had a combined at a major event without either a drastically shortened downhill or a slope in an appaling condition since 2014 every single of these combineds was more or less a joke. Now if we look at 2014 and the events prior to that you'll see that the big advantage for slalom specialists everyone talks about now was basically nonexistent. Sandro Viletta despite being a surprise champion surely wasn't a slalom specialist, Ligety in 2013 was a very good slalom skier but he was already 6th after the downhill, in 2011 and 2009 Svindal won, in 2010 Miller, who back then was basically a speed specialist and in 2007 the combined was won by Daniel Albrecht who was a true allrounder. Combineds don't favor the slalom guys by nature. In a different world this championship takes place on a slope where Schwarz, Pinturault and Hadalin lose 3 seconds to Paris instead of 1 and the slalom slope is in great condition and all of a sudden you would get a race dominated by downhillers. The problem is, that wouldn't really be any better. You probably had less complaining about the event if combineds wouldn't always favor the same guys but in a race where everyone is either a slalom specialist or a downhill specialist you are always gonna favor someone. What really made this event off balanced is the lack of allrounders who can beat anyone anyway. Sure there have been specialists being competitive in the combined in the past as well but I'm certain Svindal used to be a much better slalom skier than any downhiller from this year. (I'll never forget that he secured his first overall world cup win by getting 15th in the final slalom of the 2007 season, something that seems completely impossible now) But even when there weren't many allrounders there always were a few. A guy like Natko Zrnsic Dim who was neither a good downhiller nor a good slalom skier got 4 world cup podiums in combineds plus a world championship medal. You can be a true combined specialist, but problematically nobody aims for that if there are only one or two combineds per season. Why should someone like say, Christof Innerhofer add Slalom to his training program if that discipline is relevant for him twice in the whole year. It's just way smarter to concentrate on what you are already good at and that is what gets you Hirscher with 2 or 3 downhill training days a year as an alpine combined world and olympic champion.
Besides the fact that the lack of combineds makes the event less and less competitive I also think the combined should be crucial in the battle for overally world cups. And looking back it actually was. If Benjamin Raich's combined shape hadn't declined as much as it did after 2006 he probably would have won 3 or 4 overall world cups, instead he won one. Of course overall world cup battles were very different before the Hirscher era (it was seen as almost impossible to win the overall world cup with two disciplines only, nowadays there isn't even a single skier who is competitive in 3) but I think if anything this should have led to an increase in combineds not a decrease. Little cycling analogy, if a pure climber dominates the tour de frances despite time trials, the tour de france organizers won't say "okay  time trials are useless now, let's drop them altogether", they will increase time trial kilometers so the dominant climber gets beatable. Hirscher in the shape he has now probably would be unbeatable anyway but there will be an era after Hirscher. You could argue that Hirscher's dominance effectively made allrounders useless and you might be right, but what the fis is doing by killing the combined is making sure allrounders don't come back once Hirscher retires or declines. It's easy to forget a bit over 1000 points used to be enough to be in the battle for the overall world cup an in such a battle, let's say, 5 combineds can have a huge impact. 
I should probably stop writing now as this post is already so long that nobody will read it anyway (right?) but this is just driving me crazy. I really want a return of the times when there were proper allrounders winning overall world cups, downhillers won gs' (little side fact I just noticed, between 2003 and 2009 there were 4 gs world champions who all won at least 3 downhills and a combined number of 40 downhills) and technicans were competitive in super-g's. But to me it feels like the fis is constantly making the wrong responds to changes in the sport. 

Little (or actually not so little) rant about some developments in alpine skiing incoming:
I always really liked the alpine combined as I think it's dramatic in a very unique way. Like people always complained the combined isn't thrilling enough because in the slalom run there are lots of riders without a chance to win between the favorites but really in Slaloms or GS' there isn't a skier with a chance to win before the top 10 or even 5 of the first run start, yet I don't hear anyone wanting to cut the 2nd run to 10 skiers. Moreover it was absolutely unique that bib 1, bib 10 bib 20 and bib 30 of the slalom all could be among the favorites. A slalom doesn't have a 2nd run where the favorites are spread over the whole starting list, a combined usually does.
So in other words, I like this event and I don't want it to die, but if every combined is like todays I'd have a hard time arguing for its existance. I'd say a combined in Are will always favor slalom skiers as the downhill slope there will never generate huge time gaps as it's generally on the easier side, but with it being extremely shortened plus the slalom slope being in a pretty bad condition this race was a joke before it even started. Now unfortunately the success of the combined is always meassured on how good the race at the last world championship or olympics was and as we haven't had a combined at a major event without either a drastically shortened downhill or a slope in an appaling condition since 2014 every single of these combineds was more or less a joke. Now if we look at 2014 and the events prior to that you'll see that the big advantage for slalom specialists everyone talks about now was basically nonexistent. Sandro Viletta despite being a surprise champion surely wasn't a slalom specialist, Ligety in 2013 was a very good slalom skier but he was already 6th after the downhill, in 2011 and 2009 Svindal won, in 2010 Miller, who back then was basically a speed specialist and in 2007 the combined was won by Daniel Albrecht who was a true allrounder. Combineds don't favor the slalom guys by nature. In a different world this championship takes place on a slope where Schwarz, Pinturault and Hadalin lose 3 seconds to Paris instead of 1 and the slalom slope is in great condition and all of a sudden you would get a race dominated by downhillers. The problem is, that wouldn't really be any better. You probably had less complaining about the event if combineds wouldn't always favor the same guys but in a race where everyone is either a slalom specialist or a downhill specialist you are always gonna favor someone. What really made this event off balanced is the lack of allrounders who can beat anyone anyway. Sure there have been specialists being competitive in the combined in the past as well but I'm certain Svindal used to be a much better slalom skier than any downhiller from this year. (I'll never forget that he secured his first overall world cup win by getting 15th in the final slalom of the 2007 season, something that seems completely impossible now) But even when there weren't many allrounders there always were a few. A guy like Natko Zrnsic Dim who was neither a good downhiller nor a good slalom skier got 4 world cup podiums in combineds plus a world championship medal. You can be a true combined specialist, but problematically nobody aims for that if there are only one or two combineds per season. Why should someone like say, Christof Innerhofer add Slalom to his training program if that discipline is relevant for him twice in the whole year. It's just way smarter to concentrate on what you are already good at and that is what gets you Hirscher with 2 or 3 downhill training days a year as an alpine combined world and olympic champion.
Besides the fact that the lack of combineds makes the event less and less competitive I also think the combined should be crucial in the battle for overally world cups. And looking back it actually was. If Benjamin Raich's combined shape hadn't declined as much as it did after 2006 he probably would have won 3 or 4 overall world cups, instead he won one. Of course overall world cup battles were very different before the Hirscher era (it was seen as almost impossible to win the overall world cup with two disciplines only, nowadays there isn't even a single skier who is competitive in 3) but I think if anything this should have led to an increase in combineds not a decrease. Little cycling analogy, if a pure climber dominates the tour de frances despite time trials, the tour de france organizers won't say "okay  time trials are useless now, let's drop them altogether", they will increase time trial kilometers so the dominant climber gets beatable. Hirscher in the shape he has now probably would be unbeatable anyway but there will be an era after Hirscher. You could argue that Hirscher's dominance effectively made allrounders useless and you might be right, but what the fis is doing by killing the combined is making sure allrounders don't come back once Hirscher retires or declines. It's easy to forget a bit over 1000 points used to be enough to be in the battle for the overall world cup an in such a battle, let's say, 5 combineds can have a huge impact. 
I should probably stop writing now as this post is already so long that nobody will read it anyway (right?) but this is just driving me crazy. I really want a return of the times when there were proper allrounders winning overall world cups, downhillers won gs' (little side fact I just noticed, between 2003 and 2009 there were 4 gs world champions who all won at least 3 downhills and a combined number of 40 downhills) and technicans were competitive in super-g's. But to me it feels like the fis is constantly making the wrong responds to changes in the sport. 

Little (or actually not so little) rant about some developments in alpine skiing incoming:
I always really liked the alpine combined as I think it's dramatic in a very unique way. Like people always complained the combined isn't thrilling enough because in the slalom run there are lots of riders without a chance to win between the favorites but really in Slaloms or GS' there isn't a skier with a chance to win before the top 10 or even 5 of the first run start, yet I don't hear anyone wanting to cut the 2nd run to 10 skiers. Moreover it was absolutely unique that bib 1, bib 10 bib 20 and bib 30 of the slalom all could be among the favorites. A slalom doesn't have a 2nd run where the favorites are spread over the whole starting list, a combined usually does.
So in other words, I like this event and I don't want it to die, but if every combined is like todays I'd have a hard time arguing for its existance. I'd say a combined in Are will always favor slalom skiers as the downhill slope there will never generate huge time gaps as it's generally on the easier side, but with it being extremely shortened plus the slalom slope being in a pretty bad condition this race was a joke before it even started. Now unfortunately the success of the combined is always meassured on how good the race at the last world championship or olympics was and as we haven't had a combined at a major event without either a drastically shortened downhill or a slope in an appaling condition since 2014 every single of these combineds was more or less a joke. Now if we look at 2014 and the events prior to that you'll see that the big advantage for slalom specialists everyone talks about now was basically nonexistent. Sandro Viletta despite being a surprise champion surely wasn't a slalom specialist, Ligety in 2013 was a very good slalom skier but he was already 6th after the downhill, in 2011 and 2009 Svindal won, in 2010 Miller, who back then was basically a speed specialist and in 2007 the combined was won by Daniel Albrecht who was a true allrounder. Combineds don't favor the slalom guys by nature. In a different world this championship takes place on a slope where Schwarz, Pinturault and Hadalin lose 3 seconds to Paris instead of 1 and the slalom slope is in great condition and all of a sudden you would get a race dominated by downhillers. The problem is, that wouldn't really be any better. You probably had less complaining about the event if combineds wouldn't always favor the same guys but in a race where everyone is either a slalom specialist or a downhill specialist you are always gonna favor someone. What really made this event off balanced is the lack of allrounders who can beat anyone anyway. Sure there have been specialists being competitive in the combined in the past as well but I'm certain Svindal used to be a much better slalom skier than any downhiller from this year. (I'll never forget that he secured his first overall world cup win by getting 15th in the final slalom of the 2007 season, something that seems completely impossible now) But even when there weren't many allrounders there always were a few. A guy like Natko Zrnsic Dim who was neither a good downhiller nor a good slalom skier got 4 world cup podiums in combineds plus a world championship medal. You can be a true combined specialist, but problematically nobody aims for that if there are only one or two combineds per season. Why should someone like say, Christof Innerhofer add Slalom to his training program if that discipline is relevant for him twice in the whole year. It's just way smarter to concentrate on what you are already good at and that is what gets you Hirscher with 2 or 3 downhill training days a year as an alpine combined world and olympic champion.
Besides the fact that the lack of combineds makes the event less and less competitive I also think the combined should be crucial in the battle for overally world cups. And looking back it actually was. If Benjamin Raich's combined shape hadn't declined as much as it did after 2006 he probably would have won 3 or 4 overall world cups, instead he won one. Of course overall world cup battles were very different before the Hirscher era (it was seen as almost impossible to win the overall world cup with two disciplines only, nowadays there isn't even a single skier who is competitive in 3) but I think if anything this should have led to an increase in combineds not a decrease. Little cycling analogy, if a pure climber dominates the tour de frances despite time trials, the tour de france organizers won't say "okay  time trials are useless now, let's drop them altogether", they will increase time trial kilometers so the dominant climber gets beatable. Hirscher in the shape he has now probably would be unbeatable anyway but there will be an era after Hirscher. You could argue that Hirscher's dominance effectively made allrounders useless and you might be right, but what the fis is doing by killing the combined is making sure allrounders don't come back once Hirscher retires or declines. It's easy to forget a bit over 1000 points used to be enough to be in the battle for the overall world cup an in such a battle, let's say, 5 combineds can have a huge impact. 
I should probably stop writing now as this post is already so long that nobody will read it anyway (right?) but this is just driving me crazy. I really want a return of the times when there were proper allrounders winning overall world cups, downhillers won gs' (little side fact I just noticed, between 2003 and 2009 there were 4 gs world champions who all won at least 3 downhills and a combined number of 40 downhills) and technicans were competitive in super-g's. But to me it feels like the fis is constantly making the wrong responds to changes in the sport. 

I fear the time gaps are too small for the downhill specialists. It depends on whether they shorten the slalom or not but if they have a one minute slalom no way Paris' advantage on schwarz is anywhere near big enough

The combined only works well when there are allrounders who easily beat the specialists but right now there are very few of those (shiffrin and gisin come to mind on the women's side but both didn't participate today, while there isn't really anyone on the men's side). It's hard to say whether the combined is dying due to a lack of allrounders or if there are no allrounders because there are hardly any combineds nowadays and if there is one it's usually a castrated super-g combined where the slalom specialists are basically unbeatable. I really wish the fis would keep the combined alive just a little longer as it could be crucial in the overall world cup battle once Hirscher isn't around anymore and that could suddenly make the event much more attractive to the Pinturaults, kriechmayers and kildes of the world.

What? The most succesful slalom skier of all time wins gold in a super-g and you think that's the point to call the end of the allrounder? Also if anything a smaller talent pool will lead to more allrounders as the depth in the particular disciplines goes down. That said, I don't think freestyle skiing is that big of a problem for alpine skiing as the people doing freestyle skiing probably aren't that often the ones who would be succesful in alpine skiing. 
 
Now this is just nonsense. The time gaps were small but not because the slope was so easy but because coincidentally nobody put together a perfect run. I generally don't get the hate for the slopes in Are. They might not be very long but aside from that imo the speed slopes are pretty interesting. You have technical and gliding sections, lots of jumps and waves and it isn't just one long forest aisle where the whole slope is basically just right turn, followed by left turn, followed by right turn,... The downhills in Are actually follow the terrain unlike most modern downhills.
About the depth being down, you are probably partially right, as Gut and Weirather are out of shape, Veith is injured and Vonn...the less said about her currently the better. So yeah the competition right now isn't great but I think you are looking at the era of Maze through rose colored glasses. I mean the fact that the first skier who came to your mind has won a grand total of 1 world cup super-g in her whole career (tbf plus a WC gold medal in that discipline) tells you quite a lot. So in 2013 people could have complained that aside from Vonn who crashed Maze just had no competition at all as Riesch and Görgl were out of shape that year, and greats like Pärson and Götschl retired a few seasons ago. I bet Shiffrin would have been one of the best super-g skiers back then as well just like she would be in any modern skiing era. 

What? The most succesful slalom skier of all time wins gold in a super-g and you think that's the point to call the end of the allrounder? Also if anything a smaller talent pool will lead to more allrounders as the depth in the particular disciplines goes down. That said, I don't think freestyle skiing is that big of a problem for alpine skiing as the people doing freestyle skiing probably aren't that often the ones who would be succesful in alpine skiing. 
 
Now this is just nonsense. The time gaps were small but not because the slope was so easy but because coincidentally nobody put together a perfect run. I generally don't get the hate for the slopes in Are. They might not be very long but aside from that imo the speed slopes are pretty interesting. You have technical and gliding sections, lots of jumps and waves and it isn't just one long forest aisle where the whole slope is basically just right turn, followed by left turn, followed by right turn,... The downhills in Are actually follow the terrain unlike most modern downhills.
About the depth being down, you are probably partially right, as Gut and Weirather are out of shape, Veith is injured and Vonn...the less said about her currently the better. So yeah the competition right now isn't great but I think you are looking at the era of Maze through rose colored glasses. I mean the fact that the first skier who came to your mind has won a grand total of 1 world cup super-g in her whole career (tbf plus a WC gold medal in that discipline) tells you quite a lot. So in 2013 people could have complained that aside from Vonn who crashed Maze just had no competition at all as Riesch and Görgl were out of shape that year, and greats like Pärson and Götschl retired a few seasons ago. I bet Shiffrin would have been one of the best super-g skiers back then as well just like she would be in any modern skiing era. 

They will simply scratch the races from the calender and in the long term plan to replace it with parallel Events. 

This downhill without a training run must not be mistaken for a super-g

In other news, grass is green

And the award for the pun everyone kinda wanted to make but only one actually made goes to...

And the award for the pun everyone kinda wanted to make but only one actually made goes to...

Just wanted to let you know that I'm gonna vote 

Just wanted to let you know that I'm gonna vote 

Just wanted to let you know that I'm gonna vote 

Just wanted to let you know that I'm gonna vote 

Austria is in 

Austria is in