RealSurf Surfers' Forum

Nick,

Please, in your capacity as forum elder and Protector of Australian Surfing , will you deliver a definitive statement against the shaka. That Beavis and Butthead do it is regrettable, although unsurprising, but let's nip it in the bud before it gets out of hand.

Anyway, a question: Do you think your brother has read TC? Were you tempted to include some outrageous lies to test whether he did or not?

Well I would expect a British sometimes-surfer living in wales to try and get the Shaka banned by appealing to authority.

Sometime? SOMETIME? Cheeky cunt. I'll have you know I surfed three days in a row last week (with a bit of help from ibuprofen)

I would have given the heat to Michael. All the old timers were fun to watch though. Great role models like Ringy said.

godsavethequeen wrote:Nick,

Please, in your capacity as forum elder and Protector of Australian Surfing , will you deliver a definitive statement against the shaka. That Beavis and Butthead do it is regrettable, although unsurprising, but let's nip it in the bud before it gets out of hand.

Anyway, a question: Do you think your brother has read TC? Were you tempted to include some outrageous lies to test whether he did or not?

Well we have been through the origins of the shaka here before, but I do think it is telling that almost no Hawaiian surfers of my acquaintance use it in a non-ironic way.

I also think it is telling that some of the most feverish adoptees of the shaka have been the Brazilians of the 1980s. Now there's two terms ("Brazilian" and "1980s") I suggest should only be used together with great caution.

It has morphed from its humble origins into a tokenistic farce, a floppy simulacrum of cutesy Island Life, practised almost solely by people who do not live on an Island of any kind, let alone Hawaii. Shakas belong in the same purgatory of cheesiness as plastic supermarket hula dresses and kiddie muu muus. I would no more throw a shaka at someone like, say, Brian Keaulana, than I would gouge out my own eyes.

Oh and as far as Tom reading TC, honestly I think he may just have skimmed it. I spelled one of his daughters' names incorrectly in the final draft and it took her reading it to spot the error.

Nick Carroll wrote:

godsavethequeen wrote:Nick,

Please, in your capacity as forum elder and Protector of Australian Surfing , will you deliver a definitive statement against the shaka. That Beavis and Butthead do it is regrettable, although unsurprising, but let's nip it in the bud before it gets out of hand.

Anyway, a question: Do you think your brother has read TC? Were you tempted to include some outrageous lies to test whether he did or not?

Well we have been through the origins of the shaka here before, but I do think it is telling that almost no Hawaiian surfers of my acquaintance use it in a non-ironic way.

I also think it is telling that some of the most feverish adoptees of the shaka have been the Brazilians of the 1980s. Now there's two terms ("Brazilian" and "1980s") I suggest should only be used together with great caution.

It has morphed from its humble origins into a tokenistic farce, a floppy simulacrum of cutesy Island Life, practised almost solely by people who do not live on an Island of any kind, let alone Hawaii. Shakas belong in the same purgatory of cheesiness as plastic supermarket hula dresses and kiddie muu muus. I would no more throw a shaka at someone like, say, Brian Keaulana, than I would gouge out my own eyes.

Indo groms who live on islands love throwing the Shaka.
It's all they have and they love it and you and GTSQ want to take that away from them?

well you can both have fun in your expensive gated Telos lodge on your annual cash for comment board 'test'











cunts

Just on the board test theme. Nick do you think punters at least need to be an advanced surfer to write about, review or sell surfboards. I note a web site Compare Surfboards where the affable NB's ex pat American acknowledges his surfing level as average reviews and pretty much advertises boards, additionally I'm pretty sure it's a "cash for comment" for some brands ala Lost and CI. I guess it's buyer beware.

Well, ER, we could encourage its use in a post ironic manner, that is with full awareness of its original usage and the subsequent parody , with the intention of retrieving that original meaning but with full awarenes of its use as a parody.

(to er)
well as long as they live on islands it's OK.

Otherwise they are wretched perpetuators of a cross cultural mockery that makes white boy rock'n'roll look as original as hip-hop. isn't that right GSTQ.










GSTQ?

Davros wrote:Just on the board test theme. Nick do you think punters at least need to be an advanced surfer to write about, review or sell surfboards. I note a web site Compare Surfboards where the affable NB's ex pat American acknowledges his surfing level as average reviews and pretty much advertises boards, additionally I'm pretty sure it's a "cash for comment" for some brands ala Lost and CI. I guess it's buyer beware.

Look I don't know if you need to be an advanced surfer to test surfboards on behalf of a large number of readers etc, but I do think it helps.

In general I feel a really skilled and articulate surfer can tell you way more about a board after a short period of riding it than can someone whose skills are pretty average. This is kinda partly based on my own surfing experience; it's also based on what I sense here and among other surfers of my more direct personal acquaintance.

You've also gotta remember that when you're reviewing a board for an actual readership as opposed to just yourself, you're not just doing it on your own "affable average bloke" behalf. There's a lot of surfers and the skill and experience range is vast - broader now than it's ever been in fact. So if you are gonna command the attention of such a broad group, and actually advise them on a purchase, then you better be coming from a place a bit better than average. (That said, you've also got to understand that not everyone is going to want the same things from a board that you do.)

Nick Carroll wrote:(to er)
well as long as they live on islands it's OK.

Otherwise they are wretched perpetuators of a cross cultural mockery that makes white boy rock'n'roll look as original as hip-hop. isn't that right GSTQ.










GSTQ?

he's busy lying down resting after surfing THREE DAYS IN A ROW

Plus medication.

Nick, what are the advantages/disadvantages of a long, single, deep concave (3/4") in a short board

Nick, do you lead the life of Riley?

...

McCoy! CONCAVE! How very dare you!

Nah Legion, its the Wilkes, 6'6, 20.5, 16" tail, about 43l

But the question wasn't about a specific board but boards in general with a single deep concave. For instance, Wilkes reckon they track a bit, so recommends smaller fins, especially in the base

Ditto on the mediocre surfer.

Cranked wrote:Plus medication.

Nick, what are the advantages/disadvantages of a long, single, deep concave (3/4") in a short board

Well assuming everything else about the board is set right (good rocker, outline, fin positions etc)

Advantages: increased lift=less friction=speed; rail turns accentuated and their effectiveness increased; wider range of wave size can be coped with; possible wave-catching advantage for stronger paddlers

Disadvantages: board won't slide; bigger airs harder to cope with on landing; higher technical skill demands (greater lift/speed means accurate turn placement becomes more important)

I think also the assumption we started with here is likely not to hold too true for a lot of board makers, super concave is tricky, like channels, you don't have to be too far off the mark to make a dog.