RealSurf Surfers' Forum

I miss the ole' time kilojoule days

Trev wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 22, 2024 3:56 pm

Can't help myself.

Calling any object which is double overhead, 4-6ft is just fucking ludicrous.
Regardless of how many people and "authorities" do it.

Trev, you aren’t allowed to have a different opinion or point out the absurdity of commonly held systems of measurement.
Steve has gone off on one of his goalpost shifting straw man rants again where apparently we all have to agree with him that this scale is used and not talk about it.

offshore1 wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 22, 2024 4:00 pm

I miss the ole' time kilojoule days

It does sidestep the focus on wave height though, and addresses the non-linear power of waves

I’m pro kilojoules myself.

steve shearer wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 22, 2024 3:45 pm

So if Surfline itself ... uses the commonly used method, can we at least accept it"s the commonly used method?

They don't (by your definition). If you click on foamy's link he was (surprisingly) right.

Trev wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 22, 2024 3:56 pm

Can't help myself.

Calling any object which is double overhead, 4-6ft is just fucking ludicrous.
Regardless of how many people and "authorities" do it.

One of the previous times we’ve had this discussion, I posted up a long boarder on a shitty little wave that both you and beanpole agreed was two feet. When measured, the actual face height was four feet.

PeepeelaPew wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 22, 2024 5:18 pm

steve shearer wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 22, 2024 3:45 pm

So if Surfline itself ... uses the commonly used method, can we at least accept it"s the commonly used method?

They don't (by your definition). If you click on foamy's link he was (surprisingly) right.

Foamy posted up a link on the Surfline website.

Today, Surfline called the surf at Sunset Beach with 10-12ft faces (or bigger) 4-6ft, now updated to 4-5ft.

Trev wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 22, 2024 3:56 pm

Can't help myself.

Calling any object which is double overhead, 4-6ft is just fucking ludicrous.
Regardless of how many people and "authorities" do it.

At least you are consistent Trev, which is to be respected.

OK, can we agree with this proposition.

The two largest surf forecasting websites on the planet are using "surfer" feet as their metric for calling surf?

Foamy?

steve shearer wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 22, 2024 5:50 pm

Trev wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 22, 2024 3:56 pm

Can't help myself.

Calling any object which is double overhead, 4-6ft is just fucking ludicrous.
Regardless of how many people and "authorities" do it.

At least you are consistent Trev, which is to be respected.

Yeah, except he isn’t

godsavetheking wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 22, 2024 5:34 pm

Trev wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 22, 2024 3:56 pm

Can't help myself.

Calling any object which is double overhead, 4-6ft is just fucking ludicrous.
Regardless of how many people and "authorities" do it.

One of the previous times we’ve had this discussion, I posted up a long boarder on a shitty little wave that both you and beanpole agreed was two feet. When measured, the actual face height was four feet.

Can’t help it if you consistently over call wave sizes GST.
Understandable given you are in Wales

Sorry beany, I think you’re getting a bit confused again. You (and Trev) are the ones who make a big show of shaking your heads at the idiocy of ‘surfer feet’, but then repeatedly out yourselves as users of ‘surfer feet’. It’s a bit like when you thought you were a covid ultra when you were going out on the piss every night and not bothering to isolate even when your missus had covid

Outed yourself as a chronic overcaller GST. Not to mention creator of the Covid Ultra tag that Steve flogged to death.

What on Earth are you talking about?

I’m going to try to speak really slowly and clearly here ok? You say that you use actual feet, so for a wave that measured four actual feet (48 inches) you claim that you would call it four feet. In the previous example that I posted, the wave was four actual feet. I, and pretty much the rest of the surfing world, would call it 2 ft at most. Being true to your absolutist stance, you (and Trev) should have been saying it was 4 ft. However, you (and Trev) also agreed that it was a ‘2ft’ wave. Does that clear things up?

I will speak even slower. You like having arguments.
Please post the photo again. No idea what you are referring to.
“Absolutist”….fcuk you’re funny.

Yeah I do quite like having arguments. But you’re not arguing, you’re just doing your usual thing of saying something totally unconnected when your nonsense is exposed rather than admit you’re wrong.

Where’s the shot, bro?
Wrong about what?
The best you can come up with is potentially inconsistent.
That’s not wrong, you goose.