LOGIN | REGISTER

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 42
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Wilmington, North Carolina, United States
    Posts
    662
    Quote Originally Posted by zach619 View Post
    OHHHH, you are talking surf... Got it. Sorry for the inappropriate comment then.... It's monday, what are you gonna do right?

    .
    haha lmo son...

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Wilmington, North Carolina, United States
    Posts
    662
    Southerners are the best at calling waves by how much "fun" they are. Can't beat that. 1-2ft and choppy would be called "kinda wonky" or some such, while 1-2ft with the slightest hint that the surf might be cleaning up would be called "kinda fun", and 1-2ft with fairly clean faces would be called "fun". Everyone in the parking lot suiting up knows what you're talking about and rarely are heights ever mentioned among my peeps. ha, we're such amazing and fun seeking kooks. partay!
    Last edited by babybabygrand; May 12, 2014 at 07:07 PM. Reason: size matters

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Singer Island
    Posts
    1,244
    Head high = 6 ft faces with maybe overhead peaks and a few sets, approximately. I am 5'9" and I don't call it head high until I see someone taller than me at the bottom of the wave, standing straight and tall, not crouched or at an angle, and the wave top is over their head. That way it is "head high" to most folks. Power is another story. Wave period, not size, has alot to do with it, along with bottom at a particular spot. So 4 ft swell at 9 seconds is much less powerful that 2.5 ft at 15 seconds. Maybe they both break at shoulder high, but the long period swell will be more powerful. And the reef at low tide will break more powerful than the sandbar at high tide on the same size swell. Duh!

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Ocean County NJ
    Posts
    1,024
    Images
    1
    3.14x5.462h/w+172.913-a€\%.458-[1+3=17]•b+w/.21<t-10%+fart dust\.635149k-.635149k+1=99.93%

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Atlantic City
    Posts
    1,683
    Quote Originally Posted by Doug View Post
    3.14x5.462h/w+172.913-a€\%.458-[1+3=17]•b+w/.21<t-10%+fart dust\.635149k-.635149k+1=99.93%
    oh - why didn't you say so?

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Hilton Head Island - OB, SD
    Posts
    4,022
    Images
    26
    Yeah, see the "POWER OF THE WAVE" to me should be left out of this.... If you guys want to get all technical about that, you need to take after a golf scoring system

    Every golf course has a "Course Distance" from each tee as well as a "Slope Rating".

    The Course Distance is equal to the "Actual Wave Face Height", which to me is the only thing that matters....

    The Slope Rating qould be equal to "Wave Density and Power", which is what all the guys in HI are always talking about....

    Wave heights should be wave heights, PERIOD.... To me, it shouldn't be how big it is inside the barrel, especially because most spots, on most days aren't hurling barrels to and fro.

    So for instance.... Hilton Head Island (regionally scored) out of a SLOPE RATING of 1-20, one being the weakest, 20 being the strongest, should have a slope rating, or lets say 3.

    So, Hilton Head Island would be 8 feet, with a slope rating of 3, meaning that it will take a lot of juice to open up a hollow barrel, as well as some long period ground action to get it going...

    Pipeline, if the wave was the same HEIGHT should still be 8 feet, with a slope rating of, lets say 14 out of 20... Meaning, that pipeline is not a 20, but a 14 out of 20 means that on most days, an 8 foot wave is going to provide about 50-60% more overall power and "hollowness" than a wave the same size in Hilton head....

    Now, a 20 out of 20 would be reserved for places like Teahupoo and Shipsterns and a few others.... Where the over all density and "hollowness" are even much more than that of the North Shore of Oahu....

    So, to me, a wave height needs to be a wave height, and every spot on the planet, should have its own "intensity/density" rating along with it, so the bigger it gets, the more the intensity levels will rise... But you can also guage the fact that even if Hilton Head were to see 13 foot waves, the density rating is one that would not lead to big hollow barrels... Due to the lack of intensity, it would probably max out at 8 feet and anything more than that, would mush up, close out and be disorganized....

    So a spot like Hilton Head would have ideal conditions, based on its SLOPE rating in the range of 5-8 foot faces... That is enough juice to keep it hollow and not too much than the place can handle....

    Where a place like pipeline has a HUGE window, based on its slope rating... So, Pipeline's ideal conditions are 3feet to 20 feet... Because the slope rating is higher, meaning better waves, quicker at a smaller size and a much larger window, creating heavier, but still manageable surf all the way up to around 20 feet....

    Its not a perfect science, but that is my vote... Wave heights can NOT be confused with wave intensity... Two different things.....

    10 foot in Ocean Beach SD is murderous, almost unridable chaos and 3 miles north, 10 foot Tourmo is completely clean, manageable and about the max. Its an easy paddle.... Those are two spots with completely different SLOPE ratings, so allthough the waves are the same size, and very close by, they are completely different things....

    That is why surf reporting is also so hard. We need a GOLF SYSTEM.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Atlantic City
    Posts
    1,683
    how bout a system where we don't feel sheepish telling our bros…i sniff surfings' dirty laundry here.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Monmouth Beach, NJ
    Posts
    2,444
    I usually use body height (waist, chest, shoulder, head...) until it gets well overhead, then I go to feet. I also try to make the distinction when calling the size by saying "head high... with some overhead peaks," or something like that, because I find that people who call the swell height by the peak size generally over call the size. Better to call it the size of the average breaking face or wall to give what I think is a more legit call. I've been accused of under calling the size, but to me it's really misleading to call it by the peak size. Same thing with the "occasional set" thing... better to say, "head high, with the occasional overhead set" than to just say, "it was overhead."... just too misleading to me.

  9. #29
    Possibly the pest thread ever here...

    Ankle Knee thigh waist stomach shoulder head over head after that it really doesn't matter. After its over head I start saying its big real big really big really really big and eventually too big I'm not surfing today. That usually happenes when I've paddled out and then realize I have to take one in and if that goes well then you just start pushing your luck.

    #ilovesurfing

  10. #30
    Real wave heights are made at sea and you can't judge it until you've gone over it. Next time a set rolls in paddle over ( sometimes you just need to feel it) turn around and see how big it is. That's how I judge because our breaks change what the face looks like with tides and wind. From behind is the only way to judge height.