How big makes you happy?

zenagain wrote:

Where overseas did you live Mr. Vic? I live in Japan and we call the surf in relation to the body. Hiza- knee high, Koshi- waist, Mune- chest, Kata- shoulder, Atama- head, Oba- overhead, Daberu- double overhead etc etc.

I like that way, takes a lot of ambiguity out of it.

Over in Europe and based my experience on a few long van trips meeting and surfing with lots of nationalities.
Actually I think when you say 6ft a lot of people over here see it in terms of the face of the wave(as opposed to the back of the wave we do in Aus)

It certainly easier, but as pointed out under you can be tricky as the Spaniards are definately a bit shorter than the Dutch/German surfers!

Still over here actually... with a bit of luck can open a B&B in Spain in Portugal in the not too distant future!

No one ive ever met in oz calls wave size from the back of the wave
Once in the Ments Thornton Fallendar said if youre 6ft tall and the face is twice your height then its a fucking solid 8ft wave and that's fucking it.

Haha Norton Flanders remember that ? !

Ive also never met anyone in Australia that measures wave size from the back, i just don't get it at all, doesn't wave shape and period also determine the size of a back of a wave?, and where the hell do you measure it from and how do you measure the back of a wave from the beach?

I don't even really look at the back of a wave if there is a set, I'm either taking it on the head, catching a wave, or just watching how the wave breaks, or looking out to sea at incoming waves, only time i really look towards the back of a wave is if a mate gets a good one and no other waves are coming or if I'm lining up a landmark on shore to get into position.

Mr. Vic, good luck with the B&B thing. I'm kinda going down that path myself.

I know a guy who opened a B&B in rural France (Normandy). Bought a 300 year old farm house about a 10 minute drive from a place called Falaise where the remains of William the Conquerors castle once stood and about an hour from Mont St. Michel on the coast. Damn hard work but he's making a real go of it.

Anyway, calling waves from the back? True Indo, I could never get that either.

Not sure where the measuring the back of the wave thing came from, maybe to try and explain it's half the open face (doesn't work at a lot of breaks, slabs an easy example).

Our forecasts use the commonly used half face measurements. Ie 3ft = headhigh, 6ft= 2x overhead, 8ft = 3x overhead etc

Craig wrote:

Not sure where the measuring the back of the wave thing came from, maybe to try and explain it's half the open face (doesn't work at a lot of breaks, slabs an easy example).

Our forecasts use the commonly used half face measurements. Ie 3ft = headhigh, 6ft= 2x overhead, 8ft = 3x overhead etc

Spent a bit of time in Hawaii in the 80's and 90's, from memory locals mostly referred to wave faces, made sense 3 board lengths from top to bottom "30ft faces".

Right or wrong i gauge the size of waves by the vertical part of the face (just before, or as it starts to pitch). ie: a 3ft wave might be 2x overhead if its fat. and 3ft wave could be shoulder height if its pitching top to bottom. if it aint breaking, it aint worth shit!

Craig wrote:

Not sure where the measuring the back of the wave thing came from, maybe to try and explain it's half the open face (doesn't work at a lot of breaks, slabs an easy example).

Our forecasts use the commonly used half face measurements. Ie 3ft = headhigh, 6ft= 2x overhead, 8ft = 3x overhead etc

100% agree and thats a good thing about Swellnet, if its forecasted at 3ft (head high) and i go down the beach it normally is 3ft while many other websites seem to use normal feet.

I agree with Craig, I started surfing in '75 and that's roughly how I was told to measure em and still do. Nowadays it's hard to tell if people mean the actual height or the old school rule.

Funny thing is that I find even for people who use the same scale don't measure wave heights the same. One surfer's 6ft face is another surfer's 8ft.

That's why Swellnet's Forecaster Notes always have a "Recap" up top: it provides an initialisation for the last few days including the day the forecast was prepared.

That way, even if you disagree with the way we measure wave heights, you know the most important thing about the forecast period - the trend. If I say today was 2ft on the Northern Beaches and tomorrow's expected to be 4ft, then you know we're looking at around double the surf size. 

indo-dreaming wrote:

Craig wrote:

Not sure where the measuring the back of the wave thing came from, maybe to try and explain it's half the open face (doesn't work at a lot of breaks, slabs an easy example).

Our forecasts use the commonly used half face measurements. Ie 3ft = headhigh, 6ft= 2x overhead, 8ft = 3x overhead etc

100% agree and thats a good thing about Swellnet, if its forecasted at 3ft (head high) and i go down the beach it normally is 3ft while many other websites seem to use normal feet.

Whats with the half face measurement? is that because on a standard wave only half the face stands up vertically? if not whats the half face measurement based on and where did it originate from? maybe craig can give us an explanation?
i agree this method dose work and swellnets reports are usually pretty good. but you must remember 1ft is 1ft or 30.5cm in the metric scale and its what part you are measuring that counts. Do you measure it when its a flop or on a chubby? dont forget if it dosent stand up its no good to any one!

With the half face measurement, it's just as simple as that.

No need to try and over analyse it, and put different scales to a fat sloping wave compared to a pitching hollow wave.

A waist-high wave is probably 1-2ft, shoulder-high 2ft, head-high 3ft, 1.5x overhead 5ft, 2x overhead 6ft etc..

Craig wrote:

With the half face measurement, it's just as simple as that.

No need to try and over analyse it, and put different scales to a fat sloping wave compared to a pitching hollow wave.

A waist-high wave is probably 1-2ft, shoulder-high 2ft, head-high 3ft, 1.5x overhead 5ft, 2x overhead 6ft etc..

over analyse it, yeah fair enough. but have a look at the of the content of this website, the majority of it is an over analysis. i just wanted to know why YOU use this formula and how it came about as it works well. Many people (surfers and non-surfers) ask this question but not many people have an answer. Maybe you could do some research and run an artical on it! you could have put your ego aside and answered "I don't know" if you could not answer my questions. cheers anyways. nothing personal, just curious that's all

Its because a surfing foot is not 1ft or 30.5cm its just one surfing foot id say roughly double a normal foot or a bit more, don't know why its just what i was taught by old guys as a grommet, maybe its huey's feet size.

IMHO roughy
Flat= no wave to not rideable
half a foot anything below knee high but still ridable if your desperate
1ft=knee high
2ft=waist high
3ft=shoulder to head high
4ft=overhead
5ft= way overhead
6ft=double overhead
Don't know why but there is no such thing as 7ft like there is often no 13th floor.
8ft is pretty much triple overhead
9ft= see 7ft
10ft= bloody huge like a two story house of water
11ft=see 7ft
12ft= really really big
13ft, 14ft= see 7ft
15 ft= like a three story house of water.
then there is no 16, 17, 18, 19 foot
Only 20ft, 25ft, 30ft, 35ft, 40 foot

And you can only say 1 to 2 foot, 3 to 4 foot, 4 to 6 foot, 5 to 6foot, 6 to 8foot, 8 to 10foot, 10 to 12foot, 15 foot, 20 foot etc.

Not having a go Blackdog, just saying it's the way it generally is. I think there's totally an article in it, as we'd get so many different variations and discussion like this, but yes, no idea where it's come from.

Indo's pretty much nailed it.

its all good Craig. cheers mate. An article would be good especially if it had the opinions and definitions from say a range of surfers, ie pros, big wave charges, longboarders and old boys and so on. and from different country's too. like for example, how the Hawaiian scale is different to other places around the world. Anyways keep up the good work mate and i look forward to your next forecast of pumping waves with off shore winds!
hey floyd maybe we should all take up esky lidding. Every wave over 1 foot (on the craig scale) will be overhead and there will be no bad vibes in the surf because every one will be in there 'happy place'.

Same ol shit move on.
Just like the religious thread........on here, well done.

From what I understand and I could be wrong but the surfers foot came from the traditional Hawaiian method of roughly measuring the back of the wave as an indication of the size of a wave and it just so happens that in many/most occasions the height of the back of a wave is roughly 1/2 the height of the face of a wave. Over time due to the fact that it is much easier to measure the face of a wave and measuring the face of a wave is an easier measurement to standardize most people began to measure the size of the face of the wave and would then halve it to get the measurement back to roughly what it would have been using the old system of measuring the height of the back of the wave. Then came the measurements of waist high, head high, overhead, head and a half, double over head etc etc

wellymon wrote:

Same ol shit move on.
Just like the religious thread........on here, well done.

Totally agree Welly, The standard, the right way? Fucken dickheads, I started surfing cause there was no right or wrong way and the rule book was thrown out the window and we pissed on it. Surfers have turned into sheep.

I surfed yesterday and it was 6 to 7ft, it was 6ft with a touch bigger waves coming through, but not 8ft. I imagine most of the frothers would call it 8ft though, cause we don't use 7ft cause we're surfers and we have set rules and if we can add another foot on to make it sound even more epic let's do it.

The Hawaiian method of measuring the back of the wave has become so misinterpreted over the years that it is now a joke.

Indo D pretty much hit the nail on the head for me.
Shaun you rebel you

shaun wrote:

wellymon wrote:

Same ol shit move on.
Just like the religious thread........on here, well done.

Totally agree Welly, The standard, the right way? Fucken dickheads, I started surfing cause there was no right or wrong way and the rule book was thrown out the window and we pissed on it. Surfers have turned into sheep.

I surfed yesterday and it was 6 to 7ft, it was 6ft with a touch bigger waves coming through, but not 8ft. I imagine most of the frothers would call it 8ft though, cause we don't use 7ft cause we're surfers and we have set rules and if we can add another foot on to make it sound even more epic let's do it.

The Hawaiian method of measuring the back of the wave has become so misinterpreted over the years that it is now a joke.

Although its basically true, my post was a little tongue in cheek, more an observation, would you really use 7 foot?

Im not sure why but I've never heard anyone ever use 7 foot, if it was bigger than 6 foot and not quite 8 foot, id say solid 6 foot, or 6 foot plus.

Joel Eugene Slater-Burrows wrote:

From what I understand and I could be wrong but the surfers foot came from the traditional Hawaiian method of roughly measuring the back of the wave as an indication of the size of a wave and it just so happens that in many/most occasions the height of the back of a wave is roughly 1/2 the height of the face of a wave. Over time due to the fact that it is much easier to measure the face of a wave and measuring the face of a wave is an easier measurement to standardize most people began to measure the size of the face of the wave and would then halve it to get the measurement back to roughly what it would have been using the old system of measuring the height of the back of the wave. Then came the measurements of waist high, head high, overhead, head and a half, double over head etc etc

That interesting maybe there is something in it.

I just thought it had been over exaggerated over time.

Like when you were a grommet and you would always call it smaller than what it is and laugh at you mates when they called it in true feet, a too cool for school kind of thing, always trying to imply nah it wasn't that big no big deal, when in truth you were freaking.

Hahaha, this ain't that big 0ft, but lets say its Hawaiian style eh...!

http://bnqt.com/2015/06/09/laird-hamilton-rips-a-river-on-a-jet-powered-...

Its also different at different breaks and cliques of surfers even in one town, like say alley (beachy in cronulla) 2ft is waist high, 2 ft to shark island surfers is actually pretty good size.

I think this started as i read Hawaiians would downgrade reports of size to lessen Honolulu surfers making the drive up north, also just to be tougher than the guy next to you it seems these days.
The reason alley was so different in size is many island surfers surf hawaiian waves a lot, alley booger spin to win kooks dont.

The firing Nth Point vid from a few days back, Jake Paterson called it 8-10 ft ,I didn't see any 10 footers in the vid - 6- solid 8 I thought.

shaun wrote:

I surfed yesterday and it was 6 to 7ft, it was 6ft with a touch bigger waves coming through, but not 8ft. I imagine most of the frothers would call it 8ft though, cause we don't use 7ft cause we're surfers and we have set rules and if we can add another foot on to make it sound even more epic let's do it.

So what you're saying Shaun is that it was 1.82m with the occasional 2.13m set but at no point was it 2.44m?

SI units people, it's not that hard.

wellymon wrote:

Hahaha, this ain't that big 0ft, but lets say its Hawaiian style eh...!

http://bnqt.com/2015/06/09/laird-hamilton-rips-a-river-on-a-jet-powered-...

The leaf blower of recreational pursuits, up there with dirt bikes and jet skis

braudulio wrote:

shaun wrote:

I surfed yesterday and it was 6 to 7ft, it was 6ft with a touch bigger waves coming through, but not 8ft. I imagine most of the frothers would call it 8ft though, cause we don't use 7ft cause we're surfers and we have set rules and if we can add another foot on to make it sound even more epic let's do it.

So what you're saying Shaun is that it was 1.82m with the occasional 2.13m set but at no point was it 2.44m?

SI units people, it's not that hard.

To be precise, yes.

Are you precisely certain... or almost precisely certain?

uplift wrote:

Are you precisely certain... or almost precisely certain?

Certainly precise, possibly?

Good enough! Well... almost!