I've done a lot or researching Mibs, but the problem is wave quality is such a subjective thing. Add to that the foggy view of nostalgia (everything was better back in the day!) and it makes comparisons a tricky venture.

Few things to note:

Despite the undisputed quality of the wave in recent years, the bank is profoundly different to what it was in the 70s, 80s, and 90s. Rather than following the headland, as it did then, it pushes out into the bay making for a faster wave with more shutdowns. Still plenty of barrels but.

The days of hitting up the public purse to 'Bring Back Kirra' are gone. Succesive govts have forked over millions of dollars to remedy the problem - removing the sand manually (really!), changing the outlet pumps, shortening the groyne - but nothing has worked. Instead the excess sand of 5 or so years ago is moving north in a process independent of any human intervention. Also, I've spoken to a few people in govt and the many 'Kirra Is Back' articles and videos haven't been missed by those who sign the cheques. Far as they're concerned their job is done.

A couple of years ago I spoke to a few locals, including Wayne Deane, about the Kirra situation. While recalling the history of the Superbank they spoke in reverent awe about the years 2001-2003: "barrels spitting for 200 metres", "three barrels on a wave" etc etc. The Superbank, while long and dependable, hasn't broken like that since - too much sand in the bay, nearshore bathymetry amiss. The thought hit me then, "Why aren't people vowing to bring back Snapper?" Could the sand be copied to replicate those years? Why wasn't anyone asking the question? The reason, I realised, is that Kirra is as much about past memories as it is about current quality. It's the 'concept' of Kirra and no matter what the sand pumping guys do it'll never match the idea we have in our heads.