This may or may not ignite some debate!
Clearly if you have the luxury of skiing thigh deep pow day in and day out a ski that is both wide and rockered will be sic.
However, unfortunately most of us mortals don't get that choice every time we ski. We get some blessed days of pow pow every now and again, but must spend the rest of our time finding left over stashes in the trees, dealing with tracked out gunk or railing groomers waiting for the next round of fresh...
So if we have a 1SQ, enjoy skiing groomers but live for the days of pow/trees side/back country. How do we compromise? With the new technology, so many skis are great in the all-mountain category.
I'm wondering what people think is more important or beneficial in seeking a "do-it-all" (within reason) ski. Extra width, or a little rocker?
For argument's sake. Personally, I consider stuff around the high 80's to about 100 waist as the best "all-mountain" category. I know that in itself will cause debate - but let's just think of that for now. So would someone who wants this blend of decent performance, non-chore hard snow cruising but float and fun off trail be better off going with something that is mid to high 90s waist with traditional camber, or can you get away with a little narrower waist (mid to high 80's) if you have a bit of rocker?
Do you think the float of a mid-80s rockered ski is as good as a mid 90's cambered ski?
Is the only TRUE blend to go with something in the "new era" design of mid-90s waist, tip/tail rocker and camber underfoot?
What's your take? Where do you invest - width or rocker?