First of all, thank you so much for your replies! I got the impression that this forum had a unique blend of knowledge and helpfulness, and you have just confirmed my suspicions.
Originally Posted by snala
How heavy is Dawgcatching i.e compared to you? His review I copied in above is based on both those lengths so....?
Here's how Dawgcatching describes himself in a recent review:
"About me: 5 foot 9, 155lbs, solid all-mountain skier, can ski most anything reasonably well, tend to like powerful frontside skis, and less powerful, more crud oriented big-mountain skis. Ski 30-50 days a year. Fairly athletic, technically oriented style."
He's about 20 lbs lighter, and sounds like he's both a more technically capable skier and more fit than me. I'm in decent shape, but i don't spend most of the green season competing in high level cycling races, unlike him :-)
Originally Posted by Bob Peters
Your weight puts you sort of smack-dab in the middle of the two lengths.
If you had said you were a strong, technically-capable, very aggressive skier, I'd probably recommend the 177. The fact that you describe yourself (modestly) as an intermediate-advanced skier leads me to suggest that the 170 is the better length. I think you'd find that the 177 would often be skiing YOU rather than vice-versa.
Personally, I don't believe that a skier who is still developing some of the main skills gets much real benefit out of ski that's longer than their ideal.
I'd say you should go with the 170.
I'm not particularly strong, and technique-wise I'm still ironing out basic kinks. I like speed, but that doesn't make me technically-capable, it makes me a menace. Interesting that you mention longer skis than would be optimal for a certain skill level, because I was actually thinking that I would "grow into them" even if they would be a bit challenging to begin with. I would probably have ordered 170 cm based on that advice, had I not the possibility to try them on:
So to the update: I just got back from Switzerland, where i got to try out the iSupershape Magnums @ 170 cm today. Those were the most similar skis I could find for rent, and they only had that size. But those skis are wonderful! The store rep told me I could try out other models as well (e.g. some Atomic GS skis), but there was no way I wanted to part with the Magnums. I've read somewhere on the forums that the Magnums ski quite similarly to the Titans, which I certainly hope. They come alive at higher speeds, grippy, turny and quite stable. At least as long as I avoided the back seat, something I noticed on the first couple of runs (first trip of the season, I blame it on a bit of piste-rust).
In two weeks I'm going back to Switzerland for another weekend, and have (hopefully) made arrangements for trying a new pair of Titans @ 177 cm. If I like them, I get to buy them. Which I hope i will, because I would love to have these with me for a one-week trip later in the winter. We'll see who skis who.. I can't wait :-)