Ski length question - frontside carving ski.

Hi, I am thinking of buying a Rossignol Avenger 82 Ti and am stuck between 2 ski lengths, 170 and 177.

I am in my mid 40's and weigh 185-190lb and am 6 foot 1.5 inches tall. I can ski as fast or slow as I like and can ski anywhere on the hill.  The Rossi size guide puts me right bang in the middle of the range for a 177 so it should be a no brainer really. One shop here has recommended me another ski and also said that 177 is too long for a carver ski at my weight and height and I would be happier on a 170. That got me thinking, "could that be right?"

I am more a GS style skier I have been told, than someone that likes many many short turns on our small hills here in Australia. I have a really energetic 165 fisher slalom ski for when I want to do that type of skiing. I ski bumps when I have to but do not seek them out all day every day. I mainly cruise around all day with my wife and we will cover the whole mountain quite often. I will drop off her off at a hill she likes to practice on while I may go over a few runs to something to steep or icy for her to work on a few things on my own.

I have spent the past few seasons on a few skis but mainly on my K2 recons at 174 length. They seemed like a jack of all trades ski for me and I ski in what would be eastern conditions in the US I guess. I might pick up a set of K2 Rictors at some point in the future as well if I see a bargain.

One of my old favourites and still fondly remembered was the Atomic SX11. I used to ski them in a 170 but always felt a bit more length would have been nice in big high force turns. They finally fell apart on me and got tossed out.

Seems to be a lot of information and misinformation about ski lengths for carving skis out there. Plenty of these skis seem to be modified GS skis and I would not want to ski a GS ski too short. I am of 2 thoughts over this:

1. Maybe some shops are just confused over sizing as I am fairly sure Rossi know their own product.
2. In real world usage it doesn't do any harm to go down a size and may make the ski more enjoyable to use.

This will be the widest ski I have ever owned if I buy them and I would value some opinions on whether 170 or 177 would be good.

http://www.rossignol.com/US/US/avenger-82-ti-tpx_RA1EF01_product_ski-men-skis-all-mountain-frontside.html

http://www.rossignol.com/tzr/scripts/downloader2.php?filename=LABELS/PICTO/f5/30/US.4jwtr9igynv9&mime=application/pdf&originalname=Ski_sizer_NORAM.pdf

Thanks for the quick replies. 177 was my choice also but it doesn't take much to raise a small niggle in your mind when someone else is so certain of something does it.

I sound conceited but I have strong legs from cycling and hiking out when I sail and figured I can use a ski that can take a bit of a load when laid right over.

I am always wary when someone in a shop is so sure of their opinions.