or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Proof that Fat Skis are Unnecessary!!!!!!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Proof that Fat Skis are Unnecessary!!!!!! - Page 3

post #61 of 155

Skiing powder years ago on GS boards was no big deal because that is all we had to ski powder with.  So we adapted to the conditions.  And those with stronger legs adapted better and stayed out longer before they tired in the deep snow.  Today you can ski all day in powder because the skis are fat and less tiring.  Either way, it is still skiing.  Are fat skis necessary?  No. 

 

Is it worth buying fat skis?  A couple of seasons ago I'd say, Yes.  This season and last season, I'd say no.  I would have been better off renting a pair of fats for the few days I skied powder and skied the rest of the time on something else.

post #62 of 155

The bottom line is that "Fat Skis are Unnecessary" to enjoy powder/crud conditions. You do not have to succumb to marketing hype and buy really big skis just to get out there. More modest skis will do just fine. Yes, it's a different experience I suppose on the fatties, but not a better experience. Just different. So keep the money in your pocket.

 

As far as the fact the bigger skis "deskill" the skier ... so what? I for one am glad I didn't have to master the 7-foot Northlands and lace-up boots before I could think about getting on my modern shapes. 

 

On the other hand, I agree that the boards and wide skis do create a circular argument for their need. After they pass, for a while it's difficult for anyone without them to navigate the crud they leave behind.

post #63 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by asp125 View Post

Powder feels deeper on skinny skis?

 

Absolutely!  Recently I was lucky enough to have a Heli day at Whistler.  I rented a pair of fat powder skis upon the reccomendation of the guides.  The only dissapointment for the mostly incredible day was that in spite of there being at least a foot of fresh on top of several feet of snow, I did not experience even one face shot!  Those powder skis made it feel like I was skiing groomers and not fresh deep powder.  The skis kept me on top of the snow instead of that sinking in, bouncing out feeling that I remember from skiing powder on skinnier skis.

 

I sure do miss face shots!

 

Rick G

post #64 of 155

It's a fallacy that faceshots aren't possible on fat skis. 

 

And while it surely is subjective whether fat or skinny skis in deep powder are better-- take a poll of experienced skiers who have plenty of experience skiing both... and I'm willing to be it's 9/10 who say fat skis are better in powder. Yes, it's still subjective. And being that 10% isn't wrong. But it's also not just marketing hype. 

 

Same thing in reverse: Poll experienced skiers of both types of skis about which is more fun on hard-packed or icy groomers... and I'm willing to be it's 9/10 skinnier skis. Also still subjective about which are better. But it's not just marketing hype.

 

If anything is true it's that given the explosion in materials and shapes and flexes-- skinner skis are getting better at powder too, and fatter skis are getting better at groomers, and all mountain skis really can ski more of the mountain. Win. Win. Win. 

post #65 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickg View Post

 

Absolutely!  Recently I was lucky enough to have a Heli day at Whistler.  I rented a pair of fat powder skis upon the reccomendation of the guides.  The only dissapointment for the mostly incredible day was that in spite of there being at least a foot of fresh on top of several feet of snow, I did not experience even one face shot!  Those powder skis made it feel like I was skiing groomers and not fresh deep powder.  The skis kept me on top of the snow instead of that sinking in, bouncing out feeling that I remember from skiing powder on skinnier skis.

 

I sure do miss face shots!

 

Rick G

 

Isn't that the allure of powder? To get that floaty bouncy feeling and face shots? IMO some of the truly fat boards SURF OVER the pow and takes away from that original feeling of skiing THRU the snow. While today's skis reduce tip dive and blast through cut up pow and crud, they skim over the snow. YMMV of course, I'm 150# soaking wet and anything wider than 102mm I'm floating on top.

post #66 of 155

Most truly fat boards are specifically intended to stay higher and go faster in powder (think charging giant spines in the Chugach), so if you thought otherwise you were misled.  Don't be too embarrassed, though - many of us were blinded by the hype, myself included.  There is, however, a significant demographic that wants them exactly for this purpose, and I say more power to them. After all, that environment was pretty much untouchable on old-style, skinnier skis, so these boards have significantly expanded the skiing universe, which I think we would all agree is a good thing. 

 

A lot of us (older types?!?) prefer the deeper, slower, bouncier powder approach, in part because it's what we grew up with, but also because it's better suited to the geography we have access to. Speed does have its allure, but if you only get 2 turns in before you're struggling with the flat run-out to the loading station, you'll die of boredom and be resurrected as a park rat. I'm obviously exaggerating, as there certainly are big mountain resorts/BC ares that are easily accessible for us continental types, but the point is that the big, beefy boards are a specific tool that most of us probably can't truly appreciate.  Fortunately, that still leaves 95+% of the mountains still there for us to enjoy - we  just won't be seen in the latest scorching ski flick.  I can live with that.

post #67 of 155

I say "BRING BACK THE FACE SHOT!"

 

Give me a pair of all mountian skis in the 80-90 mm range, throw in a foot or more of fresh snow and give me some FACE SHOTS!

 

Of course YMMV...

 

Rick G

post #68 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Lutes View Post

Most truly fat boards are specifically intended to stay higher and go faster in powder (think charging giant spines in the Chugach), so if you thought otherwise you were misled.  Don't be too embarrassed, though - many of us were blinded by the hype, myself included.  There is, however, a significant demographic that wants them exactly for this purpose, and I say more power to them. After all, that environment was pretty much untouchable on old-style, skinnier skis, so these boards have significantly expanded the skiing universe, which I think we would all agree is a good thing. 

 

A lot of us (older types?!?) prefer the deeper, slower, bouncier powder approach, in part because it's what we grew up with, but also because it's better suited to the geography we have access to. Speed does have its allure, but if you only get 2 turns in before you're struggling with the flat run-out to the loading station, you'll die of boredom and be resurrected as a park rat. I'm obviously exaggerating, as there certainly are big mountain resorts/BC ares that are easily accessible for us continental types, but the point is that the big, beefy boards are a specific tool that most of us probably can't truly appreciate.  Fortunately, that still leaves 95+% of the mountains still there for us to enjoy - we  just won't be seen in the latest scorching ski flick.  I can live with that.

 

LOL! Truly a classic line.

You're right though, they're skiing big mountains in AK with 3 or 4 turns sometimes.  I think I should look closely at the park rats...

Well no one would ski big mountains now with 50 or more hop or pedal turns in a row. Like they often had to. And back then they couldn't do 50mph in steep powder.

If we're making chairs out of straight skis, what will we do with fat skis?

 

Trevor Petersen on skinnies:

 

http://youtu.be/ip_eNA0A8mg

post #69 of 155

I know this is not PC, but all this talk of face shots is really making me giggle right now. Once again there is a tool for all people on the hill. To say one is better that the other is just wrong. You don't know how, where and style I ski. Sure for a foot or less, 90 to 100 cm is just fine and make for a playfull and fun ski with amazing FACE SHOTS, On the other hand if I'm in the Sierras and it just dumped 10 feet in one storm with heavy wet snow. You bet I'm going to be on my fully rockered 130 under foot skis. It just makes it that much more fun. In the end that is what it is all about. Just having fun. We are all just sliding down a hill with sticks on our feet.  

post #70 of 155

FACE SHOTS!!!!    Okay I'm done. 

post #71 of 155

If you can't get faceshots, on a fat ski then maybe you're doing it wrong.

 

As far as the videos in the OP. I have absolutely no desire to emulate the skiing in those videos.

 

And I have no desire to ski the shitty old layer beneath the new one.
 

post #72 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog View Post

 

Well no one would ski big mountains now with 50 or more hop or pedal turns in a row. Like they often had to. And back then they couldn't do 50mph in steep powder.

 

http://youtu.be/ip_eNA0A8mg

http://www.planetmountain.com/english/news/shownews1.lasso?l=2&keyid=37454

the skiing starts at 2:35--leave the sound on to hear the skis on ice, than turn off when the music starts. Or not.

post #73 of 155

“Doug Coombs Interview” by Andrew Bigford, Ski Magazine  May 1st, 2001

 

AB: How big of a thing are those fat skis? Go back to when you first skied Python in 1990 when you were probably on a 63 mm wide ski. How much better can people expect to be and do you have equipment here for them? Do you have 80 and 90 mm waists here demo equipment? Most of our readers have never been on that equipment.


DC: Yeah, we have the full fleet of wide skis, but they're high performance wide skis here. And those wide skis are nice in torsional stiffness and they're a little soft flexing and they're real friendly in the tip so the turn initiation is real easy and it makes skiers having a little trouble into heroes. When people first get on them, they're just loving life. It takes one run to get used to them and suddenly you've just improved your ability level a whole notch. When I first came here I was on K2 TNCs, these GS, sidecut, old race kind of skis, really skinny and every run was a million turns. It was quite exhausting. And if you got any funny snow, any crust, windblown, suncrust, whatever, it was a lot of effort and strength, it was real tough. And now you can just cruise through that stuff. These new skis are like the snowbusters, like ghostbusters, they can bust down anything. Everything feels good, feels easy. If you want to go fast, they're like Cadillacs, if you want to go slow, they plow through anything -- like a Jeep four-wheel drive.

 

There it is, he acknowledged and embraced the change. But would anyone argue that all the time he put in on less enabling skis didn't contribute to making him who he was?


Edited by jc-ski - 3/21/13 at 1:24pm
post #74 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldgoat View Post

http://www.planetmountain.com/english/news/shownews1.lasso?l=2&keyid=37454

the skiing starts at 2:35--leave the sound on to hear the skis on ice, than turn off when the music starts. Or not.


Not quite a good example of NORMAL skiing

post #75 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecimmortal View Post


Not quite a good example of NORMAL skiing

of course not.  those guys are not normal in a whole lot of ways.  but the video is relevant to the idea that no one does pedal turns anymore--maybe not in AK, for the cameras, on hero snow.  But in a firm couloir in the alps it's a different story. 

post #76 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldgoat View Post

http://www.planetmountain.com/english/news/shownews1.lasso?l=2&keyid=37454

the skiing starts at 2:35--leave the sound on to hear the skis on ice, than turn off when the music starts. Or not.

 

Wow! Superb find! Thanks for the link.

Truly unreal descent. Was that the descent shown in Steep with Stefano DeBenedetti? According to this video, he was the last one to do it in 1980 until these guys, Francesco Civra Dano and Luca Rolli. Truly impressive. 50deg plus! slope on top and you've got to look down into the valley plus ski it with your gear in a pack.

 

I'd call that Ski Mountaineering. No one could do 50mph down that and live. The exposure is too great. (Watch, in another 10 years, someone will do it.)

Notice he's on relatively narrow skis for today- Mantras? roughly 96mm. It ain't powder, you want edge grip, and something relatively stiff for those gentle hop  turns!

It's worth posting again so people will look at it.

 

http://vimeo.com/12465276              http://www.planetmountain.com/english/news/shownews1.lasso?l=2&keyid=37454

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jc-ski View Post

“Doug Coombs Interview” by Andrew Bigford, Ski Magazine  May 1st, 2001

 

AB: How big of a thing are those fat skis? Go back to when you first skied Python in 1990 when you were probably on a 63 mm wide ski. How much better can people expect to be and do you have equipment here for them? Do you have 80 and 90 mm waists here demo equipment? Most of our readers have never been on that equipment.


DC: Yeah, we have the full fleet of wide skis, but they're high performance wide skis here. And those wide skis are nice in torsional stiffness and they're a little soft flexing and they're real friendly in the tip so the turn initiation is real easy and it makes skiers having a little trouble into heroes. When people first get on them, they're just loving life. It takes one run to get used to them and suddenly you've just improved your ability level a whole notch. When I first came here I was on K2 TNCs, these GS, sidecut, old race kind of skis, really skinny and every run was a million turns. It was quite exhausting. And if you got any funny snow, any crust, windblown, suncrust, whatever, it was a lot of effort and strength, it was real tough. And now you can just cruise through that stuff. These new skis are like the snowbusters, like ghostbusters, they can bust down anything. Everything feels good, feels easy. If you want to go fast, they're like Cadillacs, if you want to go slow, they plow through anything -- like a Jeep four-wheel drive.

 

There it is, he acknowledged and embraced the change. But would anyone argue that all the time he put in on less enabling skis didn't contribute to making him who he was?

Great interview.

 

edit: Yes, the "no one does hop turns anymore" line is obviously referring to big mountain heli skiing, not the Alps. They clearly aren't "normal", yet they spend years in that terrain and get used to it. It's just incredible, just watching it is scary. Read the description in Edge of Never of the descent in Chamonix and it made me sweat.

I've heard Dan Egan talk about how some people who ski in AK show up in Chamonix and never return cause they try to ski it like AK.


Edited by Tog - 3/21/13 at 2:18pm
post #77 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by asp125 View Post

 

Isn't that the allure of powder? To get that floaty bouncy feeling and face shots? IMO some of the truly fat boards SURF OVER the pow and takes away from that original feeling of skiing THRU the snow. While today's skis reduce tip dive and blast through cut up pow and crud, they skim over the snow. YMMV of course, I'm 150# soaking wet and anything wider than 102mm I'm floating on top.

 

I don't want to reduce the tip dive--I've had some really fun yard sales flinging to my face, losing my skis, and hunting for my equipment for the next half hour. ski.gif

post #78 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickg View Post

I say "BRING BACK THE FACE SHOT!"

 

Give me a pair of all mountian skis in the 80-90 mm range, throw in a foot or more of fresh snow and give me some FACE SHOTS!

 

Of course YMMV...

 

Rick G

 

I recall Kim Reichhelm saying in an interview that she had to ski a little differently for photo shoots and filming in order get the proper effect with wider skis.

post #79 of 155
I've just spend my first season shaped skis GS FIS and SL FIS. i love the fact that a high end race ski make feel and ski better than I ever did in my late teens. That said I'm glad I can ski skinny straight skis in anything. Skis have become specialized you now need a quiver of skis to play. Before I skied my 205 GS skis on everything and enjoyed it now i have to think as to what i need today to max out the funny.

Its nice to have money to burn on equipment but........
post #80 of 155

Now go buy some Rentals and tear it up.biggrin.gif

post #81 of 155
Pretty funny listening to folks who seem not to ski on fat skis tell those of us who ski both fat and skinny that the faceshots we experience on fats every week ... are imaginary.

Do you think we are all just making it up?

Also... most of the intense Alps lines are not skied today via a million jump turns.

There is a lot of "I've heard that..." going on in this thread.
post #82 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog View Post

 

Wow! Superb find! Thanks for the link.

Truly unreal descent. Was that the descent shown in Steep with Stefano DeBenedetti? According to this video, he was the last one to do it in 1980 until these guys, Francesco Civra Dano and Luca Rolli. Truly impressive. 50deg plus! slope on top and you've got to look down into the valley plus ski it with your gear in a pack.

 

I'd call that Ski Mountaineering. No one could do 50mph down that and live. The exposure is too great. (Watch, in another 10 years, someone will do it.)

Notice he's on relatively narrow skis for today- Mantras? roughly 96mm. It ain't powder, you want edge grip, and something relatively stiff for those gentle hop  turns!

It's worth posting again so people will look at it.

 

http://vimeo.com/12465276              http://www.planetmountain.com/english/news/shownews1.lasso?l=2&keyid=37454

 

I'm confused - why are they not linking turns until 4:43? They're coming to a dead stop between each turn, which is jarring and prevents any sense of flow... is it impossible to link hopturns on a pitch like this? are their backpacks full of gear messing up their centre of mass and affecting their skiing? (not criticism, I haven't seen terrain like this before in person)

post #83 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog View Post. And back then they couldn't do 50mph in steep powder.

 

 

And also back in the day, the whole world had no colour in it.  Everything was black and white, and different shades of grey.

What's that you say?  Things had colour?  No they didn't,  If you don't have colour video of it or film that hasn't had colour added to it, it didn't happen.

 

You don't need skinny skis to ski powder, but you don't need skill to ski powder on fat skis.

 

On a related note, do you think a sport bike should have a one-way slipper clutch and abs, or will that ruin the rider's skill set?

post #84 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by justruss View Post

Pretty funny listening to folks who seem not to ski on fat skis tell those of us who ski both fat and skinny that the faceshots we experience on fats every week ... are imaginary.
 

 

I laughed at this perception as well.  One could argue that a wider ski displaces more snow (especially when planing sideways) and therefore the face shots are larger.  I mean, there's a reason snowboards can throw huge waves of snow up with little effort in comparison.

post #85 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metaphor_ View Post

 

I'm confused - why are they not linking turns until 4:43? They're coming to a dead stop between each turn, which is jarring and prevents any sense of flow... is it impossible to link hopturns on a pitch like this? are their backpacks full of gear messing up their centre of mass and affecting their skiing? (not criticism, I haven't seen terrain like this before in person)

 

Probably several factors, including those  you mentioned, but I think the primary reason would be the snow conditions: ice some, breakable crust, etc.  Add those to the exposure and slope angle, and I would be more than amazed if anyone could link fluid hop turns under those conditions.  

post #86 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayT View Post

 

I laughed at this perception as well.  One could argue that a wider ski displaces more snow (especially when planing sideways) and therefore the face shots are larger.  I mean, there's a reason snowboards can throw huge waves of snow up with little effort in comparison.

 

 

But ..... throwing up huge clouds/waves/rooster tails to the side  or behind isn't quite the same as be pummeled in the chest and face.  Personally, I have a hard enough time seeing as it is, the last thing I need is being blinded by snow in my face so I don't really care about face shots (there are other benefits), but there is more of a "plowing" effect when deeper in the snow on skinnies. An often ignored element of the face-shot discussion is simply the lightness/water content of the snow: I venture that  there are more face shots or the fat ski equivalent with drier continental snow than maritime.  

post #87 of 155

"I'm confused - why are they not linking turns until 4:43? They're coming to a dead stop between each turn, which is jarring and prevents any sense of flow... is it impossible to link hopturns on a pitch like this? are their backpacks full of gear messing up their centre of mass and affecting their skiing? (not criticism, I haven't seen terrain like this before in person)"   - Metaphor

 

 

A couple of things. You're up in BC, correct? Imagine Spanky's at Blackcomb being very hard snow. Now add another 10 degrees to the slope angle. Now add another 1000' of vertical. And then put a cliff band in at the bottom of that. Now add a few thousand more vertical below that. Now we're truly into truly no fall skiing. Imagine one 'miss' costing you your life, and there you have the degree of difficulty and the answer to your question. You're not thinking 'flow' so much as ' if I screw up this turn even a little, I'm very dead.' 

 

Gear, packs... you get used to it. Without their gear, they can neither climb, nor descend the route. This is full on extreme ski mountaineering. While I've skied in no-fall stuff with big exposure (yes, it's scary and brings a whole 'nother level of mental focus to the game), I have no desire to ski anything like that particularly in those conditions that they experienced at the top. That was truly knarly knarly stuff in the vid...  Mountaineering like they're doing doesn't  film as well as AK blower so it's not in the skiing public's collective attention span, but it requires a full and amazing skill set that makes it an entirely different category of skiing.


Edited by markojp - 3/22/13 at 9:33am
post #88 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post

 

You don't need skinny skis to ski powder, but you don't need skill to ski powder on fat skis.

Like most of this thread, this is complete BS.  Wider skis don't take an intermediate, add soft snow, and instantly create an expert skier in real big mountain terrain.  You still have to be able to ski it.

 

Rather, modern ski technology is an amplifier.  Just like your beloved race carvers amplify the groomer/firm snow experience if you already know how to carve, wider modern skis (be it ~88s, ~98s, ~110+, chose your tool of choice), amplify the off piste, powder experience and enable most skiers (intermediate to pro) to ski more aggressive terrain, more aggressive lines at more aggressive speeds, if you already know how to ski big mountain terrain.  If that isn't for you, if you like doing hop turns down the mountain, or if you are as strong a skier as the Mahre brothers, nobody is forcing you to try it.  But in the real world, like today at Crystal in a foot+ of powder, if you want to start at the top of the Thrown and ski an aggressive, fast line top to bottom with style, you need both skills and fitness as an opener.  Fat skis make it possible for more of us (and I think that is a good thing - as I am getting old and somewhat fat myself), but there is still a baseline competency requirement for entry.  For certain terrain and certain conditions the baseline might be lower than 20 years ago thanks to modern equipment, but the top end potential is far higher for normal skiers as well. And what guys like Hoji do. . . that's unthinkable for most of us and even for the pros 25 years ago.

 

Here's the fallacy with the premise of the thread. . . what the Mahre brothers were doing in that clip, or what the guys in Blizzard of Ahhs were doing in the late 80s, that was awesome.  The skiing totally stands up today.  And that is why it is so cool and we are all so impressed, even now.  But I remember those days, I remember skiing on Atomic Arcs, KVCs and Rossi 4SKs and I am willing to bet that very few of the people posting on this board were skiing straight skinny skis through powder like that 30 years ago.  I certainly was not.  On this board, maybe just the OP who is a pro.  That's the point.  Those guys were superheros of their time.  But now, any number of us can shred powder like that, it is totally normal. . . thanks to modern equipment.  Someone could post a video of Stenmark racing and make exactly the same point about modern race carvers - and it would be equally off-base.

 

Think about Blizzard.  Basically that was all shot inbounds at places, on terrain, many of us ski today (i.e., Squaw, Telluride).  And those guys are shredding it in a way that looks really modern.  And that was epic back then.  But fast forward to 2013.  Aside from the huge airs and some of the super gnarly sequences in Cham, most of the terrain in that film could be skied by most of the better skiers posting here in a somewhat proximate style. . . and that is thanks to modern equipment - modern shapes and modern construction (which it seems like everyone buys into around here) and yes, modern widths.  And I don't know for sure, but I am willing to bet that when Mike Hattrup hits up the Alpental backcountry these days, he isn't riding a pair of KVC Comps, nor is he likely to be riding a pair of Amp Bolts.  He could, but why would he?

 

Maybe it is a geographical thing (I suppose that I might have a different perspective if I lived in CO where it doesn't snow anymore hopmad.gif, or if the height of my skiing experience was perfecting tip initiation on icy 400 vert hills ski.gif), but in general, I don't really understand the retro-grouch martyrdom that pops up around here on a semi-monthly basis - and it strains credibility when folks make unqualified assertions that wider skis "aren't necessary."  Of course, they aren't "necessary" . . . any more than a modern race carver is "necessary" when you have a pair of Red Sleds in your garage).  But it entirely misses the point to suggest that wider skis (and by the way - who decides where the excess width begins. . . is it above 70? 80?  90? 110?) are for the unskilled, the lazy, diminish the experience or the like.  Maybe that is true for some in their limited experience, but in general, that just doesn't comport with the actual experience of real skiers, in real powder conditions, at real mountains.  It is equally as ludicrous as when folks (more often in other online communities) suggest that you can "rail groomers" on a pair of Hellbents as well as you can on a pair of Head Titans.  That is BS as well.  I like to go by my real experience. . . I know that while I drop deeper into the snow, turn-over-turn, on my Bonafides @98 (like last Sunday in about a foot at Alpental), I certainly experience face shots on my Chetlers @123 underfoot on deep days.  I also know that I can ski my Chetlers perfectly well on groomers (and they are actually kind of fun in  soft bumps), but that my Bonafides are better on firm snow, very good in my opinion - but a pair of Nordica Fire Arrow ETDs, are better yet if it is firm.

 

Of course you don't need a wider ski to ski powder.  Any more than someone whose most narrow ski ski is ~98 needs a pair of GS race carvers to ski Sun Valley.  But it is generally true that for most skiers, certain equipment is more optimized for specific environments and makes those environments more fun.

 

Here's a reality check.  This notion of sticking to sub 80 carvers as all-mountain tools is a narrowly held, but loud minority perspective on this board, not widely shared by those at the top of the sport.  I had the opportunity to ski with Glen Plake a couple of years ago as part of his down home tour (a very cool experience - what a great guy).  6-8" of fresh, kicked around, somewhat heavy snow at Hyak.  Plake had a van full of Elans, and guess what, just like the rest of us, both he and his wife were skiing on modern skis, appropriate for the day, appropriate for the terrain (head height, about 100 underfoot - maybe a 999 or something like that).  Nothing out of the ordinary, nothing retro.  No 220 downhill boards.  And he still kills it - way better than anyone else out there. 

 

Modern equipment is an amplifier, not a crutch.

post #89 of 155

I don't think you disagreeing that much with many of the posts in this thread; the whole thing about face-shots is kind of a red herring.  I fully agree - the only reason the stars of yesteryear weren't on wider boards in all those powder/soft snow shots is simply because the skis weren't available; most, ifnot all, would have chosen to ski the better tool(s) now available, if they had that option then, but they didn't.   My favorite phrase in this whole never-ending bloviation is "he was/is so good he could ski like that on 2x4s, therefore you don't need all this fancy shmancy new fangled stuff

Um ... what??  Those star skiers obviously didn't choose the crappiest gear available at the time, they chose the best .  And they would chose the best right now, for whatever the primary objective and conditions called for,  if they were magically transported to our time. And you're absolutely correct in your observation that the pendulum for some individuals has gone too far: "railing" firm snow on wider skis only applies if  you're comparing them to similar width (or wider) skis - they're sorely lacking when compared to purpose-designed frontside carvers. 

post #90 of 155

In summary: just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Proof that Fat Skis are Unnecessary!!!!!!