Originally Posted by alexzn
Chemist- I hope you get this the right way... This board has many different kinds of skiers, some are very technical experts, some are hotshots, some are average committed enthusiasts, some are just progressing, and some even have skied the terrain that will make average skiers puke with fear (search for videos from idris, fatkid, and a few others). But almost everyone on this board is a self-described gear freak who can debate ad-nauseum the differences between 2013 and 2014 Mantra or Bonafide . So, when you crawl from under a rock and give an unmistakably clear impression of having completely missed the last 10 years of the evolution of ski design, you will get a few agitated responses. Why are you so surprised about that? The conversation has moved from the questions of whether wide skis are useful for skiing powder long time ago. These days people talk about how much tail rocker you need on an everyday ski and whether a soft snow ski width should be around 110 or 120mm, and whether it should be flat camber or conventional cambered. If you think that some of us did not treat you well, try asking your questions on TGR... So, you are trying to make sweeping generalizations based skiing three pairs of skis, none of which could be considered a modern soft snow ski??? As a scientist you should know about the dangers about over-interpreting a limited data set (and I am not even going to comment about some of the stuff you wrote in paragraph 2).
I am going to suggest a few things: You have a pretty good start for a modern 3-ski quiver with the MX88 and your Laser (although MX88 is such a good hard snow ski that I doubt that someone who lives in LA would even need a dedicated carver). If the conditions are right, try demoing a few of the modern shape skis (this board will have plenty of suggestions and size recommendations- modern skis have different sizing from what you are used to). Demo a few, spend some time on them, let them run, look at how good skiers around you work them, and make your own conclusions, then come back and let's have a serious discussion. If you are a good skier you will appreciate what modern ski shapes and technology can deliver.
Alexzn: I didn’t reply to this post directly, which I’ve decided was a mistake on my part, and which I’ll now correct. Sorry I couldn’t get to this earlier, but real life intervened.
Essentially, you correctly realized that I was not happy about the replies I received from you and a few others, and tried to explain that they were a reasonable reaction to my original post. I don’t believe they were, and since I hope to continue to spend time on these forums in the future, I think it’s important to make clear why:
1) You’ve been very quick with the insults. This is the very first line of your first post on this thread: “Chemist, you may have all the brainy science degrees, but I doubt you understand very well how skis work.” That’s no different than if I started a first post on your MA thread with: “Alexzn, you may be good at other sports, but I doubt you understand very well how to use a ski.” Doesn’t feel very good, does it? Well of course not – both are nothing more than broad, gratuitous put-downs — not, in my view, acceptable ways to start a conversation. Plus your supposition about my understanding of skis is simply untrue.
And then there’s this silly, combative statement, also in your first post: “By your twisted logic the best ski for tree skiing is a snow blade.” That’s no different than if someone said, in response to your suggestion for wider boards, “By your twisted logic the best ski for powder would be a pair of snowboards.” What adjective would you use to describe the kind of person that made such a statement?
Look, I understand that if someone takes a swing at you in a bar because he doesn’t like the shirt you’re wearing, it’s understandable to swing back. What’s not reasonable is to be the guy that’s swinging in the first place, which is what you’ve done above. As I believe in the value of civil discourse, I’d prefer it if “swinging first” were frowned upon here - and that those who do, get called on it. By contrast, here’s how I’ve handled instances when I wanted to offer a critique (http://epicski.onthesnow.com/t/119888/technical-free-skiing-videos/480#post_1625541), or correct an inaccuracy (http://epicski.onthesnow.com/t/119530/kneebinding-off-topic-from-im-the-person-with-the-first-acl-tear-on-a-knee-binding/240#post_1571923). Compare these with your first post – the differences are night-and-day: there’s no combativeness in these, and certainly no insults; there's only an attempt to be useful.
2) You roundly criticized me for the exact opposite of what I said (yeah, welcome to the internet…). I wrote the following about my demoing experience last year: “I've repeatedly emphasized I'm aware that it's very limited: after all, I've only got four data points …This is hardly definitive …merely suggestive…” I don’t see how I can be any clearer that I’m NOT making general conclusions. In reply, you completely inverted what I said, then took it upon yourself to explain what I should understand as a scientist (!): “So, you are trying to make sweeping generalizations based skiing three pairs of skis, none of which could be considered a modern soft snow ski??? As a scientist you should know about the dangers about over-interpreting a limited data set.” So I take pains to say “NOT-X.” You then accuse me of instead saying “X,” and lecture me that the correct view is “NOT-X.” Sigh.
More broadly, in my original post, I asked a fully “2013” question: I like terrain like that in video no. 3 – what should I demo to replace my slaloms? It should be clear to anyone that this is not equivalent to wanting to revisit the argument about old tech vs new. [Battle scars from the 2007 online “rocker wars” may have facilitated that misinterpretation – the mere mention that I’ve enjoyed SLs off-piste was probably enough to trigger a few bouts of PTSD.] I.e., I was simply trying to ask what would be the best tool to replace my slaloms. However, some here wanted to turn this into an argument about why my slaloms couldn’t have been a good tool at all. Thus ironically, it’s those who complained most about this being a '2007 argument' that were most trying to make it into one.
That became an unfortunate distraction from my purpose here of getting targeted demo suggestions for this season. If it helps, I’ll try rephrasing my original question one more time: If you enjoy skiing terrain like that in video no. 3, and you’ve been on a few of the current boards there, can you please tell me what’s worked well for you and what hasn’t?Edited by chemist - 10/24/13 at 3:14pm