or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Scott Punisher

post #1 of 10
Thread Starter 

Anyone with any thoughts/experience on this ski?  2012 or newer (I think that's when it changed and has remained the same). I'm thinking it could be a great ski for the Sierras. Thanks very much.



post #2 of 10

Its my all day every day (for the most part) daily driver. Its light and nimble yet still holds a great edge on most days. I'm on the 189 and at 110 under foot I find it can still turn and gives me a great edge to edge feel. It can handle the heavier snow very well and does not get beat around. Highly recommend the Punisher!    

post #3 of 10

I've skied a couple runs on a Punisher on piste, on soft snow, and thought it was a very well rounded ski, stable yet easy to turn. I also like Scott's Crusader and found it to be a bit heavier and not as easy to turn but a very good straight tracking ski.

post #4 of 10
Thread Starter 

Thanks for the responses.


SVMike, how tall are you and how much do you weigh? I'm debating between 189 and 183. I'm 6'1" 175lbs. Not really a charger, I like to turn :) so was leaning towards the 183 but if there isnt much sacrafice with its turniness I would like the extra help in chop/crud stability of the 189. thanks again

post #5 of 10

I'm 5' 11" 180lbs. Strong skier. Because of the slight rocker in the tip the 189 skis great. Enough on the hard pact getting to and from. But the lift on the soft and chop allow the ski to still be nimble and playful.  

post #6 of 10
agreen, what your looking for is a ski that has great torsional stiffness and not to soft in the tip. I'm a volkl guy, skis known for torsional stiffness.

My Shiro's will flex like a SL ski when a tap the tails on the ground, you can feel the ski quiver as the shock goes up the ski. They are als very hard to grab the tip and mid point forward of the binding and try to twist the ski.

If the Punisher has those charictoristic's you should be fine.

If the tips flex to much they will flex to much as they hit the piles of soft heavy snow and tend to fold up and you'll almmost feel like your going over the handle bars.

The tersional stiffness allows them to drive through the heavy snow and not get deflected, I found that a issue with the old Pocket Rocket and my Gun's. I'm 5'11" 195lbs. At my size IMO the skis were not torsionally stiff and were a little to soft on the flex.

My Gotama's and Shiro's will cut through anything without getting deflected. When my ski buddy finally got his Gotama's in the soft heavy snow, he said "wow, just like you said, these things just eat that crap up". He used to be K2 guy. He now has Mantra's and Gotama's.
post #7 of 10
Thread Starter 

Thanks for the info MC. I guess I am looking for a soft snow biased ski that is manageable in firmer conditions as well, softer bumps, and heavier snow like we get at Mammoth but still nimble enough to make some good turns that fits the hole in my quiver of my rockerless Fischer Watea 94 and my Fat-ypus I-Rock 126mm/good amount of tip and tail rocker. I don't typically charge "through"" crud but wouldn't mind trying. Something in between a hard charger and super playful forgiving ski in the 105-110 range. I would also bring this ski only (conditions depending) to destination trips when flying. I want some early rise in the tip but not a crazy amount and some/minimal in the tail with some camber. Here is my list so far:


Nordica Vagabond (debating 177 vs 185)

Scott Punisher (debating 183 vs 189)

Black Diamond Zealot (cant remember lengths 180 vs 188?)

SkiLogik Howitzer (ditto)


I've seen differing opinions on the Cham 107 for this purpose regarding tip deflection in heavier snow/chop so not sure. A little worried that the Goats may be too far on the charger spectrum for my taste?


Thanks again

post #8 of 10

Before I bought my Shiro's I googled them and read the reviews on line. The ski is exactly what I was looking for. Easy to ski at slow speeds, good edge hold on the firm early morning snow, fun in the soft. They are not my everyday ski but I have no doubt they'll be great when we get some deep snow.


I got a great deal on them, they are 2012 skis that I got new in the wrapper 2 months ago for like $250 shipped.


Look around the web.

post #9 of 10

Myself: 6'1" - 180 lbs. Just had two days on my new pair of 189 cm 2013/14 Punishers in Hitertux in Austria. The verdict: I absolutely love these skis, and would recommend them.


Earlier in the season I made a mistake of getting a pair of Line Sick Day 110s in 179 cm length (too short). While the SDs were great on groomers and is soft snow, they did not cope very well with crusty, choppy conditions, which could be attributed IMO to their relatively soft shovels. Compared to the Lines, the Punisher has more rocker, and is substantially stiffer in the tips, which makes it a better crud tool; at the same time it is at least as good in other departments, including much on pistes (Scott would not publish the effective edge length of their skis, my guesstimate is ~1500 mm, which should be more than sufficient for a soft snow-biased rockered ski).


The Punisher is also quite nimble for its size at 2200 g per ski. The Sick Day 110, which is marketed by Line as a "lightweight" design, is 100 g less, but I did not feel the difference at all.


Another interesting observation about the post-2012 Punisher is that you can hardly find a negative review of them on the web. It is surprising that Scott, originally a US label, is so much under-appreciated on Epicski.

post #10 of 10

^^^ couldn't agree more. Easily the most under appreciated ski in the market.  

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion