For @sibhusky I am 35 years old. I've been skiing for somewhere in the range of 33 years, and was able to get on pretty much all inbounds terrain since before my memory was reliable- so it feels sometimes like I've always been able to ski. I skied straight skis into my early 20's and then had a pretty devastating knee injury (off skis) that left me thinking I'd never ski off the groom again.
I skied shaped skis primarily on groomers in the early 00's. My first pair of "fat" skis was a set of Atomic Sugar Daddies with a 99 waist and pretty much no sidecut. I purchased those in 2007.
I ski primarily Wolf Creek. I view groomers as a way to get to interesting terrain. Even at this early stage of the season, I have spent about 80% of my time on skis this year off groom (thank you Wolf).
I work to get about 50 days a year. As for skill, I think i fall into that range of being good enough to know how much further I have to go to actually be "good" at skiing.
My current quiver includes:
An old pair of 2001 vintage 185 cm Volant T3 Powers with a 74 waist. These are my rock ski and "everything is pretty much bulletproof and it is a groomer day with a few bump runs to keep me honest" ski. In a typical year, I'll be on these 2-5 days.
A 2009 vintage K2 Obsethed in 189. These have a 105 waist. These are my "powder rock ski" for soft days when coverage is thin and I can expect to tear up the bottoms. I tend to use these 1-2 days.
A 2013 vintage BlueHouse Maestro in 189. These have a 118 waist. This ski makes up about 80-90% of my ski days. It is really surprisingly versatile. On really firm snow, the width will make my feet and lower legs hurt from getting it up on edge, and it is usually that reason that leads me to choose a different ski. It is without irony that I note the tyranny graphic in the OP's post doesn't include skis as wide as my daily driver ski.
A 2015 vintage pair of Black Diamond Gigawatts in 195. These have a 135 waist, but what gets me is the absolutely huge 160mm shovel on these. I've likened these skis to battleships, which fits the OP's depiction of destroyers. Aside from one groomer lap in May, I haven't gotten these onto the snow, but I expect to use them about 5-8 days out of the year.
I find this entire conversation predictable, stupid, overdone, and just boring. Talking about fat skis as only having value on "bottomless" days is wrong. I wear fat skis on plenty of stale snow days because they ski whole universes better on mank, slop, slush, crud, and basically anything but polished hardpack and ice. Skiing a nice stable plank gives my confidence to hit terrain with less than pristine snow that I wouldn't touch on carvers- terrain where catching an edge on an unexpected lump of snow can create a tumble over stuff that I really, really don't want to tumble over.
Wearing my carvers is basically a personal admission that I'm not going to reach into much of anything off piste and that it is going to be a groomer and bump day- because if I even though I'd take two runs off piste, I'd almost certainly be on a different ski- and those two runs would probably define my day. Talking about what ski is best for terrain ignores that the terrain the ski might be best for doesn't match at all with the terrain an individual actually wants to ski. I'll happily wear "inappropriate" 118 waist skis for a day of mostly groomers if it lets me have a bit of fun and work on a really manky, sun affected, cut up and crusted over line of steeps for a couple of runs.