Originally Posted by mudfoot
...but your (sic) recommended a 6'3" 210 lb guy on 165s. I'm sorry to disagree, but I've been there. I don't believe that you can put that much weight on a size 13 boot with a little bit of ski sticking out the front and back, stand in the middle of your ski in deep snow and rip comfortably. ...
Actually, what I said was:- 165 for tight trees,- 190 for wider places.
(with the assumption being that most skiing is done between these two limits, and the recommended length for someone buying a single pair would also be between these two limits).
I know that I certainly don't "rip" in trees, and I suspect that very few people go anywhere near as fast in tight trees as they do on a big open bowl. Hence, the increased maneuverability of the shorter ski is more important than stability.
With respect to sitting back, all I can say is that when I ski my 165 Explosivs in soft snow, I have to stay almost perfectly centered. If I try to ski them old-school by sitting back, I'll slow down, founder/stall, and then be on my keester in a blink of an eye. To me the temptation to ski from the back seat is actually higher with my 190s than my 165s because there is more room for fore-aft error on those skis. (It sounds like we both agree on this).
If you want to see a sample of short fat ski usage, go over to TGR and look at the "what skis are you on" (or similarly named) thread. There are lots of really good, average to heavy weight skiers starting to ski tight eastern trees on short fatties and having an utter blast.
On the other hand, in tens of thousands of postings on this forum, Powder, or TGR, I don't think I have ever seen anyone (besides yourself) make the claim that (a) you have to sit back more in short fat skis, or (b) modern powder sticks are too stiff to decamber.
Tom / PM
PS - In case I forgot to mention it, I am also 215 lbs.