What's the Deal with Fatties - All the Time? - Page 5

Cause they want their money back if their trails aren't groomed.

Spindrift;

with all due respect, I commented that I had the chance to try a friends gotamas yesterday for 1 run on the groomed. I said I didn't care for the ski on the groomed and it was awkward to get on edge and ski dynamic carved turns on it! I also soid it was probably a good powder ski but i would avoid the groomed on it!

This started WW III. Suddenly, I was a gaper, can't carve can't ski, the ski area I ski at sucks, I'm an Ahole.

What I also said was I like ski to all conditions and terrain and like to have the best tool for the job. the best all around choice for me for me thus far is a Monster 88. it gives up very little on both ends of the spectrum, in other words not much compromise in either direction.

So who got huffy and threatened. I think you got it backwards!

When there is no new fresh (Like the 2 week period we had here in February), Guess what? i had a blast skiing groomers. (And not on a fat cantekerous joke of a groomer ski)

And when we had dump after dump of the lightest snow ever to fall in the Great Pacific Northwest in January, I hiked and skied and was like a pig in **** out in the POW on my wider boards I guess if I can enjoy a ski day, be it groomed or steep and deep that makes me an Ahole, Gaper then I am guilty as charged.

I didn't respond by calling people names and making belittling comments. (Although I could care less) Just background noise since none of them have skied with me nor seen me ski.

Why so huffy and threatened? :

I give this thread

It is very entertaining:

For the record, I, personally, never said the ski area you ski at sucks. I just don't agree that anything that is patrolled, controlled, and lift accessed counts as backcountry.

Let's get past that part of the dance. I've skied with a whole bunch of people from this board over the past 4-5 years. Dozens. Probably lots of dozens. Just take my word that by house standards Dug & PhilT are very solid skiers...

BWA! Welcome to the Internet!!!!! It could be worse!

Although I think if you reviewed the record you'd find you gave about as good as you got

FWIW - I never hit you with any of those things. I just happen to disagree with you about ski width in general and Gotamas in particular.... And your evaluation of Stevens - which I would not plug quite so hard if there were any chance of any more invading forces arriving.

But once again - ignoring the various amusing personality things, I'd love it if the Captain (or you if you'd like) would address the questions I asked above. Is there any real justification for the laser focus on fat skis and backpacks?

That wasn't me on the laser on backpacks or fat skis (for their intended purpose) No I didn't say you said any of those things. I didn't start the personal attacks only responded to them.

I was just saying that mucho huff came from the fat side!

So we will agree to disagree about ski width and Stevens Pass. But at least I am talking from 1st hand knowledge since I have skied the gotama and have skied at Stevens iterally hundreds of times since about 1967.

Who cares what you ski on, the point is to have fun. What works for some people, doesn't work for others. What you like to do is no better or worse than the next guy. I don't understand how this is a such a hard concept to grasp.

You are entitled to your opinion, but until you have skied there........ Have you?

I understand Crystal is somewhat of an anomaly in the way the area operates.

Whoa... Rockers... I'll gladly suffer through groomers to rip those babies!: I know what I'm going to be dreaming about tonight...

I'm going to weigh in on this important thread.

This morning, I was skiing the annual "employees' day" here at Jackson Hole. We had about three inches of new snow over a few inches each of the last few days. From the top of the mountain to the bottom, we had a mix of outstanding groomed snow, moderate powder, old frozen ruts, and damp new snow at the bottom. In other words... just about every condition you could name.

I had chosen to take my Head SuperShape Magnums because that's my favorite ski for varied conditions when there's not a ton of new snow. I skied a few runs on the groomers and off-piste and then had to come to bottom to go to my office. I skied one of our Lower Faces on the way down and felt that the Magnums were the perfect choice for the varied conditions.

I got to the base and happened to run into my business partner and a couple of other instructors who were on their way up the mountain. He was carrying his (2006/7 model) Volkl Mantras. He is a former World Cup downhiller and was the on-mountain Volkl rep before switching over to Blizzard this winter. I told him I was done for the day. He immediately asked if he could take my - NARROW - skis instead of his moderately fat skis.

When I talked to him later, he was glad to have skied the carver-type skis rather than the wider skis, given the variety of conditions on the mountain today.

I just truly believe that people who have learned HOW to ski on narrower skis; A) appreciate how much more responsive they are on smoother and harder snow, and B) are probably perfectly capable of skiing a narrow ski in deepish snow.

I don't much care if a lot of you feel that your wide skis work great on groomers. I just can't understand why you're so convinced that somebody on a narrower ski can't hang with you in the powder. I have a feeling I'd be pretty entertained watching any of these fat-ski enthusiasts try to keep my partner in sight while skiing 18 inches of powder/crud with him on sub-70mm skis.

I don't argue that fat skis make it easier in deeper snow. What I *would* argue is that narrow skis don't make it impossible, which many on here seem to believe.

This thread was not started by fat ski enthusiasts convinced that skinny skis can't hang in powder. Rather it was about how/why fat skis can't hang on hardpack. The fat ski enthusiasts could just as well ask why the skinny ski enthusiasts are so convinced that somebody on a fat ski can't hang with them on hardpack.

And I could also be pretty entertained watching many of the skinny ski enthusiasts try to keep some skiers I know in sight while skiing groomed hardpack with them on fat skis. What does that prove?

Heh, you or your partner could put toothpicks on your feet & I'd be watching dots on the horizon regardless of what I had on mine

I don't think anyone here has said skinny skis make it impossible. I sure have not. Although there are days out here where that might *almost* be true... My take is that fatter skis make life easier for most of us in powder & variable conditions in general. And that they are very reasonable on groomers most of the time.

lol there is 18year old race girl there who kills it, the irony that freeskiing she is allways on 179cm bros...she is one of the'fatty all the time types"

FYI bob peters made me look silly at J-hole in windcrust on his toothpicks.

I would love to see a "racer" try to hang with a ski bum that lives in a shack on the mountain that he built himself.

Skiing does not equal gate-bashing.

Bob go read the review on my rockers i put up in the review section. I acknowledge that (spindrift cover your ears) they are TOO fat for true powder. And having skied in jackson on a powder day I totally understand where you are coming from. My quiver at the time consisted of squads, which i felt lacked in powder prowess, and xxls for pow. At the time I was on my rossis but considering the 2+ feet on the ground I wasn't going to switch skis, however when I dropped in, I quickly realized the difference between coastal snow and intermountain snow, It wouldn't have mattered if I was on my squads, xxls, im88s or even a pair of xrc's; your skis were going to be feet below the surface and it didn't matter because the snow was so cold and dry. Out here we get powder like that 3 times a year while much more frequently we get snow that falls wet and heavy where it is advantageous to keep your skis higher in the snowpack.

As for your friend. I'd take that challenge and even put money on it if he came out here and tried to follow me down some of the southern facing backcountry faces. He would spend so much time on his heels and unweighting his skis for each turn that there is no way he could hang, if his tips went down his speed would go to zero in about .1 second.

Edit: I realize this is one of the least punctuated, most convoluted bushwakeresque posts i've made. Sorry i'm tired

Hah, I know better than to argue with people that knock baker for having a lack of "clearly defined runs".

The Mantras carve the crap out of groomers! Only a sucky skiing gaper wouldn't know that! Torsionally stiff, metal laminate, and a perfect sidecut radius for skiing anything steeper than crowded, flat, blue runs. What are you surprised about?
Then again, you actually believe that lift-served, controlled, and patrolled terrain is real backcountry... just because it says so on some trail map!! Ha, ha, ha....

Captain Strato I hate to tell you this but most racers I know are "Rec skiers".

Game, set, match.

The elephant wins.

Search your feelings...Kids in the park rule, they do...