I never did take much stock in any review where the magazine depends on revenue from the same manufacturers who supply them with their own skis to critique. After reading the new buyer's guide from Ski Magazine, I am more convinced than ever that these reports are not based solely on the performance of the skis. In previous years' buyer's guides from Ski Magazine, you were hard pressed to find one Elan ski in the whole test that was found worthy of a review. Now, Elan receives a gold medal in virtually every category. Is this because Elan has all of a sudden started making better skis, and they have just started to notice, or do you think it might have something to do with the fact that Elan has been taken over by Volkl and their fat advertising budget? Or what about Dynamic, of all things? What is that all about? Until they showed up in Ski Mag's buyers guide last year, probably a lot of the readers had never even heard of them before, let alone been aware that they were still in business. Of course, it all starts to come together once you figure in to the equation that they're now run by Atomic. If you look closely, you can see that they are really Atomic skis and plates with slightly tweaked graphics and dimensions. Is it all starting to make sense? How come on Peter Keelty's site, techsupportforskiers.com, which is totally independent of any manufacturers advertising dollars, that in all their extensive testing, they consider the new Head IM 75 Chip to be quite possibly one of the best skis ever made, and their unaminous choice for overall ski of the year, yet Ski Magazine doesn't see fit to give it a sniff? It's true that Head's distribution in this country is not that strong, and most of their marketing dollars stay in Europe, but reviews should be based on the way skis perform, not on the size of a manufacturers advertising budget. I'm not saying that I always agree with everthing I read on Peter's site, but I do know that the reviews that he posts are not motivated by advertising dollars. Like I said before, I was always skeptical of magazine reviews, but after reading this latest addition, they now have zero credibility with me.
[ August 10, 2003, 05:27 PM: Message edited by: Mac ]