or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Big skis = can't ski? - Page 11

post #301 of 437

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by crgildart View Post

 

I recall hearing rumors in the past that at some resorts in the 70s they wouldn'tlet folks get on lifts to the back bowls and really steep terrain if they had skis shorter than 180 cm.  Also, I heard there were areas where kids under 18 had to earn patches to wear on their jackets before they could take lifts to harder terrain.  I'm not sure how practrical that would be in the modern world.

 

Didn't Mary Jane do this on Outhouse and/or Drunken Frenchman? I had totally forgotten about that. I was on 180s as a 12 year old, though (okay, that cracks me up), so I never worried about it. But my friends were shorter than I. Why are the memories so fuzzy? darn

post #302 of 437

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by segbrown View Post

 

 

 

Didn't Mary Jane do this on Outhouse and/or Drunken Frenchman? I had totally forgotten about that. I was on 180s as a 12 year old, though (okay, that cracks me up), so I never worried about it. But my friends were shorter than I. Why are the memories so fuzzy? darn

 

It must be all the lead you consumed as a small child, we all know that ANY amount of lead in anything is lethal.

post #303 of 437

Well here in Vail we are rampant with "skiers" on the latest fat Cialis or Viagra skis as we call them cause they cant keep it up in powder on anything less. I am hard pressed to se any skiers under the age of 25 (other than in the race program- thank god for that) who know how to carve a turn. Last week we has some amazing powder days and the mountain was full of these guys all way in the back seat, hunched over with their hands stuck in their laps flailing all over the hill. Vail, in my 30 years here is simply too flat to ever have the need for anything over 99-110 under foot, much less a rocker. I think the art of actually skiing powder is totally lost on them. No radius, no bounce, no face shot. And when they venture back on the groomers with their rockers watch out! Speed goes up even further, the skis start flapping and they move farther into the back seat. It was like the circus was in town with these clowns.

 

However, give me the Monashees or AK and free unlimited heli time and I think these skis would be on my feet. They do have a place.

 

I guess they all think they are extreme skiers but I always ask extremly what?

 

post #304 of 437


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by segbrown View Post

 

 

 

Didn't Mary Jane do this on Outhouse and/or Drunken Frenchman? I had totally forgotten about that. I was on 180s as a 12 year old, though (okay, that cracks me up), so I never worried about it. But my friends were shorter than I. Why are the memories so fuzzy? darn


 

Yep. Late '70's, no ski under 180.  Made for nice skiable moguls, much different than the chopped off things on neighboring slopes.  You could ski on 205's and not wreck them

post #305 of 437


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by srd View Post

 

Vail, in my 30 years here is simply too flat to ever have the need for anything over 99-110 under foot, much less a rocker.


 

I thought the first was earlier in the week. 

post #306 of 437

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by srd View Post

 

Well here in Vail we are rampant with "skiers" on the latest fat Cialis or Viagra skis as we call them cause they cant keep it up in powder on anything less. I am hard pressed to se any skiers under the age of 25 (other than in the race program- thank god for that) who know how to carve a turn. Last week we has some amazing powder days and the mountain was full of these guys all way in the back seat, hunched over with their hands stuck in their laps flailing all over the hill. Vail, in my 30 years here is simply too flat to ever have the need for anything over 99-110 under foot, much less a rocker. I think the art of actually skiing powder is totally lost on them. No radius, no bounce, no face shot. And when they venture back on the groomers with their rockers watch out! Speed goes up even further, the skis start flapping and they move farther into the back seat. It was like the circus was in town with these clowns.

 

However, give me the Monashees or AK and free unlimited heli time and I think these skis would be on my feet. They do have a place.

 

I guess they all think they are extreme skiers but I always ask extremly what?

 

 

quoted for funniest post of the day!!!

post #307 of 437


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by segbrown View Post

 

 

 

Didn't Mary Jane do this on Outhouse and/or Drunken Frenchman? I had totally forgotten about that. I was on 180s as a 12 year old, though (okay, that cracks me up), so I never worried about it. But my friends were shorter than I. Why are the memories so fuzzy? darn


 

No, that's very true. Most of the major Resorts in the West had signs at the start of bump runs especially that stated that only those skiers on 190's or longer could ski the run.

 

First time i saw this was at Park City resort in 1984.  Asking a patroller about it, his answer was to assure the bumps get formed evenly and to keep the non experts off the steep runs.

 

I think I was on 190 Kneissel Blue Stars that day. It was puking so hard you could barely see. I made several runs with the guy that afternoon. Deepest snow I'd ever skied at the time. I used to love the feeling of skiing deep snow bumps cause you'd be down in the snow still in contact with the pack underneath riding the crests porpoising with snow up around your waist. Great feeling on 60 waisted skis.

post #308 of 437


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rio View Post

 

I agree with Nolo that the RidgeHippies have great finesse...

 

They have been slowly migrating to fatter, stiffer boards.  The combination of their technique and fat, stiff skis has resulted in them becoming almost exclusively skid turners, even in powder.  They can no longer ski powder if its heavy or set.


 

Could somebody pull some video of these Hippie fellas back when they skied powder on proper boards?  It may hurt for them to see how badly they suck in heavy snow these days versus the past when a tired gs ski could really get things done, but sometimes an intervention is called for. 

post #309 of 437

My wife is 5' 7" tall and 145 lbs and back in 1996 (her early 30's but don't tell her I gave away her age) I watched her come down knee deep powder on my 200 Rossi 7S ski and she looked good doing it.  Her normal ski at that time was a 185 Rossi 7S, which she loved.  My opinion is if you can't ski long straight skis you shouldn't be allowed to buy fat skis!!! 

post #310 of 437

1978 Mt.Rose,NV. 207 Atomic SL

post #311 of 437

tdk6 posted this at another thread and I thought I'd move it over.  I think this would be a good example of who nolo would be talking about.  No doubt this is a very athletic young man, but is he a good skier?

 

How do you think this young man would do on the same hill, same day, same snow with something 70 under foot or less in terms of his skiing ability? 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npY_bk9hAeA&feature=related

post #312 of 437

The 78 skier looks like a good skier having a good time.  His son today would look different in his skiing if he is as good.  Our definition of good skiing has changed as has our equipment.  When that pic was taken Super G hadn't even shown up, much less parks and 1/2 pipes.  Jr. will probably ski a straighter line & faster cause that is where GOOD has evolved to, and that is what the equipment has been designed to do well.

 

One day (a few years before that pic was taken) I went from a 210 Vol kl GS ski to a pair of Miller 180 Softs.  They required different technique and styles to ski, and laid down a whole different line.  Which was better, who knows. Skied slower line with shorter radius turns and smiled more on the Millers.  

 

The point, a good skier will ski differently on majorly different equipment.  The only constants, they are skiing in their personal comfort zone and having a good time.

post #313 of 437
Thread Starter 

The man called Ridge Hippie (skiing 2008 edition K2 Outlaws at Big Sky, 4/1/09):

 

post #314 of 437
Thread Starter 

Tog, same day, Stocklies, modern vintage:

 

 

post #315 of 437

Some(most?) people are still stuck on "bad skiers on fat skis vs. good skiers on skinny skis".

 

 

post #316 of 437


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Louie View Post

 

tdk6 posted this at another thread and I thought I'd move it over.  I think this would be a good example of who nolo would be talking about.  No doubt this is a very athletic young man, but is he a good skier?

 

How do you think this young man would do on the same hill, same day, same snow with something 70 under foot or less in terms of his skiing ability? 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npY_bk9hAeA&feature=related


 

The video you linked is among other things an intentional goof.  The guy pictured isn't going to get sponsored anytime soon, but the video made me smile and there's nothing wrong with that.  Since I can insert links again, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvNRVE41l0s look at this and tell me how you think this skier would have done on something 70 underfoot or less in similar conditions.  Do you think he's a good skier?  Are big skis making him suck? Is he another guy who can no longer ski heavy or set-up snow?   Jarringly uninhibited, perhaps.  Maybe his pivot slips are unrefined.  Maybe his wedge is not at a high level. 

 

But, he's having fun, and painting a fun picture.    I enjoy 1950s ski footage, too, good skiers then and earlier could be really fun to watch.  But I wouldn't tell people that learning to ski on more-modern gear would hold back their skill development or that the newer gear was a crutch. 

post #317 of 437

Would you say this guy would be having more fun if he were on a skinny ski? Would his skiing be "better"?

 

 

 

 

 

post #318 of 437

Would he have to worry about booting-out?

post #319 of 437

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rizcorpl View Post

 

Would he have to worry about booting-out?

 

Not a problem in soft snow.

With skinny skis he would be booting out, and kneeing out too. :)

post #320 of 437

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by CTKook View Post

 


 


 

The video you linked is among other things an intentional goof.  The guy pictured isn't going to get sponsored anytime soon, but the video made me smile and there's nothing wrong with that.  Since I can insert links again, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvNRVE41l0s look at this and tell me how you think this skier would have done on something 70 underfoot or less in similar conditions.  Do you think he's a good skier?  Are big skis making him suck? Is he another guy who can no longer ski heavy or set-up snow?   Jarringly uninhibited, perhaps.  Maybe his pivot slips are unrefined.  Maybe his wedge is not at a high level. 

 

But, he's having fun, and painting a fun picture.    I enjoy 1950s ski footage, too, good skiers then and earlier could be really fun to watch.  But I wouldn't tell people that learning to ski on more-modern gear would hold back their skill development or that the newer gear was a crutch. 

I did get the impression he was deliberately skiing on his tails and faking a beginner's skiing as a joke, but I wasn't sure.

 

The vid you posted is impressive.  Circus acrobatics AND skiing together.   These guys seem to have it all covered.  I'm so used to seeing people post videos showing the skills of landing a jump and doing somersaults and spins without the skiing skills.  Thanks for pointing out that those skills are not mutually exclusive.

 

post #321 of 437

I think a lot of you here have lost track of or don't understand the OP's original post.  I am sure no one would disagree that fat skis make skiing easier in "off piste" conditions whether you are in bounds or not.

 

The videos that karpiel and CTKook posted are that of very good skiers on gear that would be considered wide.  They are good skiers who would easily be able to be very effective on the same terrain with narrow gear because they can already ski.  I suspect the guy in Kook's video wouldn't be quite as effective on narrow skis because of terrain and snow conditions,  but wouldn't flounder.

 

I disagree with Kook that the young kid in the video I linked to is nothing more than a staged farce.  There is nothing in his movement pattern that indicates he has any chance of buying a turn.  Even a highly skilled skier could not fake low level skiing without giving some clues.  This guy shows us nothing.

The skier in Kook's video has very controlled movements.  His actions in the air are well timed and choice of terrain indicates a very skilled skier. The skier in karpiel's video could ski on just about anything underfoot, because he has the skills to be effective.

 

It shouldn't be that the ski creates the skier.  It's a skilled skier standing on the correct gear for the conditions present.  The difference is that a skilled skier can still be effective on narrow skis where the less skilled skier would not be.

 

Here is a quote from HH posted on his site. The last line, which I changed to bold print, says it all.

 

"by h.h on Fri Apr 03, 2009 5:14 pm

It's unfortunate but Diana and I both found that the really wide water ski jumping type powder boards rewarded incorrect movements. I found bouncing and pivoting and leaning the best way to make them turn. I don't get it, my M78 are better skis in any of these situations, more control, precise direction control at any speed and they reward good movements. I look at and find those wide skis over kill, like using a sledge hammer to drive finishing nails.
Sorry, I know many rave about them, but that's my take. I like to use tools that make skiing easier and more fun, just as anyone else would, but those wide skis don't make skiing more fun for me. I haven't found anyone who can get down a steep, powder run, any faster, or safer than I can on a M78 or at the extreme (for me) a M82.
One trick ponies, that can easily fool you into believing you are skiing powder well."
 
So here you have HH, nolo and me all totally in agreement.  Here is something that is very rare indeed.
(I just edited HH's last name from the quote.....not sure of present Epic policy on quotes from the web site I referred to.)
 
 

 

 


Edited by Uncle Louie - 4/4/2009 at 01:25 pm
post #322 of 437

For those of you that ride sportbikes.

 

It's like Nolo complained about all the newby sportriders getting GSXR 600s and 1Ks and obviously not having a clue how to ride them.  TDK presents a video of some 1st timer dropping his 1K as he leaves the shop.  They are countered by folks showing video of Valentino Rossi tearing up the track.

post #323 of 437

Well, yes a skilled skier can obviously still ski powder to a certain degree on thinner skis, that hasn't changed, but I would say that fat skis are very much a part of what allows Eric Pollard (the skier in Kooks video) to do what he does, ie spin off cliffs into pow. That's why he has designed and given his name to so many big fat twintips. I would love to see HH try and ski some of those lines on some M78s, somehow I don't think it would work out.

 

I think part of it has to be the influence of people like EP, personally, I know I have only tried some stuff because I've seen it in videos. I'm pretty sure if I hadn't seen him and others doing 180s and handdrags into powder on fat skis, I wouldn't be doing the same. That sort of stuff inspires people, seeing HH (or the majority of other instructors for that matter) busting some gnarly PMTS turns doesn't have quite the same effect. So yeah, people see pros using certain equipment and want it as well, that's why there are pro skiers in the first place. Maybe these people aren't taking lessons because their perception of lessons involves mincing around doing short turns on groomed runs, they want to go shred the pow, their skis allow them to do that (to some extent), so they do. Perhaps ski hills ought to market their lessons differently.

 

It's possible (only faintly mind you) that I am just another gaper who has big skis and can't really ski, but I have a damn good time doing it, isn't that the point?

 

Similar points to mine may have been made before, sorry I didn't read the entire thread, but I just thought I'd add my 2 cents

post #324 of 437

 

I just thought I'd add to the video archive by x-posting my contribution to tdk's thread - as long as they are now sort of co-mingled anyway. If I were not so lazy, I'd probably add it to the "why don't people take more lessons" thread too.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post

 

I agree. Letting the park rats off piste reflects the state of off-piste skiing today.

 

http://www.broadbandsports.com/node/24470&gvsm=1

 

Especially the teenage ones:

 

 

 And how do you think these jokers in Lederhosen would do in a Powder 8 competition?

 

http://www.evogear.com/info/helpcenter/552.aspx

 

 

 

Keep on digging...

 

 

 

 

 

 

post #325 of 437

No dog in this fight here, but I've never been a fan of big fat boards anyhow. I do own a pair of 88's that I pack when I hit the big mountains (leaving tomorrow for Crystal in Washington), but for me, it's just as much fun on 78's. Hell, it was as much fun on 60's.

 

but, I've seen and known many people who rip like hell on big fatties. There are many, many people who do. My point is, if they feel better, more confident, or just plain having fun with them, who the fock cares? Does the fact they like skiing powder on fatties make them any less of a skier? Or any less of a person? Why mock them?

 

There are pretenders who dress the part yes. And some don't belong where they are skiing. I've complained about it before. When they opened the Imperial Chair at Breck, I thought it cheapened the goods for those of us who used to enjoy the hike, to earn the turns. But now, I guess anyone who can afford the 87 bucks for a lift ticket should be able to get there the easy way. I don't care.

 

 

post #326 of 437

We can agree the fat skis make it possible for the great skier to do extreme stuff well in the loose snow, and they let mear mortals play in the powder and have more fun.  There are great things.

 

Yes more people of limited ability are tempted into more gnarly places where they may be over their heads.  (Hasn't this always been our sports form of chlorine in the gene pool?)  Pushing our personal limits a little is how we get better, so that is good too.  I like fat skis too in the soft snow, they make it easier to play.

 

Are we starting to let our equipment get a little too specialized in all mountain skiing?  Let's take those backside water skis and put them on a steep icy bump run, are we still having fun?  By definition a good skier handles the entire mountain in all conditions; shouldn't our everyday equipment help us do that?  Specialized equipment will limited the bounds of any skier, and the weaker the skiers skills the more they are limited.  Today we have to choose our skis to fit what we want to do the most on the mountain. I choose a mid-fat with a little rocker to them for what I want to do in the snow I ski most.

 

I have seen good racers straight line VW sized bumps in cut-up  powder on racing skis.  Have not seen anybody on the podium  in slalom or GS race using fatty rockers yet.

 

We all like our specialized tools but if you can only have one how specialized should it be? 

post #327 of 437

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger View Post

 


I have seen good racers straight line VW sized bumps in cut-up  powder on racing skis.  Have not seen anybody on the podium  in slalom or GS race using fatty rockers yet.

 

And you've never seen anyone on SL or GS skis maching a straightline on a 40 degree face of two feet of pow and avy debris--because it can't be done. Just like a WC course can't be handled by anybody on 100mm+ rockered skis. Or a bump course can't be skied 'the right way' on race skis.

post #328 of 437

The sport has evolved. Those saying that kids on RC fatties can't turn are missing the new fundamentals of the new sport.

 

There are days where any of my 3 pairs would work great. I chose whichever one based on how I want to ski that day. Arcing, buttering, or a little of both.

 

Amazing that this conversation died a decade ago and there are still people chasing the bus.

post #329 of 437

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger View Post

 

 

Are we starting to let our equipment get a little too specialized in all mountain skiing?  Let's take those backside water skis and put them on a steep icy bump run, are we still having fun?

 

Yes, actually. They hold an edge in ice just fine and due to their shape and lack of contact area, make those conditions quite fun.

 

It's just a shame those fat rockers are so horrible in deep snow, they make it impossible to get faceshots, right???

tetongravity.com/forums/showthread.php

post #330 of 437

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by karpiel View Post

 

 

 

Yes, actually. They hold an edge in ice just fine and due to their shape and lack of contact area, make those conditions quite fun.

 

It's just a shame those fat rockers are so horrible in deep snow, they make it impossible to get faceshots, right???

tetongravity.com/forums/showthread.php

Sure they do.  They hold an edge just fine on ice, just like the SS Magnum holds on ice........unless you have actual experience on an real race ski, or even a true high-performance carving ski on said surface.  Either that or your standard of "just fine" is a little lower than mine. 

 

A WC SC  or an uber-stiff racing ski works just fine in powder .........unless you have actually tried a ski designed for powder.

 

Let's face it modern skis purpose-designed for a particular task work a lot better at that task than a ski designed for something else.  Ski designers are not just marketing monkeys.

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by saudan's boudoir View Post

 

 

 

And you've never seen anyone on SL or GS skis maching a straightline on a 40 degree face of two feet of pow and avy debris--because it can't be done. Just like a WC course can't be handled by anybody on 100mm+ rockered skis. Or a bump course can't be skied 'the right way' on race skis.

Avy debris,  wtf?  Maybe it could be mached Kite-skiing 20 feet above the surface, or gone through with climbing boots, but you wouldn't be "maching".  

 

Nobody ever mached a 40 degree face until the invention of fat skis.  Get a grip!  Fat skis are better, much better, but far from the only way to do it.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion