Originally Posted by mike_m
As we're entering the annual season of ripping the reviews in "Ski" and "Skiing", a couple of points:
Before condemning the choice of skis rated in the different categories ("How could they put THAT ski in that category! That's ridiculous!" etc.), know that the magazines don't determine this. The ski manufacturers are given the cartegories to be judged and THEY submit the skis to be placed therein. Sometimes the manufacturers will submit a ski that seems too high end for a given category (as Dynastar did with the Legend 8000 a few years ago when they submitted it in an intermediate category), but the magazines don't control this.
We're also getting the "Results are determined by who buys ads! They didn't pony up!" comments. In prior years, skis that did not advertise at that time were very well reviewed (Kastle, Line, for example). This year, favorably reviewed skis include Liberty, Line, Fatty-pus, 4Frnt, and DPS. None of them advertise in the mags.
You may not like the formats or the results (although I must admit that many of the skis with favorable reviews matched my own impressions at the trade show last spring, for whatever that's worth), but don't rip them for imaginary sins.
Besides, it's always fun to see the new stuff this time of year! Winter's coming!
PS: As has been mentioned, Head did not have many well reviewed skis this year. Personally, I found the new Peak series that replaced the Monster line totally underwhelming. I was told by the Head reps at the trade show that Head wanted to appeal to a wider audience, so they took out a layer of metal to make the skis more "user friendly." To me, this had the effect of totally neutering them. Head is now denying this and, on Peter Keelty's site, says that no changes were made to the skis' construction. That leaves three possibilities:
1. I was misinformed at the show. I doubt this, as I own Monster 78s and the Peak 78 skied completely differently,
2. Head got such negative feedback at the previews that they put the metal back in (but then they likely would have been better reviewed), or
3. They are not telling Peter the truth and are hoping no one will question them.