I must confess that I am a little puzzled. It used to be that when one mentioned big-mountain skis, everybody understood we were talking about long and fat skis. I hardly ever saw anyone with big-mountain skis below 180cm (and maybe these skiers where 5'8"-5'10") and more often than not you could see the big guns at 190cm+. Today, I went pretty much from forum to forum to sort of study the trend, and it appears as if there is a new fashion even in this category: i.e. go short.
Big mountain skis like Head i.M 88 are available in 164cm, suggested at 175cm and available at 186cm (but if go into a store you will find they have perhaps 2-3 pairs only in the 186cm size).
Now, I only tried the Salomon Pocket Rocket in this group of skis in the past. They were fun, but you would not find me very happy if they were my only pair of skis in the Midwest where most of what we ski is ice or icy snow. I got them long and they were working pretty well although short turns and bumps were not easy, not for me anyway. So my experience is limited or, let me be totally honest, is pretty much null.
This year, I really do not know why, I feel sort of the urge to buy a pair of these skis. Maybe I am getting old and think that it is now or never. I do not know, really. But I am very, very skeptical to get a big ski like a Monster i.M 88 in a lenght shorter than my normal skis. Actually, it looks a bit ridicoulous to me: we want big mountain skis to ski everywhere, or at least, so we thin, but we tame them down so that we can handle them.
I know that Harald told me that the i.M 88 in 175cm is enough ski for him and he skis 10x better than me. So, even if I am quite heavier than he is, I am still very confused. Somebody like me (6'2", 215-220) should be on a 186cm. Plus, Harald next to the 175 looks fine while on the contrary, myself in boots next to the same skis would look like I just stole the skis from a kid. Yet, even according to Head website if I wanted the i.M 88 I should be on a 175cm, but in my opinion their algorithm is a little bogus as it looks at height and not weight really. In any case to get a 186cm I should tell them that either I am a very tall skier or I am "always the first one down to the chairlift line".
I wonder if anybody has any comments on this topic? I am and likely will remain confused about the topic. Ideally, I would like to ski everywhere, and do not want to look like a seal performing at the zoo when I ski on groomed terrain. Yet, I still feel that there is something wrong in going short when buying big-mountain skis.
Did I get this entire story of the new big mountain skis completely wrong, or is it the case the there are a lot of skiers going for a very tough ski to handle and then tame it down to "pretend" they can ski it?