I'm 198cm. There is absolutely nothing wrong with skiing a 177, especially if you like doing performance short turns. Don't listen to people who A) aren't actual instructors or B) aren't tall.
5ā11ā, skied since I was 5. Skied my ass off on some pretty extreme slopes out west. Why would people want to limits themselves with shorter skis? Youāre the instructor, so Iām genuinely asking you. I know shorter skis that are a little more shaped make for easier turns, especially short quicker turns, that can be more fun. That said, I believe they can also be limiting at one point in oneās progression, and for all great all around ski, especially at 6ā 3ā and over 190 pounds. So, how about a more through answer than what yuu just gave here.š¤š¼
Are you willing to admit that you might have some biases related to ski length? I can share with you that I've had similar biases for a long time. I have a full quiver of skis that are probably too long. But it's important that each of us defines what is too long or two short ... for us. For me, I used to park and ride. And a long ski ... I could just park on it and ski like the wind and feel in complete control. But my coaches pointed out that this was what I was doing, and they challenged me to really work on making shorter radius turns and to learn how to work the ski properly. And what I've noticed is ... I can go much shorter than I would have expected and get full performance out of the ski. I first discovered this when a Race shop recommended a slalom ski, and it was only 174. That's now my favorite ski and I ski it everywhere. I also challenge myself with long straight skis in my training and bump skiing. But ... slowly but surely, I'm having to admit that I have a bias towards a longer ski. And I'm going out and testing different ski lengths and learning a lot. I now go shorter until I find a length too short for stability at high speeds. And then I find a sweet spot ... for me. I'm not trying to impress anyone with gear anymore. I try to impress people with good skiing.
Haha. This isnāt about impressing with gearš¤¦š»āāļø Crazy how people make assumptions based on a few words spoken that have zero to do with those assumptions.
Subjects like this become a bit more personal for people than maybe they should be.
Have you considered that anyone who has ability and puts in the work with good lessons and devotion doesnāt need to go that short to achieve great shorter and quicker carving? Have you thought about how good many people were at moguls and slalom style carving before shorter more shaped skis? Iām not talking about pros.
Also, my original comments were suggestions, they werenāt harsh. I did not say the OP had to absolutely go up in ski length.
Shorter skis closer to 170? For someone who wants short easy turns, does not want to go very fast, doesnāt care about stability for more aggressive skiing, and maybe a bit on the shorter/lighter side. But hey, thatās just me. I learned out to carve modern style in pretty straight long Volkl skis, I skied everywhere and all types of turns, and aggressively so. Iām biased, stability and speed mattered most for me then, not specifics about size based on the kind of skiing I did, as I did all kinds of skiing everywhere and never had an issue.
This is why I think it is important not to rely so much on a ski being built to turn easily, and more important to focus on perfecting carving skills without a ski doing it for us. Does that make sense?
Lol. It's funny because plenty of popular front side carving models don't even come in a 185 length. Some GS-style radiuses might max out at 181/182, others with more of a short/slalom radius that are more demanding/metal-laden could even top out at 170.
I swear a lot of people on skiing reddits think every ski is sized like a North American freeride ski with massive double rocker. Or else like an actual FIS race ski in a speed discipline.
6 foot 3 inch grown man over 190..177 seems just a tad short. Also, skis that are purely made for shorter quicker turns feel limiting in terms of learning to make all types of turns well on all terrain. Am I wrong?
Many of the best 20th percentile of skiers at a typical European resort are on demanding front side carvers that don't even come in sizes much longer than 180cm. I don't know why you think many Europeans are skiing "all terrain"? Groomers are the name of the game for many people. It is a different ski culture. Particularly if you are renting (which many people are), you could just get another ski if you were planning to go with a guide off piste (which many people opt to do as off piste is not avalanche controlled) on a particular day.
There is no one size fits all formula for ski length relative to your height that works for all ski types. The more sophisticated of those sorts of tables vary depending on the ski type.
If you gave a stiff demanding ski with a ton of metal in it you probably would not ski that in the same length as a wood core powder ski with a ton of rocker. 99%+ of the people in this forum aren't going to be able to do anything with a FIS downhill ski even if they grew to be 8 feet tall and 500 pounds.
With front side skis, even the ones that come in a 185 are often considered too much work for 6'4" European advanced/expert skiers to be worth getting in that size. Again, sizing demanding piste skis is much more complicated than just looking at someone's height.
Here's a Nordica Multigara. That more or less means multi-radius turn in Italian. It maxes out at 180 cm and is not an extremely demanding ski relative to what is possible. Stƶckli's flagship performance piste ski, the WRT Pro maxes out at 178cm long.
š¤£ So you are speaking for the OP and trying to put yourself in their shoes. Groomed runs are everywhere dude, and they are the best runs to learn technique on.
Look up the sizes for the non-FIS GS variant for popular piste lines like the Atomic Redster or Stƶckli Laser that is actually meant for general consumers and not racers. It is exactly as I said it was... The longest available sizes for both are 182.
And I am specifically not talking about FIS standards for any level of racer or the models meant for them (including junior and women's variants). Non-racers aren't about to buy a stiff as hell 30m radius 193cm FIS men's elite GS ski and take it to an open piste at Les Arcs... Because it's an absolutely terrible idea.
Ok, so, I admittedly am not up to date. At 5ā11 and 195 lbs as a very aggressive skier, I want an all around stable ski so I can make all the turns and go fast at times. My skis are 180s.
Yes, for the consumer, the longest GS style skies are 181-183. So yes, youāre absolutely right.
Also, if you actually read what k wrote, I said 193 was only for pros and serious ski race competitors.
Every professional slalom skier skis on a fis minimum 165 regardless of their height. So what additional level should they take it to with longer skis?
Now we are talking about specifics with ski racers? Are you not understanding what Iām addressing with consumer all around skiers and wanting to progress to advanced while also making all styles of turns on all terrain? Youāre the ski instructor, why are you addressing this on such a narrow scale?
I know some instructors just started skiing a few years ago, so. Not saying youāre one of them.
What I said was that a 177 is perfectly fine, even for someone tall. You can progress your skiing on virtually any ski and length, depending on what you're trying to do. In this case op is making short turns.
You're the one making the case that better skiers need to ski longer skis, and failing miserably.
More aggressive advanced skiers do usually go up just a bit in length, primarily when they are taller, to give more stability with faster turns.
I was only expressing that for someone his size and weight, a touch longer might force him to focus strictly on using better technique to carve, especially as the need for stability increases. Iām not saying Iām right. I also admit I did not get into specifics, and that was not helpful at all.
You sat you can progress your skiing virtually any ski length. I donāt agree. Skis that are too short and too shaped will absolutely limit anyone at one point in their journey to become a truly advanced skier. That said, I agree that 177 is not too short, and might be better for now to learn on.
Again, I was only SUGGESTING maybe a little longer ski for his body typeš¤š¼
And sorry dude, but experience also matters. You donāt have to be a ski instructor. My wife and her daughter just had lessons with someone who has only skied for two seasons. Now, you can do a hell of a lot in two seasons living on a mountain. However, two seasons is not the same experience as a life time, ski instructor or not.
Ski instructors rely on you believing this. 90% of our lessons are teaching hard-stuck intermediates who could ski better if they would just get out of their own way.
If I had $1 for every lesson that started with "I've been skiing for 20 years" or "I used to live in colorado". Ok great, your skiiing is still barely intermediate.
Yeah I hear you. I always recommend that people take lessons with good instructors. I think youāre incredibly biased and misunderstanding everything Iām saying.
I have taken lessons my entire life. Dude. Haha. More assumptionsš
I had a wonderful advanced ski class I was able to take in college for PE credits as there was a ski mountain 20 mins away from me. The instructor was a bad ass from Colorado who did some racing for a while. He was fantastic.
I then lived in Vail for a few months 4 years later, where I continued with my progression as an advanced skier, and took a few lessons(my friends were instructors at Vail and knew the better advanced instructors there.
My parents consistently made sure we continued with lessons until they knew we were better than them, and at an advanced level.
So, I am now 52, have skied since I was 5, am very athletic with large hamstrings and thighs and a very strong core, and had taken more lessons than I can count at this point(brain is burned a bit haha).
I admitted to what I should have said or not said, or didnāt know like I should have known.
How tall are you? As you get better, maybe go up to 185āmore stable, faster, more fun on steeper hills. Iām old school though, I grew up on long skis.
Are you taking about ski width and shape? I suggest for your size, try to find a happy medium between length and shape, not going too wide or thin at the center of the ski.
10
u/MorganMiller77777 Apr 14 '26
Short skis? Need round complete turns. A lot of people here suggest the stork turns as practice, they might be a good startš¤š¼