Yes, comparitively so. It's running surface is 169cm I believe, but most skis measure from the tip to tail, not running surface. So a 173 by any other company has about a 169cm running surface.
-Dan Theory-3 Media
hes also a novice, with a focus primarily on biginning jibs and jumps. with the surface area of the 168 being more because its a midfat, i would say that anything longer would be too heavy and bulky.
'Dude, we're sick. I mean, he's pretty sick, but his muscles aren't as big as mine, so, ya know...' -CR Johnson
You could always go with a longer ski and mount it closer to centre, thus making it feel a little shorter, making fakie riding easier, and giving you more tail to land on if you need it. But I don't really know what I'm talking about.
'I've had some good sex, but it's not very reliable. You can't phone up the sex report, ya know? You can phone up the snow report'...Crucial Mike
UBC, the school you go to when you can't get accepted at SFU.