5'8

210

Either you're jacked as fuck or Pillsbury dough boy rotund, either way I'm impressed your knees hold up sending it, but I'd still recommend working on losing some weight. I'd say you probably want some extra edge to help when carving or pounding through chunder since you're definitely on the heavier side and skiing is much more weight based than height based. Might even want to look at something a little stiffer for more crud stability.

Edit: I just read that and realize it came off mean, sorry, I didn't mean it to, it's just always impressive to me when I see bigger guys who still ski heavy stuff.

**This post was edited on Oct 26th 2018 at 10:25:06pm

Yeah short and stocky built like a running back Might be 5’9 on a good day still trying to cut some weight before the season. Currently rocking

atomic backland 117 in 179

solomon qst 99 in 181

solomon qst 92 in 169.

**This post was edited on Oct 28th 2018 at 12:34:41pm

Is skiing even fun if you're in bad shape?

new BC 120 is significantly lighter than the Backland 117. BC 120 also has more tail rocker and a much more forward mount point (around -3 cm).

So the BC 120 will be more playful and better for tricks, slashing around, skiing switch, etc. Backland is better if you like to drive the front of your skis more and are less concerned with freestyle performance. Backland 117 probably also does a bit better in rougher snow.

-eREKTion-Is skiing even fun if you're in bad shape?

Speaking from experience, yes.

patagonialukenew BC 120 is significantly lighter than the Backland 117. BC 120 also has more tail rocker and a much more forward mount point (around -3 cm).

So the BC 120 will be more playful and better for tricks, slashing around, skiing switch, etc. Backland is better if you like to drive the front of your skis more and are less concerned with freestyle performance. Backland 117 probably also does a bit better in rougher snow.

Thanks for the imput !!! I did mount the backlands +3 To be closer to the center

Yee !!