freestyler540When the professional reviewer rates the ski in the wrong category. for example:
When reviewing a park ski: "These skis can hold an edge when carving". Yes, because I buy a park ski to carve turns. Dulled edges are great to turn on...
CLQSkiing 130 underfoot skis: These skis are surprisingly versatile!
I think you guys are making this kind of statement sound dumber than they are by removing them from context. Nobody, at least nobody writing proper ski reviews, is suggesting you should buy a park ski as a carving ski. Nobody is suggesting a 130mm underfoot ski is, in absolute terms, versatile. When I'm reviewing a ski, I'm assuming that the audience is looking at skis within the same category. Therefore the statements in the review contain an unsaid 'compared to other similar skis'. When I say 'the new Bent Chetler has really low swingweight' I mean compared to say, the K2 Catamaran (and I do try and be explicit with that mostly, but things get really wordy). But I'm not suggesting they have low swingweight compared to a snowblade.
There are massive differences in the carving abilities of different park skis, especially when detuned. They all suck compared to a GS ski, but when I ride a ski to review for 10-30 days, it makes a big difference to me which end of the 'are they still able to kind of hold an edge even though they are detuned to fuck' scale a ski sits on. I feel like that could be important to some/many potential buyers, since plenty of people buy park skis as their only ski, so I note it down in the review. Likewise, with fat pow skis, there are some skis that are so bad to ride in marginal conditions that I would rather walk home and change my skis (I live in-resort when I ski) while there are others where it's not ideal but I'll suck it up for the day.
I hope that kind of explains it anyway. - Twig (Edited because I forgot to switch accounts).
**This post was edited on Oct 30th 2018 at 6:06:41pm
