and short skis suck.

[fez]

short skis better, long skis better, who the hell cares. the argument is moot since no one makes a long ski anymore. maybe stockli and iggy still make a ski over 200 cm, but try finding even a 198 anymore from most of the major manufacturers.

[pointemstraight]

I'm deviating from this thread a bit - but I thought you Mont Ripley boys would like an old school picture of skiing Ripley. This is just to the lookers left of the T-bar, jumping off the catwalk. Is that bush still there? In the middle of winter when the snow was fast and you could get a good run at it, we used to jump over top of it. As spring hit though, you couldn't get enough speed to do so....

Actually come to think of it, this photo ties right into this thread - I think those old straight boards were 203's or something like that!

Okay... bring on the flames about my JONGish oldschool moves...

[focus]

short skis better, long skis better, who the hell cares. the argument is moot since no one makes a long ski anymore. maybe stockli and iggy still make a ski over 200 cm, but try finding even a 198 anymore from most of the major manufacturers.

I dunno, stating an opinion and stuff...kinda what we do on forums.

my 168 5stars certainly ski a lot different than my 195 lab swallowtails. While you're correct in saying that the scale has shifted a bit, we do still have "short" skis and "long" skis -- just go ask epicski.

As for the bush, there's a lot of bushes over in that area.... don't know if your bush still exists. the little lip off the catwalk does...but I've never tried jumping over any bushes off it. Don't have that kinda steeze.

[fez]

im not buying. back in the day skis came 175 to 210, every 5cm. now you get your choice of three or four lengths. they keep saying that with the new designs and what not you dont need as long a ski, personally i think its just the ski industry trying to streamline their production and inventory systems and bullshit everyone into believing that its better for them at the same time.