Fatter skis serve a purpose outside of the park. They let you float on powder days. Shorter skis would serve a purpose in the park. They would allow you to spin easier and theoretically more revolutions over the same jump. So yes, I can have it both ways because we're talking about two types of activity inside the bigger topic- skiing.
In the sport of skiing, poles are an integral part. They help you on the flats but also help time the initiation of a turn. To not use poles gets further away from skiing in the traditional sense than bigger or smaller skis- because you're still using skis. Your argument of fatter skis changing skiing is more analogous to the size of pole rather than poles vs no poles.
And I wasn't saying that he would have performed better or worse w/ poles. What I was saying, is that if his "reason" for not using poles is "they get in my way and make it harder to do my grabs, spin, or land jumps" then don't you think he has an advantage over the other skiers and should be graded down for that. (and I don't know or care why he doesn't use poles- I think it looks like shit and makes his "style" one that I don't care for) As an example, if one of the skiers came down the hill on 120 cm skis, do you think his score would have been higher or lower than had he performed on 181 cm skis? Lower, because the judges don't want to see the sport go to snowblading. I guess they don't care if it turns to snowboarding w/ everyone throwing their poles out the window... have a good weekend. I'm checking out and don't have time to look at this place on my weekends
PS- I can't believe I spent so much time on this post. I should just delete it and go out for a beer. I'll leave it- enjoy!
Bookmarks