# Gear Guides = pointless / little credibility?



## deadheadskier (Aug 30, 2009)

This is something I noticed in this years Gear Guides from Ski and Skiing, which I can't believe the editors didn't catch as it's the same company.

Kastle MX98 is the number 1 rated ski in it's category in Skiing magazine, yet it's the lowest rated ski in it's category in Ski magazine.

Skiing Pros: Quick between the edges, this ski eats up moguls and tree lines.

Ski Best For: Long-turn high speed power surfing.

:blink:   um what?

I'd imagine that there are other completely contradicting reviews of same skis between the two magazines.  

So, what's a consumer to think?  These magazines are a joke and there is zero credibility to the gear reviews?


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Aug 30, 2009)

long turn high speed power surfing..sign me up for the clinic cause that's not in my ski set..


----------



## Geoff (Aug 30, 2009)

This is why you need to demo several pairs of skis before buying.


----------



## marcski (Aug 30, 2009)

Geoff said:


> This is why you need to demo several pairs of skis before buying.




Agreed.  

Plus the lingo is a bit ridiculous and can mean different things for different skiers.  I was just reading Skiing's gear guide last night.  I have heard some good things about the new Kastle's though from people that have them.


----------



## wa-loaf (Aug 30, 2009)

They should merge the mags so they can put out only one bad set of info.

They only get one size to ski in most cases. So maybe 200lb guy at Skiing though it was a nice snappy ski and the 140 pounder at SKI couldn't get the things to turn?

Powder looks like they didn't even test. Just put up the marketing info from the manufacturers.


----------



## highpeaksdrifter (Aug 30, 2009)

Geoff said:


> This is why you need to demo several pairs of skis before buying.




Believe me I'm pro demo, but even when you do you have to consider the conditions that day plus how good the tune on the ski was.


----------



## Geoff (Aug 30, 2009)

wa-loaf said:


> They only get one size to ski in most cases. So maybe 200lb guy at Skiing though it was a nice snappy ski and the 140 pounder at SKI couldn't get the things to turn?



I figure the people doing the reviews are also quite different from the average recreational skier.  I haven't looked at a review other than this year's Skiing in a long time but I recall that the people Ski used when I last bothered to look at their reviews were people who skied every day, typically had some competitive background, were fit as hell, and probably mostly weighed 150 pounds.   Their review and my review are going to be very different.

Demo.   /thread


----------



## skidmarks (Aug 30, 2009)

*It's hard to demo*



highpeaksdrifter said:


> Believe me I'm pro demo, but even when you do you have to consider the conditions that day plus how good the tune on the ski was.



Demoing skis can be very subjective; conditions, tune and how you feel all come into play.

A bad tune can make the best pair of skis ski like crap. I was amazed that some of the Rossignol CS70s I sold last year had a bad out of the wrapper factory tune. The skis were very base high and didn't hook up like the pair I had demoed the previous spring. I have this knowledge because I had purchased a pair for my very own quiver. After a nice stone grind and tune the skis were ready for action. I called everyone we sold pairs to and inspected their skis, most needed tunes!  

Personally I don't trust most of what I read in the magazines. Make sure you buy skis that have a performance guarantee so if they suck (for you) you can try again. 

One last note and very important, if your current skis aren't tuned you'll be demoing the tune instead of the equipment.


----------



## Philpug (Aug 30, 2009)

The best factory tunes I have demoed were Kastle and Blossom skis (Vist & Hart).


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 30, 2009)

Geoff said:


> This is why you need to demo several pairs of skis before buying.



no doubt........but, what's the point in rating gear when you can't even be at least somewhat consistent?  Best in one magazine, worst in another and one saying they're quick turners the other better for longer turns.  It's an embarrassment for those magazines, especially because they have the same owner.


----------



## riverc0il (Aug 31, 2009)

Ski rags have always lacked credibility. Generally, ski rags only review skis from companies that advertise with them. And they only post good or glowing reviews, never a negative comment. Ever. And they use catch all horoscope like descriptions to make every ski sound like it can do it all.

In your example, it is funny that the same company would have two different magazines saying two different things. But that just goes to show you how subjective feel of a ski is. Those comments could be completely true to two different skiers. Maybe the older groomer crowd thought one thing (SKI) and the younger natural snow crowd thought another (Skiing) which is very typically how I see different skis falling into those two very broad categories. I suspect the two magazines used different testers for their demoing which caused the discrepancy.

Bottom line is ski magazine gear guides will never be reliable or credible. It is nice to see the new line ups, check out specs, and stack up the major brands best offerings in each category against each other. But this can more easily be done online with broader and better results as well as real valid feedback from skiers would can say whatever they want without risking pissing off a client.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 31, 2009)

maybe there already is, but if I were a ski manufacturer; in this case Kastle, I would be putting quite a bit of pressure on the editors to get it straight.  Yes, I do understand that different testers will have different results, but over the course of a group of professionals, greater consistency in reporting should be expected.

While Skiing mags have had credibility issues for a long time, it seems like they continue to fall further and further.  It's bad for resorts, it's bad for suppliers, it's bad for the sport in general.  

I'm sure this is the trend with print magazines in general as the world transitions more and more information online.  Some of us aren't like trekchik though and prefer something old fashioned to bring into the crapper


----------



## Trekchick (Aug 31, 2009)

All the reviews of the reviews(Ski Gear Guides) I've seen says that the best print version is Freeskier.  I picked up a copy yesterday at the ski/bike shop and I have to agree.


----------



## SkiDork (Aug 31, 2009)

not all skis are available for demo unfortunately.


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 31, 2009)

SkiDork said:


> not all skis are available for demo unfortunately.



Exactly.  I agree with the consensus on the crediblity of ski testing.  A few years ago when I was buying skis I talked with a local reputable shop about the tests and he shared some secrets.  

First, not every ski is demoed.  Manufacturers, believe it or not, have to pay for the honor to have their skis tested.  So they will only send a few models.  When they are tested, the skis are covered up so that the skier doesn't know what he/she is skiing on.  

Second, the manufacturers know that these demos are not really too important.  So what they do is send skis and then have the skis demoed in different categories to see how they handle.  For example, they might have their twin tips demoed for high speed cruising or something like that just for the hell of it.  They want to see where the ski's weakness is, not necessarily its strength.  

The magazines arbitrarily make up the categories and the ski manufacturers will just toss in whatever skis they want...not necessarily the best ones.  They don't have any say...the categories that the magazines make up are pretty random at times and one magazine may say that a ski is a "freeride" model while another might say, "big mountain expert."  Likewise, a manufacturer may have a ski demoed in the "freeride category" in one magazine and in the "intermediate" category in another.  

Nothing replaces an actual demo.  The ski that I liked the best last season at the demo day was a high speed expert cruiser ski, but it handled very well in the bumps as well.  You wouldn't know that from a magazine test.


----------



## SkiDork (Aug 31, 2009)

oh, when I said "demo" I meant personal demo, not magazine ski test demo.  Sorry about the confusion.


----------



## tjf67 (Aug 31, 2009)

I think you guys are bashing the mags a little to hard.  They do give you the general characteristics of each ski.  I have been using them for years and have liked all the skiis I have purchased.  I dont have the time or desire to demo all the different skiis.  I usually use the mag to cement what I think I already know.
That said AC50 for me this year.  I knew I was getting it before the mags came out and low and behold they decribed them just as I thought they would.
This fight against the man is somewhat short sighted in my view.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 31, 2009)

tjf67 said:


> I think you guys are bashing the mags a little to hard.  They do give you the general characteristics of each ski.  I have been using them for years and have liked all the skiis I have purchased.  I dont have the time or desire to demo all the different skiis.  I usually use the mag to cement what I think I already know.
> That said AC50 for me this year.  I knew I was getting it before the mags came out and low and behold they decribed them just as I thought they would.
> This fight against the man is somewhat short sighted in my view.



For the Record,

This thread isn't a 'fight against the man post'; just my observation that a company that owns two magazines presented two conflicting reviews of the same product and IMO that's pretty weak sauce.


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Aug 31, 2009)

I don't even bother to read Ski or Skiing magazine cause they are crap...all the gear info I need I can get on the net..


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 31, 2009)

tjf67 said:


> I think you guys are bashing the mags a little to hard.  They do give you the general characteristics of each ski.  I have been using them for years and have liked all the skiis I have purchased.  I dont have the time or desire to demo all the different skiis.  I usually use the mag to cement what I think I already know.
> That said AC50 for me this year.  I knew I was getting it before the mags came out and low and behold they decribed them just as I thought they would.
> This fight against the man is somewhat short sighted in my view.



The criticism is directed not at the technical data (size, dimensions, price, etc) but at the "ratings" and testing of the skis and ranking as which ski is best for what.


----------



## Puck it (Aug 31, 2009)

These things are absolutely useless, even more so this year.


----------



## Geoff (Aug 31, 2009)

Puck it said:


> These things are absolutely useless, even more so this year.



Not "absolutely" useless.  They at least give you the brands, basic dimensions, and MSRP pricing.   ...and you don't have to suffer through all that awful ski manufacturer web site Flash crapola to get the information.   If I'm shopping for a ski with a specific width and natural turn radius, I at least know which ones I want to try.


----------



## snowmonster (Aug 31, 2009)

Geoff said:


> Not "absolutely" useless.  They at least give you the brands, basic dimensions, and MSRP pricing.   ...and you don't have to suffer through all that awful ski manufacturer web site Flash crapola to get the information.   If I'm shopping for a ski with a specific width and natural turn radius, I at least know which ones I want to try.



^ Agree. I like the convenience of having the different skis in the same page and comparing them. Beats having to make a spreadsheet of what's out there and doing it on your own. When I look at gear guides, I tune into the tip/waist/tail dimensions (especially waist), available lengths, and stiffness. The write-ups and ratings are subjective at best and make for good reading when you have downtime like on the subway. It also helps the ski jones on a warm August afternoon. However, when a number of reviewers universally praise a ski for a given application, they're probably on to something and you should listen. 

Anyway, with an idea of the basic dimensions and stiffness, you can make an educated guess as to which skis are right for you then you go on to demo (as a lot have suggested). I have to confess that I have never demoed a ski I bought and have always relied on a combination of gear guides, shop talk and internet reviews to make my selections (there's always someone out there who's just about the same height, weight, skiing style and ability who's tried out the skis you want). I have also stuck to one brand of skis all throughout so I have developed a familiarity with the product line. I sort of don't feel lost and kind of know what the reviews are talking about. I do not recommend this though. It's part of my quirky personality. =)

It's also funny also how a ski jumps from one category to another even if nothing's been changed from the year before except the topsheet. Take for example the Rossi Z9. One year, Ski tested it in the All-Mountain Expert: Speed category. The next year, with a new topsheet, it was downgraded to the Cruiser category. Huh? One year it's an expert race ski and the next year it's something for intermediates. Of course, the Z11 was entered into the AME: Speed category that year. If you want an even better mind bender, go look at what Ski and Skiing said about Kastle skis in last year's issues. I'm sure you'll get different takes. If I remember right, the tenor of all Kastle reviews last year was "Kastle is back from the dead and they're back in a big way with these amazing skis."


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 31, 2009)

snowmonster said:


> It's also funny also how a ski jumps from one category to another even if nothing's been changed from the year before except the topsheet. Take for example the Rossi Z9. One year, Ski tested it in the All-Mountain Expert: Speed category. The next year, with a new topsheet, it was downgraded to the Cruiser category. Huh? One year it's an expert race ski and the next year it's something for intermediates. Of course, the Z11 was entered into the AME: Speed category that year. If you want an even better mind bender, go look at what Ski and Skiing said about Kastle skis in last year's issues. I'm sure you'll get different takes. If I remember right, the tenor of all Kastle reviews last year was "Kastle is back from the dead and they're back in a big way with these amazing skis."



+ 1.  That's what I was saying.  The manufacturer dictates which category the ski gets tested in and that can change from magazine to magazine, and season to season.


----------



## mattchuck2 (Aug 31, 2009)

GrilledSteezeSandwich said:


> I don't even bother to read Ski or Skiing magazine cause they are crap...all the gear info I need I can get on the net..



Who the hell is giving you information on "the net?"

It could be some beginner, some shill, or some schmuck.  I at least like to hear what some pros, high level instructors and ski patrollers have to say (Ski and Skiing Magazine used to tell you that kind of stuff, but this year, not so much).


----------



## RootDKJ (Aug 31, 2009)

Part of the problem, as i see it, is the Ski Category descriptions used my the magazines don't even come close to some of the categories used by the (online) retailers.  

For the average person, I could see how it could be extremely confusing trying to figure out which ski to purchase.


----------



## Geoff (Sep 1, 2009)

RootDKJ said:


> Part of the problem, as i see it, is the Ski Category descriptions used my the magazines don't even come close to some of the categories used by the (online) retailers.
> 
> For the average person, I could see how it could be extremely confusing trying to figure out which ski to purchase.



There's "all mountain" further divided by the amount of time you spend on the groomers.   There's "park rat".  There's "spandex dude".

What's confusing?

It's not like an intermediate skidder is going to walk up and buy a 120mm rockered powder machine.


----------



## tjf67 (Sep 1, 2009)

RootDKJ said:


> Part of the problem, as i see it, is the Ski Category descriptions used my the magazines don't even come close to some of the categories used by the (online) retailers.
> 
> For the average person, I could see how it could be extremely confusing trying to figure out which ski to purchase.



Both mags have charts to bring you to what type ski you should be looking at.  It was pretty simple and it brought me where I should be.   You all should admit it they are good mags.  I dont know of another place you can get them laid out like that so you can narrow it down to two or three.


----------



## tjf67 (Sep 1, 2009)

mattchuck2 said:


> Who the hell is giving you information on "the net?"
> 
> It could be some beginner, some shill, or some schmuck.  I at least like to hear what some pros, high level instructors and ski patrollers have to say (Ski and Skiing Magazine used to tell you that kind of stuff, but this year, not so much).



+1


----------



## eastcoastpowderhound (Sep 1, 2009)

thetrailboss said:


> Exactly.  I agree with the consensus on the crediblity of ski testing.  A few years ago when I was buying skis I talked with a local reputable shop about the tests and he shared some secrets.
> 
> First, not every ski is demoed.  Manufacturers, believe it or not, have to pay for the honor to have their skis tested.  So they will only send a few models.  When they are tested, the skis are covered up so that the skier doesn't know what he/she is skiing on.  .


Let me clear up some misconceptions here...not as someone who is guessing or heard from someone who's a reliable source who heard from someone else....I'll clear it up as someone who's been to the tests the last two years and knows firsthand.  

Vendors do not have to PAY to have skis tested...they have to pay to be there, travel, lodging, and in most cases, lift tickets.  Vendors will send as many models as they can...but the parameters (waist widths, target consumer, ski type...park, powder, all mtn, etc) are determined by the magazine.  Only Skiing Magazine requires that the skis be covered up...the rest of the mags let the colors fly.  




thetrailboss said:


> Second, the manufacturers know that these demos are not really too important.  So what they do is send skis and then have the skis demoed in different categories to see how they handle.  For example, they might have their twin tips demoed for high speed cruising or something like that just for the hell of it.  They want to see where the ski's weakness is, not necessarily its strength.  .



No, the vendors feel that these reviews are quite important.  Vendors are only allowed to enter a ski in one category...only one that allows one ski in multiple categories is Ski Press...and typically only race skis...a mens lenght and womens length.  There are far fewer categories in ski/skiing than vendors have skis...so it makes sense to get as many skis tested as possible, not to send one ski into as many categories as possible.  

T





thetrailboss said:


> he magazines arbitrarily make up the categories and the ski manufacturers will just toss in whatever skis they want...not necessarily the best ones.  They don't have any say...the categories that the magazines make up are pretty random at times and one magazine may say that a ski is a "freeride" model while another might say, "big mountain expert."  Likewise, a manufacturer may have a ski demoed in the "freeride category" in one magazine and in the "intermediate" category in another.  .



The mags spend hours trying to create what they feel are the right categories...and vendors try their hardest to put the right ski into each category...they're competing against the other vendors, why would they just toss some random ski in there?



thetrailboss said:


> Nothing replaces an actual demo.  The ski that I liked the best last season at the demo day was a high speed expert cruiser ski, but it handled very well in the bumps as well.  You wouldn't know that from a magazine test.



Totally agree with you here.

Some other info:

Powder Magazine doesn't do a "test" so much as a bro fest...vendors bring their best freeride/powder skis to Jackson Hole and spend 4 days skiing with the Powder staff...laps in the backcountry, etc.  Its real world skiing...the testers spend half a day with each vendor and rotate through the vendors.  The other tests usually involve one run, maybe two.

The testers for ski/skiing are former NCAA racers, US team members, PSIA elite...a few are retailers...but all have a solid skiing pedigree.  Testers for Powder are mostly their staff...editors, writers, photographers...and some very solid skiers themselves.  Freeskier uses their staff and supplemented them with some freeride athletes.  The testers range in age from early 20s to their 50s...they aren't all 5'10 and 150...they range from guys over 200lbs to ladies who barely break 100lbs with feet so small they barely fit into demo bindings.  They run a pretty wide range...but the one thing they have in common is they are all solid skiers.
  Their feelings and impressions on these skis may not echo your own...unless you're skiing 60+ days a year and were an elite NCAA racer or PSIA demo team member.  So, take them with a grain of salt...but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.  The best bet is to find a consumer demo event and try for yourself


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 1, 2009)

all makes perfect sense Eastcoast.   But do you agree with my perception that the rankings are a joke and somewhat pointless and the magazines would probably be better not 'scoring' the skis?

I know that if I was a manager at Kastle, I'd have a beef with Ski/Skiing to have one of the magazines report my model as the best in the category and the other magazine report it as the worst. Different people have different gear preferences, but to have such a discrepency over a large sample of testers doesn't make much sense.


----------



## tarponhead (Sep 1, 2009)

eastcoastpowderhound said:


> The best bet is to find a consumer demo event and try for yourself



What is the best way to go about doing just that?


----------



## wa-loaf (Sep 1, 2009)

tarponhead said:


> What is the best way to go about doing just that?



Check with your local mtn and they probably have one scheduled. There's also a demo thread that will likely be revived soon. Some shops sponsor them too.


----------



## wa-loaf (Sep 1, 2009)

Oh and everyone stop being so serious. The ski mags are for "entertainment purposes only". Check out the new gear, look at the pretty pictures and get pumped for the season.


----------



## tjf67 (Sep 1, 2009)

eastcoastpowderhound said:


> Let me clear up some misconceptions here...not as someone who is guessing or heard from someone who's a reliable source who heard from someone else....I'll clear it up as someone who's been to the tests the last two years and knows firsthand.
> 
> Vendors do not have to PAY to have skis tested...they have to pay to be there, travel, lodging, and in most cases, lift tickets.  Vendors will send as many models as they can...but the parameters (waist widths, target consumer, ski type...park, powder, all mtn, etc) are determined by the magazine.  Only Skiing Magazine requires that the skis be covered up...the rest of the mags let the colors fly.
> 
> ...





SMACK!!!!  haha good info.


----------



## eastcoastpowderhound (Sep 1, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> all makes perfect sense Eastcoast.   But do you agree with my perception that the rankings are a joke and somewhat pointless and the magazines would probably be better not 'scoring' the skis?.


They're only a joke when your skis didn't make the cut  :wink:




deadheadskier said:


> I know that if I was a manager at Kastle, I'd have a beef with Ski/Skiing to have one of the magazines report my model as the best in the category and the other magazine report it as the worst. Different people have different gear preferences, but to have such a discrepency over a large sample of testers doesn't make much sense.



Those Kastles MADE both magazines...so they weren't best in test to worst in test, just Best of the Best and Least Best of the Best...the "worst" didn't make the magazine.  

But yes, it is somewhat silly to see skis that make it in Skiing not make it in Ski...but that's only because we know they are both owned by Bonnier Corp...lots of folks out there don't know that.  

Like I said, grain of salt.  They do try hard to come up with scores that make sense...and their based on at least a dozen or so testers individual score cards...so its the average score for the ski, not one testers score.  The magazines and the vendors spend a lot of time, effort and money to execute the tests...its pretty obvious from this thread that everyone's got some more work to do!  When I was in retail I'd always try to get folks to demo skis before they bought them....its the only real way to find out how they will work for you, for your style, for your typical trail conditions, etc.  You can't believe everything you read...or hear on cable tv or find on the internet...


----------



## bvibert (Sep 1, 2009)

eastcoastpowderhound said:


> Let me clear up some misconceptions here...not as someone who is guessing or heard from someone who's a reliable source who heard from someone else....I'll clear it up as someone who's been to the tests the last two years and knows firsthand.



Thanks for filling us in with some actual information.


----------



## eastcoastpowderhound (Sep 1, 2009)

bvibert said:


> Thanks for filling us in with some actual information.



meh...I just quoted all that crap from some post on epic.  ;-)


----------



## Philpug (Sep 2, 2009)

eastcoastpowderhound said:


> Vendors do not have to PAY to have skis tested...they have to pay to be there, travel, lodging, and in most cases, lift tickets.  Vendors will send as many models as they can...but the parameters (waist widths, target consumer, ski type...park, powder, all mtn, etc) are determined by the magazine.  Only Skiing Magazine requires that the skis be covered up...the rest of the mags let the colors fly.



Not completely accurate. For the 08-09 reviews, SkiPress required $1500,00 from the manufacturer to get the skis into their reviews. A portion of that $1500.00 went to advertising dollars. SkiPress gave the manufacturer the categories and they could submit ONE pair per category (but could submit the same ski to more than one category).


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 2, 2009)

bvibert said:


> Thanks for filling us in with some actual information.



+ 1.  It is always good to get firsthand information.


----------



## eastcoastpowderhound (Sep 2, 2009)

Philpug said:


> Not completely accurate. For the 08-09 reviews, SkiPress required $1500,00 from the manufacturer to get the skis into their reviews. A portion of that $1500.00 went to advertising dollars. SkiPress gave the manufacturer the categories and they could submit ONE pair per category (but could submit the same ski to more than one category).



Sorry, my bad...we let the canadians handle ski presse eh...so I don't deal with their test pesonally.  Let me clarify...Ski,Skiing, Powder, Freeskier, and Outside Magazine DO NOT charge the vendors...nor does Snow East.


----------



## Puck it (Sep 2, 2009)

Geoff said:


> Not "absolutely" useless. They at least give you the brands, basic dimensions, and MSRP pricing. ...and you don't have to suffer through all that awful ski manufacturer web site Flash crapola to get the information. If I'm shopping for a ski with a specific width and natural turn radius, I at least know which ones I want to try.


 

They are useless.  They list only a few skis that only a select few like.  Much more efficiennt looking at ski shop sites and manutactuers and then looking for reviews on forums.  Like here or asking how people like them.  This is how I bought my Icelantic Nomads.


----------



## wa-loaf (Sep 2, 2009)

Puck it said:


> They are useless.  They list only a few skis that only a select few like.  Much more efficiennt looking at ski shop sites and manutactuers and then looking for reviews on forums.  Like here or asking how people like them.  This is how I bought my Icelantic Nomads.



Huh? How is having most of the top skis all in one place with the basic stats available, less efficient than searching multiple websites for shops and manufacturers?

Now nobody should limit themselves to one source altogether, but having 90% of the skis I might be interested in in one spot is damn efficient. Then I can spend minimal effort looking at other sources for the other 10% and alternate opinions.


----------



## Puck it (Sep 2, 2009)

wa-loaf said:


> Huh? How is having most of the top skis all in one place with the basic stats available, less efficient than searching multiple websites for shops and manufacturers?
> 
> Now nobody should limit themselves to one source altogether, but having 90% of the skis I might be interested in in one spot is damn efficient. Then I can spend minimal effort looking at other sources for the other 10% and alternate opinions.



That not 90% of all skis by no means. Where are you getting that number from?


----------



## wa-loaf (Sep 2, 2009)

Puck it said:


> That not 90% of all skis by no means. Where are you getting that number from?



90% of the skis *I might* be interested in. I could care less about the beginner and intermediate skis. There are some boutique skis that don't make it that might catch my interest.


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Sep 2, 2009)

I wish they had a snowblade section..I want to pick out the perfect all mountain snowblade for long turns in the bumps and short turns on the groomed...


----------



## wa-loaf (Sep 2, 2009)

wa-loaf said:


> 90% of the skis *I might* be interested in. I could care less about the beginner and intermediate skis. There are some boutique skis that don't make it that might catch my interest.



So yeah, I guess kinda useless for intermediates and beginners.


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Sep 6, 2009)

pretty soon the resort issues will be out...I want to visit a top 10 resort this season for the best experience..


----------

