# All Mountain Skis That Are Great In Moguls



## CS2-6 (Aug 16, 2018)

Long-time...first-time...
I've posted this question on two other forums, but am looking to get as wide a cross-section of opinions as possible. So I apologize if any of yall have seen a very similar post elsewhere.  I almost never ski the Northeast, but I'm posting here specifically because this seems to be the place on the internet where mogul skiing is most alive now, with mogulskiing.net defunct.

I looked at all the relevant threads I could find, but didn't come across an answer. Besides, everyone's situation is a little different; and really, what's one more thread on the pile.

Height: 5'11"
Weight: 165lbs
Ability: Expert (If we're being honest with each other, "Advanced")
Location (skiing): Southwestern Colorado (exclusively)
Days on the Snow: 6-10/year

I spend 85% of my time on moguls, but 15% of the time I end up skiing through some crud and tracked out powder because the folks I ski with get tired of all the moguls all the time.

If I'm ever lucky enough for a powder day, I'll rent some fat things. I never go fast on the groomers, so I don't need stability at speed or long, GS turns.

The consensus of past advice has been to save the money of skis and spend it on more days on the snow and possibly lessons. That's fine except the skis I like aren't terribly well stocked in rental shops. Shops that have any usually have the Kinks, but they're all getting a little old (5 seasons now), and they were a soft "freestyle" ski out of the box. And if a shop has a second model, it's usually the Smash7s, which are newer, but set up weird (see below). But, if any of yall still think my money would be better spent on elsewhere, just let me know.

I'm looking for an all-mountain (~80-90mm underfoot, 100 at most) ski that I will really like in the bumps and that I will not really hate in the crud.

I get the impression that the type of ski that works well in the moguls depends a lot on how the skier attacks the moguls. I'm trying to improve, but I know I'm 34 and only ski a week or two a year, so I'll never be anything close to a hot doggin' World Cupper.

Here's a couple videos of me skiing down some blue moguls. Just to give yall an idea of my ability and style:

My research shows I want a torsionally stiff ski, with a soft tip (and tail?, still not sure on that part), and traditional camber.

A few years ago when I asked a similar question on other forums, some folks said "just get mogul skis and deal with them in conditions they're not designed for". I was originally hesitant to take this approach because I'd been on the Volkl Mogul Wall and absolutely hated them, in the backseat the entire day. Last season; however, I tried a pair of 4FRNT Originators and absolutely loved them on some skied off blue bumps. I dunno if I got better or if the Mogul Walls are that much stiffer than the Originators. And I'm not sold on the idea that a pair of dedicated bump skis would make a good single quiver for someone like me, but I'm more open to the idea now. Going by that, here's the "short" list of contenders:

Line Blend
Line Honeybadger - may be too flexy
K2 Shreditor - some reviews suggest they may be too rockered
Rossignol Scratch - skied an old pair of these (naked lady silhouette) and liked them (but they were pretty flexed out and the snow was pretty skied off), but not sure I'd enjoy them in any sort of powder or crud. I understand the current model may be too rockered.
Fat-ypus D'root
Fat-ypus G'Butter
4Frnt Vandal
4Frnt Originator
Dynastar Twisters
JSkis The AllPlay
Armada ARV86/ARV96
Armada B-Dog
Faction Prodigy 3.0
Moment PB&J
Lib-Tech Backwards
Head Caddy
Head Framewall - probably too stiff
Salomon Rocker2 - some reviews suggest they're stiffer than I'd like
Blizzard Bushwacker - everyone says these are the best all-mount mogul-bias skis, but it seems that the stiffness varies wildly year to year; they're returning for 2018, but I've got no idea how flexible they'll be
Salomon TNT - metal reinforced? if so, they're probably too stiff for my "style"
Volkl Kink - Skied these multiple years and liked them a lot, but maybe too soft in the tails, seemed like whenever my weight gets back, the tails kinda collapse and I crash (unintentional tail butter?). Probably too soft.
Rossignol Smash7 - I liked these except that the breaks on the rental sticks are too wide and cross each other, basically tying my laces together; if it hadn't happened to me about two times per day, I would've never thought it was possible

Do yall reckon that has to do with their technique being better or desire for more groomer performance and stability at speed?

Jesus Christ, that was a lot of preamble. Thanks for the help, yall.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 16, 2018)

If 85% of my skiing was dedicated to moguls, then I would buy a mogul specific ski.  Technique aside back seat issues in the bumps are usually the result of the tails of the skis being too soft.  

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Edd (Aug 16, 2018)

On your list I’ve only skied (and own) the Bushwackers, I think from 2015. I like them in bumps, my shitty technique aside. I would not recommend the current model. They’re notably stiffer, but a better bump skier could rock them, I’m sure. I’m your height and 10 pounds heavier, skiing in a 180 length. I’d be curious to try the 173 when it comes to bumps. 


Sent from my iPad using AlpineZone


----------



## Jully (Aug 16, 2018)

deadheadskier said:


> If 85% of my skiing was dedicated to moguls, then I would buy a mogul specific ski.  Technique aside back seat issues in the bumps are usually the result of the tails of the skis being too soft.
> 
> Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app



Really? I actually did not know this. I've never tried a dedicated mogul ski and this makes me curious.


----------



## mister moose (Aug 16, 2018)

Given your skiing style, location, and described terrain, I'm going to go rogue and say none of the above.  I don't see the need for a mogul specific ski.

At 6-10 days per year, you're not going to get the conditioning, muscle memory and skill development to make a dedicated mogul ski shine.  Your technique is not at all what mogul skis are designed for.

I would go with a good all mountain ski that you like, and forget bump specific, even though bumps is mostly what you ski.  Lots of combinations of flex, width and camber out there to choose from.

There's a lot you're doing right, head up, shoulders down the hill, smooth core.  The line you choose, the degree and type of skidding, and where you pressure the ski tells me you need some coaching in those areas.

Lets look at some photos:




Here cresting a small bump, look at your lower leg.  There is no forward shin pressure.





A few seconds later in the stop, weight way back.





Look at your skis.  They are divergent.  Ask yourself what is going on, what leads to this, and where your pressure (fore and aft, left and right) on the skis is.  This is 9 seconds in on the second video, just as you finish a turn to your right.


'Don't get me wrong.  Buy the skis you like, and perhaps you will grow into the pair you buy.  What I am saying is you aren't yet where you can make the best evaluation on what those skis should be.  Get some coaching on edging, timing, hip position and stance in general, weight distribution, perfecting your turn and different kinds of turns, line selection and honing your ability to ski different lines of the same bump.

If you only can get out there 6-10 times a year (a sin for someone who lives in Colorado) read mogul books & watch mogul videos to make the most of your time on hill, there's lots of material out there.  Look at Pugski.com, tons of mogul advice and videos there.  Find a good mogul coach or instructor.  Take at least 3 classes in those 10 days.  Get more video of yourself, (preferably better quality video*) and study it.


*Better resolution, closer up with telephoto, shot from mid bump field, not the bottom, shot both coming and going.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 16, 2018)

Jully said:


> Really? I actually did not know this. I've never tried a dedicated mogul ski and this makes me curious.


It's easier to maintain forward shin pressure as you come into the bump in the absorption phase. When you go into the extension phase coming up over the bump and skiing tall, that's when you are most likely to fall into the backseat as your weight position becomes more neutral. Having soft tails exasperates the potential for this.  Stiffer tails create more of a platform to balance on as you move to drive yourself forward again down into the trough to re-enter the absorption phase. 

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## 180 (Aug 16, 2018)

great analysis Moose!


----------



## tumbler (Aug 16, 2018)

I can only imagine the constructive feedback (ridicule) I would get if I posted a video of myself...:lol:


----------



## Not Sure (Aug 16, 2018)

tumbler said:


> I can only imagine the constructive feedback (ridicule) I would get if I posted a video of myself...:lol:



Tumbler ? anything to do with your style ....;-) His skiing isn't bad . If I had to critique it would be a lil back seat and not enough  knee bending.

edit . I'm sort of in the same boat as far as a ski need goes . So I'm glad the OP posted the subject. 

I like a ski a little bit longer 170- 75 . like to let it roll every once in a while and enjoy a little extra stability . 165lbs 5'6" ...need to drop at least 10lbs . I really like moguls ,but Pa. is a bit tough usually icy dust on crust . So looking for suggestions too . although I would be looking for a previous year model as I'm cheap LOL.


----------



## Domeskier (Aug 17, 2018)

Siliconebobsquarepants said:


> Tumbler ? anything to do with your style ....;-) His skiing isn't bad . If I had to critique it would be a lil back seat and not enough  knee bending.
> 
> edit . I'm sort of in the same boat as far as a ski need goes . So I'm glad the OP posted the subject.
> 
> I like a ski a little bit longer 170- 75 . like to let it roll every once in a while and enjoy a little extra stability . 165lbs 5'6" ...need to drop at least 10lbs . I really like moguls ,but Pa. is a bit tough usually icy dust on crust . So looking for suggestions too . although I would be looking for a previous year model as I'm cheap LOL.



Dynastar Twisters are great on icy Pocono bumps.  It takes a bit of effort to carve them on groomers.  Never skied them in deep snow, but that's not likely to be an issue in PA.  

That being said, I've seen plenty of people rip bumps on all kinds of skis.  I wouldn't recommend a rockered ski for someone who spends a lot of time in bumps, but I think technique is far more important to good bump skiing than ski choice.  A dedicated bump ski will probably be lighter and quicker edge to edge and will help you get out of the back seat when your technique flounders, but it won't dramatically improve your bump skiing the way a shaped ski will improve your carving or a rockered ski will improve your powder skiing.


----------



## p_levert (Aug 17, 2018)

I say Volkl Kanjos.  See this thread: http://forums.alpinezone.com/showthread.php/140044-Mogul-Skis?highlight=mogul+skis


----------



## Not Sure (Aug 17, 2018)

Domeskier said:


> Dynastar Twisters are great on icy Pocono bumps.  It takes a bit of effort to carve them on groomers.  Never skied them in deep snow, but that's not likely to be an issue in PA.
> 
> That being said, I've seen plenty of people rip bumps on all kinds of skis.  I wouldn't recommend a rockered ski for someone who spends a lot of time in bumps, but I think technique is far more important to good bump skiing than ski choice.  A dedicated bump ski will probably be lighter and quicker edge to edge and will help you get out of the back seat when your technique flounders, but it won't dramatically improve your bump skiing the way a shaped ski will improve your carving or a rockered ski will improve your powder skiing.



Looking for an all mountain ski . My leg strength is good and can muscle some stiff skis around but a dedicated bump ski might not be great for groomers .I ski on Nordica steadfast with a dynafit radicals when skiing groomers as an alternative but need an all mountain I really love the steadfast's for most everything but bumps , the bindings wont hold up to constant bump flexing so I'm gentle with them.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 17, 2018)

The problem with modern All Mountain skis in bumps is too much sidecut,  too much stiffness towards the tip and a wide tip shovel. 

All mountain skis aren't designed to ski straight.  They want to always be on edge and have flex patterns that performs best at a high edge angle.  

All of this goes completely against what you want to do skiing bumps. To zip a line, you want to pretty much forget your edges entirely. You ski flat.  Sidecut and wide shovel are not your friends while skiing flat. 



Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## CS2-6 (Aug 18, 2018)

Holy crap.  I gotta say, I'm impressed.  Yall have already been incredibly helpful.  Thanks for all the input.



deadheadskier said:


> that's when you are most likely to fall into the backseat as your weight position becomes more neutral. Having soft tails exasperates the potential for this



The backseat is certainly where my problem is.  I've mostly skied flexible park/all mountain skis the past few seasons, probably because the all mountain carvers I was usually recommended (Volkl Kendo, etc) were too stiff and had too much sidecut.  I guess I liked the soft shovels on the Kinks, but the soft tails aren't doing me any favors.  Maybe that's why when I move the demo bindings to the furthest forward position, I feel more stable (longer tail makes it feel stiffer?? )



mister moose said:


> go rogue and say none of the above



I love rogue opinions.  Saving the cash to be better used elsewhere is definitely an option.



mister moose said:


> There's a lot you're doing right...Lets look at some photos:



Mister Moose, you really didn't have to put that much work into helping me, but I am stunned and sincerely grateful that you did.  You helped me more in one post than an entire $100 lesson did.  I mean, the lesson was fine, but everything he told me was essentially from the Bumps For Boomers text book.  Anyway, that's irrelevant; thanks for your help.



mister moose said:


> Here cresting a small bump, look at your lower leg.  There is no forward shin pressure...A few seconds later in the stop, weight way back.



I see what you mean.  I noticed last season that coming out of right hand turns I seem to be in the backseat more often than left turns.  I can see from your write-up that I have got to really focus more on driving the tips into the trough and maintaining strong forward pressure.



mister moose said:


> They are divergent.  Ask yourself what is going on



I'm either over-steering my downhill ski or under-steering my uphill ski; likely both.  I'm guessing it's a result of learning to ski by the snow plow --> stem christie method, and some of those ingrained habits cropping up.



mister moose said:


> Buy the skis you like...you aren't yet where you can make the best evaluation on what those skis should be



This makes total sense.  Honestly, the skis I like are the ones that will help (or at least not hinder) my ability to ski bumps better.  The list in my OP was just a bunch from a class of ski that I thought would do that.  But you're right, I don't know enough to make that judgment.



mister moose said:


> Get some coaching on edging, timing, hip position and stance in general, weight distribution, perfecting your turn and different kinds of turns, line selection and honing your ability to ski different lines of the same bump.



Will do.  I've got my eye on the Mary Jane bump clinic.



mister moose said:


> a sin for someone who lives in Colorado



Ooooooh man.  I probably should've been clearer in my OP, but I figured if I wrote another word I'd be banned permanently.  The San Juans are just where I ski, almost exclusively.  If any citizens of Colorado had heard you say that, their collective white-hot rage would've burned bright enough to melt down the host server for this forum.  'Cause I'm the creature most despised and reviled by Coloradans: a Native G@#D&?n Texan.  Residing in, being raised in, and born in Texas, 12 hours southeast of Taos is as close as I've ever lived to a ski lift.  So 2 trips a season = 10 days = about as much as I can hope for.  Sorry if I mislead anyone.



mister moose said:


> read mogul books & watch mogul videos to make the most of your time on hill, there's lots of material out there. Look at Pugski.com, tons of mogul advice and videos there. Find a good mogul coach or instructor. Take at least 3 classes in those 10 days. Get more video of yourself, (preferably better quality video*) and study it.



On it.  I've read DiPiro's book (I should probably revisit that), Jean-Claude Killy's "Situational Skiing" and R. Mark Elling's "The All-Mountain Skier".  So I have some understanding of what I'm supposed to be doing, I'm just not always sure what I'm doing wrong.  I just know I look like shit and wanna ski bumps like I see some folks do it (smooth, clean, and tightkneed).  I've posted on PugSki, but I haven't dug around much on there for bump content, I will be sure to.  And I'll follow your pointers next time I get someone to film me. 

Again, thanks Mister Moose.  Are you a coach or an instructor?  If not, you should be.  I'd pay for feedback like that.



Domeskier said:


> Dynastar Twisters





Domeskier said:


> get out of the back seat when your technique flounders



Well, this is definitely a big flaw in my skiing.  I liked the Originators... and it sounds like the Twisters are on the softer side.  I'll probably keep an eye out for a cheap set...



Siliconebobsquarepants said:


> His skiing isn't bad . If I had to critique it would be a lil back seat and not enough  knee bending.
> 
> edit . I'm sort of in the same boat as far as a ski need goes . So I'm glad the OP posted the subject.



Thanks, man!  And let me know what ski you end up on.



tumbler said:


> I can only imagine the constructive feedback (ridicule)



I welcome the feedback and embrace the ridicule!  Keep it coming!!


----------



## Not Sure (Aug 18, 2018)

"I just know I look like shit and wanna ski bumps like I see some folks do it smooth, clean, and tightkneed" 

I have an old ski buddy  that never progressed past intermediate. His biggest impediment was his stance If I had to pick one flaw I see it's "Your stance is to erect in the bumps" Lower your upper body and move your hands forward and your tips will almost automatically drive into the next trough. With an erect stance in the bumps when you crest the next bump you have nothing left to drive your tips into the next trough .   Try standing straight up and pressing on the balls of your feet ( backseat instantly ) . Now squat and try the same thing ...big difference !


----------



## mister moose (Aug 18, 2018)

CS2-6 said:


> I'm either over-steering my downhill ski or under-steering my uphill ski; likely both.  I'm guessing it's a result of learning to ski by the snow plow --> stem christie method, and some of those ingrained habits cropping up.



Yes, but it goes deeper.  Why are you doing that?  It's a short grainy video, and I may very well be wrong, but it looks to me like on right turns you delay or never really commit to the outside foot, or if/when you do, it doesn't last.  The left foot drops because it isn't edged/weighted, and then ask why isn't it edged, and you get to lateral body position.  Steering.   This is why I said you need to deconstruct your turn.  Wax on, wax off.  Do you understand that reference?  If not, go watch The Karate Kid.

​


CS2-6 said:


> Residing in, being raised in, and born in Texas, 12 hours southeast of Taos is as close as I've ever lived to a ski lift.  So 2 trips a season = 10 days = about as much as I can hope for.  Sorry if I mislead anyone.



Oh.  Why haven't you moved to Colorado yet?​



CS2-6 said:


> I'd pay for feedback like that.



​Cool.  Come to VT and buy me a beer.    Better yet, come in late April and hang out on Superstar for a weekend.  (Superstar in April and May is probably unknown in Texas, but it is Bumper central in the East.)

Oh.  Lose the backpack. You're not off skiing the Hobacks.  It messes with your center of gravity, adds weight, and when it moves out of synch with extension/absorbtion it screws you up.


----------



## JimG. (Aug 18, 2018)

Whatever happened to Dan DiPiro?


----------



## bdfreetuna (Aug 19, 2018)

Kastle FX85 without the HP if you want it flexier

There's a lot of ways to ski bumps though and if you aren't trying to zip line I would just go with your top "all mountain" pick. You will adapt.

My above suggestion is probably not too far off the mark though, even though I have no owned nor skied one, it was one of my top picks before I bought Atomic Vantage 90 CTi (no ragerts there but probably would have gone Kastle if I wanted a mogul ski).


----------



## CS2-6 (Aug 20, 2018)

JimG. said:


> Whatever happened to Dan DiPiro?



That's a question I'd like to hear the answer to myself.



Siliconebobsquarepants said:


> Lower your upper body and move your hands forward and your tips will almost automatically drive into the next trough.



That makes a lot of sense.  I read a lot indicating that you need to have a more upright stance in the bumps, but now I'm thinking that's relative; specifically, relative to the hip angulation you see in slalom and downhill styles.



mister moose said:


> Why are you doing that?



You know, I've noticed that I've always been more comfortable stopping to the left rather than the right.  It's the first way I learned to stop as a kid and even now on steep stuff I find myself spilling more speed to turning to the left and less in control to the right.  And that biomechanical flaw might go really really deep... when I'm squatting heavy weight I tend to twist a little to the left coming up.

I didn't realize it was obvious in steered turns on easy blue runs though.



mister moose said:


> Watch The Karate Kid.



You mean that really old movie?  With Will Smith's son?  Naw I didn't, the previews didn't look that good.  I can catch a fly with my ski poles though.



mister moose said:


> Oh.  Why haven't you moved to Colorado yet?



'Cause God Bless Texas.



mister moose said:


> Cool.  Come to VT and buy me a beer.    Better yet, come in late April and hang out on Superstar for a weekend.  (Superstar in April and May is probably unknown in Texas, but it is Bumper central in the East.)



Man... you really shouldn't make offers you'll regret following through on.  If work sends me up to Yankeeland in April I'll definitely be taking you up on that.  Sounds like it'd beat a Mary Jane mogul clinic in a cost/benefit analysis, even though I have no idea what "Superstar" is.  Hell, I didn't even know you could ski in May up there.

Just don't call me "grasshopper" or make me walk on rice paper (your turn for the "reference challenge").



mister moose said:


> Oh.  Lose the backpack.



Ok....... but where am I going to carry this 32oz of coffee, beef jerky, and tall boy then?



bdfreetuna said:


> I would just go with your top "all mountain" pick. You will adapt.



This brings up another question: what length skis would yall recommend for me (5'11", 165lbs)?  And I know my poles should be short, but how short?  44-45"?


----------



## CS2-6 (Aug 20, 2018)

JimG. said:


> Whatever happened to Dan DiPiro?



Lemme know if you find out.



Siliconebobsquarepants said:


> Lower your upper body and move your hands forward and your tips will almost automatically drive into the next trough.



Thanks, that makes a lot of sense to me.  I'd heard you want a taller stance in the bumps, but that's probably in a relative sense, relative to the greater hip angulation in slalom and downhill styles.



mister moose said:


> Why are you doing that?



You know, I've noticed that I always feel a little more comfortable stopping to the left than the right.  It's the way I first learned, and even now on steep stuff I've seen that I tend to spill more speed turning to the left and less in control to the right.  And that bio-mechanical flaw might go really really deep; when I'm squatting heavy weight, I have a tendancy to twist a little bit to the left coming up.

I just didn't know it was obvious even on easy blue runs.



mister moose said:


> go watch The Karate Kid.



You mean that really old movie?  With Will Smith's kid?  Naw, the previews didn't look that good.  I can catch a fly with my ski poles though...



mister moose said:


> Oh.  Why haven't you moved to Colorado yet?



'Cause God Bless Texas.



mister moose said:


> Cool.  Come to VT and buy me a beer



Don't make offers you'll regret following through on.  If work sends me up to Yankeeland I'll definitely be taking you up on that.  Sounds like it might even beat a Mary Jane clinic in a cost/benefit analysis.  And yeah, I don't know what Superstar is; I didn't even know you could still ski in May up there.

Just don't call me "grasshopper" or make me walk on rice paper (your turn in the Reference Challenge).



mister moose said:


> Oh.  Lose the backpack



But then where am I going to carry this 32oz of coffee, bag of beef jerky, and tall boy?



bdfreetuna said:


> You will adapt.


----------



## CS2-6 (Aug 20, 2018)

JimG. said:


> Whatever happened to Dan DiPiro?



Lemme know if you find out.



Siliconebobsquarepants said:


> Lower your upper body and move your hands forward and your tips will almost automatically drive into the next trough.



Thanks, that makes a lot of sense to me.  I'd heard you want a taller stance in the bumps, but that's probably in a relative sense, relative to the greater hip angulation in slalom and downhill styles.



mister moose said:


> Why are you doing that?



You know, I've noticed that I always feel a little more comfortable stopping to the left than the right.  It's the way I first learned, and even now on steep stuff I've seen that I tend to spill more speed turning to the left and less in control to the right.  And that bio-mechanical flaw might go really really deep; when I'm squatting heavy weight, I have a tendancy to twist a little bit to the left coming up.

I just didn't know it was obvious even on easy blue runs.



mister moose said:


> go watch The Karate Kid.



You mean that really old movie?  With Will Smith's kid?  Naw, the previews didn't look that good.  I can catch a fly with my ski poles though...



mister moose said:


> Oh.  Why haven't you moved to Colorado yet?



'Cause God Bless Texas.



mister moose said:


> Cool.  Come to VT and buy me a beer



Don't make offers you'll regret following through on.  If work sends me up to Yankeeland I'll definitely be taking you up on that.  Sounds like it might even beat a Mary Jane clinic in a cost/benefit analysis.  And yeah, I don't know what Superstar is; I didn't even know you could still ski in May up there.

Just don't call me "grasshopper" or make me walk on rice paper (your turn in the Reference Challenge).



mister moose said:


> Oh.  Lose the backpack



But then where am I going to carry this 32oz of coffee, bag of beef jerky, and tall boy?



bdfreetuna said:


> You will adapt.



That brings up my next question.  At 5'11" and 165 lbs. and intermediate skiing ability, what length ski should I be using?  I know I need short poles, but how short? 44-55"?


----------



## Domeskier (Aug 21, 2018)

CS2-6 said:


> That brings up my next question.  At 5'11" and 165 lbs. and intermediate skiing ability, what length ski should I be using?  I know I need short poles, but how short? 44-55"?



I'm your height and have bump skis ranging from 168cm to 182cm.  I wouldn't recommend anything less than 175cm.  Just make sure you're not getting something to stiff in the tips.  A longer, softer ski will help with speed control, which is one of the keys to gaining confidence in bumps.  For poles, I generally go with 105cm-107cm (i.e., 41-42 inches).  At you height, anything over 44 inches will probably interfere with absorption and keeping your hands forward.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Aug 21, 2018)

Domeskier said:


> I'm your height and have bump skis ranging from 168cm to 182cm.  I wouldn't recommend anything less than 175cm.



Why do you say that?  

Professional bump skiers are on shorter skis with their dedicated mogul skis than their "normal" skis.

Look at this mogul podium.


----------



## JimG. (Aug 21, 2018)

CS2-6 said:


> Lemme know if you find out.



It's a great read, especially for an aspiring bumper:

http://forums.alpinezone.com/showth...d-You-About-Mogul-Skiing?highlight=dan+dipiro


----------



## Not Sure (Aug 21, 2018)

BenedictGomez said:


> Why do you say that?
> 
> Professional bump skiers are on shorter skis with their dedicated mogul skis than their "normal" skis.
> 
> Look at this mogul podium.



From dipiro post #34 in 2005 "As for length... with bump skis, I always tend to go with the longest available. (I'm 6 ft. tall.) Shorter skis are good for whipping around in the air, but all bump skis are relatively short these days. (I used to compete on 195s/200s.)" 

Old post but still relevant ? I like longer skis as well . Maybe some springlike effect when you leave a trough and start your next turn.

I don't know how many of the competitions are zip line vs natural . I would tend to think shorter skis would favor that type ? 

I've only ever entered one competition so just speculating from a recreational point of view.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Aug 21, 2018)

Siliconebobsquarepants said:


> I've only ever entered one competition so just speculating from a recreational point of view.



Looking at a bunch of podium shots (here's a recent one below, with all 6 medalists), there's definitely a lot of variability among the mogul pros.  But top of head seems like longer than average these days, and top of head obviously isnt that long. 

 I also found some pros only going chin height for the other extreme, but I'd say nose to middle of forehead'ish seems to be the average, and that's clearly short for an expert skier.  In the below pic, the "longest" mogul skis are only top-of-forehead, and that's Mikael Kingsbury, and he's the best mogul skier in the world.


----------



## Glenn (Aug 22, 2018)

My daily drivers are a 170 Volkl Kendo. I went a bit shorter because I like to ski woods and bumps. Not ideal bump skis, but they work very well for all mountain skiing and getting into the bumps and woods every so often.


----------



## Domeskier (Aug 22, 2018)

BenedictGomez said:


> Looking at a bunch of podium shots (here's a recent one below, with all 6 medalists), there's definitely a lot of variability among the mogul pros.  But top of head seems like longer than average these days, and top of head obviously isnt that long.
> 
> I also found some pros only going chin height for the other extreme, but I'd say nose to middle of forehead'ish seems to be the average, and that's clearly short for an expert skier.  In the below pic, the "longest" mogul skis are only top-of-forehead, and that's Mikael Kingsbury, and he's the best mogul skier in the world.



Those podium shots are a bit misleading when it comes to judging ski length.  The skiers are usually resting the skis on their shoulders, so you need to take into account the angle the skis make with the body.  Kingsbury is 175cm and skiing what appears to be his ID One signature ski, which only comes in 172cm.  ID One has a helpful chart for determining mogul ski length.  At 5'11 (approximately 180cm), it would recommend a 177cm:



Most mogul skis max out at 180-182cm.  At 5'11, I think it's really a matter of personal preference whether the OP goes 175cm or 182cm.  Being 5'11 myself and having skis in both lengths, I find I prefer the longer.


----------



## skiur (Aug 22, 2018)

I have also seen at times that at the podium the skiers aren't holding the skis that they skiied the event on.  Sometimes you see them click out of their skis and somebody gives them a pair of skis to hold for the the camera for advertising purposes.


----------



## Domeskier (Aug 22, 2018)

skiur said:


> I have also seen at times that at the podium the skiers aren't holding the skis that they skiied the event on.  Sometimes you see them click out of their skis and somebody gives them a pair of skis to hold for the the camera for advertising purposes.



Yeah, I've seen that too.  I guess sponsors don't want to advertise their products with scuffed up tips and scratched top sheets.


----------



## mister moose (Aug 22, 2018)

Domeskier said:


> Yeah, I've seen that too.  I guess sponsors don't want to advertise their products with scuffed up tips and scratched top sheets.


The times I've seen that, it was so the officials could check to certify the skis used in the competition met spec, they were taken from them while still in the finish area.


----------



## Domeskier (Aug 22, 2018)

mister moose said:


> The times I've seen that, it was so the officials could check to certify the skis used in the competition met spec, they were taken from them while still in the finish area.



Ah.  That makes sense.  I can't remember if I saw it in an event where ski specs come into play, but it definitely happened in the finish area just before some sports reporter stuck a microphone in the athlete's face.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Aug 22, 2018)

Depends how serious you are about moguls vs. everything else. Virtually any other type of skiing you'd reap benefits going over ideal mogul ski length.

I would pick a middle ground of skis with a "rocker" shovel and tail (still cambered overall) with a low swing weight and maybe up to 90mm waist anyway. You might be able to get away with an all-mountain ski if it's "slippery" enough (even if it requires an adaptation on your part).

If the shovel and tail have a good lift, add at least 5cm, maybe 10cm to the "recommended" length (this might apply to a Kastle MX or Dynastar Sultan but newer skis have more gradual rise for flotation and maneuverability so thus longer total length for similar sidecut hold). So for you I'd say 180cm all mountain and consider mid/low 170s for moguls only.

Why? Because powder days happen and woods are like moguls but better. YMMV. I got the impression you are looking for 1 set of skis to use all the time but mogul biased. If you are looking for a dedicated mogul ski please ignore everything I've said.


----------



## Not Sure (Aug 22, 2018)

????

http://www.fis-ski.com/mm/Document/...tionequipment_1617_11072016_clean_English.pdf

Page 21 . For FIS There doesn't seem to be any length or width  limitations on Freestyle skis ?


----------



## bdfreetuna (Aug 22, 2018)

they don't call it freestyle for nuthin


----------



## benski (Aug 22, 2018)

Domeskier said:


> Yeah, I've seen that too.  I guess sponsors don't want to advertise their products with scuffed up tips and scratched top sheets.



Also I think there skis are stiffer than consumer skis so they can better handle the high speeds.


----------



## CS2-6 (Aug 25, 2018)

Enlightening!  Thanks everybody, I'll take any more length advice or experience folks want to throw in.


Domeskier said:


> wouldn't recommend anything less than 175cm





Domeskier said:


> not getting something to stiff in the tips


I'm beginning to see this is why I've gravitated towards park skis, they're generally the softest tips rental shops carry.


Domeskier said:


> poles, I generally go with 105cm-107cm (i.e., 41-42 inches)


Awesome.  Thanks, man.


JimG. said:


> It's a great read, especially for an aspiring bumper:


Absolutely.  I remember the first time I read it a few years ago.  It was the first time mogul skiing made sense to me.


Domeskier said:


> At 5'11 (approximately 180cm), it would recommend a 177cm...I find I prefer the longer.


That's a really helpful chart.  Why do you like the longer?  Better absorption?  Faster?


bdfreetuna said:


> middle ground of skis with a "rocker" shovel and tail (still cambered overall) with a low swing weight and maybe up to 90mm waist anyway...If the shovel and tail have a good lift, add at least 5cm, maybe 10cm to the "recommended" length...180cm all mountain and consider mid/low 170s for moguls only



Nope, you nailed it.  That's some incredibly helpful input right there, I really appreciate it and it's the framework I'll be using in my ski search.  I don't own any skis (never have) and I'm aiming for a one-ski quiver, but I still enjoy bumps more than anything else, so I can swallow a lot of compromise on other areas of the mountain.  But I doubt I'll ever ski the bumps good enough to really use a dedicated mogul ski.  But, I'm keeping my eye out for one on steep dirt cheap discount, just because I think it'd be fun to use every now and again.  I really liked my day on my buddy's 4FRNT Originators in 181cm.

From the comments so far, sounds like anywhere between 170-177cm for a mogul ski, and 175-180 for an all mountain.

I'd also noticed at the last Olympics that most of the bump skis are about eye level, but hadn't realized there could be a difference between the skis used in the run and in front of the camera.


----------



## Domeskier (Aug 27, 2018)

CS2-6 said:


> That's a really helpful chart.  Why do you like the longer?  Better absorption?  Faster?



Not sure.  It might be the slightly longer edge, which is helpful in icy east coast bumps.  I think a longer ski also lets you initiate the absorption phase of the turn a little earlier, which means you can start the extension phase closer to the top of the mogul's backside and control your speed a little better.   Or maybe it's just because I first learned to ski bumps in the straight ski era and my style was adapted to longer skis.  Or that the 182s are a better ski for me than the 175s not because of their length but for some other reason.  I really haven't tried enough skis in various lengths to be opining with any authority about the costs or benefits of an additional 6 or 7cms.  Maybe it matters at the margin when you're competing for tenths of a second on a 300 yard FIS course, but probably not for most of us.


----------



## CS2-6 (Sep 4, 2018)

Domeskier said:


> control your speed a little better



Thanks, that makes a lot of sense.  I also read the other day that pro freestyle skiers like shorter skis for maneuverability in the jumps but longer skis in for fore-aft stability the bumps.  Might be something to that too.

But, since I've never been on 200cm boards in the first place (even though my youth was spent on straight skis), I'll never get going fast enough in the bumps to need fore-aft stability, I'll probably go for shorter.  Although being able to begin the absorption phase a little earlier is appealing.


----------



## Domeskier (Sep 4, 2018)

CS2-6 said:


> Thanks, that makes a lot of sense.  I also read the other day that pro freestyle skiers like shorter skis for maneuverability in the jumps but longer skis in for fore-aft stability the bumps.  Might be something to that too.



Can definitely see how shorter skis are better for jumps, particularly with the things they are pulling these days.  They're practically skiing on snow blades in freestyle aerials.


----------



## CS2-6 (Sep 14, 2018)

After taking in all yalls input, doing a little research, and achieving a level of overthinking that astonished even myself, I'm looking for a ski that is:

-Mid-waist width (78-92mm)
-Mild tip (or tip & tail) rocker
-Cambered underfoot
-Long (>19m) turning radius
-Soft to moderate flex in the shovel. This is the most important parameter, but as you all know, is the most vague and variable to measure.

Short list:
"NEW" SKIS
-Armada ARV86 - maybe a little too much sidecut
-Atomic Punx Five - might be too soft
-Atomic Punx Seven - might be too stiff; they have very straight tips and tails (like mogul skis) with a more moderate sidecut underfoot; the idea being that this makes the ski less hooky
-Head Caddy - 20% tip rocker/camber/10% tail rocker is a neat design
-Volkl Bash 89 - flex? If it's the new Kink, it might be too soft
-Volkl Kanjo - flex?

OLD
-Armada Infamous
-Blizzard Bushwacker (some older models are soft enough, others too stiff)
-K2 Sight - no idea what the flex is like
-Rossignol Scratch - 2016 and later have too much rocker I think
-Volkl Ledge - flex?

I'm posting this for two reasons:
1) So if any of yall know of a good deal on any of these you might clue a clueless forum buddy in
2) If any of yall have any experience regarding the flex on these skis, you might share your thoughts and review


----------



## Glenn (Sep 14, 2018)

Now that you've narrowed it down, I would demo. Many mountains offer demos out of their ski shops or a shop that's located in the base area. Cost should be under $100 for the day and they'll usually credit you that amount if you end up buying from them. Skiing a bunch of skis back to back gives you a great baseline on each.


----------



## p_levert (Sep 14, 2018)

According to https://www.skis.com/Volkl-Kanjo-Skis/528403P,default,pd.html , the Volkl Kanjo is a moderately stiff ski.  Check em out, they're sensational in the bumps.  And they're great all over the mountain (groomers, trees, powder, etc.).


----------



## Scruffy (Sep 14, 2018)

CS2-6 said:


> After taking in all yalls input, doing a little research, and achieving a level of overthinking that astonished even myself, I'm looking for a ski that is:
> 
> -Mid-waist width (78-92mm)
> -Mild tip (or tip & tail) rocker
> ...



I haven't read through all 5 pages, but your thread title seems a bit off: seems it should be "Park Skis that are Great in the Moguls". 

If you want an All Mountain Ski, have you looked at Nordica Navigator 85 ?


----------



## CS2-6 (Sep 19, 2018)

BenedictGomez said:


> Looking at a bunch of podium shots


Great analysis, by the way.  Mogul skiers are really good about popping out of their skis and holding them up vertically immediately after their run before the camera leaves them.   Seems like most of them fell right within the range you noted.


Glenn said:


> demos


That'd be great.  I'll see what I can get on this season.


p_levert said:


> Volkl Kanjo.


Interesting... thanks for that.  The reports of the flex seem to be somewhat conflicting


Scruffy said:


> Nordica Navigator 85 ?


Thanks!  Those look like great skis, but might have too aggressive a sidecut and a little too stiff for me.


----------



## CS2-6 (Mar 26, 2019)

I thought I'd go ahead and resurrect this thread with a final post, just to let any unfortunate soul who gives a crap know how the story ended.

I did a ton of research, got a ton of great information from a ton of knowledgeable and wise folks, did a ton of serious thinking, and ignored every blessed bit of it.

Back in November I came across a pair of lightly used (3-5 days at most) 168cm Dynastar Twisters with brand new Look Pivot 12s for a great deal (at Forerunner in Killington, VT).  So I pulled the trigger.

This is was definitely a gamble that could've left me both frustrated and hundreds of dollars poorer.  But I skied on them for the first time at Wolf Creek last January and I absolutely couldn't be happier.  The folks who said that nothing skis the moguls like a mogul ski were definitely right.  Once I got the feeling of really pressuring the front half of the ski at turn initiation, finding the zipperline has never felt more smooth and natural.  Skiing the moguls has never felt better, and I can't imagine going back to all-mountain skis in the bumps after this.  I mean, like the Frog Suit in Super Mario Bros. 3 type of upgrade.  I love them completely.

A 66mm underfoot ski for someone who's primary ski location is the San Juans... and Wolf Creek in particular, the resort that boasts "The Most Snow in Colorado".  How does Ullr and his ilk chastise such a brazen affront?  I got two days on my brand new (to me) babies before we were bludgeoned with 39" of powder in 24 hours.  So much snow that one of the lifts can't even turn until the late afternoon.  So I was reduced to renting again (Volkl 90Eights, not a bad ski at all).  But I was able to unsheathe the Twisters again in some nice soft bumps after a couple days when all that cursed powder got cleared away.

But then I always knew moguls specific boards wouldn't've ever really worked as a daily driver in Western Colorado.  At the end of my trip in early January, a dude on TGR made good on an offer of unparalleled generosity he made back in August:  he gave me a pair of 2011 Scott Missions for exactly $0 (although I did end up giving him a bunch of beer in thanks).  A little research taught me this ski (which is actually made by Fischer) is incredibly great for crud and light powder.  Furthermore, the set I got were in such good condition, when I took them in to have them tuned, the tech told me they didn't even really need it unless I was expecting to be on boilerplate anytime soon.  I picked up a new pair of Look SPX12s on eBay for <$100, just in time for my last trip to Purgatory in late February.  I had them mounted (Alpine Sports, Santa Fe, NM) while I got some turns in at Ski Santa Fe.  On that same trip, I pulled a set of ski poles from the lost and found and had them cut them down to the appropriate size of 42" (Thanks again, you know who you are).  So how does a completely free ski that I've never been on treat me?  I loved it.  Of all the skis I've ever been on, it's my second favorite (you know the first).  Nice flotation, busts through crud, easy turn initiation, and flexible enough in the tips that I can still ski the bumps.  Which was good, because The Powder Gods had not yet satiated their hunger for punishment, or maybe I just have difficulty receiving discipline, because after a day on my Twisters, we had to suffer through 36" of fresh at Purg.  Dry your eyes, True Believers, I was lucky enough to get back on the Dynastars before I had to return to the slope-less wastes of Texas.

With a ton of research, a little dedicated searching, and the humbling generosity of a couple exemplary folks in the skiing community, I've ended up with a perfect (for me) and complementary quiver based on two skis that I'd never demoed or even seen.  A big reason for that success is yall.  Thank all yall for enduring my endless gaper questions and indulging my aggravating "analysis".  This is a great place.  I'm lucky to be here.


----------

