6 feet tall and 172 skis...

sampsihoyos

sampsihoyos

Active member
i really dont want to nag my parents to pay for new skis and i dont really need to get a job for myself right now. is 172 too small???//?slash//??
 
everybody is different too. some people like longer skis. i personally have 171 and 5 6 but at the same time i hace 164's. i personally like the longer ski myself. takes some time to get used to but over all i like it more.
 
depends. I'm 5'8'' and im getting 171's, but last year I had 158 which worked. it's all about preference too.
 
i'm gonna get completely hated on for this but a few lenghts really doesnt matter that much, comon. i like smaller skis cuz the difference is easier to maneuver, but ahv at the same time bigger skis have there pluses. do what you want.
 
nah, no reason to get hated on. it all comes down to ski what length you want. theres no standard, it's all preference.
 
only if your getting lizzys man. i flexed a pair this weekend and i can picture them being so much fun.
 
If you're talking about elizabeths, and you want to use them in and out of the park then that's fine. If it's all for BC I would probably step up to the Bacons.

Not really sure what other skis come in a 172 so I'm guessing that's what you're looking at
 
or you could perhaps look at the surface live life2 which comed in a 179. I'm almost 6ft and have lizzies. They are only a little short for steep lines and really deep pow.
 
172 isnt that short. if you look at like a 172 next to a 179 the difference isnt that much at all. and it totally depends on the ski too. elizabeths would be fine, they are designed to be shorter than normal, thats why they are shaped like snowboards. i own some and the short length is perfect, its awesome for throwing them around and dicking around in powder. im 5'9-5-10 and im getting the 171 anthems
 
A lot of people are not thinking about leverage generated by a 6 foot tall person. You stand so far over the tip that you boss teh skis around, because you have that leverage. I wouldn't ever have you ski on anything less than a 180, and Elizabeths are out of the question IMO... if you want a more maneuverable ski, get something skinnier. If you want that size of ski, at least get the Bacons.

in the end, it's all personal preference, but I don't think that a short ski performs well for tall people when they are really pushing it, unless it's meant to be skied short (like a slalom ski)
 
Im 5'5" and I have 159's Im kinda thinking i need a 175. I like big skis, but smaller skis for jibbing. I just need to get um for free soon because I.. gahh. blows.
 
Who cares if they're a little short? That's what you've got and you don't want to hit your parents up for money. Just ski them and have fun. Once your skis are trashed and you really need to get new skis, then think about size.
 
I'm in the same boat. Still having issues deciding.

I'm 6' and trying to decide between Bacons and Lizzies. I'm leaning towards Bacons.
 
for park theyr prolly ok

powder/backcountry your pretty screwed...

unless your name is seth morrison and you could throw a lincoln off a cliff with 2x4's on your feet
 
Don't get lizzies. if you think bacons are too much ski for you, (which they probably aren't), then get a skinnier ski. you don't want a shorter one. Both of those skis were designed for someone who is like 5'10, the 172 is just meant to be a park ski. if you are looking at those two skis for pow, get the bacons.
 
I'm 5'10" 150lbf I have my original K2 enemies in a 183, got those freshman year of high school (8years ago), have 181 Scratch FS and 181 Atomic Thugs. I don't think I'd be able to go under 180. the scratch's are short enough that I can spin as hard as I want with no resistance, and slide rails with no troubles. They's also long enough that I can actually ski without getting left in the dust by friends who also have a real length of ski. Shorter would probably be a little rough in the moguls too, and if they'd been any shorter, powder skiing would have been completely impossible. If you're just a park rat that doesn't ski anything but jumps and rails, you should just grab some 110s and ditch your poles.
 
is it all prefernce man, but.

I'm 6fter and rock 171 T-halls. I love em, plenty stable enough and plenty spinny enough.

Just stick with them, there's no point buying new ones now, when you haven't got the chance to see whether they work for you, then if they feel too short, buy some new ones...
 
how? where would your meter read any sarcasm? maybe its a truth meter.

because being 6 feet and riding 172 is like snowlerblading.
 
Hardly.

For park and groomers it's a fair size. For powder and freeskiing he'd obviously want something longer for more stability.

Would a high 170cm/low 180cm be a better choice? Likely. but 172cm is by no means too short and is not going to be hurting his skiing.
 
im 6'1'' and have 179 fujatives and madens, but also 187 Districts. its what you want to be skiing. length =stability
 
lizzies only come in that size, and read what everyone else says to explain why they still work. 178 is barely longer than 172, so go with what you like.
 
Yeah...you should definitely get longer skis. I'm 5'6'' and I ski 175s and i feel like they're the perfect size. So yeah...definitely go with something that's at least your height.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top