13980019:.MASSHOLE. said:
New England is big and the snow quality varies.
I'd recommend entirely different skis for someone skiing at Stowe versus Wachusett versus Loon/Waterville/Cannon.
If you're towards the southern half of New England (South of Killington/Hanover NH) you'd want something between 70-85 in width underfoot for a beginner. The further south you go, the narrower I'd recommend. If you're north of it, anywhere from 80 to sub 100 underfoot would work.
In regards to length, at your size and level, sub 180cm for sure. I'd look for a 165-175mm in length. A 170 could be perfect since you will be able to "grow" into it potentially very quickly.
In regards to type? Well, again, it depends where you are. South of Killington/Hanover you'd be better off with a ski like the K2 Ikonic 84, Rossignol Experience 88 Ti, Atomic Vantage 86 c, etc. where the primary focus is carving rather than versatility. The wider the ski is the harder (more effort) it is to carve since the transition from edge to edge is so much slower. (I didn't include any sub-80mm width skis but almost all companies will have at least one if not more).
If you're north of that line, something with more of an all-mountain focus is better. This would include skis like the Brahma, Enforcer 93, Volkl Mantra, Sick Day 88, Pinnacle 95, Armada Invictus 99, Kendo, etc. These skis would not only work well on the hardpack days but when you do get fresh snow they won't be bogged down by it due to construction and design. BUT, that being said, you will sacrifice some of the edge hold that a more traditional carver will have. These skis are often good carvers but will struggle on the truly icy days.
Ski width doesn't have a lot to do with stability, length and material do. The longer a ski is the more stable it will be. That being said, there are caveats that come along with that statement. Skis with more metal tend to be damper (the skis vibrate less at speed) at the expense of playfulness (how easy it is to pop off things, "slarve" a turn, etc.). At your weight, you won't necessarily have issues bending the ski to make it turn (once you are capable of doing so) so a ski with metal is a good idea.
As I said above, a 170 could be perfect. As you demo skis, play around with length. Shorter skis are going to be easier to turn which is good for a beginner but as you progress and become a better and faster ski, they will be a hindrance (up to a point).
Now for poles, that seems to be up for debate. Some people think you can learn with them, some think you should learn without. For me personally, it depends on the persons ability. I need to watch the person ski to determine if they should be with or without them.
Given that your instructor said to go without them and their logic for why, I'd have to agree with them. At a certain point, poles are more of a hindrance than anything. It just gives you one more thing to think about and worry about. I coach U12s in a race program and whenever they complain about not using poles for a drill I just tell them "if poles were important it'd be called poling not skiing.".
But, at a certain point, they are important. But you can always find cheap poles at a later point. Unless you're racing at a high level, poles made out of aluminum (the higher level the better quality) will suffice.
**This post was edited on Jan 2nd 2019 at 11:40:18am
