not really cause if you were the pants where they should be worn you can do all sorts of movements and in order to stay warm you just where more under the pants like one or two pairs of long under wear
Quote Reply not really cause if you were the pants where they should be worn you can do all sorts of movements and in order to stay warm you just where more under the pants like one or two pairs of long under wear
Exactly. Tight pants= more layers= less movement. baggys good as long as its not fucking huge.
From what I've seen it dosen't really look like that Hartman guy can pull it off that well either. Something about tight pants and skiing makes him look constantly flaily/sketchy, in pictures anyways.
i like em somewhat baggy, but i dont go overboard. how comfortable can it be to have to reach back to pull them up every 3 seconds. sure it is the OMG GANGSTA thing to do.. but isn't very practical. sure you can wear a belt, but i find it still doesn't work right
Actually, tighter pants restrict the amount of dead (cold) airspace between your body, which creates heat, and the layer... but they do get wet, hence, you have to be a badass
I think the really tight pants looks weird because the boot is massive, the pants should atleast have the same diameter as the boots. However I hate baggy pants when I'm not skiing.
wear whatever you want unless it is a skirt- that really would be gay. but plenty of people besides emo kids wear tight pants; 80s'metal gods, Hessians, Ninjas, skaters, greasers, punks and a whole assortment of aerobics teachers.
Most tighter pants are made out of stretch material so you can still move in them just fine. And you don't have to worry about your XXL's falling off all the time and just ski....