Originally Posted by Hitman
I demoed the monster 88 a couple weeks ago at Alta and i absolutely loved the ski.
It's weird: great ski, but we haven't sold a single pair. Not even a phone call. What is Head's marketing doing?
If you read around the forums where people discuss ski gear, you find one consistent theme: "the guys at Blister said ________" -- and then a whole raft of praises duplicating what the Blister review said.
Meanwhile, a Blister review is all about the reviewer, and not at all about the ski. The reviewer tells us what expensive destination was the place of testing, which hallowed runs saw testing action, and then usually a remark or two about whether you can "throw them around" like skis are hand grenades or dirt clods in a dirt clod war among school kids. Generally a Blister review is like a blog post at a "mountain lifestyle" blog where the blogger is trying to impress you with his or her outdoorsiness and lifestyling superiority.
I haven't read a single Blister review that told me anything useful about a ski. But they are indeed great for lifestyling, for creating the image you want to present when standing in a lift line and people are checking out your skis just like you check out everyone else's skis to see if they are more core than you. Because really, it's about what image your skis present, and not whether the skis are a good match for your abilities.
A typical review at Blister will say a given ski is "better for intermediates and/or slow speeds," which is, in the modern lifestyling era, a kiss of death to those who read Blister for opinions to assimilate and then at proper times regurgitate.
A good skier can describe why a given ski doesn't work for him/her. Saying "it folds up at speed" doesn't tell me anything but this: you want us to think you are so fast and powerful that no ski is burly enough for your bad self.
Folds at speed when doing what?
That's something Blister reviews can't manage. They're more about persuading you that if you want to look like a Mountain Badass, please imitate a Blister reviewer's statements about a ski. They're more about building an image-based cult.
This is the fallout of the facebook/twitter/instagram era: it's more important to have a key catch-phrase or still image that depicts your lifestyle, than it is to be informative, knowledgeable (personally, as opposed to being able to mouth the hip phrases that are valued among the lifestylers), and possessed of subtle perceptions that can tell you, for example,
The skis are somewhat soft in the shovel, torsionally speaking, and you can't just get cooking at 45mph and then expect the shovel to guide you powerfully into a turn, nor can you count on the shovel to establish a solid arc mid-turn. You have to ski them gently, not ham-fistedly. If you do that they will support your goals.
I've watched skiers make fantastic turns at speed on skis which, in their time-currency, were branded and sold as early-intermediate skis. Such demonstrations show a skier who is in tune with his/her skis, able to work them, and not make excuses about why he/she can't make them work.
What do you have to do with the skis to make them work? Can you describe that, Blisterboys?
No, I didn't think so.
Intermediates, pretending to be experts, because they can say the right things that sound informed and wise, but which are backed by nothing substantial.
It's all about the image.
If you're bothering to test a ski and then observe the ski's performance and then collect your thoughts and then write them up,
don't you think it's best if your review focuses on the ski, and what the ski requires of the skier,
rather than whether you are too badass for this particular ski?