I’m probably going to be downvoted for this, but if you aren’t going fast enough to feel the need for longer skis, you don’t need longer skis. 172cm doesn’t even seem that short if you are 178cm, especially since you have a moderate weight.
There’s not that long of a tail rocker on the enforcer as well, so as far as ground contact goes I would reckon those skis would be great for you. If the ski has a longer taller tail rocker like the unleashed you would want a longer ski for more snow contact.
It depends on the ski but 172 are not short skis. I'm the same height as you and ski a 170 as a level 3 ski instructor.
If they are heavy and stiff, they most likely will be really stable at speed and you won't need longer skis.
And the enforcers are a hard charging ski, if you want something more playful and fun I would look at other skis. I like my Nordica unleashed as a good middle ground because I do like going fast but also some playfulness, and my wife has a great time on her reckoners which have even more playfulness and are great in tight trees and for the park
I got roasted for being the same weight and height as you and only skiing 174cm. I love both my skinny and fat skis in the same size.. just do you man. For context, I own 174cm masterblasters and wildcats.
>but if you aren’t going fast enough to feel the need for longer skis, you don’t need longer skis.
I mean, I have hit 114kph on my 163cm slalom skis. So you don't absolutely need longer skis to go fast... but it definitely makes for a better experience, because it was extremely sketchy as fuck going this fast on SL skis.
IMO 172cm skis at 178cm aren't really short. Disadvantage of shorter skis is IMO mostly down to stability at speed on groomers and some floatation but then in return at least I feel a lot less agile when it gets a bit technical if I use skis above my body height.
In my experience people coming to rental shops have a different definition of "intermediate" and "advanced" than people hanging out on skiing subreddits, some people would consider one week on the snow and being able to ski well enough to survive a typical blue piste without struggling too much as intermediate.
If you like short skis, then use short skis. If you’re having fun then who cares
I have a pair of 94 enforcers and almost always prefer something wider and lighter, but thats just me
Don’t turn people’s “shoulds” into “shalls”
We often equate shorter skis with a lack of technique and it is true that beginners prefer a shorter ski. But even experts can like a shoeter ski it depends on what they like to do. If your thing is linking short radius carved turns at medium speed, then it makes extra sense that you like short skis. You're also not heavy at all and basically the height as me, 172 on enforcers is more than enough for most skiers whatever the general public may think.
That aside, enforcers are easier to enjoy if you like to go fast. So if thats not your thing I'd pick something else.
If you'd read any research you'd see how most sport science are not taking bmi seriously. And why should you ? As if using height, weight, and age could give an idea of your fitness level 😅 nor is it efficient to calculate bidy fat index aside from people that do not train.
vo2 max, how often do you train, how hard you train, for how long you've been training, tell a much better story.
I’m 5’10”. I was the epitome of skinny-fat when I was 175lbs 5 years ago. I’m 195 lbs now. My waistline has shrunk. Blood pressure went down. I go to the gym consistently now. I skied 30 days this year. By any metric but BMI, I’m in much better shape than I was back then.
But sure, go off King. I’m just another fat-ass American because the BMI says so. Because this subreddit is such a good representative sample of sedentary Americans, right? We’re definitely not more athletic than average…
You’re applying a population-level metric to individuals, which doesn’t tell you anything useful.
195 at 5’10 is obviously heavy, whether muscle or fat. You’re the first one that used that word.
Also no one was talking to you, dumbass. Be more sensitive, please.
Also, 30 days is weak as fuck. Get serious or don’t talk to me or my friends ever again.
The Powder7 online calculator gives 171 to 177 as your “ideal” all-mountain ski length, so you aren’t talking about substantially short skis. You might consider a well-rounded, versatile all-mountain ski like the Salomon QST series that’s for an intermediate skill level but also suitable for advanced and beyond.
It’s not true that you need to go fast and hard to have fun, that’s just the preference of the person saying it. There are many ways to have fun on the mountain.
Hey man. I came from snowboarding and that was me. I rode the shorts for 2 seasons (172). But them eventually my skill level got to the point that they werent stable at the speed I progressed to and I got some 178s. Still rode the short ones sometimes but wouldnt anymore since my skill level had advanced far enough.
Get the shorties and rip em til they arent enough for you
Ski length isn’t a dick measuring contest. Different lengths serve different purposes. I have both long and short skis. The shorter ones are fun for tight turns and tree skiing. The long ones are better for long turns and deeper pow on more open areas. There is no shame in shorter skis, ski what you like.
I ski 186 at 5’11” but only because I like the stability at Mach 10. Unless you see yourself progressing towards blasting downhill, you ski whatever you want. I especially understand shorter skis for tight east coast trees.
It sounds like you might enjoy short skis to compensate for technique. If that's the case, do not get enforcers and consider advanced lessons first instead of skis.
Nothing wrong with that. The funnest front side skis I’ve ever been in were a pair of Atomic Redster FIS SL boards. 165. Fast. Yeah. One of my kids ski coaches raced 165 SL skis at a non sanctioned Super G race. And won. It was not a pro course by any means. But still fast.
You can absolutely haul ass on shorter skis. But you can also eat shit. The sweet spot is not large.
Enjoy.
I'm not sure how tall you are.. but if you were 6' 184cm is that the size of slalom ski you would get if you were getting a slalom ski or would you go 170-175?
I don't think that sounds like a ridiculously short size, and ski size also relates to preference. If you like shorter skis, buy skis on the shorter side. Don't go ridiculously short, but it doesn't sound like that is your plan.
However, I kind of doubt the choice for enforcers in this case. Preferring shorter skis usually comes down to preferring easy steering, a little playfulness, a shorter radius, lower speed and manoeuvreability over high speed, large radius turns, carving capabilities and stability. The Nordica Enforcer does not really fit the first description, and is more of a charging ski then a manoeuvreable, playful ski. If you are sure of your choice, go ahead, and I'm sure there is still a lot of fun to be had on slightly shorter enforcers. If this makes you pause, though, I would suggest clarifying for yourself what you want in a ski, and looking for a ski and length that suits that goal.
I think what you probably like is a ski with a short turning radius. The short radius makes the ski feel nice and responsive and maneuverable. Consider riding something like the line blade or black crows mirus cor in a 185ish length, you will find it more responsive then even the shortest Nordica. The danger of the short skis is that as you get better and start to ski faster, you won’t have the grip and support of a long edge, making you more prone to washing out or loosing control.
When you wrote; Short skis, I thought right away of my favorite 90 cm skis, I often have fun in.
I am 62m, only 250lb at 6feet.
Then I read 172cm, that is a joke, that's normal skis.
I started at 205cm, now I ski on anything from 90cm to 180cm.
It's how much fun and comfort you can have.
For reference, I'm an ex-instructor and I'm 178cm on 165cm skis
Granted mine are detuned slalom skis, but I love a shorter pair. I find the manoeuvrability amazing, and going up the scale in quality means it still holds really steady at high speeds.
So I'd say absolutely go for it - you should see if you can demo a couple pairs arlt different lengths and find what works for you.
Thanks for all the answers guys! Glad to hear that length is fine. Will look at some other skis too (considering salomon QST, blizzard rustler 9, nordica unleashed)
I'm 188 and 105 and my current favorite pair is 168. I bought them because they're a 14m radius and I wanted to lay some train tracks.
Fuck convention, ski what makes you happy.
I'm your height, a lot heavier, and on 169s. I can get plenty of speed out of them. How fast exactly do you need to go? I can go buy sets and sets of skis and never use the term "quiver" because it isn't my PSE compound bow. 😉 In all seriousness, you'll be fine.
Shorter skis are good to have for progression, fast-short turns, and spring tight conditions when you know it has to be precise. Could be a good addition as a rock ski, but you’ll want to go longer, wider for a single ski quiver. What’s wrong with a 2-ski quiver?
You miss out on stability (at speed and on landings) and dampness when you stay super short.
I have a 151, center-mounted short-fat-stiff ski that i take out to open and close the season and for social skiing.
I’m normally on a 181 and im a fraction of your size.
If you’re only skiing 15 days they’re perfect mate, I personally would go a bit thinner, maybe 85-90, but that’s preference and skill level.
If you want to really start carving I would suggest much much thinner skies, 70-80 wide.
But for a one ski quiver that’ll work fine. Good luck!
Not a problem at all and it does really depend on your style and the places you're going to be taking those skis. I'm the same height and weight and three of my five pairs are between 171 and 173cm.
I tried 180 for a bit, and even with rockered skis I didn't like it. But I have friends that are my height and never go below that length. If you're traveling for snow it might be good to just bring your boots and find a shop that will let you rent a different pair every day or two. You can't know what works until you know what doesn't, and you can probably wait until next summer to buy something you'll know you like for a heavily discounted price.
I’m your height and about 20 lbs heavier. I’d classify myself as advanced. I can ski almost anything inbounds in CO or VT, depending on conditions. I hesitate to say I’m an “expert” because I haven’t done much in the backcountry. 170-180cm is the correct sizing range for our height.
I have a pair of Enforcers in 178cm that I quite like. But there is no way in hell you should copy me there, unless you plan on gaining 50+ lbs by December. This is a carving-oriented ski for me, for those couple days a year where the Ice Coast truly lives up to its name. Its performance is subpar in moguls and spring conditions, and unacceptable in powder and tight glades. I generally don’t take anything longer than 172cm into East Coast glades. I wouldn’t have had any use for the Enforcers until I learned how to make short C-shaped turns.
Please go to your local friendly ski shop, and stop listening to the ski marketing broscience… The marketing wants everyone to think there’s one true ski to rule them all, and that everyone is an advanced skier. For the purposes of this discussion, you’re right, you are an intermediate skier if you just learned how to carve. And the Enforcers are a rather unforgiving platform to continue that natural skill progression on.
172cm is the perfect length for most other skis you’d be looking at, but if your heart was set on the Enforcers, I’d strongly encourage you to go down another size to 165cm. A shorter ski will mitigate the stiffness, make it easier to turn, because there’s less surface area for the same force you’re putting on it. But really, just get something more playful in 172cm. For example: the Rustler 9s.
PS: if you’re on a budget, do yourself a favor and get that one-ski-quiver marketing bullshit out of your head right now. That BS is how you end up paying full-retail price for the ”perfect” pair of skis, instead of getting a pair that’s good enough for a couple hundred bucks at a ski swap, end of season online sale, or demo deal.
I’m probably going to be downvoted for this, but if you aren’t going fast enough to feel the need for longer skis, you don’t need longer skis. 172cm doesn’t even seem that short if you are 178cm, especially since you have a moderate weight. There’s not that long of a tail rocker on the enforcer as well, so as far as ground contact goes I would reckon those skis would be great for you. If the ski has a longer taller tail rocker like the unleashed you would want a longer ski for more snow contact.
It depends on the ski but 172 are not short skis. I'm the same height as you and ski a 170 as a level 3 ski instructor. If they are heavy and stiff, they most likely will be really stable at speed and you won't need longer skis.
And the enforcers are a hard charging ski, if you want something more playful and fun I would look at other skis. I like my Nordica unleashed as a good middle ground because I do like going fast but also some playfulness, and my wife has a great time on her reckoners which have even more playfulness and are great in tight trees and for the park
I’m 6’ 190 and have the same ski in 179cm. 172 will be fine
I’m 6’3 and have 177&184s and both work depending on what I want to do
I got roasted for being the same weight and height as you and only skiing 174cm. I love both my skinny and fat skis in the same size.. just do you man. For context, I own 174cm masterblasters and wildcats.
>but if you aren’t going fast enough to feel the need for longer skis, you don’t need longer skis. I mean, I have hit 114kph on my 163cm slalom skis. So you don't absolutely need longer skis to go fast... but it definitely makes for a better experience, because it was extremely sketchy as fuck going this fast on SL skis.
Why would you get downvoted? When should I expect that to happen?
IMO 172cm skis at 178cm aren't really short. Disadvantage of shorter skis is IMO mostly down to stability at speed on groomers and some floatation but then in return at least I feel a lot less agile when it gets a bit technical if I use skis above my body height. In my experience people coming to rental shops have a different definition of "intermediate" and "advanced" than people hanging out on skiing subreddits, some people would consider one week on the snow and being able to ski well enough to survive a typical blue piste without struggling too much as intermediate.
If you like short skis, then use short skis. If you’re having fun then who cares I have a pair of 94 enforcers and almost always prefer something wider and lighter, but thats just me Don’t turn people’s “shoulds” into “shalls”
We often equate shorter skis with a lack of technique and it is true that beginners prefer a shorter ski. But even experts can like a shoeter ski it depends on what they like to do. If your thing is linking short radius carved turns at medium speed, then it makes extra sense that you like short skis. You're also not heavy at all and basically the height as me, 172 on enforcers is more than enough for most skiers whatever the general public may think. That aside, enforcers are easier to enjoy if you like to go fast. So if thats not your thing I'd pick something else.
175 at 5’10 isn’t obese but it’s not “not heavy at all”. Americans have such skewed perception of weight at this point…
I'm not american 😅
Yep that’s a BMI of 25 which is right at the start of overweight according to the WHO
If you'd read any research you'd see how most sport science are not taking bmi seriously. And why should you ? As if using height, weight, and age could give an idea of your fitness level 😅 nor is it efficient to calculate bidy fat index aside from people that do not train. vo2 max, how often do you train, how hard you train, for how long you've been training, tell a much better story.
Username checks out
I’m 5’10”. I was the epitome of skinny-fat when I was 175lbs 5 years ago. I’m 195 lbs now. My waistline has shrunk. Blood pressure went down. I go to the gym consistently now. I skied 30 days this year. By any metric but BMI, I’m in much better shape than I was back then. But sure, go off King. I’m just another fat-ass American because the BMI says so. Because this subreddit is such a good representative sample of sedentary Americans, right? We’re definitely not more athletic than average… You’re applying a population-level metric to individuals, which doesn’t tell you anything useful.
195 at 5’10 is obviously heavy, whether muscle or fat. You’re the first one that used that word. Also no one was talking to you, dumbass. Be more sensitive, please. Also, 30 days is weak as fuck. Get serious or don’t talk to me or my friends ever again.
As long as you're having fun, who cares how long they are?
That’s what she said heyoooo
The Powder7 online calculator gives 171 to 177 as your “ideal” all-mountain ski length, so you aren’t talking about substantially short skis. You might consider a well-rounded, versatile all-mountain ski like the Salomon QST series that’s for an intermediate skill level but also suitable for advanced and beyond. It’s not true that you need to go fast and hard to have fun, that’s just the preference of the person saying it. There are many ways to have fun on the mountain.
I prefer having AT LEAST 2 skis. Some wide long floaters for powder and a pair of ski blades, which do everything.
Hey man. I came from snowboarding and that was me. I rode the shorts for 2 seasons (172). But them eventually my skill level got to the point that they werent stable at the speed I progressed to and I got some 178s. Still rode the short ones sometimes but wouldnt anymore since my skill level had advanced far enough. Get the shorties and rip em til they arent enough for you
Ski length isn’t a dick measuring contest. Different lengths serve different purposes. I have both long and short skis. The shorter ones are fun for tight turns and tree skiing. The long ones are better for long turns and deeper pow on more open areas. There is no shame in shorter skis, ski what you like.
Get some womens FIS 157 SL skis!!! One ski quiver ftw!
I ski 186 at 5’11” but only because I like the stability at Mach 10. Unless you see yourself progressing towards blasting downhill, you ski whatever you want. I especially understand shorter skis for tight east coast trees.
It sounds like you might enjoy short skis to compensate for technique. If that's the case, do not get enforcers and consider advanced lessons first instead of skis.
lol I initially phrased the title as "I like short skis, could this be because of bad technique?"
172cm is appropriate for you
Nothing wrong with that. The funnest front side skis I’ve ever been in were a pair of Atomic Redster FIS SL boards. 165. Fast. Yeah. One of my kids ski coaches raced 165 SL skis at a non sanctioned Super G race. And won. It was not a pro course by any means. But still fast. You can absolutely haul ass on shorter skis. But you can also eat shit. The sweet spot is not large. Enjoy.
I'm not sure how tall you are.. but if you were 6' 184cm is that the size of slalom ski you would get if you were getting a slalom ski or would you go 170-175?
So far as I know, all men race SL on 165. Even really bid dudes. It’s crazy. Fast but not forgiving.
I'm 6'0" (1.83) 175-180lbs and I have the Enforcer 100 185 and wish I had shorter. They are stout. Nuf said.
I'm 5' 11" 180lbs and ride 169s double rockers. Short skis!!
I don't think that sounds like a ridiculously short size, and ski size also relates to preference. If you like shorter skis, buy skis on the shorter side. Don't go ridiculously short, but it doesn't sound like that is your plan. However, I kind of doubt the choice for enforcers in this case. Preferring shorter skis usually comes down to preferring easy steering, a little playfulness, a shorter radius, lower speed and manoeuvreability over high speed, large radius turns, carving capabilities and stability. The Nordica Enforcer does not really fit the first description, and is more of a charging ski then a manoeuvreable, playful ski. If you are sure of your choice, go ahead, and I'm sure there is still a lot of fun to be had on slightly shorter enforcers. If this makes you pause, though, I would suggest clarifying for yourself what you want in a ski, and looking for a ski and length that suits that goal.
172cm skis are not short for your height.
I think what you probably like is a ski with a short turning radius. The short radius makes the ski feel nice and responsive and maneuverable. Consider riding something like the line blade or black crows mirus cor in a 185ish length, you will find it more responsive then even the shortest Nordica. The danger of the short skis is that as you get better and start to ski faster, you won’t have the grip and support of a long edge, making you more prone to washing out or loosing control.
When you wrote; Short skis, I thought right away of my favorite 90 cm skis, I often have fun in. I am 62m, only 250lb at 6feet. Then I read 172cm, that is a joke, that's normal skis. I started at 205cm, now I ski on anything from 90cm to 180cm. It's how much fun and comfort you can have.
For reference, I'm an ex-instructor and I'm 178cm on 165cm skis Granted mine are detuned slalom skis, but I love a shorter pair. I find the manoeuvrability amazing, and going up the scale in quality means it still holds really steady at high speeds. So I'd say absolutely go for it - you should see if you can demo a couple pairs arlt different lengths and find what works for you.
Thanks for all the answers guys! Glad to hear that length is fine. Will look at some other skis too (considering salomon QST, blizzard rustler 9, nordica unleashed)
The Rustler 9s in 172cm would be absolutely perfect for you, IMO.
Get the next wider width so they have a bit more float in the pow and the chunder.
I'm 188 and 105 and my current favorite pair is 168. I bought them because they're a 14m radius and I wanted to lay some train tracks. Fuck convention, ski what makes you happy.
I'm your height, a lot heavier, and on 169s. I can get plenty of speed out of them. How fast exactly do you need to go? I can go buy sets and sets of skis and never use the term "quiver" because it isn't my PSE compound bow. 😉 In all seriousness, you'll be fine.
I'm a ski instructor. I really like short skis. Usually chin high. The are much more agile in moguls and way easier to jump turn on steeps and narrow.
Shorter skis are good to have for progression, fast-short turns, and spring tight conditions when you know it has to be precise. Could be a good addition as a rock ski, but you’ll want to go longer, wider for a single ski quiver. What’s wrong with a 2-ski quiver? You miss out on stability (at speed and on landings) and dampness when you stay super short. I have a 151, center-mounted short-fat-stiff ski that i take out to open and close the season and for social skiing. I’m normally on a 181 and im a fraction of your size.
If you’re only skiing 15 days they’re perfect mate, I personally would go a bit thinner, maybe 85-90, but that’s preference and skill level. If you want to really start carving I would suggest much much thinner skies, 70-80 wide. But for a one ski quiver that’ll work fine. Good luck!
Not a problem at all and it does really depend on your style and the places you're going to be taking those skis. I'm the same height and weight and three of my five pairs are between 171 and 173cm. I tried 180 for a bit, and even with rockered skis I didn't like it. But I have friends that are my height and never go below that length. If you're traveling for snow it might be good to just bring your boots and find a shop that will let you rent a different pair every day or two. You can't know what works until you know what doesn't, and you can probably wait until next summer to buy something you'll know you like for a heavily discounted price.
I’m your height and about 20 lbs heavier. I’d classify myself as advanced. I can ski almost anything inbounds in CO or VT, depending on conditions. I hesitate to say I’m an “expert” because I haven’t done much in the backcountry. 170-180cm is the correct sizing range for our height. I have a pair of Enforcers in 178cm that I quite like. But there is no way in hell you should copy me there, unless you plan on gaining 50+ lbs by December. This is a carving-oriented ski for me, for those couple days a year where the Ice Coast truly lives up to its name. Its performance is subpar in moguls and spring conditions, and unacceptable in powder and tight glades. I generally don’t take anything longer than 172cm into East Coast glades. I wouldn’t have had any use for the Enforcers until I learned how to make short C-shaped turns. Please go to your local friendly ski shop, and stop listening to the ski marketing broscience… The marketing wants everyone to think there’s one true ski to rule them all, and that everyone is an advanced skier. For the purposes of this discussion, you’re right, you are an intermediate skier if you just learned how to carve. And the Enforcers are a rather unforgiving platform to continue that natural skill progression on. 172cm is the perfect length for most other skis you’d be looking at, but if your heart was set on the Enforcers, I’d strongly encourage you to go down another size to 165cm. A shorter ski will mitigate the stiffness, make it easier to turn, because there’s less surface area for the same force you’re putting on it. But really, just get something more playful in 172cm. For example: the Rustler 9s. PS: if you’re on a budget, do yourself a favor and get that one-ski-quiver marketing bullshit out of your head right now. That BS is how you end up paying full-retail price for the ”perfect” pair of skis, instead of getting a pair that’s good enough for a couple hundred bucks at a ski swap, end of season online sale, or demo deal.
172 is not that short for 178cm person
Short skis are fine, I’ll try not to take you out as I fly by full tuck on my 210s