Knowing yourself and your preferences is very important. 100% support you getting the ski you want and that work best for you.
But some people have some weird ideas about fat skis, so I just want to respond - others have, but there are a few particular points I want to make.
Addressing the above three comments - hah, I just realized the three antis are all the same person -
I know a PSIA Examiner who skis 113 underfoot all season long. I'm pretty sure Examiners count as PSIA technique junkies and as technically proficient. I am also pretty sure that she's skiing from her feet.
* I probably know several more, but I am fully confident of this example
I believe that the torque observations were specifically related to hard snow. Soft snow has different characteristics. Primarily that it's soft.
I find that surprising. My La Ninas are softer versions of the Patron, and they have been great in chop.
But some people have some weird ideas about fat skis, so I just want to respond - others have, but there are a few particular points I want to make.
Paul - good on you. If you look at the skiers who are technically proficient (PSIA D Team, former US Team Members, coaches, etc) no one is rocking anything over 100 underfoot in powder. That is unless they are receiving a sponsor check.
Tricia - what you are probably seeing is them throwing their COM way over to the side to tip that ski instead of skiing from their feet. They will be the individuals who, in their late 50',s will say, "I used to ski but my knees won't take it anymore." It takes a great deal of athleticism to ski like that due to your body being in a unstable position at initiation. Like you, I give kudos to the athleticism, but fundamentally don't believe in "talent".
As for the no-one with talent is skiing over 100+. I'm sorry. I just don't buy that. I see many people with exceptional ski technique skiing a wide variety of skis. Yes, if you're a PSIA-technique junkie, its one thing. But there are lots of former racers out there with solid fundamentals ripping around on 100+ skis because at the end of the day the find them more fun. And yeah, some of them are sponsored. But if you read into someone like Eric Hoji, it is obvious that he is skiing on a ski of his design that he believes is the best for conditions/style he wants to pursue. He's not in it for the paycheck.
Addressing the above three comments - hah, I just realized the three antis are all the same person -
I know a PSIA Examiner who skis 113 underfoot all season long. I'm pretty sure Examiners count as PSIA technique junkies and as technically proficient. I am also pretty sure that she's skiing from her feet.
* I probably know several more, but I am fully confident of this example
John Seifert at University of Montana has been studying the effect of wide skis for years. His findings are that anything over 80 and you start to torque the shit out of your knees. Based on my experience (and assuming that you have been on wide skis for a while) you probably have exceptional rotary movements, but edging and is pressure control needs to be developed. Once you develop those assets you will likely gravitate towards a narrower ski. Part of that will also likley be yoga - and increasing range of motion in your lower core.
I believe that the torque observations were specifically related to hard snow. Soft snow has different characteristics. Primarily that it's soft.
I use my Patrons for cat skiing only - for the most part. They just don't handle the chop very well.
I find that surprising. My La Ninas are softer versions of the Patron, and they have been great in chop.