Just a few other thoughts:
The FIS W 188/30s, for a man skiing recreationally, are more relaxed, easier to carve at high angles, and probably require less speed and less empty terrain to ski as intended. And, at least at my lesser weight, they are wonderful all day.
A reason to like the 18/23 range is that it is even more this way, requiring even less space to turn, less of a swath down the mountain, so to speak; and a bit less speed required, while still good for the general feel and technique of GS skiing. Ideally, I'd like to have a pair of GS style skis in each length/radius type.
To me, skis of the full range of GS length and radius are all wonderful, definitely distinctly different from one another in feel, predictably (though at my lesser weight the Men's 193 FIS GS are too much ski long term, especially the stiffer versions).
When friends of mine who are otherwise very good to excellent skiers get on a pair of my FIS woman's 188/30s (let alone a pair of the men's 193 FIS skis), they generally ski them fast and fairly straight - almost as if they were Super G skis, instead of in the more turny, more on edge, more laid over at high angles way these skis were designed for. And they generally can't tell the difference. (And don't want to know, actually.)
The FIS W 188/30s, for a man skiing recreationally, are more relaxed, easier to carve at high angles, and probably require less speed and less empty terrain to ski as intended. And, at least at my lesser weight, they are wonderful all day.
A reason to like the 18/23 range is that it is even more this way, requiring even less space to turn, less of a swath down the mountain, so to speak; and a bit less speed required, while still good for the general feel and technique of GS skiing. Ideally, I'd like to have a pair of GS style skis in each length/radius type.
To me, skis of the full range of GS length and radius are all wonderful, definitely distinctly different from one another in feel, predictably (though at my lesser weight the Men's 193 FIS GS are too much ski long term, especially the stiffer versions).
When friends of mine who are otherwise very good to excellent skiers get on a pair of my FIS woman's 188/30s (let alone a pair of the men's 193 FIS skis), they generally ski them fast and fairly straight - almost as if they were Super G skis, instead of in the more turny, more on edge, more laid over at high angles way these skis were designed for. And they generally can't tell the difference. (And don't want to know, actually.)
) would struggle to determine from the data whether or not they should select a particular stiffness/flex. Stiffer is not always better contrary to folklore! and comparing stiffness across brands with different dimensions/build structures is meaningless. And what feels good (or what is thought to feel good!) is not necessarily fastest. So there is a actually a good reason for manufacturers not providing much data for off-the-rack race stock as it takes a variable out of the inventory stocking/ordering equation. If you look at Atomic, they (nominally) offer Stiff, medium and soft flexes (and this is shown as xx/yy on the ski) but in my experience 90% of the inventory comes in as medium. Of course all brands offer a much more specific and tailored flex pattern for high level supported racers but this is based on extensive testing and experience and timing to determine what actually works better for that specific athlete. 
), I'm making a case for manufacturers providing more complete product information. I appreciate the attempt to help, though.
