Ski Selection for Intermediate Level Skier

[Andrew Hof]

Hello All,

Been lurking on here for about a month now, and since I will be moving to Colorado I am looking to purchase my first "real" pair of all mountain skis. I would consider myself an intermediate level skier (25 6'2" 180/185lbs) but I would like to get skis that will allow to grow. I generally stay on-piste but like to occasionally go through trees and working towards doing some more off-piste. I have been looking into the Nordica Enforcers (93 or 100) and the Head Kores. Are there any other recommendations that would fit me better than one of these two? If not, will I notice much of a difference between say the 93 and 100?

Thank you

 

[raytseng]

First question is always do you have good fitted boots? If no, then that is your limiting factor before the skis.
There are tons of skis in the 93-100 range, none are bad, many are similar but just different in the slightest.

 

[AngryAnalyst]

To be honest I think you could buy a pair of mid 90s skis close to at random and be pretty happy. There are some minor stylistic differences but I’m honestly not sure you’re likely to notice them.

The choice you asked for help with is between fairly heavy skis with metal (enforcers) and a much lighter but still fairly stiff skis without (head kores). I would think the least intermediate friendly option is the Enforcer 93 because it’s heavy and stiff, but it’s still friendly as far as skis with metal go (I think generally more serious than the 100 but own neither). I don’t have much time on the Kores so feel less equipped to comment on that side.

 

[Andrew Hof]

First question is always do you have good fitted boots? If no, then that is your limiting factor before the skis.
There are tons of skis in the 93-100 range, none are bad, many are similar but just different in the slightest.

Boots are on the list when I get to Colorado. I am just trying to look for skis now while I can get a good deal online.

To be honest I think you could buy a pair of mid 90s skis close to at random and be pretty happy. There are some minor stylistic differences but I’m honestly not sure you’re likely to notice them.

The choice you asked for help with is between fairly heavy skis with metal (enforcers) and a much lighter but still fairly stiff skis without (head kores). I would think the least intermediate friendly option is the Enforcer 93 because it’s heavy and stiff, but it’s still friendly as far as skis with metal go (I think generally more serious than the 100 but own neither). I don’t have much time on the Kores so feel less equipped to comment on that side.

Is there much of a performance different between the 93 and 100? Would I, coming from I think 70mm skis, notice much of a difference?

 

[AngryAnalyst]

Is there much of a performance different between the 93 and 100? Would I, coming from I think 70mm skis, notice much of a difference?

I've never skied them back to back and they are pretty close to being wider/narrower versions of the same ski from my recollection of having tried both. That said, my own subjective impression is that the Enforcer 93 was a stronger carver and the 100 was a bit more playful, more so than the pure waist width difference would suggest.

You can see reviews on this site from people who have tried them back to back. For example:
https://www.pugski.com/threads/2017-nordica-enforcer-93-vs-2017-nordica-enforcer-100.3224/

For the Kore vs. Enforcer Question:
https://www.pugski.com/threads/2018-nordica-enforcer-93-vs-2018-head-kore-93.7183/

Also, I fully endorse the blister gear guide which is available for free if you register. They don't spam you:
https://blisterreview.com/winter-buyers-guide

It's hard for me to know what you would and wouldn't notice, so no comment there. If you ski with a more centered style I might point you towards the Enforcer 100 or Kore 93. If you ski with a carvier style the Enforcer 93 might be better.

 

[raytseng]

Yes there is a huge general difference with waists. The car analogy I like to use is it is like driving an SUV versus a small sedan car versus sports cars. The vehicles have tradeoffs depending on where you are going to take them. Hopefully you can translate those same differences to your skiing.

 

[Andrew Hof]

Also, I fully endorse the blister gear guide which is available for free if you register. They don't spam you:
https://blisterreview.com/winter-buyers-guide

Yes there is a huge general difference with waists. The car analogy I like to use is it is like driving an SUV versus a small sedan car versus sports cars. The vehicles have tradeoffs depending on where you are going to take them. Hopefully you can translate those same differences to your skiing.

Thanks for the responses, very helpful. I've briefly looked through blister and it seems like a great resource. Right now I am leaning towards the Enforcer 93 as I think it suits my type of skiing style.

 

[UGASkiDawg]

Demo 5 or 6 skis in the 85-95 range and then decide what to buy. You have no idea how any of the above ski so why are you locked in on them? Add them to your demo list along with a few others and get out and demo.

Edit to add you won't regret demoing.

 

[Coach13]

Would I, coming from I think 70mm skis, notice much of a difference?

The short answer is you will certainly notice a difference in a 70mm waisted ski and say a 95mm ski but you will overcome/get used to that difference pretty quickly imo.

 

[Analisa]

I think it depends a bit. What are the 70 underfoot skis you've been on? Rentals? And how long have you typically been going on skis? How often do you plan to get out once you move to Colorado? Planning on an annual pass or just making some weekend trips and the occasional extended vacation?

If you've been on narrower intermediate skis at nose-ish height, do some demoing and find a pair that you really love. 90-100mm underfoot will always have a place in your quiver, even if you move east or west and won't get retired as you progress. It's worth the time and money to make a great investment.

If you've been on short rentals, and you plan on getting a pass and skiing often, getting a cheap pair of all mountains in between the rental length and your height is a solid next step. My skis grew 22cm over the first 3 seasons after I moved from NC to WA, and I'm glad I went with a budget-friendly (but plenty sufficient from a technical standpoint) pair of Pandora/Sick Days. With your specs, something like an Invictus 99ti would serve a similar customer as the Enforcer 100, but a lot easier to find on markdown/used. Demos from places like Powder7 also hold their value extremely well if you expect to flip a ski after a season.

 

[MarkG]

Boots first (as suggested earlier.) Then you'll know the exact length needed to mount those bindings. Consider after going to a boot fitter, my ski boots are a full size smaller than my every day shoes. Weird, but true. Or were you grabbing used demo skis online w/demo bindings?