What has skiboarding come too?

[rgzip]

Ride what makes you smile.

For me that usally ranges from 94cms to 130cms call it what ever you want.

The SBOL Fourm and the Skiboard community introduced me to these lengths and special shaped, snow sliding devises which have renewed the fun of snow riding.
For that reason, I call myself a skiboarder, but if that offends anyone just call me Rick.


Enjoy

[t21]

xxjzattaxx, thanks for mentioning my thread no problem though. i consider myself a skiboarder because thats what i think of myself. Btw,skateboard have a so called "longboard" version too right? and its probably for speed and stability for cruising downhills idk.. anyways, i tried out skiing and i did like it, and was able to do handrags and ride it without poles. although its not center mounted, i rode it like i was on my sherpas. it might have look weird to some but i did not care, i was having a great time as jjue have mentioned, skiboarding is a riding style, and thats what i know. I guess i should say i'm a "longskiboarder". honestly.if i do pick up skiing more, my riding style and mentality would still be the same.

[b00stzx3]

Skiboards seem like shorter shaped skis. Even 130s are short compared to normal skies...so who cares? I like the 100cm crowd.. cuz they're easily manueverable. But whatever floats your boat is cool to me!

[Talon]

[QUOTE=b00stzx3;93791]Skiboards seem like shorter shaped skis. Even 130s are short compared to normal skies...so who cares? QUOTE]

I cant really agree with this because of the shape comment, and skis and skiboards are diffrerent. But its all good. 2 planks n some snow its whats good

[b00stzx3]

[QUOTE=TalonSei92;93792]

Skiboards seem like shorter shaped skis. Even 130s are short compared to normal skies...so who cares? QUOTE]

I cant really agree with this because of the shape comment, and skis and skiboards are diffrerent. But its all good. 2 planks n some snow its whats good

What you disagree with? That skiboards are
1. shorter than "normaL' average skies
2.shaped differently than regular skies?

I'm confused

[DennisEvans]

[QUOTE=b00stzx3;93795]

What you disagree with? That skiboards are
1. shorter than "normaL' average skies
2.shaped differently than regular skies?

I'm confused

No disrespect man but, shaped skis are actually something completely different from skiboards. While they both have a side cut there is an older style of skis that are just straight, the way you said it made it sound like what we have are just shorter versions of shaped skis and that is not the fact. But I get what you are saying now, I think. Well, off to enjoy my sandwich (see below)

[Roussel]

why do people need such strict/clear/box definitions of things. the under 100cm logic is totally flawed because this would mean a 100.0001 cm skiboard is a ski.

whats wrong with a loose definition? ive proposed this many times and even have it up on sbmag:

a skiboard is a ski that is about 100cm long, ussually symentrical and ussually wider than average skis.

the further away you get from this definition, the less of a skiboard it is. snowblade for example, are around 100cm long, but not symetrical or wide, therefore, they are not very close to our definition. spruce boards are pretty much symetrical and wide but a little longer than 100cm long, so they are very similar to skiboards but a little longer. hence the longboard skibaord name we have adopted.

it seems people have a hard time with things and spaces "in between" definitions. in the bike industry, there is everything from small BMXs, to huge downhill bikes, to sleek road bikes, and everything in between, people dont bother putting labels on the in betweens, its all biking.

and to me, its all skiing. but just like how i prefer my mountain bike or fixed gear bike, i prefer skiboarding.

[DennisEvans]

why do people need such strict/clear/box definitions of things. the under 100cm logic is totally flawed because this would mean a 100.0001 cm skiboard is a ski.

whats wrong with a loose definition? ive proposed this many times and even have it up on sbmag:

a skiboard is a ski that is about 100cm long, ussually symentrical and ussually wider than average skis.

the further away you get from this definition, the less of a skiboard it is. snowblade for example, are around 100cm long, but not symetrical or wide, therefore, they are not very close to our definition. spruce boards are pretty much symetrical and wide but a little longer than 100cm long, so they are very similar to skiboards but a little longer.

it seems people have a hard time with things and spaces "in between" definitions. in the bike industry, there is everything from small BMXs, to huge downhill bikes, to sleek road bikes, and everything in between, people dont bother putting labels on the in betweens, its all biking.

and to me, its all skiing. but just like how i prefer my mountain bike or fixed gear bike, i prefer skiboarding.

I think we're just making conversation, this seems extremely familiar, kind of like we had this discussion last year and came to the same conclusion. I'm the kind of guy that likes getting down the mountain any way I can so I just weigh in to weigh in.

[oxenboxin]

While I have no interest in competing myself, I definitely sympathize with the desire to have a firm standard of what equipment is legal in Skiboard park and Skiboardcross events. All sports have rules, and to a large extent the rules define the events. It's because of the rules that Formula 1 racing looks nothing like Nascar.

But I think it's important to realize that the rules of all sports are arbitrary and evolve over time. Did basketball stop being basketball with the inclusion of the three-point line? Or by allowing dunking? Do different size engine displacements from one year to the next mean it's no longer Nascar or Formula 1? Or different hull specifications mean it's no longer America's Cup sailing? I could go on and on.

Yes, once upon a time a standards body defined skiboarding as under 100cm. A lot of evolution and innovation has taken place since those days and that organization is long gone.

My point? 99cm is no more "real" or true or pure than 110cm, or 120, or 130, or 65 or whatever. Fine, let's have standards for competition. I don't even care what those standards are. But WE are the sport of skiboarding. Us. Right now. Not some guys in the past, most of whom are probably on twin tips these days. There was no burning bush; there were no stone tablets that said "Thou shalt not ride boards longer than 100cm". There will be no judgment day where the impure heathens are sent to spend eternity at the top of an endless mountain covered with two feet of untracked pow but only a pair of broken Salomon Snowblades with which to descend.

You like your 100cm rides. We all think that's cool. But the longboard riders are your brothers. I think they deserve to be called skiboarders too.

Namaste

[rgzip]

While I have no interest in competing myself, I definitely sympathize with the desire to have a firm standard of what equipment is legal in Skiboard park and Skiboardcross events. All sports have rules, and to a large extent the rules define the events. It's because of the rules that Formula 1 racing looks nothing like Nascar.

But I think it's important to realize that the rules of all sports are arbitrary and evolve over time. Did basketball stop being basketball with the inclusion of the three-point line? Or by allowing dunking? Do different size engine displacements from one year to the next mean it's no longer Nascar or Formula 1? Or different hull specifications mean it's no longer America's Cup sailing? I could go on and on.

Yes, once upon a time a standards body defined skiboarding as under 100cm. A lot of evolution and innovation has taken place since those days and that organization is long gone.

My point? 99cm is no more "real" or true or pure than 110cm, or 120, or 130, or 65 or whatever. Fine, let's have standards for competition. I don't even care what those standards are. But WE are the sport of skiboarding. Us. Right now. Not some guys in the past, most of whom are probably on twin tips these days. There was no burning bush; there were no stone tablets that said "Thou shalt not ride boards longer than 100cm". There will be no judgment day where the impure heathens are sent to spend eternity at the top of an endless mountain covered with two feet of untracked pow but only a pair of broken Salomon Snowblades with which to descend.

You like your 100cm rides. We all think that's cool. But the longboard riders are your brothers. I think they deserve to be called skiboarders too.

Namaste

Very well put.

[slow]

....There will be no judgment day where the impure heathens are sent to spend eternity at the top of an endless mountain covered with two feet of untracked pow but only a pair of broken Salomon Snowblades with which to descend......

What a relief!

[Roussel]

WSA rules stat that no skiboards over 110cm can compete.

[tyberesk]

why do people need such strict/clear/box definitions of things. the under 100cm logic is totally flawed because this would mean a 100.0001 cm skiboard is a ski.

whats wrong with a loose definition? ive proposed this many times and even have it up on sbmag:

a skiboard is a ski that is about 100cm long, ussually symentrical and ussually wider than average skis.

the further away you get from this definition, the less of a skiboard it is. snowblade for example, are around 100cm long, but not symetrical or wide, therefore, they are not very close to our definition. spruce boards are pretty much symetrical and wide but a little longer than 100cm long, so they are very similar to skiboards but a little longer. hence the longboard skibaord name we have adopted.

it seems people have a hard time with things and spaces "in between" definitions. in the bike industry, there is everything from small BMXs, to huge downhill bikes, to sleek road bikes, and everything in between, people dont bother putting labels on the in betweens, its all biking.

and to me, its all skiing. but just like how i prefer my mountain bike or fixed gear bike, i prefer skiboarding.

I love you jason, thats perfect.

[TheBurg'sFinest]

Lol...Talon you would post something like this to ruffle everyones feathers, and I love it haha. Totally agree my man.

[modette]

Does it really matter at the end of the day?

I skiboard :-P with the 123 ETL's, also I bought Marauder 125's, and have a classic pair of BigFoot. I'm no expert by no means, hell I did not even know they called them skiboards till I heard the bro in-law use that term...I always called them shorties. I'm obviously not on top of what people call shit, nor do I care. Then again I'm a person that doe snot call stuff like this a sport, but more of a hobby, I'm not out there to get metals and win competitions; I'm out there to have fun.

As for poles, I use them with the BigFoot's and I use them with the 123's and 125's. I just like something in my hands, and I also like the ability to protect myself with them on the slopes from idiots, want to hit me well your going to get a pole through your body. Plus on runs that choke you down from many to one run they are handy to fling around as if your a beginner...people tend not to cut you off then. So sorry even if I was on 99cm board I still use the poles.

So why don't I use regular ski's! I tried them many times, owned a pair in high school for ski week (that is what it is called in Europe the week you take off to ski with your school), I ended up loosing one ski, in very deep powder on a difficult run. I hated how long skis were. As I lived in Austria at the time, I saw they made a product called BigFoot's so I talked my parents into buying me a pair, and they did. That was all I would use. Then 5-6 years ago the wife took me skiing when we still lived in Michigan. I rented a pair of ski's, and boy did I hate them with a passion. I hated them so much after a run I tossed on the BogFoot's and ate the loss on the rentals. I then was in a ski shop with the wife and we saw the Atomic ETL 123's and we bought two pair....they were what I been saying since 1992 that they should make. Not everyone likes long skis, and BigFoot's are not really that practical in powder. So it was a dream come true for me. However they are not the best in powder so, that is why I got the 125's to use. I go through the trees just fine on the 123's or 125's.

Some have said here why not stay true to the sport, I still can not wrap my head around that. If you stayed true then you would ski and not snow board, you would only ski on some silly 1930 wooden skis. After all you want to stay true, don't you!!!

Would I go longer then 125's...probably not but that is a personal preference to me and my life. I'm never going to care what they call some product, or the slang used, at the end of the day it is about me and how much fun I am having. Not what someone thinks I should or should not be doing. See you on the slopes with my poles in hand.