2 questions about the Freeskiers Buyers Guide

for number one, that is the retail price but no one ever sells them for that unless its really early in the season.

to answer #2:

freeskier has a few issues to work out. so no one really knows

sometimes they dont end having the ski because you gotta remember they were tested like 6 months ago right either that or i have no idea

They still put some in there that they didn't test I think. 

Some say a stoke factor of N/A. 

also, they said jesters are 150, they retail for waaay more than that, around 320 from what i've seen

the buyers guide is a joke
the ratings are inconsistent
last year the bacons were a powder specific ski with a stoke of like 7.5
this year they are an all around with a stoke of 10? wtf
they didnt change
the reviews are worthless
bring back freeze

I see the Bacon's in the powder skis category on page 128, not all mountain.  And that is weird that they didn't review the EP Pro's, def a ski worth reviewing even if it wasn't in the ski test (which I don't believe is a requirement for being included in the mag but I could be wrong).  There are also a few other inconsistencies, but almost every mag out there will have some typos.   Not a big deal I guess. 

Some more thoughts I've had about the issue...

I don't care what Olenick or whoever is wearing, please keep the EPICS, well.... EPIC.   Please don't sell out the best part of the mag.  Dumont's shot is pretty rad in my opinion (which may not matter but whatever) the rest......  meh.   Pretty cookie cutter to me.  Skiing magazine has better pics this month.



The MSP hip jump is in 2 ads before you even make it to the EPICS and then again for PK's EPICS shot (keep in mind one of the ads is already of PK), which would normally be way sick had I not already seen the jump in the mag twice.  There is such a thing as too much of a good thing.

Brad Holmes has two ads.  WTF?  Is it 1999 again?  Where's the Marker ad?

Why do all the clothes in the outerwear review look really wrinkled?  I'm not a professional photog or anything, but that looks like bad form.

And Thall's EPIC shot is the same jib as the Oakley ad, 3 ads deep, just a crappier angle?  Come on.  the handplant should have been the EPIC shot in my opinion, which again may not matter.  But where better to voice it than the internet! 

I understand that the mag needs to make money but I really feel like they're losing touch with what's going on.  With so much up and coming talent, the EPICS would be a great place to get some of the new guys exposure, or to truly show some EPIC shots without it being ad space.  If it means I have to spend some money on a subscription rather than the free subscription I've gotten forever to tone down the amount of ads/sold out space, then fine.  I'll give you $20 a year.  It's not like you've got any real competition yet.  Sorry guys, I've been a huge fan since issue one, but the day I'd rather read the new Skiing mag over Freeskier is a sad day for me.

Rant over, thanks for reading. 

^Nice, I agree with all that. Now if only i could find my rant...oh it looks like the thread got deleted perhaps. Interesting...Why would a thread with some useful criticism get canned?

i thought that the buyers guide sucked penis this year

they didn't rate anthems in the park...

Ad space is premium revenue obviously, but over the last few seasons it seems as though the mag has stayed the same size, had more ads, and less articles and pics.

Ive had a subscription for a while, but I kind of feel like I am getting ripped off. I read twsnow and snowboardmag more than freeskier cause the stories and shit are better to be honest.

I hope they step up to the plate here, just cause you get paid to sit on the bench doesnt mean you shouldnt work to get in the game.

Cmon freeskier!

I was upset that there wasn't a written review for every ski like there had been in past seasons.  They don't tell you much, but it's a hell of a lot better than an unexplained stoke factor.

i dont read freeskier regularly but thats sad if twsnow and snowboarder have better articles cuz their articles suck.

companies buy photos from photogs for more money than the mag does. so, generally, ads will have more epic epics than the magazine themselves. i don't think there is anything wrong with too many ads, as along as they are from ski companies showing good pics of their riders, cuz then its the same as if the pics were published by the mag.

I'm well aware of who pays more for pics.  And I'm not necessarily saying less ads, ads are fine I guess if they've got the epic epics(?) and are rad designs/cool shots.  Those companies do pay a lot of money to put whatever they want in their ads.  It should be the magazines responsibility/duty/etiquette whatever you want to call it to pick different or more original shots than what is already being run in those epicly epic ad shots.  One more time, EPIC!  Seeing the same jump in three 2-page spreads in the first 1/3 of the mag is redundant and really takes away from the epicness of the jump or any of the shots.



At least for me anyway.

I guess I would just like to see more pics that were picked because of the quality of the picture itself rather than the person in the pic, or who took the pic, or how much gear in the pic can be sold for more advertising above and beyond what the companies already pay for the ads.

i dont think so. line is always the first ones to get their skis on the market

this thread is impressive, it is good to see that skiers are seeing the crap the industry is pulling right now.
I also was annoyed with the cross promotional photos and duplicates, and think the what the pros use section needs to die.

I find the freeskier staff gear choices to be far more interesting than the pros, they weren't paid for using that shit.

Epics were as weak as it has ever been, and Matt Harvey's intro to the gear guide (editorial in the front) was my favorite print in the whole mag.

It's pretty lame that this thread got moved to gear talk.  Pretty sure the focus was not actually on the gear itself.  Please move it back.

yeah, i wouldnt exactly say the anthems are an all mountain ski which is where they had them

and where are the vids they promised?

yeah, i think they just thought that because of the width, but its a symmetric park ski, listed under the park section with the invaders on the line website

What makes them not all mountain?

choose your words wisely.

the answer to question 1 the price listed is often a rough price cause nothing is flat priced and it will reflect the msrp ie the armada ar6 buyers guide 575 actual msrp 574.99, and then there is map pricing which is what most shops sell it for which this year will probly be 499.99.
second the stoke is what the testers thought, yes lots of incosistency considering the only change for many of the skis this year is just graphics, no company builds new molds every year.

thats what ive been wondering???

Every year I anxiously await all the BUYER'S GUIDES and buy them and then go home to peruse, examining and CSi each mag for each of their reviews.

This year, so far I've gotten the POWDER, SKIING and FREESKIER...and as far as reviews go, I think that SKIING has the most comprehensive, detailed reviews of the 3.

1.SKIING
2.FREESKIING
3.POWDER

SKIING's way of reviewing each ski seems to me as the most objective way of going about it. They have expert testers, cover up all the skis-as to not be persuaded by the graphics or the company name, concentrate on the skis type of skiing and then give you a review. If the ski isn't in the reviews, it's because the ski was either not up to par or they didn't have it to review in time. I don't know, it seems pretty good to me...the only problem is that there Freeskiing section is quite small. But I do see that it's gotten larger in segment and reviews than last year's issue...bonus pts for them.

FREESKIER seems very subjective at times but that's the sense I get from them also the inconsistencies are a bit boggling. I guess the only thing to say is that maybe the conditions were different but really the last 2 years/and reviews it seems that the conditions were almost epic...I don't know...it's still better than POWDER's reviews which are pretty much each companies regurgitated descriptions of their skis, and having 2 shop rats pick a fav ski.

NEWSCHOOLERs is still the best way to go with reviews but sometimes I really like having a hard copy of the skis' I'm going to one day ride.

Last year, it was because of this site that I bought the skis that I skied in last season and I had a baller year on them. Eventhough, the skis were featured in all 3 mags, the best advice and description came from you guys....

So....use the mags as a reference and look at the EPIC PICs instead cause really I think that's all they're kinda of good for...

Skiing's cover was jacked straigt off the TGR forums

i didnt like the buyer's guide this year.. too much of lack of info..... they didnt even test the new skis i was most intersted about , the alpha 1 and the kung fujas...

Really I think it was jacked off of http://www.grantgunderson.ifp3.com/

Just cuz it's in a public forum doesn't make it "jacked"