JJ UL size recommendations

At your height and weight and with the copious amounts of rocker that the JJs have, they are likely on the smaller side for you.

The JJ definitely isn't a directional ski with it's relatively forward mount. Really depends on your style. Could always mount them, try them and see. A JJ UL setup with shifts should retain its value pretty well if you only use them a few times.

I definitely wouldn't try to conform my skiing style to the skis. The gear should serve you, not the other way around. Who knows, you might find them fun though.

dmcdmcAt your height and weight and with the copious amounts of rocker that the JJs have, they are likely on the smaller side for you.

The JJ definitely isn't a directional ski with it's relatively forward mount. Really depends on your style. Could always mount them, try them and see. A JJ UL setup with shifts should retain its value pretty well if you only use them a few times.

I definitely wouldn't try to conform my skiing style to the skis. The gear should serve you, not the other way around. Who knows, you might find them fun though.

Ive skied the 191 k2 catamarans and found them too soft in the tails and too easily to be thrown around in heavier snow (pnw is good for that stuff). However I never toured on them and used them for a designated resort pow ski. I have switched up my designated resort pow ski and bought the jj ul as a backcountry tool for when the lift lines are long and the backcountry is good. I live in bham where the backcountry is really good but the sidecountry is almost non existent.

natski37So I recently bought a pair of 185 JJ UL (I am 6'3" and ~215lbs btw). .... I would have gotten the 192 but ... I prefer directional skis due to a bad habit of mine of landing backseat and washing out on large drops and jumps etc. My main concern is that they will be great for uphill but ill struggle doing anything but open pow fields on them. Or should I just practice landing more forward and centered so I can enjoy the skis as they were designed.

at your height/weight/skiing style a 192 would be the more appropriate length for sure - 185s will ski short and more likely than not have a limited sweet spot wrt stances. Their limited front ski (length and stiffness) will def do you no favors in variable snow and will be prone to send you flying in deep snow from having to little ski in front of you to lean against. Sure, they will be a treat going up and be very flickable in tight spots, but will more likely than not not be the right medicine to remedy said issues with washing out when hitting big jumps and/or drops. So yeah, too bad that the desired graphic is not available in your lenght, but 185 (183.5 or so straight pull) is very short for this kind of ski for a person of your stature, even for a touring ski.

If you are a directional skier than tracer118s would perhaps suit you better too, to keep it Armada.

A different option would be 190 Moment Wildcat Tours, on sale over at skiburger as we speak. They have a similar mount point, but their shape / flex pattern should be a better fit a directional skier - if at the cost of some playfulness. 190 Deathwish tours could be a similarly good option if you want something slightly more forgiving and narrower, but still loose, capable and good across a lot of conditions.

sure, all of these skis will have fairly long tails that could take some getting used when doing kick turns, but I do not see the point in sizing down when getting a powder ski, especially when the tour version is softer / rounder flexed than the standard version. So def consider getting on a longer pair - be it Armada or Moment or Atomic BC120s or whatever :)

And yes, I am speaking from experience having tried a similar approach. I tried to size down on somewhat similar ski (mount point wise ) from my resort version of 181s to 171s being 175cm myself, and no, it was not a great success. They did fine on hard snow and shallow soft, but the deeper the snow became the more they struggled and the more they affected how I could ski them. So not worth it for this segment imho, different story for sub 95mm skis.

Yeah, what Kid said.

I'm 6' 190 lbs and a very not-directional skier, and the 185 JJ UL is borderline to short and soft for me. I'd personally size up to the 192 myself, and highly recommend that you do too. Even for straightforward open pow I'd want to be on more ski if I was your size, especially if you were overpowering the big Catamarans.

I'll second that Wildcat Tour recommendation, it's got 90% of the fun, playful attitude of the JJ UL, while being way, way, way more stable and capable at higher speeds and in worse snow.

Another option would be something from ON3P with a touring layup. A 186 cm Jeffrey 118 with a tour layup would be pretty slick

cydwhitYeah, what Kid said.

I'm 6' 190 lbs and a very not-directional skier, and the 185 JJ UL is borderline to short and soft for me. I'd personally size up to the 192 myself, and highly recommend that you do too. Even for straightforward open pow I'd want to be on more ski if I was your size, especially if you were overpowering the big Catamarans.

I'll second that Wildcat Tour recommendation, it's got 90% of the fun, playful attitude of the JJ UL, while being way, way, way more stable and capable at higher speeds and in worse snow.

Another option would be something from ON3P with a touring layup. A 186 cm Jeffrey 118 with a tour layup would be pretty slick

I bought these skis to pay homage to my favorite skier when I was a kid. When I was 9 I watched All I can and was understandably blown away. I'm frustrated that they might not be the ski for me, but I guess I didn't buy them to be. It made a lot of sense to me when I bought them especially since the money went to the Canary Club and that JP had made the artwork himself. Part of me never wanted to mount them, and they might not be mounted at all. Apparently, only 35 of these were made and I read that someone else who bought them planned on never skiing them either because they had bought them in the memory of somebody personal that they had lost who also looked up to JP.

natski37I bought these skis to pay homage to my favorite skier when I was a kid. When I was 9 I watched All I can and was understandably blown away. I'm frustrated that they might not be the ski for me, but I guess I didn't buy them to be. It made a lot of sense to me when I bought them especially since the money went to the Canary Club and that JP had made the artwork himself. Part of me never wanted to mount them, and they might not be mounted at all. Apparently, only 35 of these were made and I read that someone else who bought them planned on never skiing them either because they had bought them in the memory of somebody personal that they had lost who also looked up to JP.

And that's super cool. If there were ever a ski that was worth paying for just to use as a wall ski, this is a good one.

Sorry, wasn't trying to say anything about whether or not you should have bought these, was just trying to offer insight into how they'd potentially ski for you.

Generally yea they are too small for you but kinda depends what you want to do with them. For a touring ski for skiing trees and smaller lines you could get away with it. But for resort charging they have gotta be too small. I've had the UL 192 for a year and loved them until I snapped them. They are a real soft ski even for me at 165lb tho, the softness would probably not be great sized down at your weight

cydwhitAnd that's super cool. If there were ever a ski that was worth paying for just to use as a wall ski, this is a good one.

Sorry, wasn't trying to say anything about whether or not you should have bought these, was just trying to offer insight into how they'd potentially ski for you.

My girlfriend is new to skiing and wants to start this year, she is definitely a better size for them. Also she loves the graphics lol. They will probably be too big for her, but if I can't use them I want someone I care about to be able to then.