Overall Playfulness
This is thing that most surprised me about the Mordecai: it’s not really the extremely playful ski that I expected it to be. The tips lack a bit of pop and energy when you’re trying to ollie off of features, and it doesn’t butter as well as other “playful” all-mountain skis in this class, like the Jeffrey 114 or the old Sickle. I’m certainly not pegging the Mordecai as an unplayful ski, but there are more playful options out there. On a scale from 1-10 (1 being not playful and 10 being extremely playful), I’d give the Mordecai a 6.
Line Mordecai vs. Rossignol Sickle vs. ON3P Jeffrey 114
I’ve touched on some comparisons already, but I’ll say a bit more about the similarities and differences between the 186cm Line Mordecai, the 181cm Rossignol Sickle, and the 186cm ON3P Jeffrey 114. These are three really fun, fairly similar skis, but there are some notable differences that should help you figure out which might be the best fit for you. The five stand-out qualities that these skis share are: energy and poppiness, agility, stability, buttering capability, and overall playfulness.
I still remember the first time I got off the chairlift on my Sickles. I was immediately popping off of moguls, cat-tracks, and anything else I could find. Both the Jeffrey 114 and the Mordecai feel a little more damp and planted. When you load up their tails, you just don’t get as much energy and pop out of them compared to the Sickle.
In the terrain park, the Sickle is definitely the quicker, more agile ski. Note that the Sickle is both shorter (181cm vs 186cm) and narrower (110mm vs 114mm) than the other two. However, the point still stands that the Sickle is much quicker when spinning in the air or doing switch ups on rails.
This comparison holds true outside the terrain park, too; the Sickle is quicker and more nimble than the Mordecai and Jeffrey 114, while the Mordecai and Jeffrey are still much quicker than fatter skis like the 179cm K2 Hellbent).
In chopped up and variable snow, I found the Mordecai to be the most grounded and stable of the three. The Sickle can charge through chopped up snow, but it is most comfortable springing off its tails and skipping across chunder instead of plowing through it. More comparable to the Mordecai, the Jeffrey 114 is also quite stable underfoot, but its soft tips and significant tip and tail splay mean that the ski prefers a lighter touch in chop—though it also means that the Jeffrey 114 is almost certainly the best option the more you care about flotation in DEEP pow.
When it comes to buttering, the Mordecai likes to press into a butter and then continue the rotation and exit quickly. On the other hand, the Jeffrey can stall out and hold a butter more easily due to its softer tips and less drastic tip taper. The Sickle butters in the same fashion as the Mordecai, it just doesn’t do it as well as the Mordecai.
For supreme all-mountain buttering capabilities, the Jeffrey 114 is my preference. But in deep snow, I predict the Mordecai might have the leg-up or at least draw even.
Of course, buttering is only one factor when judging how playful a ski is, and skis with energetic and poppy tips and tails score well on my playfulness scale. So to rate these three skis side-by-side, I’d give the Mordecai a 6/10, and the Sickle and Jeffrey both an 8/10.
Mordecai: Who’s It For?
If you like to play around the mountain, but prefer a ski with a little more backbone to it, the Mordecai is a great option. Also, more traditional skiers interested in trying out a near-center mounted ski will find the Mordecai very intuitive, with quite a bit of the stability they’re accustomed to from their more directional skis.
Bottom Line
The new Mordecai provides a very stable platform that makes easy work of all sorts of less-than-ideal conditions. Its stiffer flex pattern and wider waist really inspire confidence in icy, slushy, or choppy conditions. These same qualities equate to high stability when landing jumps or cliffs. If you’re looking for a stable ski to go have fun on all around the mountain, you should definitely consider the Mordecai.
DEEP DIVE COMPARISONS
Become a Blister member or Deep Dive subscriber to read how the Mordecai stacks up against a number of other playful powder skis, including the Armada ARV 116 JJ, ON3P Kartel 116, Moment Blister Pro, Atomic Bent Chetler, and K2 Catamaran.
NEXT: ROCKER PROFILE PICS
Good review, But i wish you would have compared the Mordecai to the Opus more, since that is the ski it replaced, by your review it sounds like the opus is the more playful true powder ski and the Mordecai is more of a “all mountain ski with some playful attributes, if that is the case, I’m glad I bought a backup pair of Opuses before their all gone.
Also it would be interesting what Jonathan thought of the Mordecai.
William,
I wish I could draw more comparisons to the Opus, but the sad fact is I just haven’t skied them before. I have flexed them side-by-side to the Mordecai, and I have plenty of friends who ride them daily. From everything I know about the Opus, you have it right. The Opus (we’re talking the pre-Magnum Opus) is very playful and the Mordecai is a little narrower and more solid/versatile with a playful side to it.
Alex
I actually found this exchange somewhat helpful—I am still skiing my Line Pollards Opus, because I still love them. I am looking to replace them, but the new Magnum Opus is just too much ski for me, and it sounds to me from this review as if the Mordecai won’t be the back country powder / all conditions ski that I need. Interesting, because I have written to Line to ask them about this, and they don’t even respond…
SO, instead, I am strongly considering the J Friend, in spite of some of what you said about it vs the Mordecai. Thoughts about the J Friend in comparison with Line Pollards Opus?
I really like your review, and think I am going to buy the mordecai. I don’t know very much about gear so some advice would be extremely appreciated. Firstly I am wondering what you think about using the mordecai as an occasional backcountry touring ski after weight was bumped up. I am in very good shape so a bit of extra weight is no problem. Secondly I could really need some help on deciding what bindings to buy and where to mount them. I have heard the marker kingpin is really good? And I guess mounting them at the recommended 6cm instead of Eric’s choice is decided by how freestyle oriented you are? Please correct me if I am wrong, and once again thank you for such thorough reviews.
Preben,
I think using the Mordecai as an occasional touring ski would be a good option actually. It can ski a lot of different conditions really well, and it’s wide enough to float through some pow. It’s weight was bumped up from advertised, but it is still an average weight ski. It’s not on the heavy end of the spectrum; it’s just not super light like originally planned.
There are a lot of details that go into the equation when figuring out what bindings to get and where to mount them. My first suggestion is to talk to your local ski shop and have a conversation about how you plan to ski this pair. From your description, I do have a couple suggestions though. The Marker Kingpin is definitely a very good binding, but it is a dedicated backcountry binding that is built for backcountry enthusiasts. This binding requires touring-specific boots. If you’re only going to be touring on the Mordecai a couple of times a year, and you already have alpine ski boots (regular downhill ski boots), then I would suggest a frame binding like the Marker Duke or Marker Baron.
And yes, the mounting location has a large part to do with how freestyle oriented you are.
Alex
Thank you very much for a very helpful answer. I am going to buy new boots aswell. But I will probably go for something of a hybrid between touring and regular alpine both in boots and bindings then. Do you have any tips or thoughts about what boots are good?
I am confused about the recommendation for the mounting position. It talks about -2 mount position and ~ 2 mount position? Is this the same or is the ~ a plus 2 or is it negative 2? Just want to understand the correct mount position.
Hey guys,
nice review as always!
Did you measure the tip and tail height as well. I’d be really interested to know.
Cheers
Yep, see the tip & tail splay in the specs at the top.
Line markets this ski as a powder ski, but Blister lists this this ski as an “all mountain ski” in their index. Given it’s width underfoot and rocker profile, it certainly *looks* like a powder ski. Maybe I am missing something, but I do not see where this review addresses this substantial difference in classification.
I live in Colorado, and am looking for a lighter, playful ski in the ~115 underfoot category as my go to powder ski on deeper days. I am stuck between the Mordecai and JJ 2.0. But based on this review, I am leaning towards the JJ if this is not a true powder ski like Line claims it is.
Any help from Blister would be greatly appreciated. I am 5′ 11″, 175lbs, and I ski about 30-40 days a season in Colorado.
Any thoughts on the comparison with a Rossi Soul 7 or the Salomon Rocker2 108? I know both of those are a bit narrower, but the general idea seems similar and the next wider models from those companies are a fair bit wider than the Mordecai.
Also the Soul 7 is certainly one of the most common skis on the mountain, so something a lot of people can relate too.
How did you guys feel about size, since you have often gone to the 190ish skis, but were on the middle sized model of the series?
Also, the 190 cm Rocker2 108 is actually 111 meat the waist, with a 19.7m sidecut, so not that far of the width and sidecut of the Mordecai.
Interesting. Total opposite to what I found (and I normally agree with your – well, Blister’s – reviews).
I tested the Mordecai last March. I found it too soft and too unstable, and absolutely terrible on anything firm or variable.
I can see the attraction for Pollard-style powdery (mellow) buttery fun, but it gets a ‘awful – stay away’ label from me everywhere else.
Not sure how you can recommend it as a touring ski as above either – central mounts suck for kick turns.
Hi, I also posted my question on Brett Carroll’s review of the Supernatural 108’s but I also wanted to get the opinion of someone from the Mordecai fan-club. So here it is copy-pasted:
I’m stuck in a dilemma for my next skis. I currently ski on first generation 170 Rossi E88s. I bought them as they were advertised as 50/50 on/off piste skis but I am really struggling with them in anything remotely powdery. I wanted to upgrade that aspect of them and thought the E100 were the natural choice but reading the Blister reviews on them I realised I will be getting mostly more of the same.
I am now torn between Line Supernatural 108 and Mordecai both in 179cm. I know these are skis with very different profiles but this is exactly why I can’t decide easily between the two (otherwise I would probably just pick the one with the better picture).
Nowadays I mostly like to ski tight trees and any powder I can find but I also like to make aggressive GS turns and go for top speed on groomers whenever I (inevitably) find myself on them. I also like to jump off of anything I can but can’t do any trickery or even ski switch (yet) – not the easiest thing on the E88s.
I am mostly worried that the Mordecai might be too fat for on-piste or too twitchy for what I am used to even though I read that it is very stable for a centre-mounted ski and has decent edge-hold. For the Supernatural I am not sure how I will cope in the trees with the much longer radius – or maybe it doesn’t matter as long as the tails release easily. Also are they good skis for jumps?
I really don’t know what I can expect from such skis as I haven’t skied many different skis – and nothing above an 88 waist.
My profile: 175cm, 79kg (5’9″, 174lb), I ski local Bulgarian mountains (read East Coast, as far as I understand what the East Coast is) and Alps. Even though I may end up keeping the E88s I am really looking for a 1-ski-quiver.