Blister Community Reviews Launch; How Much Info is Too Much or Too Little?; Defining Skier Ability Levels; & Other Contentious Topics (Ep.277)

20 comments on “Blister Community Reviews Launch; How Much Info is Too Much or Too Little?; Defining Skier Ability Levels; & Other Contentious Topics (Ep.277)”

1. Regarding skier levels that you were talking about recently, I’ve seen many attempts by other organisations (ski improvement companies mainly) to do the same. Not always very well either. Your 5 categories are an excellent starting point and essentially make the skier think about not only their perceived ability level (ie I’m a strong intermediate or I’m an expert) but also about the conditions in which they may need to execute that skill. This adds another element to the rating system. I know that I can ski most black runs with reasonable technique, but not always in all conditions. Well done lads. Keep up the good work!
   Ian – Melbourne, Australia

   • Thanks, Ian, really appreciate the feedback.

     • For levels what ever you hack/ survival ski -1. Ie I can ski rock hard bumps on steep pitch but it’s not pretty. So 1 level below that

2. IMO the only pitfall to the skier levels is the reliance on the Green-Double Black rating. Double black at some mountains can be fairly innocuous, at others it can include some risk-your-life ultra-sketch moves. Overall I think your approach is about as close as you can get without turning the skier level into an open ended question.

   • Yeah, not all blue runs or double-black runs are created equal, so that’s an x-factor here for sure. But hopefully as more and more members share their thoughts, it will be less important about exactly where each of us place our ability level, and readers will be able to see what 5,10,15 etc people who describe themselves as ‘intermediates’ or ‘advanced’ or whatever *collectively* rate a particular ski. I suspect that’s where a significant chunk of the value will emerge.

3. Just a thought re: skill levels for community reviews. This might overcomplicate things and probably couldn’t be mandatory, but it might be cool to have a field in someone’s profile where they can post a link to a video of them that they feel accurately portrays their ability and style. Guessing you don’t want to host a terabyte of uploaded videos, but even a link to YouTube clip could work, and lend context to a reviewer’s opinion

   • I can see how this would in theory be cool… but my strong suspicion is that not enough people would be interested in taking the time to (1) shoot and then (2) upload videos of themselves skiing to make this worthwhile. So I suspect we’re better off just trying to nail our skier-ability-level descriptions, since everyone can select the option that best describes them in about 10 seconds.

4. The five skill levels works for me and adding intermediate/advanced and advanced/expert just complicates things. There are two areas where skill level comes into play in a community review. The obvious one is where you categorize your own ski level. The second, which I think is most helpful, is in the response to the question regarding what type of skier will get along with the ski under review. In most cases a ski would fit a range of skier levels, so if you say this ski would appeal to Intermediate to Advanced skiers, do you really need to break down the skill levels further?

   Regarding the levels, for intermediates you include the ability to get down some black runs so that allows for room for advancement within that category. I think the Advanced description is spot on (I place myself in this category). Regarding the expert category, this ages me a bit but I think of the VP debate back in the day between Dan Quayle and Lloyd Bentsen, when Quayle mentioned JFK in a response to a question and Bentsen came back with “I knew Jack Kennedy and you sir are no Jack Kennedy”. It’s the same thing about expert skiers you know one when you see one. A true expert should have outstanding technique and including “most” gives wiggle room for the fact that they are not at the pro level.

5. Also I’m all for Jonathan and crew posting community reviews

6. I think an “advanced – expert” category makes sense, the difference being “You have outstanding technique, and are able to ski most black and double-black runs with confidence and good form in *Most* conditions”, vs expert *all*. Because otherwise there seems to be a significant jump between advanced, skiing black runs with good technique, and then expert, skiing all double black in all conditions with good technique. I would also place myself in the advanced – expert category. Meaning on a good day with nice snow, I can ski great turns on steep terrain ie double blacks… But with crappy snow, I definitely dial that back… ( skiing at kicking horse, BC or lake louise, AB ). Thus I wouldn’t put myself in the expert category. But as I mostly ski double black terrain at the resort unless I’m carving, the advanced category then seems insufficient as a descriptor.

   • Same.

     • Maybe expert could be re-written as:

       Expert: You have outstanding technique, and are able to ski black and double-black runs with confidence and form in all conditions.

       The current definition of expert I think almost puts you in the pro / comp skier category.

       My point here is I know a lot (most?) skiers who ski black runs “comfortably”…but they can’t really ski (lot of upper body movement / back seat). Generally athletic people who never really learned. This is by far the largest group of skiers I see at a standard front range resort. They would not put themselves in the intermediate category since they are skiing lots of blacks (and double blacks poorly).

       Then I have a hunch you have plenty of people who really know how to ski (quiet upper body, edging nice turns, can zipperline bumps in decent conditions) who would still put themselves in the same advanced category because they ski blacks in crap conditions slowly (but properly). IMO these should be experts, or a different category since these are very different styles.

       My categories are:
       1. New to sport
       2. Can ski green through black groomers
       3. Ski all over but can’t zipperline bumps or rip various turn shapes
       4. Ski all over and look good doing it
       5. Pro

       That or intermediate needs to be expanded.

       • Expert: You have outstanding technique, and are able to ski *almost all* black and double-black runs with confidence and *appropriate* form in all condition.

         For some reason the keys words got deleted…probably html nonesense

   • I think making advanced a slightly narrower range and then having expert grow would make sense.

     At my resort (Palisades Tahoe), the only people skiing “most […] double-black runs with confidence and good form in all conditions.” are actual pros. So to me the expert and pro categories are practically the same.

     And even then in many conditions not even the pros are skiing eagles nest or the chimney.

     I think swapping “all conditions” for “most conditions” would help balance the advanced/expert/pro categories.

7. I think you need one more category. Whether that is advanced intermediate (in which case you guys can be advanced) or advanced/expert (which leaves the advanced category for those who are comfortable on most blacks, but not double and not in sketchy conditions). I don’t think you need both. But I’m not an intermediate and absolutely can’t ski the terrain you jonathan and Luke do in the length skis you ski). I should not be in the same category.

   • My thoughts on the 0-10 to avoid repeats,

     0: Horrific
     1: Awful
     2: Terrible
     3: Bad
     4: Marginal
     5: Okay
     6: Average
     7: Good
     8: Great
     9: Outstanding
     10: Exceptional

8. I feel like an “expert” on my home mountain. I know what all of the typical conditions are, where hidden hazards might be, which bump lines I can double up on, and so on. There isn’t a run I haven’t done, and I’ve done most of those runs in almost every snow condition that could be expected in a maritime mountain climate.

   However, I think I fall more into the advanced camp whenever I’m in unfamiliar terrain on a different mountain. I find myself dialing it back and skiing a bit less aggressively than normal. Perhaps this is just an indicator that I am not truly an expert skier anywhere? Just another (probably unwanted) piece of nuance to add to the whole ability-level conversation.

9. I agree with Edward’s observations. I think in terms of what skis you’d get along with, you’re actually closer to a pro than advanced. For instance, you’re in very limited company that could enjoy a Dynastar Pro Rider. Also, I know you want to avoid skill based assessments but I think it would be very beneficial to use carving ability as a simple way to distinguish skier type. Here’s how I’d categorize common skier types.

   Beginner / intermediate – I haven’t skied most of the mountain.

   Casual Weekend Warrior – I can ski most of the mountain but not with speed or carved turns.

   Aggressive weekend warrior – I can ski most of the mountain with speed but not clean carved turns.

   Skilled Weekend Warrior – I can ski most of the mountain with speed and carved turns.

   True Expert – I can ski the entire mountain including steep chutes with speed and carved turns.

10. Hi
    My 2 cents from Europe regarding skill levels. For advanced & experts, it could make sense to differentiate groomed vs. non-groomed – I’m never fully sure how exactly this translates into North American context, between on-piste, off-piste, backcountry, etc. Anyway, there are a significant number of skiers in Europe who ski almost only (groomed) pistes and they could be categorized as experts on that specific area – and when it comes to reviewing skis, they are very attuned when it comes to variations and nuances on piste skis (between racing and frontside).

    Regarding Blister’s team posting reviews: the main reason I appreciate Blister is for the detailed, long-form reviews. This is where all the nuances of a ski get revealed, with all context and variations. I’m mostly looking forward to that part in the community reviews. I’ve grown skeptical about numerical grading as this is usually not very helpful. I do appreciate how you try to make something different and more elaborate on what is graded, and I’m definitely curious how this is going to play out but I admit I’m still more interested in the texty bit…
    That being said, it would be interesting to have the team post “some” reviews in that section at least on “reference” or “iconic” skis (e.g. the best ones from the past Blister’s guides) as this would give a direction on grading and a point of reference.

    Happy holidays!

11. I love the idea of community reviews for all the reasons described in the episode, but I do think your ability ratings need a bit of work. I’ve long shared the critique, which Jonathan said he hears frequently, that Blister is primarily focused on the needs of advanced/expert skiers. I know that isn’t the intention, but the fact is that ALL of your reviewers seems to be advanced riders and so it just doesn’t seem honest to say that you’re seriously taking the intermediate or beginner perspective as equally important. Imagine if you only had male reviewers but asked them to imagine what a female skier might think of a ski. You’d get a lot of pushback…and for good reason. It isn’t exactly the same, of course, but I think you all have a real blind spot when it comes to the needs of most skier (intermediates who ski almost exclusively blue runs). To me, your ability rating system reflects this bias in that you basically have three levels of advanced skiing and then just one intermediate and one beginner category. I’d suggest seriously thinking about the needs of different levels and kinds of intermediate skiers. Of course, even better than more categories would be to just have some more diversity in the ability levels of your reviewers.

    As my skiing has improved over the past ten years or so I’ve really noticed that how I think about gear has totally transformed. I used to read your reviews and, more or less, kinda not know what to do with them. I’d sort of try to translate what you all said to the kind of skiing I was actually doing (mostly slowly picking my way down easier black runs) because your reviewers never discuss how gear performs in the context of learning and building new skills. As I’ve moved into more advanced ability, I do now find your reviews more useful because I can relate to the kind of skiing you are all doing when testing.

    My great hope with the community reviews is that it becomes a way for us readers to get more of a sense of how gear performs in many different use cases. Looking forward to it…and to becoming a Blister member in order to participate?