with the renewed interest in 80s thrusters and many shapers offering such models, where do these boards fit in with the variety of fish and racy stubs and midlengths? Are we into better, more versatile options (past & present) than a 1980s model can realistically offer? Today (at 190 lbs) I ride wide templated midlengths (7’-7’4") and stretched out rocket fish twins (6’10"-7’2". But the 80s thing got me remembering that many of my favorite boards were built in the 80s…yet I’m a more competent surfer now and I was a flyweight kid then…guys, talk me down from an inflated 80s style thruster if it’s more nostalgia than function…what place do these boards have today?
In my opinion, one of the worst things that ever happened to average Joe Surfer was when Big Al put one of those tiny, hyper-rockered slivers under the feet of Kelly Slater and he ripped! Once the world champ starts riding one, everybody HAS to have one and let’s face it, none of us are Kelly Slater. Prior to that, the average fashionable board was wider, thicker, less rocker and as you’ve already figured out, rode better for average Joe in average waves.
Joe, Those reborn boards work great because they have thickness to support a heavier surfer, plus you can get them with removable fins now. I have a 6’0 Brom fish and I can hang with the shortboarders and the longboarders anytime. (i weigh 200lbs) My question is, how would a board like Slater’s perform if it was 3" thick? I know Slater wouldnt like it because of his weight, but what about someone who weighs over 190? Have any of you shapers tried it? SteveA
In my opinion, one of the worst things that ever happened to average Joe > Surfer was when Big Al put one of those tiny, hyper-rockered slivers under > the feet of Kelly Slater and he ripped! Once the world champ starts riding > one, everybody HAS to have one and let’s face it, none of us are Kelly > Slater. Prior to that, the average fashionable board was wider, thicker, > less rocker and as you’ve already figured out, rode better for average Joe > in average waves. Anybody want to comment on the difference between the Curren-era thrusters and the Slater versions? Seems huge to me, but it’s hard to calibrate since that covers such a long time and related changes in age/circumstance for riders. Nels
Anybody want to comment on the difference between the Curren-era thrusters > and the Slater versions? Seems huge to me, but it’s hard to calibrate > since that covers such a long time and related changes in age/circumstance > for riders.>>> Nels Jeez, don’t tell me I killed another thread.
I think at some point they were riding similar shapes but KS took it another notch with extra rocker and extreme thinness. Interestingly, many manufacturers who followed that trend were pumping their next “development” a few years later - “relaxed” rocker and more thickness for the masses! KS and TC meanwhile continued to rip (and still do) on basically anything under their feet.
…I build boards (shortboards that is)buy taking things from all generations.What I come up with is a modern high performer with user friendly features. …The problem with most 80s boards are they imitate 70s rockers,foils,and widths too much…user friendly,YES ,but not too performance minded, by today’s standards. …90s and 00s boards are too “tongue depressor” for me,yeah,I can ride them just fine ,but they lack that comfort zone I have grown to love from the 60s,70s,and 80s. …So like most who are dissatisfied with what you can get over the counter,I build my own sticks to match my needs…Hey,that’s why I got into building boards some 32 years ago in the first place!Herb
80’s boards were a bit to thick and not refined, but the potato chip boards weren’t the answer either–potatos are high on the hypoglycemic index—too many carbs…hum… Basically Slater can surf on anything…and surfer Joes board should be a bit thicker etc…I like big Al’s templates especially in the 6’6" to 6’10" range, but they could be a tad thicker in my opinion. Best thing is to get a custom board…