WakeWorld

WakeWorld (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/index.php)
-   Archive through September 24, 2009 (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=737954)
-   -   142 Watson @ 190 lbs (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/showthread.php?t=734657)

jeff_mn 09-16-2009 8:37 AM

2008 Watson 142. <BR> <BR>I'm 190 lbs.. <BR> <BR>Too big? I've been riding a 138 lately and it's been fine. My only guy with a 142 doesn't get out much. <BR> <BR>Thinking about just pulling the plug. Initial thoughts?

lfrider92 09-16-2009 8:49 AM

DEFINATLY the 142. i weigh about the same as you, and ride the lyman 139. and i feel fine on it. but my dad has the 142 watson,and it doesnt feel big at all. it feels great. the watson 142 is supper sick.

eubanks01 09-16-2009 9:06 AM

142 is the new 138! <img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/clipart/happy.gif" border=0> Seriously though, that size is perfect for you. I'm 170 lbs. and I ride a 142 as well. You could almost ride a longer board if you wanted.

stepintoliquid 09-16-2009 9:28 AM

Perfect size for you.

nauty 09-16-2009 10:20 AM

I agree. I am 185 lbs and I ride a 138 Watson. After a few sets last night I was thinking that I should have got the 142. The 138 is fine, but I think that the 142 would get a little better pop and have softer landings in the flats. I also tend to get over my toes too much on HS 180's and I end up digging the nose of the board on my landings. I think the 142 would help with that.

eubanks01 09-16-2009 10:46 AM

Richard - You are spot on. I used to go out the front (over the NOSE of the board) a lot doing HS 180's when I would land front foot heavy on a shorter board. Once I went longer I never fall like that anymore.

jeff_mn 09-16-2009 11:12 AM

Thanks guys. <BR> <BR>Much appreciated. I feel like the 138 I've been riding is a TAD small for me.

joe_crawley 09-16-2009 1:53 PM

I'm 165 and the smallest I'll ride is a 140. I have a few boards under 140, transcends and premeirs, and they just don't pop as big or land as soft as the bigger boards I have. Since I don't spin sevens I don't need the low swing weight a shorter board would offer.

hbguy 09-16-2009 6:47 PM

I am 192 lbs. and just rode a 142 Watson and loved it! My boards have always been 140 or 142.

ryanbush11 09-17-2009 5:01 AM

I weigh in in the 150s and just switched from a 135 lyman to a 138 Watson, the weight difference with bindings is less than .1lbs, don't think the spin weight is going to matter that much!

justinh 09-17-2009 6:47 AM

In 2006, I rocked the 142 at 155lbs or so.

kristian 09-17-2009 6:53 AM

If you're over 160lbs you can ride a 142 just fine. <BR> <BR>Jeff: At 190lbs you shouldn't even consider a 138. If the watson came in a 144-145 I'd say you'd be best on that. So definitely go for the 142. It'll be so much better for your riding and your knees.

wakeborder5 09-17-2009 7:11 AM

How tall are you Jeff? I'm 6'-6'1" and 170lb, I have a 139 lyman and won a 138 Severance and I like it, but i feel like the 142 might have been better for me and it seems people have moved toward riding bigger boards these days.

jeff_mn 09-17-2009 8:28 AM

Thank you Bros. <BR> <BR>142 it is. <BR> <BR>I'm 5'9"

nauty 09-17-2009 8:35 AM

Anyone in the Dallas area want to trade a 142 for a 138? <BR> <BR>I have a 2009 Watson 138 that I wouldn't mind trading for a 2009 Watson 142. My 138 is in excellent condition and has only been used since July. Let me know.

number55 09-17-2009 4:38 PM

i prefer a 134 to shred the most gnar

adam_balon 09-18-2009 12:25 AM

yup 42


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 6:41 AM.