The entire K2 mountain/telemark line is revamped, renamed and redone and the 'old' models now are slightly redone and renamed, so there should be an equivalent out there in the new stock. I really like the Karhu Storm BC for their width and light weight and durability. Try them in a 177cm at your weight.

I am 6' tall and 180 lbs and ski on the 181 Mt. Baker Superlights. I mounted them for telemark skiing and they work great. I ski them backcountry and at the area so they are an overall ski for me. I think that you want them a bit long since they are really quick and light so they ski like a shorter ski. They float really well in soft snow which is where I think that they perform the best. However, they do hold a surprising edge on hard pack! This is a big plus for these skis! I demoed them before I bought them and the fact that they held a solid edge while claiming to be a powder ski is what sold me on them. In backcountry powder these are awesome skis. As someone mentioned below, they aren't so fat that they skim over the top yet they are wide enough that the tip floats making powder skiing fun. When telemarking on hard pack they can be a bit chattery unless you work the turn but this brings back fond memories of the days when you had to work every turn. The bottom line on size is since they are so light they can get tossed around a bit more than a heavier ski, so the extra length helps to make them a bit more stable. Something about these skis make them really quick even in longer lengths. I think that tight trees or moguls are about the only place that the shorter ski would be better. Hope this helps!

I am the same weight and around 6 feet tall. I bought the 181cm regular Mt Baker, after receiving advice from a bunch of different people that the super-light would be pretty soft giving my weight and power. I have been really happy with the regular Mt Baker for multi-day ski tours.

The 181cm Mt Baker is the same length as my old 188cm Dynastar Legend's, and also as long as my 193cm 4Frnt EHPs. K2 seem to have a different approach to measuring ski length.

You should probably check out the regular Mt. Baker, a beefier version of this ski. It adds weight to the set-up, but handles harder skiing a lot better. With this added ski strength, the 181 should be enough for you.

The 181cm Mt Baker is longer than it sounds. I compared it with my old 188cm Dynastar Legends and it is about as long. I am 195lbs, like longer skis, and was perfectly happy with the 181cm. Did have to be persuaded in the shop by comparing ski lengths, and it is scary how different manufacturers measure their skis.

I was advised though to skip the superlights and go with the regular bakers. I use mine with dynafits and have been very happy.

I bought this ski a few months ago because I wanted something for all around use. So far I have used it in perfect powder, ice, crud, mashed potatoes, wet snow etc. No problems in the powder, was skittery on the ice (but my friends with heavier skis had the same issues), had a hard time forcing the turn in really wet snow but this may be more my skiing ability than the ski. I felt like when I got on something really choppy I was thrown around a lot - but the only ski I was able to ski ice and crud perfectly with was the hippy stinx and there is no way I'm taking that thing backcountry. Anyway, all said and done I would buy this ski again- I think the weight is worth the trade in performance- especially if you are going to be doing a lot of backcountry.

The 181 should be alright, might feel a little short. This probably isn't the BEST all around ski, mostly because the light weight makes for a weaker hold on hard pack and groomers. The normal version of the Mt. Baker would probably be a better choice for this, and isn't that much more weight to burn you out. The Superlight handles heavy spring conditions okay, but again, the light weight is difficult to master. As for light weight bindings, you can not, and I mean NOT beat a Dynafit binding for weight saving performance. Unfortunately that means you need Dynafit compatible boots too.

These skis hold pretty much on par with the regular Baker, in my opinion. They ski corn so nice, and the weight savings for long tours is great. You are pretty much my size, and I ski on the 181, with no problems. Jump turns are easily done, and spring conditions are easily handled.

I use these for tele skiing. If you are only going to be resort skiing I'm not sure if this ski would be the best choice.

Any ski can be used for telemarking, and generally (with the exception of the asymmetrical sidecut Rapid Transits, and a few skis with tip rocker to prevent tip dive, like the K2 anti piste), tele specific skis are only tele-specific because of their low weight and ease of use while touring. You can mount Targas (or any telemark binding) onto any ski the same way alpine bindings are mounted, by drilling holes into the ski itself. Then the only decision is where to mount, check out this article for some tips as to mounting position (http://www.telemarktips.com/BindingMt2.html)

I'd get the 167 cm. I've skied both the 160 and the 167. The latter has a nicer flex and turns more smoothly. The Mt. Baker Super Light is fine on groomers and corn; it is not a bump ski, nor does it shine in crud: The operative words are "super light." It gets bounced around and deflected in difficult snow. If you ski at a ski area, there are many better skis than this one. Ted Kerasote www.kerasote.com

I have found that the baker light is just that, light. The Karhu jak (vs. the jak bc) had way more umphh to it than this ski will. The Baker light skis way softer for sure. If you liked the jak and how it skied, try the new Karhu Spire or Storm for a little fatter ski.My 2 cents: these Mt Bakers are super light -- especially if you go with dynafits. I've skied some long 45-50 degree ski shots with these skis. I actually think they ski quite well. Pretty wide in the tip so they keep you on top when it's deep. Good sidecut so they hold well on sketchy wind blown summits.

I would definitely say size up, if you feel like you are uncomfortable with the shorter length. The 174 is a sweet option for lighter, taller dudes looking for a good touring set-up for all snow conditions.

you can, but that isn't a very good binding. go with dynafit bro.you can mount any binding out there on this ski.