I was fortunate to spend the majority of the 2010/2011 ski season on the 182cm Jaguar Shark. My intended use for these was for the backcountry and with my prior bc setup being the 190 Bibby, I wanted something shorter with a flatter tail: enter the Jag Shark.
For their maiden voyage, I took the Jags down a 45-degree couloir with snow ranging from head-high blower to cream cheese recycled pow to a super rippable apron at the bottom. The learning curve on these was incredibly short and was able to fully understand the ski immediately. Compared to the Bibby, the Jags like to turn more which shouldn't be a surprise with the lower turn radius. Once I got these in deep snow, I easily fell in love. Yes, the Bibby Pro slays it in powder, but the Jags are slightly softer and plane far quicker at slower speeds. Once conditions get tracked out, the Jags still hold their own and for someone at 170lbs., the 182cm length was a solid fit. However, if I needed a inbounds-only ski, I would likely opt for the 192cm length.
Aside from a season spent almost entirely in deep snow, I had more than a handful days on firmer, steep snow and the Jags held an edge with the best of them. Yes, 116mm in the waist is likely too wide for most mountaineering types, but I had no complaints especially with the ability to slarve your way down sideways. At 9.0 lbs., these are likely far lighter than every other comparable ski on the market within the price range, something to consider when making a choice for a backcountry ski where tip rocker, camber underfoot, and a flat tail for anchoring is ideal.
As far as durability goes, I put in a good 40 days on the Jaguar Shark and they show no sign of use or abuse. The topsheets are in great condition, edges like new, and the bases lacking any core shots.