Waterski Mag Boat Buyers Guide - VERY disappointed

[OKWAKEBDR]

I don't know exactly how it works, but I would assume that the boat manufacturers pay some sort of fee to get their boats reviewed and in the WaterSki Magazine Boat Buyers Guide. So maybe CC is at fault...but...for real!!! CC only had 2 boats in the boat buyers guide!! The 211 and the 196. You'd think FOR SURE they'd want to get the new 210 in there and teh 236!!! Maybe they weren't built in time for the review, I don't know...

VERY disappointed!

Any other comments or explanations?

[06210rider]

RE: Waterski Mag Boat Buyers Guide - VERY disappointed

Were they even out at the time the guide was being put together?

[WakeSlayer]

RE: Waterski Mag Boat Buyers Guide - VERY disappointed

I don't know if it is still the same, because I have not subscribed in many years. My understanding a few years ago is that Correct Craft refused to pay for these reviews and submit boats because every boat in the Boat Buyers Guide is "the greatest boat ever". They don't come out and say that a boat is subpar and not worth the money, built like crap, lousy wake, etc. I just cleaned my desk a couple months ago and discarded the 2000 edition. I am pretty certain that there were no Correct Crafts in there. However, before pitching I did remove the Nautique pull out ad advertising the Diamond Jubilee Nautiques.

[ag4ever]

RE: Waterski Mag Boat Buyers Guide - VERY disappointed

When the 211 came out Nautique di have a nice print ad stuck right in the middle of the boat test section.

[66Skylark]

Hey guys!

Just thinking out loud…

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the 196 and 211 certified to pull tournaments? Perhaps that was the determining factor in which boats were featured? If CC does have to pay, maybe they wanted to focus on these two boats - to get the most for their money...

Again, correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the 206 hull just a stretched 196?

I haven’t seen the magazine, but maybe they thought they could get away with featuring just the 196, since the 206 is so similar…

Since it is so new, prehaps the magazine couldn't get a 236 to test…

Maybe CC didn't want to feature the new 210 or 220 in a waterski magazine, since waterskiing isn’t what they’re designed to pull for…

Happy Holiday to everyone!
Kyle

[M3Fan]

I thought the 206 was a stretched TSC2 boat.

[Spud]

2007 206 is a TSC3 hull

[DRAGON88]

The reviews aren't worth the paper they're printed on IMO.

It would be nice to see a good objective boat review, but I can't foresee that happening ever.

Although admittedly I did giggle when they reviewed the Aztek Crow in 2001. You could tell they were searching for "good" things to say about that one...

[EarlyRiser]

Was it not CC that pulled out of this edition a few years ago? IMO it's like PLayboy, only good for the pictures (oh, & the OPTIONS). Yellow_Flash_Colorz: . Everything else is cow pucky. I expect any year to see them reviewing pontoons if they have a wakeboard tower! ER

[SGY]

Haven't seen the issue yet. I'm very surprised that CC only entered two boats. Wonder if CC is strapped for cash due to new factory.

Small hijack: How does the 2007 206 ski with the TSC3 hull?

[east tx skier]

Was it not CC that pulled out of this edition a few years ago? IMO it's like PLayboy, only good for the pictures (oh, & the OPTIONS). Yellow_Flash_Colorz: . Everything else is cow pucky. I expect any year to see them reviewing pontoons if they have a wakeboard tower! ER

I remember hearing that as well (1999 I think). I have always taken the annual pot shots on the boat buyers guide with a grain of salt because even if I didn't learn anything, there was usually something (maybe one thing) substantial that I could take away from it.

But this year is just horrible. Ordinarily, I'll keep it sitting out to give me something to look at until spring. But this year, I just set it in the stack. Glad my subscription is free. Need to find that website to renew.

[nautique95]

wakeslayer is right, that is exactly what it was about. That was the time that CC came out with the Nautique Challange test drive and ran ads in that edition instead of doing the reviews, they wanted people to get a true feel of their boat instead of everyone just reading that, as waskslayer said, every boat is the greatest boat out there! It does cost alot to have the boats in there and CC thought it was a waste to be grouped with, compared to, and basically get the same review as some of the lower end boats.

[WakeSlayer]

Thinking back to one of the old Boat Buyers Guides from the mid 90's.. Does anyone remember the barefoot boat that had FOUR retractable booms ? Two on each side. I want to say that Banana George endorsed this hideous beast. I have no idea what it was called, or anything, but it sticks out in my mind as a comical try at a unique boat.

[skinautique]

The SKI boats are appearing in the SKI Magazine and the WAKEBOARD boats are appearing in the WAKEBOARDING magazine this year. That is why it looks the way it does.

[OKWAKEBDR]

Just got my wakeboarding mag a few days ago. This is the first time I remember Wakeboarding Mag doing a boat review. Looks like that is exactly what happenned...wake boats in wakeboarding mag and ski boats in ski mag. I just didn't expect a boat review in wakeboarding magazine. Although...I agree that the boat reviews are hardly "reviews"...more like uniform advertisements.