Interesting. This is the first bad thing I've heard anyone say about the BG's. What year did that model come out? Want to compare specs.
Old snow, afternoon, skied off, unpredictably icy around the turns here and there. The BG not so much. (Two different years, different lengths: second time was on 186s (probably 15/16). First time was whatever size was closest to that. This is a usual soft snow length for me.)
The BGs would probably have been fine the morning of that same day, on the groomers at least, or exploring in the trees.
(The Katanas 112 and Pettitors 120 are fat skis that would probably have handled that late day scene a bit better, among the fat skis I've been on - but there are better tools for such conditions than all but a few fat skis, in my limited experience.)
On the other hand, in both crud and powder, great float and feel to the BG. Way better than the Cochise, for example, to me, in Powder/chop. And probably equal in crud/variable.
The BGs are damp and stable at speed in their element: incredible. No real speed limit, I found. You don't get tossed around.
Best skier at Copper I've seen was on BGs at even a hint of soft snow, wow. For three seasons, at least. On old snow days, he was on the BGs back in the trees, in unusual places. He also at times would straight line soft snow through very steep, gnarly or bumpy terrain on that ski, a ski that also, partly because of the RES, is incredibly quick-turning in powder trees and bumps. I am a fan; maybe favorite fat ski I've been on that I haven't owned.