I know what his point is, and it is coming form the perspective of someone that has 5-6 months of ski das at their disposal in a ski mecca vs somebody who pays money to be there for a few. The persecitves are different, and that comes into play when evaluation per-dollar utility of a vacation. At least it does for me because each season the number of days I spend at a "real" resort can be counted with one hand.
We all ski for different terrain here. I don't really hunt for these "sick lines" that many of you do. I just generate G-forces on hard snow on green and blue runs when it's good conditions for that, or just cruise around when its powdery/cruddy.
So for me its like riding a roller coaster. the more times I can do it, the more fun I'm going to have at my "amusement park."
Now, I don't care what number of vertical feet is on Ski Tracks. What I do care about is whether there was a smile on my face (literally) and there was. So I'm happy.
What this thread is about is seeing how much vertical people get in on a day when they ski the whole day. After all, sometimes it is about quantity. I was surprised I only got 28000 ft when I was as happy as I was. (It was actually 33,000 ft b/c i didn't turn it on until like three or four runs in on the one day).
Originally Posted by jaobrien6
But that's Ske-Bum's point: the out-of-towners don't *need* to cram as much good time in as they can, they choose to approach it with that mindset. I'm with Ske-Bum, personally. Quality always wins in my book. My vacation would not be judged as a success or failure based on how many runs I get in.