or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › What's Most Important? Snow or Terrain
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What's Most Important? Snow or Terrain - Page 2

Poll Results: What's Most Important to You?

 
  • 40% (30)
    Terrain
  • 60% (45)
    Snow
75 Total Votes  
post #31 of 185

In New England, terrain.  Everyone makes snow, though some do it a lot better.

In the West, terrain and snow are equally important. 

post #32 of 185
As is so often the case here, we are seeing an east / west split. The easterners see the question as a choice between great terrain with NO snow vs. tame terrain with ENOUGH snow. The westerners see the question as a choice between great terrain with a SUB-OPTIMAL SURFACE and tame terrain with POWDER. Therefore the easterners tend to choose snow and the westerners tend to choose terrain.
 
I'm with crgildart, ski-3po, and other right coasters on this one. 
post #33 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by crgildart View Post


You Colorado folks are so spoiled!  I'm thinking 3 months of snow on mediocre terrain or 6 weeks of snow on killer terrain.  I'll take the former.

 

What kind of ski hill would do better where snow can be questionable, a place with reliable 100% man made coverage of average blues or a place with only unreliable and unpredictable natural coverage over really great terrain?  It's like Boyne verses Bohemia in Michigan. 

Bretton Woods vs Mad River Glen?

post #34 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiquidFeet View Post

Bretton Woods vs Mad River Glen?


If Mad River Glen was in Virginia or PA..

post #35 of 185
I wasn't sure of my answer at first and like the other Easterners I'm thinking the choice is between steep dirt or a low angle intermediate run covered with manmade snow. In that case I'll take the flat run with snow on it, but if there is enough snow for big lines and some gnar then I'll take the terrain. In New England Mad River Glen is definitely a place where you might face the terrain vs. snow choice. Dodging the dirt and rocks at MRG adds to the difficulty factor and the mystique. In the mid-Atlantic Blue Knob is similar in that respect.
post #36 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamesj View Post

I wasn't sure of my answer at first and like the other Easterners I'm thinking the choice is between steep dirt or a low angle intermediate run covered with manmade snow. In that case I'll take the flat run with snow on it, but if there is enough snow for big lines and some gnar then I'll take the terrain. In New England Mad River Glen is definitely a place where you might face the terrain vs. snow choice. Dodging the dirt and rocks at MRG adds to the difficulty factor and the mystique. In the mid-Atlantic Blue Knob is similar in that respect.

 

Dodging dirt is one thing. Staying home because there simply is not enough natural cover to ski on is another. The latter happens often enough for this topic to get my anxiety level up just reading about it in August, let alone experiencing it in January.

post #37 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post

You need at least a minimum of each.  Once you have that minimum, terrain takes it.

 

+1

post #38 of 185
There was a moment in time before it was over run that I'd have happily skied Niseko and the surrounding small mountains the rest of my life... It was about a nice hill and phenomenal amounts of great snow. But so long as it all gets skied out in a heartbeat these days, I vote for terrain and BC access.
post #39 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by crgildart View Post

You Colorado folks are so spoiled!  

 

Yep, even when it hasn't snowed for a while in Colorado the surface conditions are still pretty good because of the dry air and cold temps at high elevation.  That's why I answered terrain.   If I skied where the surface conditions get so bad it's not worth skiing, I'd probably feel differently.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Triangle3 View Post

 

Quick CO example. Crested Butte VS Wolf Creek. Same drive time from Denver. CB has some of the best terrain I've ever seen, but sub par snow. Still enough for a good time, but low for western standards. Wolf Creek gets huge deep storms, but I can't stand the benchiness, low vert and traversing. It's not terrible, just very unappealing to me. I'll constantly pick CB over WC if I'm driving 5 hours for turns because I value terrain more. 

 

That's a fantastic example.  I totally agree on CB vs Wolf.  Once CB has enough snow to open the good stuff it's a blast even if it hasn't snowed for a week or so.   

 

The reality of skiing is the large majority of your days will have no new snow.   You can either a) infrequently ski only on pow days, b) head to the backcountry, not get as much vertical and risk not coming home, or c) learn how to have fun skiing inbounds when there is no new.   I have friends who have done each.  I'm very happy I've chosen C and I'm a better skier as a result of that choice.

 

"There's good snow, and there is snow that is good for you"

post #40 of 185

Let's not forget weather as a factor. Bigger terrain can enhance the snow in low wind days. On high wind days, the higher terrain really amplifies the wind and ruins the fresh snow.

 

At the bigger mountain with terrain, wind can be a real problem on big snow days, especially where I ski in New England. Compared to other parts of the country (and world) the wind kicks in at lower elevations. This is especially bad in New Hampshire and Maine where tree line is about 4,500 - 5,000 feet. The Berkshires / Greens in Massachusetts and Vermont don't have any terrain this high and winds weaker due to the distance from the coast.

 

The high winds at relatively low altitude (i.e., denser air) cause especially bad wind drifting and scouring. You can often get 2+ feet of fresh snow, but have trails be scoured down to bare ground or ice in the upper mountain. This happens a LOT at Wildcat where the wind is especially bad due to the proximity to Mt Washington. Also think about the lift wind holds and extreme cold that this brings to every exposed surface. On these days I'll sometimes choose the gentler terrain and less snow at lower elevations due to the weather -- at least the lifts will run and I'll have fresh snow coverage everywhere.

post #41 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by bliz1978 View Post

New Hampshire and Maine where tree line is about 4,500 - 5,000 feet. 

 

More like 3,500 - 4,000 feet, depending on how strict you are about defining treeline. If "treeline" means "where the trees are stunted enough that they stop providing meaningful wind protection," the 3,500 is a basically valid number. Think of what conditions are commonly like on a cold windy day along the the Spillway Crosscut at Sugarloaf.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bliz1978 View Post

Let's not forget weather as a factor. Bigger terrain can enhance the snow in low wind days. On high wind days, the higher terrain really amplifies the wind and ruins the fresh snow.

 

[snip]

 

The high winds at relatively low altitude (i.e., denser air) cause especially bad wind drifting and scouring. You can often get 2+ feet of fresh snow, but have trails be scoured down to bare ground or ice in the upper mountain. This happens a LOT at Wildcat where the wind is especially bad due to the proximity to Mt Washington. Also think about the lift wind holds and extreme cold that this brings to every exposed surface. On these days I'll sometimes choose the gentler terrain and less snow at lower elevations due to the weather -- at least the lifts will run and I'll have fresh snow coverage everywhere.

 

 

Excellent points. This is why glades are so appealing. You can be nestled down in the spruce trees on a fierce day and be fine, with plenty of nice soft snow drifted in.

post #42 of 185

I'm just looking for soft snow.  Whether that is powder or corn.  Now, admittedly I come from a backcountry bias, but what about chasing that soft snow if it means less?

 

This is the most accessible picture I have of my usual face I like to ski; this photo certainly isn't corn, and it's been posted on this forum before.

 

 

 

 

1800 feet of consistent 35-40 degrees with a vertical fall line.  It's also south-facing.  Which means two things, it corns up first and it also burns off first.  This is my favorite line on this hill, but I often ride it because it also grows corn the fastest.  Once the corn cycle has begun, chokes are created that you need to navigate once or twice while skiing the face.

 

So, coverage isn't good, but quality of snow is.  I also choose it because of aspect and view and pitch and length.  But mainly because the corn grows fastest.

 

Am I chasing snow, even though the coverage isn't great?  I'd say yes.  There is also a really fun treed gully on a more north-east aspect that we often ski in pow.  The stability is typically more reliable on that aspect than the wide open face with a roll over.  But if stability is good, I like this face.

 

Seemingly that would tilt me, very very slightly towards terrain but I'll say this.

Give me perfect corn on this face or powder on the less fun treed gully and I'll take the powder gully in a heartbeat.

 

Ultimately the two can be and are so intertwined that it is hard to pick one.  

 

Unless there is pow in the gully.  wink.gif

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Triangle3 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by splitter View Post

seems the question is being polarized

 

I read it a little more equally, that is, the solid terrain would still have good coverage, just not necessarily fresh pow...

and the snowy hill doesn't imply flat terrain and 350' of vert, just not couloirs and cliffs and 3500' of 40 degrees...

 

For me it's easy, I'll take bottomless untracked on 30-35 degree slopes over scrape-y steeps every time

Well, everyone has a different opinion of what makes "quality terrain". For me, It not about steepness. It's about variety, consistent pitch, vert, minimal traverses and lack of benches. Shoot, one of my favorite places is the 'Boat because it's got those 5 things. YMMV. 

 

Quick CO example. Crested Butte VS Wolf Creek. Same drive time from Denver. CB has some of the best terrain I've ever seen, but sub par snow. Still enough for a good time, but low for western standards. Wolf Creek gets huge deep storms, but I can't stand the benchiness, low vert and traversing. It's not terrible, just very unappealing to me. I'll constantly pick CB over WC if I'm driving 5 hours for turns because I value terrain more. 

post #43 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by tball View Post

 

Yep, even when it hasn't snowed for a while in Colorado the surface conditions are still pretty good because of the dry air and cold temps at high elevation.  That's why I answered terrain.   If I skied where the surface conditions get so bad it's not worth skiing, I'd probably feel differently.

 

 

That's a fantastic example.  I totally agree on CB vs Wolf.  Once CB has enough snow to open the good stuff it's a blast even if it hasn't snowed for a week or so.   

 

The reality of skiing is the large majority of your days will have no new snow.   You can either a) infrequently ski only on pow days and risk not coming home, b) head to the backcountry, not get as much vertical and risk not coming home, or c) learn how to have fun skiing inbounds when there is no new and risk not coming home.   I have friends who have done each.  I'm very happy I've chosen C and I'm a better skier as a result of that choice.

 

"There's good snow, and there is snow that is good for you"

 

 

FIFY

post #44 of 185

My vote is for snow, I'd rather ski Northstar after a big dump than Squaw with a solid base and not much more.  I tend to have a lot more fun skiing powder and trees than gnarly lines, but then again, I've rarely hit some gnarly terrain with good snow coverage...guess that's what I get for living on the east coast.

post #45 of 185

At its core, the answer to this question seems very obvious to me: SNOW. Millions of people ski without great terrain, but none ski without snow (unless you want to count grass/rock/water skiing as skiing, but I think we'll agree that's something totally different). 

 

I started snowboarding about 20 years ago when my friend bought a board. He lucked out in getting one of the worst winters in NJ history that very same year (and an even worse winter two years later). I think NJ's high point is something like 1,000 feet, and it's nowhere near where I grew up. Neither of our families skied or snowboarded at the time, so instead, we spent full days walking for hours at a time just to get to some sub-bunny electrical lines or water tower hill, then took turns riding the one board down and hiking it back up. It was basically "fancy sledding."

 

I've come a long way since then, and have some of the best terrain in the country in my greater backyard, but those are still some of the best riding memories I have, and I'd go back and relive them in a second. Even just the process of scoping out new "zones" for riding the days before the winter or a big storm was fun. 

 

Great terrain is a nice luxury, but snow is a necessity. 

post #46 of 185

I think we might have a definitional problem or natural vs blown "snow". There is plenty of snow in flat states, but no terrain to ski. I'll take a dry winter in New England over a snowy winter in Wisconsin.
 

post #47 of 185

Snow.

 

I'd rather ski mellow terrain in great snow conditions than great terrain in junky snow.  That's just what I find more fun, to each their own.

post #48 of 185

The irony is not lost on me that the Steamboat guy is talking about how terrain is more important than snow. ;)

 

If we ignore that there are a few resorts that get both a ton of good quality snow and have good terrain, and the vast majority of us are skiing at an area that has good snow, terrain, or neither...

 

Talking about things in Colorado terms, I choose snow, assuming a minimum level of terrain. This means that I'm not really considering something like Ski Cooper with 2 feet of snow down, when the day would be spend pointing the skis straight down and going 7 MPH back to the lift.

 

I know, a bunch of people are terribly surprised at this, being that everybody knows where I ski. 

 

Reasons:

1.  A lot of the Colorado mountains with top-shelf terrain don't get enough snow to open the top-shelf terrain reliably every year.  I think the last time Trainors on Ajax was open in 2010. I'm assuming Third Bowl at CB opened last year, but I doubt it was more than a week or two open. Having top tier terrain that you don't get to ski doesn't seem like that cool of a deal. I know Taos can really be in the same boat as well.

 

2. I'd rather have more powder days skiing milder lines than the scant handful of days skiing aggressive stuff. Last year at Wolf, something like 1/2 to 2/3rds of my ski days there were with over 12" of fresh snow, and 6 days were waist deep. And this was in a drought season where "only" 334 inches of snow fell. Granted, part of this is because I am primarily a weekend skier and overwhelmingly storms lined up for the weekend last year- if I was skiing 5 days a week I would have had less powder days. But I'm also pretty sure I got more and deeper days than most other Colorado skiers on this board.

 

3. Its not just that a snowier place gets you more powder days, it gets you more seriously deep choking faceshots all day days.  It gets regular storms so heavy that the mountain collects snow faster than skiers can tear it up. It takes that one time you managed to grab the first chair on Imperial at Breck and turns it into an all day affair.

 

But I think there are a few flaws in how people are looking at this.

 

1. I think this kind of logic only really applies to your home area. The OP brought up whether he would make the long drive to CB or the long drive to Wolf- the problem I see in this is that sounds a lot like storm chasing to me. The OP is not going to drive to CB when CB has 80" of snow for the year and no good terrain open.  Taking the trip almost certainly means that you are ok with the conditions, which is different than having a season pass to a 50% open mountain. Several of the places with good terrain and 250-275 inches of snow (CB, Taos, Aspen) have had 2 back to back really rough years, and picking the 2 week window where they actually had decent conditions to make your trip really skews the argument.  Obviously on a 30" day, I'd probably rather ski Taos than Wolf, but talking about that in context of a trip completely negates the frequency that each gets those types of storms.

 

2. To me, crowds matter as much as terrain and snow, and I think it is hard to talk about snow quality without factoring in how many people are skiing that snow. This is why I am much happier skiing a 12" day at Monarch rather than Vail or Breck- its a fresh tracks powder day all day. With Wolf being double the size of Monarch and getting around 150" more snow a year, with generally the same skier visits, it is even more lopsided. One of my biggest disappointments in skiing Steamboat on 2 healthy powder days was how chewed up the mountain was by 10:00 AM (to be fair, this was weekend powder days, one of the few deep weekends in a dry season, and I am sure it was more agro than normal. But the "snow eating locust" effect was still the worst I have ever seen).

post #49 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanoT View Post

I vote for powder turns just so long as the terrain isn't so flat and the snow so deep that you get bogged down and come to a stop. It has been my observation over the years that just about any ski area is great with fresh snow, but even the snowiest places most seasons have more non powder days than powder days. So, in reality if you are a 5 or 6 day a week skier (or on a ski week holiday), then how a place skis between storms, when it hasn't snowed in a week or two becomes very important.

+1  Voting for snow doesn't just mean powder, it also means what happens to the snow if it hasn't snowed in a week or two.  This is a quality that helps make Mammoth a standout area with such a long season.  It's also the major difference between AltaBird and Jackson Hole, which in most other respects are quite comparable.

Quote:
The reality of skiing is the large majority of your days will have no new snow.   You can either a) infrequently ski only on pow days, b) head to the backcountry, not get as much vertical and risk not coming home, or c) learn how to have fun skiing inbounds when there is no new.   I have friends who have done each.  I'm very happy I've chosen C and I'm a better skier as a result of that choice.

Also +1  

Quote:

But, most often, doesn't the area with killer terrain need more snow to fill in? 

.....Not accusin' just askin'

Absolutely.  The most exciting terrain requires the most natural snow coverage and is most sensitive to good vs. poor preservation, and at least in the West is rarely supplemented by snowmaking.  

 

I'm sure most you are not surprised I voted for snow, but it's not cut and dried.  Here's an example that hits close to home:

Quote:

Being from SoCal I started thinking about whether I would rather have a season pass at Mt. Baldy, great terrain/ rarely enough snow, or Snow Summit, average terrain/ great snow making? For me, I would go with Snow Summit and guaranteed snow.

 

If forced to ski only in SoCal for an entire season and make a season pass decision in the fall, the above choice is automatic.  Mt. Baldy's advanced terrain was never open the last 2 seasons, and there have been several other years like that since I started skiing in 1976.  But the reality is that only 14% of my lifetime skiing has been in Southern California, and I've skied 67 days at Baldy vs. 57 at Big Bear.  So for my discretionary daytrip skiing it's clear I choose terrain whenever possible.

Quote:
Bretton Woods vs Mad River Glen?

I've often compared Mad River to Baldy, and stand by that comparison after getting the chance to ski there in 2003.   Vermont snowfall is much more consistent than in Southern California, and I'm not sure what an average usable ski season at Mad River is but I would guess at least 2 months.  I've not skied Bretton Woods but I've heard it's in the too flat to ski powder category.   With it's usable season likely being less than twice Mad River's, I'd probably choose Mad River. And if I knew in advance that Baldy would have its advanced terrain skiable for 2 months, I'd be buying its season pass.

Quote:
Quick CO example. Crested Butte VS Wolf Creek. Same drive time from Denver. CB has some of the best terrain I've ever seen, but sub par snow. Still enough for a good time, but low for western standards. Wolf Creek gets huge deep storms, but I can't stand the benchiness, low vert and traversing. It's not terrible, just very unappealing to me. I'll constantly pick CB over WC if I'm driving 5 hours for turns because I value terrain more.

Anyone else notice how long it takes that terrain at CB to open, and usually some but not all of it?  How often is Third Bowl open? Banana/Funnel?  I've been there 3x, all in late March/early April to ensure max coverage.  In 2007 nearly all of the North Face was closed after a 3-week dry spell with melt/freeze.   In 1992 about half the North Face was open.  2001 was the only trip where Phoenix/Spellbound were open.

 

Making an occasional trip from Denver when you know half or more of CB's extreme terrain is open, yes I would agree with that.  If it were a season pass decision at equal distance (same reasoning would apply vs. Taos) I would go with Wolf Creek.  No surprise anachronism chimed in while I was writing this post.


Edited by Tony Crocker - 8/21/13 at 12:10pm
post #50 of 185

Ok, this is just getting silly. The question posed was 450" a year on boring terrain, or killer terrain with not as much snow ... not with NO snow! Duh. Of course we can't ski with no snow. 

post #51 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by segbrown View Post

Ok, this is just getting silly. The question posed was 450" a year on boring terrain, or killer terrain with not as much snow ... not with NO snow! Duh. Of course we can't ski with no snow. 


snowfight.gif

 

No, the question posed was killer terrain but a shorter season due to lack of snow or snow making weather

 

or

 

A much longer season for snow and snow making weather but flatter terrain..

 

th_dunno-1[1].gif

post #52 of 185
Ummm ... The question in the poll title is much simpler. Then the OP used a couple of very general examples. Other people used their own examples, with many concluding that at the very core of the sport, snow>>>terrain. Then you whined about it.

Hopefully it's an early season out in CO because you're a bit cranky lately.
post #53 of 185

I think this thread has been nearly all constructive.  The definition is not cut and dried, and the head-to-head comparison examples illuminate the tradeoffs quite well.

post #54 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by crgildart View Post


snowfight.gif

 

No, the question posed was killer terrain but a shorter season due to lack of snow or snow making weather

 

or

 

A much longer season for snow and snow making weather but flatter terrain..

 

th_dunno-1%5B1%5D.gif

Huh? I'm not seeing anything about length of season ... what am I missing?

post #55 of 185
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by anachronism View Post

The irony is not lost on me that the Steamboat guy is talking about how terrain is more important than snow. ;)

 

 

Miss this one?

For me, It's about variety, consistent pitch, vert, minimal traverses and lack of benches

Seems a bit silly to only look at steepness as an overall measure of terrain.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by anachronism View Post

2. To me, crowds matter as much as terrain and snow, and I think it is hard to talk about snow quality without factoring in how many people are skiing that snow. This is why I am much happier skiing a 12" day at Monarch rather than Vail or Breck- its a fresh tracks powder day all day. With Wolf being double the size of Monarch and getting around 150" more snow a year, with generally the same skier visits, it is even more lopsided. One of my biggest disappointments in skiing Steamboat on 2 healthy powder days was how chewed up the mountain was by 10:00 AM (to be fair, this was weekend powder days, one of the few deep weekends in a dry season, and I am sure it was more agro than normal. But the "snow eating locust" effect was still the worst I have ever seen).

 

 

 

Oh yeah. Crowds. I’m of the opinion that crowds aren’t ways a bad thing.

 

What???? CRAZY??? Not really.

There is a reason that places like Jackson, Snowbird, Steamboat, Vail, Squaw and Alta get abused on big days.

There is a reason that places like Loveland, Grand Targhee, Powder Mountain and  Wolf Creek don’t.

 

It’s the “Wisdom of Crowds”. 

 

I too have been shocked at how quick powder can get gobbled up at premier spots, but it doesn’t make them any less appealing. 

post #56 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by segbrown View Post

... what am I missing?

 

zero terrain stoke.  biggrin.gif




 

post #57 of 185
Thread Starter 

And since everyone was wondering…

 

Terrain: Below average snowfall totals (200-250”), highly rated terrain. Examples: Crested Butte, Taos, Sun Valley

Snow: Above average snowfall totals (350”+), questionable terrain. Examples: Powder Mountain, Wolfie

 

This is more what I was going with the question.

post #58 of 185

Several people have thrown Wolf Creek up here as an example of a lots of snow, lame terrain, flat, etc., So I figured I would comment on that.

 

Wolf Creek is not flat in the sense of a Ski Cooper.  If you want to check out my guide, you can see lots and lots of pictures of Wolf Creek terrain. In 200-800 foot increments, it is some of the steepest stuff in Colorado. Lots of chutes, lots of 10-50 foot cliffs, and the only area in Colorado that has 1000 acres of tree skiing with no cut runs.

 

The catch is that you have 200-800 feet of steep, then 200-400 vertical of low intermediate or green pitch, then back to steep, then back to green. You cannot string together a continuous 1500 vertical of low advanced terrain anywhere on the mountain- no matter what you ski, there will be a section in it that will pitch mild.  You can line it up so that 1000+ feet is steep nasty stuff, but it will be broken up by flat.

 

A lot of people complain about getting stuck. I did on my first powder days there, a 60" storm cycle on top of no base. I got stuck I wallowed. I had no idea where I was going, so I would end up chest deep and stopped, and would spend 5 minutes huffing and puffing while wallowing around to get back on top of the snow. It was awesomeness followed by suck.

 

Once you have a few days there to get your bearings, you hit the same terrain and don't get stuck. At least I stopped getting stuck, even in deeper conditions. As most of the expert stuff has no marked trails, its harder than just following a trail map to keep of the flats and it takes longer to figure it out. I can't even tell you specifically what has changed in my skiing aside from making better choices as to which cat track to take back to the lift, where I need momentum, where I need to be making my way over skiers left or right, etc.

 

There is stuff out there that is just as nasty as anything else I have skied in Colorado, and there is plenty of stuff that is more technically difficult than anything on Vail, BC, Winter Park, Steamboat, etc. Most mountains in Colorado do not have 40* pitches for 1500 vertical, more like for 400 max before is mellows out. The real difference is the 40* (and 50*, and 60*) stuff at Wolf mellows into 15* instead of 30*.

 

Also, I have found that a 118 waist ski is a lot more fun than even a 105 waist ski at Wolf. I wasn't getting stuck on my 105 Obsetheds once I figured it out, but I was straight lining on my heels to keep tips up through the flattest sections. Moving to the 118 allowed me to ski the flatter stuff normally and deep days, and actually have a ton of fun with it- A lot of those meadows have surprise pillows that can be really fun when you have the momentum to use them.

post #59 of 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Triangle3 View Post

 

Miss this one?

For me, It's about variety, consistent pitch, vert, minimal traverses and lack of benches

Seems a bit silly to only look at steepness as an overall measure of terrain.

 

 

I like this thread so I will play nice, but I think 99% of people will consider steepness as part of the discussion over what constitutes good terrain. Putting aside the 200 vertical feet of legitimate steeps in the Chutes and ridge hiking, the rest of Steamboat is a very, very intermediate mountain.

 

It has not escaped my attention that your odd definition of what constitutes good terrain seems to omit Steamboats glaring weaknesses in lack of anything over 30* pitch throughout the rest of the mountain. Want even reasonably steep at the Boat? Do hiking laps to get your 200 feet of steep to Wolf Creek Flat (TM), then get back on the shitshow that is Buddys Run so you can get back to Storm Peak Express, so you can get off and "ski/trudge" through the Wolf Creek Flats (again, TM) in Morningside Park to ride that lift up to where you can get back to where your hike to the steep stuff started! Don't want to hike? Well, here are Chutes 1 and 2 for ya. Less vert, but no hiking, so your hour laps are now only 45 minutes!

 

Yes, Steamboat isn't all suck. But not a whole lot of people are looking at the boat and thinking "great terrain." By most definitions, it manages to edge Keystone and pretty much nobody else in the terrain department when compared to major Colorado resorts, and skiing Steamboat reminds me most of Keystone.

 

The irony for me is that most people would lump Wolf Creek and Steamboat in the EXACT same boat- places that get a lot of snow but are lacking in the terrain to make them really stand out, so I find it really funny that instead of acknowledging this, you seem to have created a definition that means Steamboat=Good terrain and Wolf Creek might as well burn itself down for insurance money.

 

I'm sure that has nothing to do with this whole pissing match thing we seem to have going on since you joined the board...

post #60 of 185
Hey it's August and we can analyze this question down to a gnat's a$$...maybe this would be a better poll: It's November 17 and the only open window for a trip with favorite companions is a four day ski vacation over MLK Weekend, Jan 17-20, 2014. Your location and budget includes booking advance air fares. Due to factors beyond your control you have only four mountains to choose from and your group has decided the short duration of the trip precludes visiting any other ski areas. The choices are Taos, Crested Butte, Grand Targhee, or Wolf Creek? You've been to them all before and know them well. Which one do you pick and why:-)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › What's Most Important? Snow or Terrain