EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Mountain/Resort Related Forums › Resorts, Conditions & Travel › Who has more vert, JH or Snowmass?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Who has more vert, JH or Snowmass?

post #1 of 27
Thread Starter 
I had always thought that JH had the most vert in the lower 48 but I've recently seen last year and this year that Snowmass claims more. Is this true or a fraudulent claim? Thanks
post #2 of 27
It's true when they have the Poma on top open and Two Creeks at the bottom.

Jackson still has better terrain, but Snowmass has some worthy stuff too.
post #3 of 27
like shredhead says,
technically Snowmass has more skiable vert.
you would not do laps on the number of lifts it would take to go top to bottom.
and while some of the poma access skiing is JH worthy, the lower part of that vert is not worth skiing, whil with the tram @ Jackson for 1 year at least you can be challenged the majority of the way down.
I have skiied all over America and Jackson is by far the "biggest" feeling mountain
(cue Canned Euro resorts are bigger baddder and better response here)
post #4 of 27
As SHRED and Matt said, it's true. Snowmass has more vertical. If I'm not mistaken, Big Sky *also* has more vertical from the bottom of the lowest lift to the top of the highest lift.

Nevertheless, I think most skiers find that Jackson's vertical comes all in one gulp and it's pretty much all skiable top to bottom if you want it to be.

I heard a rumor that when they install the new tram here at Jackson Hole, they're going to dig ithe bottom terminal 250 feet underground so we can reclaim the "most vertical in the US" laurels. Then they'll *really* be able to call it Jackson HOLE!
post #5 of 27
That Big Sky vertical can only be had by skiing through a parking lot and down a road...


We have looked at a site for a new lift at MLB with a base elevation of about 6400'. That would provide skiing to 11,100'. Math wizards out there? The skiing would be in one big gulp, a true 4500' of vertical.
post #6 of 27
Jackson has true top to bottom vert. I am not sure if at any of these other mountains you can do 4000+ feet of straigh skiing.
post #7 of 27
You can ski all the vertical at Snowmass, but only the top 1500-2000 feet is any good. The bottom is flat and there is a run called "Turkey Trot" if that gives you any idea of what its like.
Some people love Snowmass and it does have some good days. But I rarely go there, too many flats and it takes at least two lifts to get the goods.

The OB is really good though.
post #8 of 27
Jackson has true top to bottom vert. I am not sure if at any of these other mountains you can do 4000+ feet of straigh skiing.

We have looked at a site for a new lift at MoonLight Basin with a base elevation of about 6400'. That would provide skiing to 11,100'. Math wizards out there? The skiing would be in one big gulp, a true 4500' of vertical.

That is top to bottom Phil.... one shot, no parking lots....
post #9 of 27
Lets take this one step further.

How important is it really to have the "most vertical"?

How many people here can make more than 200 turns at an altitude of greater than 8000'? Probably a minority.

In addition, unless it is January or unusually cool, most snow quality below 8000' is not that great.

Yes, Whistler has a lot of advertised vertical, but how much use is the lower 2500'? JH has a lot of vertical, but the aspect and elevation can leave the bottom 1000' less than "super".

This whole obsession with the most vertical or whatever is silly.

End Rant
post #10 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunion
Lets take this one step further.

How important is it really to have the "most vertical"?

How many people here can make more than 200 turns at an altitude of greater than 8000'? Probably a minority.

In addition, unless it is January or unusually cool, most snow quality below 8000' is not that great.

Yes, Whistler has a lot of advertised vertical, but how much use is the lower 2500'? JH has a lot of vertical, but the aspect and elevation can leave the bottom 1000' less than "super".

This whole obsession with the most vertical or whatever is silly.
Not so fast my friend. Marketingwize it can be mucho important. The typical destination guests who read the ski mags, don't post on ski forums like Epic and have bucks to burn DO for some silly reason look at that and other silly stats in determining where they will ski.

I remember exactly where I was when a JH patroller stated he heard that Big Sky was going to the top of Lone Pk and technically the vertical would be greater that JH. The locals howled in disdain, the suicide rate doubled in Teton County. I also remember Snowmass building their lifts putting JH at #3 but apparently was still in a state of fog from the Big Sky thing it didn't register much.

I known it's kinda silly but I hope JH in building the new lift can be #1 again. It will always be "The Big One" to me.
post #11 of 27
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunion
Lets take this one step further.

How important is it really to have the "most vertical"?

How many people here can make more than 200 turns at an altitude of greater than 8000'? Probably a minority.

In addition, unless it is January or unusually cool, most snow quality below 8000' is not that great.

Yes, Whistler has a lot of advertised vertical, but how much use is the lower 2500'? JH has a lot of vertical, but the aspect and elevation can leave the bottom 1000' less than "super".

This whole obsession with the most vertical or whatever is silly.

End Rant
Geeze man you have provided nothing to this thread. Do you work for Snowmass or something? I asked who had the most vert that's all. I don't know if I make 200 turns coming down the mountain but the only time I stop is for the gf and sometimes she just lets me bomb it down, so I guess I'm in the minority. I wanted to know about the most vert and if it bothers you then don't post in this thread!!!!
post #12 of 27
HOLD ON THERE BLIZZBOY!

You can't control the direction of your thread once you post.

The old saying: "If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen", comes to mind.

---------
By the way, all those numbers do count for something; but verticals in the 4000 foot range will soon be considered 'second tier', when some of the proposed projects get off the ground(Revelstoke, Jumbo, etc.).

...The question to really ask is: What is the actual vertical rise of the TRAM at Jackson Hole. ....You might not get the answer you thought!

Actually, almost all of the PR departments distort statistics to attract business.



~
post #13 of 27
Bunion, There are a number of skiers that love to log vert. They want mountains that have long continuous vert. For some long vert is an ego thing. "I ski bigger badder mountains then you ski.I can log more vert then you." Snowbird has a group of skiers that will spend the day racing the tram to the bottom. Now mind you that is not my idea of a fun day at the Bird. I might do that one or two times just to say I beat the tram but after that it is rather boring.
post #14 of 27
Blizzboy you seem to lack basic reading comprehension skills.

I wrote "We have looked at a site for a new lift at MoonLight Basin", so now can you venture to guess where I live and work?

Sorry if I harshed your buzz dude. You are pretty touchy about "your thread"

Bunion, There are a number of skiers that love to log vert. They want mountains that have long continuous vert.

And that wopuld be how much long & continuous Vert. and where will you find such vert. in the US?

Yes I know that many folks think that the greatest vert. is the measure of a ski area, I am only saying, it ain't always so.

Alta is a great example. Also A-basin .....

FWIW on a 35 degree slope I figure that you drop about 10 vertical feet per turn, (that is a very round figure) so to ski a 2000 vert. foot line you will need to make about 200 turns. Blizz, come visit me in Big Sky, I will take you to Marx and I would love to see you make it top to bottom without stopping. That is about 120 turns.
post #15 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by feallen

...The question to really ask is: What is the actual vertical rise of the TRAM at Jackson Hole. ....You might not get the answer you thought!
:

Are you speculating that the actual vertical rise of the tram at Jackson Hole is not 4,139 vertical feet?
post #16 of 27
I never really thought about how much vertical I loose per turn. I am sure that on big GS turns down groomers I am loosing a lot more than on say tight steep bumps. How did you come up with the number of 10 feet. In no way am I saying that is wrong-just curious how you came up with that number.
post #17 of 27
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunion
Blizzboy you seem to lack basic reading comprehension skills.

I wrote "We have looked at a site for a new lift at MoonLight Basin", so now can you venture to guess where I live and work?

Sorry if I harshed your buzz dude. You are pretty touchy about "your thread"

Bunion, There are a number of skiers that love to log vert. They want mountains that have long continuous vert.

And that wopuld be how much long & continuous Vert. and where will you find such vert. in the US?

Yes I know that many folks think that the greatest vert. is the measure of a ski area, I am only saying, it ain't always so.

Alta is a great example. Also A-basin .....

FWIW on a 35 degree slope I figure that you drop about 10 vertical feet per turn, (that is a very round figure) so to ski a 2000 vert. foot line you will need to make about 200 turns. Blizz, come visit me in Big Sky, I will take you to Marx and I would love to see you make it top to bottom without stopping. That is about 120 turns.
How the hell does reading comprehension have anything to do with this thread? I had no idea what or where the hell Moonlight Basin is and unless you didn't mention that you are from Montana, I wouldn't have known it was at Big Sky. Therefore the fact that you say I lack reading skills is ludicrous, no where in your thread referenced a specific location. The only ones who knew what you were talking about were those that had been to Big Sky or were perhaps familiar with that area. It can't be poor reading comprehension if the answer can't be found with in the passage. Now if you want to try to sound intelligent and mach mine while at it, I would learn how to put a sentence together first.

You are the one who looked way too deeply into this thread; I simply asked who has more vert. I was asking the intelligent members of this community to answer that for me since there seemed to be a discrepancy to me. You apparently took this as the cue to rant that you didn't think vert was the greatest indicator of the mountain. Unlike you, I list my location. I live in a suburb of Philadelphia, PA. Do you really think that I hold vert to the esteem that you think living in PA? Are you serious? We have a whole three ski resorts with over 1000 ft. of vert. The highest being under 1100 with the worst snow conditions I have ever seen. (Phil knows what mountain I am talking about)

So in summary, no I don't think vert is the best indicator of a mountain. Whiteface has over 3000 ft. of vert and there are at least ten mountains out here that are way better then Iceface with half as much vert. Vert isn't everything but it is nice to find out who actually does have the most, as was the point of this thread.
post #18 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Peters
I heard a rumor that when they install the new tram here at Jackson Hole,
Wait.. did I miss something?! New tram??
post #19 of 27
Now if you want to try to sound intelligent and mach mine while at it, I would learn how to put a sentence together first. ???


Maineac; Nothing scientific, no research, just by skiing something, knowing the vertical and counting the # of turns. As many others will agree, milage may vary.
post #20 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Peters
:

Are you speculating that the actual vertical rise of the tram at Jackson Hole is not 4,139 vertical feet?

That is the gist of what I was saying.

Jackson Hole's PR group is real good at disguising distorted statistics with generalities.

... Their stated 2500 acres is disguised on the trail map as stating "Ski Area Map Covers 2500 Acres". ,,,,I think everyone here agrees that you aren't going to ski parking lots and condominiums that are shown on the map, as well as considerable boundary areas not maintained by the ski area. The question comes up as to why they are so elusive in their stats.

Similarly, their stated vertical is 4,139 feet from Teton Village to the top of Rendezvous Mountain. Everyone riding the Tram knows it doesn't extend to the parking lots at the bottom of Teton Village, and is a few feet short of the top of the mountain; so why would it be safe to assume it covers the complete vertical of the mountain? .....I really would like to see the REAL numbers openly stated, so the record on these statistics can be set straight.

Yes, this is nitpicking! But, are they just sloppy,,, or real foxy? We all pay attention to these numbers and deserve accuracy.



~
post #21 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by feallen
That is the gist of what I was saying.

Jackson Hole's PR group is real good at disguising distorted statistics with generalities.

... Their stated 2500 acres is disguised on the trail map as stating "Ski Area Map Covers 2500 Acres". ,,,,I think everyone here agrees that you aren't going to ski parking lots and condominiums that are shown on the map, as well as considerable boundary areas not maintained by the ski area. The question comes up as to why they are so elusive in their stats.

Similarly, their stated vertical is 4,139 feet from Teton Village to the top of Rendezvous Mountain. Everyone riding the Tram knows it doesn't extend to the parking lots at the bottom of Teton Village, and is a few feet short of the top of the mountain; so why would it be safe to assume it covers the complete vertical of the mountain? .....I really would like to see the REAL numbers openly stated, so the record on these statistics can be set straight.

Yes, this is nitpicking! But, are they just sloppy,,, or real foxy? We all pay attention to these numbers and deserve accuracy.

~
feallen:

There's an elevation marker in the control room at the base tram dock that says 6,311. There's another at the top unloading dock that says 10,450. That's where the 4,139 number comes from - loading dock to unloading dock.

If I'm not mistaken, the elevation of the parking lot is about 6,275. The actual summit of Rendezvous Mountain is something like 10,459 - I'll look at the US Geological Survey marker at the summit the next time I get up there.

As to reported skiable acres, I don't know. It feels like a big ski area but I have no idea what they're counting inside that 2400 reported acres.

One thing I've always wondered has to do with how slope angles change surface area, if at all. For example, if I have a one square mile parcel that's totally flat, that parcel would have a surface area of 640 acres. Now, if I put the equivalent of a volcanic peak right in the middle of that square mile, with 35-degree slopes leading up to the peak from all of the boundaries, do I *still* have a total of 640 acres of "surface area", or is it considerably more "surface area". From a legal standpoint, I know it's still 640 acres, but from a practical standpoint it would seem like you have more surface to tramp around on if the land is sloped.

Does anybody have any thoughts?
post #22 of 27
Thanks for the clarification Bob. ,,,And I would like to apologize for the skepticism.



~
post #23 of 27
blizz"boy"

I do work for Snowmass Like SHRED says the top is all that matters. Vertical claim is all for marketing.

But really, "geeze" you haven't provided anything that you couldn't get from the stats yourself expect stir up a bunch of ridiculous blather on numbers.

Stay in Phiily and go tubing leave everybody alone.

The Internet is funny in that it's too easy to wine and bitch about everyone elses post.....like I'm doing now.
post #24 of 27

New tram at JH?

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinn
Wait.. did I miss something?! New tram??
from JH's website:
For this winter, 2005/06 lift operations will be normal. See below for events.
For the following winter (2006/07) during new lift construction, JHMR is committed to keeping Rendezvous Bowl and the terrain from the summit open as they are a critical part of the unique appeal of Jackson Hole. It is anticipated that JHMR will announce exact operational details for the short term by late Fall 2005.
JHMR officials are planning on an announcement regarding the long term tram solution in Spring/Summer 2006, following the conclusion of in-depth engineering analysis, internal financial planning alternatives and funding mechanisms.

post #25 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by William Wood
from JH's website:
For this winter, 2005/06 lift operations will be normal. See below for events.
For the following winter (2006/07) during new lift construction, JHMR is committed to keeping Rendezvous Bowl and the terrain from the summit open as they are a critical part of the unique appeal of Jackson Hole. It is anticipated that JHMR will announce exact operational details for the short term by late Fall 2005.
JHMR officials are planning on an announcement regarding the long term tram solution in Spring/Summer 2006, following the conclusion of in-depth engineering analysis, internal financial planning alternatives and funding mechanisms.

Vinn:

I was being flip.

I don't think there is any doubt at all that a new tram will be constructed. The questions of when, how big, what financing, and what line it will take are still (reportedly) being debated.

William Wood's quote worries me no end. I really, really, REALLY don't want to see a surface lift up Rendezvous Bowl during the interim between the closure of the old tram and the opening of a new one. Unfortunately, that seems like an implied message in that quote.
post #26 of 27
JH tried a surface lift on Rendezvous several years ago. They put it on the south side the bowl and was so problemamatic in keeping it open I don't think it lasted the season. I think I used it once.

For me the good stuff was after getting to the bottom of the bowl. Cheyenne Bowl is such a great playground.
post #27 of 27
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by thexcop
blizz"boy"

I do work for Snowmass Like SHRED says the top is all that matters. Vertical claim is all for marketing.

But really, "geeze" you haven't provided anything that you couldn't get from the stats yourself expect stir up a bunch of ridiculous blather on numbers.

Stay in Phiily and go tubing leave everybody alone.

The Internet is funny in that it's too easy to wine and bitch about everyone elses post.....like I'm doing now.
Wow you are so funny putting quotes around "boy" : Considering I asked a question and almost all of the members provided the info that I needed, for this I thank them. For you and your other comrads who only wanted to argue with me, what was the point? Do you get off on this or something? Do you like to act tough while on the internet? I'm sure you probably loved the "power" you had when you were a cop; it made up for all of those ass kickings you recieved growing up, didn't it
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Resorts, Conditions & Travel
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Mountain/Resort Related Forums › Resorts, Conditions & Travel › Who has more vert, JH or Snowmass?