EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › One mountain forever? Or never repeat a hill?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

One mountain forever? Or never repeat a hill?

post #1 of 39
2/11/08 at 8:13pm
Thread Starter 
If you had to choose, would you rather ski the same mountain for the rest of your life, or ski a different mountain every time and never be allowed to ski a hill more than once?

If you choose the "one mountain" option, which one would you choose?


aaron
Reply
post #2 of 39
2/11/08 at 8:25pm
I'd travel. As long as I can go in style.
Reply
post #3 of 39
2/12/08 at 1:12am
Good question. On first blush, you'd obviously want to ski around. But skiing the same mountain a lot gives you the inside track. You know what to hit at what hour on what day, all the exposures, all the stashes. You know people, people know you. It's cool. They're both good, no doubt. As someone who skis like 90% of my days at one hill, I guess I'd like to see what the other side is like and hit the road a little.
Reply
post #4 of 39
2/12/08 at 3:43am
W B
Reply
post #5 of 39
2/12/08 at 4:48am
If I had to chose one, it would be Mt. Shasta.



On the other hand, traveling the different mountains of the world, & following the best snow would be the best!

JF
Reply
post #6 of 39
2/12/08 at 4:55am
Jackson Hole
Reply
post #7 of 39
2/12/08 at 4:23pm
If it's one day at every mt in the world, than NO! But if it's a week at every mt in the world, than YES!

If I had to choose one mountain, then definitely Jackson Hole.
Reply
post #8 of 39
2/12/08 at 4:58pm
Definitely one mountain forever. I can't find the trails I like in just a day, especially at bigger resorts. It takes a while to really find the good spots on the mountain, sometimes. If I had to pick that mountain? I haven't been everywhere I'd like to visit yet, but of the places I've been, either Whistler/Blackcomb or Snowbird.
Reply
post #9 of 39
2/12/08 at 5:19pm
Probably just stick with one. I think i could be happy at W/B for a long time.
Reply
post #10 of 39
2/12/08 at 5:34pm
I'd vote stick with one, as long as I could choose it. Which one? Well, I'm obviously partial to Mammoth, but JH or W/B would be fine with me also.
Reply
post #11 of 39
2/12/08 at 5:49pm
Why does everything has to be so black & white?
I agree with skskskier. If it's just a day then it is just stupid cause you won't get the value of the mountain. e.g. I was skiing the worldcup piste in Garmisch Partenkirchen, early at the day, no people on piste at all. So I just went fast on my Atomic gs12 180cm - but not more than 50mph or so. I hadn't skied the slope before, and I didn't predict anything to be wrong with it, but at a point where I took a right turn I ended up in the bumps! Luckely nothing happened because I kept control, but it was still dangerous So I second skskskier's opinion that a week would be okay, but what happens when all the good mountains have had my visit? Then I'll have to settle for worse, it's a slippery slope

And it's very expensive to have to travel farther and farther away for the next mountain.. So a month per mountain could satisfy me
Reply
post #12 of 39
2/12/08 at 8:49pm
I'd do one mountain - Vail.

Once you've been there for awhile (we're not there yet), you find secret stashes. The locals all have 'em.

The expanse, between front, Back Bowls, and Blue Sky Basin, is beyond huge. And, the weather is generally great (especially when it's snowing).

I could also live with Jackson Hole. The expanse and vert there are also formidable. But, snow coverage, historically, isn't as reliable. Plus, the rocky terrain at JH means a shorter season.

WB has soul-stirring views, a fun village, and epic terrain. Long-term, however, weather nixes WB.

Vail it is.
Reply
post #13 of 39
2/12/08 at 10:28pm
I'd stick with one. As for which one, I'd have to do a good bit of traveling before I can answer that.
Reply
post #14 of 39
2/13/08 at 5:26am
While variety is the spice of life, if it was only one hill, it's a no-brainer - WB.
Reply
post #15 of 39
2/13/08 at 6:29am
OK, this is a fantasy right? No cost travel via Star Trek Transporter - then I'd choose to visit a new mountain every time out, including the crummy little ones. Maybe alternate one day <1500' vert, one day >1500' vert. After about a 1000 days of this I'd issue a thesis paper about the good, the bad, the ugly, and the un-freaking-believably gorgeous :-)

Richard M. Nixon has already provided a hypothesis for my paper: Only if you have been in the deepest valley, can you ever know how magnificent it is to be on the highest mountain.
Reply
post #16 of 39
2/13/08 at 7:43am
Over the years I've literally skied a few thousands days in Fernie. It takes 10 minutes from my doorstep in town to my locker at the hill, so it certainly is convenient. There is nothing like intimate local knowledge of a mountain. That being said I do jump at any opportunity to go ski at other mountains.

To answer the question if I could only do one or the other I would have to choose skiing in Fernie. Conditions are almost always good here and anyone who's been here knows it is great terrain. I like the option of heading up and skiing for 2 hours or so and going back to work. The location of most other resorts wouldn't make going up for 2 hours logical.
Reply
post #17 of 39
2/13/08 at 9:42am
I haven't skied enough different mountains to really decide on one. I love the town of Breckenridge but the skiing can be sketchy when the weather isn't good. I also like the town of Park City but I don't know that I like either Park City or Deer Valley enough to make it my home ski area. I don't get the same feeling at Tahoe as I do when I visit a places that have more of a "ski town" feel, but with all that variety within an hours drive its kind of hard to beat. Of course there are also a number or ski area around Breckenridge as well. Maybe the best solution is to just follow the snow.
Reply
post #18 of 39
2/13/08 at 12:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by scootertig View Post
If you had to choose, would you rather ski the same mountain for the rest of your life, or ski a different mountain every time and never be allowed to ski a hill more than once?
I'd choose the same mountain.

Quote:
If you choose the "one mountain" option, which one would you choose?
Snowbird
Reply
post #19 of 39
2/13/08 at 12:56pm
I dunno...I've skied 76 out of the last 77 inbounds day on one mountain. While I like it, I'm itching to get out.

If however, I had to pick one I'd probably go for one of the bigger ski circuses in Europe. Give me a few years to try them all and I'll decide then.
Reply
post #20 of 39
2/13/08 at 2:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry_Morgan View Post
I dunno...I've skied 76 out of the last 77 inbounds day on one mountain. While I like it, I'm itching to get out.

If however, I had to pick one I'd probably go for one of the bigger ski circuses in Europe. Give me a few years to try them all and I'll decide then.
I agree with this, if the mountain is small to medium sized (Crystal, Baker).

But, if you could choose a mega mountain (like the ones most mentioned here: WB, JH, Vail), it takes a lot to tire of such expanse and diversity.

I've never skied Europe, but I've heard that, while huge, the snow's not as good as North America, coverage is more sketchy (esp. recently), and lift-line etiquette is a bit different - put politely.
Reply
post #21 of 39
2/15/08 at 9:11am
Given a choice between Baker and Vail, I'd pick Baker. Size isn't everything, and I'd rather have 1000 acres of challenge than 4000 of boredom.

As far as Europe goes, there are ski circuses there with 29,000 acres and 200 lifts, including plenty of challenge. It may be that I'd end up back at JH or Alta/bird, but I want to try them out first.
Reply
post #22 of 39
2/15/08 at 9:31am
Quote:
WB has soul-stirring views, a fun village, and epic terrain. Long-term, however, weather nixes WB.
Exactly Captain, the coastal resorts are a mixed bag of weather conditions, when it's cold it's great when it's warm it's slop.

As for Fernie, I hate to tell you guys this but Fernie is way overrated, Fernie's base area is at 3500', I've been there many many times when it's raining half way up the hill. And Fernie is a teaser mountain, you see great terrain, but you can't get to it.

Which is why if I had to choose one mountain for the rest of my life I'd choose Kicking Horse or Red, Red has better tree skiing and more snow, khorse has better bc access and steeper lines. I couldn't possibly choose. And with Revelstoke coming on line I'd like to stall that decision a few more years.
Reply
post #23 of 39
2/15/08 at 10:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry_Morgan View Post
Given a choice between Baker and Vail, I'd pick Baker. Size isn't everything, and I'd rather have 1000 acres of challenge than 4000 of boredom.
Every man is entitled to his opinion.

But, seriously, Harry, have you skied Vail?

It's not 4000 acres, it's 5,200 acres. It's difficult imagine anyone skiing the huge challenging lines here, and concluding they're "boring". Some of the best skiers I've known call Vail "home", and they're not wussies.

Have you skied the double-black terrain under Highline Express, or Northwood' Express? Not many people can waltz down that terrain. Virtually all the Back Bowls and Blue Sky Basin are at least Black Diamond.

The only terrain at Mt. Baker I know that matches these steeps is directly under Chair 5 or Chair 6 - which are mostly double-black due to their narrow chute.

Why would you trade a couple of hundred acres of double-blacks, for several thousand - not to mention, dry snow, blue sky, and wide-open powder terrain?
Reply
post #24 of 39
2/15/08 at 11:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain_Strato View Post
The only terrain at Mt. Baker I know that matches these steeps is directly under Chair 5 or Chair 6 - which are mostly double-black due to their narrow chute.
Those are nowhere near the most challenging lines at Baker. If you can ski dolphys, gunsight or fly on the wall and still can't find a challenge, then there's 20,000 acres of backcountry between Herman Saddle and White Salmon Glacier that you can get to with less than 2 hours hiking.

Maybe I'm missing something at Vail - but my recollection of it was that one day was enough. Lots of cruisers, not a lot of big hucks, hairy chutes or pillow drops. Not my cup of tea.

To each their own.
Reply
post #25 of 39
2/16/08 at 12:21am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry_Morgan View Post
Maybe I'm missing something at Vail - but my recollection of it was that one day was enough. Lots of cruisers, not a lot of big hucks, hairy chutes or pillow drops. Not my cup of tea.
The next time you're in the neighborhood, Harry, drop me a line.

I'll show you terrain here, some inbounds and some a small hike-to, that'll challenge any expert. The local young turks (almost fearless) jump those lines.

JH, WB, The Bird and Palisades at Squaw top the list of "adventure" terrain in North America. The Chutes at Mt. Rose also give pause.

But there's plenty here to satiate expert skiers.
Reply
post #26 of 39
2/16/08 at 8:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by danimal's dead View Post
Exactly Captain, the coastal resorts are a mixed bag of weather conditions, when it's cold it's great when it's warm it's slop.

As for Fernie, I hate to tell you guys this but Fernie is way overrated, Fernie's base area is at 3500', I've been there many many times when it's raining half way up the hill. And Fernie is a teaser mountain, you see great terrain, but you can't get to it.

Which is why if I had to choose one mountain for the rest of my life I'd choose Kicking Horse or Red, Red has better tree skiing and more snow, khorse has better bc access and steeper lines. I couldn't possibly choose. And with Revelstoke coming on line I'd like to stall that decision a few more years.
Your right danamal, Fernie is very overrated and grossly overpriced. There is no way no how Fernie should ever be called a resort. The amenities suck. There isn't a decent washroom on the whole mountain. Poor management decisions have chased away restaurateurs. There are very few places to get decent food on the mountain.

Fernie is a a ski hill plain and simple. A kickass ski hill. Occasionally yes it does rain, it happened twice this season, but it wasn't a major wash.

You said Red gets more snow! Your out of your mind. Fernie's snowpack is sneaking up on 4 meters right now, Red barely has 2. Kicking horse has some good terrain for sure but they don't get the snow either. The lift system at KHorse sucks, almost every decent run there commits you right to the base of the mountain, so you ski 1500" or so of good terrain and then 3000" of crap to get back to the gondola. A buddy of mine did KH earlier this week and he said it's moguls everywhere. In Fernie right now you won't find a mogul.

Fernie is very overrated as a resort as well as overpriced. But as for the terrain and snow conditions Fernie is tough to beat.
Reply
post #27 of 39
2/16/08 at 10:39am
I thought that might get your attention Ferniefreeheels, just relax, you live in the greatest place in the world.
I did not say Red got more snow than Fernie, I said Red gets more snow than Kicking Horse, which is true.

The ganjala at KH drops you off right on top of the ridge, on top of the headwall (unlike Fernie), you can access more steep lines off that one gondola than any one lift in NA in my opinion. And personally, I enjoy vert, there are steep tree stashes all the way to the botttom of KH.

I'd rank Fernie third on my list of BC resorts.
1. Kicking Horse
2. Red
3. Fernie
4. Whitewater
5. Castle

Note I left out WB cus I just don't like the place. And as I said before I think Revelstoke is gonna blow them all away.
Reply
post #28 of 39
2/16/08 at 4:12pm
The order I would rank em would be;

1. Fernie
2. Castle
3. Red
4. Kicking horse
5. Wh2o

This year is a real toss up what I would rate #1. Castle has been getting dumped on big time as well. What I like about Castle is the long steep fall lines. None of the other hills mentioned (including Fernie) have the continuous steep fall lines like Castle does. If I lived closer to Castle thats probably where I'd spend most of my ski days. Another thing about Castle is there is never anyone there, if it's a powder day you can get a fresh line every run all day.

I've skied both Red and Wh2o but it's been years. Kicking Horse to me is kinda like Lake Lousey, they got some decent terrain but never get any big dumps.
Reply
post #29 of 39
2/17/08 at 11:58pm
More, more, more. I'm only doing BC vicariously this year.
Reply
post #30 of 39
2/22/08 at 2:53am
What about try a different mountain each time, but be sure to have nice company with you so some of the local take notice and offer you to ski with them. This way you get the better of both...
Reply
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 › One mountain forever? Or never repeat a hill?