or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › The Canyons Utah... Is it as bad as people say?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Canyons Utah... Is it as bad as people say? - Page 4

post #91 of 123

Quote:

Originally Posted by WC68 View Post

Hi y'all.
Have not read every post in this thread, but what I have read, raised a question for me.

Would there be any reason to choose a place like Stowe or any other NE resort over a trip west? Coming from NC. For me it would be a shorter flight, but still connections. Was just curious if there is some advantage.
Advanced terrain is not an issue as we would be beginner /intermediates.

Thanks!

If you have to fly for your skiing go west. The weather in Utah is better than New England. You pretty much know what you are getting in Utah. I have been skliing in the northeast for 46 years and Jan/Feb has included temps as low as -40F at night and a high of -15F during the day to a high of +60F during the day. I have had the fun of monster 40 inch dumps and the horror of 3 days of rain followed by a temp drop to single digits turning life into an icy nightmare. Going to Park City includes 3 huge ski areas with excellent snow for green and blue skiers. The Town of Park City (45 minutes from the airport) is a lot of fun with a lot of choice for food, drink, and beds. If you have the cash or luck out try to stay slopeside at 1 of the resorts in Park City. You can still ski the other two via the decent shuttle system, but you will be able to walk out your door and get on the lift.

 

As for the original question - I have had a wonderful time skiing at the Canyons. I first skied it as Park West in the 1980s. Compared to what I normally ski in NYS/NE the place is great. The rest of the SLC areas are wonderful also (SB/Alta, Brighton/Solitude).

post #92 of 123

I totally agree: the Canyons suck big way, there is hardly anything to ski for anyone but very beginners. Go and ski PCMR or DV. Even if you are staying in PC you are better off to drive just 20 min to SB or Alta or 30 min to Snowbasin and ski w/o huge crowds you have in the Canyons. Also, the Canyons are very small. Shortly, there is no point of even planning to go there in the first place. Even Okemo has more space and better quality of snow for any self respecting skier.

 

post #93 of 123
I'm with the Bush and the other Canyons bashers. I don't know why anyone would fly anywhere to ski less than 2000ft continuous vert. If you're going to utah, the only two places worth focusing on would be the bird and the basin. Anywhere else is only worth a day tops... To rest your legs on the small vert hills.
post #94 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by snofun3 View Post

Would there be any reason to choose a place like Stowe or any other NE resort over a trip west?

Umm, let me think for a second. OK, short answer, NO.

 


 

I can think of a couple. I live in the midwest and go east on a regular basis.  I probably take 3 trips west for each eastern excursion, but I still go.  Reasons?

 

  • I like firm snow and tree--lined trails (what others call narrow icy trials, whatever)
  • I can drive to Tremblant or Vermont in about the time it takes to fly out west, thus saving airfair and car rental
  • If I fly it's only about an hour, so I don't have to waste a travel day on each side of the vacation - getting a couple of extra ski days per season is certainly worth something
  • Adjusting to the altitude is never a problem in the east
  • The food in Quebec is better than at any other ski destination in North America

 

So, depending on where you live and your preferences (firm snow vs powder) going east might make sense.

 

 

FWIW, I'd prefer to ski Tremblant over the Crayons.  The other SLC resorts?  not so much...

 

post #95 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeSchmoe View Post

I'm with the Bush and the other Canyons bashers. I don't know why anyone would fly anywhere to ski less than 2000ft continuous vert. If you're going to utah, the only two places worth focusing on would be the bird and the basin. Anywhere else is only worth a day tops... To rest your legs on the small vert hills.


I'd do it just for the sake of checking it off my list.  Having said that, I think without having given it a chance, I'd give the Canyons more than 1 day to figure out just based on the acreage alone.  Some places I've been to (Vail/Breckenridge) I could easily have discounted it based on first experience, but with some time to really figure the place out, they really turn around.  I imagine if you're a local that skis Canyons all the time and knows the place, its' fine.

post #96 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by tallklutz View Post

I totally agree: the Canyons suck big way, there is hardly anything to ski for anyone but very beginners.

 

Anyone but very beginners - been to 9990 lately?

 

Go and ski PCMR or DV. Even if you are staying in PC you are better off to drive just 20 min to SB or Alta or 30 min to Snowbasin and ski w/o huge crowds you have in the Canyons.

 

Huge crowds? - well, for 3 years in a row I took the kids there, and Dreamscape area had zero lines. Huge lines? Been to the front range on a holiday? You'd never complain about Crayons again.

 

Also, the Canyons are very small. Shortly, there is no point of even planning to go there in the first place. Even Okemo has more space and better quality of snow for any self respecting skier.

 

Canyons very small? Umm, it's the largest area in Utah. Do you have ANY clue whatsoever?

 

FYI -Self respect and Okemo shouldn't be used in the same sentence, and if you've found better snow at Nokemo, than you're only dreaming about having been there.

 

Based on your observations, it's apparent you've never been to the Crayons.


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeSchmoe View Post

I'm with the Bush and the other Canyons bashers. I don't know why anyone would fly anywhere to ski less than 2000ft continuous vert. If you're going to utah, the only two places worth focusing on would be the bird and the basin. Anywhere else is only worth a day tops... To rest your legs on the small vert hills.
 
Plenty of fun in the Dreamscape area, as well as the area around Super Condor, and the pow stays fresher and longer than the bird where it gets tracked out quick. While Snowbasin is another fave, it's potential for crap weather is rivaled only by Whistler. When flying to go to Utah, the potential for a day you can't see anything isn't a real great way to waste a day.
 
The Crayons, da'bird and snowbasin (with an occasional Solitude day thrown in) are my usual stops, but dissing the Canyons only means you don't know where to go when there.


 

 

post #97 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by tallklutz View Post

I totally agree: the Canyons suck big way, there is hardly anything to ski for anyone but very beginners. Go and ski PCMR or DV. Even if you are staying in PC you are better off to drive just 20 min to SB or Alta or 30 min to Snowbasin and ski w/o huge crowds you have in the Canyons. Also, the Canyons are very small. Shortly, there is no point of even planning to go there in the first place. Even Okemo has more space and better quality of snow for any self respecting skier.

 

 

I assume this is ironic...
 

 

post #98 of 123


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walt View Post




 

I can think of a couple. I live in the midwest and go east on a regular basis.  I probably take 3 trips west for each eastern excursion, but I still go.  Reasons?

 

  • I like firm snow and tree--lined trails (what others call narrow icy trials, whatever)
  • I can drive to Tremblant or Vermont in about the time it takes to fly out west, thus saving airfair and car rental
  • If I fly it's only about an hour, so I don't have to waste a travel day on each side of the vacation - getting a couple of extra ski days per season is certainly worth something
  • Adjusting to the altitude is never a problem in the east
  • The food in Quebec is better than at any other ski destination in North America

 

So, depending on where you live and your preferences (firm snow vs powder) going east might make sense.

 

 

FWIW, I'd prefer to ski Tremblant over the Crayons.  The other SLC resorts?  not so much...

 


Interesting that you deleted the "coming from NC" part of the original quote, as it substantially changes the context of the answer - yes?

 

Anyway, even from the midwest if you can't get in and out to SLC without additional travel days, you're not trying (see the dozens of threads on the subject). I can do it from south Florida. Fly early morning on a Thursday, get free ticket to PC resorts (how well does that work at Tremblant), then fly back evening flight after skiing on Sunday. Four days, four skiing days - really easy to do.

 

I suppose if you like icy trails that's great, I'll take powdery glades thanks.

 

If you can drive to Tremblant or Stowe in the same time as flying to SLC then either 1) you don't really live in the midwest, 2) there's Tremblant's and Stowes somewhere other than we traditionally know of, or 3) they fly AWFULLY slow airplanes from where you are.

 

Try the turkey chili at Deer Valley, or the Italian at the top of John Paul lift before making blanket statements about food quality at resorts.

 

I don't have an altitude problem, and prefer it to the attitude problem in Quebec. There's very few Quebecquois at SLC - which is a pleasure if arrogance isn't high on your list of resort attributes. The only thing better in Quebec than SLC is the beer.

post #99 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeSchmoe View Post

I'm with the Bush and the other Canyons bashers. I don't know why anyone would fly anywhere to ski less than 2000ft continuous vert. If you're going to utah, the only two places worth focusing on would be the bird and the basin. Anywhere else is only worth a day tops... To rest your legs on the small vert hills.

 

I don't know why anyone would post a thread on the internet to share extreme anti-stoke of bashing a resort when they have no actual beef with that resort of any kind. But, i guess you guys are just that lame...

post #100 of 123

well the place does kinda suck...  it bills itself has being better than it is, but if i can ski there for free i will continue to do so. why not -- right?

perhaps all this bad mouthing will make it a powder mecca in PC cuz it'll be empty.

Beating_A_Dead_Horse_by_livius.gif

post #101 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by snofun3 View Post


 

I suppose if you like icy trails that's great, I'll take powdery glades thanks.

 

 

Are you sure? You really don't know what you are missing.

 

wink.gif

post #102 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by shoal007 View Post

well the place does kinda suck...  it bills itself has being better than it is, but if i can ski there for free i will continue to do so. why not -- right?

perhaps all this bad mouthing will make it a powder mecca in PC cuz it'll be empty.

Beating_A_Dead_Horse_by_livius.gif

 

Woud you be happier if their promotional material read:

 

The canyons resort, it kinda sucks here... no, seriously.

 

 

 

post #103 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by tromano View Post



 

Woud you be happier if their promotional material read:

 

The canyons resort, it kinda sucks here... no, seriously.

 

 

 

 

that would be kinda funny.  Its all about hype -- if people know its not super great, but still skiable. It'll be a good experience. We had higher expectations then what we when we arrived. Some comments were talking this place up like its the place to be. Its fine, anywhere else in the world besides utah it would be fairly competitive -- even in summit co.


 

 

post #104 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by shoal007 View Post



 

that would be kinda funny.  Its all about hype -- if people know its not super great, but still skiable. It'll be a good experience. We had higher expectations then what we when we arrived. Some comments were talking this place up like its the place to be. Its fine, anywhere else in the world besides utah it would be fairly competitive -- even in summit co.

 

I ski there once or so a season. I can usually find some free tickets somewhere. Their center fold adverts in Ski magazine are a bit over the top. But when I read this thread and the others from years past on here bashing the resort then I know why people get confused and write threads like  "Snowbird-Is it Ok for Intermediate Skier?"

 

Funny enough, the intermediates who are so confused about the bird, really should just go to the canyons. The skiing about as good as it gets for the intermediates and less athletic / aggressive advanced skiers or mixed level group. Lots of room for cruising or mellow off piste runs. Really no where else I have been has as much nice mellow tree skiing. Great place to take a solid intermed or advanced and get them hooked on skiing powder and trees. And it has just enough expert terrain on 9990 and else where to keep a more aggressive / talented skier happy for a few days when they are not skiing socially. Also has some very easy slack / BC access if you are prepared and want to get out of the gates.

 

It is what it is. I don't see anything wrong with it.


Edited by tromano - 9/27/11 at 5:35pm
post #105 of 123

Tromano, I've lost track of what's sarcasm and what's not on this thread.

post #106 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by snofun3 View Post
 


Interesting that you deleted the "coming from NC" part of the original quote, as it substantially changes the context of the answer - yes?

 

Yes, the location does change things, but for NC maybe not so much.  VT is about a 12 hour drive from NC depending on where in NC you start.  It's a day's drive, making it a viable destination.  From Florida, not so much.  (c:

 

Anyway, even from the midwest if you can't get in and out to SLC without additional travel days, you're not trying (see the dozens of threads on the subject). I can do it from south Florida. Fly early morning on a Thursday, get free ticket to PC resorts (how well does that work at Tremblant), then fly back evening flight after skiing on Sunday. Four days, four skiing days - really easy to do.

 

Until Delta merged with Northwest a couple of years ago there were no non-stops between Detroit and SLC.  You had to connect, turning a 4 hour flight into a 7+ hour flight. Add two hours to get to the airport and an hour at SLC to deplane, get luggage and the rental car, and it's a full day of travel.  Yes, it's possible to ski SLC on arrival and getaway day, and I've done it before.  But for people who don't live close to a major airport, or in cities with no non-stops it's difficult. 

 

Now that Delta offers non-stops to SLC, I'm doing that more often.  But I find that other western destinations basically require a day of travel each way. 

 

I suppose if you like icy trails that's great, I'll take powdery glades thanks.

 

I like powdery glades too.  I'm not so big on wide open bowls.  YMMV.

 

If you can drive to Tremblant or Stowe in the same time as flying to SLC then either 1) you don't really live in the midwest, 2) there's Tremblant's and Stowes somewhere other than we traditionally know of, or 3) they fly AWFULLY slow airplanes from where you are.

 

Door to door, Tremblant is nine hours from Detroit.   A non-stop to SLC is four  hours in the air, add two hours on the beginning to get to the airport in time to get through security, and an hour to deplane and pick up the rental car and you're looking at 7  hours.  Yes, this is two hours less, but as I said above, until recently there were no non-stops to SLC, making it about a wash.  Even with 7 vs 9 hours, you're paying hundreds of dollars in airfare & car rental to save two hours.  Do the math to see what makes more sense for your particular situation.

 

Try the turkey chili at Deer Valley, or the Italian at the top of John Paul lift before making blanket statements about food quality at resorts.

 

I've had the turkey chili at DV. and it's pretty good.  The thing that struck me is that it tasted exactly the same as the turkey chili at Mt Holly.  I think they might have stolen the recipe.

 

Good food at Snowbasin too.  But not in the same league as the better restaurants in Quebec.

 

 

I don't have an altitude problem, and prefer it to the attitude problem in Quebec.

 

Oh please.  As if there's no one with an attitude problem at Altabird.

 

 The only thing better in Quebec than SLC is the beer.

 

Interesting.  I don't really like Quebecois beer.  I guess we just don't agree on much.  (c:

 

But I do agree that for someone living in Florida it makes little sense to ski the east, unless you really really like Eastern Firm (TM).

 

Anyway, back to the subject at hand, anyone going to SLC should ski each of the ten major resorts in the area and make up their own mind.  You don't have to ski them all the first trip, but if you go once you'll be back multiple times so just plan on hitting them all eventually.  Then you can come here and argue which ones are better than the others.

post #107 of 123

Snofun3.

See my previous posts in this thread. Personally I love to ski great terrain and easy access side country (while knowing that the kids are  enjoying  themselves in the day skicamp) with a very few people around me, especially after a big dump. The Canyons is  such a place, there are not that many other places like that actually. Proximity to Sb and Alta benefits it greatly by diverting majority of the ambitious advanced and expert skiers. Naturally, i would like it to stay this way and enjoy it for many years to come. BTW, if you are really looking for a great skiing w/o breaking the bank it makes more sense to go to places like Bridger Bowl or Red mountain,  Whitewater, KHMR. But it is a long schlep and very little to do beside skiing.

post #108 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpikeDog View Post

Tromano, I've lost track of what's sarcasm and what's not on this thread.


Me too. Usually winkies wink.gif indicate sarcasm, but I may have missed a few in my last few posts.

 

I like the canyons for what it is. Those seeking endless amounts of challenging expert terrain or the deepest possible powder should look elsewhere.

post #109 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by WC68 View Post

Hi y'all.
Have not read every post in this thread, but what I have read, raised a question for me.

Would there be any reason to choose a place like Stowe or any other NE resort over a trip west? Coming from NC. For me it would be a shorter flight, but still connections. Was just curious if there is some advantage.
Advanced terrain is not an issue as we would be beginner /intermediates.

Thanks!

My first ski trip out of Michigan was to Stowe Vermont and it was a great experience. 

 

I'm not saying that Stowe is better (or worse for that matter) than anything out west.  But Stowe serves up some great skiing on some great terrain.

Like all resorts, your trip may depend more on the weather and your attitude than anything else.

 


 

 

post #110 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by tallklutz View Post

Snofun3.

See my previous posts in this thread. Personally I love to ski great terrain and easy access side country (while knowing that the kids are  enjoying  themselves in the day skicamp) with a very few people around me, especially after a big dump. The Canyons is  such a place, there are not that many other places like that actually. Proximity to Sb and Alta benefits it greatly by diverting majority of the ambitious advanced and expert skiers. Naturally, i would like it to stay this way and enjoy it for many years to come. BTW, if you are really looking for a great skiing w/o breaking the bank it makes more sense to go to places like Bridger Bowl or Red mountain,  Whitewater, KHMR. But it is a long schlep and very little to do beside skiing.


Shhh! Don't recomend Whitewater!
 

 

post #111 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by tromano View Post

 

I don't know why anyone would post a thread on the internet to share extreme anti-stoke of bashing a resort when they have no actual beef with that resort of any kind. But, i guess you guys are just that lame...



The runs at the canyons are mostly 1200-1500ft. I can drive to le massif and get as good snow with as good terrain with more vert. There's nothing worse than finishing a run and saying was that it. I don't care how many acres there are, it's all mediocre, especially when there are many resorts in NA with 3000+ of true vert. Luckily my day there was free... My first and last day. As I sense the resorts down the street aren't any better, I think I'll be paying for my day one tix for now on.
post #112 of 123

I visited Le Massif and MSA on two occasions a while back and was not so impressed with the conditions (pure man made) or weather (damn cold). The mountains were nice, but I never thought to compare them to the park city areas, because they are not even in the same class as far as a destination. Though the runs were longer.

 

People complaining about shit they got for free. nonono2.gif
 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeSchmoe View Post

The runs at the canyons are mostly 1200-1500ft. I can drive to le massif and get as good snow with as good terrain with more vert. There's nothing worse than finishing a run and saying was that it. I don't care how many acres there are, it's all mediocre, especially when there are many resorts in NA with 3000+ of true vert. Luckily my day there was free... My first and last day. As I sense the resorts down the street aren't any better, I think I'll be paying for my day one tix for now on.

Edited by tromano - 9/27/11 at 9:00pm
post #113 of 123

The thing that really sucks about The Canyons? Its name. That is one stupid name. 

post #114 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujativeOCR View Post

I have a question about Stowe...which also applies to some European resorts.  I just looked up the stats on Wiki, and see that there are 116 runs, 4.3 mi being the longest, 2360 Vertical feet, and 13 lifts...and the confusing part...only 485 acres???

 

Do Northeast and European resorts use some different area rating system than everyone else?

 

Comparitively...Silver Mountain has 5 (1/3 Stowe) lifts, 2,200 Vertical, 2.2 mi longest run (half stowe), and like 60 runs. (half stowe), yet they claim something like 1600 Acres.  So whats with the acreage at these resorts?  Who's lying Silver or Stowe?


Neither are lying, just look at their trail maps:

 

Silver, large area with few trails and lifts.

 

silvermtnmap_2.jpg

 

 

Stowe, small area with many trails and lifts.

 

stowe-trail-map.jpg

 

 

 

 

post #115 of 123

That's a really interesting comparison. European resorts tend to have a lot of lifts, a lot of acreage, but often not all that many marked trails due to natural obstacles and such. 

post #116 of 123

At the risk of stating the obvious, until around 15 - 20 years ago acreage was not a very meaningful stat in the US East.  Because of little natural snow, but tremendous snowmaking systems, the only skiable surfaces were down the center of trails.  A lot of trails meant a lot of skiing.  There are few/no lift-served open bowls in the East.  Glade skiing was way below the radar. Now Eastern places like Sugarloaf, Jay, and many others tout glade skiing so acreage is becoming more meaningful.  Never been to Silver Mtn, but I assume during a good winter everything within ski area boundaries is skiable, hence a big acreage figure has valid meaning. Stowe's got some serious steeps.  Don't underestimate Mt Mansfield.

I guess above is a thread hijack.  Sorry.  I skied Park West in late '80s, but not since.  Would not rule-out a return sometime to see the new layout.  I would agree with Fujative that once you got to know the place there should be plenty of fun.

post #117 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeSchmoe View Post
The runs at the canyons are mostly 1200-1500ft. I can drive to le massif and get as good snow with as good terrain with more vert. There's nothing worse than finishing a run and saying was that it. I don't care how many acres there are, it's all mediocre, especially when there are many resorts in NA with 3000+ of true vert. Luckily my day there was free... My first and last day. As I sense the resorts down the street aren't any better, I think I'll be paying for my day one tix for now on.

I've skied several times at Canyons and at Le Massif. Edge to Massif in terms of runs - similar length or longer, steeper, more interesting features and layout - and aesthetics; hard to beat skiing down into the St. Lawrence. Both have weird logistical issues about getting around; draw. OTOH every time I've been to Massif, it's been bulletproof. And every time I've been to Canyons, nice snow. So all those + don't = great skiing. Reliable snow counts too. I've gone to Massif/Mt. St. Anne as destinations. Ditto for Park City/Canyons. Park City is Disney cute, but I'll take Quebec for food, culture, and nightlife. Park City resort obviously beats the other three, but I always find myself wanting a car to get over to LCC. And since it costs me about 1/5 as much to drive to Quebec area and get a full condo as as fly to SLC, small room in PC...your point taken

 

But wouldn't get too excited about "true vertical." Squaw isn't 3,000 ft of vert. Taos has 2,600 ft lift served. They'll give you more than you can handle. Stowe and Smuggs aren't 3,000, and they have tree runs that'll make you religious. Nuff said. 
 

 


Edited by beyond - 9/28/11 at 9:06am
post #118 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post



I've skied several times at Canyons and at Le Massif. Edge to Massif in terms of runs - similar length or longer, steeper, more interesting features and layout - and aesthetics; hard to beat skiing down into the St. Lawrence. Both have weird logistical issues about getting around; draw. OTOH every time I've been to Massif, it's been bulletproof. And every time I've been to Canyons, nice snow. So all those + don't = great skiing. Reliable snow counts too. I've gone to Massif/Mt. St. Anne as destinations. Ditto for Park City/Canyons. Park City is Disney cute, but I'll take Quebec for food, culture, and nightlife. Park City resort obviously beats the other three, but I always find myself wanting a car to get over to LCC. And since it costs me about 1/5 as much to drive to Quebec area and get a full condo as as fly to SLC, small room in PC...your point taken

 

But wouldn't get too excited about "true vertical." Squaw isn't 3,000 ft of vert. Taos has 2,600 ft lift served. They'll give you more than you can handle. Stowe and Smuggs aren't 3,000, and they have tree runs that'll make you religious. Nuff said. 
 

 




When I ski the east I never figure out where I'm going until about 2 days before. The last two times at le massif we had 28 and 76cm dumps, respectively. Driving from southern Ontario means you can follow the forecasts. Based on all the snow I've seen those times it'd be hard to imagIne it bulletproof. This strategy puts the chances of good conditions to be at least as good as flying to the canyons.
post #119 of 123

Do they even groom the Black Diamond Runs at Deer Valley?th_dunno-1[1].gif

post #120 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malazan View Post

Do they even groom the Black Diamond Runs at Deer Valley?th_dunno-1[1].gif



If you have to ask, you can't afford it.

 

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 › The Canyons Utah... Is it as bad as people say?