Does Size Matter

[Mapnut]

I like being in the big mountains - for the scenery, the wildness, the snow, the fir trees. That generally means big vertical, though not always - Bolton Valley for example. Otherwise, I do much more enjoy runs with at least 1,100 feet.

[jack97]

Originally Posted by wa-loaf

Terrain trumps vert. Wachusett has 1000ft and is great if you like cruisers. I'm a little envious of the Sundown crew who get a couple sweet bump runs on 600ft(I think, maybe 800?). But generally 1000ft is my limit for having a good time. I can't stand skiing at Nashoba for example.

With heavy snowfall, Nashoba will leave a section alone and let it bump up, it's right in front of the lodge. I use to work close by and look for it, it usually better than Wachusett's bump section but a bit shorter.


As for me, size does not matter, it's the personality.... I mean terrain.

[kingslug]

Hunter has 1600 vert and is fine for me...............but the more the better.

[andyzee]

Yes

[Trekchick]

Originally Posted by Sparky

Just how big does it have to be to be good?...................

When I ski at home on my 475 ft ish of vert, I grin from ear to ear. When I ski elsewhere, such as Stowe, or out west, I am on a high that is not to be compared to any other high I've experienced.
I find myself hearing voices saying............Go Bigger!!!!

[powderman]

Berkshire East's vertical is only 950 ft, yet, on a powder day, I enjoy it more than Hunter which has a vertical of 1,475 ft. That being said, a vertical drop really doesn't matter.

[abc]

Actually, I contradicted myself. One of my favorate, Plattekill, is only barely over 1000'. But every run there is top to bottom! So the full 1100 is right for the skiing to its fullness.

But that's more the exception rather than the rule. Most other mountains has broken up chunk of a few hundred feet of vertical and call themselves 1000'+. Example of that is Belleayre...

For the sake of "proximity", I'll ski anything that's available nearby. But I wouldn't call that "good".

[JasonE]

My three favorite mountains to ski (in order) are Black Mountain, Bromley, and Crotched. I have a season pass to Wachusett and enjoy it (though there isn't a day of the season that I wouldn't rather be at Black if it weren't for the four-hour drive).

I've skied Okemo, I've skied Attitash. I liked both very much, but I'll take Black's classic narrow trails and natural terrain, or Bromley's short lines and FRIENDLY people, or Crotched's amazing snow conditions (even in the worst of weather) over longer runs any day.

Then again... I don't ski bumps and I'm not a powder-hound. Maybe if I were, I'd need more altitude. But, for me, terrain and conditions easily trump vertical.

JMO-YMMV

Jason

[powderman]

I think abundant natural snow is also an important factor when determining if a ski areas is good. Snow Ridge (which only has a vertical drop of 600 ft) is probably better than most NH ski areas.

[mondeo]

I'd say 20-30 bumps worth of vert is enough to draw my attention, less if I'm doing flats training. I plan on spending a significant amount of time on green circles next year for that, where vert isn't really a big issue; a few hundred feet would do. But, steeper and longer is always better.