Let's see if this has any legs!

[deadheadskier]

You guys are like the new Puck It/DMC old, married fighting couple.:argue: :argue:

careful marc. I wouldn't mention "marriage" in a discussion of two males around steamboat. you might send him over the edge......

 

[abc]

careful marc. I wouldn't mention "marriage" in a discussion of two males around steamboat. you might send him over the edge......

In NH, there's no longer any need of "discussion" about marriage of two males...

 

[deadheadskier]

In NH, there's no longer any need of "discussion" about marriage of two males...

I'm well aware. Same for NY, much to the dismay of steamboat.

 

[Scruffy]

I'm going to say this up front in the hopes to allay the notion that I'm biased against snowboarders: I'm not biased against snowboarders and I have many friends that ride, and I ski/ride with them often.

Having said that, and at the risk of being flamed . Are we sure the reason MRG votes against allowing snowboards has anything to do with some ancient prejudices of persons, or culture, etc? What I haven't heard anyone say on this tread, and what strikes me as the most probable reason to continue the ban, is that snowboards "can" alter the way the terrain wears; especially the bumps.

I put "can" in quotes, because obviously a skilled rider will not sideslip down a double black bump run and therefore not make much difference over a pair of wide boards.

But, it is a common perception that snowboards allow an unskilled rider to take on advanced terrain more easily by nature of the tool; the ability to hang on and just sideslip is easier with the standard offset body mount on a board ( I realize there are other binding mount configurations for boards, i.e carving boards ). Of course, skiers can side slip too, but it gets mighty uncomfortable to do for very long.

MRG has no snowmaking on it's advanced terrain and they often close the upper mountain in an effort to preserve the terrain. They often give up a days ticket sales, and take a change that the can preserve the experience for a later date. I have no inside knowledge to their snowboarding ban decision process; but I wouldn't be surprised if it has to with terrain preservation.

 

[deadheadskier]

Fair argument for MRG. I'm not sure that applies for Alta or Deer Valley though........at least not to the same degree.

 

[Domeskier]

Maybe MRG ought to ban shaped skis, too. Any equipment manufactured after 1995 or so, perhaps.

 

[jack97]

Maybe MRG ought to ban shaped skis, too. Any equipment manufactured after 1995 or so, perhaps.

lol.... that's a good point. imo, nowadays, what's helps in shaping the bumps are the teleskiers.

 

[snoseek]

I'm going to say this up front in the hopes to allay the notion that I'm biased against snowboarders: I'm not biased against snowboarders and I have many friends that ride, and I ski/ride with them often.

Having said that, and at the risk of being flamed . Are we sure the reason MRG votes against allowing snowboards has anything to do with some ancient prejudices of persons, or culture, etc? What I haven't heard anyone say on this tread, and what strikes me as the most probable reason to continue the ban, is that snowboards "can" alter the way the terrain wears; especially the bumps.

I put "can" in quotes, because obviously a skilled rider will not sideslip down a double black bump run and therefore not make much difference over a pair of wide boards.

But, it is a common perception that snowboards allow an unskilled rider to take on advanced terrain more easily by nature of the tool; the ability to hang on and just sideslip is easier with the standard offset body mount on a board ( I realize there are other binding mount configurations for boards, i.e carving boards ). Of course, skiers can side slip too, but it gets mighty uncomfortable to do for very long.

MRG has no snowmaking on it's advanced terrain and they often close the upper mountain in an effort to preserve the terrain. They often give up a days ticket sales, and take a change that the can preserve the experience for a later date. I have no inside knowledge to their snowboarding ban decision process; but I wouldn't be surprised if it has to with terrain preservation.

I skied Taos a month before they lifted the ban and about ten days after....It happened in the month of March. I could tell zero difference at all, none. MRG may be different as the size is smaller?

 

[AdironRider]

Theres no difference.

In fact, most powder skis (if you put them next to each other) are way wider than snowboards.

My wifes Volkl Shiros 173 length have at least 25% more surface area than my Salmon Burner 163. They are laughably large.

 

[MadMadWorld]

Fair argument for MRG. I'm not sure that applies for Alta or Deer Valley though........at least not to the same degree.

Out of everything you consider that a fair argument?

 

[BenedictGomez]

Here's the difference. That golf course holds one of the premier golf tournaments in big TV money ( think advertisement $$ ) sports.

Money has absolutely nothing to do with The Masters decision to do or not to do anything.

It does come up in shareholder meetings. Shareholders have mentioned it in these forums several times over the years. Their right as owners to be dicks and keep voting snowboarders out. There's no good reason to vote that way other than to be a dick.

That's really a childish way to view the situation. I'm genuinely surprised you cannot comprehend the niche market they've created, whether intentionally or by complete accident.

My personal opinion is that if MRG changed nothing, and operated in an environment like every other ski resort and allowed skiers and snowboarders, then MRG would be closed right now, and I dont mean because of lack of snow.

 

[deadheadskier]

Out of everything you consider that a fair argument?

I don't know if snowboarding pushes more snow off ski trails or not. Sounds like a good "Mythbusters" episode.

I only said its a fair argument because the claim was that a specific form of snow sliding (snowboarding) is more harmful to a delicate snowpack and that's the reason for the ban. It's a thin argument in my mind, but a fair one.

That differs from your increased traffic argument, not that I think your comments weren't valid concerns. Its just that those same arguments could be made against increasing their marketing budget or lowering ticket costs. Those are volume issues independent of mode of travel.

 

[BenedictGomez]

I don't know if snowboarding pushes more snow off ski trails or not.

Sounds like a good "Mythbusters" episode.

I've always just assumed snowboarding erodes snow much more than skiing. Seems pretty self-evident to me.

Though, to be clear, it's because of kids and beginner/crappy snowboarders. I do not think decent intermediate or advanced and expert snowboarders push any more snow off trails than skiers do.

It's the solo grinding edge moving 40 yards down a trail too steep for their ability, or that solo grinding edge on the edge of the trail continuously plowing snow in one direction, off the trail, that does the damage. It would make for a good Mythbuster topic.

 

[deadheadskier]

Money has absolutely nothing to do with The Masters decision to do or not to do anything.



That's really a childish way to view the situation. I'm genuinely surprised you cannot comprehend the niche market they've created, whether intentionally or by complete accident.

My personal opinion is that if MRG changed nothing, and operated in an environment like every other ski resort and allowed skiers and snowboarders, then MRG would be closed right now, and I dont mean because of lack of snow.

So you think the business would suffer by allowing snowboarding? The niche market would be compromised?

Interesting POV. In stark contrast to MadmadWorld's theory that allowing snowboarding would increase business levels to a point the current facilities could not support.

But, again, never once have I made any claim to how allowing or disallowing snowboarding at MRG, Alta or DV would affect business. My objection is purely philosophical. I don't like businesses and or people who are prejudiced. My view is that the fundamental reason all three areas don't allow snowboarding is that they're prejudiced. I could be wrong.....but that's my view.

 

[Scruffy]

Money has absolutely nothing to do with The Masters decision to do or not to do anything.



.

Don't be so sure, grasshopper.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...masters-facing-questions-on-ceo-s-club-access

 

[BenedictGomez]

Don't be so sure, grasshopper.

I am 100% sure, just as I am sure that you're clearly not a golf fan or you'd know more about "Masters economics", which would be about as basic as skiers not knowing the FIS events.


EDIT: Ehhh...... and I just took the 24 seconds to look at the article you linked, which.....says nothing relevant to the point you're attempting to prove.

 

[Scruffy]

My personal opinion is that if MRG changed nothing, and operated in an environment like every other ski resort and allowed skiers and snowboarders, then MRG would be closed right now, and I dont mean because of lack of snow.

I agree. MRG attracts a faithful core that will endure the crappiest conditions when the snow pack is poor, just to have those, sometimes few and far between, days when the conditions are ripe, and, sorry to say, no beginner-intermediate snowboarders scraping the bumps away. As for Alta and DV, if they allowed snowboarding, I don't think it would close them - esp. DV. Alta attracts a a skier only core, like MRG, but their unique low moisture powder is their real claim to fame, and that would remain even with the addition of snowboadering.

 

[thetrailboss]

I agree. MRG attracts a faithful core that will endure the crappiest conditions when the snow pack is poor, just to have those, sometimes few and far between, days when the conditions are ripe, and, sorry to say, no beginner-intermediate snowboarders scraping the bumps away. As for Alta and DV, if they allowed snowboarding, I don't think it would close them - esp. DV. Alta attracts a a skier only core, like MRG, but their unique low moisture powder is their real claim to fame, and that would remain even with the addition of snowboadering.

DV's clientele don't want snowboards. And its majority owner has a clause in the corporate bylaws stating that if the rest of the ownership approves snowboarding that they must buy out his ownership.

 

[Scruffy]

I am 100% sure, just as I am sure that you're clearly not a golf fan or you'd know more about "Masters economics", which would be about as basic as skiers not knowing the FIS events.


EDIT: Ehhh...... and I just took the 24 seconds to look at the article you linked, which.....says nothing relevant to the point you're attempting to prove.

:lol: :lol: You're funny. Go learn something about how the movers and shakers make things happen. Who makes up the 300 members at Augusta? Which gender has the largest purchasing power right now?

 

[Scruffy]

DV's clientele don't want snowboards. And its majority owner has a clause in the corporate bylaws stating that if the rest of the ownership approves snowboarding that they must buy out his ownership.

Interesting.