Does Size Matter

[Sparky]

Just how big does it have to be to be good? Relax, I'm talking vertical here. Is your choice in mountain based only on size, if not what are the other criteria?

 

[powderman]

Just how big does it have to be to be good? Relax, I'm talking vertical here. Is your choice in mountain based only on size, if not what are the other criteria?

It can be as small as a shrimp, yet it can be good. I love high vertical drops and they are always a bonus, but it's really about the terrain and the vertical doesn't effect the terrain.

 

[abc]

I can't believe I'm posting on a ski forum in July!

But anyway, while bigger is not always better, It has to be about 2000' to be of much good. Having skied in the midwest when verticals are in hundreds instead of thousands, I can't say I like any mountain that's under a thousand.

The problem with a lot of the "over-thousand" mountains, the sustained pitch was rarely the full whatever feet vertical of the entire resort. So, a 2000' resort actually has several areas with each being about 1000! And that's basically what I found neccessary for non-stop skiing.

Having the vertical doesn't guarantee it's any good. But not having it, it's hard to be good.

 

[kcyanks1]

I'd say I prefer mountains that are 2000+ as well. I also like there to be trail pods serviced by individual lifts to be well over 1000', say, 1300 or 1400+ vertical feet. Having a 2K where you only ski 800' at a time is no fun.

 

[powderman]

I can't believe I'm posting on a ski forum in July!

But anyway, while bigger is not always better, It has to be about 2000' to be of much good. Having skied in the midwest when verticals are in hundreds instead of thousands, I can't say I like any mountain that's under a thousand.

The problem with a lot of the "over-thousand" mountains, the sustained pitch was rarely the full whatever feet vertical of the entire resort. So, a 2000' resort actually has several areas with each being about 1000! And that's basically what I found neccessary for non-stop skiing.

Having the vertical doesn't guarantee it's any good. But not having it, it's hard to be good.

Well the terrain in the midwest just isn't as good as the eastern terrain. There's plenty of small ski areas on the east that are better than large eastern ski areas.

 

[bvibert]

Vertical drop is only one small factor for me. My home mountain only has a bit over 600' and I can have plenty of fun there. I'd prefer to have more, but the terrain, proximity, conditions, and friends make up for it.

 

[deadheadskier]

I've always heard its girth that counts more......

Having long vertical is always a bonus, but as long as there is a solid 800 of interesting terrain, I'm good. Mt. Abram is a 1000 vert hill and on a powder day has some excellent terrain with little competition. The (rip) T-Bar at Saddleback only services about 1000 vert. I've only skied there on a day when conditions were poor, but I'll take that 1000 vert over many 2000 vert peaks.

My guess is that I'd enjoy Mount Bohemia's 900 vert more than the vast majority of skiing in New England as well.

 

[campgottagopee]

Just how big does it have to be to be good? Relax, I'm talking vertical here. Is your choice in mountain based only on size, if not what are the other criteria?

For me good = terrain. I ski a little place in CNY ( Greek Peak ) that has 900 vert and is a blast!!!! Very rarley do you ever have to wait so after 3 hrs of doing laps your ass will be draggin. Obviuosly, bigger mountains can offer more variety, but as long as you have some good terrain you can have fun anywhere.

 

[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.

 

[Warp Daddy]

Terrain and lack of skier density ie either uncrowded lift lines or real lift capacity and of course "conditions" are more important than just vertical

 

[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]

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]

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.