The NEW Magic Mountain

[bdfreetuna]

Seems to me you all are making the moves to make Magic my go-to destination when I want to avoid long trips.

If you can steal a few days a season (for me) from Mt Snow and Killington, I'll be pretty glad. Trail counts are important (you know this). I like the blacks and doubles and woods to be open -- basically my determining factor in making last minute decisions (as they all are). How much snow they have on them I could care less (rocks are for skiing around or jumping over).

Let's hope we have another winter of snow and Nor-Easters. Looks like a good chance!

[ShadyGrove]

Seems to me you all are making the moves to make Magic my go-to destination when I want to avoid long trips.

If you can steal a few days a season (for me) from Mt Snow and Killington, I'll be pretty glad. Trail counts are important (you know this). I like the blacks and doubles and woods to be open -- basically my determining factor in making last minute decisions (as they all are). How much snow they have on them I could care less (rocks are for skiing around or jumping over).

Let's hope we have another winter of snow and Nor-Easters. Looks like a good chance!

Added emphasis to note that trail count is not as important as the marking department at many large resorts would have you believe. Having 50 'named' trails that are all groomed that same way, have similar pitch, and without character makes no difference. Particularly if they are packed with other skiers.

Having 10 top to bottom trails that are different from other another without many other skiers on them would be much more preferable in my opinion.

Of course it's awesome when the entire mountain is open and you can ski everywhere (including OOB), but for that lower tide time of every winter, Magic can really be where it's at. I'm not talking about huge brown spots like late Feb. 2017, but look at picks of skiing several days after any snow storm (not just March) and you will see folks skiing natural snow that hasn't been pummeled into a marble floor.

It's about quality, not quantity.

[sull1102]

Added emphasis to note that trail count is not as important as the marking department at many large resorts would have you believe. Having 50 'named' trails that are all groomed that same way, have similar pitch, and without character makes no difference. Particularly if they are packed with other skiers.

Having 10 top to bottom trails that are different from other another without many other skiers on them would be much more preferable in my opinion.

Of course it's awesome when the entire mountain is open and you can ski everywhere (including OOB), but for that lower tide time of every winter, Magic can really be where it's at. I'm not talking about huge brown spots like late Feb. 2017, but look at picks of skiing several days after any snow storm (not just March) and you will see folks skiing natural snow that hasn't been pummeled into a marble floor.

It's about quality, not quantity.

To you and I sure, but to the skiing public dead wrong. There is a reason every single resort in the entire industry, hell even Blue Hills, has split trails up to increase trail counts. There is a MASSIVE difference for marketing to say you have 4 runs open (lets say three genuine top to bottom at a 1800' vert mountain) or 16 "runs" that are just Upper, Middle, Lower, plus a little connector run here and there.

[slatham]

To you and I sure, but to the skiing public dead wrong. There is a reason every single resort in the entire industry, hell even Blue Hills, has split trails up to increase trail counts. There is a MASSIVE difference for marketing to say you have 4 runs open (lets say three genuine top to bottom at a 1800' vert mountain) or 16 "runs" that are just Upper, Middle, Lower, plus a little connector run here and there.

Agreed but luckily Magic just needs a few more of "you and I" and not the broader "skiing public". What's the old saying, an educated consumer is our best customer? Let the morons ski elsewhere.

[Smellytele]

To you and I sure, but to the skiing public dead wrong. There is a reason every single resort in the entire industry, hell even Blue Hills, has split trails up to increase trail counts. There is a MASSIVE difference for marketing to say you have 4 runs open (lets say three genuine top to bottom at a 1800' vert mountain) or 16 "runs" that are just Upper, Middle, Lower, plus a little connector run here and there.

One reason beyond expanding trail count having lower, middle, upper is when part of the trails are closed. I agree with this part of it if there are actual other trail crossing them and the can close parts of them . this may be just an added bonus not really part of anyone's plans.

[IceEidolon]

I like having clearly defined trail segments, so I can know by reading the report what's open. If I take Wizard and can't ski it the whole way down, but instead have to take Talisman...

That said, for unusual circumstances a note on the report is fine -once you have a hill with more than a handful of top to bottom routes, labeling every option is practically impossible. But if it's a regular thing to have half a trail opoen, maybe that should get split.

Sent from my Life Max using Tapatalk

[slatham]

I like having clearly defined trail segments, so I can know by reading the report what's open. If I take Wizard and can't ski it the whole way down, but instead have to take Talisman...

That said, for unusual circumstances a note on the report is fine -once you have a hill with more than a handful of top to bottom routes, labeling every option is practically impossible. But if it's a regular thing to have half a trail opoen, maybe that should get split.

Sent from my Life Max using Tapatalk

So I see the point that if the report says Upper Wizard and Lower Wizard are open, but they are just ski in/out of Talisman, this would be a problem. I must say I do not recall this being the case on the snow reports, at least not without a clear note that Wizard is open for the sole purpose of servicing Talisman. Alternate solutions would be to only claim Talisman is open, which to all but the morons means Wizard is open into/out of it. Or you "manufacture" another run by naming a "Middle Wizard". While that would technically pass the smell test, I don't think its the Magic style, IMHO.

[IceEidolon]

Talisman is the best example I could think of since we all know those trails. I could bring up better examples from other states but then nobody else knows what I'm talking about, plus Talisman does have this occasionally.

I don't think Wizard needs to be split unless the plan is not to open 'middle wizard' for a few weeks after Talisman, which I don't think it is.

Besides, upper/middle/lower leaves creativity on the table. Wizard Hat, Wizard Robe, Wizard's Ring works just as well.

Sent from my Life Max using Tapatalk

[tumbler]

Agreed but luckily Magic just needs a few more of "you and I" and not the broader "skiing public". What's the old saying, an educated consumer is our best customer? Let the morons ski elsewhere.

And that attitude is what sinks companies. You should want anyone and everyone to ski there so they make MONEY so they can pay off their debt and hopefully keep doing capital improvements.

[bdfreetuna]

Added emphasis to note that trail count is not as important as the marking department at many large resorts would have you believe. Having 50 'named' trails that are all groomed that same way, have similar pitch, and without character makes no difference.

It's about quality, not quantity.

Well maybe for you and some others but I don't like repeating runs in a day and almost never do unless I have to. So I won't argue with the marketing departments on that one. Open trail counts are decision makers for me especially earlier in the season when it's more of an issue.