3 most personally overrated ski areas you have skied.

[MMP]

Well Phil's birthday was Sunday, but thanks. :lol:

Really? Sunday? Missed it again.

When you're 75 you get the week to celebrate. Phil likes MRG.

 

[ScottySkis]

Some of my friends rate okemo very highly. They thought it is the biggest, tallest mountain in vt and don't know there are steeper mountains in vt. So wrong. They still think all east coast mountains are flat like okemo.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone

It like all places were the same our winter would be boring.

 

[Domeskier]

That's call marketing.

Advertising sells products (hopefully on its strength). Marketing sells dreams.

The tricky part is it must not disappoint. Or the dreamer wakes up and goes elsewhere. Stowe does a good job of pampering the average folks for the duration of their stay at Stowe making them feel like millionaires for a few days. So they feel alright to have paid 30% extra "feel good" premium. Mind you, those are the folks who pay the bills and supported the ski-bum turned instructors, real estate agents etc.

I'm not talking about advertising. Or about Stowe. I have zero objection to their marketing themselves to wealthy people or even catering to them with spas and expensive food or priority lifelines. What would annoy me is if they groomed everything flat and set up park features on every trail because those are the things that they think people who are not skiing there really want. Or maybe that is what most skiers want these days and all I want is for ski areas to cater to my relatively idiosyncratic skiing preferences.

 

[C-Rex]

I'm not sure you know what overrated means.

1. Who rates Okemo highly?
2. Who rates Waterville highly?
5. If Cannon "lived up to it's reputation" how is that being overrated?

A lot of people love Okemo. Mostly intermediates and families, and that's fine, but Okemo definitely has a huge fan base.

We have to keep in mind that most of us on this forum are outliers when it comes to ski area's demographics. We are the advanced to expert skiers and riders that live for this stuff. What we look for is not what probably 80% of ticket buyers are interested in.

 

[machski]

Overrated is tough, varies for different reasons for me.
Killington and Sugarloaf - for overrated vertical drops. Sure you can ski it continuous, but both resorts are mostly 1800' continuous of an interest. The rest you just ski to say you did it or at the end of your day if you started at true base.
Heavenly - terrain did not impress me and the terrain is very Pod-ed. Skied too small.

 

[gmcunni]

alta. i went there and it snowed 18 inches overnight. everyone said how great it was but i couldn't turn my skis, it was a horrible day. i quit after 2 runs, place really sucked and is overrated.

 

[MMP]

alta. i went there and it snowed 18 inches overnight. everyone said how great it was but i couldn't turn my skis, it was a horrible day. i quit after 2 runs, place really sucked and is overrated.

lol. good one

 

[4aprice]

I'm not talking about advertising. Or about Stowe. I have zero objection to their marketing themselves to wealthy people or even catering to them with spas and expensive food or priority lifelines. What would annoy me is if they groomed everything flat and set up park features on every trail because those are the things that they think people who are not skiing there really want. Or maybe that is what most skiers want these days and all I want is for ski areas to cater to my relatively idiosyncratic skiing preferences.

This is a fine line the ski areas have to straddle. I agree with you that they should try to cater to everyone. I see this with my "home" mountain Camelback PA. I would like to see this and this bumped and maybe 1/2 of that, but the mountain doesn't see it that way. In order to see it my way, some trails would have to be closed from time to time, or replenished with $nowmaking on a regular basis. Both those scenario's they feel cost them money. The less regular (non AZ) type skier looks at the ski report, see's closed trails, and wonders if the snow is not better elsewhere. I will add that Camelback has done a good job of leaving some ungroomed terrain available, enough to keep us using it as a home base.

As far as rating mountains, I like to ski all over the place from the big boys to the small community hill. I'll strap them on anywhere. More then thinking about them in a ranking, I have places I want to visit.

Alex

Lake Hopatcong, NJ

 

[Riverskier]

I don't really have much to add to the thread, as every ski area I have visited has lived up to the expectations I have had for it based on varying critera.

Re Sunday River though: Say what you will about the vertical drop (it is what it is) or the terrain (entirely subjective), but I just don't get the comments regarding traversing. If skied in an even remotely sensible manner in that regard there is virtually no traversing at all. The only real traverse is getting back to Barker or White Cap from Jordan Bowl or Oz. I only choose to do that once a day if I even head West, and I actually enjoy it once a day. Pretty cool actually IMO that you can ski from the top of one end of a 3 mile wide resort to the bottom of the other end without riding a lift. They won the National Ski Area Design Award at one point.

 

[deadheadskier]

Killington and Sunday River both get dinged for traversing. I don't think it's an issue at either place if you ski it right and it doesn't take a rocket scientist looking at map to figure that out.

The bigger issue with both (much more so of an issue with Killington) is the number of trail intersections and inexperienced skiers that use them.

I'm in complete agreement with you on enjoying that long traverse at SR. When I was a pass holder at SR, I parked at White Cap 90% of the time and just slowly made my way all the way out to Jordan, enjoying each peak along the way. Then at the the end of the day I'd traverse back to Barker for a beer or two and take roadrunner down to my car.

 

[St. Bear]

The knock against K and SR isn't traversing in the traditional sense, but rather skiing trails that you normally wouldn't ski as a means to get from one side to the other.

 

[BenedictGomez]

Killington and Sunday River both get dinged for traversing......The bigger issue with both (much more so of an issue with Killington) is the number of trail intersections and inexperienced skiers that use them.

In addition to all the above you left out Killington's dominance in the category of:

"Most egregious exaggeration of vertical drop".

That bit of overratedness' is a self-inflicted wound.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

We have to keep in mind that most of us on this forum are outliers when it comes to ski area's demographics. We are the advanced to expert skiers and riders that live for this stuff. What we look for is not what probably 80% of ticket buyers are interested in.

Definitely thought about this when considering my picks for "overrated resorts", if an area is concerned with drawing crowds they are obviously going to be aiming to cater to the mid-level or average skier, rather than focusing on the needs and wants of experts. In regards to Okemo, as I stated previously, I have had fantastic days there in the past, but since my ability has increased significantly since that point, the big O no longer provides what I am looking for when deciding where to ski.

I agree with most of you, "overrating" is based a lot on one's own expectations of the resort, their own skill level and the conditions on the days when they are there. There's clearly no standards across the board, but I do find it interesting reading the different perspectives that have been brought up here.

 

[skiberg]

Vail- Very little challenging terrain. Blue Sky is great but only with good snow.
Jay Peak - Tremendous woods/off-piste, but lacks bit of diversity in terrain on-piste.
Cannon glades- Many "in bounds" are almost unskiable they are so tight. However, glades in side country and not on map are much better and ski much better.

 

[C-Rex]

I love Jay but I do agree that without their glades, there is little to rave about. It's not that the place sucks by any means, but the glades are really what it's all about. I'd never suggest Jay to someone who doesn't ski trees.

 

[deadheadskier]

Cannon glades- Many "in bounds" are almost unskiable they are so tight. However, glades in side country and not on map are much better and ski much better.

QFT. I accidentally skied "The Creek" a couple of weeks ago and I was wondering if it was a joke. Except for the bottom in the actual creek, it completely sucked due to how tight the trees are.

Global Warming glade also kind of sucks. It isn't as bad as The Creek, but it would ski better if thinned a little more.

 

[Domeskier]

I will add that Camelback has done a good job of leaving some ungroomed terrain available, enough to keep us using it as a home base.

Yeah, places like Camelback and Sundown and Blue Mtn (never been) seem to do a nice job providing interesting terrain to the geographically challenged. I wish more local hills would follow their example.

 

[Puck it]

QFT. I accidentally skied "The Creek" a couple of weeks ago and I was wondering if it was a joke. Except for the bottom in the actual creek, it completely sucked due to how tight the trees are.

Global Warming glade also kind of sucks. It isn't as bad as The Creek, but it would ski better if thinned a little more.

These were not officially cut glades. That is why. They were just put on the map.

 

[skiberg]

Global Warming, Lost Boys, The creek, Going Green, Amazon, Wicked Hard, all need substantial thinning. They could really be quite good with a little attention. BTW is it me or did they thin Echo?

 

[Cannonball]

Cannon glades- Many "in bounds" are almost unskiable they are so tight. However, glades in side country and not on map are much better and ski much better.

QFT. I accidentally skied "The Creek" a couple of weeks ago and I was wondering if it was a joke. Except for the bottom in the actual creek, it completely sucked due to how tight the trees are.

Global Warming glade also kind of sucks. It isn't as bad as The Creek, but it would ski better if thinned a little more.

Disagree because I actually love how tight those specific runs are. But with that said, I completely agree that it is INSANE for these to be marked/open parts of a resort. They do not in any way resemble what any typical/normal customer would expect when they see a trail sign. Not to mention that these glades are definitely not swept by patrol at the end of the day (if ever!). In terms of being found and rescued if you ever got hurt, you might as well be off the map. So it seems like the liability risk is off the charts by calling these part of the official mountain. I can understand what you mean by these being 'overrated'. If a random person heard that "Cannon has good glades" and choose to go to the mountain for that reason, they'd likely be very disappointed (if not injured).