marcski
Active member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2005
- Messages
- 4,576
- Points
- 36
Shouldn't that be: "Lighten up, Francis?"
-
Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!
You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!
Does Mad River Scare You a Little? NO!
- Thread starter billski
- Start date
BenedictGomez
Well-known member
Right now?
Yes.
If the rightful owners of MRG decided by their own free will to change the niche of the mountain and allow snowboarders?
No.
Havent been there on a weekend, but if what I read on this board is true, you might have a good point.
Well, last I checked, disagreeing with a policy of a particular business isn't a crime.
They're free to run their business as they want. I'm free to comment on it. Isn't that what we do with every ski area here?
I just can't wrap my mind around ANYONE looking at another person with a snowboard on their feet and saying, "get that snowboard out of here. Skis only!". Only an asshole......
They're free to run their business as they want. I'm free to comment on it. Isn't that what we do with every ski area here?
I just can't wrap my mind around ANYONE looking at another person with a snowboard on their feet and saying, "get that snowboard out of here. Skis only!". Only an asshole......
Not Sure
Well-known member
You shouldn't take personal offense to "No snowboarders" rules . Do you know the reason the rule is in place?
It may have nothing to do with the person on the board but what the rule maker percieves the board does to a slope.
An old Molehill where I've skied for years has changed since borading, moguls never have a chance to develop ,
2 slopes had decent fields years ago , not anymore.
I have had a few run ins with boarders over the years but equal amounts with skiers.
Cannonball
New member
Yes. Mentioned it several times in this thread.
The old owner had a spat with a couple of snowboarders.
The rule has nothing to do with staying "old school" or providing better moguls.
No matter the origin of it though, it's a lame rule.
jrmagic
New member
Im a skier and no way am I buying that. Plenty of areas that allow boarders have good moguls. I think the average quality of the skiers/riders have more to do with good or bad moguls more than anything else.
twinplanx
Active member
Guess I'm an "asshole" then. Maybe at one point it had something to do with Betsy's run in with a couple of tools. But IMO, at this point it's about "retaining the unique culture" of this particular area owned & maintained by SHAREHOLDERS.
How could what someone else has on their feet remotely affect your own personal enjoyment?
I could care less what anyone else on the hill is doing. It has no bearing on my experience whatsoever.
As has been mentioned in this thread snowboarders did nothing to change the character of the place when they were allowed there.
I could care less what anyone else on the hill is doing. It has no bearing on my experience whatsoever.
As has been mentioned in this thread snowboarders did nothing to change the character of the place when they were allowed there.
Edd
Well-known member
I think everyone understands that it's their right to run the mountain as they see fit. It's simply that their reasoning is BS, and it's obvious. The "culture" of skiing and riding is pretty tough to separate at this point.
Not Sure
Well-known member
Seeded or natural ? Seeding makes a difference .
The place I was referring to is primarily a beginner area
so I agree with that .
BenedictGomez
Well-known member
Yes, mentioned; several times, by you.
Doesn't make any empirical sense in relation to the point you were trying to make.
Wrong. Mentioned by Brad J, Cannonball and Savemeasammy; people who were skiing there when snowboarders were allowed.
I did not mention it, I asked the question because I wanted to hear about first hand experiences.
L
To be fair, boarders represented a much much smaller percentage of the snow sliding population at that time. It makes sense that they would not have had a great impact on the terrain. That being said, if MRG is really concerned about mogul formation, they should probably ban shaped skis, fat skis and tele skis, too.
To be fair, boarders represented a much much smaller percentage of the snow sliding population at that time. It makes sense that they would not have had a great impact on the terrain. That being said, if MRG is really concerned about mogul formation, they should probably ban shaped skis, fat skis and tele skis, too.
moresnow
Member
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2008
- Messages
- 477
- Points
- 16
They should also ban shitty skiers.
Not Sure
Well-known member
Hmmmm, Maybe Mount Bohemia skiers could comment.
The participation percentage of boarders varied widely based upon the ski area in the late 80's. I know because I was one then and we used to have to go to Magic or Stratton because snowboarders weren't allowed at Okemo where my family skied.
There were LOTS of boarders at Stratton then. Maybe there was at MRG too. If there was not, it would stand to reason that the ban made even less sense back then.
I learned how to snowboard at Magic. Most consider Magic "old school" despite snowboarders being allowed there.
I gave up snowboarding around 1990. I like moguls and didn't like how a board handled bumps compared to skis. I don't care how others choose to ride snow. Live and let ride.
BenedictGomez
Well-known member
Which is beyond obvious.
And DHS now clearly realizes that given I pointed it out, but of course, rather than simply admit that, "oh, yeah, duh, I didn't think about that, lol", instead he's has to double-down and come up with long-shot absurdities to cling to his busted hypothesis:
Yeah. Great. So instead of 0.8% in 1986, and 3.8% in 1988 maybe at "some" places (probably not MRG) it was 1.6% and 5% or something. Either way, again = Completely immaterial.
OK BG, what would be a consequential percentage by your standards?
I wasn't there, neither were you. Rag on my interpretation of what people who were there said it was like, but at least that was first hand experience and not the conjecture you're bringing to the discussion.
And for Christ sake, I don't understand why you have such an issue with me being against MRG policy. I think I've read you bitch about the no tree skiing policy at Elk. This really isn't any different.
I wasn't there, neither were you. Rag on my interpretation of what people who were there said it was like, but at least that was first hand experience and not the conjecture you're bringing to the discussion.
And for Christ sake, I don't understand why you have such an issue with me being against MRG policy. I think I've read you bitch about the no tree skiing policy at Elk. This really isn't any different.
BenedictGomez
Well-known member
Tough to say, but I sure know it wouldn't be an environment where 95% or more of people are skiing, like the precise time period in question.
Completely different.
I think it's bad for Elk's business due to the fact tree skiing could be a way for Elk to differentiate their business model in a favorable manner, which would be positive for revenue. Which. Is. Exactly. What. MRG. Is. Doing.
Anyway, expanding on Elk, I also respect Elk's right to make said decision, even though I think it's poor. From a $$$ standpoint, I think someone else could come in and make more money owning Elk (for more reasons that just "trees"), but you're not going to see me go on an anti-Elk internet PR campaign or repeatedly trash them practically malevolently.
Similar threads
