Has Sugarbush Hired Killington's PR Dept?

[andyzee]

Win, as they say any publicity is good publicity, I'll PM you my address.

 

[castlerock]

Not disputing your analysis but the areas within the red areas are not skied or in the resort's designated boundary.

I have to beg to differ, two of those four areas I've skied multiple times each of the last two seasons.

 

[Tin Woodsman]

Not sure I want to jump into this one... but.... what the heck

Boundary to boundary acres can be both a relevant and irrelevant number. The further north in Vermont you travel to ski, the more relevant it becomes, IMO. At a place like Jay, where this is skiing (of some sort) in between every marked trail... then it is an extremely relevant number.

Absolutely correct. I think I said the same thing earlier up thread.

But if you are including one or two thousand acres of unskiable woods, that number becomes a lot less relevant. I am pretty sure the topic has been hashed through before, but in general, there are only a hand full of eastern ski areas that have any business claiming boundary to boundary acres in their stats as anything more than hyperbole and boasting of complete irrelevance. You might as well include the total acres of real estate and slopeside housing. It is a non-sense number dressed to impress. It does not mean the number is inaccurate or over the top. But rather that there are only a small handful of ski areas at which that number means anything in New England. Bush is not one of them though they do have more off map tree skiing than most other ski areas they certainly don't have anything close to 4000 acres of skiing. So to me it is a non-sense stat that doesn't mean much.

I'm sure there aren't 4000 acres of skiing, just like there wouldn't be if SB got the same snow as Jay. At some point, some trees are just to tight to ski. But your evaluation of SB is mostly off base. I think you've admitted in this or another thread that you haven't had the chance to do as much exploring at SB as you would have liked. Your statement above is a reflection of that. Anyplace receiving 250" or more in the Northeast can pretty much be considered on a boundary to boundary basis as long as there is some sort of conveyance other than your thumb or the car you stashed to get you back to the trails. This would include Slidebrook, the Notch, the Bruce, and the 20th, but would exclude The Dip, Big Jay, Cotton Brook, backside K, and various other bits and pieces. Kind of arbitrary I guess, b/c most Jay skiers I know include the Dip and Big Jay in their skiing universe, but you've got to draw a line somewhere. If/when Jay starts running some sort of shuttle back to the base from off of 242, then that changes.

Essentially, I am not questioning the marketing departments use of the number but rather calling into the question the use of that number at almost any New England ski area as a number that doesn't have much mean except to impress people that don't know any better.

Skiable trail acreage at anywhere receiving more than 200-250" in the Northeast is an irrelevant stat for anyone who ventures off the trails. Going to the other extreme is misleading as well for sure, so I'm not sure what the happy medium is for the PR/marketing types.

 

[Tin Woodsman]

I have to beg to differ, two of those four areas I've skied multiple times each of the last two seasons.

+1

 

[billski]

Boundary to boundary acres can be both a relevant and irrelevant number. The further north in Vermont you travel to ski, the more relevant it becomes, IMO.

Touche'.
The further south you go, the more apt you are to see nasty-gram signs threatening jail or death for passing the designated boundary.

 

[teleo]

hmm, If it was permitted for cat skiing, would it be set up for sanctioned hiking too? Or shouldn't we ask such things...

 

[Lostone]

My beliefs are that the 4K is the left to right, all inclusive size. The 580(?) (That number was a lot of reading ago. :roll: ) is inside the LP and ME areas plus the area of Slidebrook that is permitted.

Most of Slidebrook is not permitted for skiing. For example, there is no permitted way in from North, so nobody skis there. . . right? :-? right!


The other thing I might add, is when people say an area is not skiable. . . Wouldn't that beg the question, "Not skiable by who?" :smile:

 

[kcyanks1]

My beliefs are that the 4K is the left to right, all inclusive size. The 580(?) (That number was a lot of reading ago. :roll: ) is inside the LP and ME areas plus the area of Slidebrook that is permitted.

I wouldn't think any of Slide Brook is included in the ~580. Slide Brook is technically outside the boundary, at least as drawn on the trail maps. I could be wrong though of course.

 

[BushMogulMaster]

The number is 508, and it is inbounds trail acreage AFAIK.

 

[deadheadskier]

The number is 508, and it is inbounds trail acreage AFAIK.

I don't know why that number seems so low to me. It seems bigger than the Okemo's, Stratton's etc that advertise more acreage

 

[BushMogulMaster]

I don't know why that number seems so low to me. It seems bigger than the Okemo's, Stratton's etc that advertise more acreage

Sugarbush has a lot of trails, but many of them are skinny, classic New England runs. Stratton, Okemo and the likes are covered in wide-open interstate trails. That's where the major discrepancy in total acreage originates. That's why mileage, IMO, is a better estimation of the total amount of trail skiing in New England.

 

[andyzee]

Sugarbush has a lot of trails, but many of them are skinny, classic New England runs. Stratton, Okemo and the likes are covered in wide-open interstate trails. That's where the major discrepancy in total acreage originates. That's why mileage, IMO, is a better estimation of the total amount of trail skiing in New England.

Good point.

 

[riverc0il]

I'm sure there aren't 4000 acres of skiing, just like there wouldn't be if SB got the same snow as Jay. At some point, some trees are just to tight to ski. But your evaluation of SB is mostly off base. I think you've admitted in this or another thread that you haven't had the chance to do as much exploring at SB as you would have liked. Your statement above is a reflection of that.

Care to suggest how much of Bush's 4000 acres you think is actually skiable? I haven't had a chance to dabble much off map at the Bush. But I got a pretty good read for the area and it clearly isn't in the same league for boundary to boundary as Jay or Stowe. It may just well be that extra 125-150 inches per year open up things better further north (no doubt it doesn't open up everything, not disputing that... rather it opens up a significantly higher percentage). And no doubt cutting is helping at all places (e.g. hard to even consider the dip as off the map... most on map glades are tighter). With Jay, you don't even need to look down to 242... you can hop into the woods almost anywhere between trails.

But I don't see where my "evaluation is off base". I don't need to ski every nook and cranny at the Bush to get a good read that off map tree skiing is not as high a percentage of the skiable acres as areas north of I-89. Once you know what you are looking for, you can identify skiable woods without actually skiing them. Where would you draw the line on which ski areas have a legit claim to market total acres? One ski area south of your favorite mountain?

 

[castlerock]

Riv, You are killing me with this

..... I haven't had a chance to dabble much off map at the Bush. But I got a pretty good read for the area and it clearly isn't in the same league for boundary to boundary as Jay or Stowe.....

A good read huh...what did you read? Ski don't read. Sugarbush has a tremendous amount of boundary to boundary skiing. Due to its sheer size more than both Jay and Stowe. I've had time to more than dabble at all three. I don't leave Smuggs out either. Stowe has the Chin, Jay has big Jay, both of those are unmatched at the Bush. But there is waaaaay more between the trails skiing at Sugarbush, as there are many more trails. I'm skiing powder at Sugarbush well after it is tracked out by the hordes at Jay

.....It may just well be that extra 125-150 inches per year open up things better further north.....

Sugarbush 262
Stowe 333
Jay 366
Data from SkiVermont.com

I wish we had 366 at Sugarbush, but once we get to 150 or so, pretty much everything is open.

.....With Jay, you don't even need to look down to 242... you can hop into the woods almost anywhere between trails......

Also at Sugarbush, but since it is National forest land, we can't cut (especially at the sides of the trails). As such the sides get sun and it grows in, hiding the goods behind. If you ski at a place like Jay, you never develop the eye, required to just go in. There are many places where the side of the trail is impenetrable hedge, but 10 feet on the other side of the hedge is open hardwood. You can only get in where there is a break.

.....But I don't see where my "evaluation is off base". I don't need to ski every nook and cranny at the Bush to get a good read that off map tree skiing is not as high a percentage of the skiable acres as areas north of I-89. Once you know what you are looking for, you can identify skiable woods without actually skiing them......

Wrong..for all the reasons above. The thing is, you don't know what you are looking for, as your experience is limited to some great hills, but ones that have different rules, and therefore a different look.

I've been at Sugarbush for 7 years, I came here to have a place to ski with my kids, and teach them . I originally thought as you do, that Sugarbush wasn't "as good" as the areas north of 89, for woods skiing.

Well, I was wrong. It is in many ways better, just not as accessible, without real local knowledge.

 

[riverc0il]

Man, you guys get testy about your home mountain, eh? :lol:

castlerock.... I NEVER questioned or stipulated that the Bush does not have more tree skiing than other mountains. I stated that that Bush is no where near 4000 of skiable acres. Maybe "different league" was not the accurate wording for my point. What I am getting at is that at other ski areas further north (never been to Smuggs, but I am assuming much the same there) you can jump into the woods almost any where and ski. That is what this thread is about! What is skiable. Bush very well may have tons more tree skiing than any other ski area in the northeast. Cool. But the percent of skiable acres compared to actual acres just can't be the same as areas further north. I just don't see it. My comments are not directed towards the total acres that are skiable but the percentage compared to actual acres claimed by the marketing department.

As for areas further north, just for the record, my favorite ski area is Mad River (which also has a different set of rules than Bush or ski areas north of I-89 due to organized cutting and slightly more open woods than the Bush). Just wanted to put that out there... I ain't trying to make this into a "Jay and Stowe are better than Bush" even though I prefer to ski at those areas.

As for developing an eye, I cut my tree skiing teeth at Cannon. Good luck finding most tree shots there as most shots either require "local knowledge" or hiking the area during the summer. Trees do hide a lot. But when they hide that much, it reduces skiable acres considerably and relies more on cutting than natural openings.

You guys are skinning me alive here but I think you guys are reading more into what I am saying than I am actually saying. And I misquoted the snowfall for the various ski areas which is my bad. But there have been so many 400"+ years up north recently that sometimes I forget they have been above average so you got me on that exaggeration. Exaggeration or not, it definitely opens up more natural lines that need less maintenance.

 

[castlerock]

Man, you guys get testy about your home mountain, eh? :lol:

castlerock.... I NEVER .........you can jump into the woods almost any where and ski. That is what this thread is about! What is skiable. Bush very well may have tons more tree skiing than any other ski area in the northeast. Cool. But the percent of skiable acres compared to actual acres just can't be the same as areas further north. I just don't see it. My comments are not directed towards the total acres that are skiable but the percentage compared to actual acres claimed by the marketing department.

And my point is that you CAN jump in anywhere and ski, it is just that sometimes getting in is tougher. If it is between the trails here it is skied. I even have to remind myself of this sometime. Last season on a windhold powder day, I was skiing, skiers left of the Gatehouse liftline, on some wonderful wide open low angle woods that we never think of skiing. And my friend made the exact comment that we can ski anywhere on the hill.

And maybe we have a bit of a chip on our shoulders here at Sugarbush. There seems to be a Jay and Stowe are the "big leagues" and Sugarbush is the minors ideal out there.

 

[Tin Woodsman]

And my point is that you CAN jump in anywhere and ski, it is just that sometimes getting in is tougher. If it is between the trails here it is skied. I even have to remind myself of this sometime. Last season on a windhold powder day, I was skiing, skiers left of the Gatehouse liftline, on some wonderful wide open low angle woods that we never think of skiing. And my friend made the exact comment that we can ski anywhere on the hill.

And maybe we have a bit of a chip on our shoulders here at Sugarbush. There seems to be a Jay and Stowe are the "big leagues" and Sugarbush is the minors ideal out there.

+1

Steve -

The only place where we disagree is in the artificial distinction between north and south of 89. With respect to snowfall, there's no doubt that North of 89 gets materially more. In that sense, the tree season there is probably a week or two longer on average. OTOH, your contention that SB is unlike those places insofar as there isn't skiing between every trail is factually incorrect. With the exception of trails like Murphy's Glade and Upper Birdland or the runs off North Lynx that are literally 6 feet apart in spots, I think I have skied between every single pair of runs on the mountain, and in many cases, multiple runs therein (rather than just different lines in the same glade run). The density of skiable terrain in Slidebrook isn't as great, but is certainly orders of magnitude greater than the official lines. As with most places, the deeper is gets, the more that opens up.

I'll just leave it at that, b/c I'm not really in any rush to publicize this much more. I'm more than content to leave untested the notion that Jay to Bolton is a different realm.

 

[GrilledSteezeSandwich]

Stowe receives and holds snow way better than Sugarbush...This past April I skied both resorts a day apart on two seperate occasions...and the difference is apples to bananas...lol

 

[ski_resort_observer]

Stowe receives and holds snow way better than Sugarbush...This past April I skied both resorts a day apart on two seperate occasions...and the difference is apples to bananas...lol

Which resort is the apple and which is the banana......:lol:

 

[castlerock]

Now I've got to bust on Steeze

Stowe receives and holds snow way better than Sugarbush...This past April I skied both resorts a day apart on two seperate occasions...and the difference is apples to bananas...lol

I'm not sure what hold actually means. Temp and aspect establish "hold" and frankly Stowe is a bit too East facing and tends to lose snow a bit more quickly. Stowe gets more snow, especially where they measure it. (at the "stake"). But not enough, to say it is 50% more.

Since you were at Sugarbush in April, you were probably skiing the spring trails, which to the chagrin of a lot of us at Sugarbush are at low elevation at South (as opposed to the top of North). You didn't ski North which is a major area in its own right. And summits higher than the lifts at Stowe.