Mountain Vertical updates - all New England ski areas

[riverc0il]

I would dispute several of the numbers above based on having personally reviewed topo maps. Heck, I am half tempted to altimeter test some of these so called "true ups". But I probably won't cause in the grand scheme of things, it isn't an issue I care about that much. But I do care about ski areas being slandered with unfounded data, especially that proporting to be scientifically founded. I was on the fence about this true up thing at the start. Now I say its bunk. Let's keep the vert as the ski areas hype them with non-continuous vert and rounding and all. Heck with it. This attempt has proven its folly to attempt to dispute the established system We all know so many areas really are off. But by that much? Nah. Some numbers are bumped a smidge to hit a benchmark number but this is just junk science.

I do like this...It definitely gives you a better measurement of a mountain's true vertical....Having said that, I don't understand Saddleback...That doesn't appear accurate. You can certainly ski all 2k vertical from top-bottom. There's some runout out but it's fall line vertical.

Saddleback does not make sense but don't forget that the beginner quad is below the base area. That couldn't be more than 100-200 vert. I could buy a true up vert of 1800' but the number above seems WAY off.

 

[MV Frank]

Man...out of roughly 500 ski resorts in North America, the #1 most controversial out of everything continues to be KILLINGTON. Almost every single resort listing is dispute-free, but killington seems to always stick out. No one is getting riled up about SUNDAY RIVER getting chopped vertical, or SMUGGS getting chopped down, or removing snubber from SUGARLOAF...that's because the rest of the hundreds of ski resorts out there are cut and dry cases, where it is totally clear that true-up makes sense to anyone with half a brain.

...and then there is Killington...the ONE tricky one that will forever spark heated debate. People get angry and fired up at the K1 measurement, rant and denounce the metric as a result. But if we were to put out a number of ~3000 ft vertical, others will lash out "bullshit, a REAL 3000 ft fall line is Snowbird's drop, not traversing across intersections at Killington." For all other ski resorts it is very clear, but Killy's a strange case that's a pain to report on.

The SPIRIT of the True-up stat is to provide something meaningful and informative (and certainly not to slander resorts)
In this spirit, it is informative to report that Killington offers roughly 1650 vertical of advanced fall line terrain
It is also informative to report that Killington offers about 2500 vertical of mostly green terrain, long winding trails (skye to skyeship)

Don't you get it? True-up is simply a means to standardize everything behind a name. It is not about the stat...it is about the spirit, and the the spirit here is to provide better information. Don't discount that.

Oakapple actually called us out on something we said we were going to do a long time ago, but didn't do -- provide multiple numbers for Killington and allow the readers decide what's important to them. That was way back in October in AlpineZone forums...and we never got around to it. Blame is on part laziness and part complexity in getting it done (the database behind the site really isn't set up to report multiple numbers like this...we gotta 'hack' it bit). But no more excuses...it is up now:

http://mountainvertical.com/biggest-skiing-in-new-england.html#59

All three numbers are there:
1645 ft maximum fall line - K1
2551 ft of continuous run from skye to skyeship, namely great eastern
3033 ft from the top of catwalk to skyeship, if you choose to do that

People will continue to debate about killington, which is why we now provide all the info on MV.
But for those of you saying this is an 'arbitrary' metric, consider that Killington is a really weird case, and that for 99% of resorts out there, the determination of true-up stat is very clear.

Anyway, hope this helps calm things down and make a little peace. There was a lot of hard work going into this, I hate to see it shit on because everyone disagrees with Killington's stat. Get with the spirit of what we're trying to do here.

 

[MV Frank]

oh yeah, and I forgot to mention
@ riverc0il:
Saddleback is 1719 ft if you include the greens at the bottom, but 1542 ft on all runs from the summit to the lodge. Check the topos if you doubt it yourself.

yes, they did round up 1719 up to 2000 feet.

 

[deadheadskier]

The SPIRIT of the True-up stat is to provide something meaningful and informative (and certainly not to slander resorts)
In this spirit, it is informative to report that Killington offers roughly 1650 vertical of advanced fall line terrain
It is also informative to report that Killington offers about 2500 vertical of mostly green terrain, long winding trails (skye to skyeship)

Don't you get it? True-up is simply a means to standardize everything behind a name. It is not about the stat...it is about the spirit, and the the spirit here is to provide better information. Don't discount that.

True Up does not provide something meaningful and informative

True Up provides your opinion

Your data is highly subjective

In the case of Sugarloaf. Why ommit the snubber pod? How do you know if it's not someone's preference when they ski there to ski from the top of Tote all the way down to the Shipyard Brewhaus. It might not be YOUR particular preference on how to ski the mountain, but it could be someone elses.

Compare that to Mt. Ellen at Sugarbush. What's the difference with cutting out the Summit Quad's Vert at Sugarbush vs the Snubber Quad's Vert at Sugarloaf? Most people I know don't ski Sugarbush North top to bottom. But, they could if they wanted to.

Ultimately, any 'veteran' skier who's got 100 days on the snow knows how to read between the lines when researching areas. Most people with less than that simply don't care.

Yes, mountains do 'stretch the truth' of what they've got. While an interesting read, I don't think your website does all that much to paint an accurate picture. It offers your opinion and that's about it.

By the way, the cheeseburger on the poster at Wendy's? Never had one that looked that good.

 

[deadheadskier]

Anyway, hope this helps calm things down and make a little peace. There was a lot of hard work going into this, I hate to see it shit on because everyone disagrees with Killington's stat. Get with the spirit of what we're trying to do here.

Lastly,

Your attitude about True Up is rather smug. You seem like the type of guy who can't admit when they're wrong. The authority behind your statements regarding how ski areas should be viewed is pretty much equally as off putting as how mountains market themselves by stretching the truth.

There maybe some metric to truly measure a mountain. I just don't think you've hit it.

 

[riverc0il]

I stand corrected on Saddleback, that is shocking! Not even 1800' if you include the beginner area at the bottom. Scandalous!

True-up is simply a means to standardize everything behind a name. It is not about the stat...

That said, I still think you shouldn't be applying a word like "standardize" to your project. You are just changing the measurement reported. The STANDARD is top to bottom vert, continuous or not. Like it or not, that takes the subjectivity out of the equation.

I appreciate your efforts to true up incorrectly reported vertical (such as Saddleback's). Let's call out those scamming marketers (and I'll say that even though I LOVE Saddleback!) for taking an exaggeration and spinning it into a complete and total fabrication.

You seem defensive about the K vs other areas. Here is the difference I have observed here. NO ONE sets a goal to ski Loaf top to Snubber bottom unless they are going back to their condos. No one sets a goal to ski Jordan or Oz Peak down to White Cap base as a skiing run unless they truly need to get to White Cap Base for a reason. Folks on here report that folks DO ski K Peak to Route 4 and not just as an end of day run. I find it hard to imagine, I certainly wouldn't do it, but I can see why a beginner or intermediate skier or someone that loves a lower angle T2B long ripping groomer run might love that sort of thing. Your 'standards' imply everyone else shares your definition of continuous vertical.

Damned if I never stop dissing Sugarbush for its run outs. But that doesn't mean both Bush North and South don't have legit claim to well over 2k' T2B vert. I think it SUCKS skiing those mountains top to bottom. Some folks love it. Whatev. Maybe some folks love ripping K top to bottom, I dunno. There are just too many factors, too many ways to measure by too many standards. It convinced me that the current and actual standard is probably better than any other.

That don't excuse resorts for exaggerating vertical feet in increments of hundreds of feet though

 

[jaywbigred]

Lastly,

Your attitude about True Up is rather smug. You seem like the type of guy who can't admit when they're wrong. The authority behind your statements regarding how ski areas should be viewed is pretty much equally as off putting as how mountains market themselves by stretching the truth.

There maybe some metric to truly measure a mountain. I just don't think you've hit it.

I disagree. I haven't seen anything that really qualifies as "smug" from him, unless it is in another thread. I haven't seen anything to evidence that he cannot admit when he is wrong.

But what I have seen is you kind of being an a$$ to him when all he has done is tried to explain himself. He even tailored the website and the description of Killington to pair nicely with all the Kmart whine.

Your combativeness seems unprovoked, honestly (again, unless I am missing some part of this story). His attempts at accurately reporting vert might not be perfect, but they are a hell of a lot better than what most mountains report.

And while obviously there is subjectivity to "True Up", imo a researched, thoughtful, and articulate opinion that attempts to paint an honest picture is better than thoughtless adherence to straight math that is used to paint a patently dishonest picture.

I am not singling out any one resort either, because if one does it, then they all, kinda, have to do it, or risk losing customers [unless they want to try to warrant for that by putting up a loud "Truth in Vert" advertisement/notice, like some have done with Snow Reporting]. Thus, they are all guilty, but all blameless...unless you could find out who did it first, many years ago...

 

[skidmarks]

Nice report! Does the Thunderbolt really have 1900 Vert??

I find it amazing that you could have had a real 2,000 vertical drop resort at Mt Greylock in Ma that would have put it ahead of Jay Peak and Mad River Glen. Talk about a missed opportunity. I know they tried to develop Greylock Glen but that would have been a small 700ish area.

 

[trackbiker]

Man...out of roughly 500 ski resorts in North America, the #1 most controversial out of everything continues to be KILLINGTON. Almost every single resort listing is dispute-free, but killington seems to always stick out. No one is getting riled up about SUNDAY RIVER getting chopped vertical, or SMUGGS getting chopped down, or removing snubber from SUGARLOAF...that's because the rest of the hundreds of ski resorts out there are cut and dry cases, where it is totally clear that true-up makes sense to anyone with half a brain.

...and then there is Killington...the ONE tricky one that will forever spark heated debate. People get angry and fired up at the K1 measurement, rant and denounce the metric as a result. But if we were to put out a number of ~3000 ft vertical, others will lash out "bullshit, a REAL 3000 ft fall line is Snowbird's drop, not traversing across intersections at Killington." For all other ski resorts it is very clear, but Killy's a strange case that's a pain to report on.

Frank, You miss the whole point. It's not that you chop vertical. It's how you do it subjectively.
Read RiverCoils post on Sugarbush for example. You don't apply the same subjective measurements there as you do to at Killington. It's not Killington. It's your subjective measurements that are not applied consistently.
I'm in the group that doesn't really take into account what anyone says about the vertical when deciding where to ski. I had map reading in second grade. I can figure it out myself. Most people end up skiing pods anyway. I just hate BS marketing and your methodology does nothing to help because there is no objectivity in your numbers.

 

[threecy]

But I do care about ski areas being slandered with unfounded data, especially that proporting to be scientifically founded. I was on the fence about this true up thing at the start. Now I say its bunk.

Well said.

 

[riverc0il]

That's it. I am going all in with a defense of the Loaf's vertical RE: the Snubber lift. For the record, I hardly ever ski the Loaf and I am no Loaf homer. Not that a Loaf homer couldn't make the same argument but I want to state up front that I have no defensive bias here.

I bet beginners and intermediates skiing snowfields to Snubber are blown away by all that skiing. I bet its HARD for them to keep skiing down the Snubber after already having skied 2200 vert from the summit. Even if its not hard to add the Snubber, I bet they are truly blown away by that much vertical and how different it is from other mountains. Even if it is not sustained steep vertical, it is irrelevant. They skied it, they were probably impressed by it, and its a legit reason for skiing the Loaf... to experience that type of vertical drop.... EVEN if only skiing T2B just to get back to a condo.... even for an expert skier. That's still a crap ton of vert.

Yes, it is not continuous expert pitch. But WHAT mountain in New England has continuous Top to Bottom expert pitch. HOW can you say the Snubber is not legit because it is a run out but other mountains with run outs count, just because you HAVE to ski them to get back to certain lifts if going Top to (almost but not quite excepting a base area trail) Bottom. I cited the Bush earlier for bad run out. Same with Jay. The entire Metro Quad area and the last 100-200' stateside is strictly figure 11'ing back to the lift. Boring! Still part of the vert. Have to ski it though. But I don't have to ski the Snubber if I don't want and personally I normally wouldn't except staying at a condo so therefore it doesn't count even though some other folks might enjoy that sorta thing?

I disagree with how you are truing up mountain vertical. Loaf is legit, IMO. So is Sunday River. So is Killington. Just because that is not how I personally ski the mountain does not mean that it is not an option that some skiers want to do and enjoy. I think you are better off dropping the subjectivity from the site and focusing on actual vertical numbers. I agree that two non-interconnected mountains should be called out for using non-continuous numbers. Biggest continuous vert only as a measuring tool for those mountains is important. But if the vertical is all continuous, you are not applying a standard but rather you are applying subjectivity that others can and will disagree with. Standards are universally accepted.

 

[deadheadskier]

oh yeah, and I forgot to mention
@ riverc0il:
Saddleback is 1719 ft if you include the greens at the bottom, but 1542 ft on all runs from the summit to the lodge. Check the topos if you doubt it yourself.

yes, they did round up 1719 up to 2000 feet.

Does the 1719 figure measure from the top of the lift or the top of the snowfields? I do believe Saddleback counts their snowfields in their vertical measurement just as Sugarloaf does.

just curious

 

[threecy]

I do believe Saddleback counts their snowfields in their vertical measurement just as Sugarloaf does.

I believe Saddleback does, though it's a bit more of a stretch than Sugarloaf, since it's more of a hike to get to the summit from the top of their lift.

 

[Puck it]

Who cares. Shut up and ski the damn mountain and enjoy it. Crap, I would be happy skiing Nashoba today instead of working.

 

[tjf67]

Whiteface has 2300 vert off of the gondi. Off of the summit chair there is 1600 ft vert. You can ski from the summit to the bottom for 3200 vert and it is all storng Intermediate(blacks at other mountains) and Blacks. Suragloaf is the the only hill in the East that compares from a vert stand point, The only problem is it will take an hour to get to the top. Well i can not comment on Wildcat cause I have never been there. Sugarbush, Stowe, Smuggs come in after that. K I put in a class with Gore and Jay peak. Cannon is steep but short. May be if the Tram were running that would not have been my opinion.

All the other hills are feeder hills
:beer:

 

[jimmywilson69]

Folks on here report that folks DO ski K Peak to Route 4 and not just as an end of day run. I find it hard to imagine, I certainly wouldn't do it, but I can see why a beginner or intermediate skier or someone that loves a lower angle T2B long ripping groomer run might love that sort of thing. Your 'standards' imply everyone else shares your definition of continuous vertical.

As someone who ski's the Kpeak to rt 4 route several times while I visit K, I can confirm (as others have) that is it is possible, and should count. Being from PA I ski short 600-700 vert runs, so eventhough I classify myself a level 8-9 skier, I also enjoy taking a long groomers. especially on cold days, because the family likes to ride the gondola to get warm.

 

[riverc0il]

Cannon is steep but short:

How can you tell someone is a Whiteface skier?

They think 2k vert is short.

:lol:

 

[oakapple]

Oakapple actually called us out on something we said we were going to do a long time ago, but didn't do -- provide multiple numbers for Killington and allow the readers decide what's important to them. That was way back in October in AlpineZone forums...and we never got around to it. Blame is on part laziness and part complexity in getting it done (the database behind the site really isn't set up to report multiple numbers like this...we gotta 'hack' it bit). But no more excuses...it is up now:.....

People will continue to debate about killington, which is why we now provide all the info on MV. But for those of you saying this is an 'arbitrary' metric, consider that Killington is a really weird case, and that for 99% of resorts out there, the determination of true-up stat is very clear.

Although you've now added what amounts to a "footnote" for Killington, your primary stat remains the subjective one, namely, your opinion of the longest run you would personally be interested in doing. As other folks have noted, this subjectivity affects your "rating" of many other mountains, not just Killington.

To really do it right, you probably need 2 or 3 numbers, rather than just one. For instance:

1) Highest lift-serviced terrain to lowest lift-serviced terrain, even if not connected.

2) Longest possible continuous run, even if part of it is green.

3) Your stat, namely, "the most vertical distance at a resort that can be achieved on commonly skied, lift-served, continuous fall-line runs."

Another possible approach is to show green, blue, and black. For instance, at Killington I don't see any conceivable argument that Great Eastern is NOT a legitimate, top-to-bottom continuous run. The only reason you're excluding it is that it's green (although G.E. would probably be blue at many resorts).

The point being: to an extent, you're accusing the mountains of shading the truth, and there is nothing false about including green runs in the true vertical.

 

[tipsdown]

I stand corrected on Saddleback, that is shocking! Not even 1800' if you include the beginner area at the bottom. Scandalous!


That said, I still think you shouldn't be applying a word like "standardize" to your project. You are just changing the measurement reported. The STANDARD is top to bottom vert, continuous or not. Like it or not, that takes the subjectivity out of the equation.

I appreciate your efforts to true up incorrectly reported vertical (such as Saddleback's). Let's call out those scamming marketers (and I'll say that even though I LOVE Saddleback!) for taking an exaggeration and spinning it into a complete and total fabrication.

You seem defensive about the K vs other areas. Here is the difference I have observed here. NO ONE sets a goal to ski Loaf top to Snubber bottom unless they are going back to their condos. No one sets a goal to ski Jordan or Oz Peak down to White Cap base as a skiing run unless they truly need to get to White Cap Base for a reason. Folks on here report that folks DO ski K Peak to Route 4 and not just as an end of day run. I find it hard to imagine, I certainly wouldn't do it, but I can see why a beginner or intermediate skier or someone that loves a lower angle T2B long ripping groomer run might love that sort of thing. Your 'standards' imply everyone else shares your definition of continuous vertical.

Damned if I never stop dissing Sugarbush for its run outs. But that doesn't mean both Bush North and South don't have legit claim to well over 2k' T2B vert. I think it SUCKS skiing those mountains top to bottom. Some folks love it. Whatev. Maybe some folks love ripping K top to bottom, I dunno. There are just too many factors, too many ways to measure by too many standards. It convinced me that the current and actual standard is probably better than any other.

That don't excuse resorts for exaggerating vertical feet in increments of hundreds of feet though

As discussed, not that it matters much but.....Saddleback does have 2k of vert. The topo you're looking at is outdated. About 5 years ago they extended the learning area down and installed a quad. The topo maps referenced still show the T-Bar with the smaller learning area. If you look carefully you'll notice that the new trail network (that extends further down the mountain) isn't even on the map. Yes they do include the snowfields. But I wouldn't consider this scandelous. If your going to nail them on snowfields then it's more like 1880 of vert. If you don't then it's 2k.

 

[Riverskier]

Frank, I like the site. While there is clearly some subjectivity, I find this a much more meaningful measure of a resort's vert than what is reported by ski areas. For the record, I ski at Sunday River and ski from the top of Oz/Jordan to the bottom of Barker/White Cap at least once per day and enjoy it. However, I still agree that the vert you are reporting for SR is a much more meaningful number.