Mountain Vertical updates...Sugarbush and Killington

[MV Frank]

The beginner thing in my post, I wrote down too fast before thinking about what I wrote, so I'll take back that sentence as too broad of a generalization. That's fair.

Reality is for that 99% of resorts, it is extremely cut-and-dry obvious, with 1% where there will be more than one interpretation.

Practically speaking, correcting whistler's "one mile" claim, bringing Sunday river to 1600 from 2300, not letting dozens of ski areas get away with "rounding up" to the next 100, knocking down deer valley from 3000 to 1900. All that is clear as day - no one gonna dispute it. And like I said, its 99% of cases.

But then in the 1% of cases you got a really weird terrain layout like killington, there has to be an element of both art + science. I mean we're talking about skiability here - which means that there needs an element of evaluation on top of pure technical measurement. It is a necessity. You have to ski it youself (the art) as well as survey the public (I guess this can be the science part). In fact, all you guys are data points...meaning that if there are enough people that have skied the mountain and have a differing interpretation about skiability, then we change it.

I will reiterate again that its literally about 1% of cases. There will always be some controversial cases, but overall we're trying to put something together that is as useful as possible.

This also leads to the last thing I said before which is to eventually include all the details. That is fully transparency into it and gives people a way to see how the stats apply to them. Like eventually for killington, we'd make a ton of extra notes that make it easy for all different types of skiers to get a gauge on how they ski the mtn.

Sound fair?

 

[MV Frank]

Actually, I Just talked with one of the other guys who is a part of the site.

For the 1% of controversial cases, we want to provide more than one number if there are multiple ways of reading what it should be. This means that for the few ski resorts with lots shades of gray (like killington), if a lot of people interpret k1 as the one and others see it differently, we provide both, in bold letters and big font, on the site.

What are your thoughts on that?

This site is in its infancy, with the goal of being as useful as possible. We're constantly trying to make it better. We THANK you for your thoughts and opinions, as it helps us evolve as we move forward.

 

[oakapple]

Actually, I Just talked with one of the other guys who is a part of the site.

For the 1% of controversial cases, we want to provide more than one number if there are multiple ways of reading what it should be. This means that for the few ski resorts with lots shades of gray (like killington), if a lot of people interpret k1 as the one and others see it differently, we provide both, in bold letters and big font, on the site.

I think you guys are definitely headed in the right direction.

 

[ski_resort_observer]

After checking out the eastern resorts on Frank's list it should be pointed out that most of the resorts numbers check out.

When I went to the central rocky mtn resorts I wanted to check only one resort. I was living and working at JH when we heard on the radio that Big Sky's new lift to the top of Lone Peak put their vert over JH. Keep in mind that JH's vert was a big marketing thing, for years it was "ski the big one". We knew it was a scam cause to do the vert at BS you had to take a lift up to continue skiing to the bottom. Good job Frank! I wish you were around in circa 1994. Course, the internet wasn't around just yet either. :lol: BTW Big Sky has been owned by Boyne for many years.

If remember a couple of years later Snowmass built a lift to give them greater vert than JH but we all felt that it was legit and I believe JH dropped the "ski the big one" moniker at that time.

 

[RootDKJ]

Actually, I Just talked with one of the other guys who is a part of the site.

For the 1% of controversial cases, we want to provide more than one number if there are multiple ways of reading what it should be. This means that for the few ski resorts with lots shades of gray (like killington), if a lot of people interpret k1 as the one and others see it differently, we provide both, in bold letters and big font, on the site.

What are your thoughts on that?

This site is in its infancy, with the goal of being as useful as possible. We're constantly trying to make it better. We THANK you for your thoughts and opinions, as it helps us evolve as we move forward.

Why not reach out to the ski area in question and ask them to justify their vert claims?

 

[oakapple]

Why not reach out to the ski area in question and ask them to justify their vert claims?

I don't think you would get very helpful responses.

Also, in a pretty significant number of cases, the resorts' claims are technically correct, and MountainVertical.com is making a judgment call that most skiers wouldn't actually ski the whole way, top to bottom, in one run. There's a mixture of cases where it is literally impossible, and those where it is merely unlikely, to varying degrees.

 

[RootDKJ]

I don't think you would get very helpful responses.

But wouldn't it be interesting :smash:

 

[oakapple]

Another example of "truthful fibbing" is the so-called "longest run," such as Killington's Juggernaut, which is practically cross-country most of the way.

 

[frankm938]

Agreed, plus lets think about the fact that most resorts in the east whether 1500ft of vert or 3300ft of vert most customers only do about 1500ft of vert in one run. Whether it's Sugarloaf, Killington, Jay, Cannon, or Sunapee, Magic, or Mt Snow, you are generally going to do about 1500ft of vert on a fair amount of your runs. So at the end of the day vert has little effect on people, it's what makes up the 1500ft vert that plays a more important roll in what people think of a mountain...

ding ding ding. i agree, and would add that its not just eastern resorts that you ski 1500 at a time. its the same with western resorts (at least for the expert terrain).
even heli skiing operations that claim 8000+ vert are only skied 1500-2000' at a time (ive been to the selkirks, monashees and bugaboos and nobody was complaining about run length)

 

[frankm938]

Q: What do you call a 2nd day snowboarder?

A: An instructor


Barnibus is pretty much the best snowboarder at Killington and one of the nicest guys you'll ever meet. I ski with his father and, on a relative scale, us old guys are total hacks.

is barnibus name James? because james (the kid with the yellow knee patches who competes in the bmmc) is the best snowboarder ive ever seen at any mtn, not just killington. wonder if hes the same guy

 

[Mapnut]

Wow! Windham Mountain lists 1600 foot vertical on their web site. Mountain Vertical lists Windham as 1400 foot vertical. That is a huge 200 foot or 14 percent difference.

Who is right?

Mountain Vertical is correct. It's easy to verify just by looking at the topo: http://msrmaps.com/advfind.aspx You can use the aerial photographs at Msrmaps to locate the tops and bottoms of lifts if not shown on the topo. As I mentioned, there are a lot of areas on Mountainvertical.com where that still needs to be done.

 

[threecy]

For me, I think the most useful vertical stat is maximum vertical served by one alpine lift (ie not counting Slidebrook Express). Beyond that, it seems like there is a lot of opinion involved in coming up with non summit-base numbers.

 

[oakapple]

Wow! Windham Mountain lists 1600 foot vertical on their web site. Mountain Vertical lists Windham as 1400 foot vertical. That is a huge 200 foot or 14 percent difference.

Windham claims that their Chair A, all by itself, is 1550 feet. (The remaining 50 feet would probably be the run-out down to the lodge.) So this is a difference that can't be accounted for by MountainVertical's methodology.

Hunter stats says 1600 foot vertical while Mountain Vertical lists Hunter as 1520. I am willing to give Hunter the 80 feet or 5 percent extra. Adding on another 200 feet is a big stretch.

At Hunter, I am guessing that MountainVertical used the AA chair, top to bottom. The remaining 80 feet probably comes from Hunter One, which I think is at a lower elevation, but isn't part of a continuous run down from the top of Hunter West.

 

[jaywbigred]

One example is:


I think both look at it but it is more likely the beginner than the hardcore that is influenced by it. The hardcore can look at a map, pull up a topo, or just know from experience (i.e. VT areas generally have run outs at most VT mountains) to better understand the true vertical that can be expected per run. The beginner does not know to question and is more likely to be swayed by big numbers (sometimes called marketing) than the hardcore skier who knows to question the numbers. And the hardcore skier is more likely to look at areas for terrain than vertical (i.e. Magic Mountain, Black Mountain, etc.). E.g. My favorite upper mountain trail pod at Jay has the least amount of vertical (Jet). Etc.

I completely disagree with this. Having hosted a dozen or so beginner skiers during last season alone, I can vouch that none of them look at stats like Vertical Feet. You might think trail count would be more important, but they don't look at that either. Really, they just want to know how many and how difficult are the greens.

The overriding perspective of most beginners is one of complete intimidation. I think if I were to discuss what "vertical feet" meant, my friends would tell me they would probably search for a mountain with a LOW number, because it would be less intimidating.

And let's be honest, true beginners often stick to bunny slopes and short greens on the lower half of the mountain. Vertical feet, as a metric, is not something beginners look at or care about.

Therefore, I think Frank is right to take the metric and try to translate it into a number from which habitual skiers (i.e., non-beginners) can glean something useful.

 

[AdironRider]

I remember reading before that historically, there have been collaborative initiatives to standardize resort metrics and even create universal metrics that factored in all types of attributes of a resort. Didn't get anywhere because resorts couldn't agree on it.

Obviously vert is not the only measure. Skiable acreage too. Obviously, to rate a mountain, everyone has to ski it themselves and form their own opinion. That's why vert won't matter to you if you already have your own impression. But I think that if you've *never* been to a mtn before, these numeric figures serve as a fairly decent proxy for what to expect.

For example, if I tell someone that has never been to Vail before that the resort offers 3000 vertical feet, then that person would expect 3000 vertical feet of solid downhill. And Vail actually delivers that, which is great.

But along the same token, if I tell someone who has never been to Killington that the resort offers 3000 vertical feet, then that person would expect 3000 vertical feet of solid downhill...and that person would be sorely disappointed. I think it is more fitting and accurate of a statement to say that killington offers about 1600 feet of solid downhill vertical with a *caveat* that it is possible to piece together a 3000 foot run if you don't mind covering a lot of near-flat terrain. That's not solid downhill vertical, though.

If you don't have solid numbers, then its really tough to try to get that quick snapshot of a resort you've never tested for yourself. Numbers are certainly useful in giving you part of the picture (but not the whole story, we acknowledge)


For truly huge mountains, yes you'll often ski it in chunks, but many people also like skiing it as a whole. I was at whistler this year and spent a lot of the time riding 2000 ft runs at a time, but we also live for those peak-to-creeks, racing down 5000 feet of vert without ever slowing down...its divine. You can't do that anywhere else and it puts you in awe of the sheer scale of the mtn -- they deserve credit for that, as well as any resort that enables you to do that.


Another point... if you think about it, true-up vertical or any type of technical ski stat naturally caters towards advanced skiers, not the beginners. A beginner will generally not look up technical mtn stats before visiting a resort (let alone even know what a vertical drop is). It is only the more hardcore skiers that do that. That's a reason why our metric attempts to look for the long fall line without any interruption, not the long green trail.

To this point, I'd say there are 2 reasons why east coasters dream of the west coast:
1. the quality of the powder
2. the sheer scale of mountains

Obviously the quality of snow/grooming is important. But, it's really tough to quantify this in a meaningful way to people. I mean, its not just snow depth, but moisture, quality of powder, etc.

At least we can quantify #2, the sheer scale of the mountain...which is vertical and skiable acreage. It's why we made the site.



Thanks, and yeah we've got lots of ideas in the works. This site is still way in its infancy. We'll be adding to it.

One thing we are definitely looking to do once we finish with all the resorts is start posting details and explanations behind each resort's measurement.

For example, at whistler, you can hike to almost the top of blackcomb peak and shoot down to the left side of lakeside bowl. The trail maps don't even show that clearly. We wouldn't include this as part of true-up because its definitely more of a hidden gem than a commonly skied route, but these are the types of details we'd definitely like to share about every resort.

Cheers

The problem with your metric is its basically just your opinion on a mountains vertical and who would rather ski it that way.

As the Killington guys here have proved, plenty of people ski down to the Skyship base. Just because YOU dont think youd ski doesnt mean plenty of other people wouldnt.

It would be like Jackson Hole only saying they have 3800 vert because you have to traverse out and back a ways in places (aka Hobacks - which involves a pretty boring traverse lift to get out of there as well). We all know that is not the case.

I dont like your site for this reason. Its basically just a jazzed up blog about what you think is awesome, and what you think isnt. Sweet, join the club.

You said it yourself, theres no standard metric for this stuff, so I automatically assume its just your opinion. Im not buying alot of it.

 

[Geoff]

The problem with your metric is its basically just your opinion on a mountains vertical and who would rather ski it that way.

As the Killington guys here have proved, plenty of people ski down to the Skyship base. Just because YOU dont think youd ski doesnt mean plenty of other people wouldnt.

It would be like Jackson Hole only saying they have 3800 vert because you have to traverse out and back a ways in places (aka Hobacks - which involves a pretty boring traverse lift to get out of there as well). We all know that is not the case.

I dont like your site for this reason. Its basically just a jazzed up blog about what you think is awesome, and what you think isnt. Sweet, join the club.

You said it yourself, theres no standard metric for this stuff, so I automatically assume its just your opinion. Im not buying alot of it.

My take-away from all this: Shut up and ski.

 

[oakapple]

I completely disagree with this. Having hosted a dozen or so beginner skiers during last season alone, I can vouch that none of them look at stats like Vertical Feet. You might think trail count would be more important, but they don't look at that either. Really, they just want to know how many and how difficult are the greens.

The overriding perspective of most beginners is one of complete intimidation. I think if I were to discuss what "vertical feet" meant, my friends would tell me they would probably search for a mountain with a LOW number, because it would be less intimidating.

And let's be honest, true beginners often stick to bunny slopes and short greens on the lower half of the mountain. Vertical feet, as a metric, is not something beginners look at or care about.

Therefore, I think Frank is right to take the metric and try to translate it into a number from which habitual skiers (i.e., non-beginners) can glean something useful.

There is a pretty big gulf between bunny-slope beginners and experts. I think most people, if they are going to have any affinity for the sport, pretty quickly get to the point where they are willing to give ANY green a shot. For liability reasons, most ski resorts are pretty conservative with labeling green. Anyone who has learned to make a confident snowplow turn can probably handle the full range of greens without being a danger to himself or others.

I am a mostly green and blue skier. What I generally look for is: how many chairlifts have at least one green route down, as those are the ones I am absolutely positive I will be able to do comfortably, at any mountain. (Blues comprehend a much broader range of difficulty, though I can usually handle them.) I do look for height, because a larger vertical means there is more variety, better scenery, and less time waiting in lift lines.

I do think Frank got Killington wrong, as Great Eastern down to the bottom of Skyeship is a real run that plenty of people consider a worthwhile challenge. Although it is labeled green, it is certainly beyond somebody’s first day off the bunny slopes.

 

[Mapnut]

Windham claims that their Chair A, all by itself, is 1550 feet. (The remaining 50 feet would probably be the run-out down to the lodge.) So this is a difference that can't be accounted for by MountainVertical's methodology.

That's just a plain old bald-faced lie. Don't put it past any ski area operator. The top of the mountain is, at most, 3050 feet. A 1550-foot drop would put the bottom of the lift at 1500 feet. You can see on the topo that that elevation only occurs a half-mile past the base lodge, past all the parking lots, across a road and right on the bank of Batavia Kill.

http://msrmaps.com/image.aspx?T=2&S=12&Z=18&X=701&Y=5853&W=3&qs=|windham|ny|

Also: http://www.skilifts.org/old/install_na1993.htm

 

[Geoff]

There is a pretty big gulf between bunny-slope beginners and experts. I think most people, if they are going to have any affinity for the sport, pretty quickly get to the point where they are willing to give ANY green a shot. For liability reasons, most ski resorts are pretty conservative with labeling green. Anyone who has learned to make a confident snowplow turn can probably handle the full range of greens without being a danger to himself or others.

I am a mostly green and blue skier. What I generally look for is: how many chairlifts have at least one green route down, as those are the ones I am absolutely positive I will be able to do comfortably, at any mountain. (Blues comprehend a much broader range of difficulty, though I can usually handle them.) I do look for height, because a larger vertical means there is more variety, better scenery, and less time waiting in lift lines.

I do think Frank got Killington wrong, as Great Eastern down to the bottom of Skyeship is a real run that plenty of people consider a worthwhile challenge. Although it is labeled green, it is certainly beyond somebody’s first day off the bunny slopes.

An advanced skier or snowboarder can look at a trail map, double check with friends, and trivially filter out all the marketing B.S. All the superlatives and inflated numbers are targeted at the occasional skier who doesn't have the same word of mouth sanity check on all the hype. Most of those are intermediates.

 

[deadheadskier]

An advanced skier or snowboarder can look at a trail map, double check with friends, and trivially filter out all the marketing B.S.

I agree with this 100%. I haven't been anywhere new in the passed ten years where I arrived and didn't have a fairly decent expectation of what I was going to ski. If only slightly, it's been the smaller areas like Mt. Abram and Shawnee Peak that have skied a bit bigger than I expected them to.