BenedictGomez
Well-known member
If you're an eastern skier bitching about either Park City or Vail, you clearly don't appreciate your time out west enough.
-
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!
Vail exhausted
- Thread starter ScottySkis
- Start date
If you're an eastern skier bitching about either Park City or Vail, you clearly don't appreciate your time out west enough.
Not Sure
Well-known member
Edd
Well-known member
I’ve not been to PC. Any opinions on which has the heavier crowds, Vail vs. PC?
BenedictGomez
Well-known member
Not Sure
Well-known member
My guess is heart attack wearing white clothes in a white out.
What's Chinese for Jerry?
dblskifanatic
Active member
- Joined
- May 24, 2019
- Messages
- 767
- Points
- 43
That is a really good point! There is something for everyone and lots of it!
Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone
abc
Well-known member
Name the “fun terrain” of Park City you can’t find in Vail, maybe we can give you a hint on where you should go find it in Vail.
It’s entirely possible to NOT appreciate “a trip” (or even 2) out west when you hit poor condition!
After all, one of the biggest reason to go out west is there’s typically much better conditions out there.
Last edited:
abc
Well-known member
Dp
Name the “fun terrain” of Park City you can’t find in Vail, maybe we can give you a hint on where you should go find it in Vail.
I liked Jupiter/McConkey's on the PC side and 9990 and Peak 5 on the Canyons side as much as anything in the back bowls at Vail. That peak as far away from PC as you can get at the Canyons seemed to have some interesting terrain, but was wind scoured when I was there. It could have been a timing issue, but I thought the snow quality was a bit better at PC, too. Vail is a perfectly good place, but it's not going to be everyone's favorite.
Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app
Count me as someone who has little desire to return to Vail. Been a couple of times. I was underwhelmed by both the mountain and town in comparison to other areas I've been in Colorado. Is it better skiing than anything in the East? Sure. But, there are plenty of other places I'd rather return to. If I want the more "tourist" type experience, I'd take Aspen or Breckenridge over Vail. I like the towns and skiing better at both; especially Highlands. A more likely scenario for me would be getting an Airbnb in Dillon and skiing Abasin and Loveland.
No experience with PC or Utah to comment there.
Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app
No experience with PC or Utah to comment there.
Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app
100%. Well said.
I get that there are hardos out there that say they're above Vail - and that's a clown take. That said, if I'm going to make the time/$ investment to get to the Rockies, I'd rather go elsewhere. I haven't been to Aspen since I was a child, but I presume I'd prefer Highlands and Ajax to Vail, too.
Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app
abc
Well-known member
How much have you skied Blue Sky Basin, before we start?
Limited. Had a couple days where the backside was closed due to fog/visibility. Also was there with the wife, who is intermediate and didn't want to venture out that far. When I had the chance to go out by myself my goal was to hit as many of the different backbowls and double diamond rated trails that I could (I made it for a lap down each bowl and hit the side diamonds that didn't involve a mandatory cliff jump under the lift on the front side). That left a few laps in blue sky one afternoon, but far from a comprehensive exploration back there. It was cool - like a different resort from the more accessable parts of the map, but my taste of it didn't inspire me to make it more of a priority. In general, it was disappointingly lower angle - by and large.
When I travel out west, I like to find stuff that is quite steep, but not too the point where it's overly dangerous. Sometimes, I'll admit, I'll push too far. At Vail, I didn't think that there were enough zones where the degree of difficulty was quite there. 9990 and the Jupiter area are more my speed. Hiking over the top of Jupiter and skiing the stuff that faces McConkey's was fun and a good challenge, but felt close to the line of being too dangerous (edit: it's called east face). A fall could lead to serious problems.
Look - I get that the "You didn't ski X resort right" argument is the antithesis to the "I didn't find X resort interesting" claim. If you want to go down that road, that's fine, and I'm sure you hit some cool stuff that I missed in blue sky. I doubt, however, that it's really enough to move the needle for my personal tastes. It's perfectly fine for two people to prefer different experiences. All of the places mentioned in this thread are great successes for a reason.
Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app
Hawk
Well-known member
I've skied Vail twice for a week each. Now mind you both times I skied with a local that worked for Vail so Parking, lodging, tickets and all the other ridiculous costs were taken out of the equation. It snowed a bunch one trip and it snowed a little the other. both trips were Mid-season so snow base was not an issue. My take is that there is so much terrain that when it snows, if you are out early and know where to go, you have a great day. No question. My rub is that its mostly intermediate with not that many sustained steeper runs. That is what I look for usually. Steeper fall line runs. Big Sky, Whistler, Squaw, Jackson and Snowbird are much more to my liking. Also as far as bases go, I prefer Telluride , Aspen or Whistler by far. So when you add in all the excessive costs at Vail, It makes me go elsewhere. Don't get me wrong, there are people who love that place for exactly what it is. As long as my buddy gives me free parking, free lodging and discounted lift vouchers. I will go there. ;-)
abc
Well-known member
I must say that's a highly personal view of skiing out west.
For example, I ski out west for the snow, not so much the terrain. So the lack of terrifying steep in Vail or Park City isn't even an issue for me. (I've skied way steeper terrain than 9990. Still, I enjoy it when I'm at PC, despite its less than adrenaline inducing grade)
Further more, it's the snow that makes many of the terrains skiable out west. There are, I believe, some legitimately steep terrains in the east (Cannon, Whiteface, Stowe?). It's just they're rarely open due to lack of snow, or due to frequent melt-freeze that makes them dangerous. And when they do open, it's far more demanding due to the less than ideal condition. But the same angle runs out west can be easily skied by any half competent skiers much of the season!
Vail obviously isn't in the same league as Jackson or Whistler for expert terrain. But neither is Park City. I've skied 9990 a whole bunch. It's a fun run, but it's no match to say even the easiest line of Highland Bowl. It's a little like Burger King's vs. McDonald's. Does it even matter if one is slightly better than the other in one particular item? But both satisfies the need for food equally well!
(I'm sorry I can't come up with a better analogy than the bottom tier example. Vail and PC are far from bottom tier. But nonetheless, both are really 2nd tier when it's viewed through the single focus lens of sustained steeps)
As you've clearly indicated, you've missed much of the stuff in Blue Sky. Sure, whatever it is, it's not sustained. But then, nor are PC's runs either. I'm not suggesting Vail has better expert terrain than PC (any more than the burger of Burger King more juicy than McDonald's, as their advertisement insist). But I do think it's just as fine a resort overall just like PC, even for advanced skiers, provided you find the right stuff. And it's better in some aspect too, far better. Hence the comment of "you didn't ski resort X right" not being a beat down on anyone's ego, just a friendly suggestion that you may have overlooked the better stuff in resort X.
Last edited:
ScottySkis
Well-known member
This is not why I started this thread. I get its summer time
I will add that my first vacation in West Coast was Vail in February
It was very sunny I got sunburned bad it was huge mountain for sure.
I just like SlC for snow conditions and cheapness of everything and staying in nice town with kitchen in my Motel 6
I will add that my first vacation in West Coast was Vail in February
It was very sunny I got sunburned bad it was huge mountain for sure.
I just like SlC for snow conditions and cheapness of everything and staying in nice town with kitchen in my Motel 6
FBGM
Well-known member
Holy deep throat contest going on.
We get it. You’re all the best skiers from NJ
We get it. You’re all the best skiers from NJ
I've made no such claim (including being "from" NJ), but these conversations intimately devolve into people like you getting butthurt - so thanks for reminding me it's time to be done with this conversation.
Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app
My X resort comment refers to the circularly of the conversation. Becomes unproductive after a while.I must say that's a highly personal view of skiing out west.
For example, I ski out west for the snow, not so much the terrain. So the lack of terrifying steep in Vail or Park City isn't even an issue for me. (I've skied way steeper terrain than 9990. Still, I enjoy it when I'm at PC, despite its less than adrenaline inducing grade)
Further more, it's the snow that makes many of the terrains skiable out west. There are, I believe, some legitimately steep terrains in the east (Cannon, Whiteface, Stowe?). It's just they're rarely open due to lack of snow, or due to frequent melt-freeze that makes them dangerous. And when they do open, it's far more demanding due to the less than ideal condition. But the same angle runs out west can be easily skied by any half competent skiers much of the season!
Vail obviously isn't in the same league as Jackson or Whistler for expert terrain. But neither is Park City. I've skied 9990 a whole bunch. It's a fun run, but it's no match to say even the easiest line of Highland Bowl. It's a little like Burger King's vs. McDonald's. Does it even matter if one is slightly better than the other in one particular item? But both satisfies the need for food equally well!
(I'm sorry I can't come up with a better analogy than the bottom tier example. Vail and PC are far from bottom tier. But nonetheless, both are really 2nd tier when it's viewed through the single focus lens of sustained steeps)
As you've clearly indicated, you've missed much of the stuff in Blue Sky. Sure, whatever it is, it's not sustained. But then, nor are PC's runs either. I'm not suggesting Vail has better expert terrain than PC (any more than the burger of Burger King more juicy than McDonald's, as their advertisement insist). But I do think it's just as fine a resort overall just like PC, even for advanced skiers, provided you find the right stuff. And it's better in some aspect too, far better. Hence the comment of "you didn't ski resort X right" not being a beat down on anyone's ego, just a friendly suggestion that you may have overlooked the better stuff in resort X.
Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app
