We need a MRG thread

[GrilledSteezeSandwich]

I agree..kind of like how Tattoos are mainstream as even nerds have tattoos now..not just biker dudes(Not Schwinns)....so since I have no ink..I'm a rebel..

 

[campgottagopee]

I’d get rid of the single chair and I’d allow snowboarders. Both strike me as backwards thinking.

i agree--I don't pretend to know didly about MRG other than I like skiing there the few times I've been. From a biz stand point I would think they're missing out on mucho $$$ by still having the silly snowboard ban.

 

[SKidds]

i agree--I don't pretend to know didly about MRG other than I like skiing there the few times I've been. From a biz stand point I would think they're missing out on mucho $$$ by still having the silly snowboard ban.

Thanks for the good segway into further exploring HPD's backward thinking stance, because his 'snowboarders are main stream' response didn't elucidate me .

Why is it that MRG has the ban on snowboarders? As pointed out, is is probably a no brainer to conclude that they are passing up a beaucoup amount of the almightly dollar by keeping the ban. But perhaps for MRG it isn't all about the dollar. Perhaps for them it is all about the best quality ski conditions for the majority of their target demographic. Emphasis on quality of skiing over a buck. I wouldn't call that backward thinking...........although it could be considered foolish thinking if they were a publically traded company.

Thoughts? Before you can label MRG's position as backward thinking I think you have to evaluate the reasons they've taken those positions in the first place. MRG could let boarders in, but why don't they? They could replace the single, but why don't they? Should maximizing ticket sales (assuming allowing snowboarders to ride a high speed quad to the Starke's Nest would do so at MRG) be the ultimate goal for any mountain. What say you try to answer some of those questions and we'll see where it leads..........

 

[GrilledSteezeSandwich]

I bet the bumps would be bigger if they installed a 6-pack..

 

[campgottagopee]

Thanks for the good segway into further exploring HPD's backward thinking stance, because his 'snowboarders are main stream' response didn't elucidate me .

Why is it that MRG has the ban on snowboarders? As pointed out, is is probably a no brainer to conclude that they are passing up a beaucoup amount of the almightly dollar by keeping the ban. But perhaps for MRG it isn't all about the dollar. Perhaps for them it is all about the best quality ski conditions for the majority of their target demographic. Emphasis on quality of skiing over a buck. I wouldn't call that backward thinking...........although it could be considered foolish thinking if they were a publically traded company.

Thoughts? Before you can label MRG's position as backward thinking I think you have to evaluate the reasons they've taken those positions in the first place. MRG could let boarders in, but why don't they? They could replace the single, but why don't they? Should maximizing ticket sales (assuming allowing snowboarders to ride a high speed quad to the Starke's Nest would do so at MRG) be the ultimate goal for any mountain. What say you try to answer some of those questions and we'll see where it leads..........

Well aren't you just the cool kid :-o

I could really care less about "WHY" MRG does what they do---I'm sure they have their reasons and that's fine. I just don't agree with them. Guess what really ticks me off is that I have friends (who board) that would love to rip that place up but can't because they "aren't allowed". Does that make sense??? Not to me...

 

[SKidds]

Actually, I personally don't really care much why either, although I'm ok with it. But if HPD want to claim their position represents 'backwards thinking' we have to have a discussion about what their thinking is, no? That't the why part. Sorry if you aren't COOL with that .

 

[highpeaksdrifter]

Actually, I personally don't really care much why either, although I'm ok with it. But if HPD want to claim their position represents 'backwards thinking' we have to have a discussion about what their thinking is, no? That't the why part. Sorry if you aren't COOL with that .

Maybe I shouldn't have said backward thinking, it sounds disparaging. How about out dated thinking?

I really don’t care how they run their business, I get thousands of skiers wouldn't change a thing, but for some reason you wanted to know my thoughts so I answered you with them.

 

[ski220]

MRG could let boarders in, but why don't they? They could replace the single, but why don't they? ..

1) Snowboarders would ruin the snow/slopes. Not every boarder scrapes their way down, but a lot do. And all it takes is a few to ruin it for everyone.

2) The co-op did replace the original single. It's just that they replaced it with another single. Personally I disagree with that decision. They could have put up a double and spaced the chairs out.

 

[campgottagopee]

1) Snowboarders would ruin the snow/slopes. Not every boarder scrapes their way down, but a lot do. And all it takes is a few to ruin it for everyone.

2) The co-op did replace the original single. It's just that they replaced it with another single. Personally I disagree with that decision. They could have put up a double and spaced the chairs out.

A lot of skiers do to---that bucket ain't holdin water

 

[ski220]

1) Snowboarders would ruin the snow/slopes. Not every boarder scrapes their way down, but a lot do. And all it takes is a few to ruin it for everyone.

2) The co-op did replace the original single. It's just that they replaced it with another single. Personally I disagree with that decision. They could have put up a double and spaced the chairs out.

A lot of skiers do to---that bucket ain't holdin water

Skiers don't descend an entire face 90 degrees to the slope. The bucket may leak, but it holds A LOT of water.

 

[Geoff]

1) Snowboarders would ruin the snow/slopes. Not every boarder scrapes their way down, but a lot do. And all it takes is a few to ruin it for everyone.

2) The co-op did replace the original single. It's just that they replaced it with another single. Personally I disagree with that decision. They could have put up a double and spaced the chairs out.

If you want to change policy at MRG, start buying shares in the co-op. The owners who put their money down want low traffic and no snowboarders.

 

[GrilledSteezeSandwich]

1) Snowboarders would ruin the snow/slopes. Not every boarder scrapes their way down, but a lot do. And all it takes is a few to ruin it for everyone.

.

I will say that fat skis displace more snow than snowboards due to the surface area...is there a knuckledraggers only mountain??? It's a free country..people with private country clubs can exclude people..why can't a mountain exclude snowboarders..

 

[SKidds]

Maybe I shouldn't have said backward thinking, it sounds disparaging. How about out dated thinking?

I really don’t care how they run their business, I get thousands of skiers wouldn't change a thing, but for some reason you wanted to know my thoughts so I answered you with them.

It's a discussion board, hence we discuss. That is why I wanted to know your thoughts, and I appreciate your input.

Now give me more. Fine, call it outdate thinking. But that thinking would be? Let me help you get started.

MRG has a ban on snowboarders because they think.........................

You fill in the blank.

 

[campgottagopee]

Skiers don't descend an entire face 90 degrees to the slope. The bucket may leak, but it holds A LOT of water.

Mmmmmmmmk :-o You must ski at an all expert hill like MRG or sumthin'

I will say that fat skis displace more snow than snowboards due to the surface area...is there a knuckledraggers only mountain??? It's a free country..people with private country clubs can exclude people..why can't a mountain exclude snowboarders..

Understand what your saying, and your right, but I just don't like it. Just boggles my mind that the almighty "Ski It If You Can" joint doesn't want to pass that "challenge" to boarders. I'm thinkin' they're scared.

 

[ComeBackMudPuddles]

Just boggles my mind that the almighty "Ski It If You Can" joint doesn't want to pass that "challenge" to boarders. I'm thinkin' they're scared.

i think they *know* boarders can't handle it...hence the use of the word *ski*....natural snow trails don't react well to big boards sliding sideways and scraping all the snow.

(i've never actually been to MRG, btw, i just wanted to join the discussion and express my general dislike of the snowboarding fad.)

 

[highpeaksdrifter]

It's a discussion board, hence we discuss. That is why I wanted to know your thoughts, and I appreciate your input.

Now give me more. Fine, call it outdate thinking. But that thinking would be? Let me help you get stated.

MRG has a ban on snowboarders because they think.........................

You fill in the blank.

I was going to ban myself for a while, but you are sucking me in with this very good question. Obviously I don’t know the answer I can only surmise.

How about back in the day they considered snowboarders counter culture, unsafe on the mountain and a bunch of young punks who where vulgar and a deterrent to the skiing experience.

With the exception of a couple of other places this is no longer the thought process as snowboarding is completely mainstream. However, maybe those who make the decisions at MRG still believe in these old stereotypes and therefore refuse to change with the times.

When you think about it there is no other explanation other then prejudice and discrimination that holds water.

 

[GrilledSteezeSandwich]

Boarders wouldn't want to ride Mad River Glen cause there's no halfpipe or terrain park..

 

[GrilledSteezeSandwich]

With Split boards..any snowboarder can ride Mad River Glen..ride the lift with the board split into two skeeze..then at the top..attach them..ride down and if stopped by a redcoat..turn them back into skeeze..

 

[riverc0il]

HPD (and others), you are really blowing the ban out of proportion. It comes down to one thing and one thing alone: the ban is in place because that is the way the shareholders want to keep the mountain. Perhaps it is an emotional response without many valid reasons. Perhaps it gives the place a "country club" feel of elitism. But I love the place and like most shareholders, don't want to change anything about the place. So I think the ban sticks in place because shareholders fear change more than anything else. Whether rational or irrational, that is the best "reason" for the ban.

"Discrimination" is not a good word to describe the no snowboarding policy. No more than it is "discrimination" to require golfers to wear slacks and collared shirts on a golf course (a policy I disagree with but not "discrimination"). Discrimination involves banning people... not equipment or activities (such as sledding down a ski area, also not acceptable). Its not like MRG is a private club, hand selecting members, and keeping entire classes of people out of its walls (*Cough* Augusta National... which is perfectly legal even so).

Some shareholders may have that "dated" "prejudice" as you describe it and think snowboarders are counter culture, young punks, and vulgar. I seriously do not think that most shareholders think that way and why the shareholders only allow skiers. If anything... snowboarding is more main stream than skiing. "Counter culture" tends to eventually become mainstream and make people doing counter culture for that reason in and of itself look rather ironic. It has nothing to do about not liking the culture of snowboarding, but preserving a unique cultural aspect of skiing and preserving the character of the mountain.

 

[highpeaksdrifter]

HPD (and others), you are really blowing the ban out of proportion. .

I'm not blowing it out of proportion. Skidds wants to have an intelligent debate on ideas, I like that kind of thread. You make some good points so now you've joined the discussion.