Whiteface = Okemo, but steeper

[tjf67]

Putting the Slides aside though, I've skied about 6-8 days at WF and about 12 at Okemo through the years. In that they groom too much terrain they are similar. There is not an abundant variety of terrain on either mountain. Their runs run towards similarity. Whiteface is much steeper, but that alone doesn't save it from the boring category it shares with not-so-steepkemo. Okemo is more plush and has better snowmaking and grooming skills, also, more bump runs seem to be sprouting this year. I like both mountains for a day, but find both somewhat boring when the day is done.

I have never been lucky enough to be at Whiteface when the slides were open.

Sorry to dump on you a little crank but okemo 12 times?? Really You arguement lost validity with that little factoid.

 

[ComeBackMudPuddles]

Has Okemo ever hosted a World Cup mogul competition? Has Sugarbush or Stowe?

Trails that aren't groomed too often:

* Empire (never)
* Slides (never)
* Upper Cloudspin (almost never)
* Upper Mackenzie (rarely)
* all the glades (obviously)

A pretty decent selection/amount of terrain. They could sometimes ease off of the grooming, but to say WF is like Okemo except that it has a lot more vertical and is a lot more steep is really ridiculous.

It's like saying MRG = Alta, but MRG is much smaller and gets a lot less snow. Silly.

 

[crank]

Sorry to dump on you a little crank but okemo 12 times?? Really You arguement lost validity with that little factoid.

I could go on about the dozens of time to Jay, Stowe, Sugarbush, Killington, Sugarloaf, Cannon, Tucks, JH, Mammoth, Squaw, etc... but why bother. Fact is Okemo bores me and for many of the same reasons so does Whiteface.

 

[campgottagopee]

This thread is really apples-n-oranges. You can't seriously compare the 2 places.............

 

[highpeaksdrifter]

Putting the Slides aside though, I've skied about 6-8 days at WF and about 12 at Okemo through the years. In that they groom too much terrain they are similar. There is not an abundant variety of terrain on either mountain. Their runs run towards similarity. Whiteface is much steeper, but that alone doesn't save it from the boring category it shares with not-so-steepkemo. Okemo is more plush and has better snowmaking and grooming skills, also, more bump runs seem to be sprouting this year. I like both mountains for a day, but find both somewhat boring when the day is done.

I have never been lucky enough to be at Whiteface when the slides were open.

Fair enough, you're entitled to your opinion. I’d just like to pick your brain a little if I may. What ski areas in the East are not boring to you after a day? Where for instance could you happily spend a weeks ski vacation and not be bored and what keeps you interested there?

 

[highpeaksdrifter]

Whiteface gets half as much snow as Stowe..which sucks..

Stowe says 250" yearly, WF reports 168" - more for sure, but not half. The last few years we've been well over that 168".

I just don't believe you've ever skied WF. I can't get past the summit chair thing. Let me try to give you the benefit of the doubt, maybe the summit wasn't open the days you where there. Just tell me this, does the gondi go to the summit of Little WF?

 

[highpeaksdrifter]

Let me play devil's advocate here for a minute. Many WF fans themselves agreed that WF is for the most part a consistently steep groomer hill. A few said so right [thread="17531"]here[/thread]. So in a sense, the OP, while obviously trolling wasn't that far off the mark, was he? Take the Slides and Empire (which aren't open all that often) out of the equation, multipy Okemo's vert by 1.5, and tip the mountain on edge several degrees and do you really have radically different hills?

Just sayin'

Yeah, you really do. I can tell by posts you've made in the past that you've made up your mind about WF without ever skiing there.

 

[deadheadskier]

This thread is really apples-n-oranges. You can't seriously compare the 2 places.............

Without skiing Whiteface, but having skied Okemo several hundred times; I think this is a fair statement looking at things one way.

Just driving by the mountain and seeing how steep sections are, the unrivaled verticle by a long shot on the east coast and the slides, Whiteface has the potential for EPIC days. I'm certain that this is what drives the passion behind the resort. If there's a decent base and the mountain gets two feet of fresh, I'm sure it's as good as anywhere you'll find on the East Coast.

Now Okemo under the same large natural event while probably pretty darn good, would never qualify as Epic in my book. It is completely lacking in steep enough terrain, the glades are nothing to write home about and obviously there's nothing in the same time zone as the Slides at Okemo.

For those reasons, I'd be much more inclined to have WF as my home mountain than Okemo, but that's just me.

I think looking at things another way, Okemo might be a better option. If you're an intermeddiate skier, Okemo is the better mountain. They have vastly more low angle intermediate terrain and as good of grooming and snowmaking as anyone in the biz. It's also a better mountain for families due to the HUGE amount of ski in, ski out lodging. If I had children, this would be a big priority for me.


The great thing about skiing? If you don't like a mountain, no one is forcing you to go there. If you do decide to go anyway, you can always voice your dissatisfaction to mountain operators and maybe things might change if enough riders share your opinion.


This all said, it's clear that the author of this thread is clearly 'trolling'. He has a gripe with Whiteface and is looking to ruffle the feathers of the WF loyalists. Looks like he succeeded at that :lol:

 

[Greg]

Yeah, you really do. I can tell by posts you've made in the past that you've made up your mind about WF without ever skiing there.

If you read my post here and in the thread I linked to, you might notice I asked questions; I didn't make any blanket statements about a place I've never skied so enlighten me. I like more natural variable terrain even if the cover is thin. I would rather ski 1,000 vertical feet of what I would consider interesting terrain over 3K+ of steep groomers any day. That's just my preference. And I'm not talking just about zipperline moguls either. A good smaller scale analogy would be Jiminy vs. Sundown. The former is much steeper and has more vert, but I would probably take Sundown over Jiminy more often than not for no other reason than those silly little seeded bump runs. That's simply more interesting to me than a groomed Jericho.

We tried to set up a visit this year, HPD. You know that. Scheduling just got a bit difficult. With two little ones at home, I only have limited overnight opportunities each season so I would prefer to have an abundance of the type of terrain that I like. So, maybe you're right and that's why I didn't push to make it happen. I know you think SB is overrated, but for me when coupled with MRG, it has a lot of that type of skiing which is consistently open unlike the Slides or Empire, and at a closer drive than Whiteface. Still, I do want to give Whiteface a try. You never know, if we get a repeat of last April and the Slides are open, there's still a chance...

 

[gladerider]

i am no WF loyalist, although i do visit 2-4 times a season. in fact, just came back from WF last night. i ski all over NE and Europe. someone who thinks WF=Okemo is smoking something really good. i need some of those.

 

[ski_resort_observer]

This thread is really apples-n-oranges. You can't seriously compare the 2 places.............

I agree 100%

WF - the adult
Okemo - the child

 

[highpeaksdrifter]

I like more natural variable terrain even if the cover is thin. I would rather ski 1,000 vertical feet of what I would consider interesting terrain over 3K+ of steep groomers any day. That's just my preference. And I'm not talking just about zipperline moguls either. A good smaller scale analogy would be Jiminy vs. Sundown. The former is much steeper and has more vert, but I would probably take Sundown over Jiminy more often than not for no other reason than those silly little seeded bump runs. That's simply more interesting to me than a groomed Jericho.

We tried to set up a visit this year, HPD. You know that. Scheduling just got a bit difficult. With two little ones at home, I only have limited overnight opportunities each season so I would prefer to have an abundance of the type of terrain that I like. So, maybe you're right and that's why I didn't push to make it happen. I know you think SB is overrated, but for me when coupled with MRG, it has a lot of that type of skiing which is consistently open unlike the Slides or Empire, and at a closer drive than Whiteface. Still, I do want to give Whiteface a try. You never know, if we get a repeat of last April and the Slides are open, there's still a chance...

First off I'm not telling you what you like to ski or where you should spend your time.

I do not think SB is over rated, it is a great place. I've said so in many threads, I just don't think it's head and shouders above everything else on the east coast.

You mentioned seeded bumps. We have the World Cup course set up on Wilderness for anyone to use.

This weekend Lower Skyward will be all bumped up. Upper Cloudspin hopefully the same. Upper and Lower Mackenzie are never groomed unless the thew - freeze cycle makes it a must to knock them down and start over. For those of you who never skied WF those trails are long.

I'm just going to leave it at that for now.

 

[Greg]

First off I'm not telling you what you like to ski or where you should spend your time.

I do not think SB is over rated, it is a great place. I've said so in many threads, I just don't think it's head and shouders above everything else on the east coast.

You mentioned seeded bumps. We have the World Cup course set up on Wilderness for anyone to use.

This weekend Lower Skyward will be all bumped up. Upper Cloudspin hopefully the same. Upper and Lower Mackenzie are never groomed unless the thew - freeze cycle makes it a must to knock them down and start over. For those of you who never skied WF those trails are long.

I'm just going to leave it at that for now.

Yeah, right. I'm sure that WC course would kill me. :lol: Fair enough, sounds like Whiteface has several fun trails. Hopefully we can still work out a visit. Again, perhaps April.

 

[Paul]

Hang-on a sec, gotta go make some popcorn....

 

[Marc]

Stowe says 250" yearly, WF reports 168" - more for sure, but not half. The last few years we've been well over that 168".

HPD correction:

Stowe reports 333 inches annually.

http://www.stowe.com/mountain/

That would be 3 inches shy of twice Whiteface's reported annual average.

 

[Greg]

HPD correction:

Stowe reports 333 inches annually.

http://www.stowe.com/mountain/

That would be 3 inches shy of twice Whiteface's reported annual average.

You're going to send the codger into a frenzy with that one... :lol:

 

[Marc]

Hey, I get paid to review engineering work for accuracy, competency and honesty.

Don't hate me for doing my job. I'm a slave to the truth.

 

[crank]

Fair enough, you're entitled to your opinion. I’d just like to pick your brain a little if I may. What ski areas in the East are not boring to you after a day? Where for instance could you happily spend a weeks ski vacation and not be bored and what keeps you interested there?

A very good question. I admit the answer is no ski area in the east would really hold my attention for an entire week's vacation. Those that come closest are are Stowe, Sugarbush, Sugarloaf, Why, because of size, steeps, variety of terrain, and opportunities for OB exploration. Second to these in my mind are MRG, Jay Peak and Cannon for much the same reasons, trees and exploration opportunites. Usually when I spend a week skiing in the NE I safari around to different areas.

I think Whiteface has tons of potential that, sadly, is far from being realized. That's just my opinion and my skiing style. It's a great place for carving steep groomers. I guess that's just not my thing.

 

[tjf67]

HPD correction:

Stowe reports 333 inches annually.

http://www.stowe.com/mountain/

That would be 3 inches shy of twice Whiteface's reported annual average.

If they are reporting 333 per year then we get 260 per year. They get more snow but i am trying to draw an accurate corralation for what people should expect when comparing snow fall totals.

 

[highpeaksdrifter]

HPD correction:

Stowe reports 333 inches annually.

http://www.stowe.com/mountain/

That would be 3 inches shy of twice Whiteface's reported annual average.

I got my info hear: Weather in Stowe brought to you by Scenes of Vermont - PB Publishing ... Average Annual Snowfall: 250 inches per year Snowmaking: ...
www.birdsnestinn.com/weather.htm -

Like SB, Stowe is a great eastern ski mountain. I love that place. I don't know, I'm probably wrong, but the Park City resorts in Utah average less then 333", I kinda doubt Stowe gets more then them.

I know, I know LCC gets way more, just sayin about PC area.