Will the real vertical drop please stand up.

[UVSHTSTRM]

Well they just ski what they adv there vert is. All the other hills advertise much more so I assumed they had it.

Oh, well you said that it skied much bigger than its vert indicated, when in reality it skies exactly what they say......although many would say it skis smaller because of the runouts. I don't mind runouts I personally like runouts, good cool down.

 

[tjf67]

Oh, well you said that it skied much bigger than its vert indicated, when in reality it skies exactly what they say......although many would say it skis smaller because of the runouts. I don't mind runouts I personally like runouts, good cool down.

It does if you just llok at the vert the other mountains in the east advertise. I don't think that website is correct anyways. K @ 1700 seems off to me. Many people thinking that it skis smaller is because they stop to many times before the lift. Sure they run out from skier lt side of the hill sucks. Try and ski from top to bottom in one shot and the ski smaller thing won't come to mind anymore.

 

[ski220]

Sure doesn't ski like it, though. Great pods but terrible top to bottom. IMO.

Jester and then down to the bottom is a long vertical run all the way. That's all good vert. Skiing the old gondola with a friend of mine we CRANKed out close to 25,000 ft of vertical one time.

Mountains like Jay and Sugarbush may have bigger "true vertical" but how much do long, flat run out's like both those mountains have differ from a long flat connecting trail?

Depends on your route down on how much flat you ski. But I know what you mean at Jay.

That stat really applies to Mount Ellen. IMHO Mount Ellen is a great mountain to get some long runs on.

Last run of the Day. Panorama, Rim Run, lower Elbow to Northway to semi tough/ woods. Northway can be a leg burner, but that can be one long fun run! Or for that matter, anyway off the Summitor even Northridge to Inverness makes great long runs.

Not always open, FIS, top to bottom is a legitimate world cup run.

 

[trackbiker]

I would say while we all know that many ski areas measure their vertical from "the top of the flag pole on the summit to the bottom of the well at the base", there are a lot of problems with the numbers on that site.
Based on the example of Brians Head Utah that they use on the site where you can't ski continuous vertical, while it may not be "commonly" done by the people on this site, you can ski the continuous vertical at Killington without stopping or taking another lift. If you're not going to give the vertical to Killington why would you give 1980' to Okemo? What commonly skied run is that? Same with Burke. They gave them the full 2011'. Who "commonly" skis the bottom greens to get the full vertical. I'm not defending Killington, just saying that they should be consistent.
Big Squaw is listed as 1750'. Boy are some people going to be pi$$ed when they get there and find out that the summit lift hasn't been running in years.
While they corrected the vertical for Windham to 1400' there are a lot of other areas that they haven't. Like Berkshire East is actually closer to 900'. Same with Plattekill. I hate to use those two for examples because I like them both but for most of the mid atlantic they just took the ski areas advertised vertical.
IMHO rather than have their subjective "commonly skied" definition, they should add another category for that. The actual vertical should be what you can actually ski without traversing or taking another lift. For some people "flat" is anything less than a cliff. For beginners a low blue would be considered "steep".

 

[riverc0il]

Burke has not been checked yet. Look for the green check mark to indicate the area has been verified.

 

[trackbiker]

Burke has not been checked yet. Look for the green check mark to indicate the area has been verified.

Killinton doesn't have a green check either. So where did they get the 1720' from?
Don't get me wrong. I think this is a great idea. But there should should be some objectivity to the numbers. i.e. topo maps, lift surveys, and what you can ski, not what someone thinks they would commonly ski. Again, I think actual vertical and "commonly" should be two different categories.

 

[lonk7880]

Hi long time reader first time poster (bounced from Snowjournal).

I think this is a novel idea, but not nearly as amazing as they seem to hype it. Everyone knows that most vert is inflated and/or a conveniently read.

And Steve you are just as polemical on this site as the last one! SB has the most consistent vert of any place in the northeast. And while there is a bit of a green run-out to Jay, most of it is quite consistent. I'll take a brief run-out rather than all that ice in NH any day!

 

[Smellytele]

Hi long time reader first time poster (bounced from Snowjournal).

I think this is a novel idea, but not nearly as amazing as they seem to hype it. Everyone knows that most vert is inflated and/or a conveniently read.

And Steve you are just as polemical on this site as the last one! SB has the most consistent vert of any place in the northeast. And while there is a bit of a green run-out to Jay, most of it is quite consistent. I'll take a brief run-out rather than all that ice in NH any day!

Welcome aboard Lonk. Though I do love their trees, I have skied more ice at Jay in one day than a whole week in NH.

 

[Geoff]

Killinton doesn't have a green check either. So where did they get the 1720' from?
Don't get me wrong. I think this is a great idea. But there should should be some objectivity to the numbers. i.e. topo maps, lift surveys, and what you can ski, not what someone thinks they would commonly ski. Again, I think actual vertical and "commonly" should be two different categories.

I assume 1720' is the vert of the K1 gondola. Personally, I'm totally happy to ski 1000' of vertical at a time. Unless you are running world cup downhills, vertical is a totally useless statistic. Whistler has a mile of vertical but nobody skis the lower third of it. Monarch is one of my favorite ski areas with the best skiing surface I've ever seen. It only has 1000' of vertical.

 

[tjf67]

Hi long time reader first time poster (bounced from Snowjournal).



SB has the most consistent vert of any place in the northeast.

Can't let this pass sorry. Whiteface is in the Northeast Correct??

Carry on.

 

[rtibbs4]

I think this is an interesting concept but your legs can always differentiate between the mountains with more and less vertical.

Days I have skied a full day at ( Sugarbush, Jay, Cannon, Loaf or Wildcat) and I am toast at the end of the day.

Days at (Mt Snow, Killington, Okemo, Sunday River) Not so much.

Just my experience.

 

[threecy]

I tried to read the explanation page with the trail maps, but it seems fairly subjective to me...perhaps I missed something, as I wasn't reading too closely. One would think there would be a more concrete set of criteria and footnotes, but I didn't see any. I think a more interesting and objective way to rank the areas would be by maximum vertical drop serviced by one lift ride.

 

[Highway Star]

If you can't ski from the top of Killington to the bottom in 10 minutes or less, you're doing something wrong. The only "traverse" required is launch pad, which is not long and maybe 10% the route. The rest is green cruisers with optional intermediate and advanced sections.

If anything, the skyeship T-B-T route is roughly 2,600ft and is all green cruiser with a couple intermediate or advanced sections, no traverses.

 

[2knees]

polemical

i had to look that one up

 

[Riverskier]

I think a more interesting and objective way to rank the areas would be by maximum vertical drop serviced by one lift ride.

I agree. For example: No doubt, Sugarloaf is a HUGE mountain, but I believe the most vert you can get from one lift is 1700 feet of vert of the Super Quad. Most experts who do laps at Sugarloaf do so on Spillway (apprx 1500 feet of vert) or King Pine (around 1000 feet of vert). The mountains that interest me the most from the persepective of vert are those where you can ski a huge amount of vert off one lift (ex. Wildcat 2000+). This site is still more useful than using the stats published by ski resorts though.

 

[deadheadskier]

vPersonally, I'm totally happy to ski 1000' of vertical at a time. Unless you are running world cup downhills, vertical is a totally useless statistic.

same, or even less for that matter. As a kid I would lap the Black Ridge Triple at Okemo all day long. That can't be much over 600 vert. If the bumps were good on Sel's Choice I hit it all day long

 

[threecy]

If you can't ski from the top of Killington to the bottom in 10 minutes or less, you're doing something wrong. The only "traverse" required is launch pad, which is not long and maybe 10% the route. The rest is green cruisers with optional intermediate and advanced sections.

If anything, the skyeship T-B-T route is roughly 2,600ft and is all green cruiser with a couple intermediate or advanced sections, no traverses.

It seems like a pain in the neck to try to ski Killington top to bottom, however I do agree that the Skyeship can be lapped top to bottom. I did exactly that one really cold day (-40 with wind chills), as the higher peaks and chairs were downright brutal.

 

[Mapnut]

As the resident vertical gadfly of Snowjournal, I can't resist this topic. Obviously a lot of the industry lies survived that web site's first round. But I must take them to task for citing Jay Peak uncritically as their true vertical area on the definition page. They use a summit elevation of 3968, but the USGS map and every other map I've seen give 3858. I won't forgive Jay this because Jay has often called itself a 4,000-foot peak. And the base, though hard to tell, appears to be more like 1840 than 1815 - on Google Earth 1815 is down in the parking lot. So for those of you who feel that Jay skis shorter than 2153, that's because it's 2018.

Waterville Valley is honest at 2020 - they don't use the summit of Tecumseh. The base is 1840 and the summit lift goes to 3860. Granted, it's not a great lift.

Add Stratton to the list that needs verification; I get 1900 instead of 2003. I agree with what they get for Sugarloaf.

I see Skilifts.org has 2,050 feet for the Jay tram. I wonder which elevations, base or summit, are different from mine. They also have 2,410 for the old Sugarloaf gondola.

 

[Warp Daddy]

same, or even less for that matter. As a kid I would lap the Black Ridge Triple at Okemo all day long. That can't be much over 600 vert. If the bumps were good on Sel's Choice I hit it all day long

I also agree with Geoff and DHS on this one . Hell i can have fun skiing damn near anywhere and am not a Vert Junky --altho i am an adrenilin junky on the vert i do hit .

 

[mondeo]

I think this is an interesting concept but your legs can always differentiate between the mountains with more and less vertical.

Days I have skied a full day at ( Sugarbush, Jay, Cannon, Loaf or Wildcat) and I am toast at the end of the day.

Days at (Mt Snow, Killington, Okemo, Sunday River) Not so much.

Just my experience.

Killington can take your legs out pretty well. Just do stints within trail pods and you're fine.

I'd give Killington about 2200'. K-1 down Jug/Jug Handle to Falls Brook is actually decently fun. A little skating for skiers, walking for boarders, but Jug Handle is a fun little trail and the turns on Falls Brook are sorta cool. Not gonna do it all day, but every now and then it's decent. Other reasonable one is K-1 down to Ramshead.