# 3 most personally overrated ski areas you have skied.



## Hawkshot99 (Mar 14, 2015)

So we already have the 3 favorite places tou have been thread. I won't start a hate thread, but what 3 places have you visited with super high hopes based on how great you constantly hear a place is only to be left dissapointed.

For me it would be....
1. Snowbird UT.
I had been skiing all over UT for the week skiibg fresh powder and having a great time. At the bird it was PACKED hard, nearly to east coast hard pack levels. We searched all day through trees and couldn't find anything fresh. The ligjt was horribly flat so the wide open style of the mtn was dangerous. 
Anybody I mention this to says it was just a bad day and you need to give it time, but when on a trip, that's not a option when every other place we skied that week both before and after were great. (Also I have many friends who have been there several times and skuncked every time).

2. Killington VT
The place is huge for East coast standards. Whenever I ski there I feel I spend the entire day trying to get somewhere, not actually enjoying the place. I am sure with a local it could be great,  but as a visitor I have never been able to figure out them place.

3. I can't think of a 3rd currently but will return to it....


----------



## Edd (Mar 14, 2015)

Hawkshot99 said:


> 2. Killington VT
> The place is huge for East coast standards. Whenever I ski there I feel I spend the entire day trying to get somewhere, not actually enjoying the place. I am sure with a local it could be great,  but as a visitor I have never been able to figure out them place.



I have the exact same problem there. I've never skied it with a knowledgeable person.


----------



## ss20 (Mar 14, 2015)

1. Butternut- Boringest terrain I've ever skied.  All the trails are the same.  Everything is groomed.  Lifts are slow.
2. Pico- No where as good as the K locals make it sound.  It may be less crowded, but K's terrain is so much better it's irreverent.  
3. Mohawk- Not feeling the same vibe here that I did when I was younger.  Terrain feels more limited and similar than I used to remember.  I can't forgive them for adding that third triple to the top.  It narrowed Mohawk (the trail) and added people since everyone sees it.  It's a complete disaster now.  Still a cool place to hang out.

EDIT: I thought this topic seemed familiar.  Merge?  http://forums.alpinezone.com/showth...r-Under-Rated-Ski-Resorts?highlight=overrated


----------



## VTKilarney (Mar 14, 2015)

- Killington 

- Sunday River

- Whitefish, MT


.


----------



## ScottySkis (Mar 14, 2015)

Vail, just sun first west trip, sugarloaf I didn't fall in love firs time last years summit. Bellflat in the Catskills. Hope that highmount terrain comes back on again then I maybe buy that 3 pass.


----------



## abc (Mar 14, 2015)

"Overrated" is dependent on what "rating" one goes by. 

Adjust one's expectation downward enough, every mountain lives up to one's expectation. Have unrealistic expectation, every mountain disappoint some of the time. 

Every mountain (except one) that disappointed me at my first visit had redeemed itself on subsequent visits. (yes, I give a mountain at least two chances) 

But I'll list the ones that I had been disappointed more than others: (none of the western mountains disappointed me consistently enough to make the list) 

1) Waterville - Bad customer service by arrogant staff got my on a bad start on my first visit. I went back when I happened on a free pass, the snow was just scraped cleaned. I'm never going to pay to ski there, EVER. And I'm not sure I'll bother waste a day there even if I don't have to pay. 

2) Burke - Like Jay, it's a long way for me. I go up there primarily to escape from the crowd on big holiday when Jay is expected to be scrappy. That goal (crowd free) was usually fulfilled. But the times I've been there, the snow condition were always worse than I expected given it's northern location and low crowd. I don't know what it is, but the skiing was just... not enjoyable. The last time I resorted to demo'ing skis instead. 

3) Jay Peak - Sacrilege, right? Well, I've had ONE *fantastic *day when snow not in the forecast blanketed the mountain. I returned the next day, only to find all the fresh snow had been scraped cleaned from any run but the tightest trees! I've been up there quite a few times, my luck had been such it's more icy than powdery. Still, I kept going back in the hope of repeating that fantastic condition (and kept being disappointed so far). 

3) Magic tied with Jay for the same reason. Sorry for dumping on the forum's darling. It just never delivered in my infrequent visits. Now I'm not too motivated to try any more...

There're a bunch of mountain I don't go too often, either because they don't have the terrain I like, or they're too crowded most of the time. But since I know that ahead of the time, I'm not "disappointed" by the so-so experience. So they don't make the "list"


----------



## Tin (Mar 14, 2015)

abc said:


> 3) Magic tied with Jay for the same reason. Sorry for dumping on the forum's darling. It just never delivered in my infrequent visits. Now I'm not too motivated to try any more...


----------



## H2ofowlerNH (Mar 14, 2015)

Magic is actually underrated, when its got snow the terrain and trees are unmatched in southern New England (and most of the White resorts), its one of the best and this year has proven that by far.   People rave about Cannon and I think that mountain is completely overated, but if you like ice skating on skis then I'd see why you'd thinks it great.


----------



## joshua segal (Mar 14, 2015)

IMO, "overrated" means that the mountain has been overhyped, so when I get there it can never meet my expectations.  As such, it makes sense that Killington is named (so far) more than any other area.  Because of its size, location/accessibility, history, après ski reputation and length of season - it is almost impossible  for Killington to live up to its hype.  This year, they opened on Nov. 2 and yet I heard lots of complaints that there was no October skiing!

Best way for me to have no entries for my "overrated list" is to have no expectations when I go to an area for the first time.  (Admittedly, this can be hard to do.)


----------



## Puck it (Mar 14, 2015)

Cannon
Cannon
Cannon

it is way overrated. Stay away, please.


----------



## Edd (Mar 14, 2015)

Puck it said:


> it is way overrated. Stay away, please.



I don't think you have anything to worry about.


----------



## legalskier (Mar 14, 2015)

I can't say I feel any area I've been to is overrated. I don't go in expecting to find nirvana, I just look for interesting terrain where I can find enjoyment and/or nice folks. Each area has its own, if one is willing to look. 



Hawkshot99 said:


> 2. Killington VT
> ...I am sure with a local it could be great, but as a visitor I have never been able to figure out them place.



A few years ago I was fortunate to ski there with someone who knew every inch of the place. It completely improved my opinion.



ScottySkis said:


> Bellflat in the Catskills..



Says the guy who's never skied there at all. People who actually have say the opposite: http://www.cntraveler.com/galleries...sorts-in-america-readers-choice-awards-2014/9


----------



## ScottySkis (Mar 14, 2015)

legalskier said:


> I can't say I feel any area I've been to is overrated. I don't go in expecting to find nirvana, I just look for interesting terrain where I can find enjoyment and/or nice folks. Each area has its own, if one is willing to look.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I skidded their twice year and put up honest reports did u read them if I have less income this winter then last winter so my skiing has been limited this winter in Catskills two best for experts I think my opinion that is not bell I glad u enjoy the place but just amit for once after nice 30/% pitch if go flat. Truely feel if highmomunt was added I go because it has terrain I like. Thanks to Jim g for mini free lessons I become n better at trees . to each their own sure bell is widers then platty better bfor mostly cruising . lucky Catskills all 4 places reminder of 1600-1000 vertical and high elevation and funnfor all seasons. I glad you enjoy your place of winter entertainment and I live behind bellflat maybe next winter I make it out to bell to make turns with u if bring me into you ur starches spots .o..


----------



## VTKilarney (Mar 14, 2015)

While I am not sure exactly what ScottySkis has written, it isn't really fair to challenge someone's opinion in this thread when it asks for a personal opinion.  Take a deep breath and let others form their own opinions and share them.  You don't have to agree, and they don't have to agree with yours.


----------



## abc (Mar 14, 2015)

I don't know what beef he has with Scotty. But saying he never ski there was factually wrong. 

Bell isn't on my top favorite either. Though I wouldn't go so far to say it's overrated. I have a certain expectation of Bell, having skied there enough. It doesn't disappoint, not with that relatively low expectation.


----------



## boston_e (Mar 14, 2015)

I have a feeling everyone's  lists will be primarily depending on the conditions the times they went.

For Me:

Mad River Glen
Jay
Heavenly


----------



## abc (Mar 14, 2015)

boston_e said:


> I have a feeling everyone's  lists will be primarily depending on the conditions the times they went.


That's why I don't list any mountain that I've only been to once. 

I also never got hit MRG in good condition either. But then, I'm not a hard core skier so have no wish to live up to its "ski it if you CAN". Well, I can't! 

Put another way, I expect it to be tough, and it was. Perfectly rated.


----------



## boston_e (Mar 14, 2015)

abc said:


> That's why I don't list any mountain that I've only been to once.
> 
> I also never got hit MRG in good condition either. But then, I'm not a hard core skier so have no wish to live up to its "ski it if you CAN". Well, I can't!
> 
> Put another way, I expect it to be tough, and it was. Perfectly rated.



Ive been a couple of times, never had a great day.  I also am not really into the "single chair, anti snowboard" type of vibe.  I also didn't find the terrain significantly different from other vermont mountains... Maybe I didn't have a good guide who knows.  My impression is that its overrated, but maybe I'll feel different if I go again.


----------



## St. Bear (Mar 14, 2015)

MRG 

And I got it on as good of a non powder day as you can get, the day after 22". I just didn't like the vibe. The employees were rude, and the fellow skier weren't friendly at all. I'll go back because the snow and the terrain is top notch, but everything else is not welcoming.


----------



## VTKilarney (Mar 15, 2015)

I should have had MRG on my list.  I got the feeling that MRG was best suited for people somewhere on the autism spectrum.  Fine for those folks, but not for me.


----------



## jrmagic (Mar 15, 2015)

VTKilarney said:


> I should have had MRG on my list.  I got the feeling that MRG was best suited for people somewhere on the autism spectrum.  Fine for those folks, but not for me.



And WTF is that supposed to mean?? You should stick to places high on the douchebag spectrum.


----------



## Jully (Mar 15, 2015)

I'm rarely disappointed by resorts, and maybe I hyped it up too much in my head, but I was really disappointed by Sunday River every time. Yes there's an amazing diversity of trails on the different peaks, but the runs themselves I find too short. 

The actual trip down the mountain at SR feels shorter than places like Shawnee and Mt. Abrams nextdoor.


----------



## Brad J (Mar 15, 2015)

For Me
1) Park City
2)Sunday River ( Except OZ)
3) Killington Post 1984 ( the start of the destruction of the Mt)


----------



## Whitey (Mar 15, 2015)

1) Waterville
2) Sunday River
3) Whiteface

Waterville is self explanatory, but I think it's all Boston day trippers and condo owners now anyway.    How often do you hear people on this board saying they are going to Waterville?  Skied there probably 20 days over the last 30 yrs.   Just never really did it for me on any of those days.

SR is long but not tall.   I've skied there a lot but I've never really bought it as a great northeast ski area.   If it weren't for vouchers, & friends who have places in the area, I would never ski SR over Sugarloaf or Saddleback.    I just find those mountains so much more interesting.  

Whiteface:  Good - Big, steep, a lot of history.    Skied there 3 yrs in a row now.   Bad - Run down facilities, vaguely uninteresting runs,  tons of Joeys from NY as well as snowboarders who drive there in Honda Civics with smoked glass and subwoofers and aren't as good as they think they are (sorry, my masshole lineage is rearing it's ugly head).   Lacking for bump runs, always icy.    Given its location and size it should have a lot more gladed runs and other stuff.   The glades they do have are almost always closed.     Should be a "go to" place for hardcore northeast skiers, it's not.   What else do you need know?


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 15, 2015)

VTKilarney said:


> I should have had MRG on my list.  I got the feeling that MRG was best suited for people somewhere on the autism spectrum.  Fine for those folks, but not for me.



Really jerk thing to say.


----------



## VTKilarney (Mar 15, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> Really jerk thing to say.


I wasn't trying to be funny.  Having an immediate family member with autism, it is definitely a compelling place for them to ski.  My family member has a very hard time on lifts when people they do not know are on the same chair.  The physical proximity probably has a lot to do with it.  I can assure you that they would feel MUCH more comfortable at MRG knowing that they don't have to worry about this.  It is actually an issue that gives them a LOT of anxiety when they ski.

As someone who struggles with these issues every day, I take offense to your calling me a "jerk" for thinking about these concepts.  They may not matter to you, but they do to me.  If you recall, I recently criticized a person at Burke who was insisting that the lift attendant bunch people up when there was no need to do so.  That comment wasn't a merely theoretical comment.


----------



## goldsbar (Mar 15, 2015)

Killington - Not saying it's a bad place.  This goes back 25+ years to high school for me.  Everyone talked about "VW-sized bumps" and other sorts of death defying tales.  I only made it there a couple of times as a kid and it was generally early season when a lot of stuff wasn't open.  Fast forward to a couple of years ago when I finally got back and... real vertical was disappointing, the mighty Outer Limits wasn't that mighty, trails were crowded.  Probably was a lot harder back in the days of skinny skis and crappy snow making.

Steamboat - second trip out West.  First was Jackson Hole.  Just didn't compare.

Just a guess - Jay - the place gets so much hype on this forum. Call me a skeptic.  I'll never know as I'm unlikely to make the drive from NJ when I can fly to Utah in the same time.


----------



## EPB (Mar 15, 2015)

1) Killington because it has so many loud fanboys and because of the crowds, lack of true vertical, traverses, etc. 
2) Vail because of the lack of steep terrain and because the Back Bowls face south which is really bad for preserving good snow quality. 
3) I know this one might be a little controversial, but Smugglers Notch because the lift lines and time spent on the lifts is just way too long. Love the terrain there, but it's hard to justify going back without taking time off work.


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 15, 2015)

VTKilarney said:


> I wasn't trying to be funny.  Having an immediate family member with autism, it is definitely a compelling place for them to ski.  My family member has a very hard time on lifts when people they do not know are on the same chair.  The physical proximity probably has a lot to do with it.  I can assure you that they would feel MUCH more comfortable at MRG knowing that they don't have to worry about this.  It is actually an issue that gives them a LOT of anxiety when they ski.
> 
> As someone who struggles with these issues every day, I take offense to your calling me a "jerk" for thinking about these concepts.  They may not matter to you, but they do to me.  If you recall, I recently criticized a person at Burke who was insisting that the lift attendant bunch people up when there was no need to do so.  That comment wasn't a merely theoretical comment.



I didn't call you a jerk, I said it was a jerk thing to say.   There is a difference.

And regardless of your personal situation I do think your comment read poorly to a casual observer.   I personally would never say a certain ski area is a good place for someone with (insert development challenge here) to ski.  It singles that group of people out.  Not cool.

I wasn't the only one who read your comment that way.


----------



## Scruffy (Mar 15, 2015)

VTKilarney said:


> I should have had MRG on my list. I got the feeling that MRG was best suited for people somewhere on the autism spectrum. Fine for those folks, but not for me.






VTKilarney said:


> I wasn't trying to be funny.  Having an immediate family member with autism, it is definitely a compelling place for them to ski.  My family member has a very hard time on lifts when people they do not know are on the same chair.  The physical proximity probably has a lot to do with it.  I can assure you that they would feel MUCH more comfortable at MRG knowing that they don't have to worry about this.  It is actually an issue that gives them a LOT of anxiety when they ski.
> 
> As someone who struggles with these issues every day, I take offense to your calling me a "jerk" for thinking about these concepts.  They may not matter to you, but they do to me.  If you recall, I recently criticized a person at Burke who was insisting that the lift attendant bunch people up when there was no need to do so.  That comment wasn't a merely theoretical comment.



Sorry, but your first post was severely poorly written if you meant as you stated in your second post.


----------



## Scruffy (Mar 15, 2015)

St. Bear said:


> MRG
> 
> And I got it on as good of a non powder day as you can get, the day after 22". I just didn't like the vibe. The employees were rude, and the fellow skier weren't friendly at all. I'll go back because the snow and the terrain is top notch, but everything else is not welcoming.



Rude? Not friendly? Not welcoming? That's describes the antithesis of the place .. weird.


----------



## VTKilarney (Mar 15, 2015)

Scruffy said:


> Sorry, but your first post was severely poorly written if you meant as you stated in your second post.



I can see that now.  


.


----------



## St. Bear (Mar 15, 2015)

Scruffy said:


> Rude? Not friendly? Not welcoming? That's describes the antithesis of the place .. weird.



Well, some snowboarders may feel differently.


----------



## crank (Mar 15, 2015)

Whiteface:  long but boring "tilted ironing board"

Butternut: people say they like it but it is flatter than a pancake

Snowbird:  Probably personal experience because it does have some great terrain.  However, I have skied there at least 8 or so days over the years and in every trip to Utah I have found better snow next door plus there is a bit of the UT version of the NY/NJ testosterone fueled Joey thing going over there as well.

Funny how we all like and dislike different places.  I have never found MRG to be other than welcoming.  Unlike a previous poster I love Whitefish and am considering moving there in a few years.

Regarding Jay Peak - more than any other area is hit or miss.  Hit it on a powder day and it is the best.


----------



## Scruffy (Mar 15, 2015)

St. Bear said:


> Well, some snowboarders may feel differently.



But, you had to have known that going in, right? That's like going to an orgy, when you don't like sex, and then complaining that there was only sex at that party


----------



## canobie#1 (Mar 15, 2015)

I still don't understand why people consider Kmart overrated. The terrain is fantastic, the place is so easy to navigate if you just look at a map!!! And it has the most selection than anyone else.

My opinion on overrated:
1.) Stowe: by far the most overrated. The terrain doesn't stand out to me at all, very bland and a very crappy lay out. It's over 100 dollars just for a day ticket now. I'll stick with Bolton and sugarbush.

2.) Sunday River: very fun mountain but the place sucks to navigate. Tons of traffic on certain trails and the whole resort seems a little bit run down. The lodges are in horrible shape. 

3.) Waterville Valley: really just "meh". Very small and a total cluster f*** on busy days. The terrain is nothing special and kinda boring.


----------



## abc (Mar 15, 2015)

canobie#1 said:


> I still don't understand why people consider Kmart overrated. The terrain is fantastic, the place is so easy to navigate if you just look at a map!!! And it has the most selection than anyone else.
> 
> My opinion on overrated:
> 1.) Stowe: by far the most overrated. The terrain doesn't stand out to me at all, very bland and a very crappy lay out. It's over 100 dollars just for a day ticket now. I'll stick with Bolton and sugarbush.


Funny you say you'll stick with Bolton/Sugarbush rather than stick with Kmart! 

Everything you like and dislike about Kmart and Stowe are exactly the same thing. Both have some great terrain. Both are large enough that it's not always easy to navigate. Both are expensive though neither is too different from their neighbors. But somehow you favor K over Stowe. 

Stowe tend to have better condition due to it being further north. And also less crowded also due to it being further away from the population center. While I prefer Stowe over K, I still like both. I think both of them live up to their reputation quite nicely. Neither are overrated nor underrated.


----------



## VTKilarney (Mar 15, 2015)

crank said:


> Funny how we all like and dislike different places.  I have never found MRG to be other than welcoming.  Unlike a previous poster I love Whitefish and am considering moving there in a few years.


My complaint with Whitefish is that the snow is much more Pacific Northwest like than Rocky Mountain like.  The Flathead Valley can be rather warm and wet, and the snow on the mountain can be the product of that.  It's a great town, and a pretty darn good mountain (if you ignore the access road), but I was very underwhelmed with the snow quality.  And this is after making multiple trips there because I had family in the area.

There are better places in Montana.  Check out Red Lodge.  It's an adorable town on the doorstep of Yellowstone National Park with a very underrated ski area.


----------



## crank (Mar 15, 2015)

I spent a great 3 days at Red Lodge back in the 90's!  A work buddy from back in the day (who used to work with Les Otten at K. in an even earlier day) has some land out there and we hit it just right with a 2+ foot storm.  We were planning on driving up to Big Sky but stayed put in Red Lodge.  I have also skied Big Sky.  Thinking about it, I have been to Montana 3 times for ski trips and each time I skied powder pretty much every day!!!

We had great snow at Whitefish! I really like the Flathead Valley as well...and Glacier Nat. Park.  WF also has a flowy and growing network of MTB trails starting about a mile outside of town.


----------



## rtjcbrown (Mar 15, 2015)

1. Another vote for Killington. Bigger does not mean better. Seems like you spend more time on runs that connect a bunch of mid sized ski areas.
2. Park City Utah. See Killington
3. Heavenly California. See Park City


----------



## dlague (Mar 15, 2015)

Puck it said:


> Cannon
> Cannon
> Cannon
> 
> it is way overrated. Stay away, please.



I agree!


Sent from my iPad using AlpineZone


----------



## BenedictGomez (Mar 15, 2015)

1) Killington

2) Hunter

3) Whiteface


----------



## BenedictGomez (Mar 15, 2015)

canobie#1 said:


> *I * *don't understand why people consider Kmart overrated. The terrain is fantastic*......
> 
> My opinion on overrated:
> 1.) *Stowe: by far the most overrated. The terrain doesn't stand out to me at all, very bland and a very crappy lay out.* It's over 100 dollars just for a day ticket now. *I'll stick with Bolton* and sugarbush.



Uhhhh..... well that was all certainly....... interesting.


----------



## thetrailboss (Mar 15, 2015)

Hawkshot99 said:


> So we already have the 3 favorite places tou have been thread. I won't start a hate thread, but what 3 places have you visited with super high hopes based on how great you constantly hear a place is only to be left dissapointed.
> 
> For me it would be....
> 1. Snowbird UT.
> ...



I have to agree with what one person said about setting expectations right.  That said, to respond, yes, Snowbird has a lot of bad days.  If the clouds are in, or if it is windy, it is brutal.  Agree with the observation about Killington.  It just takes a lot of time getting to know they lay of the land by skiing there or studying the map a lot to get a feel for the place and the layout.  Canyons is another example of a place where on a first visit one could easily traverse all day without skiing.  I found that making a plan in advance and studying the terrain layout made my first visit a huge success.  Same for Deer Valley and Park City.  

As to ones that are overrated, I really can't think of any.  For me any day skiing is a good day and any ski area is a nice place!


----------



## MMP (Mar 16, 2015)

VTKilarney said:


> I can see that now.
> 
> 
> .



You'd be happy at a place that caters to retards. Not because of your stupid autism comment, but your opinion of Mad.


----------



## C-Rex (Mar 16, 2015)

Tin said:


>




LOL +1000

I'd have to say Okemo, Mount Snow, and Killington, in that order.  They get the most hype and deliver the least, IMO.  But that's fine by me.  I'll go to them during the week or early/late season, and let them soak up the crowds during mid-winter.  Except Okemo. Unless I'm getting a free ticket, or a hot girl wants me to go there with her, I won't waste my time with that place.


----------



## VTKilarney (Mar 16, 2015)

MMP said:


> You'd be happy at a place that caters to retards. Not because of your stupid autism comment, but your opinion of Mad.



How classy.  It must be nice to know more about what I care for than I know myself.  It also must be nice to feel the ability to universally dictate how others must subjectively feel.  And making fun of the handicapped must be icing on the cake to you.  

If you are representative of MRG, I feel stronger in my opinion than ever.  Thank you for providing that confirmation.


----------



## C-Rex (Mar 16, 2015)

BenedictGomez said:


> Uhhhh..... well that was all certainly....... interesting.



Seriously.  I have my qualms with Stowe. Yes, they are expensive and cater to rich, gaper a-holes, but it is a true skier's mountain.  If you think it's bland you either haven't really explored it, or don't have the skill and/or balls to hit the expert stuff which is, IMO, some of the best in New England.

Bland is not a word used to describe Stowe.  Save that for Okemo.


----------



## skiMEbike (Mar 16, 2015)

LOON 

After spending the past 3 days at Loon,  this mountain goes to the top of my list for overrated.


----------



## gmcunni (Mar 16, 2015)

C-Rex said:


> I'd have to say Okemo, Mount Snow, and Killington, in that order.  They get the most hype and deliver the least, IMO.



where do you hang out that Okemo gets the most hype?


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 16, 2015)

C-Rex said:


> cater to rich, gaper a-holes,



Very true on the weekends, but the locals in Stowe are anything but.  There's a true ski bum culture and community in that town that doesn't exist in other New England ski towns.  Other places it's just a season, in Stowe people who moved there for a ski bum season after college and then just stayed, so the sense of a skiing loving community is really strong.  To experience the soul of the place, one has to ski there on one of their famous midweek non-forecasted powder days.  Wake up to 10" of dry upslope, rip it all day, then go to the Matternhorn for Apres ski and finish out the night at the Backyard or Rimrocks.  The locals in Stowe are truly fantastic down to earth ski and party hard folks and they don't give much a crap about the Bogner wearing weekenders other than they pay their salary.



C-Rex said:


> Bland is not a word used to describe Stowe. Save that for Okemo.



this is Canobie#1.  He drops steaming dumps on Stowe all the time, then goes and brags about Ragged.   He's certainly entitled to his opinion, but it's hard for any true skier or rider to take that opinion seriously with that track record.  

People are entitled to their opinion, it's just hard to overrate Mount Mansfield.  Best combination of terrain and snow in New England.  Off map opportunities are so vast and easy to get to.  Really bummed I missed out on skiing there this season.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Mar 16, 2015)

I don't know if any areas are "overrated" but there are certainly a few which get hyped on this forum and even the mildest criticism tends to elicit strong emotions on behalf of some of the skiers here.


----------



## St. Bear (Mar 16, 2015)

skiMEbike said:


> LOON
> 
> After spending the past 3 days at Loon,  this mountain goes to the top of my list for overrated.



Very true.  I went there this year with extremely low expectations, and I was still disappointed.

I think the most frustrating part is that it could be a real great area.  Much like the discussion about Stowe having a thriving ski culture underneath the glitz and $$, with Loon could be the same with Lincoln.  There are lots of small things they could do on the mountain that would improve the experience for advanced/expert skiers without ruining the cash cow that they have now.

Oh well, maybe it's just as well with Cannon right up the road.


----------



## MMP (Mar 16, 2015)

VTKilarney said:


> How classy.  It must be nice to know more about what I care for than I know myself.  It also must be nice to feel the ability to universally dictate how others must subjectively feel.  And making fun of the handicapped must be icing on the cake to you.
> 
> If you are representative of MRG, I feel stronger in my opinion than ever.  Thank you for providing that confirmation.



Blah blah blah

Identifying a ski area as compatible with a particular handicap is idiotic. By extrapolation you are an idiot.


----------



## Domeskier (Mar 16, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> in Stowe people who moved there for a ski bum season after college and then just stayed, so the sense of a skiing loving community is really strong.



College-educated ski bums?  The only ones I know of are the trust-fund spawn of investment bankers and the other wealthy people you seem to scorn.  Oh well.  People can enjoy the company of whomever they want, I guess.


----------



## moguler6 (Mar 16, 2015)

Revelstoke - Best example of vertical is overrated.  Terrible layout.  Every other mountain in BC is better.

Whiteface - Been about a dozen times, still haven't had a fun day.  You're dead to me.

Deer Valley - Let's go to Utah and rip groomers!  Wait no, the green coats will yell at you.


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 16, 2015)

Domeskier said:


> College-educated ski bums?  The only ones I know of are the trust-fund spawn of investment bankers and the other wealthy people you seem to scorn.  Oh well.  People can enjoy the company of whomever they want, I guess.



I'm not sure where you're trying to go with this.   I do know some trust fund ski bums in town for sure.   I also know plenty of cooks, nurses, school teachers, real estate sales people, tradesmen etc. that moved there after college and still live in town.  I know waiters in their 40s and 50s with Masters degrees.  Look up the college education rates in town if you're so inclined.   Often they live in Morrisville or Waterbury as the real estate in town is out of reach, however the draw is Mount Mansfield.


----------



## dmw (Mar 16, 2015)

I think the whole rich / glitz thing is a little overstated too. I was at Stowe Saturday, didn't feel much different than any major resort. Sure, I saw a few fur collars, but they were pretty hot looking ladies, so no worries there.


----------



## boston_e (Mar 16, 2015)

Scruffy said:


> Rude? Not friendly? Not welcoming? That's describes the antithesis of the place .. weird.



I'm not sure if I would go so far as to say rude, but like St Bear is describing, I didn't get a warm fuzzy vibe from the employees or skiers the couple of times I visited there.

Someday I'd like to give it another shot and see if my opinion changes.  Although with a number of friends and family that I like to and usually go with with who snowboard, I'm unlikely to go there in the near future.


----------



## Scruffy (Mar 16, 2015)

BenedictGomez said:


> 1) Killington
> 
> 2) Hunter
> 
> 3) Whiteface



Wait, I thought you loved Whiteface?


----------



## skiMEbike (Mar 16, 2015)

St. Bear said:


> Very true.  *I went there this year with extremely low expectations, and I was still disappointed.*
> 
> I think the most frustrating part is that it could be a real great area.  Much like the discussion about Stowe having a thriving ski culture underneath the glitz and $$, with Loon could be the same with Lincoln.  There are lots of small things they could do on the mountain that would improve the experience for advanced/expert skiers without ruining the cash cow that they have now.
> 
> Oh well, maybe it's just as well with Cannon right up the road.



Same here.   Agree Lincoln has the potential for being a great ski town...the only problem it's lacking a real mountain (sans Cannon).  I had an interesting run in/conversation with ski patrol (I'll save the details for my trip report)....It's one thing to not have the topography to offer up any interesting/challenging terrain, but to have an attitude or philosophy that supports that mantra is kind of ridiculous.


----------



## Domeskier (Mar 16, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> I'm not sure where you're trying to go with this.   I do know some trust fund ski bums in town for sure.   I also know plenty of cooks, nurses, school teachers, real estate sales people, tradesmen etc. that moved there after college and still live in town.  I know waiters in their 40s and 50s with Masters degrees.  Look up the college education rates in town if you're so inclined.   Often they live in Morrisville or Waterbury as the real estate in town is out of reach, however the draw is Mount Mansfield.



I guess I don't consider contributing members of society to be ski bums.  When I think of ski bums, I think of jobless ski-bros living off the largess of their indifferent Bogner-wearing parents. I'd rather not hang out with either group.  But then again, I might belong at MRG based on VTK's assessment....


----------



## abc (Mar 16, 2015)

Actually, Stowe is no doubt the Aspen of the east. Terrain, snow, infrastructure. What more does anyone want? To have that in the cheap and NOT seeing any rich folks that pay the bills, right? Yeah... 

The college educated ski bums knows enough to pamper the rich which in turn support their own snow addiction. If you have trouble understand that, sorry, it just shows you're not too smart. 

But you can always try a more blue collared place like...Waterville!


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 16, 2015)

Domeskier said:


> I guess I don't consider contributing members of society to be ski bums.  When I think of ski bums, I think of jobless ski-bros living off the largess of their indifferent Bogner-wearing parents. I'd rather not hang out with either group.  But then again, I might belong at MRG based on VTK's assessment....



Most of the aforementioned started in town that way.   Crappy seasonal job, a ski pass and a couch to crash on.   The pros figured out how to stay and eek out a decent quality of life.


----------



## Scruffy (Mar 16, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> People are entitled to their opinion, it's just hard to overrate Mount Mansfield.  Best combination of terrain and snow in New England.  Off map opportunities are so vast and easy to get to.  Really bummed I missed out on skiing there this season.



You hit at the heart of the matter with a thread like this; judging a mountain's rating is all about the perception of the the skier/rider.
If you're a groomer queen, you'll have a perception that a mountain is over/underrated that is vastly different than someone who can actually ski every line, in and out of bounds, on any given day, with aplomb.


----------



## VTKilarney (Mar 16, 2015)

MMP said:


> Blah blah blah
> 
> Identifying a ski area as compatible with a particular handicap is idiotic. By extrapolation you are an idiot.


Aren't you the person who said, "You'd be happy at a place that caters to retards."

I don't mind vigorous debate, but when you insist on keeping it in the gutter you aren't exactly dissuading me of my opinion of MRG.


----------



## hammer (Mar 16, 2015)

Seems like Sunday River gets a lot of knocks on this thread, guess I'll have to tell you if I agree after going there later this week...

Not sure if I would call any area I've been to overrated.  I've been to places where I don't care if I go back again, but in most cases each of those ski areas seemed to cater to their expected customers.


----------



## boston_e (Mar 16, 2015)

hammer said:


> Seems like Sunday River gets a lot of knocks on this thread, guess I'll have to tell you if I agree after going there later this week...
> 
> Not sure if I would call any area I've been to overrated.  I've been to places where I don't care if I go back again, but in most cases each of those ski areas seemed to cater to their expected customers.



Sunday River, like Killington can be hard to navigate.  I've had some great days there.  I can see how people would think of each as overrated if they have only been there a couple or few times (especially without a good guide).


----------



## VTKilarney (Mar 16, 2015)

I included Sunday River not because it is a bad ski area - but because it is way overhyped.  I am sure that you will have a fine time there.


----------



## MMP (Mar 16, 2015)

VTKilarney said:


> Aren't you the person who said, "You'd be happy at a place that caters to retards."
> 
> I don't mind vigorous debate, but when you insist on keeping it in the gutter you aren't exactly dissuading me of my opinion of MRG.




since you aren't too smart; I was using an absurdity to highlight your absurdity. And since reading comprehension isn't a core competency of yours, I never said anything about MRG. But that you don't like it does speak volumes.


----------



## VTKilarney (Mar 16, 2015)

MMP said:


> since you aren't too smart; I was using an absurdity to highlight your absurdity. And since reading comprehension isn't a core competency of yours, I never said anything about MRG. But that you don't like it does speak volumes.



With just a handful in f posts you sure know how to make an impression.  

Peace.  


.


----------



## hammer (Mar 16, 2015)

VTKilarney said:


> I included Sunday River not because it is a bad ski area - but because it is way overhyped.  I am sure that you will have a fine time there.


Understand.  Guess I wonder what is overhyped about it...guess from what I've read/heard it's a more intermediate-friendly version of Killington (which I enjoyed on my one trip there despite crowds and less than ideal weather and conditions).

It is interesting to read others' opinions...for example, if I were to just base my opinions of Deer Valley on what I've read here I'd actually call it underrated, but I'm not an advanced skier so what I like about a ski area doesn't mesh with many others here.


----------



## MMP (Mar 16, 2015)

VTKilarney said:


> With just a handful in f posts you sure know how to make an impression.
> 
> Peace.
> 
> ...




you had me at "autism spectrum"


----------



## St. Bear (Mar 16, 2015)

Well, this thread is going about as well as can be expected.


----------



## Grizzly Adams (Mar 16, 2015)

Sunday River - boasting about 7 peaks sounds awesome until you realize it takes a load of traverse runs and almost every lift to get from one side of the resort to the other. I never had extremely high expectations but always thought of SR as a more challenging place than what I actually discovered, yeah White Heat is steep but it lasts all of 10 seconds.. overall too crowded, too difficult to navigate and not enough vertical drop.

I'd also like to briefly defend Jay, I've been up there a bunch of times and never had a bad experience. There's pretty good trail selection, excellent glades and they normally get plentiful amounts of decent quality snow. I've only been on weekends but its never been overly crowded. I also think the headwall chutes and out-of-bounds/side-country areas Jay has are neat features because most places on the east coast don't offer these types of terrain.


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 16, 2015)

St. Bear said:


> Well, this thread is going about as well as can be expected.



Overrated = your favorite resort.

Not overrated = my favorite resort


----------



## Cannonball (Mar 16, 2015)

Hawkshot99 said:


> 2. Killington VT
> The place is huge for East coast standards. Whenever I ski there I feel I spend the entire day trying to get somewhere, not actually enjoying the place. I am sure with a local it could be great,  but as a visitor I have never been able to figure out them place.





canobie#1 said:


> Sunday River: very fun mountain but the place sucks to navigate.





rtjcbrown said:


> 1. Another vote for Killington. Bigger does not mean better. Seems like you spend more time on runs that connect a bunch of mid sized ski areas.





boston_e said:


> Sunday River, like Killington can be hard to navigate.





Grizzly Adams said:


> Sunday River - boasting about 7 peaks sounds awesome until you realize it takes a load of traverse runs and almost every lift to get from one side of the resort to the other.



Pretty common theme running here:  big (wide) resorts are hard to navigate and require a lot of traversing.  That will certainly be your impression if you try to ski the whole mountain in a day.  Tip: don't do that.   Just because there are a lot of peaks doesn't mean to have to ski a lot of peaks.  Look at the map, identify some terrain that looks interesting to you, and stick with it all day.  

I can't think of a resort I've been to that felt overrated.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Mar 16, 2015)

C-Rex said:


> Bland is not a word used to describe Stowe.  Save that for Okemo.



Yeah, I have zero problems with folks criticizing Stowe or having various XYZ opinions on mountains, but the logic was completely bizarre.  

Saying Killington has great terrain but Stowe's is bland, and that he prefers Bolton to Stowe is not an "opinion", it's an uninformed state.   There might be 100 reasons to perhaps hate the Lamborghini Gallardo, but saying it's "too slow" is certainly not one of them.


----------



## Grizzly Adams (Mar 16, 2015)

C-Rex said:


> I have my qualms with Stowe, but it is a true skier's mountain.  If you think it's bland you either haven't really explored it, or don't have the skill and/or balls to hit the expert stuff which is, IMO, some of the best in New England.



^this.


----------



## Abominable (Mar 16, 2015)

Cannonball said:


> Pretty common theme running here:  big (wide) resorts are hard to navigate and require a lot of traversing.  That will certainly be your impression if you try to ski the whole mountain in a day.  Tip: don't do that.   Just because there are a lot of peaks doesn't mean to have to ski a lot of peaks.  Look at the map, identify some terrain that looks interesting to you, and stick with it all day.



I went to SR once a couple years ago, for a couple days.  First day we tried to 'explore' - ski the whole mountain.  Tremendous waste of time and too much traversing.  For the rest of the trip we skied pods.  Morning at Jordan Bowl, skied our tails off that and Oz, back to truck and drive down to Whitecap lodge for beers in the sun and steep groomers.  So I can see how it might be overrated if you think all that acreage translates into vertical.  But still a fun place with lots of variety.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Mar 16, 2015)

C-Rex said:


> I have my qualms with Stowe. Yes, they are expensive and cater to rich, gaper a-holes,





deadheadskier said:


> Very true on the weekends, but the locals in Stowe are anything but.



Here's where I jump ship from both of you.   

The "rich" I generally encountered at Stowe were no different from the "poor" ski bums, or the middle-class masses.   Some are jerks, some are average folks, and some are the absolute salt of the earth.   Pretty much like everywhere else I've ever wandered on this planet. 

 Of the thousands of people I interacted with at Stowe, regardless of socioeconomic status, the vast majority, probably something like >=98%, seemed like good people, happy skiers/snowboarders, and all there to enjoy the mountain.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Mar 16, 2015)

Scruffy said:


> Wait, I thought you loved Whiteface?



I _like_ Whiteface, I _love_ Lake Placid.

When Whiteface is good, it's GREAT.  The problem is, it isn't "good" that much due to its' being a relatively snow-starved area.  The pejorative "Iceface" might be harsh, but it's fair.  The vertical is palpably better than any area east of the Mississippi, they have some nice glades, the steeps are cool, the trail rating system is more difficult than any place I know, etc... problem is, you cant really enjoy any of this unless you hit the mountain just right, after a snowfall.  You dont plan a trip to Whiteface, you GO to Whiteface.


----------



## hammer (Mar 16, 2015)

Others might not agree with this approach but the first time I ski somewhere I like exploring...even if it means I don't get in as many runs.  If an area is big enough I'll go for 2 days and spend the second day more focused on the areas I liked on the first.


----------



## Farleyman (Mar 16, 2015)

Killington is the most over rated mountain in the country.  


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## VTKilarney (Mar 16, 2015)

MMP said:


> you had me at "autism spectrum"



That's worse than your phrase?  You are one interesting dude.  Grow up and move on.


----------



## EPB (Mar 16, 2015)

Cannonball said:


> Pretty common theme running here:  big (wide) resorts are hard to navigate and require a lot of traversing.



Sounds like the layout of the proposed expansion at The Balsams.


----------



## Cannonball (Mar 16, 2015)

VTKilarney said:


> I should have had MRG on my list.  I got the feeling that MRG was best suited for people somewhere on the autism spectrum.  Fine for those folks, but not for me.



I've read your defense of this comment, but you never actually explained what you meant?  Do you mean because of the single chair?  Or lack of crowds?  Something else?


----------



## VTKilarney (Mar 16, 2015)

Cannonball said:


> I've read your defense of this comment, but you never actually explained what you meant?  Do you mean because of the single chair?  Or lack of crowds?  Something else?



The single chair.  


.


----------



## Cannonball (Mar 16, 2015)

VTKilarney said:


> The single chair.
> 
> 
> .



Makes sense.  Since you deal with this in your family I'm surprised that you find it fine for them but not for you.  Seems like it would work out really well for you to go there with them. 

This is making be feel really bad for autistic snowboarders.  The only single-chair won't allow them.  And surface lifts really suck on a board.


----------



## VTKilarney (Mar 16, 2015)

Cannonball said:


> Makes sense.  Since you deal with this in your family I'm surprised that you find it fine for them but not for you.  Seems like it would work out really well for you to go there with them.
> 
> This is making be feel really bad for autistic snowboarders.  The only single-chair won't allow them.  And surface lifts really suck on a board.



It's more than we can feasibly handle for a day trip, unfortunately.  


.


----------



## C-Rex (Mar 16, 2015)

BenedictGomez said:


> Here's where I jump ship from both of you.
> 
> The "rich" I generally encountered at Stowe were no different from the "poor" ski bums, or the middle-class masses.   Some are jerks, some are average folks, and some are the absolute salt of the earth.   Pretty much like everywhere else I've ever wandered on this planet.
> 
> Of the thousands of people I interacted with at Stowe, regardless of socioeconomic status, the vast majority, probably something like >=98%, seemed like good people, happy skiers/snowboarders, and all there to enjoy the mountain.


I've had mostly the same experience. I said Stowe catered to those types not that that's who shows up.


----------



## MMP (Mar 16, 2015)

VTKilarney said:


> That's worse than your phrase?  You are one interesting dude.  Grow up and move on.



I just can't type any slower, and I've already explained myself once. We should just agree that you don't understand and move on.


----------



## Domeskier (Mar 16, 2015)

C-Rex said:


> I've had mostly the same experience. I said Stowe catered to those types not that that's who shows up.



I wish ski areas would stop catering to people who don't event bother to show up (no sarcasm intended).


----------



## VTKilarney (Mar 16, 2015)

MMP said:


> I just can't type any slower, and I've already explained myself once. We should just agree that you don't understand and move on.


I guess you don't understand that using phrases such as the one you used in an attempt to be ironic or to make a point is still patently offensive.  Hopefully you will give it some thought.  Of the two of us, I am the one who admitted that my comment was ill conceived.  I hope you get to a place where you are able to self reflect someday.

That's the last I have to say on this matter.  It's closed.


----------



## medfordmike (Mar 16, 2015)

bdfreetuna said:


> I don't know if any areas are "overrated" but there are certainly a few which get hyped on this forum and even the mildest criticism tends to elicit strong emotions on behalf of some of the skiers here.



I think this is an interesting point.  In my case I get why some people are so into Killington. I enjoy Killington but it is not my favorite place.  I respect it but I tend to like more lower key kinds of places. I don't think any mountain can be all things to all people. I think being over hyped is the state of folks who think their favorite can be all things to all people and can't understand why you don't get it.   Overrated is when a placed that is hyped doesn't fit your personal style and you don't get why it is hyped.

I was on a lift with a guy at Magic earlier this season. To be blunt he didn't like it even thought it was a nice day, enjoyed the terrain, and there was great snow conditions.  His remark "I like it but I don't like the one lift.  I know this place has lots of believers but I just want to ski and not wait in line".  He seemed like a normal guy he just didn't like Magic.  Nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Savemeasammy (Mar 16, 2015)

I'm not sure I get all the hating on Killington because of the traversing...  Ski something in the same area as this lift you are using.  If you ride K1 to get to Needle's Eye, then you are wasting your time...  Ride K1 and ski in that area.  Ride Suoerstar and ski in that area...  Much of the traversing can be done at the bottom...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## abc (Mar 16, 2015)

Domeskier said:


> I wish ski areas would stop catering to people who don't event bother to show up (no sarcasm intended).


That's call marketing. 

Advertising sells products (hopefully on its strength). Marketing sells dreams.

The tricky part is it must not disappoint. Or the dreamer wakes up and goes elsewhere. Stowe does a good job of pampering the average folks for the duration of their stay at Stowe making them feel like millionaires for a few days. So they feel alright to have paid 30% extra "feel good" premium. Mind you, those are the folks who pay the bills and supported the ski-bum turned instructors, real estate agents etc.


----------



## MMP (Mar 16, 2015)

VTKilarney said:


> I guess you don't understand that using phrases such as the one you used in an attempt to be ironic or to make a point is still patently offensive.  Hopefully you will give it some thought.  Of the two of us, I am the one who admitted that my comment was ill conceived.  I hope you get to a place where you are able to self reflect someday.
> 
> That's the last I have to say on this matter.  It's closed.



Your lack of comprehension is alarming, and you trying to explain something to me is comical. 

Self reflect?

Idiot.


----------



## xlr8r (Mar 16, 2015)

I'll stick to the East for my top 3, but Vail is overrated.

1. Okemo - First went there about 10 years ago and loved it on my first day.  At that time my family usually only went to either Mount Snow or Sunday River and the only ski areas I had been to in VT were Sugarbush, and Jay.   So in comparison to rundown Jay before EB5, and 3 rundown ASC areas at the end of ASC, Okemo seemed to be a well run mountain with new lifts, new trails at Jackson Gore, good grooming and snowmaking, with lots of trails to explore.  Back then I was mostly an intermediate skier so I did not care about the lack of advanced terrain.  But every visit in the years since, I realize how boring the trails there are.  Its not just the lack of pitch, the trails are just too straight, and are all exactly the same width.  It is hard to tell one trail from another, especially in the South Face area.  Also they got way too carried away with building real estate two thirds of the way up the mountain.  Skiing next to houses and condos constantly does not make you feel like you are on a mountain.  Do not intend to go back now on my on will, only with others, just too boring.

2. Waterville - Similar to Okemo, but on a smaller scale.  First went to WV about 15 years ago back when it was considered one of the three big resorts in NH along with Loon and Attitash.  Back then it had two detachable chairs while Ragged, Sunapee, Gunstock, and Cannon had none.  I initially thought it was ok as a ski area, but nothing really great.  Since then WV has not changed at all, while their competitors have improved tremendously.  Now WV just cannot compete with the others as a day trip area from Boston, and is blown away by Loon as a resort now that South Peak is built.  It skis small on vert due to the summit layout, and is very narrow.  All of the trails are wide and mostly straight similar to Okemo but with more pitch.  In fact there is very little low intermediate cruising at all at WV so it is not good for beginners or families IMO.  I have gone there now a couple times on my own, but that was only for $1 day April 1st one year and a $7 day after a Patriots blowout score day last year.  No plans to ever go back until Green Peak is developed, but only if they put a detach there instead of moving their slow triple.  Very poorly run moutain overall that just doesn't seem to get it.  15 years ago a lot of my classmates went to WV all the time, now I do not know of anybody who goes there at all.

3. Jay - Yes they get a ton of snow, but also gets a ton of wind.  May have great glades but the trails mostly suck.  Slow lifts except for the Freezer which is painful to ride.  I cannot judge the EB5 improvements as I have not been to Jay since they have been built.  Lets just say I think Jay has taken EB5 way to far that it is now a ponzi scheme scam and I refuse to give them or that Q guy any of my money.  But even ten years ago I thought Jay was overrated.  And they have been telling us West bowl is coming for like 20+ years now.  

Runners up

4. Mount Snow - Spent way too many days there during the end of ASC when the place was very rundown.  Need to give it another chance now that it is owned by Peaks.  Just remember a lot of waiting in lines for slow lifts to ski overcrowded trails.  But the trails there are fun even though there is not much pitch. 

5. Cannon - I love it on a good snow day, but the last few times I have been there in the last several years it has lived up too its icy stereotype.


----------



## Cannonball (Mar 16, 2015)

xlr8r said:


> I'll stick to the East for my top 3, but Vail is overrated.
> 
> 1. Okemo -
> 
> ...



I'm not sure you know what overrated means.

1. Who rates Okemo highly?  
2. Who rates Waterville highly?
5. If Cannon "lived up to it's reputation" how is that being overrated?


----------



## abc (Mar 16, 2015)

Cannonball said:


> 1. Who rates Okemo highly?
> 2. Who rates Waterville highly?


Okemo and Waterville did, but couldn't deliver. 



> 5. If Cannon "lived up to it's reputation" how is that being overrated?


It lives up to ONE of its reputation. I read that it implies it did NOT live up to (the more positive) reputations. 

(I've never ski Cannon in mid-winter so can't attest to that ferocious reputation. But that's how anyone would read that sentence)


----------



## Grizzly Adams (Mar 16, 2015)

Cannonball said:


> 1. Who rates Okemo highly?



used to take family trips to Okemo when I was younger they were actually pretty great, flash forward to two weekends ago the fam decided to meet up for a weekend, it was crowded beyond belief, can still see why its popular for families with young kids but if youre trying to do some serious skiing or riding my advice is to seek alternative locales, definitely shouldve included it on my original list


----------



## Smellytele (Mar 16, 2015)

I have been pondering my answer to this and still having a hard time putting my mind around this one. By whom is the ski areas overrated by? For the most part most places are what they are said to be by the people I know even by what people on here for the most say they are. I haven't been to a ski area and expected more than what I got. I have been to ski areas and have gotten more than I expected. I have also been disappointed by conditions.


----------



## Cannonball (Mar 16, 2015)

abc said:


> Okemo and Waterville did, but couldn't deliver.
> 
> 
> It lives up to ONE of its reputation. I read that it implies it did NOT live up to (the more positive) reputations.
> ...



Haha, gotcha!  So "rated" means how the resorts portray themselves? Then yes I agree, Okemo and WV (and every other resort on the planet) are overrated relative to how they rate themselves.


----------



## xlr8r (Mar 16, 2015)

Cannonball said:


> I'm not sure you know what overrated means.
> 
> 1. Who rates Okemo highly?
> 2. Who rates Waterville highly?
> 5. If Cannon "lived up to it's reputation" how is that being overrated?



Weren't the ground rules set that this is based on your own personal expectations of each mountain, that is what I based my opinions on.  Not the general consensus of whats overrated.  These are based on my expectations.

1.  Plenty of people, it is one of if not the most popular mountain in the east.  As stated, I thought it would be awesome because it is big, has nice facilities and is well run.  Only after going there a few times now do I realize it sucks because of the terrain.  I used to care more about size and facilities more than terrain quality.
2.  As stated, tons my classmates seemed to go to WV growing up and always bragged about the place
5.  I did not fully explain this one as it was outside my top three.  I knew of its reputation, but a lot of people on this board and other boards always raved about Cannon.  And I really enjoyed my first few days there so I initially thought the stereotype was wrong and thought Cannon was great.  But my last few visits have been nothing but ice when other areas around it have had good conditions.  Now I do not go there as I have realized it is just too inconsistent weather and conditions wise.  In other words I expected Cannon to be one of if not the best places in NH and initially I thought it was, but now I prefer Ragged and Loon.


----------



## Cannonball (Mar 16, 2015)

xlr8r said:


> Weren't the ground rules set that this is based on your own personal expectations of each mountain, that is what I based my opinions on.  Not the general consensus of whats overrated.  These are based on my expectations.
> 
> 1.  Plenty of people, it is one of if not the most popular mountain in the east.  As stated, I thought it would be awesome because it is big, has nice facilities and is well run.  Only after going there a few times now do I realize it sucks because of the terrain.  I used to care more about size and facilities more than terrain quality.
> 2.  As stated, tons my classmates seemed to go to WV growing up and always bragged about the place
> 5.  I did not fully explain this one as it was outside my top three.  I knew of its reputation, but a lot of people on this board and other boards always raved about Cannon.  And I really enjoyed my first few days there so I initially thought the stereotype was wrong and thought Cannon was great.  But my last few visits have been nothing but ice when other areas around it have had good conditions.  Now I do not go there as I have realized it is just too inconsistent weather and conditions wise.  In other words I expected Cannon to be one of if not the best places in NH and initially I thought it was, but now I prefer Ragged and Loon.



Fair enough. Cannon is not Ragged or Loon. If anyone lead you to believe that it is, shame on them.


----------



## xlr8r (Mar 16, 2015)

Cannonball said:


> Fair enough. Cannon is not Ragged or Loon. If anyone lead you to believe that it is, shame on them.



Nobody is saying that.  Just stating my current preferences.  Ragged Loon and Cannon are not really alike much at all.  But most people here think Cannon is the best in NH (or Wildcat), initially I did too.


----------



## EPB (Mar 16, 2015)

MMP said:


> Your lack of comprehension is alarming, and you trying to explain something to me is comical.
> 
> Self reflect?
> 
> Idiot.



Just a word of advice - you're doing yourself no favors trying coming off as competent with these persistent swipes and over-the-top attempts to self aggrandize. 

The issue here is that in pretty short order, VTKilarney owned up to the fact that what he said was received really poorly and did not capture his intentions properly. We all saw the comment, we all saw him acknowledge it was poorly worded and there's nothing else to it. You've been beating a dead horse here for pages on end. 

I can't even begin to understand what provokes someone (who appears to be a grown man if you are who is pictured in the green jacket in your avatar) to be seemingly unable to let this go, but if you're interested in exuding any amount of credibility here, I'd suggest you let it go.


----------



## Cannonball (Mar 16, 2015)

xlr8r said:


> Nobody is saying that.  Just stating my current preferences.  Ragged Loon and Cannon are not really alike much at all.  But most people here think Cannon is the best in NH (or Wildcat), initially I did too.



I'm not arguing in favor of Cannon. It's reputation is cold, icy, windy, cloudy, poor visibility, poorly run. That is 100% accurate. I'm not being facetious. That's it's reputation and it's well deserved. What I don't understand is how you can find it to be exactly what it's reputation is....and consider that overrated.

Cannon's positive reputation is for minimal crowds, hidden stashes, elevation, lack of grooming, tight trees, windy wind swept trails.  If you didn't find these things to be true then it would be overrated.

Edit:  I'm curious what you expected to get that you didn't.


----------



## xlr8r (Mar 16, 2015)

Cannonball said:


> I'm not arguing in favor of Cannon. It's reputation is cold, icy, windy, cloudy, poor visibility, poorly run. That is 100% accurate. I'm not being facetious. That's it's reputation and it's well deserved. What I don't understand is how you can find it to be exactly what it's reputation is....and consider that overrated.
> 
> Cannon's positive reputation is for minimal crowds, hidden stashes, elevation, lack of grooming, tight trees, windy wind swept trails.  If you didn't find these things to be true then it would be overrated.



Just give it up,  you keep saying you don't understand me, when all I am doing is stating an opinion.  I did not use the word "reputation" in my original post, I used "sterotype".  Look it up they do not mean the same thing. 

I am done trying to defend my opinion.


----------



## Cannonball (Mar 16, 2015)

xlr8r said:


> Just give it up,  you keep saying you don't understand me, when all I am doing is stating an opinion.  I did not use the word "reputation" in my original post, I used "sterotype".  Look it up they do not mean the same thing.
> 
> I am done trying to defend my opinion.



You're right, my bad. Didn't mean to come off as attacking your opinion or contribution. Was just literally trying to understand what your expectation was. But you're right the whole thing is only about personal experience anyway. 

FWIW, several of the place you mentioned (Okemo, Mount Snow, WV) are places that I really don't love either. And for all the reasons you mentioned.  I guess I just always asummed those traits were exactly their reputation so I didn't consider them overrated, I considered them accurately rated. Semantics.


----------



## xlr8r (Mar 16, 2015)

Cannonball said:


> You're right, my bad. Didn't mean to come off as attacking your opinion or contribution. Was just literally trying to understand what your expectation was. But you're right the whole thing is only about personal experience anyway.
> 
> FWIW, several of the place you mentioned (Okemo, Mount Snow, WV) are places that I really don't love either. And for all the reasons you mentioned.  I guess I just always asummed those traits were exactly their reputation so I didn't consider them overrated, I considered them accurately rated. Semantics.



Ok we're cool now, it was only 5th on my list anyway.


----------



## abc (Mar 16, 2015)

Cannonball said:


> Haha, gotcha!  So "rated" means how the resorts portray themselves? Then yes I agree, Okemo and WV (and every other resort on the planet) are overrated relative to how they rate themselves.


Almost all mountains overrate their claim. But many underrates in areas they don't make claim of! 

Some mountains fail by far more of their claim than others. And some mountains fail in almost all aspects. That's what makes them appear on the top 3 of people's list.


----------



## j law (Mar 17, 2015)

"Overrated" is relative to your own perceptions... So it's tough for anyone to be wrong in their opinion.

That said, our perception of a ski area is usually based on a small number of visits... Or 1 total visit.  And the perception is mostly influenced on the conditions you've had there.  Hit a powder day almost anywhere and you probably have a good perception of the resort.

Case in point, I was at Gore on Jan. 1st, 2000 (tough to forget where you were on Y2K).  It sucked... There was no snow and all the expert terrain was closed.  I never considered going back... Until this time last year the stars aligned and they had two 20 inch days in a row and I had a perfect  10 day in the glades... And now I can't wait to ski Burnt Ridge again!

My top 3
Whiteface - not as big as you would expect and the terrain was somewhat limited.  Major disappointment my first and second times even though I hit powder days.

Okemo - just a boring mountain... I know, I know, who is hyping it?  I just have never had a great day there.

Pico - maybe it's bc the locals knew where to get the powder and I have been bummed both times that everything was skied off before I knew it.

On a positive note, my expectations were greatly exceeded by Magic and Jay... Though I love powder in the trees and really only ski in the east when the conditions are nearly perfect.  Yeah, I'm a snow snob.

I also have come to love Killington because I learned it... No need to traverse all day if you know where you are going!





Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## BeefyBoy50 (Mar 17, 2015)

This isn't a claim of over-rated, I think, because I still enjoyed my trip-
Jackson Hole seemed less steep to me than everyone claimed (no, I didn't ski Corbet's, it was closed all week, as was most of the hike-to terrain and the backcountry).
Granted, the blue square "intermediate" runs I skied there were more difficult than any blue square runs I have ever skied, with most of them deserving black diamond status at any other ski area in the West. Similarly, some of the black diamonds were difficult for their classification. Ignoring this, however, and considering the way the mountain is known as the most difficult ski area in the US bar none, I was a little disappointed in the in-bounds, open extreme terrain. It seems to me that Squaw, Snowbird, and Crested Butte, maybe even Big Sky as well, have more lift accessible double-black diamond, shit-your pants type terrain. The one or two runs that are difficult to ski and open more rarely than I expected (Corbets, Alta Zero, S&S couloir) comprise maybe 10 acres in total- less than 1% of the total ski area. Further, these runs are little more than jump and pray cliff ledges but are not sustained, 50 degree pitches like I was lead to believe. Don't question, these runs are still incredibly difficult and in all but the best conditions far beyond my ability level, but the mountain IMO didn't lead up to its reputation. There seemed to be only a few zones offering this type of terrain on the mountain: the chutes near the summit, the cliffs under Thunder, the cliffs under Sublette, the cliffs in the bowl to lookers left of Sublette, and small portions of the Hobacks area.

In comparison, every single lift at Snowbird (and Squaw for that matter) has some zone that only the best skiers can navigate, and many of those lifts have multiple of these zones. The Cirque at Snowbird is a massive, sustained and steep pitch area that isn't really paralleled at Jackson (at least inbounds. I know out of bounds at Jackson Hole, or in sidebounds terrain, it is a completely different story). Crested and Big Sky also have massive zones of continuous difficult terrain (North Face, A-Z Chutes).

I don't want the fact that I skied these other mountains with powder but JHole when there was no real fresh snow for 2 weeks to cloud my judgment. I still think it is an excellent mountain and I definitely enjoyed it, but that doesn't mean it isn't overrated.


----------



## benski (Mar 17, 2015)

Cannonball said:


> 1. Who rates Okemo highly?


Some of my friends rate okemo very highly. They thought it is the biggest, tallest mountain in vt and don't know there are steeper mountains in vt. So wrong. They still think all east coast mountains are flat like okemo. 


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## MMP (Mar 17, 2015)

eastern powder baby said:


> Just a word of advice...........but if you're interested in exuding any amount of credibility here, I'd suggest you let it go.



Insert your advice where vtk has his head. 
Credibility? With you? All set.


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 17, 2015)

MMP give it at rest.  He admitted his fault with his statement.  That's enough

No one wants for this to keep going and muck up the topic further.

Please stop


----------



## MMP (Mar 17, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> MMP give it at rest.  He admitted his fault with his statement.  That's enough
> 
> No one wants for this to keep going and muck up the topic further.
> 
> Please stop



In honor of Phil's birthday, ok

(Who doesn't love MRG? Weird)


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 17, 2015)

Well Phil's birthday was Sunday, but thanks.  :lol:


----------



## MMP (Mar 17, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> Well Phil's birthday was Sunday, but thanks.  :lol:



Really? Sunday? Missed it again. 

When you're 75 you get the week to celebrate. Phil likes MRG.


----------



## ScottySkis (Mar 17, 2015)

benski said:


> Some of my friends rate okemo very highly. They thought it is the biggest, tallest mountain in vt and don't know there are steeper mountains in vt. So wrong. They still think all east coast mountains are flat like okemo.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone



It like all places were the same our winter would be boring.


----------



## Domeskier (Mar 17, 2015)

abc said:


> That's call marketing.
> 
> Advertising sells products (hopefully on its strength). Marketing sells dreams.
> 
> The tricky part is it must not disappoint. Or the dreamer wakes up and goes elsewhere. Stowe does a good job of pampering the average folks for the duration of their stay at Stowe making them feel like millionaires for a few days. So they feel alright to have paid 30% extra "feel good" premium. Mind you, those are the folks who pay the bills and supported the ski-bum turned instructors, real estate agents etc.



I'm not talking about advertising.  Or about Stowe.  I have zero objection to their marketing themselves to wealthy people or even catering to them with spas and expensive food or priority lifelines. What would annoy me is if they groomed everything flat and set up park features on every trail because those are the things that they think people who are not skiing there really want.  Or maybe that is what most skiers want these days and all I want is for ski areas to cater to my relatively idiosyncratic skiing preferences.


----------



## C-Rex (Mar 17, 2015)

Cannonball said:


> I'm not sure you know what overrated means.
> 
> 1. Who rates Okemo highly?
> 2. Who rates Waterville highly?
> 5. If Cannon "lived up to it's reputation" how is that being overrated?



A lot of people love Okemo.  Mostly intermediates and families, and that's fine, but Okemo definitely has a huge fan base.

We have to keep in mind that most of us on this forum are outliers when it comes to ski area's demographics.  We are the advanced to expert skiers and riders that live for this stuff.  What we look for is not what probably 80% of ticket buyers are interested in.


----------



## machski (Mar 17, 2015)

Overrated is tough, varies for different reasons for me.
Killington and Sugarloaf - for overrated vertical drops.  Sure you can ski it continuous, but both resorts are mostly 1800' continuous of an interest.  The rest you just ski to say you did it or at the end of your day if you started at true base.
Heavenly - terrain did not impress me and the terrain is very Pod-ed.  Skied too small.


----------



## gmcunni (Mar 17, 2015)

alta.    i went there and it snowed 18 inches overnight. everyone said how great it was but i couldn't turn my skis, it was a horrible day.  i quit after 2 runs, place really sucked and is overrated.


----------



## MMP (Mar 17, 2015)

gmcunni said:


> alta.    i went there and it snowed 18 inches overnight. everyone said how great it was but i couldn't turn my skis, it was a horrible day.  i quit after 2 runs, place really sucked and is overrated.



lol. good one


----------



## 4aprice (Mar 17, 2015)

Domeskier said:


> I'm not talking about advertising.  Or about Stowe.  I have zero objection to their marketing themselves to wealthy people or even catering to them with spas and expensive food or priority lifelines. What would annoy me is if they groomed everything flat and set up park features on every trail because those are the things that they think people who are not skiing there really want.  Or maybe that is what most skiers want these days and all I want is for ski areas to cater to my relatively idiosyncratic skiing preferences.



This is a fine line the ski areas have to straddle. I agree with you that they should try to cater to everyone.  I see this with my "home" mountain Camelback PA.  I would like to see this and this bumped and maybe 1/2 of that, but the mountain doesn't see it that way.  In order to see it my way, some trails would have to be closed from time to time, or replenished with $nowmaking on a regular basis.  Both those scenario's they feel cost them money.  The less regular (non AZ) type skier looks at the ski report, see's closed trails, and wonders if the snow is not better elsewhere. I will add that Camelback has done a good job of leaving some ungroomed terrain available, enough to keep us using it as a home base.

As far as rating mountains,  I like to ski all over the place from the big boys to the small community hill.  I'll strap them on anywhere.  More then thinking about them in a ranking, I have places I want to visit.

Alex

Lake Hopatcong, NJ


----------



## Riverskier (Mar 17, 2015)

I don't really have much to add to the thread, as every ski area I have visited has lived up to the expectations I have had for it based on varying critera.

Re Sunday River though: Say what you will about the vertical drop (it is what it is) or the terrain (entirely subjective), but I just don't get the comments regarding traversing. If skied in an even remotely sensible manner in that regard there is virtually no traversing at all. The only real traverse is getting back to Barker or White Cap from Jordan Bowl or Oz. I only choose to do that once a day if I even head West, and I actually enjoy it once a day. Pretty cool actually IMO that you can ski from the top of one end of a 3 mile wide resort to the bottom of the other end without riding a lift. They won the National Ski Area Design Award at one point.


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 17, 2015)

Killington and Sunday River both get dinged for traversing.  I don't think it's an issue at either place if you ski it right and it doesn't take a rocket scientist looking at map to figure that out.

The bigger issue with both (much more so of an issue with Killington) is the number of trail intersections and inexperienced skiers that use them.  

I'm in complete agreement with you on enjoying that long traverse at SR.  When I was a pass holder at SR, I parked at White Cap 90% of the time and just slowly made my way all the way out to Jordan, enjoying each peak along the way. Then at the the end of the day I'd traverse back to Barker for a beer or two and take roadrunner down to my car.


----------



## St. Bear (Mar 17, 2015)

The knock against K and SR isn't traversing in the traditional sense, but rather skiing trails that you normally wouldn't ski as a means to get from one side to the other.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Mar 17, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> *Killington** and Sunday River both get dinged for traversing.*.....*The bigger issue with both (much more so of an issue with Killington) is the number of trail intersections and inexperienced skiers that use them.  *



In addition to all the above you left out Killington's dominance in the category of:

_"Most egregious exaggeration of vertical drop"_.

That bit of overratedness' is a self-inflicted wound.


----------



## Grizzly Adams (Mar 17, 2015)

C-Rex said:


> We have to keep in mind that most of us on this forum are outliers when it comes to ski area's demographics.  We are the advanced to expert skiers and riders that live for this stuff.  What we look for is not what probably 80% of ticket buyers are interested in.



Definitely thought about this when considering my picks for "overrated resorts", if an area is concerned with drawing crowds they are obviously going to be aiming to cater to the mid-level or average skier, rather than focusing on the needs and wants of experts. In regards to Okemo, as I stated previously, I have had fantastic days there in the past, but since my ability has increased significantly since that point, the big O no longer provides what I am looking for when deciding where to ski.

I agree with most of you, "overrating" is based a lot on one's own expectations of the resort, their own skill level and the conditions on the days when they are there. There's clearly no standards across the board, but I do find it interesting reading the different perspectives that have been brought up here.


----------



## skiberg (Mar 17, 2015)

Vail- Very little challenging terrain. Blue Sky is great but only with good snow.  
Jay Peak - Tremendous woods/off-piste,  but lacks bit of diversity in terrain on-piste.
Cannon glades- Many "in bounds" are almost unskiable they are so tight. However, glades in side country and not on map are much better and ski much better.


----------



## C-Rex (Mar 17, 2015)

I love Jay but I do agree that without their glades, there is little to rave about.  It's not that the place sucks by any means, but the glades are really what it's all about.  I'd never suggest Jay to someone who doesn't ski trees.


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 17, 2015)

skiberg said:


> Cannon glades- Many "in bounds" are almost unskiable they are so tight. However, glades in side country and not on map are much better and ski much better.



QFT. I accidentally skied "The Creek" a couple of weeks ago and I was wondering if it was a joke.  Except for the bottom in the actual creek, it completely sucked due to how tight the trees are.   

Global Warming glade also kind of sucks.  It isn't as bad as The Creek, but it would ski better if thinned a little more.


----------



## Domeskier (Mar 17, 2015)

4aprice said:


> I will add that Camelback has done a good job of leaving some ungroomed terrain available, enough to keep us using it as a home base.



Yeah, places like Camelback and Sundown and Blue Mtn (never been) seem to do a nice job providing interesting terrain to the geographically challenged.  I wish more local hills would follow their example.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 17, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> QFT. I accidentally skied "The Creek" a couple of weeks ago and I was wondering if it was a joke. Except for the bottom in the actual creek, it completely sucked due to how tight the trees are.
> 
> Global Warming glade also kind of sucks. It isn't as bad as The Creek, but it would ski better if thinned a little more.



These were not officially cut glades.  That is why.  They were just put on the map.


----------



## skiberg (Mar 17, 2015)

Global Warming, Lost Boys, The creek, Going Green, Amazon, Wicked Hard, all need substantial thinning. They could really be quite good with a little attention. BTW is it me or did they thin Echo?


----------



## Cannonball (Mar 17, 2015)

skiberg said:


> Cannon glades- Many "in bounds" are almost unskiable they are so tight. However, glades in side country and not on map are much better and ski much better.





deadheadskier said:


> QFT. I accidentally skied "The Creek" a couple of weeks ago and I was wondering if it was a joke.  Except for the bottom in the actual creek, it completely sucked due to how tight the trees are.
> 
> Global Warming glade also kind of sucks.  It isn't as bad as The Creek, but it would ski better if thinned a little more.



Disagree because I actually love how tight those specific runs are.  But with that said, I completely agree that it is INSANE for these to be marked/open parts of a resort. They do not in any way resemble what any typical/normal customer would expect when they see a trail sign.  Not to mention that these glades are definitely not swept by patrol at the end of the day (if ever!).  In terms of being found and rescued if you ever got hurt, you might as well be off the map. So it seems like the liability risk is off the charts by calling these part of the official mountain.  I can understand what you mean by these being 'overrated'. If a random person heard that "Cannon has good glades" and choose to go to the mountain for that reason, they'd likely be very disappointed (if not injured).


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 17, 2015)

You like the Creek?  I'm not typically adverse to tight trees, but I just found that area to be particularly ridiculous.  I could ski it, but not with any sort of speed or rhythm


----------



## Cannonball (Mar 17, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> You like the Creek?  I'm not typically adverse to tight trees, but I just found that area to be particularly ridiculous.  I could ski it, but not with any sort of speed or rhythm



Yeah, actually I do.  Although I haven't skied this season because of the 2 huge ice bulges at the bottom.  Curious how you navigated those?

Again though, I agree it is ridiculously tight and not something they should be sending unwitting customers into. This brings up the frequently discussed issue of trail marking systems.  A person could be feeling pretty good about themselves after a day of skiing double black diamond glades at Bretton Woods, then get seriously over their head on a single black thicket at Cannon.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 17, 2015)

Cannonball said:


> Yeah, actually I do. Although I haven't skied this season because of the 2 huge ice bulges at the bottom. Curious how you navigated those?
> 
> Again though, I agree it is ridiculously tight and not something they should be sending unwitting customers into. This brings up the frequently discussed issue of trail marking systems. A person could be feeling pretty good about themselves after a day of skiing double black diamond glades at Bretton Woods, then get seriously over their head on a single black thicket at Cannon.



Totally agree.  I have skied past a number of people in the upper glades that should not be in there. They really should not be on the map especially with most of those names!!!


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 17, 2015)

Cannonball said:


> Yeah, actually I do.  Although I haven't skied this season because of the 2 huge ice bulges at the bottom.  Curious how you navigated those?
> 
> .



IIRC there was a bit of easy out to the right with some snow to ski around it.  It was definitely sketchy in the packed condition state.


----------



## machski (Mar 17, 2015)

St. Bear said:


> The knock against K and SR isn't traversing in the traditional sense, but rather skiing trails that you normally wouldn't ski as a means to get from one side to the other.



Yet that is one of the pluses of K and SR.  With the width of the resorts, there is almost always an area devoid or with substantially less crowds.


----------



## skiberg (Mar 17, 2015)

Would not worry much about liability. If you go in, you do so at your own risk. Ski resorts in the US are VERY difficult to sue. I just think with as tight as they are, you get very little flow. After I ski Jay or Stowe and I return I am always amazed at what we endure at Cannon. You can ski Timbuktu at Jay from the top all the way to the road, with pace and flow, and never stop. Try that at any of the upper mountain glades at Cannon and you are liable to eat some bark. Also, you are forced to ski similar lines which causes the snow to get skied off much quicker, but not much we can do about that, the trees are just tighter.


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 17, 2015)

Soft wood glades just don't work the same as natural hard wood stands.   They require a ton of human effort to make work.

Thankfully a lot of Cannon regulars seem to help with that.

Wildcat has similar issues.  Sometimes I wish I skied there with a chainsaw


----------



## skiberg (Mar 17, 2015)

True, which is why Whiskey skis so much better, even though its at the bottom of the hill. Without MAJOR work up top, or a forest fire, we are simply not going to have any major change. Although, there are a few soft woods glades here and there that ski pretty well. Skied a few Sunday once they softened up.


----------



## xwhaler (Mar 17, 2015)

Soft woods glades: Bolton is letting some locals thin some off map shots that are pretty amazing. 
Makes the mtn ski pretty sweet despite the run out on a powder day like we had Sunday! Just gotta know where to look...


----------



## Cannonball (Mar 17, 2015)

skiberg said:


> True, which is why Whiskey skis so much better, even though its at the bottom of the hill. Without MAJOR work up top, or a forest fire, we are simply not going to have any major change. Although, there are a few soft woods glades here and there that ski pretty well. Skied a few Sunday once they softened up.



Agree!  Examples from last week:
Hard wood (Whiskey)


Soft Wood, actually one of the more open ones (LB)


----------



## Savemeasammy (Mar 17, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> Global Warming glade also kind of sucks.  It isn't as bad as The Creek, but it would ski better if thinned a little more.



This. 

My 7 year old was able to properly enjoy this glade on his 100's...  Personally, I don't find runs like that to be particularly enjoyable or challenging.  I hope that cannon has better glade offerings (Kinsman aside...)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## steamboat1 (Mar 20, 2015)

j law said:


> I also have come to love Killington because I learned it... No need to traverse all day if you know where you are going!


I agree whole heartedly with this statement. If they put in a new South Ridge chair it would be even easier to maneuver. I can & do ski the whole mountain everyday skiing up & down, not sideways. It's not hard once you learn the area.


----------



## billski (Mar 20, 2015)

abc said:


> "Overrated" is dependent on what "rating" one goes by.


I'm with you all the way.  However.  It seems like you are using the AZ rating consensus, as you singled out the ones often discussed here.

 I would define the rating as the hype given by the ski area's marketing machine.  Since ski condition transparency via internet came into play, market hype is way down and truthfulness (or conditions withheld) make it vastly easier to see through anyone's rating.  

But it's not just about setting expectations "downward".  It seems to me that most mountains have, or desire to target, a niche.  Get the wrong skier/boarder on the wrong mountain, you've got an epic fail.  For some, it's epic grooming they expect. No loose pow.  Bring a barkeater to, let's say Stratton, he's going to call them out for having over-rated glade skiing.  Well, it's probably just right for the Stratton clientele.   And what exactly are the expectations?


----------



## CoolMike (Mar 20, 2015)

Over rated:  Stowe, WaWa, and PCMR.

Stowe because I don't understand this place at all - apparently bad trail layout (or perhaps I was doing it wrong?), expensive for day trips, and extremely limited seating in the picnicking areas funneling people (like myself) into the over priced and still extremely crowded restaurants.

WaWa for obvious reasons, crowds, lack of pitch, and crowds.

PCMR only in comparison to the other mountains in the area, most especially Snowbird and Alta.  I did enjoy myself there immensely and  there were lots of cool runs, enough snow, and plenty of steeps.  Its only real failing is that its in the same region as the big and little cottonwood canyons.


----------



## Gforce (Mar 21, 2015)

Aspen - cool town but the mountain layout blows, everyone channels down under the Little Nell chair. It has the feel of route 128 on Friday afternoon rush hour. Go to Aspen Highlands.

Sunday River - too spread out, it seems like a sprawling 1990's strip mall, does not have the character or ambience of classic VT or NH ski areas.  Go to Saddleback

Stowe - for $90/day the terrain, snow conditions and people are much better at Sugarbush.


----------



## hammer (Mar 21, 2015)

VTKilarney said:


> I included Sunday River not because it is a bad ski area - but because it is way overhyped.  I am sure that you will have a fine time there.


We did, even though there were only a few lifts open on Thursday due to winds and the conditions ranged from petrified corduroy to groomed hardpack.  Went into a few of the easier glades but they were quite firm.  Yes some of the traversing was a pain, but we managed OK.


----------

