# Most Challenging



## John W (Feb 1, 2011)

So I was looking at the online article here and it got me to thinking about what the people on here have to say about the most challenging runs mountains in the north east.  So how about it.  What are some of the most challenging runs.  Inbound and glades at resorts you have been to in the North East.  Now I was at Killington earlier this season.  We did Devils fiddle, outer limits, Vertigo head wall, big dipper and enjoyed all of em.  Wonder what people like at places like Okemo, Stowe, Stratton, etc.  Never Done New Hampshire, or Maine and wondering what trails I should look out for when I do.  

http://www.nydailynews.com/travel/g..._slopes/worlds_most_dangerous_ski_slopes.html


----------



## moguler6 (Feb 1, 2011)

At Killington you missed lower Ovation, Anarchy, and Julio.  Okemo and Flatton don't have anything.

Stowe - Upper Goat, Upper Starr, and Bypass
Mad River - Paradise
Sugarbush - Rumble
Smuggs - Lift Line, Blackhole
Jay - Face Chutes, Everglade, Staircase
Canon - DJ's Tramline


----------



## St. Jerry (Feb 1, 2011)

John W said:


> So I was looking at the online article here and it got me to thinking about what the people on here have to say about the most challenging runs mountains in the north east.  So how about it.  What are some of the most challenging runs.  Inbound and glades at resorts you have been to in the North East.  Now I was at Killington earlier this season.  We did Devils fiddle, outer limits, Vertigo head wall, big dipper and enjoyed all of em.  Wonder what people like at places like Okemo, Stowe, Stratton, etc.  Never Done New Hampshire, or Maine and wondering what trails I should look out for when I do.
> 
> http://www.nydailynews.com/travel/g..._slopes/worlds_most_dangerous_ski_slopes.html



Hardest train in the East is Juggernaut at Killington on a snowboard.  Proven fact.


----------



## oakapple (Feb 1, 2011)

Some sites claim that The Rumor and Lies at Gore Mountain are the two steepest double-blacks in the Northeast. They tend to get overlooked, because Gore _overall_ does not have a lot of double-black terrain.


----------



## John W (Feb 1, 2011)

@ Moguler - Julio, Anarchy and Ovation were also very good.  Been to Jay and SB - Everglade and Rumbe are 2 of my favs.  Have not touched the FChutes...
@CPS - LMAO!!! Pretty challenging on skis as well but DEFINITELY HELLISH for Snowboarders that venture on to that trail!! And there is no escape.
OakApple - How do you stack up Gore vs a Mt Snow??


----------



## marcski (Feb 1, 2011)

What is hard for one person is Paradise for another.....


----------



## John W (Feb 1, 2011)

Part of why I used the the term challenging.....  For some skiing is hard.  Or snowboarding is hard.  As a skier or snowboarder on this page, I wanted to know what challenges people...  What trail on what mountain challenges you Marski?


----------



## moguler6 (Feb 1, 2011)

cps27 said:


> Hardest train in the East is Juggernaut at Killington on a snowboard.  Proven fact.



Hahaha....so true!  I love seeing the lost people every weekend wandering around the Bear parking lot trying to find the rest of the trail.  Seriously, why do you put a trail on the map that requires you to walk a quarter mile through a parking lot.


----------



## mister moose (Feb 1, 2011)

Lower Bunny Buster (Killington) on a crowded day is very challenging.


----------



## iSki (Feb 1, 2011)

I skied half way down Kinsman glade (Cannon mtn) a couple of weeks ago and then had to hike down a bit. Pretty challenging for me i would say. But that should be no problem once I get my Blizzard the One this week (hopefully skis are in transit from denver).


----------



## deadheadskier (Feb 1, 2011)

moguler6 said:


> At Killington you missed lower Ovation, Anarchy, and Julio.  Okemo and Flatton don't have anything.



Agree that Okemo has minimal challenge.  Disagree on the Stratton call.  I thought Shredwood Forest had some pretty decent pitch and areas of tight trees..

Flatton doesn't deserve it's nickname at all IMO.   There's plenty of stuff to keep an advanced skier entertained.


----------



## kcyanks1 (Feb 1, 2011)

oakapple said:


> Some sites claim that The Rumor and Lies at Gore Mountain are the two steepest double-blacks in the Northeast. They tend to get overlooked, because Gore _overall_ does not have a lot of double-black terrain.



Rumor headwall is very steep, but also short.  Most steeps in the east are short, but Rumor headwall is only a few turns.  They also now winch it out.  The first year it opened, before they blasted the trail and had the ability to groom it, it was _much_ more challenging.  I agree though that it still deserves mention in any discussion of toughest trails on the map in the east.


----------



## riverc0il (Feb 1, 2011)

For on map non-glade, Liftline at Smuggs. /thread

There aren't a lot of really challenging on map runs in the east. Its a rare combination of steep pitch, mandatory air, variable terrain, obstacles, etc. Even the most challenging runs in the east aren't usually challenging because of the terrain but rather the conditions. Scraped down hard pack without any new snow in weeks and maybe a recent rain/freeze makes a moderately challenging run nail biting. But that doesn't make the run itself challenging, its just challenging when the snow sucks.

The most challenging runs I encounter in the east are the steepest groomed runs that get scraped down quick because most skiers and board side slip the entire trail in between occasional turns.


----------



## kcyanks1 (Feb 1, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> For on map non-glade, Liftline at Smuggs. /thread
> 
> There aren't a lot of really challenging on map runs in the east. Its a rare combination of steep pitch, mandatory air, variable terrain, obstacles, etc. Even the most challenging runs in the east aren't usually challenging because of the terrain but rather the conditions. Scraped down hard pack without any new snow in weeks and maybe a recent rain/freeze makes a moderately challenging run nail biting. But that doesn't make the run itself challenging, its just challenging when the snow sucks.
> 
> The most challenging runs I encounter in the east are the steepest groomed runs that get scraped down quick because most skiers and board side slip the entire trail in between occasional turns.



Never been to Smuggs so can't comment on Liftline, but otherwise agree that conditions are a big factor in difficult for on-map trails in the east.


----------



## marcski (Feb 1, 2011)

John W said:


> Part of why I used the the term challenging.....  For some skiing is hard.  Or snowboarding is hard.  As a skier or snowboarder on this page, I wanted to know what challenges people...  What trail on what mountain challenges you Marski?



You kind of have to define challenge to properly answer.  Physically, aerobically, challenge as in survive to get down?  Another factor are the conditions and if there is any recent snow.  

These days, I challenge myself  mostly in the woods.


----------



## deadheadskier (Feb 1, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> For on map non-glade, Liftline at Smuggs. /thread
> .



never skied the meat of the trail. Ridden the chair over it many times.  IMO after 27 years of skiing in the Northeast, yes, Liftline at Smuggs is the most difficult marked run in the East.


----------



## riverc0il (Feb 1, 2011)

marcski said:


> You kind of have to define challenge to properly answer.  Physically, aerobically, challenge as in survive to get down?  Another factor are the conditions and if there is any recent snow.
> 
> These days, I challenge myself  mostly in the woods.


I think to make this an interesting exercise, you really have to take conditions out of the equation and equate generally good conditions on all trails being compared. Many steeper natural trails could have coverage issues that make them challenging. Not sure how to factor that into the equation as a trail that generally has thin coverage 95% of the time would obviously factor in the challenge aspect most of the time. But perhaps conditions and coverage are two different aspects and typical coverage is considered part of terrain (i.e. certain terrain features lend themselves towards typically being thin).


----------



## Johnskiismore (Feb 1, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> The most challenging runs I encounter in the east are the steepest groomed runs that get scraped down quick because most skiers and board side slip the entire trail in between occasional turns.



Agree, like Ripsaw at Loon, nice steep pitch at the top, but between grooming and people scraping their way down especially on skiers left it's not enjoyable.  Hit it first thing in the morning


----------



## Newpylong (Feb 2, 2011)

oakapple said:


> Some sites claim that The Rumor and Lies at Gore Mountain are the two steepest double-blacks in the Northeast. They tend to get overlooked, because Gore _overall_ does not have a lot of double-black terrain.



Ripcord at Mount Snow is steeper - at least now that Rumor was leveled out a bit a while back.


----------



## tjf67 (Feb 2, 2011)

John W said:


> @ Moguler - Julio, Anarchy and Ovation were also very good.  Been to Jay and SB - Everglade and Rumbe are 2 of my favs.  Have not touched the FChutes...
> @CPS - LMAO!!! Pretty challenging on skis as well but DEFINITELY HELLISH for Snowboarders that venture on to that trail!! And there is no escape.
> OakApple - How do you stack up Gore vs a Mt Snow??



I grew up in Troy NY.  Skied Mt Snow till I found Gore.  Mt Snow has more continuous Vert.  Gore has a lot more terrain and much more challenging runs.  Mt Snow has much more snow making.  Gore has a lot more glade skiing.  
My snow access road is a PITA at the end of the day to get out of town.  

People who live in Albany area when there is snow should always head to Gore.  When the snow is not around Mt Snow is better.


----------



## tjf67 (Feb 2, 2011)

Newpylong said:


> Ripcord at Mount Snow is steeper - at least now that Rumor was leveled out a bit a while back.




I dont think so.  Ripcord has never crossed my mind as something that is steep.  Rumor on the other hand has.  You stick skiers left on Rumor and that is some steep stuff.   It is only around four turns before the pitch decreases but even below that is it pretty steep.  That side is best skied when there are bumps so you can hit something to slow you down.


----------



## Smellytele (Feb 2, 2011)

Just because something is steep doesn't mean it is the most challenging. Bumps, trees, cliffs and other things including steeps are all ingredients that make trails challenging.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 2, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> For on map non-glade, Liftline at Smuggs. /thread



I'm not the best person to answer this, as I dont consider myself a great skier to begin with, but Smuggs' Liftline is extremely challenging for me (fun though, with little things to jump off). I've not skied everyplace in the east, but I'd agree Liftline is probably the toughest thing I've skied.  

I'd also like to throw the top of Starr at Stowe into the mix of this discussion.  It's also really steep, narrow, and with a double falline that can sortof funnel you.  Plus, when you stand at the top of it you literally dont even see a ski trail, which is kindof intimidating.  Dunno if others would agree, but I'd say that's one of the hardest trails I've skied.


----------



## kingslug (Feb 2, 2011)

BenedictGomez said:


> I'm not the best person to answer this, as I dont consider myself a great skier to begin with, but Smuggs' Liftline is extremely challenging for me (fun though, with little things to jump off). I've not skied everyplace in the east, but I'd agree Liftline is probably the toughest thing I've skied.
> 
> I'd also like to throw the top of Starr at Stowe into the mix of this discussion.  It's also really steep, narrow, and with a double falline that can sortof funnel you.  Plus, when you stand at the top of it you literally dont even see a ski trail, which is kindof intimidating.  Dunno if others would agree, but I'd say that's one of the hardest trails I've skied.



Agreed..also the runs off Sugarbush's Castlerock chair...


----------



## John W (Feb 2, 2011)

This is exactly waht I was looking for out of this thread... I would define challenging personally as terrain vs techincal completion vs conditioning required to get down.  I see people Knee popping mogels straight down the trail effortlessly.  I can't do that. Same in the tree line.  I can't do that.  Takes me longer to get down the trail with a quick breather half way down.  Devils fiddle being an example.  Love the moguls, pitch, terrain scrapes etc.  And while I find it challenging, I find the out of bounds woods at Jay (off of timbuktu and andre's paradise) to be more challenging because of the fitness level required..


----------



## John W (Feb 2, 2011)

Either way, LOVE this thread..  Great discussion.


----------



## John W (Feb 2, 2011)

Toughest terrain I have ever faced was Telluride - LaRosa, Genevive, Little Rose and Jackson Hole - Top of the Hobacks, Tensleep and Headwall because of pitch and bumps and terrain.  There was very little snow at each when I was there and the length of the run..  And that made it even tougher.  And no, i am not capable of a 10-15 ft vertical drop into a chute so I did not attempt Corbets...  Great terrain though either way.  I love all of it.  East and west..


----------



## Vortex (Feb 2, 2011)

Johnskiismore said:


> Agree, like Ripsaw at Loon, nice steep pitch at the top, but between grooming and people scraping their way down especially on skiers left it's not enjoyable.  Hit it first thing in the morning



Monday that is on the Agenda.


----------



## marcski (Feb 2, 2011)

Maybe its me, but I never found Devil's Fiddle so challenging.


----------



## Black Phantom (Feb 2, 2011)

Virtually anything off of KT-22 would make most on this message board sh*t their pants.


----------



## SKIQUATTRO (Feb 2, 2011)

Windham: Wonderama on Sunday.


----------



## dmc (Feb 2, 2011)

Black Phantom said:


> Virtually anything off of KT-22 would make most on this message board sh*t their pants.



no doubt...  Some stuff in Granite Chief too...

Some of the scariest stuff I've ridden is Pucker Face at JH and Sharks Fin in Kashmir..

I haven't found anytthing inbounds on the east coast that really makes me pucker..


----------



## gladerider (Feb 2, 2011)

Black Phantom said:


> Virtually anything off of KT-22 would make most on this message board sh*t their pants.



KT-22 is pretty gnarly....good way to pump your adrenalin....


----------



## jaywbigred (Feb 2, 2011)

tjf67 said:


> I dont think so.  Ripcord has never crossed my mind as something that is steep.  Rumor on the other hand has.  You stick skiers left on Rumor and that is some steep stuff.   It is only around four turns before the pitch decreases but even below that is it pretty steep.  That side is best skied when there are bumps so you can hit something to slow you down.



Ripcord is probably the steepest I have experienced in the east, incl. Stowe. It's not too long, but it does bump up with pretty nasty moguls. I haven't been everywhere, but it is steep.



John W said:


> Toughest terrain I have ever faced was Telluride - LaRosa, Genevive, Little Rose and Jackson Hole - Top of the Hobacks, Tensleep and Headwall because of pitch and bumps and terrain.  There was very little snow at each when I was there and the length of the run..  And that made it even tougher.  And no, i am not capable of a 10-15 ft vertical drop into a chute so I did not attempt Corbets...  Great terrain though either way.  I love all of it.  East and west..



I didn't think the Hobacks were all that steep. Central Chute was steep, but Tower 3 Chute was probably the most daunting thing I've skied. Not just the steepness, but when we were there it was "bumped" up (no new snow for awhile) and of course not wide.


----------



## cannonist (Feb 2, 2011)

I may get shot down for this, but if you have ever ventured into the glades off Psyched, or Psyched out at Waterville then you will know, thats some steep stuff.


----------



## Black Phantom (Feb 2, 2011)

dmc said:


> no doubt...  Some stuff in Granite Chief too...
> 
> Some of the scariest stuff I've ridden is Pucker Face at JH and Sharks Fin in Kashmir..
> 
> I haven't found anytthing inbounds on the east coast that really makes me pucker..



And of course Silverado. Talk about cliff zones.


----------



## dmc (Feb 2, 2011)

Black Phantom said:


> And of course Silverado. Talk about cliff zones.



A friend of mine is there now..  Silverado JUST opened after some snow... He was stoked..

I dig Squallywood...


----------



## ceo (Feb 2, 2011)

Toughest I've skied in the East is probably Kinsman Glade. Prior to that I'd have said Paradise at MRG. They're pretty similar, but Kinsman is >4 times as long. I've never skied Castlerock, though, or anything expert at Smuggs (because the one time I've been there was when I was 5).

Of course, it's a highly subjective assessment, as different people have trouble with different things; I evidently have the most trouble with really steep, bumpy gladed runs.


----------



## deadheadskier (Feb 2, 2011)

dmc said:


> I haven't found anytthing inbounds on the east coast that really makes me pucker..



Pucker depends on mandatory air for me for the most part.  I wouldn't do something like Corbetts

something super steep, narrow or with tight trees doesn't particularly bother me.  As long as I can keep my skis on the snow or have room to jump turn, I'm fine.


----------



## dmc (Feb 2, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Pucker depends on mandatory air for me for the most part.  I wouldn't do something like Corbetts.



To me - it's uncertainty..

Like when you ride the headwall at Tucks..  You can't see what your going to be skiing cause it drops off so fast - and that unkown is what frightens me the most..  i know what to expect now after dozens of times down it.  But the first time i almost barfed..

I can do Corbetts cause I can see into it..  Pucker face has a rock band on it - bad choice means hucking or climbing out.


----------



## Northeastskier293 (Feb 2, 2011)

Ripcord at Mount Snow is pretty steep and often has uneven bumps, I found it to be a lot harder than anything at stowe (well, the upper parts on the front four trails were all closed, but they didn't look as steep). Never been to Gore but I really want to ski the rumor and lies someday. Here are my views on challenging trails at other mountains:

Okemo: Not challenging at all, the steeper pitches are short and there aren't very many of them

Killington: lots of variety of challenging terrain, but the last time I was there I wasn't advanced enough for any of it

Sugarbush: I love stein's run and exterminator, but the other tough stuff was either closed or horribly icy when I went

Stowe: I loved the middle parts of Starr and Goat (Upper parts weren't open), but they were a lot easier than I expected

Sugarloaf: Snowfields are quite challenging

Sunday River: White Heat is fairly steep and so is Shockwave, Black Hole is a lot steeper but much shorter, Sunday River isn't really my #1 pick for challenging terrain

Bretton Woods: Glades are the only challenge, and even their hardest aren't that hard

Mount Snow: I went there to ski ripcord. It was the only trail that I found to be truly challenging, but it was very challenging

Whiteface: Didn't do the slides, but their single diamonds seemed a lot harder than single diamonds at most northeast ski areas

Sunapee: Goosebumps is their hardest run and its a pathetic excuse for a double diamond

Loon: Ripsaw's got that one steep section but it gets icy fast. Triple trouble is fun but not very challenging

Waterville Valley: Only two double diamonds, niether are very challenging


----------



## dmc (Feb 2, 2011)

I know I'll take some heat for this but how about Lower K27 at Hunter?  I've seen it challenge most that try it.  It's short but steep and never groomed.


----------



## Newpylong (Feb 2, 2011)

tjf67 said:


> I dont think so.  Ripcord has never crossed my mind as something that is steep.  Rumor on the other hand has.  You stick skiers left on Rumor and that is some steep stuff.   It is only around four turns before the pitch decreases but even below that is it pretty steep.  That side is best skied when there are bumps so you can hit something to slow you down.



I suggest trying it again. There is a reason why 75% of skiers on River Run stop in awe when they see the run from the bottom. It's one of, if not the steepest marked run I can think of in the East. Not the most challenging, but steepest.


----------



## gladerider (Feb 2, 2011)

Northeastskier293 said:


> Whiteface: Didn't do the slides, but their single diamonds seemed a lot harder than single diamonds at most northeast ski areas



the slides is not really inbounds, so i think it would be unfair to compare to others on this thread in my opinion other than the ones in the west. i'd say it's up there. prolly put most of the ones you listed here to shame, since none listed here i see require jumping of ledges of 5-10+ feet


----------



## marcski (Feb 2, 2011)

http://ski-degrees.synthasite.com/vermont.php

And wasn't there a thread here a few years ago about degrees of steepness of trails in the East? I don't have time to search right now...


----------



## deadheadskier (Feb 2, 2011)

marcski said:


> http://ski-degrees.synthasite.com/vermont.php
> 
> And wasn't there a thread here a few years ago about degrees of steepness of trails in the East? I don't have time to search right now...



I knew I'd seen a website for trail steepness.  I tried searching for it and couldn't come up with anything but about 9 AZ threads talking about the steepest trails in the east. :lol:

to compare:

The Rumor @ Gore Mountain, NY: 510 vertical over 1,010 length = 26.79*.
162 vertical over 249 length = 33.05*. This is the "biggest, baddest headwall in the East" boasts Gore Mountain.
98 vertical over 133 length = 36.38*. A closer look at the headwall.
348 vertical over 761 length = 25*. This is the slope besides the headwall.

Ripcord @ Mount Snow,VT: 269 vertical over 500 length = 28.28*. From top to the bottom of fall line, does not include flat top. Boasts 37 degree pitch.
141 vertical over 238 length = 30.64*.
61 vertical over 90 length = 34.13*. Closer look at the above numbers.
128 vertical over 262 length = 26.04*. This is the slope besides the above numbers. 


So Rumor definitely takes the crown here.  The perception is probably much greater as well due to it sustaining the steeper pitches for a longer period of time.


----------



## riverc0il (Feb 2, 2011)

tjf67 said:


> I dont think so.  Ripcord has never crossed my mind as something that is steep.  Rumor on the other hand has.  You stick skiers left on Rumor and that is some steep stuff.   It is only around four turns before the pitch decreases but even below that is it pretty steep.  That side is best skied when there are bumps so you can hit something to slow you down.


I have never skied Gore, but I did ski Mount Snow for the first time earlier this season and I was very surprised how much pitch Ripcord has. Not what I was expecting at Mount Snow. Definitely could make a top ten list of steepest trails in New England.


----------



## riverc0il (Feb 2, 2011)

Newpylong said:


> I suggest trying it again. There is a reason why 75% of skiers on River Run stop in awe when they see the run from the bottom. It's one of, if not the steepest marked run I can think of in the East. Not the most challenging, but steepest.


I definitely wouldn't go so far as to say steepest. Face Chutes at Jay is definitely steeper just off the top of my head. But it was really amazing to see the majority of skiers on River Run stop and look up at Ripcord, as you mention. One of the few "audience" trails (excluding liftlines and slopestyle next to lodges) that I can think of in New England.


----------



## crank (Feb 2, 2011)

Ripcord is very steep, but not for very long.  It's been a few years but from what I remember it's like 6 -10 turns and you're at the bottom.  I skied the Rumor at Gore just a year or so ago and it felt steep, but not that steep.

I think I find more challenge in a tight spot than I do on a steep, wide run.

Speaking of Jackson Hole. I was fortunate enough to ski Tower 3 Chute on a powder day.  I remember laughing out loud while skiing it because the sensation of my slough passing me felt so strange.   That was the only time I have ever had that happen. I was also fortunate that when we stopped at Corbett's  the patrol was working there and it was not yet open  - so I have a legit excuse for not hurling my body off the edge.

Interesting thing I find regarding steeps - when I was younger and skiing a lot almost nothing seemed steep to me.  Now that I'm in my 50's and skiing less, I still ski steep runs , trees, etc.  but steeps once again feel steep and some pucker factor has reentered my skiing.  I don't like that.  Probably, I should ski more.


----------



## Newpylong (Feb 3, 2011)

So overall pitch goes to Rumor? I'm cool with that - it's much longer than Ripcord and definitely steep. As for a "headwall" - the last football field length of Ripcord takes the cake hands down, it far steeper.


----------



## deadheadskier (Feb 3, 2011)

Newpylong said:


> So overall pitch goes to Rumor? I'm cool with that - it's much longer than Ripcord and definitely steep. As for a "headwall" - the last football field length of Ripcord takes the cake hands down, it far steeper.



Huh?  for both headwall measurements the numbers for Rumor are steeper than Ripcord over a longer distance.

Rumor
162 vertical over 249 length = 33.05*. This is the "biggest, baddest headwall in the East" boasts Gore Mountain.
98 vertical over 133 length = 36.38*. A closer look at the headwall.

Ripcord
141 vertical over 238 length = 30.64*.
61 vertical over 90 length = 34.13*.


----------



## kcyanks1 (Feb 3, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Pucker depends on mandatory air for me for the most part.  I wouldn't do something like Corbetts
> 
> something super steep, narrow or with tight trees doesn't particularly bother me.  As long as I can keep my skis on the snow or have room to jump turn, I'm fine.



Agreed.  I've skied all the chutes at Jackson (Tower 3, Mushroom, Hoops Gap, Alta 1 and 2 and narrower ones in between)..but Corbets freaks me out.  I did it last year with the goat path, which I consider cheating.  This year I tried again with the goat path (which was a bit trickier than last year) and fell (thankfully a soft fall so I was totally OK).  I have yet to muster up enough courage to jump.  It is just really scary looking over it.  Sitting back in NY at my desk, I think to myself that I can muster up the courage.  Then when I'm on the tram knowing I will actually head over to it, I start shaking inside.  I have done some similar height jumps but with forgiving landings where I don't need immediate complete control to make a sharp turn.  I think my fall might have been a good thing since it makes me realize that it is possible to fall and be fine, but I probably need a bunch more of those falls to get me to jump.  I always tell myself "next time," but so far have still not done it.  I actually think I'm making slow progress with my willingness to jump, but as I said, my jumps generally have forgiving landings, and Corbet's certainly does not.


----------



## kcyanks1 (Feb 3, 2011)

crank said:


> Interesting thing I find regarding steeps - when I was younger and skiing a lot almost nothing seemed steep to me.  Now that I'm in my 50's and skiing less, I still ski steep runs , trees, etc.  but steeps once again feel steep and some pucker factor has reentered my skiing.  I don't like that.  Probably, I should ski more.



I'm younger than you (29), but I think the worst thing for my extreme (using this term _very_ loosely) skiing development was not having to jump off of any cliffs (even very small ones) when I was younger.  Around college time, I started developing fears that I didn't feel before.  I ski pretty much anything inbounds anywhere I've been (actually jumping Corbet's being the big exception), but cliffs scare me, and I think they wouldn't as much had I started jumping off them when I was younger.  Problem was I grew up skiing mostly at Gore, and back then they didn't have any glades on the map, and their youth development program was "put your skis together and follow me."  Basically, once I could get down expert trails there, I stopped taking lessons with any regularity.  The kids programs that places like Sugarbush have seem amazing as far as getting kids to push themselves at young ages.

I also am more afraid of speed than when I was younger - I feel out of control when I reach higher speeds.  Probably just realize that at high speeds, if you just catch one edge, you could be in big trouble.


----------



## marcski (Feb 3, 2011)

Some good points about mandatory air.  I'm not a fan!  Mandatory air does put some fear in me.  But there really aren't any I can think of in New England.  I've skied Redline and Paradise and some others.  But, I don't really consider any of those drops "mandatory air"...or at least I don't fear those.  So, perhaps size does matter?


----------



## Black Phantom (Feb 3, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> I knew I'd seen a website for trail steepness.  I tried searching for it and couldn't come up with anything but about 9 AZ threads talking about the steepest trails in the east. :lol:
> 
> to compare:
> 
> ...



Do you have the stats on Lower Ovation at K? It skis pretty steep to me for the entire run. 

I haven't been to Cannon in a while but Avalanche had a steep pitch as well as distance.


----------



## 4aprice (Feb 3, 2011)

dmc said:


> I know I'll take some heat for this but how about Lower K27 at Hunter?  I've seen it challenge most that try it.  It's short but steep and never groomed.



When the snow is good like it was last March, K27 is one of my favorite all time runs.  Love the sunlight on it too.

Alex

Lake Hopatcong, NJ


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 3, 2011)

kcyanks1 said:


> I'm younger than you (29), but I think the worst thing for my extreme (using this term _very_ loosely) skiing development was *not having to jump off of any cliffs (even very small ones) when I was younger. * Around college time, I started developing fears that I didn't feel before.  I ski pretty much anything inbounds anywhere I've been (actually jumping Corbet's being the big exception), but cliffs scare me, and I think they wouldn't as much had I started jumping off them when I was younger.
> 
> *I also am more afraid of speed than when I was younger - I feel out of control when I reach higher speeds.*  Probably just realize that at high speeds, if you just catch one edge, you could be in big trouble.




I too am apprehensive about jumping things, I'll do it, but I agree with your assessment.  There's just not much opportunity to toss yourself off terrain here in the East, so you dont really learn that when you're young.

Not afraid at all of high speeds though, in fact, i love it.  I wonder if this could be an equipment issue on your part?  Do you get a lot of chatter?  Because that would certainly make anyone feel non-confident.  One thing I have 100% been considering just recently though, is buying a helmet.  File that one under "wisdom with age" I suppose, but before this season is over I'm getting one (just recently been researching it in fact).


----------



## jaywbigred (Feb 3, 2011)

BenedictGomez said:


> I too am apprehensive about jumping things, I'll do it, but I agree with your assessment.  There's just not much opportunity to toss yourself off terrain here in the East, so you dont really learn that when you're young.
> 
> Not afraid at all of high speeds though, in fact, i love it.  I wonder if this could be an equipment issue on your part?  Do you get a lot of chatter?  Because that would certainly make anyone feel non-confident.  One thing I have 100% been considering just recently though, is buying a helmet.  File that one under "wisdom with age" I suppose, but before this season is over I'm getting one (just recently been researching it in fact).



My biggest fear with mandatory air usually relates to my equipment. I am worried that I will make the landing okay but that I will have a binding release on me and then be in big trouble. anything under 8 feet I don't think about if there is good snow. 8-10 feet I'll still usually work up the courage. Over 10 is when I start to get scared and worry about my bindings. Anyone see Simon Dumont's first run at Breckenridge halfpipe during the Dew Tour this year?


----------



## kcyanks1 (Feb 3, 2011)

BenedictGomez said:


> I too am apprehensive about jumping things, I'll do it, but I agree with your assessment.  There's just not much opportunity to toss yourself off terrain here in the East, so you dont really learn that when you're young.
> 
> Not afraid at all of high speeds though, in fact, i love it.  I wonder if this could be an equipment issue on your part?  Do you get a lot of chatter?  Because that would certainly make anyone feel non-confident.  One thing I have 100% been considering just recently though, is buying a helmet.  File that one under "wisdom with age" I suppose, but before this season is over I'm getting one (just recently been researching it in fact).



I think I do get more chatter than I did when I was younger - perhaps my current skis (Head Monster 88) are not as good for high speed as the various pairs of racing skis I grew up on.  (I didn't race, but generally had racing skis.)  I do think I ski quicker than most recreational skiers on the mountain, I'm not saying I'm slow, but I think I get uncomfortable sooner now than I did before, and probably sooner than some others on this board.

All of this said, there is nothing that I used to ski that I don't ski now, and, in fact, I have gotten better at jumping off things over the past few years.  I just think I would be way ahead of my current state if I did more challenging things as a kid.

I do use a helmet and have for maybe 6 years or so.


----------



## bumpcrasher (Feb 3, 2011)

Great thread!!   Obviously, this is very subjective but I think there are 3 main factors a trail needs for difficulty: steep, long, and narrow.  With that in mind, I have to second Liftline at Smuggs.  That trail is just unrelenting and you need to be agressive the entire length of the run.  Dont get me wrong, all of the trails mentioned here are tough but I think they dont quite measure up in comparison.

@Kcyanks1: agreed!!  I had alot more courage looking at pics of Corbetts from the safety of my computer.  Enitrely different feeling looking down it.  Not to discredit Corbetts but once you make the initial drop, it really was not all that difficult.


----------



## kcyanks1 (Feb 3, 2011)

BenedictGomez said:


> I too am apprehensive about jumping things, I'll do it, but I agree with your assessment.  There's just not much opportunity to toss yourself off terrain here in the East, so you dont really learn that when you're young.



Didn't comment on this part in my reply.  While I admit the west has more stuff out in the open, and a higher quantity of challenging terrain and more extreme challenging terrain, I think there is plenty in the east to build up jumping confidence, and challenge basically anyone.  MRG, Jay, Stowe, Sugarbush have cliffs.  I don't know where they all are, but I know they exist.  They are just not on marked terrain.  You have to know where to go.  And you need instructors taking kids there when they are ready.

I learned at Gore before tree skiing boomed, so it's probably part the ski area and part the time I was learning, in my case.


----------



## Newpylong (Feb 3, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Huh?  for both headwall measurements the numbers for Rumor are steeper than Ripcord over a longer distance.
> 
> Rumor
> 162 vertical over 249 length = 33.05*. This is the "biggest, baddest headwall in the East" boasts Gore Mountain.
> ...



I doubt the numbers. I advice you to plan a 2 day trip, Gore to Mount Snow back to back. I think it's very easy to tell the pitch difference between the two trails.


----------



## kcyanks1 (Feb 3, 2011)

Newpylong said:


> deadheadskier said:
> 
> 
> > Huh?  for both headwall measurements the numbers for Rumor are steeper than Ripcord over a longer distance.
> ...



Even if the numbers are accurate, the way the snow is built onto the trail can make a huge difference.  Gore makes a _ton_ of snow on Rumor to cover up all the rocks (or they used to, at least, before blasting the headwall).  Maybe that makes it less steep in the process.


----------



## neil (Feb 3, 2011)

When I was out in Utah I was initial pretty scared of the increased steepness and some of the mandatory drops on trails. However, once actually going off one it's the conditions that really settle my worries more than anything. Out in Utah I was fine with hucking it off of rocks and stuff because the landings were pretty soft. On the East coast it can be like landing on concrete.

Ultimately, a jump is a jump, but in my mind when the conditions are much more firmer I'm thinking a lot more about injury/breaking something.


----------



## kcyanks1 (Feb 3, 2011)

bumpcrasher said:


> @Kcyanks1: agreed!!  I had alot more courage looking at pics of Corbetts from the safety of my computer.  Enitrely different feeling looking down it.  Not to discredit Corbetts but once you make the initial drop, it really was not all that difficult.



Yeah, I have been in it, via the goat path (+ small drop, and, in one case, a fall ).  All 3 times (over two seasons) it has had great snow below.  It is supposedly 50 degrees after the drop -- and it does seem quite steep -- but it mellows out pretty quickly.  So other than drop, other stuff on the mountain is tougher.. but that is a a big "other than" considering the drop is what makes the trail famous!


----------



## Black Phantom (Feb 3, 2011)

*How Could I Forget...*

_*The Slot *_off of the Headwall Express at Squaw. I watched a guy throw up peering over.uke:  He was no beginner by any stretch.

You guys like steep bumps? Let it rip!


----------



## deadheadskier (Feb 3, 2011)

Newpylong said:


> I doubt the numbers. I advice you to plan a 2 day trip, Gore to Mount Snow back to back. I think it's very easy to tell the pitch difference between the two trails.



Unfortunately, Mt. Snow and Gore aren't on my hit list this year.  Maybe next season.

what I see are two people who think one is steeper than the other.  I've got your opinion and TJs.  Then I've got a website where someone did the actual math.  Maybe the numbers are wrong, but I can't see why someone would go through the trouble of outlining most of the steep trails in the east if they didn't care to put the time into making sure the numbers are accurate.


----------



## deadheadskier (Feb 3, 2011)

Black Phantom said:


> Do you have the stats on Lower Ovation at K? It skis pretty steep to me for the entire run.
> 
> I haven't been to Cannon in a while but Avalanche had a steep pitch as well as distance.



http://ski-degrees.synthasite.com/vermont.php

according to that it's 44+ degrees.  I can't say that I can think of anything I've skied in the east on map that's steeper than Lower Ovations headwall.


----------



## kcyanks1 (Feb 3, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> http://ski-degrees.synthasite.com/vermont.php
> 
> according to that it's 44+ degrees.  I can't say that I can think of anything I've skied in the east on map that's steeper than Lower Ovations headwall.



I'll almost always go with numbers over what I subjectively feel.  I'll just say, subjectively, from my memory, 44 degrees is tough to believe.  I also thought that the Rumor headwall was steeper but considerably shorter.  Do we have any idea of the accuracy on these numbers?  Can't you give us some standard deviations?


----------



## Black Phantom (Feb 3, 2011)

kcyanks1 said:


> I'll almost always go with numbers over what I subjectively feel.  I'll just say, subjectively, from my memory, 44 degrees is tough to believe.  I also thought that the Rumor headwall was steeper but considerably shorter.  Do we have any idea of the accuracy on these numbers?  Can't you give us some standard deviations?



Have you ever skied Lower Ovation? It is steep. Very steep. You can get a pretty darn good idea how steep it is by having a beer in the lodge watching everyone side slipping there way down.


----------



## Newpylong (Feb 3, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Unfortunately, Mt. Snow and Gore aren't on my hit list this year.  Maybe next season.
> 
> what I see are two people who think one is steeper than the other.  I've got your opinion and TJs.  Then I've got a website where someone did the actual math.  Maybe the numbers are wrong, but I can't see why someone would go through the trouble of outlining most of the steep trails in the east if they didn't care to put the time into making sure the numbers are accurate.



Understandable but I think if someone has skied the majority of the trails on the list, they can tell the numbers are not accurate... either that or it's just too difficult to be accurate with something like this.


----------



## kcyanks1 (Feb 3, 2011)

Black Phantom said:


> kcyanks1 said:
> 
> 
> > I'll almost always go with numbers over what I subjectively feel.  I'll just say, subjectively, from my memory, 44 degrees is tough to believe.  I also thought that the Rumor headwall was steeper but considerably shorter.  Do we have any idea of the accuracy on these numbers?  Can't you give us some standard deviations?
> ...



Yes, I have skied it, but many years ago.  And I don't think it felt as steep as Rumor, and I don't believe it was 44 degrees, which is _very_ steep, even compared to terrain out west.  Again, I trust numbers over my subjective feelings.  I don't think I have the ability to guestimate a trail's steepness within even +/-5 degrees.  Just giving my thoughts.


----------



## kcyanks1 (Feb 3, 2011)

Here is an old post where someone calculated steepnesses (I think with Google Earth):

Not sure what the criteria was for amount of length/vertical to qualify for the list.

*Summary of Vermont Steep trails:*
Upper Warrens @ Burke - 41% or 22.2 degrees  
Outer Limits @ Killington - 49.8% or 26.4 degrees
Superstar @ Killington - 39% or 21.3 degrees
Lower Section of Superstar @ Killington - 47% or 25.17 degrees
Lower Section of Ovation @ Killington - 54% or 28.36 degrees
The Face @ Jay - 56.6% or 29.5 degrees
Upper Can Am @ Jay – 50.2% or 26.6 degrees
Liftline @ Sugarbush – 37% or 20.2 degrees
Upper Liftline @ Sugarbush – 51% 27.25 degrees
Steins Run @ Sugarbush – 49.9% 26.5 degrees
FIS @ Sugarbush – 54% or 28.3 degrees
Paradise @ MRG – 59% or 30.6 degrees
Ripcord @ Mt. Snow – 47% or 25.4 degrees

Non-Marked Trails:
The Pump House and Saddle @ Jay – 70% or 35 degrees
Big Jay – 61% or 31.5 degrees (steepest section of cliffs 78% or 38 degrees)


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 3, 2011)

I just downloaded the "HowSteep" app to my Android phone to test some of these for myself. It's not specifically made for skiing obviously (given their scale), but should give a decent on-slope estimationg.

Their scale is as follows:

0 - 1 = flat as Holland
2 - 19 = Slight Slope
20 - 40 = Getting Steep
41 - 55 = This is Very Steep
56 - 85 = Dangerously Steep
86+ = Overhanging


----------



## kcyanks1 (Feb 3, 2011)

BenedictGomez said:


> I just downloaded the "HowSteep" app to my Android phone to test some of these for myself. It's not specifically made for skiing obviously (given their scale), but should give a decent on-slope estimationg.
> 
> Their scale is as follows:
> 
> ...



Definitely not designed for skiing "40 degrees" is not "getting steep"! 

What degree of accuracy does it profess to have?  I assume it does more than tell you which of those ranges it is in?  Since almost everything interesting in the east will be in the 20-40 range.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Feb 3, 2011)

BenedictGomez said:


> I just downloaded the "HowSteep" app to my Android phone to test some of these for myself. It's not specifically made for skiing obviously (given their scale), but should give a decent on-slope estimationg.
> 
> Their scale is as follows:
> 
> ...



It would be interesting to know how that app calculates the slope. I would think that unless you straightline the trail, the "rise over run" would be skewed due to the "run" being artificially longer due to making turns as you decend.


----------



## John W (Feb 3, 2011)

BigWJay- I agree about the hobacks..  But the top part where you were dropping into the hobacks there was about a 5 foot drop along with very little space to turn that was tough.  Once on the hobacks I thought it was very doable.  But it was another situation where there was not much coverage.  40-60 and sunny during the day.  So everything would freeze over.. and that was the issue.  And there was very little coverage..


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 3, 2011)

kcyanks1 said:


> Definitely not designed for skiing "40 degrees" is not "getting steep"!
> 
> *What degree of accuracy does it profess to have? * I assume it does more than tell you which of those ranges it is in?  Since almost everything interesting in the east will be in the 20-40 range.



I'm wondering that myself.  

I just put a level on my desk and then put the phone next to the level and I was able to get the phone to read 0, which would be perfectly accurate.  The question, of course, is whether bias enters into the equation as the degrees increase.  But at least I know it's 100% accurate for "flat", lol.  

Assuming it's accurate, user error would be the biggest problem, because it's still up to you to hold the phone properly (though I dont think that should be too hard).  I view this as just something to try for fun in a, "good enough for Government work" sense.


----------



## kcyanks1 (Feb 3, 2011)

BenedictGomez said:


> I'm wondering that myself.
> 
> I just put a level on my desk and then put the phone next to the level and I was able to get the phone to read 0, which would be perfectly accurate.  The question, of course, is whether bias enters into the equation as the degrees increase.  But at least I know it's 100% accurate for "flat", lol.
> 
> Assuming it's accurate, user error would be the biggest problem, because it's still up to you to hold the phone properly (though I dont think that should be too hard).  I view this as just something to try for fun in a, "good enough for Government work" sense.



Oh, so it's like a level with a digital read out.  It isn't calculating based on change GPS/altimeter data or the like.  Even if you try to lay your phone right on the snow (in a plastic bag I hope!), probably tough to get a good measurement for a reasonable portion of a trail.


----------



## Scruffy (Feb 3, 2011)

4aprice said:


> When the snow is good like it was last March, K27 is one of my favorite all time runs.  Love the sunlight on it too.
> 
> Alex
> 
> Lake Hopatcong, NJ



When the snow is icy bumps, like it usually is on lower K27, it's one of  my favorite runs :-D


----------



## dmc (Feb 3, 2011)

Scruffy said:


> When the snow is icy bumps, like it usually is on lower K27, it's one of  my favorite runs :-D



thats why i always ride the left side against the trees..


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 3, 2011)

kcyanks1 said:


> Oh, *so it's like a level with a digital read out.*  It isn't calculating based on change GPS/altimeter data or the like.  Even if you try to lay your phone right on the snow (in a plastic bag I hope!), probably tough to get a good measurement for a reasonable portion of a trail.



Right, it's just going to give you a reading of exactly where you are.


----------



## Scruffy (Feb 3, 2011)

dmc said:


> thats why i always ride the left side against the trees..



Skiers right ? SHHH keep that to yourself .;-)


----------



## oakapple (Feb 3, 2011)

I am not sure that the question lends it self to a strictly numerical answer, given that it depends not just on steepness, but also length, curvature, width of the trail, snow conditions, and the presence of other obstacles (like trees or rocks).


----------



## riverc0il (Feb 3, 2011)

marcski said:


> Some good points about mandatory air.  I'm not a fan!  Mandatory air does put some fear in me.  But there really aren't any I can think of in New England.  I've skied Redline and Paradise and some others.  But, I don't really consider any of those drops "mandatory air"...or at least I don't fear those.  So, perhaps size does matter?


Definitely wouldn't consider either Red Line or Paradise "mandatory air". Paradise at MRG is close but you can pussy out on that line and scrape down the edge. To me, mandatory air means both skis in the air with no option of sliding down on your tails. I can't think of any on map trail in the east that truly has a mandatory (at least as I define it) but Paradise's waterfall is about as close as it comes. I imagine early season before the snow depth builds up it might truly be mandatory. I have only been on it when the base is well built though.

The only way to get better at those types of drops is to do more of them. Start small and go bigger. I didn't really take to dropping off things until about six years ago. It has really broadened my horizons as a skier by having that mid-air control. You certainly look a lot cooler when you can effortlessly drop stuff that most folks approach apprehensively and scrape down.

The trick with airs is to just do them. Study them from above, from the side, from over head, whatever. Approach the drop and stop at the top ONCE if you must and drop it terribly just to get it out of your system. After that, you know what it looks like, you know where the landing is, and there is nothing left to think about. Approach, stop, and hesitate at your own peril. You gotta stop well above the drop so you can take a few turns into it and drop it without stopping and thinking about it.


----------



## mattchuck2 (Feb 3, 2011)

Liftline @ Smuggs isn't horribly difficult.
Rumor @ Gore, Ripcord @ Snow, Kinsman Glade and Tramline @ Canon aren't too too hard.

I think the Slides @ Whiteface deserve more than a passing mention in this thread.  There are some tough lines in there and, if the snow level is low, very few ways to "pussy out".  

If the snow level is good, it's a freaking highway.  Of course, I think that most of the trails mentioned in this thread are that same way.  

That's why a tight glade would always seem like it would be more challenging than a wide open trail.  Even if there's a lot more snow, you still have to be able to make that turn in that place.


----------



## Zentaar (Feb 4, 2011)

What about the headwall at Tuckermans. Each drop is a good 15 foot drop and you have about 12 feet to recover before the next 15 foot drop.

Besides that, the hardest I have skiied is probably the headwall at Jay or the staircase for glades.  At the top you have small tree's sticking straight out of a pratical vertical free fall.  That always gets my blood pumping.


----------



## gladerider (Feb 6, 2011)

mattchuck2 said:


> Liftline @ Smuggs isn't horribly difficult.
> Rumor @ Gore, Ripcord @ Snow, Kinsman Glade and Tramline @ Canon aren't too too hard.
> 
> I think the Slides @ Whiteface deserve more than a passing mention in this thread.  There are some tough lines in there and, if the snow level is low, very few ways to "pussy out".



i agree with ripcord@snow. all this talk about ripcord on this thread made me curious so i went and checked it out today. too short. been too long to remember the rumor, but don't remember it being all that.

and yes i also agree with your comment on the slides@whiteface


----------



## freeskier423 (Feb 6, 2011)

Slides!!!!!!


----------



## freeskier423 (Feb 6, 2011)

Slides are great. Such cool terrain. They are getting close to being openable. It is hard to plan a trip around them opening but if you get lucky and get them on a powder day there is nothing like it in the east.


----------



## Trigger (Feb 8, 2011)

i skied some glades at Loon yesterday that were very tough. I am an intermediate skier and had 178's on. It was pretty tough. I did the new glades on the second Loon peak. To get to these glades you have to ski under the lift on the 2nd peak and then the trail goes left into the woods (only option).  Not enough snow in there right now so dont bring new ski's in there.
         Then we skied some glades on the main peak which i think was called Mikes Way. That was basically straight up woods skiing. Pretty tough for me. Worth hitting those glades for anyone that likes glade skiing


----------



## Cannonball (Mar 23, 2011)

I'm resurrecting this older thread because I had a couple of opportunities lately to revisit this.  I don't think about trail designations all that much, instead I tend to seek out good conditions regardless if it's labeled green or quintuply black diamond.  But I guess that's because I'm comfortable on pretty much any pitch, width, etc.  So I don't worry about what I might get myself into.  But the past few weekends I've had my 9 year old nephews with me.  Trail designations suddenly became very important:
1) They, of course, always want to say the did the 'blacks' and 'double blacks'
2) I want them to understand what they can and cannot handle if they are on their own.

We hit Waterville and Cannon.  After WV they are hassling me because I let them do True Grit at WV (double black) but won't let them hit Tramline at Cannon (single black).  I have to explain to 9 year olds that there is no comparison in terms of difficulty and safety of these two trails and that trail ratings are "relative" to each mountain.

It got me thinking that it is a huge disservice to beginner and mid-level skiers to have this relative rating system.  I can easily see someone getting in trouble at Cannon (Stowe, etc...) after getting cocky on the so called double blacks at Waterville (Bretton Woods, Loon, etc...).  

How about a TRUE rating system?  How hard would that be?  Apply simple factors like pitch, width, turns, and length to rate a trail.  Leave out conditions and grooming.  Those are the day to day changes that can be evaluated by skiers on-site.

Related side note:  I haven't skied Loon in about 15 years, but I got in 4 runs today.  Ripsaw is an example of what I'm talking about.  Double Black?  WTF?  I kept bracing for the challenging part to come up around every next turn.  It never happened.  I went back up and straight-lined it top to bottom.  That should not be possible on a Double Black rated trail.  So some intermediate feeling good about coming off Ripsaw is going to go get their ass kicked (or worse) on another mountain.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 23, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> I'm resurrecting this older thread because I had a couple of opportunities lately to revisit this.  I don't think about trail designations all that much, instead I tend to seek out good conditions regardless if it's labeled green or quintuply black diamond.  But I guess that's because I'm comfortable on pretty much any pitch, width, etc.  So I don't worry about what I might get myself into.  But the past few weekends I've had my 9 year old nephews with me.  Trail designations suddenly became very important:
> 1) They, of course, always want to say the did the 'blacks' and 'double blacks'
> 2) I want them to understand what they can and cannot handle if they are on their own.
> 
> ...



A good example of this Upper Blast Off at Sunapee.  Black. WTF.


----------



## riverc0il (Mar 23, 2011)

You wouldn't ever see the industry move to "true" ratings because it would hurt the small and mid sized areas too much and even many of the bigger resorts, too. Just because it is on my mind recently, look at Okemo. Their double blacks are easier than blue circles at some areas. Okemo would be at a severe marketing disadvantage of their highest difficulty rating was a blue/black combo rating. Maybe a six on a scale of 1-10. Local hills, small hills, and mid-sized hills would of course be outclassed as well and would draw fewer visits.

Even beginners and intermediates developing don't want to go to a "whimpy" mountain. It is in our nature as skiers and riders to want to do harder things, to want to be able to ski it all. Who here didn't get tremendous satisfaction when we first started tackling harder terrain? When you are just starting to develop into a solid all around skier or rider, trail designations become mile stones even if they are not relative to other areas... you still know a diamond at a place like Cannon is a milestone. You know that a black at Nashoba is not so much a milestone unless that is all you have skied.

Yea, people get their ass handed to them because they don't understand relative difficulty. But you know what? I say who cares. Let em' have at it. It's not like any in bounds run that is open will get any one into trouble. I don't recall ever hearing about an intermediate dieing because they skied an advanced run. I have heard about intermediates getting killed by skiing too fast, loosing control, and hitting a tree. If an intermediate rides the tram and decides to drop Tramline, they get what is coming to them and hopefully patrol doesn't have to get involved.


----------



## mediamogul (Mar 23, 2011)

Black Magic and Redline at Magic. I treat some of those ledges like mandatory airs.

The woods off of Fiddle at Killington have some pretty crazy lines. 

The ridge at Jay is pretty crazy as far as in-bounds goes in the east. 

If you want to stretch your definition of in-bounds then the Chin at Stowe and the Church at Sugarbush (even though I've never skied it).


----------



## EPB (Mar 23, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> It got me thinking that it is a huge disservice to beginner and mid-level skiers to have this relative rating system.  I can easily see someone getting in trouble at Cannon (Stowe, etc...) after getting cocky on the so called double blacks at Waterville (Bretton Woods, Loon, etc...).
> 
> How about a TRUE rating system?  How hard would that be?  Apply simple factors like pitch, width, turns, and length to rate a trail.  Leave out conditions and grooming.  Those are the day to day changes that can be evaluated by skiers on-site.



I've considered this before.  In theory, it shouldn't be particularly difficult for someone/some group of people to rate trails at a given mountain based on how it skis and how steep, narrow, bumpy, etc. the trails are.  Benefits would include a reliable trail rating system and presumably some legal protection against the clown who usually skis double blacks at Bretton Woods and sues Jay Peak because after hurting them self on the face chutes (single black).

Of course, the down sides include spending money for the system to be implemented, and the bickering that would ensue from pricing and the outcome of the trail surveying.  Personally, I think it would be nice to have a third party rate all Northeast trails under the same criteria, but I acknowledge that it probably isn't likely to happen.

Side note: with a universal rating system, trail difficulty breakdowns would actually hold some meaning.


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 23, 2011)

Not sure I see the issue with having mountain relative rating system.  People need to be realistic in their perception of their abilities.  If you sideslip down a Double Black at Okemo and then get in over your head somewhere else?  Then you're an idiot and deserving of whatever trouble you find yourself in.  Please note Cannonball, I'm not calling you an idiot because my opinion differs from yours.

I can confidently ski anything I've seen on a trail map in the east.  I might struggle on certain trails under certain conditions, but I'll figure out a way how to avoid injury.  I have no shame in admitting that I've taken my skis off several times, even this season, where I thought the conditions of a particular trail weren't worth the risk in skiing it.  So, off go the skis and I walk around the obstacle.

Now, whenever I've gone out west, I've worked my way up to the more difficult terrain at whatever mountain I'm skiing at.  I think a mountains only responsibility is to sufficiently warn riders that the terrain ahead may include mandatory drops and that there are no bailout options.  

My suggestion to anyone who wants to improve to a level where they can ski anything?  Learn how to ski bumps very well.  People rag on Okemo all the time for not being an expert skiers mountain.  I grew up skiing there.  I had no problem skiing anything Stowe or MRG threw at me when I first skied in Northern VT for the first time in 1995.  Likewise, if a Waterville skier has become proficient at skiing the bumps on True Grit very well under the worst conditions the trail can see, then they shouldn't have a problem with skiing Tramline at Cannon.


----------



## Cannonball (Mar 23, 2011)

RC and DH make good points.  And I guess I generally agree...let 'em have at it. But it's mostly kids I was thinking about since they may not have the same ability to understand and judge the whole relativity thing.  On the other hand, kids are pretty resilient...it's us older guys who tend to get hurt.


----------



## EPB (Mar 23, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> My suggestion to anyone who wants to improve to a level where they can ski anything?  Learn how to ski bumps very well.  People rag on Okemo all the time for not being an expert skiers mountain.  I grew up skiing there.  I had no problem skiing anything Stowe or MRG threw at me when I first skied in Northern VT for the first time in 1995.  Likewise, if a Waterville skier has become proficient at skiing the bumps on True Grit very well under the worst conditions the trail can see, then they shouldn't have a problem with skiing Tramline at Cannon.



This is very true.  I grew up skiing in the race program at Attitash and I was very resistant to bump skiing until I was a teenager.  I made a trip to Sugarloaf over one of my breaks and predominantly skied the bumped up advanced runs.  Ever since then, I made it a point to jump in the bumps at Attitash to ensure that I could ski anything that comes my way at the mountains that pride themselves in offering challenging terrain.  

Besides, skiing under the lift lines at Bear Peak in the cement-like powder is one of the most challenging things you could do.


----------



## dmc (Mar 23, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> You wouldn't ever see the industry move to "true" ratings because it would hurt the small and mid sized areas too much and even many of the bigger resorts, too. Just because it is on my mind recently, look at Okemo. Their double blacks are easier than blue circles at some areas. Okemo would be at a severe marketing disadvantage of their highest difficulty rating was a blue/black combo rating. Maybe a six on a scale of 1-10. Local hills, small hills, and mid-sized hills would of course be outclassed as well and would draw fewer visits.
> 
> Even beginners and intermediates developing don't want to go to a "whimpy" mountain. It is in our nature as skiers and riders to want to do harder things, to want to be able to ski it all. Who here didn't get tremendous satisfaction when we first started tackling harder terrain? When you are just starting to develop into a solid all around skier or rider, trail designations become mile stones even if they are not relative to other areas... you still know a diamond at a place like Cannon is a milestone. You know that a black at Nashoba is not so much a milestone unless that is all you have skied.
> 
> Yea, people get their ass handed to them because they don't understand relative difficulty. But you know what? I say who cares. Let em' have at it. It's not like any in bounds run that is open will get any one into trouble. I don't recall ever hearing about an intermediate dieing because they skied an advanced run. I have heard about intermediates getting killed by skiing too fast, loosing control, and hitting a tree. If an intermediate rides the tram and decides to drop Tramline, they get what is coming to them and hopefully patrol doesn't have to get involved.



spot on...  

Know your limits... Ski beyond them...


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 23, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> RC and DH make good points.  And I guess I generally agree...let 'em have at it. But it's mostly kids I was thinking about since they may not have the same ability to understand and judge the whole relativity thing.  On the other hand, kids are pretty resilient...it's us older guys who tend to get hurt.



Kids will be kids.  For many it takes a bad experience to learn a lesson.

As mentioned, I grew up skiing Okemo.  When I was 10 years old, I was able to make it down the trail 'Double Diamond' in soft snow conditions.  Well, later that season, my friend Jeff and I went to try and ski it after a freezing rain event where they didn't close the trail.  Completely glazed over.  We both fell at the top of the 'headwall' and slid half way down the trail and were sitting petrified on ice bumps scared to walk down, never mind ski down.  We sat there for a good 15 minutes scared as hell.  Eventually another skier came scraping along and found us.  He tried to help us conquer our fear, but we wanted ski patrol.  We were convinced that we would have to go down in a sled.  So, off the guy went and sent ski patrol after us.  They came with a sled, but instead, got us to calm down, showed us how to slide on our butts down to the bottom of the 'headwall' and then finish skiing the trail.

One of my most valuable lessons in my skiing life.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Mar 23, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> *How about a TRUE rating system?  How hard would that be?*  Apply simple factors like pitch, width, turns, and length to rate a trail.



It would be positively simple. 

  You would, however, need a standardized body to do it, or resorts would "tamper" with the results and it wouldnt be objective.  

I point to golf as an example, every golf course in America is rated by the USGA for slope and rating.  It's not a perfect system (no system is), but in general, they do an excellent job and before you ever step foot on a golf course for the first time to play, you know EXACTLY how easy, average, difficult, or, oh my God, I need to bring 20 golfballs today hard it is.   

The problem then?




riverc0il said:


> *You wouldn't ever see the industry move to "true" ratings because it would hurt the small and mid sized areas too much *and even many of the bigger resorts, too. Just because it is on my mind recently, look at Okemo. Their double blacks are easier than blue circles at some areas. Okemo would be at* a severe marketing disadvantage *of their highest difficulty rating was a blue/black combo rating. Maybe a six on a scale of 1-10. Local hills, small hills, and mid-sized hills would of course be outclassed as well and would draw fewer visits.



Is the above......

What riverc0il outlined is exactly why it will likely never happen.  I'll use the Poconos as an example since I learned there.  How many legitimate black diamonds would most Pocono resorts get rated for?  One maybe?  Two?  And I am not aware of any legitimate double black diamond in the Poconos, unless I just cant think of one.




riverc0il said:


> Yea, people get their ass handed to them because they don't understand relative difficulty. *But you know what? I say who cares.* Let em' have at it. It's not like any in bounds run that is open will get any one into trouble. I don't recall ever hearing about an intermediate dieing because they skied an advanced run. I have heard about intermediates getting killed by skiing too fast, loosing control, and hitting a tree.



But this I dont agree with.  Most skier deaths I see ARE from young people, probably because they're young and stupid, and/or skiing something they shouldn't.   Whenever I hear_ "a skier died today"_ here in the east on the news, the first thing that pops into my mind? Teenager.   Now I dont know how many of them smacked a tree because in Connecticut or Rhode Island or Pennsylvania where they're from they can "ski black diamonds", but I guarantee that it has happened more than once before.


----------



## riverc0il (Mar 23, 2011)

BenedictGomez said:


> But this I dont agree with.  Most skier deaths I see ARE from young people, probably because they're young and stupid, and/or skiing something they shouldn't.   Whenever I hear_ "a skier died today"_ here in the east on the news, the first thing that pops into my mind? Teenager.   Now I dont know how many of them smacked a tree because in Connecticut or Rhode Island or Pennsylvania where they're from they can "ski black diamonds", but I guarantee that it has happened more than once before.


I'm not so sure most skier deaths are young people. I'd like to see some stats on that one. Especially if you focus on east coast on piste. My recollection is there is a fairly broad spectrum of ages of people that die on the slopes. But that is besides the point; we are talking about ability and not age. I don't remember the last time I heard about a death on a steep, moguled, cliffy trail or glade. I can think of a few these past two or three years that have happened on intermediate terrain. My point is that someone getting in over there heads is less likely to get them killed than loosing control ripping a groomer. So I don't see the rating variance as being a major problem from a safety point of view.


----------



## oakapple (Mar 23, 2011)

I agree that the industry would never go to standardized trail ratings. Of course, it's not _only_ that some smaller mountains would be left with no black diamonds at all. Some harder mountains would have no greens (or very few), which can be just as damaging to their marketing pitch. Every mountain wants it to be perceived that, no matter what your ability, they have something for you.

A few mountains (e.g., Mammoth in California) have a "green-blue" and "blue-black" on their trail maps, giving them six grades rather than the usual four. This is something that I wish all larger resorts would do. I realize that it's a big expense to re-do all of the signage, but as long as we're in fantasy mode, why not think big?

As far as objective standards go, have a look at the master plans for Whistler Blackcomb (here), published just last month. The consultant who prepared the report used an objective system for rating trails from 1 (Beginner) to 7 (expert), based on the average gradient and the steepest 30-meter segment. For example, a middle-intermediate trail would have a 30-40% average gradient, with no worse than a 45% gradient on the steepest 30-meters.

There are, obviously, many other factors that are difficult to weigh: grooming, width, curves, and any obstacles (e.g., trees or rocks), but this is a start. By the way, many trails at Whistler Blackcomb _do not_ have the rating they ought to have if their own consultant's measurements were used.


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 23, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> I'm not so sure most skier deaths are young people. I'd like to see some stats on that one. Especially if you focus on east coast on piste. My recollection is there is a fairly broad spectrum of ages of people that die on the slopes. But that is besides the point; we are talking about ability and not age. I don't remember the last time I heard about a death on a steep, moguled, cliffy trail or glade. I can think of a few these past two or three years that have happened on intermediate terrain. My point is that someone getting in over there heads is less likely to get them killed than loosing control ripping a groomer. So I don't see the rating variance as being a major problem from a safety point of view.



I agree with this fully

I'm trying to think of the last time I've heard of anyone younger than a teenager dying while skiing.  Nothing comes to mind.  I can recall a few deaths from this very season.  The fella at Sugarloaf who was an experet skiing CVA student in his mid teens and two at Windham, one a late teen girl and the other an older lady.  Seems most deaths in skiing are people teenage years and up, skiing at a high rate of speed and hitting a tree.  At least east coast anyways.  West Coast I'm sure it's mainly avalanche related.

No matter what, people forget that skiing is indeed a somewhat high risk sport.  That was the basis for my point about truly respecting your own ability and what type of terrain you can ski in control.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Mar 23, 2011)

oakapple said:


> A few mountains (e.g., Mammoth in California) have a "green-blue" and "blue-black" on their trail maps, giving them six grades rather than the usual four. This is something that I wish all larger resorts would do.



Very clever, I didnt know that.  It provides a helpful stepladder for the beginner skier so they dont get in over their head.  Especially useful considering how there can be such a great discrepancy in difficulty among "black diamonds" at the same resort.  Some can be truly challenging, while others are a joke.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Mar 24, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> I agree with this fully
> 
> I'm trying to think of the last time I've heard of anyone younger than a teenager dying while skiing.  Nothing comes to mind.  I can recall a few deaths from this very season.  The fella at Sugarloaf who was an experet skiing CVA student in his mid teens and two at Windham, one a late teen girl and the other an older lady.  Seems most deaths in skiing are people teenage years and up, skiing at a high rate of speed and hitting a tree.  At least east coast anyways.  West Coast I'm sure it's mainly avalanche related.
> 
> No matter what, people forget that skiing is indeed a somewhat high risk sport.  That was the basis for my point about truly respecting your own ability and what type of terrain you can ski in control.



I think looking at deaths is stepping too high and into the extreme end (small sample set)of the consequences of skiing terrain that is over a given skiers head. 
A better stat would be reports from patrol about rescues and "minor" injuries that happen on the truely advanced trails. Think broken arms, clavicles, sprained wrists, etc. I have a feeling skiers that are getting in over their head typically attempt to control their speed by sideslipping, traversing across the line and generally ruining the conditions (if powdery). They never really get up enough speed to kill themselves (this is even true for advanced skiers in the woods as you rarely, if ever, hear of skiers dying in the woods). Most/many deaths typically seem to occur due to high speed crashes on open slopes. Most skiers/riders can "Survive" almost any terrain. I think the better question here is whether they destroy the trail conditions while doing it.


----------



## oakapple (Mar 24, 2011)

from_the_NEK said:


> Most skiers/riders can "Survive" almost any terrain. I think the better question here is whether they destroy the trail conditions while doing it.


This is the wrong way of looking at it. No one will ever ski a particular trail level "well," before they've first skied it badly, and then worked out both their courage and their technical skills. I mean, nobody comes to the sport fully-formed, ready to ski double-black diamonds as if they're Lindsay Vonn. The fact that some will, as you put it, "destroy the trail," is a cost of doing business. No one can ever get good unless they attempt things that are above (but hopefull not TOO far above) their ability level.

Bear in mind, though, that skiers in the range from beginner to mid-intermediate are generally NOT looking for double-black diamond trails to ruin. When they get there, it is often by accident (i.e., mis-read the trail map and/or signage; received bad advice, etc.).


----------



## from_the_NEK (Mar 24, 2011)

oakapple said:


> This is the wrong way of looking at it. No one will ever ski a particular trail level "well," before they've first skied it badly, and then worked out both their courage and their technical skills. I mean, nobody comes to the sport fully-formed, ready to ski double-black diamonds as if they're Lindsay Vonn. The fact that some will, as you put it, "destroy the trail," is a cost of doing business. No one can ever get good unless they attempt things that are above (but hopefull not TOO far above) their ability level.
> 
> Bear in mind, though, that skiers in the range from beginner to mid-intermediate are generally NOT looking for double-black diamond trails to ruin. When they get there, it is often by accident (i.e., mis-read the trail map and/or signage; received bad advice, etc.).



I think I'm looking at this just fine. 
There is a *big *difference between taking your time working your way through a difficult trail that is slightly over your head as you try to get better and completely thrashing/sliding/scraping your way down it (and ruining it in the process) because it is way over your head. 

I remember well the days of tentatively skiing more advance trails and I was all about throwing myself at those difficult trails to get better. However, I always tried not to get in so far that I had to resort to side slipping/plowing down a trail since I realized what it would do to the conditions of that trail. It all depends on mindset and willingness to commit to truly skiing the trail you've chosen. 

I realize that the majority of "beginner to mid-intermediate are generally NOT looking for double-black diamond trails". However, it doesn't take very many side slippers to really wreck a steep narrow powder trail. Sure, occasionally someone ends up on a trail they didn't plan to be on but I feel that is the exception in this argument.


----------



## oakapple (Mar 24, 2011)

from_the_NEK said:


> I think I'm looking at this just fine.
> I remember well the days of tentatively skiing more advance trails and I was all about throwing myself at those difficult trails to get better. However, I always tried not to get in so far that I had to resort to side slipping/plowing down a trail since I realized what it would do to the conditions of that trail. It all depends on mindset and willingness to commit to truly skiing the trail you've chosen.


I'm envious that you're that good -- or rather, that you were at the time. I have never been able to nail it that precisely. You can't always see the whole trail from the liftline. There's often a point where you've gone too far to backtrack, and you simply need to make it down the best way you can.


----------



## Black Phantom (Mar 24, 2011)

oakapple said:


> I'm envious that you're that good -- or rather, that you were at the time. I have never been able to nail it that precisely. You can't always see the whole trail from the liftline. There's often a point where you've gone too far to backtrack, and you simply need to make it down the best way you can.



Where has this happened to you where you felt the signage was not an appropriate descriptor of the terrain ahead?


----------



## from_the_NEK (Mar 24, 2011)

oakapple said:


> I'm envious that you're that good -- or rather, that you were at the time. I have never been able to nail it that precisely. You can't always see the whole trail from the liftline. There's often a point where you've gone too far to backtrack, and you simply need to make it down the best way you can.



I never said I NEVER got into a situation like that. What I said is that I didn't actively try to get myself into such a situation that was way above my head just to be able to say "I skied Super Duper Expert Trails A, B, C, and D last week at Jay Peak".
I did enjoy a fast learning curve as I came into the sport having solid basic techniques of balance, turning and stopping from growing up playing hockey. I also had a good mountain to learn on where the Blue trails are steep and there is a good progression to get to the truely advanced terrain.

Speaking of progression, a lot of mtns have diffferent levels of terrain parks. There are the ones with small hits, the ones with medium hits, and ones with "who in their right mind would ever jump off that" hits. Most park riders don't go to the top level without getting comfortable in the smaller parks first. They know that if they do they will either hurt themselves or be ridiculed by the advanced riders for taking up space in the big park, or both. In a park the actions of the skier/rider that really shouldn't be there are highly visible to everyone else there and it is easy to point them to the park or part of the park better suited to their abilities.


----------



## oakapple (Mar 24, 2011)

Black Phantom said:


> Where has this happened to you where you felt the signage was not an appropriate descriptor of the terrain ahead?



Lots of different cases. Ski areas don't exhaustively label every "fork in the road" where you could take two different paths. At larger ski areas, the map is often just a rough approximation, with some details omitted. Sometimes, the sign is there, but unclear.

Of course, trail ratings are subjective, and they don't change to allow for conditions. I'm sure I'm not the only person who has skied a run, and found it easier/harder than one would have expected from the color of the sign.


----------



## Black Phantom (Mar 24, 2011)

oakapple said:


> Lots of different cases. Ski areas don't exhaustively label every "fork in the road" where you could take two different paths. At larger ski areas, the map is often just a rough approximation, with some details omitted. Sometimes, the sign is there, but unclear.
> 
> Of course, trail ratings are subjective, and they don't change to allow for conditions. I'm sure I'm not the only person who has skied a run, and found it easier/harder than one would have expected from the color of the sign.



I asked you to name just one instance. 

If you are saying that you find yourself on scraped off Intermediate terrain, that is one thing. Sure, scraped up trails can be challenging for the inexperienced and advanced as well. You are implying that advanced terrain is unmarked. I'd like to know where you have run into this situation.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Mar 24, 2011)

The mind set i mentioned of "I skied Super Duper Expert Trails A, B, C, and D last week at Jay Peak" may stem from skiers/riders who do not have the opportunity to regularly visit places that have truely advanced terrain. When they do get to one of these places they want to "test" themselves against the gnarliest terrain the mtn can throw at them. They are paying customers so it is hard to fault them for that. It just irks me when I see a nice run bulldozed into oblivion.
This is part of the reason I got a backcountry touring setup. It allows me to go find my own untracked line that can't be complained about.


----------



## oakapple (Mar 24, 2011)

Black Phantom said:


> I asked you to name just one instance.


Well, the most recent example was at Whistler Blackcomb last week. I'm happy to describe the exact place on the mountain where it occurred, but unless you've been to that precise spot and remember how it is set up, you wouldn't be able to agree or disagree with me.

Surely you're not claiming that every mountain labels every path so crystal-clearly that it's utterly impossible to find yourself in one place, when you intended another?


----------



## Black Phantom (Mar 24, 2011)

oakapple said:


> Well, the most recent example was at Whistler Blackcomb last week. I'm happy to describe the exact place on the mountain where it occurred, but unless you've been to that precise spot and remember how it is set up, you wouldn't be able to agree or disagree with me.
> 
> Surely you're not claiming that every mountain labels every path so crystal-clearly that it's utterly impossible to find yourself in one place, when you intended another?



I think it is pretty damn hard to get yourself into an extremely steep, advanced area without seeing any signage prior to. 

And don't call me Shirley.:smile:


----------



## ceo (Mar 24, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> After WV they are hassling me because I let them do True Grit at WV (double black) but won't let them hit Tramline at Cannon (single black).  I have to explain to 9 year olds that there is no comparison in terms of difficulty and safety of these two trails and that trail ratings are "relative" to each mountain.



Never mind that Cannon doesn't use the double-black rating in the first place. I've always thought that rating should be reserved for truly out-of-the-ordinary trails (like Tramline, actually), rather than simply being applied to the most difficult 1/4 of the trails, as a lot of resorts seem to do.


----------



## Geoff (Mar 24, 2011)

Black Phantom said:


> I think it is pretty damn hard to get yourself into an extremely steep, advanced area without seeing any signage prior to.
> 
> And don't call me Shirley.:smile:



At Whistler/Blackcomb, it's trivial to ski yourself into cliff bands where the only way out is no-fall-zone 40+ degree chutes.   No warning.  No signage.


----------



## mediamogul (Mar 24, 2011)

ceo said:


> Never mind that Cannon doesn't use the double-black rating in the first place. I've always thought that rating should be reserved for truly out-of-the-ordinary trails (like Tramline, actually), rather than simply being applied to the most difficult 1/4 of the trails, as a lot of resorts seem to do.



Jay and MRG only do a black rating and the variation within that marking can be immense. Think Canyon compared to Paradise or Can Am compared to the Face. There should definitely be a more standardized rating of trails with certain features qualifying runs for double black versus black rating.


----------



## riverc0il (Mar 24, 2011)

mediamogul said:


> Jay and MRG only do a black rating and the variation within that marking can be immense. Think Canyon compared to Paradise or Can Am compared to the Face. There should definitely be a more standardized rating of trails with certain features qualifying runs for double black versus black rating.


The thing is... with these really difficult trails, they don't need any additional warnings because they are already self evidently some of the hardest trails in the east. You would have to be daft to ride up the tram and ski the Face Chutes at Jay without knowing they are steep (though there are many days that Can Am skis significantly harder than the Face Chutes!!! No joke, seriously). Ascending the Single at MRG, you get to see Chute and its evident on the trail map that Paradise is on the same aspect and is treed. If you can ski Chute, Paradise won't be a problem. Liftline and Blackhole at Smuggs (WHOA A TRIPLE!!!!)... same thing, self evident. It is right there! Tramline at Cannon, you know what you are going to get. I just don't see the need.

Self selection happens due to readily apparent features. Trails pretty rarely start groomed and then get bumped or start groomed and then force you into the trees without a bail out. The hardest slopes are usually under or close to a chair lift for inspection or extrapolation if the trails are on a similar aspect. 

The big problem is that the industry is now standardized around the green/blue/black system. Ski areas have to post their trail ratings onto sites that show the spread and it has to fit into an existing structure. There isn't much room for variation. And "purists" scoff at the double black because it has turned into a marketing thing rather than truly alerting skiers that they are entering into top tier terrain. I really like the idea of in between rating systems including green/blue and blue/black. Adding those two options would give ski areas five trail ratings. 

But there still is no standard so people don't know what to expect until they ski the trails. Does that put them at a disadvantage when skiing a new mountain? No. They'll figure it out just by looking at some trails from a lift and then adjusting their internal ratings accordingly. If someone is worried about it, they just start at one level lower than they normally would ski at a new area.


----------



## HD333 (Mar 24, 2011)

Lots of good post here. 
We all know what mountains have tough trails. A black at gunstock is most likely a blue at sugarbush etc.... A mountain has to rate their trails based on their terrain so customers know what is what while there.  It is about educating people once they are there. If your 9 year old nephew wants to ski blacks at XYZ mountain but you know it is over his head then it is up to you, the experienced skier/rider to point him in the right direction. I for one have never gotten in over my head due to a mountain labeling a trail inadequateley. I have been over my head  due to the fact that my ego had gotten in the way.
End rant.


----------



## oakapple (Mar 25, 2011)

Black Phantom said:


> I think it is pretty damn hard to get yourself into an extremely steep, advanced area without seeing any signage prior to.


The most common "problem" is that you know there is _some kind_ of black diamond up ahead, but you don't know if it's the one just slightly harder than blue, or the one that's "extremely steep, advanced".


----------



## kingslug (Mar 26, 2011)

oakapple said:


> I'm envious that you're that good -- or rather, that you were at the time. I have never been able to nail it that precisely. You can't always see the whole trail from the liftline. There's often a point where you've gone too far to backtrack, and you simply need to make it down the best way you can.




Oh...I can attest to this....I may have felt bad side slipping down the first part of a 52 degree 20 foot wide chute...but I wouldn't be writing this if I didn't...you gotta do ..what you gotta do ..sometimes...


----------



## halifax (Mar 26, 2011)

Great thread, one of the best yet.

Skied The Rumor at Gore Mountain yesterday .. first time there. Got to watch the NSP conducting exams for Certified-level on it, too. It's wicked steep. Easier in the AM when there was snow on it; much more difficult in the PM after the patrollers used it up (20-30 of 'em all day long).

Watching patrollers run the sleds down The Rumor in the afternoon? Respect.

Regarding rating systems, I'm old enough to remember the evolution of rating systems for both rock and ice climbing, and can see how something similar could be put together for steeps. One could build a starting framework based on the steeps-angles website and comments in this thread. The factors would include: overall gradient, steepest pitch, sustained nature, ease of escape, etc.  Seasonal factors ... depth of snow, icy conditions, etc. ... such elements would have to be thought about: if the initial rankings stay the same regardless of snow depth or surface condition, then the rating system can be rather straightforward... if not, then some kind of suffix, perhaps, would be added. 

For instance, let's say you have a "Steeps System" ranked 1-10, with 10 being the most difficult. Let's say The Rumor ranks a 7 when icy, a 6 when in powder or groomed, an 8 when thin cover:

The Rumor S6g, S7i, S8t

Once the upper and lower limits are set by consensus, the fun of fitting everything else in begins. Simple is best, but the systems have to tell enough to be relevant.

Just ruminating....


----------



## skierbum (Apr 3, 2011)

*Most Difficult Run - East*

I'm bored, and nothing to do, so I'm going to start this thread, as I have not seen one at the top recently. I'd like to stay on in-bound  runs only, as we probably can't judge how difficult a run is if we haven't skied it. Obviously, conditions are always a factor....

Here's my personal list from what I've skied/saw/heard. Please be willing to criticize my list :???:

1.) Paradise - Mad River Glen - Waterfalls, ice, moguls, trees, rocks. Enough said!
2.) Face Chutes - Jay - Steep as HELL!
3.) Goat - Stowe - 25.8 degrees of double fall line moguls. Throw in a couple rocks, and it's also narrow
4.) Liftline - Smuggs - Insane double fall line, lots of cliff bands, usually icy
5.) Freefall - Smuggs  - 31.48 degrees of all moguls. The name Freefall seems so true
6.) Outer Limits - Killington - Hadn't been groomed in a while, and was icy, so that is why it is so high on this list for me
7.) Starr - Stowe - Steep, moguls
8.) DJ's Tramline - Cannon - Starts as a steep glade, and opens into a cliff laden, double fall line trail.
9.) Black Hole - Smuggs - Mandatory cliff drops, 30.28 degrees of steep trees
10.) Ripcord - Mt. Snow - Icy when I skied it, MW moguls

My two sents. Let the winter continue !


----------



## Nick (Apr 3, 2011)

Tuckermans 8)


----------



## Newpylong (Apr 3, 2011)

I like that list outside of Outer Limits - but I guess that could be tough under some conditions...

I think he's going for lift served on-piste judging from this list, so Tuckerman's wouldn't cut it. I think those runs at Smugg's are tougher than Tuckerman's anyway...


----------



## mediamogul (Apr 3, 2011)

Great Eastern at Killington on a Saturday Holiday. Some scary stuff right there.


----------



## Nick (Apr 3, 2011)

Newpylong said:


> I like that list outside of Outer Limits - but I guess that could be tough under some conditions...
> 
> I think he's going for lift served on-piste judging from this list, so Tuckerman's wouldn't cut it. I think those runs at Smugg's are tougher than Tuckerman's anyway...



really... I've never been to smuggs. I've always said I would ski any slope the NE has to offer. I'm going to have to check off this list :wink:


----------



## skierbum (Apr 3, 2011)

mediamogul said:


> Great Eastern at Killington on a Saturday Holiday. Some scary stuff right there.



Or Juggernaut at Killington on a powder day in April with HEAVY snow on a snowboard. Toughest on-piste trail right there.


----------



## Nick (Apr 3, 2011)

Those Smuggs and Jay Peak's runs look awesome. I haven't skid at either of those.


----------



## Hockley Valley (Apr 3, 2011)

With my limited knowledge compared to most on this board (i live and ski in Ontario besides two trips to Killington and one to Whistler) i would say the hardest the poma liftline at pico is the hardest thing i have skied in the east. On the map i would say Nosedive at Hockley Valley is the hardest i have skied.
It is built up with snowmaking and is literally 53 degrees for about 70 feet! i have seen two ski patrol fall on that trail in my life. Harder than anything at Killington by far.


----------



## thetrailboss (Apr 3, 2011)

Nick said:


> Tuckermans 8)


 
+ 1.  

Add much of Sugarbush's expert terrain to the list including:  

* Upper FIS
* Black Diamond
* Rumble
* Liftline
* Paradise


----------



## skierbum (Apr 3, 2011)

thetrailboss said:


> + 1.
> 
> Add much of Sugarbush's expert terrain to the list including:
> 
> ...



Hitting Sugarbush this Friday!

Hoping the rain into thaw into freeze isn't too bad and the snow softens up on Friday, so I can ski some of those.


----------



## riverc0il (Apr 3, 2011)

skierbum said:


> Please be willing to criticize my list :???:


Well, that is certainly an invitation if I have ever read one! :lol:

I am a big fan of separating glades from non-glades in regards to such lists. It is kinda hard to compare the two because the reason for the difficulty is vastly different. 

That said, I have skied everything in your list and Liftline at Smuggs is the grand daddy of technical on map challenge in the east, IMO. I don't think Freefall is that bad. You can ski Black Hole without mandatory air but it is definitely not for the faint of heart.

Face Chutes at Jay always surprise me in that they don't ski as steep as they look and the steep part is very short before it gets into a more typical steep pitch. Tuckerman Chutes should also get a mention in here as well but you could just wrap that entire ridge into one run if you want.

The glade at the top of Tramline at Cannon is not steep at all. It seems to be intentionally tight to keep folks out that don't have a minimal skill set. There really is only one cliff to navigate, the crux does have ladies tee options and no mandatory air. The problem here is usually thin coverage, especially around Tower 1 and the crux at the big cliff. Lots of rocks to contend without recent snow. Definitely worthy of inclusion. Wouldn't be as difficult if Cannon got NoVT snow totals.

At Mad River, I never found Paradise to be overly challenging. I think going over the cliffs on Liftline and not taking the ladies tee is much more challenging as far as cliffs and air goes. You can't really but slide down Tower 10 cliffs. But it does have the P option whereas Paradise really shows you that you don't have the skills if you don't got them off that first drop. But after that it is pretty mellow. It all depends how you ski it. The way I like to ski Liftline, it is far more challenging than Paradise proper and you have an audience to boot.

Goat and Starr are cool trails, Lookout is much more interesting than Starr, though. Lookout is natural with some cliffs. I might put something like Red Line or Black Line at Magic in there up against them. Goat and Outlook have it for long sustained and bumpy/steep/rocky but they don't have the technical aspect of Magic's lift line trails. 

OL@K? Really? C'mon.... :roll:

I was delightfully surprised with Ripcord at Mount Snow. It is a shorty but it does have great pitch and is probably worthy of its placement at a ten spot in such a list.

Maybe toss in Castlerock Liftline? It has been a while since I skied it. I love Rumble but it turns so much it never has a challenging steep. Anyone proficient with bumps should easily be able to handle Rumble so as fun as it is, I couldn't give it a nod on such a list.

For what it is worth, the NE Freeride Tour used Face Chutes at Jay, CR Liftline at Bush, Black Line at Magic, and Liftline at MRG for their events.

Nothing comes close to Liftline at Smuggs. 8)


----------



## mondeo (Apr 3, 2011)

OL isn't even toughest at K. Usually upper Vetigo has the edge over lower Ovation just because the skiing surface tends to be so bad, though the sustained steep is much shorter. Fiddle is probably harder in parts though flatter overall. Double Dipper and lower Cascade tend to be skied off shit shows. Big Dipper is hardly even a glade anymore, probably tougher than OL.


----------



## Ski the Moguls (Apr 4, 2011)

The lower half of Ovation at Killington. http://ski-degrees.synthasite.com/vermont.php


----------



## andyzee (Apr 4, 2011)

Lower FIS at Sugarbush, the (runout)


----------



## dmc (Apr 4, 2011)

What does steepness have to do with difficulty?


----------



## Cannonball (Apr 4, 2011)

dmc said:


> What does steepness have to do with difficulty?



Considering that just about everyone includes steepness as an element of difficulty, it would probably be easier to answer your question if you started off by explaining why you think steepness doesn't have anything to do with difficulty.  Then we can take the discussion from there.  go....


----------



## dmc (Apr 4, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> Considering that just about everyone includes steepness as an element of difficulty, it would probably be easier to answer your question if you started off by explaining why you think steepness doesn't have anything to do with difficulty.  Then we can take the discussion from there.  go....



To me - just because a trails steep - doesn't mean it's difficult.   It's just a number and speaks nothing about the terrain expect it is "N" steep.  It tends to be a number people can hang their hat on and talk about at the bar.  

Ovation a KMart is steep - but it's not difficult.  There's other trails there that I would consider harder but are not as steep..


----------



## Cannonball (Apr 4, 2011)

dmc said:


> To me - just because a trails steep - doesn't mean it's difficult.  .



That _may_ be true.  But it is not the same as steepness having the nothing to do with difficulty.



dmc said:


> Ovation a KMart is steep - but it's not difficult.  There's other trails there that I would consider harder but are not as steep..



But another trail that had the same width, grooming, snow conditions, etc as OL but was less steep than OL would be easier.  Steepness is an 'element' of difficulty. It's not everything but it does have something to do with difficulty. 

Wait, why am I even debating this?  You sucked me in, you win, mission accomplished.


----------



## dmc (Apr 4, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> That _may_ be true.  But it is not the same as steepness having the nothing to do with difficulty.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



whatever dude... just throwing my .02 in - not trying to suck anyone in..  Only mission I'm on is to participate in the thread.

But I often forget I think differently then 90% of the people here.  So have at it..


----------



## Puck it (Apr 4, 2011)

dmc said:


> whatever dude... just throwing my .02 in - not trying to suck anyone in..  Only mission I'm on is to participate in the thread.
> 
> But I often forget I think differently then 90% of the people here.  So have at it..



Yes, you do.


----------



## Cannonball (Apr 4, 2011)

dmc said:


> whatever dude... just throwing my .02 in - not trying to suck anyone in..  Only mission I'm on is to participate in the thread.
> 
> But I often forget I think differently then 90% of the people here.  So have at it..



Alright.  The question just seemed kind of basic (and therefore baiting) coming from someone who skis and rides as much as you do.  But if it was a sincere question, then I'll sincerely attempt to answer it.....



dmc said:


> What does steepness have to do with difficulty?



Increasing steepness is proportional to an increase in the influence of gravity on the skier. This results in a many different effects. I'll only list a couple:
1) Initiating a turn down the fall line results in a greater amount of speed than would occur on a less-steep pitch.  Speed: a) takes more force/energy to control, b) takes more skill to control, c) can result in greater injury.

2) A fall on a steeper pitch is harder to arrest.  You rarely hear about someone taking a 1,500' fall across a flat hay field. But you do hear about it often on steep pitches.

All other things being equal snow tends to have a harder time sticking to steeper pitches.  Therefore the steepness of the trail has a large influence on snow cover and conditions.

There are many other factors.  But these are a few of the more significant ways in which steepness has to do with difficulty.


----------



## andyzee (Apr 4, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> Alright.  The question just seemed kind of basic (and therefore baiting) coming from someone who skis and rides as much as you do.  But if it was a sincere question, then I'll sincerely attempt to answer it.....
> 
> 
> 
> ...




To be honest, I have to agree with DMC. Although I could understand what you're saying about difficulty. I find a green beginner run much tougher than a steep double diamond, much less work. Now you throw in other factors, narrowness, mandatory air, etc... well then steepness plays a factor. But I would not base difficulty on just steepness.


----------



## freeskier423 (Apr 4, 2011)

slides


----------



## dmc (Apr 4, 2011)

If fear of injury from falling is something that makes a trail difficult for you - then I'll buy that.


----------



## oakapple (Apr 4, 2011)

dmc said:


> To me - just because a trails steep - doesn't mean it's difficult.   It's just a number and speaks nothing about the terrain expect it is "N" steep.  It tends to be a number people can hang their hat on and talk about at the bar.


Steepness is one of the few measures of difficulty that can be stated as a number. Are you disputing that, all other things being equal, steeper trails are harder than flatter ones?



> Ovation a KMart is steep - but it's not difficult.  There's other trails there that I would consider harder but are not as steep..


When you say "it's not difficult," you're not suggesting it should be a green circle or a blue square, are you? Unless Ovation is rather severely miscoded, it's more difficult than any green or blue at KMart, and since its lower half is a double-black, I assume it's more difficult than many (if not all) of the single-blacks.


----------



## mediamogul (Apr 4, 2011)

skierbum said:


> I'm bored, and nothing to do, so I'm going to start this thread, as I have not seen one at the top recently. I'd like to stay on in-bound  runs only, as we probably can't judge how difficult a run is if we haven't skied it. Obviously, conditions are always a factor....
> 
> Here's my personal list from what I've skied/saw/heard. Please be willing to criticize my list :???:
> 
> ...



Many good choices on the list. 

The two I don't agree with are Ripcord and OL. 

OL is kind of a joke in it's current state. Regularly groomed. I get the feeling that the only reason it still makes lists is due to it's past reputation as a nasty bump run. Which at one point of it's career it was. There are more difficult trails at Killington these days. Try the upper portion of Vertigo for bumps (provided it isn't groomed as well).

Ripcord, from my perspective, is not as steep as people make it out to be. It has icy conditions often which makes it difficult to ski but you would have to have a death wish to attempt to ski the ridge at Jay in the same conditions.It is also super short and yes it may be the steepest at Snow but I think there are trails more deserving of the list, especially when I don't see Redline or Black Magic from Magic on the list, or the Slides, or Sugarloaf represented.


----------



## dmc (Apr 4, 2011)

oakapple said:


> Steepness is one of the few measures of difficulty that can be stated as a number. Are you disputing that, all other things being equal, steeper trails are harder than flatter ones?



Flatter trails are harder..   No speed..   
But it really depends on your ability and what your comfortable with.




oakapple said:


> When you say "it's not difficult," you're not suggesting it should be a green circle or a blue square, are you? Unless Ovation is rather severely miscoded, it's more difficult than any green or blue at KMart, and since its lower half is a double-black, I assume it's more difficult than many (if not all) of the single-blacks.



I'm only pointing out that a steeper trail may not be more difficult then one not as steep.  And I'm referring to the lower half of course..


----------



## oakapple (Apr 4, 2011)

andyzee said:


> I find a green beginner run much tougher than a steep double diamond, much less work.


You're late. April Fool was 3 days ago.


----------



## dmc (Apr 4, 2011)

oakapple said:


> You're late. April Fool was 3 days ago.



i agree with him...

Difficult is different from scary...


----------



## oakapple (Apr 4, 2011)

dmc said:


> Flatter trails are harder..   No speed..
> But it really depends on your ability and what your comfortable with.


Literally flat trails are annoying, because you have to pull yourself along.

Most green circle trails have pitch. You might not go fast, but you don't have to do any work to go down the hill. While the lack of speed might be annoying to one accustomed to going faster, are you really suggesting that there is anything _hard_ about that?


----------



## dmc (Apr 4, 2011)

oakapple said:


> Literally flat trails are annoying, because you have to pull yourself along.
> 
> Most green circle trails have pitch. You might not go fast, but you don't have to do any work to go down the hill. While the lack of speed might be annoying to one accustomed to going faster, are you really suggesting that there is anything _hard_ about that?



try doing flat on a board...  It's very difficult..


----------



## Nick (Apr 4, 2011)

If everything else is equal, of course a steeper trail is more difficult. 

But I do think DMC makes a good question in, what does difficult represent? I've never had to "turn around" on a trail. I would say difficulty in general is how hard it is to ski down while staying ON the skies, and also maintaining control and maybe even looking good while doing it


----------



## Nick (Apr 4, 2011)

dmc said:


> try doing flat on a board...  It's very difficult..



Well if we are going to go that route, waiting 20 minutes in a lift line is difficult :lol:


----------



## dmc (Apr 4, 2011)

Nick said:


> Well if we are going to go that route, waiting 20 minutes in a lift line is difficult :lol:



Your not exactly skiing when in a lift line..

The question was difficulty.


----------



## Nick (Apr 4, 2011)

dmc said:


> Your not exactly skiing when in a lift line..
> 
> The question was difficulty.



IMO I would say being on a snowboard on flat ground is more tedious and annoying than difficult. 

In general when trails are rated they are taking in how skilled you need to be to navigate them successfully, so in that context "difficulty" is correlated with required skill. 

Anyone can strap on a board or put on skis and stand on flat ground or move forward, so that can't be difficult. Or those trails would get blue squares or black diamonds. Just my .02


----------



## dmc (Apr 4, 2011)

Nick said:


> IMO I would say being on a snowboard on flat ground is more tedious and annoying than difficult.
> 
> In general when trails are rated they are taking in how skilled you need to be to navigate them successfully, so in that context "difficulty" is correlated with required skill.
> 
> Anyone can strap on a board or put on skis and stand on flat ground or move forward, so that can't be difficult. Or those trails would get blue squares or black diamonds. Just my .02



All I can tell you is it is difficult to navigate flat terrain on a snowboard..  

I've gone down steeps with huge cornices in the Himalayas..   I've been down the headwall at Tucks - dozens of times..  Ridden and skied Outer Limits when the bumps are as big as cars... I've navigate Paradise on skis...

But flats take the most out of me and are frankly difficult for me to ride.  Often times it requires taking a foot out and kicking - which isn't easy..


----------



## thetrailboss (Apr 4, 2011)

I think "most difficult" means requiring the most technical expertise to ski/ride.  

The simple definition of an expert is one who can ski any terrain in any condition.


----------



## mondeo (Apr 4, 2011)

Alright, so factors that influence difficulty:

Pitch
Width
Double fall lines
Terrain features
Crowdedness
Typical snow surface
Sudden pitch changes

Did I miss anything?


----------



## dmc (Apr 4, 2011)

mondeo said:


> Alright, so factors that influence difficulty:
> 
> Pitch
> Width
> ...



A persons ability.


----------



## Nick (Apr 4, 2011)

thetrailboss said:


> I think "most difficult" means requiring the most technical expertise to ski/ride.
> 
> The simple definition of an expert is one who can ski any terrain in any condition.



I have a tendancy to get very verbose sometimes so that sums it up a lot better. I agree.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Apr 4, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> Alright.  The question just seemed kind of basic (and therefore baiting) coming from someone who skis and rides as much as you do.  But if it was a sincere question, then I'll sincerely attempt to answer it.....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Great answer.





Nick said:


> IMO I would say* being on a snowboard on flat ground is more tedious and annoying than difficult. *



That's because a snowboard, while lots of fun, is not an efficient practical tool for both the above reason, as well as the "going uphill" reason.  It's certainly not that the terrain is "difficult", it's that the snowboard is inefficient for the application.


----------



## neil (Apr 4, 2011)

BenedictGomez said:


> It's certainly not that the terrain is "difficult", it's that the snowboard is inefficient for the application.



More the fact that snowboarders don't have poles IMO.


----------



## dmc (Apr 4, 2011)

BenedictGomez said:


> Great answer.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Skis were borne from necessity....  Delivering mail - attacking the village in the next valley - etc...

Snowboards were built strictly for fun...  And suck to attack the village next door... I've tried it..


----------



## dmc (Apr 4, 2011)

neil said:


> More the fact that snowboarders don't have poles IMO.



Because of the stance on a board poles can be a pain in the $$$ too,,,


----------



## Nick (Apr 4, 2011)

At least they have comfy boots


----------



## BenedictGomez (Apr 4, 2011)

neil said:


> More the fact that snowboarders don't have poles IMO.



HTH would you use poles with a snowboard?   They'd be virtually useless.


----------



## dmc (Apr 4, 2011)

BenedictGomez said:


> HTH would you use poles with a snowboard?   They'd be virtually useless.



It's tough...  I've tried..  sometimes best to just use one..


----------



## mondeo (Apr 4, 2011)

BenedictGomez said:


> HTH would you use poles with a snowboard? They'd be virtually useless.


Grab on to one that a passing skier is holding. That's the best use of a pole by a snowboarder.


----------



## dmc (Apr 4, 2011)

mondeo said:


> Grab on to one that a passing skier is holding. That's the best use of a pole by a snowboarder.



i prefer the push method to get speed from my skier/tele friends..


----------



## neil (Apr 4, 2011)

BenedictGomez said:


> HTH would you use poles with a snowboard?   They'd be virtually useless.



I wasn't trying to say snowboarders SHOULD use poles, but more the fact that a snowboard isn't really inefficient on flats compared to skis. If you didn't have poles you'd find flats very hard too I imagine.


----------



## dmc (Apr 4, 2011)

neil said:


> I wasn't trying to say snowboarders SHOULD use poles, but more the fact that a snowboard isn't really inefficient on flats compared to skis. If you didn't have poles you'd find flats very hard too I imagine.



yup - lot's of times it involves skating with one foot out or just taking the deck off and walking..  which really sukcs..  

Skating can be very difficult...    ooops... supposed to use a different word.. sorry..


----------



## RootDKJ (Apr 4, 2011)

Why don't people on snowler-blades use poles?  I can't even figure out why those thing are even manufactured to begin with...but pole-less???


----------



## BenedictGomez (Apr 4, 2011)

neil said:


> *a snowboard isn't really inefficient on flats compared to skis.*



Are you serious with this?   



neil said:


> * If you didn't have poles you'd find flats very hard too I imagine.*



Not really, just a bit harder.  

I can skate with the very best of them.  Toss my poles to the ground, and there's still no way in hell a snowboarder keeps up with me (or any skier that has even the slightest Nordic skills).    And FWIW,  Skate technique >>>> poles - in terms of propulsion in the flats.


----------



## neil (Apr 4, 2011)

Sounds like this calls for a skate off


----------



## Riverskier (Apr 4, 2011)

Definitely White Heat. "The steepest, longest, widest lift served trail in the East."


----------



## mondeo (Apr 4, 2011)

Riverskier said:


> Definitely White Heat. "The steepest, longest, widest lift served trail in the East."


Widest makes it easy.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Apr 4, 2011)

I'm going to say that the hardest thing I think I've skied in the east is either Liftline at Smuggs or Starr at Stowe.

 I've never skied The Slides at Whiteface though, and I've heard they're pretty tough?


----------



## KevinF (Apr 4, 2011)

RootDKJ said:


> Why don't people on snowler-blades use poles?  I can't even figure out why those thing are even manufactured to begin with...but pole-less???



What would you need poles for on snowblades?  Snowblades (IMO) were made to do one thing -- lay them way the hell over and make some ridiculously tight carved turns.  If you're laying them over, your poles just get in the way.


----------



## KevinF (Apr 4, 2011)

neil said:


> If you didn't have poles you'd find flats very hard too I imagine.



Poling across flats is only for those who don't know how to skate.  Although your poles can be handy to get you started or navigate through a flat crowded area where you don't really have room to skate hard.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Apr 4, 2011)

KevinF said:


> Poling across flats is only for those who don't know how to skate.  Although your poles can be handy to get you started or navigate through a flat crowded area where you don't really have room to skate hard.



Skating in more than 5" of powder (on traverses) is not fun, poles are helpful in this senario as well.


----------



## riverc0il (Apr 4, 2011)

freeskier423 said:


> slides


Good addition!


----------



## EPB (Apr 4, 2011)

It's interesting to see that almost all of the proposed trails come from Vermont, and Northern Vermont at that. It looks like Tramline and The Slides are the only other serious contributions outside of VT.  I'd like to contribute the Snowfields at Sugarloaf as a potential to 10 "trail".  I don't really know the particular trail names that they use.  I just explore...

I haven't been to Saddleback, but are there any trails there that could have top 10 potential?  Black Mountain (NH) could have some contenders off of the summit if they were a little longer.

I like Rivercoil's suggestion that glades and trails should be considered separate. 

Another component of challenge that might have been mentioned is length.  For instance, I would say that no particular section of the old gondola line at Wildcat is particularly challenging, but the run in its entirely can be difficult to ski without frequent stops,  Along this vein, I would say that fairly steep, narrow, long bump runs like La 42 at Le Massif should be considered as a top 10 difficult run in the Northeast.  Sidecountry like the Snowfields into Brackett Basin or Le Massif's Mont A Ligouri would also be considered especially difficult due to their sustained challenge.  

One more thing, the assertion that flat outs should be considered "challenging" is ridiculous.  It's not difficult to stay in control, or keep good form on flat ground.  Moreover, we all learned to ski or ride on low angle slopes.  Are they cumbersome, certainly, but they don't test an expert's skills, and they offer little value when trying to improve upon one's ability.


----------



## Cannonball (Apr 4, 2011)

I thought this all sounded very familiar.  There was an almost identical thread just a few months ago.....  http://forums.alpinezone.com/showthread.php?t=90478

Many of the same trails were suggested and some good cases made.   Back then dmc even thought that steepness contributed to difficulty......


dmc said:


> I know I'll take some heat for this but how about Lower K27 at Hunter?  I've seen it challenge most that try it.  It's short but steep and never groomed.


----------



## dmc (Apr 4, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> I thought this all sounded very familiar.  There was an almost identical thread just a few months ago.....  http://forums.alpinezone.com/showthread.php?t=90478
> 
> Many of the same trails were suggested and some good cases made.   Back then dmc even thought that steepness contributed to difficulty......



Yes indeed..  Lower K27 It's short and steep and super bumpy with variable conditions.   The steepness doesn't make it tough - it's the huge moguls, surface and the steepness..


----------



## tjf67 (Apr 4, 2011)

Jays chutes are the toughest trails I have been on in the East.  Just to be sure they r pretty much rite under the tram.  I did not ski them I just tried surviving.
I get a lot of the trails @ stowe/bush confused in my head.  They r pretty craggy and fun but don't compare.
Smuggs liftline way crazy hard on my 203 after a thaw freeze.  I Always said I want to get back to it.
Lookout below/cloudspin/empire are in the top 15
Sugarloaf has the steepest sustained pitch off of the front on the snowfield.  Great when corn/deadly when firm.


----------



## Nick (Apr 4, 2011)

I've never been to Smuggs or Jays. This is making me want to go, now.


----------



## andyzee (Apr 4, 2011)

Nick said:


> I've never been to Smuggs or Jays. This is making me want to go, now.




I checked it out for the first time this year, twice, and loved it. What throws a lot of folks off is it's rep as a good family mountain. Makes it sound tame, which is very far from the truth. Great mountain, only issue is the lifts. Don't think I'd want to hit it on a weekend.


----------



## campgottagopee (Apr 4, 2011)

Nick said:


> I've never been to Smuggs or Jays. This is making me want to go, now.



GO...you'll be very happy you did


----------



## snowmonster (Apr 4, 2011)

from_the_NEK said:


> Skating in more than 5" of powder (on traverses) is not fun, poles are helpful in this senario as well.



A fresh coat of wax on your bases is very helpful too.


----------



## UVSHTSTRM (Apr 5, 2011)

Riverskier said:


> Definitely White Heat. "The steepest, longest, widest lift served trail in the East."



Really?  You're joking right?

The wide factor throws it out of consideration for me, same with OL at K.  There is so much room with these two that it takes out trees and people as obstacles, plus there is really no mandatory air, etc.  There are so many more tough trails in the east that force you to watch out for things/take into consideration of certain elements, rocks, trees, people, cliffs, etc.

Speaking of Outer Limits, I would argue that its neighbor Devils Fiddle deserves some mention.

FYI I ride and did Devils Fiddle after a good size snowstorm this year, so there were huge moguls at the top part, which perhaps might skew my opinion vs those of others.


----------



## MadPadraic (Apr 5, 2011)

dmc said:


> Skis were borne from necessity....  Delivering mail - attacking the village in the next valley - etc...
> 
> Snowboards were built strictly for fun...  And suck to attack the village next door... I've tried it..



They are great for that in France, except the cat track from hell from Courchevel to Meribel.


----------



## dmc (Apr 5, 2011)

MadPadraic said:


> They are great for that in France, except the cat track from hell from Courchevel to Meribel.



I can only imagine...  

If I knew I was doing that - I'd probably bring a splitboard


----------



## Riverskier (Apr 5, 2011)

UVSHTSTRM said:


> Really?  You're joking right?
> 
> The wide factor throws it out of consideration for me, same with OL at K.  There is so much room with these two that it takes out trees and people as obstacles, plus there is really no mandatory air, etc.  There are so many more tough trails in the east that force you to watch out for things/take into consideration of certain elements, rocks, trees, people, cliffs, etc.
> 
> ...



Totally joking. However, on a super icy day it can be the scariest trail on the mountain. Steep and nothing to stop you if you fall. I haven't skied enough areas in New England (not in Vermont at all) to actually have an opinion on this. Even if I wanted to determine the hardest trails on the mountains I have skied, it would still be tough, as there are so many factors. Just a few: 1) Conditions. MOST trails in the East are relatively easy to navigate with good snow and many can be tough when very icy. 2) Whether or not it is a bump run. Bumps can make anything challenging for many skiers. 3) Whether there is an easy way down it. The snowfields for ex. have some of the steepest pitches I have skied, but an intermediate could traverse their way down it pretty easily. 4) Whether or not it is a tree run. Glades can be some of the toughest to ski well, but most glades can be traversed and navigated slowly without the risk of an uncontrolled slided. A challenging glade (even by Sunday River standards) is much harder than say White Heat, but the risk for serious injury seems much greater on a trail like White Heat due to the possibility of an uncontrolled slide.


----------



## gladerider (Apr 5, 2011)

MadPadraic said:


> They are great for that in France, except the cat track from hell from Courchevel to Meribel.



courchevel to meribel track? why wouldn't you ski down from saulire?


----------



## xwhaler (Apr 5, 2011)

May not make the top 10 but a couple I haven't seen mentioned yet:
Trails:
Pico-Upper Giant Killer

Saddleback-Upper Professor/Jane Craig (only when icy and the rock comes into play)
Upper Governor (no longer open b/c the entrance is under the quad and they don't want ppl skiing under the top section of the lift)    The top section of this is short but challenging, especially the last bit where it drops onto NW Passage and is usually real rocky and wind blown.

Black Mtn (NH) Upper Galloping Goose

Glades:
Saddleback-Dark Wizard, Casa #1-2
Black Mtn (NH)-Lostbo Glades


----------



## legalskier (Apr 5, 2011)

We all know the names of the "most difficult" trails that always make the lists, trails that can be measured objectively using a list of factors (pitch being only one of them). Mondeo lists them in post # 163. The tougher the factors, the more technical expertise is needed.  





thetrailboss said:


> I think "most difficult" means requiring the most technical expertise to ski/ride..



But for me it's more subjective.  It's *how I react to a trail/glade* at a given time and place."Difficulty" for me means that a trail (or part of a trail) activates my spidey senses. It's a visceral sense of danger, the kind where you find yourself unconsciously shirking away, often sitting in the back seat. This is where trailboss' tech expertise definition comes in. You better bring your A game. Another visceral reaction that measures difficulty for me is whether it challenged me physically and I'm winded after skiing it with minimal stops in the fall line. Also a trail could rate as "most difficult" on one day but not another (e.g. icy conditions vs spring corn), as some have pointed out.


----------



## 2knees (Apr 5, 2011)

All i know is the older I get, the steeper and more challenging _everything_ gets.


----------



## Nick (Sep 14, 2011)

The Paradise thread brings this one back for me :lol: even with the drama on how to quantify "difficulty"


----------



## mattchuck2 (Sep 14, 2011)

Rivercoil's last post in this thread was right before he went to Whiteface and skied the Slides (and, less importantly, Gore to ski Rumor). Update?


----------



## riverc0il (Sep 14, 2011)

mattchuck2 said:


> Rivercoil's last post in this thread was right before he went to Whiteface and skied the Slides (and, less importantly, Gore to ski Rumor). Update?


Whiteface Slides are hard to categorize. Slide 1 is very mellow and 2 is similar pitch just not as wide. I wouldn't include Slide 1 or Slide 2 in a top ten most difficult list. Maybe not even a top 20. Though the natural hazards such as the icefall do make navigation "interesting" relative to other trails. Slide 3 really ups the ante and definitely belongs in a top ten list. Absolutely sensational line. Harv has a great rear shot of me ripping it, one of best lines of last year. Slide 4 starts to blur the line between trail and glade (especially getting out of the Slide) so again... very hard to compare to "trails". As for Rumor, total bore fest. I am sure it is a lot more entertaining when it is icy hard pack vs epic soft spring bumps. 

Bottom line is that I would 100% include Slides 3 & 4 on a top most difficult list for the northeast. Though I find rating them against other trails is problematic because of the glade like elements, especially Slide 4.

I retain Liftline at Smuggs as the most difficult on map non-glade trail in New England. It is one of the few runs that really gets my heart pumping hard.


----------



## mattchuck2 (Sep 14, 2011)

mattchuck2 said:


> Liftline @ Smuggs isn't horribly difficult.
> Rumor @ Gore, Ripcord @ Snow, Kinsman Glade and Tramline @ Canon aren't too too hard.
> 
> I think the Slides @ Whiteface deserve more than a passing mention in this thread.  There are some tough lines in there and, if the snow level is low, very few ways to "pussy out".
> ...



I stand by my original post.


----------



## riverc0il (Sep 14, 2011)

mattchuck2 said:


> That's why a tight glade would always seem like it would be more challenging than a wide open trail. Even if there's a lot more snow, you still have to be able to make that turn in that place.


Exactly. Which is why I don't think comparing something like Slide 4 to a non-gladed run is really apples to oranges. Slide 4 has many aspects that are more technical than any non-gladed run in the east. And the exit out of Slide 4 might be perhaps the most challenging on map line any where in the east. It is an 8-10' wide chute with trees. It is without a doubt more challenging than anything else I have skied on map. But compare that to Slide 1.... how can you rank "The Slides" when there is that much variance and can you compare glades to trails? 

I will maintain my position that "I retain Liftline at Smuggs as the most difficult on map non-glade trail in New England" while also stating that Slide 4 is more challenging but decidedly not a "trail". I just can't put Slide 3 & 4 on a level playing field with any non-gladed terrain. Perhaps I should propose a list of the hardest on map gladed lines, for which I would put Slide 4 at the top.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Sep 14, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> Exactly. Which is why I don't think comparing something like Slide 4 to a non-gladed run is really apples to oranges. Slide 4 has many aspects that are more technical than any non-gladed run in the east. And the exit out of Slide 4 might be perhaps the most challenging on map line any where in the east. It is an 8-10' wide chute with trees. It is without a doubt more challenging than anything else I have skied on map. But compare that to Slide 1.... how can you rank "The Slides" when there is that much variance and can you compare glades to trails?
> 
> I will maintain my position that "I retain Liftline at Smuggs as the most difficult on map non-glade trail in New England" while also stating that Slide 4 is more challenging but decidedly not a "trail". I just can't put Slide 3 & 4 on a level playing field with any non-gladed terrain. Perhaps I should propose a list of the hardest on map gladed lines, for which I would put Slide 4 at the top.



Wasn't there recently a new landslide over in the slide 3-4 area that potentially changed the character of those 2 slides? I have never skiied them so I can't comment on difficulty.

Edit: found this news report with a nice side by side

http://www.wptz.com/video/28126230/detail.html


----------



## riverc0il (Sep 14, 2011)

Only skied them once, so I am probably not the best source. But the pictures I saw seemed to suggest the landslide was between 3 and 4 curving into the run out of 3. It looked like a totally new path to my eyes. But I may not have been connecting the dots well enough due to limited experience.


----------



## mattchuck2 (Sep 14, 2011)

from_the_NEK said:


> Wasn't there recently a new landslide over in the slide 3-4 area that potentially changed the character of those 2 slides? I have never skiied them so I can't comment on difficulty.
> 
> Edit: found this news report with a nice side by side
> 
> http://www.wptz.com/video/28126230/detail.html



Yep.  Good side by side pic here: http://forum.nyskiblog.com/Whiteface-Slides-3-and-4-slide-again-tp3006478p3007781.html


----------



## Madroch (Sep 15, 2011)

Liftline at smuggs has penty of pucker factor for me--and has had me looking to circumnavigate the ice falls through the woods.  Lots of fun to be had all around on Madonna.


----------



## skiberg (Sep 15, 2011)

No questison the most challenging ski runs are all at Tuckermans. And yes it is a ski area.


----------



## Newpylong (Sep 16, 2011)

skiberg said:


> No questison the most challenging ski runs are all at Tuckermans. And yes it is a ski area.




not really.... plenty of other area in the same category, or much harder... but not "ski areas."


----------



## ski_resort_observer (Sep 16, 2011)

Liftline @ Smuggs
Goat@ Stowe
Black Diamond@ the Bush
The Church @ the Bush

On the trail ratings it's a comparison of terrain at that particular mountain for good reason. If your on a blue and it's a challenge you know that a black is for another day. If you used a resort-wide standard it would not be very helpful to someone who has not been to alot of other resorts.

While it is true that the ratings are done by the resort there are some general rules set by the NSAA that resorts should and do try to follow. As mentioned it also depends on the terrain surface. 

Green circle  Easiest The easiest slopes at a mountain. Green Circle trails are generally wide and groomed, typically with slope gradients ranging from 6% to 25%[3] (a 100% slope is a 45 degree angle). 

Blue square  Intermediate Intermediate difficulty slopes with grades commonly ranging from 25% to 40%.[3] These slopes are usually groomed. Blue Square runs make up the bulk of pistes at most ski areas, and are usually among the most heavily trafficked. 

Black diamond  Advanced Amongst the most difficult at a given mountain. Black Diamond trails tend to be steep (typically 40% and up)[3] and may or may not be groomed, though the introduction of winch-cats has made the grooming of steep slopes both possible and more frequent. 

Double black diamond  Expert Only These trails are even more difficult than Black Diamond, due to exceptionally steep slopes and other hazards such as narrow trails, exposure to wind, and the presence of obstacles such as steep drop-offs or trees. They are intended only for the most experienced skiers. 
This trail rating is fairly new; by the 1980s, technological improvements in trail construction and maintenance, coupled with intense marketing competition, led to the creation of a Double Black Diamond rating.


----------



## bigbog (Sep 17, 2011)

tjf67 said:


> I grew up in Troy NY.  Skied Mt Snow till I found Gore.  Mt Snow has more continuous Vert.  Gore has a lot more terrain and much more challenging runs.  Mt Snow has much more snow making.  Gore has a lot more glade skiing.
> My snow access road is a PITA at the end of the day to get out of town.  .....



Tough for me, a late starter, to narrow Sugarloaf down to one or two trails as better skiers can, but now I think Brackett's glades, when covered enough, might become the greater draw to ski well.
Ah...another tri-cities guy eh' *tjf67*.  Does the "67" relate to 1967?   64'-72' spent living up in Spiegletown but never skied till 1981   Got going while in the Boston area(@Wachusett).


----------

