ATTN: MR. MIKE PRATT

pro2860 wrote

That's Larry!

Larry off the charts??

skimore wrote

Nearly every and you rattle off 1/3 of VT. Looks like the same list that trump WF

Hey SkiMORE and post LESS  

Gore has some of the best trees in the east but also has some of the worst designed trails with those huge flat spots that Mr Pratt made worse with the new additions that guess what feature more huge flat spots - Was Pratt a X-C racer?  Whats with the flat spots?  Why add more?  You can tell Gore skiers from WF skiers by how well they can skate.

I usaully make a few trips down to Gore once the glades get open but with the lack of snow for glades this year I probably won't make that trip this year unless it snows.

"worst designed trails" = hand dealt to you by topography.  Really isn't an issue even for my 8 year old girl, but she is a good skier and not a complainer.

Agreed. If you don't like the additional terrain, nobody forces you to ski it - stay on the main mountain. There is plenty there. I haven't skied the full length of Cloud in over five years.  (There are reason's to do it, but it's certainly not required).

When X and I skied Burnt Ridge on Saturday we went over on Cedars - probably the flattest trail at Gore. He's on alpine gear and I went behind him and counted his "skate" strokes. He did 25. Sure it's tougher on a powder day, but I think you expend more energy getting to the lodge from the parking lot. It's just excercise.

Decisions on terrain expansion at a state run mountain involve a lot of people - it's not Mike making these calls.  That said, I'd guess Mike thinks the new terrain is a good thing.  Personally I like it.  I think it isn't proper to judge it until a few more years have gone by. See how it all shakes out.

First of all i live  "roughly"about the same distance time wise  from either Gore and WF  so that isn't an issue . Frankly comparing the two is futile : One man's trash is another's gold  Both are  great skiing venues.

For our family  i'd give the edge to Gore for several reasons which i won't bore you with.  WF has both serious "tilt" and vert and should be experienced . To be fair i've not had a great weather day at WF whenever we skied there in the  recent past  BUT that is the luck of the draw .

 WF was a great place for me when i was learning the sport yrs ago but as of late we've been spending our monthly extended road trips at either Tremblant or Gore  .  NOW There are other alternatives to skiing Cloud all the way   to get to the base from the top  .  

warp daddy wrote

For our family  i'd give the edge to Gore for several reasons which i won't bore you with.  

Why not Warp Daddy?  I think doing so might actually help underscore the differences between these venues and the skier preferences to which they cater.

ausable skier wrote

I usaully make a few trips down to Gore once the glades get open but with the lack of snow for glades this year I probably won't make that trip this year unless it snows.

Save your gas $ this season AS. There just isn't enough open terrain. (until it snows a couple of feet)

I too would love to see the Darkside open but with it taking all they've got to keep the current open terrain skiable I find it hard to justify putting the effort into the Darkside.  Then they'd just have more terrain to try and keep in decent condition.  I understand the desire of some to have Gore's "signature" run open but again I can't see taking away from the current terrain to accomplish that.

I've made 3 trips to Whiteface this year.  I love the mountain and wish that I could say it was worth the effort to go there but for me it wasn't any of the 3 times.  Given the horrible winter that we have had and what the snow makers have had to work with I think that Gore has done an admirable job and at this point I'll take a day at Gore over a day at Whiteface unless things change drastically this year.

Let's forget about opening more terrain and concentrate on preserving what we have so that hopefully we still have a few more weeks of skiing left.  I'm not expecting to be skiing this April but I don't want to see things shut down the first week of March either.
 

Snowhunter wrote

I've made 3 trips to Whiteface this year.  I love the mountain and wish that I could say it was worth the effort to go there but for me it wasn't any of the 3 times...

I'll take a day at Gore over a day at Whiteface.

There, that oughtta keep the Gore v Whiteface debate going for a while.

skimore wrote

Noah John wrote

<  Like I said, IMO Gore is better than nearly every mountain in Vermont.   The exceptions are  MRG, SB, Stowe and Jay.  Maybe Smuggs.

Nearly every and you rattle off 1/3 of VT. Looks like the same list that trump WF

I'm just baffled why an individual who finds the skiing in NY to be inferior a) skis in NY and b) participates in a NY Ski Forum.

Snowhunter wrote

I'll take a day at Gore over a day at Whiteface unless things change drastically this year.

 The skiing at WF has been quite good this year.  Not sure what Gore has received in snowfall but if it's more than WF it can't be much more.  So total snowfall amounts being equal, you prefer Gore.  Fine but obviously you value something different about skiing than I do.  Nothing wrong with that.

skiDork wrote

 Looks like the same list that trump WF

None of those places "trump" WF.  They may get more snow (on average) but they certainly don't trump WF.  I know it's difficult for you to wrap your fetid little brain around that fact but that doesn't make it any less true.

Noah John wrote

warp daddy wrote

For our family  i'd give the edge to Gore for several reasons which i won't bore you with.  

Why not Warp Daddy?  I think doing so might actually help underscore the differences between these venues and the skier preferences to which they cater.

Ok first and foremost it "triangulates travel distances" better for us all. With my son and his family located in Manhattan and my daughter and her family outside of Boston and the Queen of the Hop and me here on the River , we all drive only a little over 3hrs and stay in LG .

Second we have some youngsters and given the spread in ability there plus with their moms Gore seems to have more variety for them .

Third for the guys we are able to enjoy 9 different lift venues on basically 4 mtns  Gore, Bear, Burnt Ridge and The Snow Bowl now.

Fourth for the ones that like the trees their are 19 glades .

 Fifth and not the least skiing  we only get together twice during the season  Christmas and Prez week . We ski Gore on Prez week and once we are off the gondola the 9 venues come into play and we have not experienced Lift lines .

When they are up here for Christmas  however we do ski Titus bcuz its relatively close and time is a factor during the short amt of time they are here.

Long winded Why but you asked

I am by no means bad mouthing Whiteface, like I said I love it there.  I really do enjoy both Gore and Whiteface it's just that this year the three times I went to Whiteface conditions were pretty tough for me.  Last season I got up there three times and had three fantastic days and wished that I could have had more there.  Gore's been tough too this year but I've usually been able to find runs that were enjoyable.  Just my perspective.  We all have different abilities and have experienced the mountains on different days under varying conditions.

Snowhunter wrote

I am by no means bad mouthing Whiteface, like I said I love it there.  I really do enjoy both Gore and Whiteface it's just that this year the three times I went to Whiteface conditions were pretty tough for me.  Last season I got up there three times and had three fantastic days and wished that I could have had more there.  Gore's been tough too this year but I've usually been able to find runs that were enjoyable.  Just my perspective.  We all have different abilities and have experienced the mountains on different days under varying conditions.

Yep - everybody's different.  Can't even tell you though how many times I've heard people complaining that it's icey or the that the conditions suck when I'm just having a grand ol' time.  It's like we're skiing in different dimensions.  

nvk497 wrote

I'm just baffled why an individual who finds the skiing in NY to be inferior a) skis in NY and b) participates in a NY Ski Forum.

I  ski in NY when conditions warrant it, but you'll find more snow and usually better conditions in VT. Why is that so hard to grasp.

skiDork wrote

Why is that so hard to grasp.

Because it's not true.

nvk497 wrote

I'm just baffled why an individual who finds the skiing in NY to be inferior a) skis in NY and b) participates in a NY Ski Forum.

I've been following skimore since 2006 on various forums. He's got a ton of NY skiing experience - Central NY, Tug, Adk BC and the NY lift served resorts.  Seems like he looks for the shortest drive to powder. Sometimes that's in NY and sometimes it's in VT.

word was wed that darkside anatural next week tho not confirmed by MP