Resort Rankings

Ski Magazine's resort ranking issue arrived yesterday.  

Ski's Top 5 in East are

1. Tremblant - this place is so overrated.  Colder than WF with less snow, less vert, really crowded, and no steeps.  How can this be #1 for as long as I can remember?  Yes they have a nice faux alpine village but I go skiing to ski not sleep.  And now with the current exchange rate this is super expensive.

2. Stowe - this deserves to be in the top 2 or 3 for sure in my mind.  Great mountain, nice town.

3. Smugg's - its ok but I'm bored by the end of the day.  Just not that much good terrain to be rated this high - should be between 6 and 10

4. Okemo - flat, boring, and tons of skiers from CT - need i say more.  Pretty much the same as Tremblant without the french accent.  What are these people thinking?

5.  Whiteface - lost its #2 spot.  Was dinged for LP being 10 mins away when Stowe's town is more than 10 mins from the mountain and Smugg's has no town period.

Gore is better than all of the above except WF and Stowe.  Jay Peak absolutely deserves to be in the top 5.

Here is my top 5 in the East
1. Whiteface
2. Jay Peak
3. Stowe
4. Sugarbush
5. Gore

What's your take on this?

http://www.skinet.com/ski/galleries/top-ten-east-coast-resorts-2011-2012

ausable skier wrote

3. Smugg's - its ok but I'm bored by the end of the day.  Just not that much good terrain to be rated this high - should be between 6 and 10

Bored at Smuggs, wow!  

Smuggs is a top three area for me. Right up there with Cannon and Stowe. I'd also rank Smuggs as having more difficult terrain than Jay. Excepting the Face area, I find Jay's terrain to be fairly mellow.

You and I are not members of Ski Magazine's target audience. Here's the logic. Ski Magazine is a corporation. It needs to make money through advertising. I'm NOT saying that resorts paying for advertising directly influence the rankings that way. It's possible, but I'm going to assume it's not true because there is another rational explanation.

For the sake of this post, I'm going to define two groups of skiers: recreational and hardcore. I know it doesn't divide perfectly like that and that saying someone isn't a hardcore skier can be offensive, but it's a more-or-less accurate model. You and I, as hardcore skiers, do not pay any more for an individual lift ticket than a recreational skier does. Recreational skiers outnumber us. I would guess that most mountains have, at rock-bottom, four recreational skiers to every one hardcore skier on a typical, mid-season Saturday. That's a made-up stat, so I'm not going to carry it through the post and generate numbers every step of the way, but with access to data that has already been collected by groups like Ski Magazine in their surveys, you definitely could run the numbers if you wanted to.

So, if Ski Magazine wants to maximize sales, it needs to satisfy a large group of people, populated mostly by recreational skiers. It has to review resorts on the same criteria the recreational skier would use in order for the reader's actual perception to line up with the review.

Now let's make some sweeping generalizations about recreational skiers. Again, this isn't science, but I think most of us will agree that I'm being somewhat accurate. The goal here is to see why Ski Magazine, in its attempt to cater to the recreational skier, uses the criteria it does.

1. Recreational skiers, by definition, ski considerably fewer days per year than hardcore skiers.
2. Recreational skiers, due to a simple difference in experience, do not share the same skill set as hardcore skiers.
3. For a combination of reasons, recreational skiers spend fewer hours per day actually skiing than their hardcore counterparts.

The following numbered list seeks to make conclusions based on the corresponding above generalizations.

1. Any one day at a resort has a greater impact on the recreational skier's perception of that resort than the same day as experienced by a hardcore skier. This means every factor is amplified, from lift lines to weather to snow conditions.
2. Expert-level terrain doesn't matter if the reader of the review can't ski it. Grooming becomes a huge factor, because ungroomed terrain is more difficult to ski. Overall snow quality is important, but powder is less important because powder skiing requires its own skill set.
3. Lunch is a big deal. It's a time to relax, take in the settings, and reflect on how the day is going. Upscale dining facilities help that reflection stay positive. Likewise, apres-ski and nightlife have a larger impact on the recreational skier. Fewer ski-hours means more energy to enjoy what's not on the slopes.

These factors play an augmented role in the recreational skier's judgment as to whether or not a resort is favorable. If Ski Magazine doesn't rate resorts on these criteria along with the essential ski info, its mass of recreational readers will go skiing, find that they dislike resorts that hardcore reviewers love, and decide not to buy Ski Magazine because it did not accurately predict their preferences.


That may have been unnecessarily long-winded. My apologies to those who didn't feel like reading so much, and I commend those who did. I know most of us already understand this issue. I just felt good getting it all mapped out.

Hickory, Mad River, Stowe, Jay, and Sugarbush, not necessarily in that order.

Why not Whiteface?  It's Gore, but steeper, so it's even icier.  

Good answer, Miker92. Most people on this forum probably fall into the "hardcore" category, or at least would like to, so your rationale is needed for context.

I haven't bought a SKI magazine for years, this kind of review explains why. I am looking forward to buying the next issue of POWDER, a magazine I have supported for a long time. Even if you disdain spending money on ski mags, you should pick up the November issue. It is the 40th anniversary edition, and should be a winner.

Sick Bird Rider wrote

I haven't bought a SKI magazine for years, this kind of review explains why. I am looking forward to buying the next issue of POWDER, a magazine I have supported for a long time. Even if you disdain spending money on ski mags, you should pick up the November issue. It is the 40th anniversary edition, and should be a winner.

Beat ya to it S.B.R.

Yup, November Powder is a winner....
I won't be a spoiler for those who are about to buy it....
and yes, there's a lift/resort guide....the resort guide is merely advertising $ paying for the rest of the mag.

"The Best Ski Lifts in North America" gets to the goods....

For those in the East (Eastern USA), here they are.

 Sterling Lift, Smuggs
 Single Chair, MRG
 Aerial Tram, Jay
 Aerial Tram, Cannon

These are not sorted in any particular order in the article.

BTW, there is a great article on the late Spider Sabich.  Sorry, couldn't help it....
Lots of other great pieces in the November issue...

T.D.

Telemark Dave wrote

"The Best Ski Lifts in North America" gets to the goods....

For those in the East (Eastern USA), here they are.

 Sterling Lift, Smuggs
 Single Chair, MRG
 Aerial Tram, Jay
 Aerial Tram, Cannon

These are not sorted in any particular order in the article.

T.D.

How could the Summit Lift at WF not be included in this list?  It accesses the hike to the slides plus skyward and cloudspin two of the top ten best expert runs in the east.

If you get bored at Smuggs you're not doing it right...Smuggs would be in my top 3 for sure

ausable skier wrote

How could the Summit Lift at WF not be included in this list?  It accesses the hike to the slides plus skyward and cloudspin two of the top ten best expert runs in the east.

The Slides are hardly ever open. Why nominate a chair for terrain that only opens any number of days a season that could be counted on two hands? Skyward and Cloudspin are nice trails. Best expert runs in the east they are not unless you are nominating only groomed expert runs. Even bumped, I wouldn't put either of those trails in my top 25 let alone top 10. I couldn't agree more with that list of lifts except that they really need to include the Gondi at Stowe for skiing off the ridge.

Oh man, ausable skier...

FIS rules yesterday and the SKI mag list today.

Comments on the ranking, choices and lifts.

1)The List:

The list is accurate. Not my list, but if you read the fine print (I did years ago when I was working in the public opinion research) is a scientific survey of the SKI magazine subscribers. Am I one of them? Hell, no. Are you? Most of them wouldn't even consider MRG.

2) Tremblant:

First off, this is the ski area I've skied the most in my lifetime. Most of the days were pre-Intrawest, but I still considerate at home mountain even if I didn't have a pass there in the last 32 season. Tremblant steeps are limited, I agree. There are a few great runs, but the place in a great intermediate ski area for people that like wide groomers. Is it my favorite? No even in my top 10, maybe 11th favorite. It's not even my fav in Quebec.

Is it that much colder than WF? Maybe...but not that much. That cold goes a long way to ensure great spring conditions, unfortunately they have a fixed closing date. :(

Price? It's expensive for us Canadians, but not as expensive as $towe. I agree that Stowe is at the top of my list, but the place is too rich for my blood.

3) Smuggs:

Bored? Again, its the point of view. One of my favorite in the East. Great resort at the bottom I hear too. It would be popular for the Ski mags families.

4) Powder mags best lifts to access the goods.

Thanks SBR. I need to get my hands on it.

I've never seen Sterling lift under a best of lifts (I loved the Madonna double), but they clearly skiing the slackcountry to even consider that chair on the list. I personally would probably include the Summit Quad, but in reality, it only access 2-4 trails. :P

Best lifts list in the World (remember there are only lists - they are entirely subjective (especially if you read the comments below the original piece). I have ridden the vast majority of these (or previous lifts on that line: JH Tram and Freak Chair at Whistler) and I find it's a great list.

MadPat's Top 10 in the East list would start like this:

1) Stowe and Sugarloaf
3) Whiteface
4) MRG
5) Smuggs

Best Eastern lifts to access the goods (on and off-ski map: groomers or not)(West to East):

Summit Quad, WF
TGV Quad, Tremblant
Single, MRG
Madonna, Smuggs
The FR Quad, Stowe
Tram, Cannon
Quad, Wildcat
Le Trip triple chair, Ste-Anne

riverc0il wrote

ausable skier wrote

How could the Summit Lift at WF not be included in this list?  It accesses the hike to the slides plus skyward and cloudspin two of the top ten best expert runs in the east.

The Slides are hardly ever open. Why nominate a chair for terrain that only opens any number of days a season that could be counted on two hands? Skyward and Cloudspin are nice trails. Best expert runs in the east they are not unless you are nominating only groomed expert runs. Even bumped, I wouldn't put either of those trails in my top 25 let alone top 10. I couldn't agree more with that list of lifts except that they really need to include the Gondi at Stowe for skiing off the ridge.

you haven't been to WF in a while i guess - Upper Cloudpin has not been groomed in years.  They do blow snow on the top once to cover up the rocks and then leave it alone all season.  It gets a lot of snow that blows into it from the west winds blowing over the side of WF.  The entry is almost always slick but once you drop in its the best run at WF IMO.  on a good year like last year you can also ski into it from the snowfield trees on the top.

The summit lift serves more continous steep vert than any other lift I know of in the east.  It has 2000 feet of Black (double black at most other areas) vert with almost no run out - name me other lift that can say that?

The rocky chutes at the top of Jay are not worth skiing more than 20 or 30 days a year so its the same as the slides which were open 20+ days last season.

miker92 wrote

1. Recreational skiers, by definition, ski considerably fewer days per year than hardcore skiers.
2. Recreational skiers, due to a simple difference in experience, do not share the same skill set as hardcore skiers.
3. For a combination of reasons, recreational skiers spend fewer hours per day actually skiing than their hardcore counterparts.

How do I know if I'm hardcore or recreational? Please give me your definations.

BTW...A for effort...that post had to take awhile to put together.

Highpeaksdrifter wrote

miker92 wrote

1. Recreational skiers, by definition, ski considerably fewer days per year than hardcore skiers.
2. Recreational skiers, due to a simple difference in experience, do not share the same skill set as hardcore skiers.
3. For a combination of reasons, recreational skiers spend fewer hours per day actually skiing than their hardcore counterparts.

How do I know if I'm hardcore or recreational? Please give me your definations.

BTW...A for effort...that post had to take awhile to put together.

If you are a regular poster on Harvey Rd there is a good chance you are hardcore.

I don't understand why WF dropped so far in the ranking from last year..if the only complaint is that the village is a drive from the mountain, then why did they hit #2 last year? It hasn't gotten any closer. And I'm sorry, but I love Lake Placid and I'm more than willing to make that drive..it's not a bad drive and the scenery is beautiful anyway so wouldn't that appeal to the "recreational skier"?

I can see why Stowe moved up since they built a new village which looks really nice from the outside

The others have done nothing that I'm aware of to move up unless flat is the new thing.

I just want to echo everyone who said that "If you're bored at Smugg's, you ain't doin' it right".  Smugg's is a sick mountain, and as MadPat said, I hear they have a really nice village further down the mountain (I've never been).  While the lifts at Smuggs are a little outdated, the places they take you are awesome (and it gets even better if you start hiking).

The dollars spent per outing between a hardcore skier and a recreational skier probably explains alot about the rankings.  There are many days that we literally do not bring a dollar to the mountain.  We have our season passes and a backpack full of food and incidentals.  

Goreskimom wrote

The dollars spent per outing between a hardcore skier and a recreational skier probably explains alot about the rankings.  There are many days that we literally do not bring a dollar to the mountain.  We have our season passes and a backpack full of food and incidentals.

but on the other hand the hard core are much more likely to buy a pair of skis every year and boots maybe every other year which is my norm.  the non hard core buy skis every 5-10 years and boots once a decade.  I also go out west every year for a week plus our hardcore season passes so we spend more per season total than many multiples of non committed skiers - we should be better represented by the magazines than we are

Yes and no. The population of recreational skiers is so much larger that it makes up the difference. Sure, one recreational skier might ski 4 days a year and bought his last pair of skis in 2002. But there are ten more of him for every one of you and their activity is staggered in a way that totally out-buys and outspends you.

The typical skiing family is probably spending $500-1000 for a weekend ski vacation if they don't try to cut corners, find deals, go cheap, etc. More than that if they are flying. I probably spend $1000 per season counting everything... tickets, gas, lodging (i.e. none), food, etc. but I get 30-40 days on a lift each season. One metric the ski business folks are likely looking at is yield per skier. While the pass holder or cheapskate day tripper are an important part of any mountain's bottom line, they can squeeze out the same yield in one weekend from a typical vacationing family than they can get all year from a dedicated skier maximizing value. And that family is also buying equipment, gear, and incidentals for stuff lost or out grown probably on most trips. Families subsidize the "hardcore". And that is okay.

I don't subscribe to SKI but I keep getting signed up for free magazines somehow (they value "distribution" more than actual paying subscribers, pretty wild, but it is all about the ad revenue). I took a look through it. Right from the front cover, you can tell who the magazine is marketing itself towards, who is its primary readership, who is reading the ads and making decisions based on the magazine's content.

Ironically, many of the top winners had write ups saying "not trendy" as if that was a GREAT thing but the entirety of SKI is devoted to trendy. Much like everyone in America, SKI's readership wants to identify with middle class values yet also subscribes to the finest and most posh of slopeside lodging with all the amenities, creature comforts, and activities they could possibly dream of and then just a few more. There isn't anything wrong with that but it is ironic that SKI is saying how great the "not trendy" resorts are while shoving the dung down the reader's collective gullets.

I just don't understand why it is such a big deal every year. Why take it personally? Why be insulted? Quite frankly, the lower my favorite areas do the better because that means that much less traffic to fight on the weekends. I want my favorite areas to be successful, but not that successful. :)