Serious Vert

Tony Crocker":2yo0180u said:
Soulskier is also operating from the perspective of Marte, whose liftline is 30 degrees for 2,700 vertical. There's a lot of serious vertical in anybody's book at Las Lenas.

Yah, but we don't ski under Marte, that's for gapers. Here's majestic Sans Nom, 40+ degrees for 2,600' , then another 800' of mellow Geoff type terrain to the valley floor!

polvo-hasta-el-valle.jpg
 
soulskier":3g2llwoc said:
Tony Crocker":3g2llwoc said:
Soulskier is also operating from the perspective of Marte, whose liftline is 30 degrees for 2,700 vertical. There's a lot of serious vertical in anybody's book at Las Lenas.

Yah, but we don't ski under Marte, that's for gapers. Here's majestic Sans Nom, 40+ degrees for 2,600' , then another 800' of mellow Geoff type terrain to the valley floor!

polvo-hasta-el-valle.jpg
Now that's serious vert. Hey,.... Soulskier and I agree!!!
 
soulskier":1i6wrkky said:
Yah, but we don't ski under Marte, that's for gapers. Here's majestic Sans Nom, 40+ degrees for 2,600' , then another 800' of mellow Geoff type terrain to the valley floor!

Ad hominem attacks. Cool! That's always the last refuge of those who are incapable of defending their position.
 
Geoff":2txtvu7p said:
That's always the last refuge of those who are incapable of defending their position.
I think that post is exactly on topic. That is serious vert!!!

Soul, Rob and Tony agree, the World must be coming to an end?
 
Patrick":rmiddwjz said:
Geoff":rmiddwjz said:
That's always the last refuge of those who are incapable of defending their position.
I think that post is exactly on topic. That is serious vert!!!
I don't think Geoff disagrees, but his ire at the completely unnecessary crack about "...mellow Geoff-type terrain..." is understandable.
 
Marc_C":2vw6hjmg said:
Patrick":2vw6hjmg said:
Geoff":2vw6hjmg said:
That's always the last refuge of those who are incapable of defending their position.
I think that post is exactly on topic. That is serious vert!!!
I don't think Geoff disagrees, but his ire at the completely unnecessary crack about "...mellow Geoff-type terrain..." is understandable.

Homie mentioned a 25 degree slope in a serious vert thread, that warrants a crack. 25 degrees isn't even steep enough to slide, which is where a slope then becomes "serious".
 
soulskier":2si747mp said:
Homie mentioned a 25 degree slope in a serious vert thread, that warrants a crack. 25 degrees isn't even steep enough to slide, which is where a slope then becomes "serious".
That's merely one myopic definition of serious. One of the reasons I intentionally left it vague when I started the thread. Serious can also mean consistent, unchanging pitch, among other things. It can also mean extraordinarily technical the entire way and have nothing to do with steepness. We can show you trails in New England that will beat you up and keep you on your toes for the entire 2K vert far more than any western 45+ degree chute or wide open bowl, and they're barely 25 degrees. Your ad hominem crack and subsequent comment quoted above reveals your particular bias and a basic lack of understanding other things that skiing might encompass.

There's a trail at Wildcat that is 3 miles long and runs a full 2K vert, yet is a green circle and as such doesn't exceed 20 degrees, if that. Yet it certainly constitutes "serious" vert for skiers of that ability. One might even say that Polecat is one of the most soulful trails in all of New England.

Sorry for calling out your elitist view of the world. Again.
 
Marc_C":93r9tf1n said:
soulskier":93r9tf1n said:
Homie mentioned a 25 degree slope in a serious vert thread, that warrants a crack. 25 degrees isn't even steep enough to slide, which is where a slope then becomes "serious".
That's merely one myopic definition of serious. One of the reasons I intentionally left it vague when I started the thread. Serious can also mean consistent, unchanging pitch, among other things. It can also mean extraordinarily technical the entire way and have nothing to do with steepness. We can show you trails in New England that will beat you up and keep you on your toes for the entire 2K vert far more than any western 45+ degree chute or wide open bowl, and they're barely 25 degrees. Your ad hominem crack and subsequent comment quoted above reveals your particular bias and a basic lack of understanding other things that skiing might encompass.

There's a trail at Wildcat that is 3 miles long and runs a full 2K vert, yet is a green circle and as such doesn't exceed 20 degrees, if that. Yet it certainly constitutes "serious" vert for skiers of that ability. One might even say that Polecat is one of the most soulful trails in all of New England.

Sorry for calling out your elitist view of the world. Again.

In defense of soulskier, you started this thread with:
Marc_C":93r9tf1n said:
Sooo, what does the phrase mean to you? What do you feel constitutes "serious vert"? Which areas have it? Which don't?
Soulskier is simply stating what it means to him. What I think of as serious terrain or vert is different than my wife, or even others on this thread. Should he not express that? Granted, he expressed it with a little snide remark towards Geoff, but what would be the internet without comments like that, it's nothing we all haven't done on this forum before.
 
Marc_C":30n991zv said:
It can also mean extraordinarily technical the entire way and have nothing to do with steepness. We can show you trails in New England that will beat you up and keep you on your toes for the entire 2K vert far more than any western 45+ degree chute or wide open bowl, and they're barely 25 degrees.

Word.

For me actual vert is mostly irrelevant. It is all about how many times I need to stop to catch my breath, pick a line, or calculate the odds (perform a little risk assessment), and about how much energy I feel like I have expended by the time I get to the bottom. Here's an East/West comparison using greatest-hits-type runs: MRG's Paradise can't be more than 900 Vert (and is probably considerably less), but I know I pause more often, and end up feeling more drained skiing Paradise than I do skiing Highboy.
 
rfarren":1ibiz2zi said:
In defense of soulskier, you started this thread with:
Marc_C":1ibiz2zi said:
Sooo, what does the phrase mean to you? What do you feel constitutes "serious vert"? Which areas have it? Which don't?
Soulskier is simply stating what it means to him. What I think of as serious terrain or vert is different than my wife, or even others on this thread. Should he not express that? Granted, he expressed it with a little snide remark towards Geoff, but what would be the internet without comments like that, it's nothing we all haven't done on this forum before.
Exactly my point, and soulskier can certainly define "serious vert" however he pleases. But slagging someone twice because they used example terrain that doesn't fit his definition, prior to stating his definition, sorta crosses that line into elitism, where he is applying his personal values to someone else - something that you and others have mentioned. A trait that may not be useful when attempting to get others to support your cause.

As far as snide remarks, we've all hurled and received our share of daggers and hand grenades, but no one should ever be surprised at being called on it. :p
 
Marc_C":1wyalpzi said:
rfarren":1wyalpzi said:
In defense of soulskier, you started this thread with:
Marc_C":1wyalpzi said:
Sooo, what does the phrase mean to you? What do you feel constitutes "serious vert"? Which areas have it? Which don't?
Soulskier is simply stating what it means to him. What I think of as serious terrain or vert is different than my wife, or even others on this thread. Should he not express that? Granted, he expressed it with a little snide remark towards Geoff, but what would be the internet without comments like that, it's nothing we all haven't done on this forum before.
Exactly my point, and soulskier can certainly define "serious vert" however he pleases. But slagging someone twice because they used example terrain that doesn't fit his definition, prior to stating his definition, sorta crosses that line into elitism, where he is applying his personal values to someone else - something that you and others have mentioned. A trait that may not be useful when attempting to get others to support your cause.

As far as snide remarks, we've all hurled and received our share of daggers and hand grenades, but no one should ever be surprised at being called on it. :p

There is a big difference between liking steeper ski terrain and being an elitist. Just because I prefer steeper terrain, not some low angle slope, doesn't mean I am applying my personal values to someone else. The thread is entitled Serious Vert.

Some might consider a guy who works in an office with 20+ people, of which 75% want a heated chairlift, as well as spends two hours eating lunch at Deer Valley an elitist.

As far as my snide remarks to Geoff, I continue to take my fair share on this board, including from him, so what's the problem?

And for my attempt to get support for our cause, we have plenty (did you see the recent article by ESPN, the worldwide leader in sports?) and are receiving more daily, including several seasoned ski area professionals that are on board. In fact, one ski veteran in particular told me they love reading the ski resort model is dead thread on this very forum, and find it funny how clueless some posters are in defending the current state of affairs. I also know that we will never have the support of some and we accept that. We also know that until MRA has it's first lift installed and powder run under our belt, there will continue to be lots of nay-sayers.

Back to the original post, my definition of serious vert would be a run that enabled me to get to 4th gear or higher, and stay there for a bit. Also, having a nice leg burn when doing a top to bottom on the aforementioned run would make it serious vert in my book.
 
soulskier":1d3qdd0f said:
Back to the original post, my definition of serious vert would be a run that enabled me to get to 4th gear or higher, and stay there for a bit. Also, having a nice leg burn when doing a top to bottom on the aforementioned run would make it serious vert in my book.[/color]

I understand what you intend here, but I guarantee my 'baby legs' start to burn before yours :wink: . Basically, that's still a very subjective definition that only means something to you personally, since only you know which terrain lets you get to 4th gear and how long it takes for you to get leg burn.

Or are you intending a sliding scale definition such that a novice that gets into their 4th gear and for them to get leg burn is also skiing serious vert?
 
EMSC":8h1qujh4 said:
soulskier":8h1qujh4 said:
Back to the original post, my definition of serious vert would be a run that enabled me to get to 4th gear or higher, and stay there for a bit. Also, having a nice leg burn when doing a top to bottom on the aforementioned run would make it serious vert in my book.[/color]

I understand what you intend here, but I guarantee my 'baby legs' start to burn before yours :wink: . Basically, that's still a very subjective definition that only means something to you personally, since only you know which terrain lets you get to 4th gear and how long it takes for you to get leg burn.

Or are you intending a sliding scale definition such that a novice that gets into their 4th gear and for them to get leg burn is also skiing serious vert?

Sure we can make it a sliding scale. Maybe the thread should include that in the title?
 
soulskier":34cmfgzc said:
There is a big difference between liking steeper ski terrain and being an elitist. Just because I prefer steeper terrain, not some low angle slope, doesn't mean I am applying my personal values to someone else.
It does the minute you insult someone over their definition, even if only a minor jab.

soulskier":34cmfgzc said:
Some might consider a guy who works in an office with 20+ people, of which 75% want a heated chairlift, as well as spends two hours eating lunch at Deer Valley an elitist.
Only if said person teases or insults others who don't. Are the folks at Snowbird who pay an extra $7500 / year for a Seven Summits pass upgrade (which allows lift line cutting privileges on all lifts including the tram, use of a private club, and other perks) elitists? What if they're willing to write a $20K check to buy shares in some MRA area?

[Sidebar: I happen to know a well-off retired couple that love MRG, fully support the coop, ski there most of the time (including all the legendary gnarly stuff), and own 4 shares. Last season they decided to spend a week in Aspen 'cause they'd never been there. They stayed at the Little Nell and had elegant 90 minute lunches and fine dining dinners. Their room was $1800....per night. The point is, it's really not stretching credibility or imagination for a well-off, what some might consider an "elitist" skier to also want to buy into an MRA-style area.]

soulskier":34cmfgzc said:
As far as my snide remarks to Geoff, I continue to take my fair share on this board, including from him, so what's the problem?
I really don't care.

soulskier":34cmfgzc said:
In fact, one ski veteran in particular told me they love reading the ski resort model is dead thread on this very forum, and find it funny how clueless some posters are in defending the current state of affairs. I also know that we will never have the support of some and we accept that. We also know that until MRA has it's first lift installed and powder run under our belt, there will continue to be lots of nay-sayers.
That's something that you and s/he don't quite get - you're misinterpreting the comments here as defending the current state of affairs. In actuality, as others have said, while there's positive support for the concept of MRA niche ski areas, many don't feel that you're being completely realistic about the economic analysis. That's something that should be addressed before you request that people support your cause.
 
What the hell is fourth gear in the context of skiing? I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm really not sure what is meant by the term as applied to the subject of this thread.

Is it mph? Heart/respiration rate? Adrenaline load? Elation? Skiing near the upper limits of one's abilities? I don't have a clue.

If I'm slamming down one of those endless bump runs at Mary Jane, am I in fourth gear? What if I'm really acing some of Bohemia's tighter, steeper trees for all 900 vert? Is it possible to get into fourth gear in a constricted chute without dropping it straight? Or, is fourth gear only achieved in treeless, untracked, relatively unconstricted high-alpine terrain? For that matter, I ski exclusively free-heel. Is fourth gear achievable without a fixed heel? Is fourth gear achievable after 40? 50?

I think I remember (i.e. feel free to correct me with citation to actual facts) reading that before his first Olympics, Bode Miller's trainers strapped a heart monitor to him and were surprised to discover that on slalom runs his heart rate peaked IN THE STARTING GATE, suggesting that for at least one uber-skier it just might be possible to be in fourth gear standing still.
 
Marc_C":ewq4la8u said:
That's something that you and s/he don't quite get - you're misinterpreting the comments here as defending the current state of affairs. In actuality, as others have said, while there's positive support for the concept of MRA niche ski areas, many don't feel that you're being completely realistic about the economic analysis. That's something that should be addressed before you request that people support your cause.

Prior to anyone supporting "our cause", there will be detailed plans, including financials to be examined.
 
flyover":2ji8adxs said:
What the hell is fourth gear in the context of skiing? I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm really not sure what is meant by the term as applied to the subject of this thread.

Is it mph? Heart/respiration rate? Adrenaline load? Elation? Skiing near the upper limits of one's abilities? I don't have a clue.

If I'm slamming down one of those endless bump runs at Mary Jane, am I in fourth gear? What if I'm really acing some of Bohemia's tighter, steeper trees for all 900 vert? Is it possible to get into fourth gear in a constricted chute without dropping it straight? Or, is fourth gear only achieved in treeless, untracked, relatively unconstricted high-alpine terrain? For that matter, I ski exclusively free-heel. Is fourth gear achievable without a fixed heel? Is fourth gear achievable after 40? 50?

I think I remember (i.e. feel free to correct me with citation to actual facts) reading that before his first Olympics, Bode Miller's trainers strapped a heart monitor to him and were surprised to discover that on slalom runs his heart rate peaked IN THE STARTING GATE, suggesting that for at least one uber-skier it just might be possible to be in fourth gear standing still.

Fourth gear is pretty fast, but not quite full speed. With rocker skis and the perfect conditions, there is now a 6th gear, but isn't used too often.
 
I'm probably exposing myself as an amateur here BUT I see the concept of "serious terrain" and "at least 4th gear" as being somewhat contradictory. How many people are capable of descending High Rustler or MRG's Paradise in "4th gear" in anything other than deep powder conditions? If anyone had tried to descend La Vaute at La Grave (which even soulskier would consider serious vertical) in "4th gear" the day I was there, they would be DEAD.

Prior to anyone supporting "our cause", there will be detailed plans, including financials to be examined.
Fair enough. I for one will keep an open mind until I see more details. It's soulskier's rhetoric that has raised the red flags on that thread.
 
Tony Crocker":281jyhl6 said:
I see the concept of "serious terrain" and "at least 4th gear" as being somewhat contradictory. How many people are capable of descending High Rustler or MRG's Paradise in "4th gear" in anything other than deep powder conditions? If anyone had tried to descend La Vaute at La Grave (which even soulskier would consider serious vertical) in "4th gear" the day I was there, they would be DEAD.

Thanks for making my point.

Even for "elite" skiers (and I'm using the term in the positive sense here), I only see 45 degrees and "pretty fast, but not quite full speed" computing under an extremely limited set of conditions: deep, untracked, deserted, and more-or-less wide-open. Such limited definitions of "serious terrain" and/or "serious vert" set up the skier who holds such definitions to be disappointed by the vast majority of some of the world's best skiing.

Now somebody fill me in on what it means to "go big."
 
flyover":3v8k8egb said:
Now somebody fill me in on what it means to "go big."
Something that is frequently associated with the phrases "Hey! Watch this!" and "Is the camera on?".
Coincidentally those phrases also immediately precede a surprisingly high number of ER admissions.
 
Back
Top