Whats the "True" Vertical of your favorite mtn on Mountainvertical.com?

[KevLar]

Yes Revy has 5600 ft and Whistler/BC 5200, but:

Chamonix, Mont Blanc, France 9000 ft
Matterhorn Switz/Italy 7500 ft
Lauterbrunn, Switzerland 7100 ft
Alpe d'Huez, France 7200 ft
Davos, Switzerland 6700 ft
Les Arcs, France 6600 ft
Les 3 Vallées; France 6300 ft
Cortina, Italy 6200 ft

[Lonnie]

In a nutshell, it represents the most vertical distance at a resort that can be achieved on commonly skied, lift-served, continuous fall-line runs.

No hiking? Pussies.

[grubbers]

nashoba valley, 240 vertical feet of fury.

[Imz]

Seems pretty dopey to me.

Who skis top to bottom at places like Blackcomb? Only time I see the lower slopes there is on my way to the bar... What does this "ranking" have to do with anything? Dumb site.

[Bob Loblaw]

continuous or not, i like measuring out some days at our hill, especially when i'm in shape enough to bust 30,000

[davidof]

[COLOR="Yellow"]Yes Revy has 5600 ft and Whistler/BC 5200, but:

Chamonix, Mont Blanc, France 9000 ft

but: you'll have to down hike the last 2000 ft most of the season and, correct me if I'm wrong, you cannot practically ski from the top of the Aiguille du Midi to Chamonix city without climbing up some stairs at one point.

la Gr*: 6500' btw.

[blondin]

Well since we're gonna count hiking try 15'771 down to 3'300 figure it out.

[DanoT]

They got the vert. wrong for Sun Peaks.
Reliable season long skiing in British Columbia starts at about 4000 feet above sea level. Whistlers base is 2400' and Revelstoke is 1600'.

[bell151]

Yes Revy has 5600 ft and Whistler/BC 5200, but:

Chamonix, Mont Blanc, France 9000 ft
Matterhorn Switz/Italy 7500 ft
Lauterbrunn, Switzerland 7100 ft
Alpe d'Huez, France 7200 ft
Davos, Switzerland 6700 ft
Les Arcs, France 6600 ft
Les 3 Vallées; France 6300 ft
Cortina, Italy 6200 ft

Man, it'd be a totally different ball game if they added europe to the site. 9000 seems unreal, continuous or not.

I just got back from Killington...1645 ft, haha

[The AD]

Who skis top to bottom at places like Blackcomb? Only time I see the lower slopes there is on my way to the bar... What does this "ranking" have to do with anything?

You don't think it means anything that you can forget about the bottom 2,000 feet of the mountain and still have 3,000 feet to ski up top? I think it does.

[stevehaskew]

Lauterbrunn, Switzerland 7100 ft

and there's a race the whole way down...:

http://www.inferno-muerren.ch/

[Meadow Skipper]

I'm not sure how useful a metric it is that shows Angel Fire ranking somewhat above Silverton.

[Imz]

You don't think it means anything that you can forget about the bottom 2,000 feet of the mountain and still have 3,000 feet to ski up top? I think it does.

Blackcomb rocks. Period.

But "total" vertical still seems dopey to me. Peak elevation. Continuous vertical drop on a line you'd actually lap, Skiable acres, snow depth, average moisture content in the snow... bonding characteristics of the snow; seems like there are many, many more relevant metrics I'd use to decide which areas were my favorite.

[MickeysEars]

speed of the lifts makes as much difference as do the lift lines. No point having the vert of Whistler if it takes you an hour to get up there each time... 9 minutes in Jackson Hole is pretty short and after the first tram of the day you normally only have a wait of one tram.

[The AD]

No question the speed of the tram is great at Jackson, but if you want to ski the Hobacks you're looking at an additional chairlift ride. But, yeah, you obviously can just lap the tram and log some impressive vertical if that's your goal.

[MickeysEars]

The AD

Union Pass hardly counts though really! It's about a 2 minute ride.

[bell151]

I'm not sure how useful a metric it is that shows Angel Fire ranking somewhat above Silverton.

Yea but if you look at acres, the other big number on the page, you see that Silverton has 3X the terrain of Angel fire.

When you start talkin about the real big ones, I think terrain begins to matter a lot more.

Like whistler is nuts at 8000+ acres. The smaller resorts in the midwest in east are like 100 or so acres. Whistler is like 80-100 times the size of each of these guys, yet they charge roughly similar lift ticket prices...think about how absurd that sounds.

Hell, Killington is the self proclaimed 'beast of the east' and you could still fit 11 Killington's into whistler's space

[chatton18]

I'll be the first to admit I haven't skied 'Bama. Is it hard to get to?

Best ski patrol in the U.S.

[Johnny Deep]

Levi's?

[fish]

1464 for Mt. baker... where I ski now
1200 for Bristol Mountain... where I grew up.

So funny how only a difference of 264ft, but worlds apart.

[grrrr]

but: you'll have to down hike the last 2000 ft most of the season and, correct me if I'm wrong, you cannot practically ski from the top of the Aiguille du Midi to Chamonix city without climbing up some stairs at one point.

la Gr*: 6500' btw.

Okay, you're somewhat wrong. Instead of climbing the stairs to the Montenvers, you ski a bit further down, and you have a small hike to the hut. Yes, it means taking your skis off for a bit, but you don't climb the stairs. You also have to take your skis off to cross the Montenvers tracks just before town.

[wooley12]

And it's not as steep as it looks

[dumpy]

Who skis top to bottom at places like Blackcomb? Only time I see the lower slopes there is on my way to the bar... What does this "ranking" have to do with anything? Dumb site.

This gaper did, just to say that I did, top of the T-bar right down to the village. I mean come on, my home mountain has barely 1,000 feet. Blackcomb is over 5 times as tall, of course I'm going to take a few top to bottom.

[Roo]

The 7320 feet of vert at Alpe d'Huez can be skied top to bottom, on a groomer, all in one hit.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[brutah]

this site is a crock of shit.......... tell me where at the canyons or PCMR you ski 2600+ vertical feet on a continuous fall-line run????