Backcountry only = decline in skiing ability?

[SKIP IN7RO]

Yes, choosing the right gear while splitboarding is very important. Say you're trying to pull the skinner up Flagstaff in fifth gear. That's way too high, you'll overheat and bog down in no time. Gotta drop it into second or even first sometimes. But, coming out of White Pine trail head, I throw it into fourth gear soon as I cross the bridge. Otherwise, you may get passed by a snowshoer. It seems picking the correct gears is very hard for you, so I suggest sticking with soft boots and cars with CVT transmissions.

Ha, well played

[DougW]

I do believe that you will lose some skiing skill.

However, if you like to ski steep stuff, you will nail that a lot better than if you ski exclusively in the resort. There just isn't any steep stuff in a resort that's as long and steep as the stuff you will find in the Backcountry.

Personally, I ski 70 days in the resort, and 30 in the Backcountry.
I look at the resort days as training for the steep stuff I will ski in the back country.

I ski at squaw, resort wise.

That's interesting I don't think I would ski the steeps I ski at KH in the bc.

[I've seen black diamonds!]

The biggest thing I notice is my general willingness to just point it. You can't just consistently charge when touring like you can when skiing inbounds, and thus, overall ability to charge decreases. I haven't really noticed my technical skiing ability get any worse or better, though I've subjected myself to lines that are generally more ridiculous than anything I could ski inbounds (without getting my pass pulled), so if anything, maybe I've gotten better in that regard.

Agree with all of this.

[Angle Parking]

Of course it does. As mentioned by others, skiing only backcountry diminishes your ability to handle variable, tracked out, chewed up or otherwise less than ideal snow. 'Downhill fitness' and technique suffer but I'll add something else to the dialogue; my tour heavy years created in me a kind of a pissy outlook towards anything but primo conditions. As in, 'it ain't powder, therefore I don't like it, therefore i am not willing to put in the effort to ski it well.' Basically, a snobbery set in that made me a weaker skier.

Think of it this way; you take a hill rat who charges in all sorts of conditions and put him out into primo backcountry conditions and he is going to rip that sh*t up. You take a backcountry only skier who skis primo snow 9 out of 10 days and put him on say, some steep, icy moguls, he's gonna suck.

Our sport is interesting in the sense that the most optimum scenario, (steep, deep pow) is actually the easiest thing to ski. Assuming that your backcountry outings are a success and you are finding steep, deep pow, you are in essence only skiing the very easiest of conditions and will invariably begin to suck at the above mentioned nasty, icy moguls.

Now why you would want to ski the icy moguls is another question entirely.

[cmcrawfo]

That's interesting I don't think I would ski the steeps I ski at KH in the bc.

KH > Squaw

[BFD]

I have been skiing 36 years and never had a season pass, over 2000 days in the back country. I realize I would be a better skier if I would of done the resort seasons. However I have no regrets. Resorts were not my thing. I just bought my first season passes this year. Am looking forward to touring in the morning than riding some lifts in the afternoon. Hopefully finally learn to get out of the backseat and maybe hook up with some AARP women in the bar.

[lazyasian]

Of course it does. As mentioned by others, skiing only backcountry diminishes your ability to handle variable, tracked out, chewed up or otherwise less than ideal snow. 'Downhill fitness' and technique suffer but I'll add something else to the dialogue; my tour heavy years created in me a kind of a pissy outlook towards anything but primo conditions. As in, 'it ain't powder, therefore I don't like it, therefore i am not willing to put in the effort to ski it well.' Basically, a snobbery set in that made me a weaker skier.

Think of it this way; you take a hill rat who charges in all sorts of conditions and put him out into primo backcountry conditions and he is going to rip that sh*t up. You take a backcountry only skier who skis primo snow 9 out of 10 days and put him on say, some steep, icy moguls, he's gonna suck.

Our sport is interesting in the sense that the most optimum scenario, (steep, deep pow) is actually the easiest thing to ski. Assuming that your backcountry outings are a success and you are finding steep, deep pow, you are in essence only skiing the very easiest of conditions and will invariably begin to suck at the above mentioned nasty, icy moguls.

Now why you would want to ski the icy moguls is another question entirely.

Interestingly I seem to have found the opposite. Backcountry days for me often involve skiing through some crap at different elevations to find good pow or skiing crud on the exit from a high north facing couloir. You'll find snow in the backcountry that you just never see at the resort, breakable crust being the toughest in my mind.

I've found that skiing more backcountry days has made me a better steep skier and better in variable conditions, but a much slower and more cautious skier.

I suppose I've probably gotten worse at skiing ice and tracked out crud though, so maybe it's just made me better at skiing *some* variable conditions.

[wyeaster]

Of course it does. As mentioned by others, skiing only backcountry diminishes your ability to handle variable, tracked out, chewed up or otherwise less than ideal snow. 'Downhill fitness' and technique suffer but I'll add something else to the dialogue; my tour heavy years created in me a kind of a pissy outlook towards anything but primo conditions. As in, 'it ain't powder, therefore I don't like it, therefore i am not willing to put in the effort to ski it well.' Basically, a snobbery set in that made me a weaker skier.

Think of it this way; you take a hill rat who charges in all sorts of conditions and put him out into primo backcountry conditions and he is going to rip that sh*t up. You take a backcountry only skier who skis primo snow 9 out of 10 days and put him on say, some steep, icy moguls, he's gonna suck.

Our sport is interesting in the sense that the most optimum scenario, (steep, deep pow) is actually the easiest thing to ski. Assuming that your backcountry outings are a success and you are finding steep, deep pow, you are in essence only skiing the very easiest of conditions and will invariably begin to suck at the above mentioned nasty, icy moguls.

Now why you would want to ski the icy moguls is another question entirely.

interesting

[JerseyDave]

Does any bc skier care they suck at icy bumps? No. It's likely they already decided bumps mean too many people went that way and are off enjoying skiing in a natural setting on much better snow.

Each of us has to decide why they ski and what they see as valuable to them. Personally I don't care if I suck at bumps, I just want untracked natural snow and only go when it's good.

[zion zig zag]

All good points. I guess I noticed a similar decline in ability when I quit patrolling. I went from being forced to ski shit conditions all over the mountain to being able to pick and choose when and where I skied, so my ability to ski bad conditions dived.

As far as "the steeps;" I haven't kept track but I'm sure I've averaged more days in the bc than the resort for probably the last 5+ years and overall it seems the average angle skied is probably lower in the backcountry. There is never any need to meadowskip in the resort, and it seems like some years in the Wasatch you don't have the green light to ski steeps until mid to late winter. Sure, when you have the chance, the steeps in the bc are longer and more sustained.

[Sirshredalot]

Does any bc skier care they suck at icy bumps? No. It's likely they already decided bumps mean too many people went that way and are off enjoying skiing in a natural setting on much better snow.

Each of us has to decide why they ski and what they see as valuable to them. Personally I don't care if I suck at bumps, I just want untracked natural snow and only go when it's good.

As the old adage goes: you don't suck at skiing bumps; you suck at skiing and the bumps just prove it.

[JerseyDave]

As the old adage goes: you don't suck at skiing bumps; you suck at skiing and the bumps just prove it.

....and I don't care. I love skiing. I have a blast doing it.

[Sirshredalot]

....and I don't care. I love skiing. I have a blast doing it.

Nothing wrong with that. Unless you're on the World Cup circuit, the best skier is the one having the most fun.

[Vt-Freeheel]

[mall walker]

I had 3 days inbounds last year (~50 touring), probably will be the same this year, hopefully with more touring. Obviously it's harder to improve if you ski downhill less, not sure anyone can dispute that. But I don't feel like I'm a worse skier than 2 years ago when I was 75% resort. Less aggressive I guess. But I was never very aggressive so...

A couple cheap early-season resort days via either warren miller passes, 2fers, etc goes a long way to getting the muscle memory going I find.

[jackstraw]

So have you peaked yet? If you skied/rode 100+ at any time in your 20-30's and you've hit 40, forget it. You're on the decline anyway and I don't care how many times you've read tb12 now And a huge difference between bc on east side vs west side.

Biggest difference for me is I don't get out as much without a pass, so my downhill ski legs suffer. I only go when it's good (or if I have time) and with a pass you just go if it's only for a couple hours.

[wyeaster]

[Dromond]

There are a lot of good observations in this thread that line up with my experiences. I have found that - if and when I have the ability to do so - alternating between lift-served and touring results in maximum enjoyment for me. On a normal season, it takes a few days of lift skiing for me to sort of "warm up" and reach my maximum ability / possibly improve. I think that has to do with both repetition and just building strength. Downhill skiing builds more leg strength than I otherwise generally have, at least on the steep + variable terrain around here. Although as others have mentioned, it doesn't build cardio endurance like skinning, so they both complement each out well in that way. While many of my favorite days have been touring and that might be the ultimate form of skiing for me, there is a huge novelty to going back to the lifts and being able to get so many runs in. Another thing I've grown to appreciate is how much the weight and dampness alpine equipment sort of smooths out the imperfections of beat up ski area snow and makes it fun to ski. While light poppy bc skis can be really fun to ski on smooth bc powder, I think they are pretty miserable on firm or tracked out snow.

While it's easy to snob about snow conditions in the bc it's not like the snow is always perfect there, and a well-timed lift served powder day can result in skiing as much if not more pow even if you do hit more tracks. It's just a different experience, and I think there is a lot to be said for both. It's pretty often that the snow is hammered in the resort, and either the bc offers better snow or just a chance to hike and enjoy the scenery in a different way. Conversely, when the avalanche danger goes up I'm very happy to be at the ski area. When you have a pass, it becomes a pretty easy decision.

[buttahflake]

I like the feeling of sharp skis, hooking up on hard snow. I like to feel every turn. Each one has room for improvement. Hard too progress skiing 2,000 vert a day versus 20,000 vert at the hill. I also love smashing slush bumps in May. Storm riding on a fixed grip etc... I also like the shit-show at the hill, it's like a free comedy show with lifts!

[gregL]

Pretty sure she learned at the ski area.

I'm not sure that a diet of pure backcountry skiing will result in diminished skill levels, especially if you have a solid foundation (i.e. thousands of days on snow) but you probably won't get much better. If you're picky about your gear, it's almost impossible to dial in a new setup with only self-powered mileage - whenever I get new skis or boots (pretty often) I spend a day or two skiing them on the lifts and adjusting things like ramp, forward lean, tune, etc.

[Name Redacted]

Most of the season BC skiing is just boring yet terrifying at the same time around here. Our snowpack just suck much of the winter, and I’ve been in it for over 20 yrs. It can be nice to blast around the resort without a care in the world on high danger days. I feel like it is definitely a balance between resort and BC. Nice to not have variable conditions and super lightweight gear holding you back too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Angle Parking]

There are a lot of good observations in this thread that line up with my experiences. I have found that - if and when I have the ability to do so - alternating between lift-served and touring results in maximum enjoyment for me. On a normal season, it takes a few days of lift skiing for me to sort of "warm up" and reach my maximum ability / possibly improve. I think that has to do with both repetition and just building strength. Downhill skiing builds more leg strength than I otherwise generally have, at least on the steep + variable terrain around here. Although as others have mentioned, it doesn't build cardio endurance like skinning, so they both complement each out well in that way. While many of my favorite days have been touring and that might be the ultimate form of skiing for me, there is a huge novelty to going back to the lifts and being able to get so many runs in. Another thing I've grown to appreciate is how much the weight and dampness alpine equipment sort of smooths out the imperfections of beat up ski area snow and makes it fun to ski. While light poppy bc skis can be really fun to ski on smooth bc powder, I think they are pretty miserable on firm or tracked out snow.

While it's easy to snob about snow conditions in the bc it's not like the snow is always perfect there, and a well-timed lift served powder day can result in skiing as much if not more pow even if you do hit more tracks. It's just a different experience, and I think there is a lot to be said for both. It's pretty often that the snow is hammered in the resort, and either the bc offers better snow or just a chance to hike and enjoy the scenery in a different way. Conversely, when the avalanche danger goes up I'm very happy to be at the ski area. When you have a pass, it becomes a pretty easy decision.

This. Well said Dromond.

[muted]

Quantity over quality of turns will make your legs strong and a better skier. But if you've been skiing for years and have a solid technique, I'm not sure how much worse you will get.

BC does make average skiers though (I think), I'm curious if it's younger peeps who never put a lot of time on ski hills and have skied just BC for 3-5 years or even more. Last year there was a deep day in the LLC backcountry, and on top I watched about 5 skiers go down before me. They were way backseat and all flailing a bit, and I thought to myself, "Shit that is some variable snow!!". I eased in expecting the worse, and it was my very first run on new boots and skis, so I was super timid. The snow was knee deep, perfect LCC blower, with no variable layers. I know I'm judging a lot of BC skiers by one run, but it really made me think on why those guys couldn't ski perfect powder. Maybe don't go super light and super skinny with equipment, medium to wide width skis will keep you a strong skier...in theory. Interesting thread, confirms a few thoughts I had...

[jackstraw]

I like to feel every turn.

Less blow, more feel.

Each one has room for improvement.

You're all done. Over the hill. Toast. Buh bye improvement. Maybe that new no wax will help you glide faster on the flats.

[buttahflake]

Over 40 and still riding a board, how does yer family feel about that?
Embarrassed, I'm sure!