question about mary jane (winter park)

A friend of mine mentioned that she believes Mary Jane is going to be
re-worked such that half the trails will be steep groomers instead of
the current in(famous) mogul runs.

Anyone have any evidence for or against this? I don't see anything on
the Winter Park website.

--
monique
Unless you need to share ultra-sensitive super-spy stuff with me, please
don't email me directly. I will most likely see your post before I read
your mail, anyway.

"Monique Y. Herman" wrote in message .. .
A friend of mine mentioned that she believes Mary Jane is going to be
re-worked such that half the trails will be steep groomers instead of
the current in(famous) mogul runs.

Anyone have any evidence for or against this? I don't see anything on
the Winter Park website.

Already is, if you include the backside - Parsenn's Bowl, etc. That
being said, I don't know of any plans to groom the front side where
most of the bumps are. It'd be pointless in my opinion, as there are
plenty of groomers in the back and on the WP side, and the bumps are
what Jane's really famous for. Hint: you don't hear about it as much,
but the trees at Jane really rock, too.

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 at 14:50 GMT, Keith penned:

Already is, if you include the backside - Parsenn's Bowl, etc. That
being said, I don't know of any plans to groom the front side where
most of the bumps are. It'd be pointless in my opinion, as there are
plenty of groomers in the back and on the WP side, and the bumps are
what Jane's really famous for. Hint: you don't hear about it as much,
but the trees at Jane really rock, too.


I'm not good enough to test myself on the moguls *or* the trees at mary
jane yet ... but I'm looking forward to the day when I am, and I don't
want to find that they've been taken away before I even get to taste
them!

--
monique
Unless you need to share ultra-sensitive super-spy stuff with me, please
don't email me directly. I will most likely see your post before I read
your mail, anyway.

Monique Y. Herman wrote:
I'm not good enough to test myself on the moguls *or* the trees at
mary jane yet ... but I'm looking forward to the day when I am, and I
don't want to find that they've been taken away before I even get to
taste them!

Didn't realise MJ was famous for bumps. I did my Level II exam there in
April 2002, and I remember the group and the examiner skiing around on a
Great Bump Hunt; we wanted some black bumps that didn't feature large rocks
in inopportune spots. We ended up going quite high up where the snow was
more plentiful.

ant

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 at 02:16 GMT, ant penned:
Monique Y. Herman wrote:
I'm not good enough to test myself on the moguls *or* the trees at
mary jane yet ... but I'm looking forward to the day when I am, and I
don't want to find that they've been taken away before I even get to
taste them!

Didn't realise MJ was famous for bumps. I did my Level II exam there
in April 2002, and I remember the group and the examiner skiing around
on a Great Bump Hunt; we wanted some black bumps that didn't feature
large rocks in inopportune spots. We ended up going quite high up
where the snow was more plentiful.

ant


I could be wrong, but that was my impression. I just moved out here
last year, so maybe I misunderstood.

--
monique
Unless you need to share ultra-sensitive super-spy stuff with me, please
don't email me directly. I will most likely see your post before I read
your mail, anyway.

What?! Mary Jane has lovely bumps. Some nice tough runs with tight
bumps. And some lovely runs with bumps spaced far apart.

Kurt Knisely wrote:
In article , Monique Y. Herman
says...

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 at 02:16 GMT, ant penned:


Didn't realise MJ was famous for bumps. I did my Level II exam there
in April 2002, and I remember the group and the examiner skiing around
on a Great Bump Hunt; we wanted some black bumps that didn't feature
large rocks in inopportune spots. We ended up going quite high up
where the snow was more plentiful.

ant


I could be wrong, but that was my impression. I just moved out here
last year, so maybe I misunderstood.


I always thought the bumps were short and choppy at MJ...not alot of fun on
205s. I'm sure there are other opinions, but I thought the Basin, Aspen
Highlands and T-Ride had better bumps. I avoid them now anyway (unless there's
a couple feet of fresh on top).

-K

(Keith) wrote in
om:

"Monique Y. Herman" wrote in message
.. .
A friend of mine mentioned that she believes Mary Jane is going to be
re-worked such that half the trails will be steep groomers instead of
the current in(famous) mogul runs.

Anyone have any evidence for or against this? I don't see anything
on the Winter Park website.

Already is, if you include the backside - Parsenn's Bowl, etc. That
being said, I don't know of any plans to groom the front side where
most of the bumps are. It'd be pointless in my opinion, as there are
plenty of groomers in the back and on the WP side, and the bumps are
what Jane's really famous for. Hint: you don't hear about it as much,
but the trees at Jane really rock, too.

The rumor is that there are winch-cat anchors being installed on the tops
of Drunken Frenchman and Outhouse so that they can occasionally groom a
portion of those runs.

And the trees at Mary Jan SUCK. Do you hear me? THEY SUCK. Don't ski the
trees. They're tight, too steep, and dangerous. You should NOT ski them.
Stay out of the trees. This is for your own good........

-T.O.M.-