Trail Difficulty Ratings

Walt wrote:

Agreed that conditions change enough so that micro-categories are not

terribly useful. But it would be nice to have some way of gauging
the
relative difficulty of the terrain from resort to resort. The
green/blue/black system is only useful for comparing trails within
each
resort. It would be useful to have some kind of universal standard
to
compare across resorts. (Note that I find such a hypothetical rating

system less useful as I get more miles under my bases, but it would
have
been a help a couple of years ago when I was starting out.)


But that's the point... resort clearly state that the ratings are
relative to within their resort only. That is why they also advise that
if you have never skied at that particular resort, you should start out
on one of the easier trails and then progress to the harder ones.

Armin

My hometown resort of Alyeska (Girdwood, AK) had at least two
triple-blacks; one titled "Lolo's Leap", and the other's name eludes
me. This was 20 years ago; I don't know if these trails still exist.

I think the difference between black and double-black is one of
potential hazards. A black run isn't likely to have a 30 foot cliff in
the middle of it while a double-black might. This seems to me a useful
distinction. A strong blue skier should be able to ski a black run
without worrying about death resulting from catching an edge.

Alyeska's definition of triple-black seemed to be that the cliff was a
mandatory air.

Sam

Armin wrote:

But that's the point... resort clearly state that the ratings are
relative to within their resort only. That is why they also advise that
if you have never skied at that particular resort, you should start out
on one of the easier trails and then progress to the harder ones.

Good advice. Once you actually find yourself at the hill with your skis
on.

The point of a cross-resort rating is that it would be useful for
figuring out whether to go there in the first place. "Hmmm...lots of
blues...are these boring blues, or tough blues, or what?"

--
//-Walt
//
// There is no Völkl Conspiracy

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 11:43:26 -0500, Walt
wrote:


BTW, there are trails rated triple black. And BW was skiing at a place
that has them last week. Maybe he can eighteen us....

If I were ever going to eighteen someone, I most definitely would NOT
talk about it in public. As for the "triple blacks", yeah, that's
what they're marked as. A succession of pretty steep gullies (they
call them "chutes" but I don't think that's accurate), where the trees
are pretty tight; barely enough room to swing a pair of 190s around.
I can flail my way down them, but it ain't pretty.

bw

In message , Walt
writes
Armin wrote:

But that's the point... resort clearly state that the ratings are
relative to within their resort only. That is why they also advise that
if you have never skied at that particular resort, you should start out
on one of the easier trails and then progress to the harder ones.

Good advice. Once you actually find yourself at the hill with your
skis on.

The point of a cross-resort rating is that it would be useful for
figuring out whether to go there in the first place. "Hmmm...lots of
blues...are these boring blues, or tough blues, or what?"


That's what contacts are for.
Or "Where to Ski and Snowboard" if you don't trust people.

Even with separate ratings for beginner facilities, cruiser miles, food
prices and quality, quality of (and amount of competition for)
off-piste, playpark facilities, etc etc, you still want a verbal report
on the place's good and bad points and oddities.

--
Sue ]3(D

At the last annual count, Britain had 544 breweries and rising.

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 07:34:23 -0700, "pigo"
wrote:

Too much information I think. It's an activity, fun, sport. If
someone is so timid that they have to analyze down to the nth degree
maybe it's not for them.

No ****. This isn't golf.

nate

Walt wrote:
BTW, there are trails rated triple black. And BW was skiing at a place
that has them last week. Maybe he can eighteen us....

And now here in Colorado, there are runs to be marked double diamond
with an EX notation for extreme terrain. I am not sure when the ski
areas have to get up to code on this, but I find that interesting.

Also, as far as trail ratings go, I know at my Beloved Loveland they
have blues that are pretty damn stiff, should be blacks for *that*
area. They also have some blacks off chair 8 that I think should be
blues. I also recall a time when Loveland didn't have any double
diamonds, but they do now. I think the Marketing department made
that call.

Sam "been hitting the Ridge" Seiber

uglymoney wrote:

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 07:34:23 -0700, "pigo"
wrote:

Too much information I think. It's an activity, fun, sport. If
someone is so timid that they have to analyze down to the nth degree
maybe it's not for them.

No ****. This isn't golf.

nate

Asshole, you owe me a keyboard!

Sam " :-) :-) :-) " Seiber

uglymoney wrote:
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 07:34:23 -0700, "pigo"

Too much information I think. It's an activity, fun, sport. If
someone is so timid that they have to analyze down to the nth degree
maybe it's not for them.

No ****. This isn't golf.

But every golf course has a rating and a slope so that you can compare
one course to another wrt difficulty. There's a national
(international?) standards group that goes around evaluating courses and
assigning numbers representing how tough the course is.

Why not do the same for ski slopes? I'd be happy to take the job,
assuming they can match my present salary. (c:

--
//-Walt
//
// There is no Völkl Conspiracy

uglymoney wrote:
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 07:34:23 -0700, "pigo"

Too much information I think. It's an activity, fun, sport. If
someone is so timid that they have to analyze down to the nth degree
maybe it's not for them.


No ****. This isn't golf.

Right. When you're out of control on the golf course, it's the ball
that goes flying into the trees never to be seen again.

(please ignore previous reply)

--
//-Walt
//
// There is no Völkl Conspiracy