avgvstynovich
Member
Who got better spots, skiers, snowparks, infrastructure and anything ski- connected ?
America vs Europe
- Thread starter avgvstynovich
- Start date
topic:waitiga said:
Europe definitely has better mountains, if you don't count AK and South America, but I don't know about parks. I have never been to Europe, so take my comments with a grain of salt, but you have to be careful over there. You need to know where you are going or you might end up over a 300 foot cliff. There is less danger of that in North America. I would love to go to Verbier or Engleberg, but I would hire a guide if I did. I have heard conflicting reports about the snow in Europe so I will let someone who knows address that.
13712832:dan4060 said:
I don't agree that Europe has better mountains, the alps are very serious mountains, but is that a good thing for skiing? I don't think so. There is no real off-piste skiing as you can't go anywhere, unlike when I watch Saga Alosa's Alta skiing and "It's Always Sunny at Alta" video's, that shit is dreamy.
Julius_Steezer
Member
13712877:ArseneFox said:
You can literally go anywhere you want in Europe and ski patrol won't throw a hissy fit. If youre sick, Europe's off piste is arguably better as there's so much out there. However if youre not as experienced, america is probably better as the safety setup there is better IMO.
13712905:Julius_Steezer said:
i wasnt talking about patrolling, true, there are no stuck up patrols in europe, we were talking about the mountains, and what i meant with "you can't go anywhere" is that if you go a little bit to far from the groomed piste, you end up at super high cliffs, dead end nomansland of no return, completely packed up woods etc.. The reason why Mount Niseko in japan is so great, and so highly ranked for backcountry skiing, is that you can go down anywhere from the top of the volcano. ofc i am over exaggerating but most alp skiers just stay where the snowcats go.
JibbaTheHutt
Active member
13712908:ArseneFox said:
i'm not sure if you know what you're talking about. The potential for off piste skiing is massiveness in europe, in most cases if there is significant danger ski patrol will have fenced off area or atleast put signs up to make you aware of hazards.
personally i think europe takes the cake overall. The sheer vastness of skiable terrain is crazy. you can buy passes that give you access to hundreds of resorts that contain 1000s ok miles of runs not to mention virtually unlimited freeride terrain and hundreds of parks.
Infrastructure is amazing aswell, you need to remember that alot of these resorts are exactly that, ski resorts. The whole operation runs so smoothly, be it free buses with your liftpass, how lifts connect etc etc
Im from the Uk, skied America, Canada, Japan. Europe has sick backcountry but if you don't know where your going it can be sketchy. Mountains are steep & cliffs are huge, not a lot of lift accessible "off piste" anything that is good gets tracked fast, so lots of hiking to get to the spots. Home mountains are La Clusaz & Chamonix (mont blanc) (the highest mountain in Europe) If you know Mont Blanc then you have endless off piste all season.
Parks suck... I mean they are proper shit, you Americans don't know how lucky you are. I couldn't believe it when I first rode over there, you actually have guys maintaining jumps all day. At best you might get a lifty check the landings once a day, if your lucky. Rails suck, jumps suck everything about the Europe park scene sucks.
Japan (Niseko / hokkaido) is a hill not a mountain, not steep at all & conditions suck a lot of the time, visibility can get down to 30cm. That being said it has THE BEST powder I have ever ridden. It's the closest to surfing you can get, light dry deep powder (waist deep is a shit day) Oh and they light up half the hill every night till 10, usually it stops snowing & conditions are amazing. For powder the best hill I've skied hands down.
Parks suck... I mean they are proper shit, you Americans don't know how lucky you are. I couldn't believe it when I first rode over there, you actually have guys maintaining jumps all day. At best you might get a lifty check the landings once a day, if your lucky. Rails suck, jumps suck everything about the Europe park scene sucks.
Japan (Niseko / hokkaido) is a hill not a mountain, not steep at all & conditions suck a lot of the time, visibility can get down to 30cm. That being said it has THE BEST powder I have ever ridden. It's the closest to surfing you can get, light dry deep powder (waist deep is a shit day) Oh and they light up half the hill every night till 10, usually it stops snowing & conditions are amazing. For powder the best hill I've skied hands down.
13712877:ArseneFox said:
I think it's a good thing for skiing if you know what you are doing. If you have the experience Europe has terrain that is absolutely crazy. I get what you are saying though, that's why I said I would hire a guide if I went to Verbier. I think for most skiers, me included, the off-piste in Tahoe/Jackson/Snowbird would be better because it would be easier to access and less dangerous. For people that know what they are doing, however, Europe has better off-piste options. I am not one of those people so as I said before if I go over there I will hire a guide.
Let me put it this way: People from the east who move west don't tend to go back. I did my ski bum years at Squaw, ski Mammoth 3 weekends a month now that I'm a yuppie, and I would not move back east no matter what sort of job I got. Now that is also because I love to surf and I love where I live but I still won't go back where I grew up. The same tends to be true of people who go from North America to the Alps. People from Squaw don't tend to go back to Burlington if they can avoid it, and people who go from Tahoe to Chamonix don't tend to return to Tahoe for the winters for the most part. If they have the mountaineering/BC skills to access the crazy lines of Cham/Verbier they tend to want to stay there. I don't have those skills so I will stay here.
I will agree that most Euros stay on-piste compared to people over here. That's why carving skis tend to be more popular among serious skiers in Europe. Here you rarely see high level skiers on carving skis unless they are instructors.
willysworld
Active member
13712877:ArseneFox said:
Smoke crack much??
Europe shits on America.. Hard.. So many more sick resorts in Europe .. The only ski area in North America that's on a Euro level is Whister., all the rest or the resorts are Tinto
Julius_Steezer
Member
13713212:minihef said:
Dont forget Europe for apres. You guys miss out over in america
pragur
Member
Im from Europe and I have been to Keystone and Breck. I think the terrain is better in Europe overall, Alps are higher and steeper. Thousands of miles of off piste terrain but there are lots of dangers for skiers without enough experience. Many european resorts operate state of the art gondola and lift systems. That being said, most european parks suck compared to what you have in there.
I didn't take Alaska into comparison because that's some different level stuff.
I didn't take Alaska into comparison because that's some different level stuff.
brotherdad
Active member
californiagrown
Active member
America has by far the rowdiest terrain(AK), and easily the best parks (summit).
In between are a lot of smaller resorts that are very good all around.
As for "Europe has more terrain"... no, it doesn't. It just easier access to more terrain. Europe was settled a long time ago so there aren't really wildernesses anymore like there is in Wyoming, Idaho, Colorado, California, Washington and Oregon.... not to mention AK.
That said, the answer is probably Yurp.
In between are a lot of smaller resorts that are very good all around.
As for "Europe has more terrain"... no, it doesn't. It just easier access to more terrain. Europe was settled a long time ago so there aren't really wildernesses anymore like there is in Wyoming, Idaho, Colorado, California, Washington and Oregon.... not to mention AK.
That said, the answer is probably Yurp.
13713267:californiagrown said:
I think that is what people mean when they say more terrain. The OP is talking about resorts here, not backcountry. The accessible side-country in a place like Chamonix is simply on another level from what is available in North America. As to the mountains in AK being rowdier, they are, but remember people in places like Cham are accessing lines where you will die if you fall far more often than people heli-skiing in AK. The lines there are insanely steep and they don't have the coverage AK does. I would much rather fall on most TGR AK lines than on the stuff Seth Morrison does in his last movie, forgot what it was called. The guys in Europe are skiing much more carefully and technically (for the most part) than the film stars in AK. The TGR/MSP guys are skiing AK/Coastal BC lines much faster than the European ski mountaineers. I'm not saying the mountaineers are better, it is a different type of skiing, but I would call what they do generally more dangerous than what the guys in AK do. Overall it is much easier to access crazy terrain from the resorts in Europe and I think that is what the people in this thread mean, they are just not explicitly stating it.
13713302:dan4060 said:
But you're just comparing the stereotypes of two completely different types of skiing that you happen to think of when you see those places, not necessarily the inherent differences between those places. Comparing ski movie lines with ski mountaineering is like comparing apples with oranges and doesn't have much relevance to the actual differences in location.
There are lots of people that go and ski incredibly technical descents in North America. Stuff that they have to ski carefully and slowly with multiple rappels etc. Exactly the type of skiing that you think of when you think of Chamonix. The difference is TGR/MSP aren't there filming those lines so you just think of the classic Alaskan charging lines when it comes to the pinnacle of skiing in North America. Similarly there are lots of skiers charging big and steep lines at high speed with big drops on European terrain - typical ski movie type lines rather than Cham style exposed billy-goating.
The access is definitely easier in Europe but the differences in what people ski in each place is not restricted by the terrain. People just like to ski different things for different purposes and both North America and Europe have enough varied terrain to cater for all.
FastSpeed
Member
13713179:ozzywrong said:
I have never skied outside of New England so I really don't know anything but I am pretty sure that whistler is not the only good skis resort in the Americas. Sure I bet laax and chaminox are nice but Alta, Jackson, big sky, revelstoke, mt baker, alyeska or whatever it's called in Alaska all look pretty damn good to me.
californiagrown
Active member
13713355:36ChambersOfWu said:
You put baker in there? Da fuq? Lol.
californiagrown
Active member
13713505:36ChambersOfWu said:
So you don't know anything about the ski area other than its big year snow totals, huh?
13713309:minihef said:
I get what you are saying, but there are inherent differences between Cham and AK which lead to different types of skiing. Cham steeps do not get the type of snow pack that AK does, so it is much more difficult to rail big lines in the same way. I know there are guys in Europe charging this type of stuff but the Alps (at least Cham and those places, we are not talking Norway here) don't lend themselves to that type of skiing the way AK does. The point is that there are inherent differences between AK and Cham which lead to the type of descents we see. Coastal AK snow sticks to steep terrain much better than the snow they get in Cham, so for ski movie type lines AK will always be superior. There is an inherent difference between the two.
13713309:minihef said:
There definitely are, but NA does not have the same level of resort access to the mountaineering stuff, so it makes sense for those guys to go to Cham where trams can get them to some amazing stuff.
13713309:minihef said:
I agree, but AK is simply better for this type of skiing. The snowpack in places like Cham is nowhere near coastal AK in terms of how well it sticks to steep terrain. As I said before there is a fundamental difference between AK and Cham/Verbier when it comes to the ski movie type lines.
13713309:minihef said:
Not in terms of mountaineering, but in terms of ski movie lines there is a difference. AK has a situation that Europe, other than maybe Norway or the northern areas, does not. Cham and Verbier simply don't produce spine walls that can be slayed like the kind you find in Haines, they don't get the right type of snowpack.
People just like to ski different things for different purposes and both North America and Europe have enough varied terrain to cater for all.[/QUOTE]
13713589:dan4060 said:
Of course there are big differences between Cham and AK but you are missing the point. This thread wasn't comparing Cham and AK, it was comparing Europe and North America.
By trying to reduce this to Cham v AK you're just proving my original point that you were more focussed on comparing two completely different types of skiing than on providing an objective analysis of the skiing on offer on two different continents.
Everyone knows Cham is the mecca of ski mountaineering and AK is the mecca of ski movie lines. That is because they are both unique places with very particular attributes which lend themselves to those types of skiing. That doesn't really help much though when it comes to a broader comparison between Europe and America.
13713589:dan4060 said:
I made the point that the access is much easier in the Alps. That doesn't change the fact that people are still getting after cham style ski mountaineering lines in North America, and that there's a huge amount of terrain that offers such lines.
leprechaunsissy
Member
13712832:dan4060 said:
...you have not been to Europe
13712987:tommyf86 said:
Haha, sounds like you haven't been to a European park for about 10 years, or you purposely sought out shitty parks. Just so you know, they have shitty parks in America too, but in general the parks are much better and bigger there. Europe, which is a ridicoulously large area to talk about, has loads of dope and extremely well maintained parks. Seems like you don't really know what you're talking about.
Julius_Steezer
Member
13713947:tommyf86 said:
Have you been to mayrhofen, laax, val thorens, kaunertal, mottolino, les arcs, tignes, hintertux, stubai or avoriaz recently? Just the first few to come to mind
13713947:tommyf86 said:
Exactly my thought, but it's one of the only possible conclusions if your experience is what you mentioned earlier. Look at the list the dude provided above. I'll throw in some scandinavian parks for good measure, since that's where I roam. Geilo, Hemsedal, Trysil, Hafjell, Kvitfjell, Vierli, Hovden, Tryvann, Folgefonna, Kläppen, Lindvallen, Åre, Ruka are just a few of the ones that would most likely change your view of European/scandinavian parks.
https://www.newschoolers.com/videos...Glacier-Days-Ep-2-3---Summer-Snowpark-Zermatt13713947:tommyf86 said:
Also, this is Europe.
Outoftowner
Member
I went to Austria in 2013. The 'resort' I was at had 92 lifts, and was ~$180 (total) for a 3 day pass.
The shear volume of available terrain and the price makes at least where I was better than anywhere in the US I've skied
The shear volume of available terrain and the price makes at least where I was better than anywhere in the US I've skied
Outoftowner
Member
Seems like a dumb idea to travel all the way to Europe if you're just a park rat.
Silly to compare the park scenes between the two.
Silly to compare the park scenes between the two.
SurfaceHoar
Member
Interesting discussion.
Some Ruggedness (DRS) Comparisons:
*North Cascades-size ranges, compared at 25,000 km^2
Range Ruggedness (m)
Nepal Himalaya 345
Karakoram 335
Southern BC Coast 225
Alps 216
Canadian Rockies/Columbia 175
Alaska 150
North Cascades 140
Southern Norway 135
Chugach 140
Sierra Nevada 125
Colorado 84
ULTRA Prominent Peaks (mountains in the world with 1,500 meters (4,921') of prominence):
North America #357
Europe #107
Asia # 654
Alaska #70
BC/Alberta #108
lower 48 #57
Glacier Coverage:
Central Europe 3 785 square km
North America 124 000 square km
Asia 175 000 square km
Scandinavia 2 940 square km
(peaklist.org)
Some Ruggedness (DRS) Comparisons:
*North Cascades-size ranges, compared at 25,000 km^2
Range Ruggedness (m)
Nepal Himalaya 345
Karakoram 335
Southern BC Coast 225
Alps 216
Canadian Rockies/Columbia 175
Alaska 150
North Cascades 140
Southern Norway 135
Chugach 140
Sierra Nevada 125
Colorado 84
ULTRA Prominent Peaks (mountains in the world with 1,500 meters (4,921') of prominence):
North America #357
Europe #107
Asia # 654
Alaska #70
BC/Alberta #108
lower 48 #57
Glacier Coverage:
Central Europe 3 785 square km
North America 124 000 square km
Asia 175 000 square km
Scandinavia 2 940 square km
(peaklist.org)
californiagrown
Active member
13714233:36ChambersOfWu said:
Just seems odd you mentioned it in the same conversation as Jhole, revelstoke, whistler, Squalpine, verbier, Chamonix etc haha.
It's a cool area, but it's charm comes from its extremely low key, dirtbag vibe.
13713958:Julius_Steezer said:
Avoriaz is the closest park to my hill, the xxl there is sketchy & badly maintained. The only other option is "le stash" which is a bike park with snow on it. It can be ok but needs a lot of snow.
I ride Tignes at least a week per season & tbh it's nothing to shout about park wise.
Laax (I'll give you that) does have a pretty badass park.
Val thorens I haven't ridden in about 3 years but last time it wasn't much cop.
Kaunertal, mottolino, hintertux & stubai I have never rode, but herd good things...
I'm not saying good parks don't exist but I am saying the US had better variety & cleaner (well maintained) jumps & rails.
cozyco
Member
13713964:Jibberino said:
Sometimes its not worth discussing with people, who re just stating 10 year old rumours as facts...
European resorts definitely stept up their park game in the last 10 years and imo its equal to US parks.
Pretty hard to compare European ski resorts to NA resorts. The big european resorts are sooo much bigger than the "big" NA ones like Whistler . But in NA the resorts is the whole area within the boundary line. That was the case in Whistler and Revy. I guess its pretty similar to Alta or Jackson then. In Europe the resort is just the everything ON the slope. Everything left and right is not really part of ski aeria in most resorts. Thats why ski resorts in the US are measured in square feet or whatever and in Europe its the length of all slopes put together.
I really like both "worlds". NA is more about skiing nice deep fluffy stuff. Revy s or Whistler s terrain isnt as challenging as terrain in the alps, although its known in NA for steep and gnarly stuff. Birthday couloir, browns chute and so on. Alps is often pretty technical and due to the lack of snow. Climbing/ hiking skills are often required for getting down or up. Exceptions are on both sides.
Anyway. You can have an awesome time on both sides of the pond. Doesnt matter where as long as you can shred.
13715652:tommyf86 said:
Actually, this is what you said:
"Parks suck... I mean they are proper shit, you Americans don't know how lucky you are. I couldn't believe it when I first rode over there, you actually have guys maintaining jumps all day. At best you might get a lifty check the landings once a day, if your lucky. Rails suck, jumps suck everything about the Europe park scene sucks."
So, yeah.
Also, the stash is not a bike park, it's a Burton project that builds features out of wood in the woods, it exists in more resorts than Avoriaz.
13715746:Jibberino said:
Le stash is a bike park, I'm riding it once a week atm & it's not a set up for skiers it's built for mountain bikes (if you have ever ridden it you would know) 10 ft lifts to a rail is not set up for anyone on snow... You need a mass base to ride anything there. "Built by burton" oh dear... Are you a 16yr old first time snowboarder? Wrong forum buddy
13715815:tommyf86 said:
Good for Avoriaz if they've managed to adapt it to bikes as well, but this is what it was originally built forhttp://www.thestash.com/
So I guess you have just unequivocally proved that you're talking out of your ass. Get your facts straight before you start talking shit, son.
JibbaTheHutt
Active member
13715815:tommyf86 said:
You obviously suck dick at skiing if you believe it wasnt built for snowsports. I rode it a fair amount the season just gone and i'll admit features are pretty fucking gnarly but thats the whole nature of it, it is meant to have a rugged aesthetic, otherwise there would be no point in the wooden features, they'd just build a standard park through the trees.