Backcountry vs. Big Mountain

As far as I'm concerned, they are different.

You can ski big mtn inbounds (at a resort) or out of bounds (backcountry).

Backcountry is anyplace out of bounds or not part of a resort.
 
BIG mountain, refers to a shitload of vertical, and big mountains. The backcountry is anything that is not contained in a ski resort. Skiing at loveland pass is not big mountain and I don't consider skiing in the likes of AK or bella coola as backcountry.
 
let me change that AK and bella coola are definetly backcountry. Backcountry can be tons of things and can be accessed in many ways, not just skiing, but hiking, snowshoeing, XC skiing, etc.
 
there is no big mountain in bounds at any resort. there's mini-golf and steep lines, but there's no big mountain. until there's an undisturbed 2000 feet of 60 degree freshies... theres no big mountain in bounds. theres accessable big mountain, like at jackson or some such but uh... yeah, real big mountain is BIG... not BC... and theres an implied connection with BC as being smaller lines than actual big mountain, at least in my mind.
 
i disagree ...

"Big mountain" - can also be all about exposure and line choice. It is how you ski, it is a style not a definition. It is about large fast turns and agressive line choices...which can be done in bounds. Watch some locals at Squaw on a pow day, they will show what in bounds big mountain is about. Its about hate hucks and strgt lines and critical turns on fracturing cornice lines.

Your benchmark of 2000-vert and 60-degrees is pretty much assinine. Name ONE shot in any video that measures up to your guideline. 60-degrees - hahahaha, snow barely sticks to 60-degree slopes and believe me YOU have never skied anything close to that steep...
 
I just consider skiing big mountain, skiing cliffs, lines, exc that are all ungroomed and arn't man-made or cared for.

Backcountry I just see as being outside the resorts. Big mountain can be inbounds as far as I'm concerned.
 
yeah, it was hyperbole for effect, ya know? i guess its just the connotation i ahve in my own mind. obviously squaw has ridiculously sick lines, and i know ripping lines at whistler can be pretty intense... but if youre skiing out to some cat track that takes you back to a lift, instead of straighting some massive couloir or something... it just doesnt seem to count as big mountain to me.
 
big mountain is steeps, cornices, cliffs, chutes. BC is outside of the resort. To say that there is no big mtn in resort boundaries is silly. Squaw, Alpine, Sugar Bowl, Heavenly, Kirkwood, Alta, Snowbird, Whistler are all places I've skied some big technical stuff. Oh and maybe mammoth, but as sick as it is, not that steep.
 
I generally just refer to inbounds stuff as "big lines" (like the site), and to make something classify as "backcountry" or "big mountain", it needs to have the visual capability of making me pee my pants.
 
I kind of think it the other way around. Inbounds is usually smaller/shorter. There are definitely technical lines inbounds, but it's all kind of limited because of normal resort snow conditions, and the fact that cat tracks/ intermediate runs often break things up. I don't think there are too many technical shots inbounds that are more than a couple/few hundred vert at the most. Got to go outside a resort to get the snow conditions and big, unbroken lines. And I don't think anybody has skied freshies at 60 degrees. That's survival turn territory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top