Squaw VS. baker

i've never skied squaw but i've been to baker. my impression is the "gnarlier" terrain is at squaw and the deeper snow is at baker.
 
This really isn't a question. Hands down Squaw. Plus, terrain doesn't matter when all it does is rain at Baker.
 
yeah honestly even comparing the two is just an insult to squaw. Baker doesn't have any gnarly terrain at all and 3/4 of time it rains.
 
no no no dont listen to anyone in this thread, squaw is pretty much flat and the snow is too heavy to try and even ski in, baker is way better
 
There is nothing flat about squaw, maybe mountain run is flat, there is gnarly shit everywhere
i.ashx

Salm_Nest_9394-72-620x415.jpg

IMG_2140.JPG

6p6j34311.jpg


Needless to say it gets pretty gnarly
 
Never been to baker but squaw is nuts. Everything inbounds is pretty visible and relatively easy to access with maybe a 30 minute hike to get to the top of the chief. Some really cray inbound terrain. By far the sickest mountain I ever been to. Not to mention the fingers, while they look pretty crazy in picture, are NUTS in person. Riding up KT next to them they are insane so big and steep.
 
If your criteria involves skiing slushy runnels for months on end, then Baker.

If you mean actual terrain and snow, then Squaw hands down
 
ok seriously baker is my home mountain and it does not rain nearly as much as people on here say, over last season i skied there 40 + time and there was only 1 rainy day ( was early season), baker has some grnarly stuff but it is just about all backcoutry and mainly on mt. herman the arm and things further back than the resort
 
I have said it before. Don't go to Baker if you don't like tree humping mushroom popping hippies. I left due to rain.
 
yeah, this guy is a fucking idiot. baker sucks, i skied like 20 days there last season out of convenience. in bounds is wack, backcountry is rained bombed slush runouts. seriously only rains in the PNW
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top