14102439:theabortionator said:
True, there is some good stuff in stone creek and all over grouse. Actually a pretty good mountain for bumps for people who are into that too. Most of the crowds stick to the mellow groomers up in the corner. A lot of trees barely get hit compared to other resorts. Some of the resorts you listed have some major crowd issues. But I agree the terrain is better there.
Idk if you're ever there again it's worth giving another shot to.
Eh, you might be right, but I don't really care for bumps and trees, and the areas I ski at Snowbird stay pretty empty even on weekends and pow days. The lift lines do get long on pow days of course, not sure if Beaver Creek is any better in that regard. Not saying you're wrong, I only skied Beaver Creek one day, but I didn't see any terrain that really stuck out to me.
14102661:CaptainObvious. said:
Frankly
saying any of those resorts have "no good terrain" makes him look like a
dumbass. Unless he's not experienced enough to explore the whole
mountain and he's sticking to the lower half.
Show me something good then. The only good thing I saw at Vail is that cliff
band under that lift, but that's not unique or special and it's very
limited. A ski resort shouldn't be considered to have good terrain just
because it has one little textbook cliff band that you can find at a
hundred other ski resorts. I didn't see anything good at all at Beaver
Creek or Keystone (but again, I only skied Beaver Creek one day when a lot
was melted out). The Lake Chutes at Breckenridge are admittedly very
good.