Whistler compared to big sky

There aren't a whole lot of places that can compare to Whistler on this continent.
 
it's true. if you're looking at sheer numbers, Whistler is hard to beat. compared to Big Sky... well, I've only done the drive by of Big Sky in the summer, but based on my knowledge of being a nerd, I can tell you that Whistler has way more slackcountry and multi-day touring options right outside it's door than Big Sky. In bounds, Whistler wins, as the do in the park as well. Whistler is under 2 hours from a major city/airport, Big Sky has Bozeman - hardly a "major city" by any means.

Compared to Whistler the only things I would say Big Sky has going for it would be cheeper living costs, lighter snow (although less of it), and less crowds - which can be said for pretty much everywhere except for maybe Breck and Vail.

That being said, Whistler is a good place to visit for the weekend, but I would never live there (unless I win the lottery or something).

 
interesting to note...

Whistler Blackcomb combined have 8,171 skiable acres covering 2 peaks.

Big Sky with moonlight basin.. (biggest skiing in america pass) has 6,712 skiable acres..

while its obviously not more then whistler its more then I think most could ski in a 7 day period.

 
well yeah, we're not saying that Big Sky is small, or shitty... it's just that when you compare it directly with Whistler based on the size and variety of the skiing, Whistler will win.

Based on your response above, I'm going to go ahead and say that you want to go to Big Sky and not Whistler. Go to Big Sky, you will enjoy it. Or go to Whistler, I don't care.

the real kicker is that if you show up for 7 days in a really shitty snow cycle, all the awesome terrain won't be very fun to ski and you'll spend the whole time in the park. Lets just hope it's not foggy so you can at least hit some jumps!

nah, i'm just messing with you now.
 
if you're 19 or older, and money is not an issue you will have, hands down, an exponentially better time in whistler.

if you're under 19, and money is not an issue you will have, hands down, an exponentially better time in whistler.

theres more to think about than just skiing, i can say without a doubt that there is more to do in whistler village than there is in big sky, unless you feel like driving the 45 minutes to bozeman to do stuff.

plus, the women in whistler are internationally top notch where as the girls in big sky are few, far between, and from montana.
 
HA.
Just because Big Sky tries to compete in the same market doesn't mean they're actually comparable.
Whistler is huge in every regard: terrain, lifts, prices, parties. You name it, they're doing it large.
And while there's a special place in my heart for Bozeman, Big Sky is the worst overall option. Moonlight's got a better park and cheaper tickets, and Bridger Bowl's got the mellow old vibe and great backcountry.
So in conclusion, go to Whistler. Then go to Bozeman sometime and ski at the other two places.
 
Whistler Whistler Whistler. Not even a comparison.

Big Sky is a really fun mountain and I have never been to Whistler but I am sure it is much more fun considering how big it is.

Also the night life in Big Sky kind of sucks and you would have way more fun in Whistler after the ski resorts closes instead of having almost nothing to do if you are under 21 in Big Sky and only a little bit to do if you are over 21.
 
"Skiable area" is an awful way to judge a hill and annual snowfall isn't much better given the vast discrepancies in how it's reported (cough*GROUSEMOUNTAIN*cough).

Whis/Blackcomb is the premiere ski resort in North America, and there is a reason for that. There is enough slackcountry that you won't have to trip o/b to find good stuff.
 
Big Sky Blows. I've been there plenty o times and the tickets are expensive, they took out the biggest park, and it's soooo huge. Just live in Bozeman, and ski Bridger. Lots of people do it, and Brudger fucking rules. It's got the best vibe, you know lots of people there, there are plenty of secret pow stashes, and the vibe is sick. Screw Whistler, live in Bozeman
 
@ Drail your close.. I've been to big sky not whistler.. I really had an awesome time there.. we got dumped on the first night about 2-3 ft. I'm just trying to find out if anyone has been to both and can honestly say that whister is a night and day difference. I would like to think in my head that yeah I'm sure whistler is better on pure stats alone. The city aside. I'm not going out west to party altho many do thats not my main objective. I am 23 right now and money is always a concern. I think I have come to my conclusion. On the day the snow would make the difference, while whistler has more terrain, Big Sky still has a close second. The fact that there are no lines at Big Sky even on a pow day was another point. I guess the thing keeping me from thinking whistler is the amount of people there.
 
Not going to say anything else to this except Big Sky > Bridger. Unless you like crowds, moguls, slow lifts and waiting in lines. Or hiking with 5 million other people on the ridge.

But this isn't a Big Sky vs. Bridger thread. So I'll shut up now.
 
If you're planning a trip aren't you going to ski? That's the reason I go on ski trips. If I want to party I'll stay in the city. That being said if you're looking at a place to live you wouldn't want to live in the middle of nowhere unless you're really that dedicated.
 
ive been to both whistler has a better park and more people and things to do but if your looking for some good long pow run maybe big sky but also whistler back county is better so whistlers better plus closer to towns and stuff and not in the middle of nowere
 
not sure if you can call the sprearhead traverse "slackcountry". Doing it in one day though... that's crazy. I'll pass on that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top