Skiing in Canada
 

Hmm I'm going to have to completely disagree with this one. Skiing in the east simply isn't comparable. Full stop. There is no alpine, anywhere. It's like never making it past the first lift at whistler.

This is symphony bowl, one of about 7 or 8 lift accessible alpine bowls at Whistler. Everything you can see here is skiiable terrain complete with everything from green to double black diamond difficulty.

https://c1.staticflickr.com/6/5216/5...f82b3785_b.jpg
https://c1.staticflickr.com/6/5216/5...f82b3785_b.jpg

Saying that even reotely compares to Lake Placid or anything east of the rockies is like trying to compare the heritage stock of Vancouver to Montreal.

You're right of course.

But in terms of vertical drop, Whiteface at Lake Placid NY and Killington aren't too shabby compared to Whistler at over 1000 m. Whistler is around 1500.

Tremblant is around 700 m and Le Massif around Quebec City is around 800 m.

Of course, in terms of total skiable area (ha) Whistler dwarfs all of them. It's probably 10 times the size of Whiteface and 5 times the size of Tremblant.

Multi-ethnic demographics and the strongest economic growth in the country? I am sure there are plenty of entirely white areas with crumbling economies you could go to instead.

I found that Whiteface reminded me a bit of Big White.

It's actually 26 times larger than Whiteface and 13 times larger than Tremblant.

Whistler/Blackcomb: 8,171 acres
Mont Tremblant: 630 acres
Whiteface: 314 acres

Whistler is huge, like really huge.

Acajack (and others) - not sure if you ski or not, however "paper" stats can be very misleading. I've skied every hill you listed (plus Stowe, Smugglers, MsA, Sutton, Bromont, Owls Head, Saveur, all the Ottawa hills), all the big hills in the Rockies, most of the interior (not Red though :() and now I'm getting to know Whistler.

Again, stats of paper cannot compare with real life. Case in point for Iceface, that 965m vertical is very missleading for while you can ski it, you will skate, cross greens, and many times die up top on the ice. As for Killington, the mtn has the 1000m vertical, but you can't ski it since its like a rollercoster. Massif is probably the closest, but even still, the steeps aren't the full height.

Don't get me wrong - I love skiing out east and have many great memories (Sutton is still the gold standard for glades) but I've never heard of anyone from Vancouver flying to Montreal to go skiing, whereas every day I've been to Whistler this year I've meet tourists visiting from QC, NY, MA, etc.

Anyway, this is a muggs game - we should all live where we want and enjoy the things that are available ... or move to a place that suits us better. Live is short and then you die. Arguing about which city is best won't change that. :cheers:


PS> Acajack - not saying you were arguing, just a global statement.

Yes it is ... though it's not my favourite yet ;). Maybe this coming weekend will change that ....

Since we're killing time until tomorrow, as an x-country skier I've always thought Ottawa was the bee's knees ... and now with SJAM I think it has run away from the pack.

If you live in Ottawa, get out on the trail!
https://www.dovercourt.org/Enterpris...5-89a3b596f2f1
Dovercourt CC

Just to beat a dead horse, Rousseau, as I've never heard you talk about skiing, I trust you don't ski (apologies if you do). Tremblant and Iceface are nice, but comparing them to Whistler is like comparing the Banff Grand Fondo to the Tour. Yes they're both bike races, and for most riders the Banff Fondo can be a real challenge, however, few cyclists set their life goal to ride it.

I love Tremblant (Tunnel is still a dream and Fuddle Duddle can be fun), but it ain't no Glacier!

No worries. I know there's really no comparison. But that doesn't mean the skiing in Quebec and NE US is shitty and not worth it if you're in the area...

the largest ski school in Canada is on Mont Saint-Bruno. right next to Montréal.

Skiing in Canada
 

I'll have to disagree, I've been a pretty avid skier for a good while, I did go to Whistler and Blackcomb with my sis (I've also skied in most of the mountains in the Northeast) and I've felt it was big way past the point of diminishing returns. No point in having all that area accessible if a fraction of it suffices for a full day.

We tried to make the most out of such a famous mountain so we focused a bit more on exploring (trying to check the "been there" box for the most areas) than we should have, and in the end, though it was a very nice day, it did not come close to the best days I've had at a place like, say, Jay Peak, where I'm familiar with the trails and glades and will not waste any time in trails I'm not interested in.

JMO, obviously, and I swear I'm not saying this to be negative about Vancouver. I've been to the Alps (in summer, and haven't skied) and I am pretty sure I would feel the same about the bigger mountains - pointlessly big for only one day on the slopes.

Defintely not shitty and like I said, Sutton is still my gold standard for glades, but if someone is a skier, all things equal (and they most likely never are) they would choice to live in Vancouver over Montreal just for the quality of skiing.

Have you skied Bruno?? There's a reason that they've focused on being a mountain for beginners to learn. A nice hill, but still a hill.

Yes, but the vast majority of the best skiers and snowboarders in the country were born in Quebec.

Definitely valid points and as I've only skied on Whistler about 6 times, I'm still learning it. I've likely skied over 50 times each at Louise and Sunshine in the past 10 years and know every tree and rock there and still prefer them over Whistler. That said I will admit that Whistler is still bigger (though not that much ;))

As for Jay, I've skied there about a dozen times albeit the last time over ten years ago. I've had good snow and bad ice there, but it always seem whenever I'm there it's so cold that I've affectionately named the gondola the "meat locker". :cheers:

FWIW, may fav "big" hill in the east is Smugglers ... but that's more likely because of who I was there with. ;)

Uhhhhh, this has been pretty civil until now. I won't respond to this other than to say that Quebec has produced many a great skier.

Also, many people consider Podborski as Canada's greatest (male) skier of all time ... and he learned to ski on a garbage dump in Toronto :)

This reminds me of the folks in toronto who think the best cottages are the ones made from the best building materials etc.

If your understanding of the thing is in technical terms it's likely not that good.

no, it just proves that you don't need to go far away to be successful. Our hills are not comparable to Whistler, but we can still produce world-class athletes. Whistler is very popular for tourists but is inaccessible for most people here, too far away. The majority of people here will ski in Quebec. they wont leave the province for the most part.

Really??? If you read my posts you will see I am very positive of the QC hills. That said, if everything was equal (and it never is) if one wants to live in a "big" city and you are a real ski hound (or perhaps a shred dog**), Vancouver (Whistler) and Calgary (Sunshine, Louise) would be better places to live than Montreal.

Anyway, I know in your eyes Mtrl (and QC) is "great" - which is awesome since that is where you live. :cheers:

** this shreddog is not in Vancouver cause of Whistler, but it's definitely nice benefit.