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