why do many use "vertical ft" to measure how much they've skied

[Goose]

I see it on other places and I see it here and I often wondered just when this came to be vs just telling of "ski days" one was able to get in for a given season or "how many runs" one was able to get in that day at the given resort.

Forgive me for possibly being ignorant to it. But....None of the terms truly indicates how much skiing was actually done. One can ski a 1500ft vertical and yet ski half or twice what the other did in that same drop. Very often (and i could be wrong) but it seems the term when used can often be done so from an ego driven mindset. I know we have apps and devices with software that can track our skiing. And some track distance traveled which is the only real closest measurement for determining how much skiing was completed. At least more so than vertical does.

We all like to sort of gloat for how many ski days we get in. Or bitch and moan how few...lol
We also (especially on crowded hills) like to know how many runs were able to get in that day. (or not)

And i can certainly see the curiosity for how much distance we skied. But why/where/how did "vertical ft" ever enter the equation? All it ever seemed to me is to be a large number that just sounds cool to state. Perhaps even sounds professional, but doesn't in this ignorant posters opinion really hold much value unless one can describe just how it does and correct me on that. Is it nothing more than a bragging term? Or does it hold some real value any more than 'ski days" or "runs" might? or the value of distance traveled?

Decades of skiing and i never used the term and Im not afraid (at risk of embarrassment) to admit that I dont understand just what its telling you other than how much you dropped. But what is that truly saying anyway?

 

[Green08]

None of the numbers are perfect. But I would argue Vertical is historically the best measure of the amount of skiing done.

Days do count how often you get on the hill. Value there for sure. But, is that just one run, Bell to bell, or night skiing? Those are all different. Days is probably the simplest to track and so the most common.

Runs is one step better than days. It is usually a measure of how many lift rides one took in the day. This is a great step to better understand how much you have skied. But, it gives equal value to a ride up say Molly Hogan and Pali at A-Basin. Both would be one run, but what is actually skied is very different.

Distance could be a step better than runs, but it has some major drawbacks. Historically, and even presently, it is the hardest to consistently track. Data for the length of every trail is not widely available. Really just since GPS options have become available is distance skied a possible thing for people to do. But, you still have to turn the darn thing on! Distance may also falsely advantage a lower level skier as a stat. Back to Pali at A-Basin: Grizzly Road to Wrangler is big distance covered on that one run, but is that a more accurate number of skiiing than the distance covered straight down the lift line? I don’t think the benefits of distance really overcomes that shortcoming.

Vertical is probably the best metric with a long track record. You can usually track your runs without an app or note taking during the day. Lift vertical tends to be info available to the public, frequently on a trail map. It is an easy stat to track that gives a better picture than just runs or days. It also gives equal weight to taking the easy road or hard route down a given lift or run. After all, we talk if skiing down a mountain not over a mountain as in distance.

Vertical is the best measure of skiing of the options. It is easily available to determine, and has some benefits to equate skiing across trails and resorts. It’s not perfect, but it is probably the best and most objective data point we have.

 

[Jersey Skier]

Yea. Just looked at my Skitracks app and you won't want to use vertical feet at Blue. I do many more miles of skiing at Blue to rack up an equivalent number of vertical feet than at steeper mountains like Plattekill.

 

[Philpug]

Ski days is the easiest..it is just one number to keep track of. If someone skis just Vail resorts, they will track your vert with thier EpicMix app. As Chevy Chase said in Caddyshack when asked "How do you measure yourself against other golfers?" He simply replied "By height".

 

[Johnny V.]

I count days, which to some seems obsessive. We have a guy at our home mountain who is number 2 or 3 in the world for vertical. He spends about 6-6 1/2 hours a day going up and down a 1200' hill doing the same turns.......................to each his own I guess.

 

[Goose]

None of the numbers are perfect. But I would argue Vertical is historically the best measure of the amount of skiing done.

Days do count how often you get on the hill. Value there for sure. But, is that just one run, Bell to bell, or night skiing? Those are all different. Days is probably the simplest to track and so the most common.

Runs is one step better than days. It is usually a measure of how many lift rides one took in the day. This is a great step to better understand how much you have skied. But, it gives equal value to a ride up say Molly Hogan and Pali at A-Basin. Both would be one run, but what is actually skied is very different.

Distance could be a step better than runs, but it has some major drawbacks. Historically, and even presently, it is the hardest to consistently track. Data for the length of every trail is not widely available. Really just since GPS options have become available is distance skied a possible thing for people to do. But, you still have to turn the darn thing on! Distance may also falsely advantage a lower level skier as a stat. Back to Pali at A-Basin: Grizzly Road to Wrangler is big distance covered on that one run, but is that a more accurate number of skiiing than the distance covered straight down the lift line? I don’t think the benefits of distance really overcomes that shortcoming.

Vertical is probably the best metric with a long track record. You can usually track your runs without an app or note taking during the day. Lift vertical tends to be info available to the public, frequently on a trail map. It is an easy stat to track that gives a better picture than just runs or days. It also gives equal weight to taking the easy road or hard route down a given lift or run. After all, we talk if skiing down a mountain not over a mountain as in distance.

Vertical is the best measure of skiing of the options. It is easily available to determine, and has some benefits to equate skiing across trails and resorts. It’s not perfect, but it is probably the best and most objective data point we have.

Hmmm...thanks for the post. Obviously "days" is the broadest term cause it can mean anything from very little to a whole lot. Though its does signify that they did get to enjoy the recreation 'x' amount of times at whatever the extent it may have been.
One can say they did 6 runs and another can say they did 9000 ft vertical. We still dont know which skier actually did more. It all depends on slope and layout of course. I do see where "vertical" can sometimes better clarify what "runs" meant while runs cant quite do the same for vertical. But by themselves they both still hold the same flaw. They both can abut equally mean a whole lot more or less skiing than they suggest imo.

Distance I understand even with GPS can be flawed too. I beleive it doesn't account for slope but only pt A to B.
So two cars driving from start line X to stop line Y . Car A travels from X to Y in a straight line but over a hill. Car B running parallel along side that hill but on flat road. Car A of course actually travels more since it had to go up and down while car B was flat the whole ride. I dont think GPS accounts for that. But scenario #2.....Car A drives across a circle for one mile while car B takes the circumference route to the same point and obviously car B drove much further than the mile but unlike the hill scenario this time it is account for via the GPS. So while we may not know the difference the exact distance coming down a ski hill because we have to minus the slope, we can know that run X was longer than run Y due to one being curved while the other straight. The GPS will account for that. So the distance is probably the best calculator for this purpose imo.

 

[RJS]

Vertical feels like a pretty good metric to track the amount that you ski, but it says nothing about the quality of the skiing. As I've adventured more and more onto ungroomed terrain starting last season, vertical has felt like an increasingly bad metric to capture how my ski days go. A good example of this was Jackson Hole six weeks ago, when one of my days consisted of just doing three laps on Casper Bowl, which requires a short like and then a long traverse (with some sidestepping) to access. Even though I hardly got any runs in, that was easily one of my most fun ski days ! The only metric that I track is the number of days where I ski at least one run.

 

[Goose]

Vertical feels like a pretty good metric to track the amount that you ski, but it says nothing about the quality of the skiing. As I've adventured more and more onto ungroomed terrain starting last season, vertical has felt like an increasingly bad metric to capture how my ski days go. A good example of this was Jackson Hole six weeks ago, when one of my days consisted of just doing three laps on Casper Bowl, which requires a short like and then a long traverse (with some sidestepping) to access. Even though I hardly got any runs in, that was easily one of my most fun ski days ! The only metric that I track is the number of days where I ski at least one run.

To be fair they can all be very lacking as for telling of the quality of skiing. Days, vertical, runs, distance, can be the same for two individuals yet with extremely different skiing thats been done.
And besides...... quality is nothing but subjective anyway. But except for distance (which can also be skewed some) all the others can be very far of in "amount" of skiing. And is sort of what the thread implies (or asks about).

 

[Jim McDonald]

i measure my skiing by fun.

 

[Started at 53]

I was tracking:
Days
Runs
Vertical
MPH
Miles skied


Now I just go skiing

 

[RJS]

To be fair they can all be very lacking as for telling of the quality of skiing. Days, vertical, runs, distance, can be the same for two individuals yet with extremely different skiing thats been done.
And besides...... quality is nothing but subjective anyway. But except for distance (which can also be skewed some) all the others can be very far of in "amount" of skiing. And is sort of what the thread implies (or asks about).

I totally agree. I find that a lot of people brag about how much vertical they skied, or what their max speed was, or even how many runs they did, when the only thing that matters is how much you enjoyed yourself .

 

[Seldomski]

Vertical feet is easiest to track and is really a measure of distance traveled by lift (at least for resort skiing). How many vertical feet are required to maximize happiness for a particular person at a particular resort is going to vary a lot. In back country, you can have a superb day with a fairly small number. At a resort, you may ski 20kft vertical, but the most enjoyable could be just 100 ft of untracked powder you found at 11am.

'Days of skiing' misses some details... like 1 hr vs. 6 hr. But is a better gauge of 'happy' factor. Doesn't really matter how many lifts you took if you suited up and got out there. Any 'day' on the slope is a good one IMO.

 

[crgildart]

I track mine by how many hours I drive per ski day to make a ski day happen. Usually that's between 6 and 8 hours driving per ski day. Can cut it in half if I stay overnight near the resort.

 

[Green08]

If you really care about apples to apples data you should just do NASTAR or EpicMix Racing--that is as close to "objective" as you might find. But, it is also the most artificial

 

[nunyabiz]

I measure my day in times crashed.

 

[Green08]

SkiTracks is popular, but it is one of the more limited apps out there. It's big oversight is that it does not remove lift travel from your track, and therefore limits the data it spits out.

Trace Snow uses an algorithm to only display downhill skiing data. One interesting data point this provides in their app is "Slope Time." In some sense that is what we are all after is time on the slopes, and it treats groomer zooming, and hiking/traversing to something like Casper Bowl about equally. How much time did you spend at the resort actually having fun with your skis on the snow?

Data can be helpful, but the diversity of experience while skiing makes comparing numbers only a part of a subjective personal approach to what constitutes a good time skiing. It's hard to quantify time spent on a sundeck in the Spring sipping a beer overlooking the hill. But, things like that are often what gives the skiing "experience" so much pleasure.

 

[bamaman]

It's like golf. We aren't competing against each other because we aren't "playing" each other. It really shouldn't bother anyone of how anybody else tracks their ski day (feet, runs, ski days, etc.). I never assume people are "bragging" when they give their results. To each their own and I say "good for them". Personally, I use to keep track of my vertical for my own personal use. But I don't even do that anymore because I really don't care. I'm not competing against myself either from one day to the next or one season to the next (like I do in golf to try to improve my score). I'm just out there having fun.

 

[SSSdave]

With a Vail pass, my days and vertical are now tracked however for reasons others have noted, I don't compare how much value I get each season from those numbers versus those of other skiers while instead using number of days from a personal perspective of skiing over decades. In other words, my 25 days in 2018 compares only to my numbers of days in previous seasons and not to other skiers. Numbers of skiing days has always been something many talk or brag about however is a yawn to this person. Most of those with lots of days are resort employees or nearby resort residents that ski just a run or 3 most days.

If I were going to brag this year, it would not be about days or vertical but rather it would be that I have had several days with over 10k vertical feet in just moguls, skiing long non-stop fall line verticals and some ridiculous fresh powder skiing days making long beautiful S tracks.

 

[ARL67]

My pal doesn’t turn much and likes higher speeds. I’d say per run that I make 3x as many turns of mixed shape as he does. Not sure vertical is a good metric , but you gotta have something as a “measure”. I like “ski days” instead.

 

[Pdub]

For me vertical makes sense. Many of my days are 4 or 5 runs at the kids' races. Non-race days I might get 10-15 runs. My buddy who skis fewer days but gets more vertical per day has in fact skied more than me. I've been at the mountain more, but he has skied more than me.