Member of the Month

hi_vis360
November, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Park building and jumps - backwards progession?

profile picture
albatross.
Posts: 4380 - Karma: 772
I was flipping through pictures of the parks at blackcomb and grouse (a local mountain in BC) from 3 years ago, and i notice that all the jumps were way bigger, and the rails were way smaller. Now the rails are obvious, people were worse at them, as they got better at rails demand for longer more technical rails became bigger and thier demands were met.

You cant blame snowfall for this because the jumps were smaller last year too and they had easily enough to make much bigger ones, but the hits in the blackcomb park and other ones in western canada are getting smaller - alot smaller. The biggest i saw hut jump all year other than wsi (when it was still small) was around 30 feet. The jumps were always poorly made with rolling knuckles and flat landings. Why are parks (around BC anyway) spending less time on making decent tables, and more time on rails? Sure kids love seeing rails in the park, but both skiing and snowboarding at its highest level is based mainly on jumping. what the fuck is going on!?

______________________________________


'i have like 2000 black enemies. theyre indestructible.' - Crystal-needs-a-park
Jun 5 2005 3:10AM
0 0
profile picture
Develop
Posts: 431 - Karma: 18
well it sounds as if you have caught on to the master plan. they start turning our attention away from jumps until we have completely forgotten about them and we all become rail masters. then some kid gets serious injuries on a rail, huge liability and court proceedings ensue. now there are no more rails and no jumps and everyone is happy. complete backwards progression, you hit the nail on the head. skinny skis here we come.



I hope that some day we will be able to put away our fears and prejudices and just laugh at people
Jun 5 2005 3:21AM
0 0
profile picture
albatross.
Posts: 4380 - Karma: 772
haha i just realised i said backwards progression. Its late and i was just at work for 8 hours - the proper word is regression.

______________________________________


'i have like 2000 black enemies. theyre indestructible.' - Crystal-needs-a-park
Jun 5 2005 3:30AM
0 0
profile picture
Tross
Posts: 951 - Karma: 117
Not really man. Things are headed to the BC anyhow. No matter how many great things happen in the parks, there's nothing like the adrenaline rush of dropping a natural feature. It's so unpredictable. No resort can replicate that in a park. maybe they're just sticking w/ tech rails because they can control the feature. It's late, I've been drinking and I might be talking out of my ass too.

Jun 5 2005 3:41AM
0 0
profile picture
whashisface
Posts: 298 - Karma: 10
Jumps take a lot more effort to maintain to a high standard than rails. Therefore it's cheaper and safer for them but not so good for people who like jumps.

Jun 5 2005 4:40AM
0 0
profile picture
guddgulf17
Posts: 3037 - Karma: 10
bc requires much more skill than park. you have to land correctly, otherwise you eat a large taco

Offical NS Pastor, Rabbi, Ayatolla, and Revelator
Jun 5 2005 11:12AM
0 0
profile picture
kinosoo
Posts: 925 - Karma: 10
bc is so much better then the park i love it.

________________________________________

Skiing is like sex except Im getting some

Join the broken ski brake cult!!
https://www.newschoolers.com/PHP/Cults/Cu

lts.php4?action=view_cult&cult_id=1797
Jun 5 2005 11:54AM
0 0
profile picture
HSFCpro
Posts: 412 - Karma: 10
I have noticed jumps getting smaller every year too. In snowmass they used to build 70-75 foot tables and leave them all season now our biggest table this year was like 40 maybe 50 feet. until the last three days when they built the 85 foot gap jump but they only let a few of us hit it. Are park crew are slackers we have so many rails that they could have set up but only like half of them ever made it out of the warehouse and then only like half of those made it on the slope.

www.highsocietyfreeride.com
your a good friend...to throw rocks at. TL.
AWwwh you picked her up, I was gonna mount her. stu
Jun 5 2005 12:08PM
0 0
profile picture
Nine_Milla_Killa
Posts: 6783 - Karma: 23
In Alberta, shit is getting better every year. And there is a point where the size of jumps won't increase. Only so many people can hit a 65-70 foot jump. In a regular park, thats probably as big as they will get except for special events.
What I have noticed is better contruction of the jumps, especially landings, and better flow and types of hits.

Jun 5 2005 1:48PM
0 0
profile picture
Freestyla_01
Posts: 8586 - Karma: 34
Well Mammoth and June are still keeping it real with 90 foot decks and a few 70 foot booters in a line.
But yeah, whistler's jump area is getting pretty crappy. They really really need to step it back up for next year. When I was last riding the highest level I was really wondering what the hell I spent that $15 on. It sure wasn't for an "epic park". If I wanted a park of that calibre or I could have gone to any other random mountain.

--- It's the batontwirlertwistshakebakecakeholehumperdinkkink rail.
Jun 5 2005 1:54PM
0 0
profile picture
chillonhill
Posts: 1314 - Karma: 125
yeah probebly for safety and cost/maintenance issues. not a whole lot of people goin off 50ft+





Stress will get you nowhere,
Jun 5 2005 2:49PM
0 0
profile picture
trevorwoulddoit
Posts: 6153 - Karma: 199
Tom, it's not just you.



Hunter S Thompson RIP 1939-2005

My heroes don't appear on no stamps.

Our greatest glory consists not in never falling. But in rising every time we fall.

Jun 6 2005 12:57AM
0 0
profile picture
jsg
Posts: 7701 - Karma: 535
well now the jumps put u higher in the air so u get more hight


Thats why i bought a saturn.

------Julian
I guess u can call me Julian
Jun 6 2005 1:03AM
0 0
profile picture
ifsa_alum
Posts: 355 - Karma: 10
You forgot to mention that rails ruin more skis than jumps do; And with the kick-backs mountains are getting from the ski companies, it's in their best interest...

He he.

Jun 6 2005 11:14AM
0 0
profile picture
DANETRON
Posts: 6671 - Karma: 137
u see less and less money going to park and more and more money going to racing(not trying to start any arguement even though i dont really care if one happens or not). Its obvious where the money for the parks is going

_______________________________________

Fuck off signature

Representin the 518



LINE KICKS ASS
Jun 6 2005 12:07PM
0 0
profile picture
hemlockjibber8
Posts: 5983 - Karma: 3,603
ive noticed too. whistler is the only mountain in BC other than sunpeaks that focusses on jumps. and whistlers werent evry big this year. i think its cause that stupid butt fucking dipshit who snuck into the park on a school trip and broke his back. he deserved it anyways. and then he goes and sues whistler and his school. now everyone is shit scared about insurance. also because rails are gaining in popularity mountains are getting lazy and cheap and focussing on rails. they know a 4 kink will attract kids easily and its way cheaper than a 70 ft table. that is more true to seymour and grouse and shit. whistler is about the insurance, they dont even do shit with rails

-------------------------------------
The re's business Schmuck
and there's rockstar Schmuck'
'the graphics should be completely flat black on his pro model... that would be intense.' -Jc_Dunn
LORD OF THE PARK 2006.....
Jun 6 2005 12:31PM
0 0
profile picture
Nine_Milla_Killa
Posts: 6783 - Karma: 23
Their jumps were alot bigger at the end of the year.

Jun 6 2005 2:42PM
0 0
profile picture
bigkicker
Posts: 1270 - Karma: 87
yeah i was dissapointed with whistler. On the other hand park city this year only had a few rails in kings crown, leaving room for 5 decent sized jumps in a row.




http://www.freesledding.homestead.com
Jun 6 2005 4:03PM
0 0
profile picture
Freestyla_01
Posts: 8586 - Karma: 34
If you think no money is going into park building, you are dead fucking wrong.
Almost every mountain that knows anything about the state of skiing and snowboarding in the world right now has upgraded their parks by a loooooot.

--- It's the batontwirlertwistshakebakecakeholehumperdinkkink rail.
Jun 7 2005 12:58AM
0 0
profile picture
coordy12
Posts: 1285 - Karma: 10
the recent trend in parks across the country is to build intermediate parks. lots of big resorts will have two or three or even four parks. one will be a beginner and one will be an intermediate/expert park with bigger stuff. what resorts and park crews are doing are catering to the learner and up-and-coming generations.

these intermediate parks are what everyone can hone their skills on and practice. these smaller jumps allow more people to enjoy the park instead of little kids hitting the flats on the big jumps and fuckin up their knees.

while i agree that the big parks still should be a focus of the crews, the intermediate parks are also making the future freeskiier more comfortable for the bigger shit

but i know what youre saying for sure

______________________________________

" ya brah, ill see you in the a-5-1. its gonna be epic in the nar nar pow pow.... brah"
Jun 7 2005 1:21AM
0 0
profile picture
trevorwoulddoit
Posts: 6153 - Karma: 199
^The unspoken thing that you missed was that a lot of what he said was in reference to the Highest Level park on Blackcomb.



Hunter S Thompson RIP 1939-2005

My heroes don't appear on no stamps.

Our greatest glory consists not in never falling. But in rising every time we fall.

Jun 7 2005 1:36AM
0 0
profile picture
albatross.
Posts: 4380 - Karma: 772
"u see less and less money going to park and more and more money going to racing(not trying to start any arguement even though i dont really care if one happens or not). Its obvious where the money for the parks is going"

Im not ragging on you here, but i find its completley the other way around. Racing had its heyday before park even existed, park is the one constantly taking resort money from racing now and its pissing them off.

______________________________________


'i have like 2000 black enemies. theyre indestructible.' - Crystal-needs-a-park
Jun 7 2005 2:29AM
0 0
profile picture
fr33rid3r
Posts: 1775 - Karma: 18
if jumps are kept huge in parks randoms hit them and get hurt, then sue. rails, on the other hand, you cant hit at all unless you have some degree of skill. i disagree anyway, last yr mammoth had a 90 footer in the park, and their money booter at the bottom is big, and really kicky.

'this is just like sex, only im having it!'
Jun 7 2005 3:05AM
0 0
profile picture
cab_D
Posts: 1602 - Karma: 51
It's a liability thing. Ski resorts have to have a huge insuranse policy to cover terrain parks. So i guess that the reason, or one of them

Jun 7 2005 3:54AM
0 0
profile picture
parkbuilder
Posts: 494 - Karma: 36
I dont know about BC, however the jumps in Alberta were pretty dope this year, the park at Nakiska, and at Lake Louise were pretty sick.....Nakiska has F all for rails, but the Lake expanded their park this season and has invested in more rails/boxes, and having 3 lines, (pro, interm,beginner) the Pro line was still dope.
i have no complaints....anyone ride Big White's park? I heard they dumped a bunch of cash in to it, and got Telus to sponsor it.
peace.

Jun 7 2005 9:11AM
0 0
profile picture
nothanks
Posts: 13551 - Karma: 31
Totally wrong, money spent on racing isn't a huge deal. To maintain an icy steeper slope dosen't coast alot of money. Money for racing is centered toward the 6 and 6 figure contracts top-of-their-game racers sign.

So much money is poured into building and maintaing a stellar park. I'm not totally sure on the quote here, but in an issue of FREEZE two years ago, their mountain guide, they said Mammoth spent around 10 million a year(I could be wrong) to build and maintain parks, and even spent I believe $8,000 on their rollercoaster-S box. So many mountains see where park and pipe is really heading, and are capatilizing on the younger generation of kids coming up, looking for a sick park to ski, and ultimatley, the place spend their money.

Also, in an article in SKIING, yes SKIING, they were talking about how many "mom and pop" local hills with minimal vert and acerage, are spending money for their parks to attract the local crowd on a tuesday night. They're seeing where park and pipes can take their mountain.

Take Mountain Creek, NJ. When Intrawest bought them, everyone thought they were crazy for spending money on East Coast skiing...In New Jersey. And look at what they turned out. A mountain almost toally devoted to the younger crowd of park and pipe rippers, and continue to mark more money than anyone ever imagined you could make off good park skiing in New Jersey.

And the jump bit, that isn't true, certain mountains don't have the ablilty or skill with their cats to push up 80+ footers. It also depends on the mountain. Its very easy for a park-less east coast mountain to start making a strong park, while its much harder for a place like Mammoth or Whistler, with already such a high reputation for park(and little snowfall this year for Whistler) to keep their name on top of the list.

I think I just covered everything. Damn.



Stay Classy Newschoolers
Jun 7 2005 10:04AM
0 0
profile picture
nothanks
Posts: 13551 - Karma: 31
Oh, and I ment 6 and 7 figure contracts, not 6 and 6....



Stay Classy Newschoolers
Jun 7 2005 10:06AM
0 0
profile picture
DANETRON
Posts: 6671 - Karma: 137
ya but they are always maintaining the race course but not the park when the race course gets all fucked up they fix it when the park is rutted and falling apartthey ignore it. You cant go anywhere near the racing if ur not a racer and any silly mother fucker can just wander into the park, which is why passes arew a good idea.

_______________________________________

Fuck off signature

Representin the 518



LINE KICKS ASS
Jun 7 2005 10:51AM
0 0
profile picture
girl_jibBer
Posts: 761 - Karma: 14
Having worked in the whistler park (grooming) I have had this conversation with Stu and the guys who make the decisons regarding this subject.
When terrain parks first started everything was a trial. Over the years jumps have been built to the max, but many park designers and resorts have come to realize they need to cater to the majority of park riders. Jumps exceding 60 feet are too big for the average rider. Insurance companies also have an input in this decision....bigger jumps mean bigger injuries (not necessarily more injuries, but larger scale injuries)
On top of that, bigger features are not always the easiest to maintain. If, for example, the park bully breaks down (Blackcomb has 4 or 5, Whistler has 1), a normal snowcat has to be used...that means things like hips, quarterpipes, and spines, as well as large take-offs cannot be properly maintained. On top of that bigger jumps need more of an inrun. In order for a park, like Blackcomb, to be able to get all their features in they need to plan the space out accordingly. Why have 2-70/80 footers when you can have 4-55-60 footers???
Anyway, 55-70/80 foot jumps are usually only hit by 'experts'. Sure there is the odd yeti that will straight air and overshoot... but in reality those size jumps are used in comps, photo shoots and video shoots. Many of the 'huge' jumps that are shown in ski vids are built specially for certain riders and are not open to the public.
The issue of park jumps getting smaller in size really is only a problem for the skiers who want to compete at big name events. Those skiers don't ever get to practise on a comp-sized jumps (but you are in the same boat as most pros...they just have more experience competing)...I guess that's what the practice day is for.


The troll stole my Santa!
Jun 7 2005 3:31PM
0 0
profile picture
ineedarealname
Posts: 2658 - Karma: 20
really the funny thing about the liability thing is that at big white and probably other resorts too, there have been WAY more injuries in the beginner park. on the 1 foot wide 3 feet long boxes and 10 foot tables, theres always people getting hurt way more then in the big park so i don't think liability shit should be an issue.

-TacO
Jun 7 2005 3:39PM
0 0
profile picture
SNAL
Posts: 102 - Karma: 36
ya my park only has like 5 ft jumps

Jun 7 2005 3:44PM
0 0
profile picture
Tasche
Posts: 5422 - Karma: 99
the jumps at breck this year were bigger than anything they have ever had open to the public.

Jun 7 2005 3:51PM
0 0
profile picture
E-ZRider
Posts: 1791 - Karma: 13
Five foot jumps i would like that my hill doesn't have a terrain park so i get my pass pulled lik 6 times a year for doing inverts and building jumps and once for kickin my brother with my ski boot on he had 2 go to first aid lol



I Love Head


Momentum Session 4

Jun 12 2005 2:08AM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)