Big Sky parks

Hey man Bridger has a park, thats plenty to be stoked about.

Skiing 110 days a year of parks at Big Sky and Bridger seems to ignore, well, I don't know, the obvious fact that both those hills have way way way way more to offer than park skiing?

LiteratureSkiing 110 days a year of parks at Big Sky and Bridger seems to ignore, well, I don't know, the obvious fact that both those hills have way way way way more to offer than park skiing?

this is also very true. when i ski bridger and big sky these days, I take maybe one lap through the park at the end of the day after shredding the mountain all day.

I understand you live there, both mountains have plenty of "below average" snow days after like 4 days without a storm, so yeah sure you wanna shred the park those days, but 110 days of park seems excessive, but what I'm assuming you mean its that within a 3 day period of a storm, you wanna ski a sick park. the answer is they don't care but im sure you get that.

LiteratureSkiing 110 days a year of parks at Big Sky and Bridger seems to ignore, well, I don't know, the obvious fact that both those hills have way way way way more to offer than park skiing?

This gets said all the time here and while understandable, it still doesn't really work as an excuse for not having a good park.

Having a bunch of sick terrain is great, but doesn't mean you shouldn't have a decent park. Obviously some mountains have different priorities than others. You wouldn't expect the mountains that are more well known for backcountry riding to invest as much in the park as some of the park powerhouses, but if you're going to build it why not make it decent?

You can do quite a lot with even a small budget, real estate, crew, rail fleet etc.

IMO just about every mid range and up mountain can afford to have a good park. Not something that would be out places like keystone but a solid well built park that's fun for all ability levels.

With even 20 rails and some well built jumps you can make a pretty sick park. It just really comes down to hiring the right people, and making sure they have enough resources to get things done well.

Some pretty sick parks have been built by few people, with tiny budgets, limited features, limited staff, etc.

Idk, I just want to see more places build the best park they could. Something sick that reflects their potential. Not every place needs a sick park, but if you're going to build one, why not make it at least decent?

There are too many clueless people in the industry staying in jobs because the mountains are comfortable with them or simply ignorant about parks etc. I wish there was a way to educate more hills on what a park should look like etc. There are things like cutters camp, but even though I think it's well worth the price, it's not that cheap, and generally comprised of people from resorts that already take an interest in the parks.

With that you also have places with no idea, building straight up sketchy parks. If too many people get hurt, the whole industry will get more rules to standardize things, and that will kill any fun of building a park, and possibly curb the creative features.



/rant

Not really about big sky or anywhere. I just wish hills would put more effort into building a park that's good.It doesn't really take a lot of money. A couple of good jumps and a well thought out rail line can be fun as hell. I'd rather have 5 rails and a jump all well built than a massive park where everythings a bit sketch.

Things have improved massively over the last decade, but some places are still so far behind. Idk, it just bums me out the lack of care I see going into the parks a lot of places. Mountains that will put a sign out to warn of a wet floor in the lodge, but build a park that's absurdly dangerous and give 0 fucks.

Mountains need to care about parks the same way they do about the lifts, lodge, etc. I'm not sure why it's so difficult, but it really doesn't seem to happen enough.

#fucksketchyparks

#rantsaboutnothing

#hashtagsbecausefuckyou

LiteratureSkiing 110 days a year of parks at Big Sky and Bridger seems to ignore, well, I don't know, the obvious fact that both those hills have way way way way more to offer than park skiing?

I never really understood this argument. It's like saying "hey, there's this whole ocean to sail on, and you only spend time in the waves breaking on the beach, it's silly"

Different people find pleasure in different things.

Don't worry I take advantage of big sky's and Bridger's rad terrain too.

theabortionatorThis gets said all the time here and while understandable, it still doesn't really work as an excuse for not having a good park.

Having a bunch of sick terrain is great, but doesn't mean you shouldn't have a decent park. Obviously some mountains have different priorities than others. You wouldn't expect the mountains that are more well known for backcountry riding to invest as much in the park as some of the park powerhouses, but if you're going to build it why not make it decent?

I've never skied Big Sky or Bridger as a season pass holder. However, when I visited both last year in February, the park at Bridger was fun for the size of the hill, and decently maintained. Big Sky had a very quality park setup in Swifty; I'm fairly certain that there are other park options we never went to check out.

From my experience working park crew for two years at Stevens Pass, parks come down to three major factors: motivation in your park crew and in the operations staff to build a good park, available snow, and available dollars. With more dollars, you can sometimes blow more snow, you can better maintain features with more cat time, you can doze to make excellent things, you can fix cats when they break. A good work ethic on park crew makes all that easier; it can also help to fix the detriments off less snow or less dollars for cat time if they're creative with what they do. However, if there's lacking motivation combined with scant dollars or low snow, that's when most sub-par parks come forth.

JibberinoI never really understood this argument. It's like saying "hey, there's this whole ocean to sail on, and you only spend time in the waves breaking on the beach, it's silly"

Different people find pleasure in different things.

I'll admit that there's a reflexive tendency for some skiers, myself included, to wonder why people get all fired up about park skiing when their home mountain(s) has/have both decent/good park skiing and incredible natural terrain.

What skiers find pleasure is totally up to them. But taking issue with the quality of the parks at Big Sky or Bridger is akin to shopping in only two aisles of the grocery store and wondering why your food tastes off sometimes--you're not wrong, but you're willingly missing a whole pile of other options for your palette.

Some hills are small enough that their parks are the most entertaining feature for a younger skier. Sometimes parks are all that they have going on. But being just a park skier at Big Sky or Bridger ignores the potential to charge bumps, slay chalk or pow, hit steep, technical airs or find natural terrain features across literally 7000+ acres between the two ski hills. Fortunately, that's not an issue here as OP indicated.

CadenmcculloughWatching old tsp movies and seeing them shredding big jumps and crazy rail setups at moonlight make me wonder why they stopped progressing their parks? Back then I wasn't that big of a park skier but now I ski 110 days of park a season at big sky and bridger and dream to have those parks back.

Have they really changed that much on the inbounds, publicly available options? Seems to me that the Swifty jumps they put up with the dirt work are bigger than the jumps I remember there before.

Some of the features you might be referencing may have been from custom park shoots, and if so, it's not quite fair to compare them to everyday offerings because they intentionally do them differently.

LiteratureI'll admit that there's a reflexive tendency for some skiers, myself included, to wonder why people get all fired up about park skiing when their home mountain(s) has/have both decent/good park skiing and incredible natural terrain.

What skiers find pleasure is totally up to them. But taking issue with the quality of the parks at Big Sky or Bridger is akin to shopping in only two aisles of the grocery store and wondering why your food tastes off sometimes--you're not wrong, but you're willingly missing a whole pile of other options for your palette.

Some hills are small enough that their parks are the most entertaining feature for a younger skier. Sometimes parks are all that they have going on. But being just a park skier at Big Sky or Bridger ignores the potential to charge bumps, slay chalk or pow, hit steep, technical airs or find natural terrain features across literally 7000+ acres between the two ski hills. Fortunately, that's not an issue here as OP indicated.

I personally agree with you, and I'm not trying to be a dick, but I have to point out that this is still a completely subjective opinion. It's how you and I see things, others might not agree, and some probably don't.

Point is, I agree with the abortionator, you gotta size up your customer base, your location, the demand and then build the best park possible based on that. That may only be 15 jibs and 4 jumps, but make sure those 15 jibs and 4 jumps are clean, fun and safe! If nothing else, spring will always bring more people into the park as the snow everywhere else starts to disappear/go to shit.

LiteratureI've never skied Big Sky or Bridger as a season pass holder. However, when I visited both last year in February, the park at Bridger was fun for the size of the hill, and decently maintained. Big Sky had a very quality park setup in Swifty; I'm fairly certain that there are other park options we never went to check out.

From my experience working park crew for two years at Stevens Pass, parks come down to three major factors: motivation in your park crew and in the operations staff to build a good park, available snow, and available dollars. With more dollars, you can sometimes blow more snow, you can better maintain features with more cat time, you can doze to make excellent things, you can fix cats when they break. A good work ethic on park crew makes all that easier; it can also help to fix the detriments off less snow or less dollars for cat time if they're creative with what they do. However, if there's lacking motivation combined with scant dollars or low snow, that's when most sub-par parks come forth.

Yeah like I said it wasn't really directed at them, just more the idea that it's ok to have shitty parks. I've never ridden either. I've also seen some pretty cool setups at Big Sky over the years. The chamberlin rail jam and other things.

I feel like all those things have a massive impact on building parks, but it still shouldn't be an excuse.

With 10 features, and almost no cat time or money, and one person that knows what they're doing you can build a fun park. Jumps take snow, and cat time. They really need to be maintained well also. So some places with only 1 cat, or a shitty cat, no time, no money, I can see things being tough on the jumps. I just can't stand seeing ridiculous rail setups when even without any pads being built, you could still build a pretty sick rail park just using the natural features of the hill to places them.

I'm just tired of seeing sketchy parks.

I'll drop it though as it doesn't really fit the thread. Sorry for the tangent.

JibberinoI personally agree with you, and I'm not trying to be a dick, but I have to point out that this is still a completely subjective opinion. It's how you and I see things, others might not agree, and some probably don't.

Point is, I agree with the abortionator, you gotta size up your customer base, your location, the demand and then build the best park possible based on that. That may only be 15 jibs and 4 jumps, but make sure those 15 jibs and 4 jumps are clean, fun and safe! If nothing else, spring will always bring more people into the park as the snow everywhere else starts to disappear/go to shit.

It is an opinion, agreed. I think the "there's plenty of fun to be had outside the park" mentality has certainly appealed to me more as I've gotten older; maybe it's a question of growing into into that stage of a skier's life if you ski in a place with terrain that supports that kind of growth.

LiteratureIt is an opinion, agreed. I think the "there's plenty of fun to be had outside the park" mentality has certainly appealed to me more as I've gotten older; maybe it's a question of growing into into that stage of a skier's life if you ski in a place with terrain that supports that kind of growth.

I love to ride out of the park. I've always considered myself more of a freerider. That said unless it's an epic pow day and we keep finding new zones of fresh lines I'll at least go into the park once in a while. Even at jackson hole I took some runs through the parks. I didn't go there for the park, I didn't care that much how the quality was, but I still took some runs through.

Their parks actually surprised me with how good they were other than the pipe and maybe the beginner park.

I don't see it as a "You have to choose this or that". Sometimes I'll shred powder in the morning, then hit the park for the later part of the day. Maybe go back and forth. I don't think I'll ever ride a place with a park and stay out of it. I'm not going to ditch a good pow day to ride the park all day, especially when things haven't been maintained, but a quick run here and there is always fun.

There was a hill in NY I went to. The place gets amazing snowfall and that's what it's known for. It isn't much vert but it's wide enough and steep enough that there are some very fun sections of trees and cliffs to be had. They had a park which I guess is cool considering that isn't what they're known for, and most people wouldn't care if they didn't. That said some of the boxes were pretty much sideways, the jump was pretty sketch etc. I understand there isn't a huge draw for the park for them. There isn't a reason to put a bunch of money in. But why not set your stuff up straight and maintain it?

Same with places that just let the features rust out. Take a wire brush too them in the off season, add some paint, fix some skirting. It doesn't cost that much money, it makes the place look better, the park actually has a chance to bring people in, and it's just better all around.

You wouldn't put the sign for your ski area in crooked or keep it with really shitty paint that's flaking off. Places will fix stuff like that, repaint their lift terminals, vehicles, the lodge, the rental shop etc. But then leave the park looking like it was pieced together from a refugee camp.

Even if most of your clients aren't hitting the park, it's still an eyesore. At mountains with a really clean looking park you'll hear a lot of chatter about it from people who haven't and probably never will ski into it just because it looks nice.

Idk. I'm just over places having shitty parks and making excuses for them. Just sort of in a build it right or gtfo mindset about the whole thing.

I see the potential in places and it bums me out when places don't come close or even try at all. Those mountains have kids that are riding those parks, that's the only place they ride. It's not like they're taking a ski trip there just to ride park. "Oh well the mountain has this and that and some other stuff!" If that's your home mountain and the park blows, that's all you have to work with.

A lot of the hills could be doing so much better with a minimal investment in the park. Even just getting the right people involved. I guess I might be naive but it doesn't make any sense to me.

2 things:
1st: The big shit that you saw in all of the TSP Movies were not Big Sky, that was all moonlight and moonlight had way bigger of a budget to put into their parks so they could make the Zero Gravity terrain park. They stopped making the park after too many people got hurt in it and Big Sky bought out moonlight so the ended it.

2nd: Big Sky is progressing their park, they built that long line on the moonlight side. They may not be making big ass features anymore, but they have lately been getting really creative with their set ups and dumping money into digging out good hills for their parks, and building new rail features. 2 years ago they just had swifty and swifty 2.0

LiteratureIt is an opinion, agreed. I think the "there's plenty of fun to be had outside the park" mentality has certainly appealed to me more as I've gotten older; maybe it's a question of growing into into that stage of a skier's life if you ski in a place with terrain that supports that kind of growth.

I mostly reacted the way I did because Bridger didnt have a park until after i moved away from montana, like 2009 or 2010, we had 3 shitty rails at the grizzly ridge we'd hike for hours after hitting tiny jumps in the trees learning 360s and backflips.

Big skys park was always lackluster comparatively, even though it was 2004-2008, park city's park still absolutely blew away anything big sky could even muster.

Their park got better but it was never top notch, moonlight got close, then they got bought.

As I said before, they don't care so the park is always gonna be 'meh'.

While you guys complain about a mountain with nice terrain and a decent park, I complain about a hill with only a park thats horrid. I feel like I should receive compensation of some sort

Swandog7While you guys complain about a mountain with nice terrain and a decent park, I complain about a hill with only a park thats horrid. I feel like I should receive compensation of some sort

Well with a small amount of money you can make a shitty park a pretty solid park. They can't magically make the mountain bigger or more interesting.

Mountain to spend under $10k adding 2,000 vertical feet, 11 new trails, more chutes and cliff drops, as well as more.

The lack of effort is what people complain about for the most part. It's not as cool to ride a 250' vert mountain as something like jackson hole, whistler, etc, but there's really nothing the mountain can do about that.

theabortionatorWell with a small amount of money you can make a shitty park a pretty solid park. They can't magically make the mountain bigger or more interesting.

Mountain to spend under $10k adding 2,000 vertical feet, 11 new trails, more chutes and cliff drops, as well as more.

The lack of effort is what people complain about for the most part. It's not as cool to ride a 250' vert mountain as something like jackson hole, whistler, etc, but there's really nothing the mountain can do about that.

Well your first statement is my point. A small amount of money they can make a decent park. Thats the problem, they put in $0 to the park, even though thats really the only thing they make money off of. Its a damn shame. Its the same way Newschoolers gets not a lot of money put back into it even though it makes some dough