A Big Round of Applause
Like most of the nation, we at SAM sat glued to our TVs every night from February 8 to 24, cheering the American pursuit of gold (our apologies to our Canadian and overseas readers). And, it was made even more special for our industry to see the U.S. Ski and Snowboard Team nail its goal of 10 medals. While the team’s efforts didn’t have the drama of judge fixing, Americans were treated to one of the most exciting downhill runs ever by our Bode Miller. Miller went on to win a silver in the combined and a silver in GS, the first American to medal in either of those events. The three halfpipe riders, Ross Powers, Danny Kass and J.P. Powers became the second set of Americans to sweep the medals in a winter event, the first happened in 1956 in men’s figure skating. And, on the women’s side, Kelly Clark took home the halfpipe gold. Aspen’s Chris Klug became that ski town’s first Olympic medalist, the irony being that Klug won a bronze in snowboarding slalom—a sport only allowed as of last year at Aspen Mountain.
Joe Pack, a local boy from Park City, thrilled Utahns with his silver in the aerials event. And, Shannon Bahrke and Travis Mayer medaled in the men’s and women’s mogul events.
For all Americans, the 2002 winter Olympics was a homerun in every way. Our hats off to Utah for staging them so successfully and our hats off to the U.S. Ski and Snowboard team for contributing to the most medals ever won by Americans in the Winter Games.
NSAA at Forty
A SAM editorial
It was 40 years ago—on Sunday, May 27, to be exact—that representatives of 22 ski areas across the country met at the Broadmoor in Colorado and launched National Ski Areas Association. This is a milestone that should be a source of genuine pride for everyone, from Chairman Brian Fairbank and the directors, to President Michael Berry and the NSAA staff and also to all of us, run-of-the-mill members and associate members. It is our association and we have every reason to be proud.
It is well to remember that ours is a participatory organization—or should be. The vast majority of our members are very small to medium-size ski areas; ditto the suppliers. The vote and input of a small operation with under 100,000 skier visits is every bit as vital as that of a glamourous resort logging over a million. This was the underlying strength of NSAA when it began; it still is its underlying strength.
As we set sail for our 50th, let us make the decade ahead the most meaningful and purposeful for our treasured NSAA.
Racing Doesn’t Benefit Most Cross Country Areas
By Jonathan Wiesel, Nordic Group International
If you’re a businessman running a cross-country area, you try to maximize profit centers (trails, rental, retail, ski school, beds, food and beverage). And you probably run “fun events” like the Subaru Ski Fest, but shy away from hosting elite races.
Twenty years ago, operators competed for national caliber competitions and almost every area held local races. Today, a lot of managers won’t touch major events, even with substantial sponsorship dollars, because they can’t show a profit, they don’t want to immobilize trails on weekends at the expense of bread-and-butter customers and they don’t want to scare off recreational skiers. Only a tiny fraction of the skiing population ever competes (3 percent is probably too high), and participant numbers haven’t grown since the 1970s.
Check the real costs of putting on the NCAAs or National Championships, including planning, staff time and promotion. Then consider that you may never recover indirect costs, including having your area stereotyped as a racer haven, populated by discourteous and intimidating masochists. (Think that’s an overstatement? It’s not.)
Who benefits from racing? Suppliers and shops can, since it’s a high-end market with a pretty good margin. The industry as a whole certainly profits from racing-driven technological innovations. But a lot of the money invested in competition would be better spent building our recreational skier base. For example, more than half of all cross-country skiers are women, though we’ve done very little to draw them to the sport. What if we spent more on women’s programs and instructors and less on racing at commercial cross-country areas?
Where do major races have a place besides Olympic venues? I’d say at sites with large trail systems, huge community support, and lots of experience, like New Hampshire’s Jackson Ski Touring Foundation, Anchorage, Alaska and Minnesota’s Twin Cities. There are also events that bring in outsider dollars, like the National Masters, which are staged with real flair and attract affluent skiers, or the Junior Olympics, which bring in coaches and families. Try to create an entertaining aspect, so your area doesn’t get a reputation for hardcore skaters. And work with junior programs at the club and school levels, getting youngsters (and their parents) committed long-term.
The U.S. isn’t Scandinavia, where racing is part of the culture. For survival’s sake, commercial cross-country operations need to nurture skiers, not scare them off.
Bad Words
By Jules Older, Editor-in-Chief, Ski Press Magazine
Early last winter, Ski Press magazine asked its writers to report on their least favorite words in ski magazines.
It turns out there are a fair number of words and phrases frequently used in these magazines that writers can’t stand seeing in print.
Here is the Ski Press Least Favorite Word List, with short explanations for the few non-skier readers of what a few of the more arcane actually mean:
Huck, rip, extreme, adventure skier [to huck is to throw yourself off a high place, e.g. cliff.] —Kate Carter
Extreme in any of its many guises but especially when used to refer to anything worn, used or performed on skis or boards by out-of-shape, middle-aged guys. Sick when referring to riding a line that is merely amazing as opposed to one that’s incredibly stupid and probably death-defying. And huck when referring to anyone who’s last name isn’t Finn.
Words not used nearly enough in ski mags include: inexpensive, over-priced, modest and middle-aged. —G.D. Maxwell
Legendary. There should be a minimum time requirement attached to this word.
How can every new school event and every new school skier or boarder under the age of 25 be “legendary?” [New school is the movement of young sliders in and out of the halfpipe who do impossible things, most of them high above the snow.] —Bob Barnett
Probably the word awesome because it’s become a cliché unto itself. —Jean Arthur
Anything quoted by skiers that is California slang, like dude, rad, sick. Get original for sheep’s sake.
Overused words like fluffy, suffocating, hard-packed.
Titles for articles that include words like supercharge, next level, breakthrough. —Kristen Ulmer
Rocks. As in Taos rocks, Jay rocks, Aspen rocks—they all rock. I hate that word. —Effin Older
Pow. —Lori Knowles
That would have to be “pow” for powder. It’s just too dumb, no flow, no substance and it feels so insider and clubby. —Steven Kottler
My pet peeve is the improper use of over and under, as in, “Breckenridge has over 2000 acres of skiable terrain” and “Lift lines are under ten minutes,” instead of “more than” and “less than.” An editor once brought this to my attention, and I see it “over” and “over” again in articles and press releases. —Claudia Carbone
I especially hate any story that begins with a phone call: “Ring, ring, it was my friend Blaze, the sickest shredder in Canada, he said we were going to Mars this season.”
Any title as trite as “Paradise Found” and any story that tells me how to go to some super swanky place on the cheap—I would rather go to the cheap place and live like a king than go swanky and be the peasant. —Pete Kray
Shred [a snowboard term for a fast and wild descent, already fading into obsolescence] —Gord Vincent
Technical. Whenever I read about how incredibly technical some simple parka is, I figure either I’m extremely dumb or, as Inigo Montoya said so eloquently in The Princess Bride, “I don’t think that word means what you think it means.” —Jules Older
So there it is, our least favorite winter words. Do we ban them for ever and ever, amen?
No. Instead, we remember that if they annoy us, they’ll probably annoy our readers, and I implore you to use them carefully, if at all.
Don’t Drive Parents Away With Pricing
By Jonathan Gourlay
I have two boys, ages four and almost two. I hope that some day they experience the same thrills I still get sliding down hills on a pair of skis. If they choose a snowboard, fine, as long as we can do it together.
I started thinking this as soon as Ethan was born. Don’t tell my wife, but at least one of my boys skiing with me will add to my days-per-year average. I’ll say, “honey, the boys want to go skiing next weekend,” and I’ll win the decision more often than I do currently. She thinks my desire to get the boys skiing is simply to give them access to a lifetime of enjoyment. No, it means I get to go, and I’ve got the cash to spend on them.
The problem, however, is in introducing them to the sport. My wife and I are no strangers to resort day care centers, having made wide use of them throughout the Northeast in the last three seasons. It ain’t cheap, but we are already used to paying for day care year-round at home. But when I started researching toddler ski programs, I was stunned. Some of the price structures I found were amazingly steep and needlessly confusing.
Some places charge the base day-care rate, then add a hefty amount for taking the kids out on snow. You can choose from menus that provide from four to six hours of instruction (with a break for lunch), for a half-hour to two hours in both the a.m. and p.m., for simple snowplay, with lunch, without lunch, etc. A quick look at these programs shows that compared to simply leaving my son in daycare for the day, the added expense of having him introduced to skiing would cost me from 50 to 100 percent more. Why should I do that? And, don’t forget, the added cost of renting equipment placed on top of it all.
Up until now, I’ve based my choice of ski area primarily on terrain and day care facilities. My wife based it on cross-country centers, lodging costs and day care. This season we’ll add toddler-ski program details to the mix and we’ll be heading to the few resorts that view introducing toddlers to skiing and snowboarding correctly—they consider it both a service to skiing and riding parents and an investment in their future. These are resorts that recognize that the best you can get out of a four- or five-year-old is 20 minutes on skis. Then he’s either going to want to go back inside or make snow angels for a while. If the emphasis is on the kids having fun, then these areas have it right. That way, we can drop the kids at day care, pay the going rate, and if conditions permit, they’ll put a handful of kids on skis and let them fool around a bit outside. These resorts don’t make toddler ski programs a cash generator, but they are surely making money off a healthy number of parents who greatly appreciate the effort.
