This question is not an attempt to start a battle between the two mountains. I am curious what people think about the difference between the tree skiing at the Bush v MRG. I have very limited experience with MRG but I have heard great things about the tree skiing. How would you compare the two?

mikec13 wrote:

This question is not an attempt to start a battle between the two mountains. I am curious what people think about the difference between the tree skiing at the Bush v MRG. I have very limited experience with MRG but I have heard great things about the tree skiing. How would you compare the two?

MRG is 800 acres, not including the 19th/20th. So call it 1000 acres end to end.

SB is 4300 acres from Brambles and environs to Jester. Nuff said.

Treeskier can tell you pretty much all you want to know about what where and how, but you might need to meet up with him and buy him a beer or 4. Bush now advertises 4000 acres. . . . . . hard to see that, especially without pruning all 4000. . . .my guess is 500 additional acres is pruned and really skiable as they used to advertise 250 acres or so. . . . . . . . . go to Jay. .I was there Sat and they have a lot of the mountain pruned and it is a joy and even though everyone can see the stashes from lifts, still there are plenty of spaces untouched because my guess is 3% of all skiers really ski the woods. . .my entire house does with the exception of a couple of the women. . . . .. and generally spen the day in there. MRG has great trees , seemingly steeper than da 'Bush and even LESS skied for obvious reasons. . . . . sp less traffic, steeper, and my guess would be half what da'Bush offers in actual tree runs, especially when you include the Brook. 323 inches at Alta as of yesterday. . . . . less than a 1/3 of that in Bush country and 235 or so at Jay and the base at Jay shows that. . . . . we hit few rocks, few stumpys, and had a tree day unlike the Sugarbush of last week. . ( any one who expects no rocks. stumps or snow snakes should not be in there, no? Snow coming, just not sure how much, but we'll take it!

jwt wrote:

Treeskier can tell you pretty much all you want to know about what where and how, but you might need to meet up with him and buy him a beer or 4. Bush now advertises 4000 acres. . . . . . hard to see that, especially without pruning all 4000. . . .my guess is 500 additional acres is pruned and really skiable as they used to advertise 250 acres or so. . . . . . . . . go to Jay. .I was there Sat and they have a lot of the mountain pruned and it is a joy and even though everyone can see the stashes from lifts, still there are plenty of spaces untouched because my guess is 3% of all skiers really ski the woods. . .my entire house does with the exception of a couple of the women. . . . .. and generally spen the day in there. MRG has great trees , seemingly steeper than da 'Bush and even LESS skied for obvious reasons. . . . . sp less traffic, steeper, and my guess would be half what da'Bush offers in actual tree runs, especially when you include the Brook. 323 inches at Alta as of yesterday. . . . . less than a 1/3 of that in Bush country and 235 or so at Jay and the base at Jay shows that. . . . . we hit few rocks, few stumpys, and had a tree day unlike the Sugarbush of last week. . ( any one who expects no rocks. stumps or snow snakes should not be in there, no? Snow coming, just not sure how much, but we'll take it!

Even though MRG's lift capacity limits the # of people who can get onto the mountain, I find that a much higher % of MRG skiers end up there. The tourists at SB mostly avoid the off-piste. Combined with SB's larger size, including the Brook, I'll take SB any day of the week, and twice on Sunday.

MRG does have steeper tree lines in the Octopus Garden area, but I'm not a fan of super steep trees. That's just me though.

they are both great if you know where to go. Yes sugarbush is bigger thus yielding more possibilites, but from personal experience i think mad river woods tend to be less tracked out. This is just my opinion and keep in mind i'm not talking about the woods that are on trail maps. If you asked a few years back i would say sugarbush was better, but now with all the stashes being actual tree runs on the trail map they seem to get tracked out extremely fast on powder days. Yes there are more hidden ones but i still think sugarbush was more fun a few years ago. Mad river also has more cliffs that are actually fun. Many with a decent size and landing. To repeat what others have said they also have a steeper pitch continuously over at MRG. Both great places with great terrain, and if you only have weekends to ski Sugarbush is the place.

....and tree skiing actually means a number of different "types" of things, with pitch and aspect making a huge difference.

Looking at winter aerial photos of the green mountain crest.....though MRG is smaller it has, at least visually, lots more "tree terrain" that appears skiable. But that is not a scientific truth, just a visual observation. For example looking at the area of Paradise at SB radiating out to the tree lines there is a smallish pod in the aerial photos, while the same "look and feel" type terrain at MRG is just everywhere from Antelope sweeping around to past Slalom Hill. But down lower, as mentioned and on the trail map, the Bush has lots of stuff.

I've seen lines at SB and MRG where I can't quite believe the lopper crew hasn't nipped in for some nipping.

Skiing both places offers up some great tree goods. No right or wrong at either. Brings us to that darn combo pass for SB & the Glen....