Do you consider BC sking an Extreme Sport? Poll Yes/No

[wooley12]

By extreme I mean you could die or get hurt doing it through no fault of your own. Extreme as in Base Jumping, Hang gliding, Cliff Diving, Auto/Motorcycle Racing. Just trying to get my head around what you guys do. Seems like to right place to post. Tell me if I'm wrong.

[DropCliffsNotBombs]

BC skiing in avy terrain/conditions is indeed "extreme." It kills people all the time...
But to me, BC skiing is more of a soulful connection with the mountain environment and gravity (that just happens to take place in deadly areas!), rather than the stuff of Mtn. Dew commercials.

[Dave Marshack]

unless your hucking like a pro... hell no!

[mmmm...pow!]

Xtreme!!

[Alaskan Rover]

I was contemplating not voting as not having an appropriate answer....but I voted no.

But of course the answer depends ENTIRELY on terrain.

If it's just fairly mellow BC...with no major, extremely steep chutes surrounded by jagged rocks just waiting to rip you a new anus...then NO....it's not an EXTREME sport...just a good fun past-time....akin to XC skiing or snowshoeing or backpacking.

But if that BC route takes you across icefields with crevasse danger, where you need to gravely consider your routes up...and then coming down, you have to navigate a litany of steep, icy chutes where if you fall, you could easily DIE....then yes, it is every bit as extreme as mountain climbing or offshore sailing in the arctic or antarctic or even sky-diving.

A BC trek can shift from extreme to pillow-pow back to extreme many times through out the trip.

But lots of BC is just a few steps from really just being side-country.

Of course, if you're the GSA, then you can make even blues and single-diamonds "Xtreme Sport"....just by adding a harness to your ski-area kit.

--

[neck beard]

I talk with people who ski outside resorts, but who I do not consider to be backcountry skiers, and the impression I get from them is that the word 'backcountry' is virtually synonymous with steep terrain which will give them a thrill, boost their ego and make them look good on the internet. I saw one bit of footage recently where the lone skier with a Gopro skied a large area of avalanche terrain and half way through the POV footage he put a still shot of the slope with the text 'high consequences' (which there clearly was!) The day before we had skier triggered Size 2 slabs on the same aspect and altitude in old snow, not a short lived storm instability. All this trip planning info was publicly available at well known locations online. The pot bubbles over with Human Factors. That is extreme when combined with the terrain.

Skiing in the mountains is not extreme by default. It has natural hazards, and you can turn the volume up on those hazards to your liking. In the meantime, it is just skiing in terrain where skiing was invented.

Is swimming on an open ocean beach extreme? Rather than at a public swimming pool?

I also get the impression that 100% resort skiers also think that "backcountry" means terrain that aspires to the rad stuff you see on ski porn (these people frequently are not familiar with the term 'ski porn' either).

[wooley12]

Thanks for all your input. Like any poll/statistic, it gets skewed by the question and just who will respond. My take is that those in the know use logic and experience to eliminate much of the risk. As safe as driving to the mall. People die every week doing that. That's life. At one end of the bell curve are those that know but tempt fate as a life style. At the other end are the 3 bros who head out with new A/T gear and visions of the last ski film in their brains, it is extreme by my definition but the don't know it. Like my first trip solo trip onto a glacier with my equally ignorant brother. At one point I said "Maybe we are being stupid and we're to stupid to know we are being stupid." I'm old enough to have screwed up enough to sense what stupid feels like. We were stupid and got away with it.

[Bosco]

I say no, in general. The same applies to motorcycle racing. I've done both and I'm not extreme at anything.

[Alaskan Rover]

Depends.

NOT extreme surfing:





EXTREME surfing:






NOT extreme Backcountry skiing:





EXTREME backcountry skiing:






CAPISCI?

--

[NAKsloChinoMalo]

^^^^ what he said

[angrysasquatch]

Shit, AR just spouted off with 4014 words. He's getting really long-winded now

[garyfromterrace]

Agree with AR.

[nick > jesus]

It all depends on your definition of "extreme"

If an extreme sport is one where extreme consequences are inherent, then I would say it is. The fact that we have this forum is a testament to some of the great consequences of the risks involved. The worst of these can be avoided, but are still central and more substantial than in the vast majority of other sports.

The lack of definition makes "extreme sport" a pretty meaningless label, kind of like indie music.

[neck beard]

The vast majority of us (backcountry skiers) ski 30-35 degree trees and glades nearly all the time. That is not extreme.

On those trips, there is uncertainty [about stability]. I'm not sure that the existence of uncertainty is a priori 'extreme'.

AR's picture of a dude jumping of a cliff is a picture of an 'extreme' act (in most people's definitions). That act could take place in a ski area, in the 'backcountry', or off the roof of my house. It should not be confused with 'backcountry' skiing' by default.

[Meadow Skipper]

^ I don't believe in "extreme sports."

[theshredder]

Its all relative. Some are more extreme than others.

I voted yes.. Probably should have voted no based on whois on this forum..

[old goat]

Consider backcountry skiing to be on a par with climbing as far as risk. Almost identical number of deaths per year and I'm guessing similar number of participants. Just like climbing there are individual routes with all levels of risk. It is generally understood that you can get killed climbing; it's starting to be understood you can die BC skiing. One big difference--in climbing it takes a certain minimal level of competence to get high enough off the ground to hurt yourself.

[neck beard]

One big difference--in climbing it takes a certain minimal level of competence to get high enough off the ground to hurt yourself.

Exactly - to climb a risky route, you have to be a climber in the first place.

To find yourself in risky avalanche terrain, you just have to be a skier.

Like I said in another thread: plenty are interested in being in the 'backcountry'. Few are interested in being backcountry skiers. Huge difference.

[GoldMember]

I voted no in this poll. You can get yourself into 'extreme' situations, sure. But the act of going out back country isn't, in and of itself, extreme. Choosing particularly difficult routes or descents can be 'extreme' but you can just as easily meadow-skip in the BC as well. Alaskan Rover's pictorial says it best.

[TheDon]

I voted yes but me loves a good cliff drop, that being said I don't think every outing is extreme.

"I am extreme! My boots have a WALK MODE!!!"

[theshredder]

in climbing it takes a certain minimal level of competence to get high enough off the ground to hurt yourself.

I am pretty sure that's not really true at all.

You can't really draw any lines. If you did you'd have to draw a different line every time you went out.. depending on conditions, the people you're with, weather. Just ski. Drawing lines is a recipe for disaster imo. Even your personal skill and risk tolerances are constantly changing.

I don't know about you but I need to be skiing fast enough that I'm practically on the edge between in control, and not in control or its like half as fun. I almost never ski that hard in the backcountry. I think its partly from the climbing (legs get pooched) and partly because you get a decent rush just from being there.

In fact, I'm thinking about getting narrower skis for backcountry. The fatties want to really fly... and I'm not sure I'm into going that fast on treed runs in the backcountry.

Edit: But man they're fun in the open.. or even treed runs that I know. kinda torn between fatties and narrow skis but thats a different thread.

[spook]

i don't know shit, but the fact that things can go south in a hurry even in less than extreme terrain has to count for something, especially when there's no patrol sitting around waiting for you to break yourself.

[Crass3000]

i don't know shit, but the fact that things can go south in a hurry even in less than extreme terrain has to count for something, especially when there's no patrol sitting around waiting for you to break yourself.

I don't know shit either but have to agree with Spook. I don't think of backcountry skiing as extreme in and of itself but I can only imagine the suckage if you break bones with no patrol as a safety net. I'm sure many can relate to being absolutely helpless after a major break (tib/fib for example). I never used to think of things like that but WOW that has got to suck dealing with a situation like that in the backcountry. I would want to be with some smart, resourceful people.

Edit: As Old Goat said (in other words), I'd rather be in the backcountry with good mountaineers than great skiers.

[XXX-er]

you can choose to make anything extreme but BC skiing is not extreme on its own

[old goat]

The point of my earlier post is that backcountry skiing is much more similar to mountaineering than it is to resort skiing, in terms of risk. My remark about climbers having to be competent enough to get off the ground was tongue in cheek, sort of--obviously you can die on easy terrain (a friend of mine died climbing mount washington by a trail-came down the wrong way and fell). But as a group I think climbers are more attuned to risk and safety than are backcountry skiers (but not more attuned than the people reading this, of course.)