http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=12329835&server=vimeo.com&show_title=1&show_byline=1&show_portrait=1&color=ffffff&fullscreen=1

But why?

As was discussed (on the trip) yesterday, a day of backcountry skiing can entail carrying your heavy gear up to a sufficient altitude, thin cover, gear damaged on rocks, bushwacking, flailing, falling, wet hands, high winds, a wet butt, and snow that is only marginally skiable (given your or any skill set). Yet, 6-8 turns linked in balance down a tiny fraction of the days vertical descent makes it all seem more than worthwhile. I don’t think any other outdoor sport has a comparable total trip time to good conditions and execution time that its participants would even ponder thinking acceptable.

This seems to be the case because skiing is a uniquely three dimensional sport, with an unusually broad canvas. You can hike or run most anywhere, but the kinetic interaction with the terrain is by comparison limited. Under all but the rarest of circumstances, mountain biking suffers from comparable limitations.  Boating, especially on fast water, involves interaction with more inscrutable third dimensions of the terrain in question, which is very like skiing.  But rivers have banks, which are more definitive than the trees, cliffs, and rocks which create skiable terrain by drawing boundaries around it.  Climbing involves a much more contemplative relationship with the terrain, and under almost all circumstances the starkness with which a climber interacts with gravity makes climbing a much less playful endeavor.  So then, while cultivating proficiency in skiing is quite difficult, the nature of snow and the ways in which it is adhered to the landscape makes skiing singular in its rewards.  Which I contend is why those perfect moments are especially perfect.