What is Core Snowboarding?
Why Gatekeeping Heritage May Be Holding Snowboarding Back
The recent announcement of Armada Snowboards triggered the kind of heated debate that reveals deeper fractures in snowboarding culture. But the controversy around a ski company entering snowboarding is just the latest symptom of a question the industry has been avoiding: Is “core” snowboarding dead?
The answer depends entirely on how you define “core” - and whether that definition still matters in 2025.
In an era where corporate consolidation dominates action sports, venture capital flows into once-independent brands, and the biggest sponsors aren’t even snowboard companies, the concept of “core” has become increasingly complex. What was once a clear distinction between rider-owned brands and corporate outsiders now exists in shades of gray that make purist arguments nearly impossible to sustain. Let’s go down the rabbit hole a bit.
The Corporate Reality
The Armada situation illustrates how blurred the lines have become. Here’s a ski company, owned by Amer Sports (which also owns Salomon, Atomic, Arc’teryx, and baseball brands Wilson and Louisville Slugger), launching snowboards with serious industry credibility. They’ve recruited Paul Maravetz (former Burton executive and co-founder of Rome Snowboards) to head the division, brought in respected athletes like Danimals, Steffi Luxton, and Alek Oestreng, and assembled a team of industry veterans.
By traditional definitions, this should represent everything wrong with corporate invasion of snowboarding. But the reality is more complicated: some of the most respected names in snowboarding are involved, the product development appears genuine, and the financial backing means riders actually get paid.
This reflects a broader industry trend where the distinction between “core” and “corporate” has become nearly meaningless.
What’s Left of “Core”?
Looking at the current landscape, a handful of brands with 20+ year histories still carry the “core” designation: Burton (despite being highly corporate), Nidecker, Jones, Rome, Bataleon, YES, Ride, Capita, Arbor, GNU, Never Summer, and Nitro.
But even this list reveals the contradictions. Burton, the most heritage brand in snowboarding, operates at massive corporate scale with global distribution and Olympic sponsorships. Jones is owned by Nidecker Group, a Swiss conglomerate that also owns Nidecker, Bataleon, and Rome. Capita, Arbor, YES, Never Summer, and Nitro are holding strong as snowboard-only brands. GNU is as well under the Mervin MFG umbrella, with Lib Tech tapping out when they started making skis a couple of years back.
The independent, rider-owned model that defined early “core” brands has largely given way to consolidation, private equity investment, and corporate partnerships. Yet these brands maintain credibility because they’ve evolved within snowboarding culture rather than entering from outside.
The Historical Context Nobody Wants to Talk About
Here’s where things get interesting. If we’re being honest about snowboarding’s history, some of our most influential riders spent significant portions of their careers on boards made by ski companies.
Throughout the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s, pioneer snowboarders rode for:
K2: Dan Donnelly, Chris Engelsman, Travis Parker, Leanne Pelosi, and Sage Kotsenburg.
Salomon: Maddie Mastro, Bode Merrill, Mike Michelchuk, Dusty Henricksen, and Pat Fava.
Rossignol: Jeremy Jones, Travis Rice, Todd Richards, Andrew Crawford, and JF Pelchat.
Look: Bert Lamar, Steve Graham. (known for ski bindings rather than ski manufacturing).
Scott USA: Mike Basich, Oliver Holzman, and Noah Brandon. (known for ski goggles and poles).
These weren’t fringe riders on no-name brands. We’re talking about influential pioneers, contest winners, video part legends, and athletes who helped shape what modern snowboarding looks like. Names like Jeremy Jones, Travis Rice, Mike Basich, Sage Kotsenburg, and others who made significant contributions to the sport while riding for ski companies.
Many of these athletes later moved between different brands as the industry evolved and more snowboard-specific companies emerged with competitive budgets. But their foundational work happened across all types of companies - ski brands included.
Nobody questioned their legitimacy at the time. So when did ski companies become unwelcome in snowboarding?
It’s also worth noting that the crossover works both ways. Lib Tech, one of snowboarding’s most respected brands, has made skis for years now. Where was the outrage from the skiing community about snowboard companies invading their space?
The Industry Participant Perspective
From a rider’s standpoint, the “core” debate often misses practical realities. Professional snowboarding careers are short and physically demanding, with historically low pay compared to other action sports. When brands like Red Bull, Monster Energy, or even ski companies offer competitive salaries and proper support, riders face a choice: financial stability or ideological purity.
The irony is that some of snowboarding’s most visible sponsors aren’t snowboard companies at all. Red Bull built an empire on snowboarding content without making boards. Monster Energy sponsors major events and athletes. Skullcandy provides audio equipment. Zeb Powell rides for Jordan Brand (well deserved and special), a basketball company. None of these face the scrutiny that ski companies entering snowboarding receive.
This selective gatekeeping reveals an uncomfortable truth: the “core” versus “corporate” argument is often about cultural perception rather than actual business practices or community support.
Defining “Core” in the Modern Era
This is where the conversation gets murky, because “core” means different things to different people:
To some, core means:
Rider-owned and operated (but how many “core” brands still fit this description?)
Focused exclusively on snowboarding (but does that exclude Lib Tech’s involvement in skiing?)
Independent rather than corporate (but where’s the line between “independent” and “too small to matter”?)
Born from snowboarding culture (but who decides when outsiders have earned their way in?)
To others, core means:
Making products riders actually want
Supporting the community through events, content, and sponsorships
Putting riders first in product development
Staying true to snowboarding’s countercultural roots (whatever those are in 2025)
The problem is that almost no major brand checks every box on either list. Burton is the closest thing to a heritage brand, but they’re also the largest and most corporate.
Industry Realities
Corporate ownership is everywhere. Amer Sports owns Salomon. Authentic Brands Group owns and licenses Quiksilver, Roxy, DC, Billabong, and Volcom after Boardriders went bankrupt. If corporate ownership disqualifies a brand from being core, we’re going to need a much shorter list of acceptable companies.
Ski companies have always been here. The idea that ski companies are invaders is revisionist history. They were here during snowboarding’s formative years, and many of them helped legitimize the sport. Without Salomon’s involvement, buying Bonfire and bringing ski manufacturing expertise to snowboarding, the sport wouldn’t have achieved the quality of base materials, constructions, and manufacturing standards it has today.
Most snowboarders aren’t actually “core.” The uncomfortable reality is that the majority of people buying snowboards are recreational riders, families, and beginners who have never heard of brands like Public, DWD, or Slash. They’re buying boards at big box stores and rental shops, not obsessing over brand heritage.
Local shops matter more than brand origin. Supporting independent retailers who serve the community matters more than which factory stamped the board. Maybe as long as you buy a board at a local shop it doesn’t matter what it is.
Snowboarding culture has changed. The counterculture rebellion of the 1980s and 1990s looks different in 2025. Snowboarding is an Olympic sport. It’s mainstream. The battle against ski resorts was won decades ago.
We’re selective about our outrage. Nobody’s protesting Red Bull’s influence, but a ski company launching snowboards is controversial. Why?
The Verdict: Core Is Evolved, Not Dead
The answer to whether core snowboarding is dead depends on how rigidly you define it. The romantic ideal of rider-owned, garage-started brands operating completely independently has largely disappeared. Corporate consolidation, private equity investment, and global distribution demands have fundamentally changed how snowboard companies operate.
But this doesn’t necessarily mean “core” is dead - it means it has evolved.
Today’s successful snowboard brands, whether they started in basements or boardrooms, must demonstrate authentic commitment to snowboarding culture, support the community through events and content, and produce products that riders actually want. The origin story matters less than ongoing behavior.
The real threat to snowboarding isn’t ski companies making boards or energy drink companies sponsoring events. It’s the potential loss of the creative, rebellious spirit that made snowboarding unique. That spirit can exist within corporate structures just as easily as it can be lost in independent ones.
Armada Snowboards, like any brand entering the market, will ultimately be judged on product quality, community support, and long-term commitment. If they succeed, it won’t be because they convinced people they’re “core” - it will be because they proved they understand snowboarding.
The obsession with defining and defending “core” may itself be what’s holding snowboarding back. The sport’s future depends less on gatekeeping heritage and more on fostering the innovation and creativity that has always driven progression, regardless of which logo appears on the board.
What do you think?
Does Armada belong in snowboarding?
What makes a brand ‘core’ in 2025?
Drop your thoughts in the comments.
