Washington's 100 highest, any debate?

[ivan]

any list w/ jo'burg on it's cool

[Lowell_Skoog]

So, what pomminence rule was used for the Mountaineers 1000' prominence list? 1mi? 5mi? 25mi from the summit?

 

I believe that Stephen Fry did not put any limit on how far from the summit the prominence must be achieved. His article provides three lists: 500ft, 1000ft, and 2000ft prominence. He calls the 500ft peaks "sub-major" summits and the 1000ft peaks "major" summits. I don't know that he calls the 2000ft peaks.

 

When you look at the various lists you begin to see how arbitrary our definition of a mountain is. For example, on the 2000ft list, there is only one peak in the Picket Range - Luna Peak. All the other summits in the range become sub-peaks of Luna with this definition.

 

To each his own. It appears that the Bulger list has become the accepted one, but it's not my favorite.

 

[G-spotter]

Pretty much anyone can look at a mountain and see it's a mountain. Prominence comes in when peak baggers don't like certain summits (often because they are too hard) and need to come up with a rationale for not climbing those summits.

[Kat_Roslyn]

I guess Sherpa peak would be considered a 'sub-peak' as well?

[Alpine_Tom]

Pretty much anyone can look at a mountain and see it's a mountain. Prominence comes in when peak baggers don't like certain summits (often because they are too hard) and need to come up with a rationale for not climbing those summits.

That's just silly. The only justification for not listing Liberty Cap as a separate mountain is because it's too hard to climb?

It seems pretty obvious that pretty much anyone can tell that Mt Adams is a mountain. But is Sahali? Or Silver Star? From Boston Basin, Sahali is just a nub on the ridgeline.

 

Colfax and Lincoln peaks are clearly NOT mountains, they're obviously subsidiary summits of Baker. They're also probably harder to summit than the main peak (Grant Peak) of Baker, but to say that they're left off because they're too darned hard is silly. If the primary motivation was to keep things easy, they'd have figured out a way to keep Mox Peak off.

Any list of 100 highest, or Seven Summits, fifty state high points, is going to have an element of caprice, especially if you claim that 'my list' is the 'best list.' (It's often been suggested that climbing the second highest peak of each continent would be a good deal harder than the highest peaks.) If you want to tag this or that list, or every mountain named after a color, or every summit that you can see from I-5, or whatever, then have fun with it. But to say 'my list is right and yours is wrong' is just a moot argument.

 

That said, this website has a much more comprehensive set of lists by category, area, etc.

http://www.eskimo.com/~sfox/WAPEAKS/

 

[G-spotter]

 

Colfax and Lincoln peaks are clearly NOT mountains

 

 

suuuuuuure

[Alpine_Tom]

 

That's kind of my point. To me it looks like one mountain, and geologically it's one mountain. To you, it looks like three. (or four? What about Sherman Peak?) Who gets to decide? I say, decide however you want, but acknowledge that it's a subjective decision.

[AlpineK]

Shouldn't Snow Creek Wall be in the 100 highest.

[Lowell_Skoog]

Prominence comes in when peak baggers don't like certain summits (often because they are too hard) and need to come up with a rationale for not climbing those summits.

 

Prominence comes in because peak bagging is a game and games require rules.

 

Some of the rules are indeed designed to eliminate hard summits. (I've heard that the rule excluding sub-summits of volcanos is known as the John Wilkes-Booth rule, because it eliminates Lincoln Peak.)

 

But most rules are just designed to create a game that is enjoyable for the people playing it, and which they can agree upon.

 

[G-spotter]

 

That's kind of my point. To me it looks like one mountain, and geologically it's one mountain. To you, it looks like three. (or four? What about Sherman Peak?) Who gets to decide? I say, decide however you want, but acknowledge that it's a subjective decision.

 

 

You don't see two mountains here do you

[tvashtarkatena]

If you combine the 2 lists (400' and 1000'), you get 144 unique objectives. Of those, about half would be considered somewhat 'classic'.

 

The only one I'd strike off the either list is Little Tahoma. Why climb every plug that hasn't yet eroded from the side of what is so obviously the main attraction?

 

Having said that, playing the list game can lure you to areas you might not normally go (the Paysayten, Sawtooth, and Chelan Wilderness areas, where many of these peaks are, for example), which can be an adventure in itself. A trip into the Pasayten in full fall color, or into the Sawtooths in the height of wildflower bloom, are worthy objectives in themselves. If you can knock of few peaks off the list in the process, so much the better.

 

 

Edited June 12, 2007 by tvashtarkatena