Skiing a Peak: What it takes

[ker0uac]

I am the person in question in all of this.


I have climbed & (not) skied Bierstadt & Square Top (along with a ton of "descents" and "non-descents" in NE & the ADK, as well as many other lower peaks in the Front Range). I have no plans to ski all of the 14ers or the 13ers, or to claim descents, glory, or even respect. I just want to climb mountains.

I used the skier icon because I want my own record of what I have done. For what it's worth, I don't really care what anyone else's opinion about those climbs or skis are. I didn't realize there were rules; rules actually turn me off, which is part of why I like the mountains.

I'm going to continue to climb mountains, my own way, the rest of my life. Anyone who wants to get after it out there with me ... hit me up.

Well said

[bluegrassclimber]

So far, no one has been able to produce documented standards that are formally endorsed by a governing body.

This is an even more ridiculous rule than trying to use tradition set by the most well known and "greatest/skilled" members of the community and one that you know will never happen. An entire governing body? lol, just lol. Those members advocating for these rules are the closest thing to a governing body we'll see. If you're trying to satirize Otina's original point then bravo.

In the age of the internet, you can’t bitch about people ignoring ethics/standards that exist only in oral tradition or indirectly referenced by quotes of people who were “firsts.”

Arbitrary rule that I do not agree with, don't you tell me what I can and can't bitch about! Where's the governing body on whether the existence of the internet means bitching about certain topics is off limits?! I don't respect their authoritah anyway! /s

If it’s important enough to maintain rules, document those rules and get the community to explicitly endorse them.

Also doesn’t invalidate the point that if you want to bitch about rules, they need to have some authority to endorse them.

The community as a whole will never agree 100%. That so many of the most well known members and some of the most "completed" members (by which I mean, those who have done all/most of the peaks/skis/whatever by the very high standards that this small sub-group appears to agree with; see Lodgling, Otina, Snow Alien, gb, etc. for skiing, Ralston, Gladbach, Sarah Meiser, etc. for snowflakes) agree, that seems by some virtue to be the "governing body" you wish for. Officially sanctioned it is not, but who gets to determine what or who is officially sanctioned in the first place? And how did that governing body get the authority to authorize other governing bodies? It's unsanctioned groups attempting to assert authority all the way down.

You will never get the entire community to agree on anything (except that perhaps the entire community can't agree on anything), so it seems that that small, elite group which advocates for the high standards they themselves live by and have repeatedly proven they can perform at is the governing body, even if never "officially" sanctioned by the community, because it never will be. That doesn't mean that their points are irrelevant or unworthy of consideration by serious list tickers.

I’m not suggesting you can get 100% of a community to agree on something. I do stand by the governing body concept. That’s how countless other sports/hobbies/professions do it. Why wouldn’t it work for ski mountaineering?

[bluegrassclimber]

The ski descent thing is loaded with qualifiers and modifiers and best judgement calls. Not an easy thing to have rulings on.

"Since you're skiing natural snow, some descents might have gaps where you remove your skis and move a few feet across rock or tundra. Again, if you're up there on an average snow year with decent coverage, such maneuvers are legit so long as they are not excessive. "

Good luck getting people to decide on what constitutes an average snow year, what decent coverage means, and what excessive is.


Imagine if the snowflake winter ascent thing was worded the same. People would be claiming winter ascents in july.

This. Unless there is body of judges that either a) determines specific rules and enforces them or b) reviews and accepts when a descent is valid or not then really...

91900192-132B-472D-8820-C2ACC8BD4F3F.jpeg (63.28 KiB) Viewed 3288 times

But I don’t personally care, as I have no ambition to ski all the 14ers. I’m just sharing my opinion,man.

[AlexeyD]

I guess the only instance where I'd push back a little against a "purist" interpretation of the "off the summit" criteria is for trip reports on peaks outside of the CO 14ers and 13ers, and this is more about "searchability" than anything else. For example, if I'm doing research for a ski descent on Mt. Shasta and want to search for some relevant TRs, I don't really care whether or not the person skied right off the tippy top of the rime-encrusted summit block; what's more relevant is whether, on the whole, their adventure was a ski or foot-based one. But I suppose it's a minor point in the scheme of things...

[Bean]

I’m not suggesting you can get 100% of a community to agree on something. I do stand by the governing body concept. That’s how countless other sports/hobbies/professions do it. Why wouldn’t it work for ski mountaineering?

Because the number of people who really care is either in the high single-digit to low double-digit range.

Anyone want to argue about what constitutes an "average" snow year for purposes of ski descents? Just like astronomical winter is the wrong definition of winter, SWE is the wrong way to define that.

[supranihilest]

I’m not suggesting you can get 100% of a community to agree on something. I do stand by the governing body concept. That’s how countless other sports/hobbies/professions do it. Why wouldn’t it work for ski mountaineering?

I mean sure, the MLB can say whether you're a Major League player or not, and the Olympic Committee can say whether your an Olympian or not, and there's no such similar body for skimo. Many of the MLB and Olympic and etc. rules are hotly contested and debated too. The difference I see with professional leagues and what's going on here is in the former there's legal protection, and in the latter there's not enough players and not enough money or power to enforce the rules that various sub-groups of players live by. Essentially, until the group of players is large enough and powerful enough to legally organize as Frozen Fourteeners, LLC and legally enforce their definitions, then there is no standard and people can say whatever they want.

Nobody here wants to sue anyone for using the wrong terminology though, they just want folks get on board with a standard for what a peak ski descent means. Some clarity could come from the wording of the checkbox itself, I think, but I also think there's enough clout from those who have met the standard they argue for to act as a sort of governing body without all the legal mumbo jumbo behind it. That said, an argument from authority is not always valid either, so take from that what you will.

Finally, for some levity, here's a relevant XKCD:

[Barnold41]

Thanks for entertaining me while I proctor CMAS testing to 8th graders

Nothing more to add, but I wanted to make note that some of the "younger" generation do care about rules, lists, etc. and try to play with integrity as set by the ones who did it before us. I am not one of those, as lists and rules aren't my jam, but some friends of mine are. IMO play by your own rules unless you want to be recognized by a certain community as legitimate, so play by their rules if that's the case. To me, lists and rules take the fun out of being in the mountains since my priorities are based on completion or making sure I'm doing it right, and I don't have the energy to waste on that sort of thing anymore. That being said, if I wanted to be recognized by the skimo community as a legitimate finisher, I would play by that set of rules and accept my recognition... but I just don't care about any legitimacy, hence my lists on here. My priorities lie in getting my two young sons out to enjoy life, whatever that may look like for them and their interests, not checking off boxes on a website.

[lodgling]

For example, if I'm doing research for a ski descent on [whatever peak] and want to search for some relevant TRs, I don't really care whether or not the person skied right off the tippy top of the rime-encrusted summit block; what's more relevant is whether, on the whole, their adventure was a ski or foot-based one. But I suppose it's a minor point in the scheme of things...

This is a very good point for purposes of this forum, so I hope Bill sees it. If people are discouraged from checking the "ski" box, when you search TRs here and select the "Ski/Board Reports Only" function, those "almost" skis wouldn't come up. That would limit the usefulness of the TRs on this site for preparation, which is a bad idea in my opinion. The checklists have a lot of uses here, including bringing people together. Why would we want people making them private or limiting their use? I think that the checklists have zero value for claiming to be a "finisher" in any capacity. That stuff gets sorted out by the particular community that is seeking to finish.

[Easy Rider]

I decided Challenger is more of an art installation than an objective mountaineering goal. Nobody standing there at the plaque would look over at Kit Carson and say "Welp, this is it! I'm at the top now." It's shortfall is a deliberate anthem to failure. Accepting that reaction can be a surprisingly inspiring experience. But is it worth alienating an entire generation of climbers in the wake of an otherwise arbitrary government dedication? Nah. Not unless they made it illegal.

[lodgling]

Wow it all makes sense to me now. Thanks Jarrett!

[Jorts]

Somewhat unrelated, but why not pivot a smidge, naw mean?

What angle do the steepest standard summit lines top out at? Would that be Landry or Capitol (does that line have a name)?? Just wondering.

[bergsteigen]

Somewhat unrelated, but why not pivot a smidge, naw mean?

What angle do the steepest standard summit lines top out at? Would that be Landry or Capitol (does that line have a name)?? Just wondering.

60 degrees. The others at the high end of difficulty are in the 50-55 for at least a bit before mellowing into the upper 40’s.