How many finishers...really?

[Jim Davies]

There's "named" (i.e. on the official USGS lists) and "ranked" (300 feet of prominence). El Diente, Challenger, Conundrum, Cameron, and North Eolus are named but not ranked. CMC's list is based on history and visual impact from common viewpoints, which is why they included El Diente and North Maroon (which is now ranked post-Lidar). The real stupid thing is that they included Challenger on the Centennial list but not the 14er list, because tradition.

[MidsizeAl]

gaining Elbert's prominence as Roach suggests would require starting from at least Rifle on I-70 or Hotchkiss on Hwy 133

I had thought Roach's criteria,

A good minimum criterion for climbing a peak is that you should gain a vertical height under your own power equal to your peak’s rise from its highest connecting saddle with a neighbor peak.

implied not that you must gain the prominence of the peak, but instead that you have to gain at least the elevation equal to the difference between the height of the highest key col of any ranked line child and the summit of your peak. So for Elbert, for example, Bull Hill's key col (13,337') is the highest connecting saddle, so the minimum gain should be 1,101'. The theoretical minimum gain needed to claim a summit, then, would be 300', but only if the summit you are climbing has exactly 300' of prominence.

This allows you to claim the summits of several peaks on a connecting ridge in a single push, rather than starting from the bottom each time. This is what I've always used for my own standards.

[two lunches]

the unofficial and unranked El Diente

El Diente Peak is official, just unranked.

I officially tore up my ankle on El D after summiting this summer. Therefore it’s official

El D #@%$ing counts.

[bdloftin77]

gaining Elbert's prominence as Roach suggests would require starting from at least Rifle on I-70 or Hotchkiss on Hwy 133

I had thought Roach's criteria,

A good minimum criterion for climbing a peak is that you should gain a vertical height under your own power equal to your peak’s rise from its highest connecting saddle with a neighbor peak.

implied not that you must gain the prominence of the peak, but instead that you have to gain at least the elevation equal to the difference between the height of the highest key col of any ranked line child and the summit of your peak. So for Elbert, for example, Bull Hill's key col (13,337') is the highest connecting saddle, so the minimum gain should be 1,101'. The theoretical minimum gain needed to claim a summit, then, would be 300', but only if the summit you are climbing has exactly 300' of prominence.

This allows you to claim the summits of several peaks on a connecting ridge in a single push, rather than starting from the bottom each time. This is what I've always used for my own standards.

Ooh thank you!! I had always read that as the peak’s prominence in my head, but he does say “neighboring peak” and not “line parent.” That makes so much more sense!

That “rise above the highest saddle with a neighboring peak” sounds similar to Roach’s “peak power” concept, which I find interesting.

[supranihilest]

gaining Elbert's prominence as Roach suggests would require starting from at least Rifle on I-70 or Hotchkiss on Hwy 133

I had thought Roach's criteria,

A good minimum criterion for climbing a peak is that you should gain a vertical height under your own power equal to your peak’s rise from its highest connecting saddle with a neighbor peak.

implied not that you must gain the prominence of the peak, but instead that you have to gain at least the elevation equal to the difference between the height of the highest key col of any ranked line child and the summit of your peak. So for Elbert, for example, Bull Hill's key col (13,337') is the highest connecting saddle, so the minimum gain should be 1,101'. The theoretical minimum gain needed to claim a summit, then, would be 300', but only if the summit you are climbing has exactly 300' of prominence.

This allows you to claim the summits of several peaks on a connecting ridge in a single push, rather than starting from the bottom each time. This is what I've always used for my own standards.

Ooh thank you!! I had always read that as the peak’s prominence in my head, but he does say “neighboring peak” and not “line parent.” That makes so much more sense!

That “rise above the highest saddle with a neighboring peak” sounds similar to Roach’s “peak power” concept, which I find interesting.

I'd always read it as the peak's prominence too, which of course becomes either nearly impossible or overly repetitive for peaks with higher prominence. I never adhered to that idea or even really the 3,000-foot rule, though. Whiley and I do subscribe to a similar mentality to "The theoretical minimum gain needed to claim a summit, then, would be 300', but only if the summit you are climbing has exactly 300' of prominence." though, in that we eschew driving up those peaks which you can drive up. We've attempted to do 1 mile and 300 feet of gain per "trip," if possible, deliberately to avoid the dumb s**t like driving to a summit, getting out of your car, and calling it good. That just doesn't feel sportsmanlike and we'll make things harder than they necessarily have to be in order to give the peaks a chance as peaks, not as driveups. This is true for peaks like Blue Sky and Pikes but is rampant among the lower peaks which often have logging or mining roads close to or right to the summit. It just feels cheap to do that.

[onebyone]

One way to estimate finishers is to look at how many Culebra hikers summited, and we have a good guess on that as the ranch would have records of payment to hike. If roughly... 90% of the hikers top Culebra, that's your answer to approx. how many people have completed the 14ers (or take another 10% from that total).

Good point. Might have to take more like 20-25% off that number but who knows.

What I do know is that I didn't do Culebra in the 1990s because it was like $25. Then I didn't do it later because it was $50. It ended up being my finisher. I paid $150. lol
I didn't meet anyone on it who was finishing like me. I'm sure a few were, just didn't run into them.

That's all I got.

[onebyone]

Is Messner a 14er finisher?

One way to estimate finishers is to look at how many Culebra hikers summited, and we have a good guess on that as the ranch would have records of payment to hike. If roughly... 90% of the hikers top Culebra, that's your answer to approx. how many people have completed the 14ers (or take another 10% from that total).

This is an interesting thought--though I will chime in and say Culebra was my boyfriend's first 14er and I don't see him finishing them all. He and I started dating after I was 48 summits in, and Culebra was the easiest of of the 10 I had left. (El Diente was his second, which was um... quite the up in ante from Culebra and probably why he says he is not going to finish them all. I'm lucky he's still dating me.) I wonder how many other people climb Culebra with significant others or pals who have already made quite a dent in their journey!

+1, kind of.
My daughter did Culebra together several years ago, because we were in the area and we figured we might as well before the price went up again.
I still have 10 to go. My daughter still has 29 and has gotten married and transitioned to a new phase of life, so I doubt she will finish the 14ers.

Sean Nunn
Peculiar, MO

Yeah, I think more people climb it and don't finish than we think. But Justiner makes a good point. Do we know if Culebra has actual records. One thing we do know is that the number of finishers can NOT be higher than the total Culebra number, if those records exist. Or at least as far back as the records go.

The number of finishers can be lower than the Culebra count, but can't be higher than the Culebra count. Excluding a small amount who climbed it way back. How can we find this out?

[onebyone]

How many finishers didn't follow the 3000 foot rule on Democrat, Bierstadt, or Culebra?

I think those count either way. For Culebra I started at the parking area below the main parking. I think it was called Four Way.

As far as Bierstadt and Democrat go. Why bother. It is what it is. Sherman is another. I parked farther down the road trying to get the 3,000 but still think I was like 150 feet short of that.

[JROSKA]

It’s kind of interesting to go back to the OP’s original question and look at the various responses. If we sift through everything, there seems to be a general forum consensus that A) El Diente counts toward the checklist, B) No Culebra = Not a Finisher and C) the 3,000 foot rule is silly. So at least as a forum that rarely agrees on things, there seems to at least be a consensus here.

But the Sunlight issue seems tougher, closer to 50-50. Not sure how we resolve this disagreement in answering the OP’s question.

[Jorts]

But the Sunlight issue seems tougher, closer to 50-50. Not sure how we resolve this disagreement in answering the OP’s question.

Create a poll.

[two lunches]

The number of finishers can be lower than the Culebra count, but can't be higher than the Culebra count. Excluding a small amount who climbed it way back. How can we find this out?

how can the number of finishers be lower than the Culebra count? someone who claims to be an "ABC finisher" is not a 14er finisher. period.

[hokiehead]

The number of finishers can be lower than the Culebra count, but can't be higher than the Culebra count. Excluding a small amount who climbed it way back. How can we find this out?

how can the number of finishers be lower than the Culebra count? someone who claims to be an "ABC finisher" is not a 14er finisher. period.

because there are people who climbed Culebra but didn't climb all the other 53 ranked 14ers. I feel I might be missing a point you're trying to make.