How many finishers...really?

[JROSKA]

Of course, being this is for Colorado, you must gain 3000 ft or you have to go back and do it again. (Some of you opined that it is silly. Dammit, it's a RULE). Now, where to you stand on poaching Lindsey, Bross and Culebra? Can you get a ride down from Evans (oops, Blue Sky) or Pikes Peak?

Exactly. You say in much fewer words what I was attempting to pull off with my somewhat tortured “is El Diente a 14er” analysis. These summit police want to be strict, rigid and unforgiving with one particular rule while loose, arbitrary and inconsistent with other rules.

[Eli Watson]

Can I claim I finished the Pre-LiDAR, Classic List of 74? Last I counted there's only 3-5 people who have done that, so it's of some significance to me. I hiked to the bottom of Sunlight Spire. I didn't climb the last 150', but I did >99.99% of it, right? I could touch the summit rock, but I couldn't touch the top of it. I even walked from Purgatory Flats to get there. Surely my ability to walk for over 40 miles justifies my ability to climb 60' of 5.10 crack.

Also, "Pin Pt" wasn't a 14er yet when I finished the Wilson Group, but it's only an extra back-track on the ridge to tag the summit during the traverse. It's not even hard, you just had to know it was there before it mattered. I've got the chops to get up that thing, but the Wilsons are really, really far. You guys believe me, right? I can claim to be the first Post-LiDAR Unranked, Unnamed Colorado 14er finisher then?

The comparison between El Diente and Sunlight is a false equivalence in my opinion, and overcomplicates the comparison to force a discussion. Whether or not an unranked peak should be included in the conventional list of Colorado 14ers is apples and oranges to claiming a summit without having ascended that summit.

[JROSKA]

The comparison between El Diente and Sunlight is a false equivalence in my opinion, and overcomplicating the comparison to force a discussion is silly.

Yeah like I said, Bill G does a better (more direct) job of addressing what I was attempting to. That the “rules are rules” crowd wants to be strict with one rule while ignoring others. Kind of hypocritical.

[rijaca]

Yeah like I said, Bill G does a better (more direct) job of addressing what I was attempting to. That the “rules are rules” crowd wants to be strict with one rule while ignoring others. Kind of hypocritical.

A good but meaningless rant. There are no 14er police. No one is being fact checked. (unless some dishonesty is involved). And the 'rules' (whatever they are) regarding reaching the summit and what is a 14er are certainly not hypocritical. Entirely different circumstances.

And the argument regarding what constitutes a 14er has been going for many years. The Borneman and Lampert 14er guidebook published in 1978 has an Appendix: The 53 or 54 Issue: Just What is a Fourteener?. The discussion in the Appendix revolves around the inclusion of Ellingwood Peak.

As for the 13ers list, I got the impression that the 13ers OGs (Garrett and Martin) did the ranked 13ers. You could contact Ken or Jean to verify and see what they did.

[Chicago Transplant]

One of the biggest problems of defining "Finishers" has been revealed through the last several posts, that of defining the list people are finishing in the first place. The CMC list has been traditionally used, and many people on this site swear by that list and only that list of 54. Others include named unranked peaks in addition to that list to get to 58, others still expanding to included unofficially named points (73 I think now?), and others still using a prominence defined cut off (53).

I don't think there is a false equivalency here of people ignoring rules that they don't like by counting or not counting certain peaks as on their list when there are at least 4 different common lists of the 14ers and countless variations that someone may pursue. I don't see why physically touching the summit is creating any controversy. Sure, hike your own hike, but maybe "your hike" wasn't a summit hike and that is fine. It's not an arbitrary rule of "gate keepers" who want to keep people from finishing. Sorry, it's not the forum members "gate keeping", it was Sunlight's summit block that did that. Maybe for some people they are more interested in SAYING they finished a list than actually doing it. A lot of people will climb these peaks once, say they finished, and never climb one again. To them I say "congratulations, nice job". Then I'll go out and do another repeat, I have hundreds of them already because I like climbing these mountains more than I like saying I did.

[seannunn]

What ever happened to HYOH? Anyone who claims they hiked one or all 14ers should be given their due. There is no arbitrary tribunal that gets to decide otherwise.

I stand corrected. My apologies to those I offended. HYOH is not permitted when it comes to 14ers. There is an arbitrary (although secret) tribunal who gets to decide. I propose that we eliminate allowing posters to add to their peaks list. You are now required to submit a 10 page questionnaire for review. Of course, being this is for Colorado, you must gain 3000 ft or you have to go back and do it again. (Some of you opined that it is silly. Dammit, it's a RULE). Now, where to you stand on poaching Lindsey, Bross and Culebra? Can you get a ride down from Evans (oops, Blue Sky) or Pikes Peak?

This is serious stuff folks. I don't ever want to hear you climb 14ers for fun. Glad I never submitted my peaks.

Now where do you stand on eliminating the 40% who never stood on the top of Sunlight?

Unrelated to the thread: your last name isn't Gates, is it? Just curious. I understand you have a decent place in Aspen.

Sean Nunn

[Scott P]

....I don't think there is a false equivalency here of people ignoring rules that they don't like by counting or not counting certain peaks as on their list when there are at least 4 different common lists of the 14ers and countless variations that someone may pursue. I don't see why physically touching the summit is creating any controversy....

What he said (the entire post). Nicely put.

[Scott P]

]For anyone who disagrees with this, I’d be curious about the reasoning. As to, why do you want to be strict and rigid about Sunlight but completely ignore the same strict and rigid rules about El Diente. Seems like many here just want to hunt for methods and cherry pick rules to make the 14er checklist as difficult as possible, and exclude as many people as they can from the “club”.

That's an entirely different topic and has nothing to do with summiting a peak. There are 53 ranked 14ers in Colorado (which doesn't include El Diente). If that's all you did (which is fine), that's what you say you did. If you did the 54 list or 28 list that's what you say you did.

There is nothing strict, rigid, or unusual about summiting a mountain before claiming an ascent. It has been like this since at least the 1700s and hasn't changed at all except for some very rare exceptions such as setting foot on the sacred summit of Kangchenjunga or maybe the Bross thing. It's the least arbitrary thing possible and something without an arbitrary or vague rule. This is and has always been the accepted practice in the "spirit of mountaineering". There is no summit police.

Why don't most sources and statistics say that Fredrick Cook made the first ascent of Denali? It's because he didn't reach the top even though he said he did. Should he be given credit for the first ascent? That's a serious question and I am curious as to hear your answer. What is the correct answer to the question "who was the first to climb Denali?".

[JROSKA]

I don't see why physically touching the summit is creating any controversy.

Because that’s just the way this forum is. Because everything has to turn into an argument.

[Boggy B]

Not to unduly elevate the prestige of the Sunlight summit block, but https://pataclimb.com/knowledge/puzzle.html

[Jorts]

Fast hard rules:

1) You did not summit unless you placed a piece of your body on the summit.
2) Trespassing in order to summit is still summiting. The ethics of trespassing are a separate topic.
3) The status of high points - ranked, unranked, named, unnamed - do not matter one iota. You have either summited them, or you have not.
4) 3000ft is arbitrary. Most of the world uses metric. Most peaks have a logical starting point whether 50 feet or 10,000 feet. Driving to the top of a summit is technically still summiting. Getting heli dropped on a summit is technically still summiting. But neither example is summiting AND climbing.
5) If LiDAR or some other measuring means determines that a previously held high point is in fact not the summit, then you did not summit. This is why in many places people summit a plurality of high points in close vicinity to each other.
6) If you're putting it out there publicly that you accomplished something, then the thing you claim to have accomplished is subject to justifiable scrutiny.

If in your head, you think getting close is good enough for you, that's reasonable. But it's worth emphasizing that it's not acceptable to put it out there publicly that you summited. Then you deserve whatever criticism is unleashed.

[Scott P]

I don't see why physically touching the summit is creating any controversy.

Because that’s just the way this forum is. Because everything has to turn into an argument.

Yes. As usual and in this case it's the people who took an issue with the statement that the highest point should be reached before counting a summit who started and continued the argument. Why it's even an argument at all makes no sense to me at all.

Anyway, sometimes I still do sign logs for my own record on failed peaks and say that I didn't reach the highest point in order to track them for myself. Maybe some can take an issue with that.

I also don't know why people are so afraid to admit that they didn't reach the summit of a peak (any peak). I don't look at a 100% success rate as something positive anyway, though that's a whole different topic. So far this year my summit success rate has been 100% and I keep feeling bad about it (to myself) hoping that I can find a partner for something with a good chance of failure.