LoJ unranked 13ers not on 14ers.com

[Garrett]

Towers can absolutely be a peak. But just being a tower doesn’t make it a peak. Lizard Head is both a tower and peak as one example but there’s a good number more towers that are not peaks. North Summit or The Index are two others that come to mind as both towers and peaks.

Difficulty doesn’t and shouldn’t play into any definition of a peak. It’s a landform and where you set your parameters for that is certainly unsettled.

[josephnephi]

It would be a lot of work, but a list of all 13ers with 200 feet of prominence in CO would be pretty interesting! My guess is that there are ~50 peaks that aren't on 14ers, LoJ, or Peakbagger at all!

I also think that adding Jut or RORS (reduced omnidirectional relief score) as a list metric would be pretty interesting. LoJ has kind of introduced this with the steepness measure, but it's (understandably) not calculated for every peak.

I can get behind building an obscure peak list, but I agree that inclusion in a published guidebook as the metric for inclusion/exclusion seems really unstable.

[Garrett]

Nobody has put a definition to unranked peaks and that’s why there’s a lot of variability. It is definable with some gray areas. Whether people agree or not is another story but 300 feet is just a regional climbing goal that people like. It may be a standard for a climbing goal but it isn’t the definition of a mountain. Which people will debate endlessly.

Mountains are mountains and lists are lists. Masonzastrow I agree a mountain doesn’t have to be on a list. And nobody has to climb something because it’s on a list. Lists are just information and ultimately you should climb because you love doing it. So I do agree. Checking a box off the list or looking for some sort of false delusional glory associated with completing a list is the wrong reason. Pick your parameters, which the lists help with, and if you climb because you love climbing the list is less relevant. Its just a helpful tool. My take at least.

I do have my parameters for the unranked though. Earlier I mentioned 165 feet and 200 ft of prominence. Those aren’t just random numbers I like. Something with 200’ of prominence is much easier to argue against from a keyboard than from it’s summit. It’s a round number that fits well, just like 300 feet, nothing special. 165 ft comes from calculating the lidar prominence of every spot elevation not associated with a recognized peak as well as the prominence of numerous random closed contours over 13,000 that are distinctly not peaks, almost 400 data points. Could add more but the result wouldn’t change. Plotted against the recognized peak list that is the intersection point. Meaning below 165 a point needs to have certain characteristics as a peak and not some other landform to distinguish it from a random ridge variation. Above 165 and it becomes more likely to be a peak. But 165 isn’t a hard line. It’s a reference point, there are points above 165 that are not peaks and there are points below 165 that are peaks but very few. The number over 200 ft prom is well over 50, closer to 80 btw.

Here’s a picture of the 1968 origin of the 300 foot rule from William Graves T&T no 590. He’s credited as the creator of the 300 ft guideline, though 300 ft was first introduced by the SJM’s in 1930’s, and Graves is also the author of the original 100 highest list. Graves just didn’t want to add 6 peaks to the 14er list and 300 feet was a good number to avoid that with a few caveats. It caught on in the late 1970’s/80’s. I’ll point out his last sentence because it seemed relevant to what masonzastrow was saying “Everything we climb doesn’t have to be on a list”.

IMG_2435.jpeg

[Eli Boardman]

You guys do know that words don't have absolute meanings, right? Right?

So there's no such thing as a "peak" or a "tower" that is objectively definable, and an exercise in "I know a peak when I see one" is just sophistry.

I swear the .com re-invents some aspect of classical philosophy every week. This week it's the Platonic Forms! Whatever will it be next?

[Chicago Transplant]

I personally am not chasing the unranked list, though I have climbed plenty of them and will continue to add more on future visits to "old friends". I think having a cut-off on what makes a peak makes sense and have always accepted that 300' is a good number. Beyond that there are things that are unranked that look interesting so I do them, others that look interesting but are above my pay grade so to speak (i.e. many of the aforementioned towers, spires and aguilles) so I do not, and plenty of random bumps that someone decided to give a nickname to that I either went over because they were on the way, or ignored because they were not.

I think the unranked list is just too much of an arbitrary moving target personally, and I would much rather continue to repeat the heck out of ranked 13ers because I love hiking up these mountains. Maybe a few are one and done because of choss, but in general if it was worth doing once, why wouldn't I do it again? I am curious how people who have been chasing the unranked list decide what is on their list though. As mentioned, maybe they are doing what is listed on this site, or LOJ? Even then there seem to be random inclusions or exclusions, but at least having a single person managing these sites means someone has given some thought as to what they are including.

Peakbagger on the other hand is an entirely different animal as there are a lot of user added "peaks" on that site that are literally a single closed contour on a gentle ridge such as "East Bard" https://www.peakbagger.com/peak.aspx?pid=46233
Others that are just a random elevation mark like this one along the Quandary standard route: https://www.peakbagger.com/peak.aspx?pid=-62146
Hard to call either of those a peak really and there are plenty of others like them on peakbagger.

There are definitely a lot of cool towers and spires out there on the more rugged peaks but I think of most of them really as just a sub-peak/point on a ridge. Some are pretty cool looking and get named, but there are many others that do not. For the people with the technical skills and desire, I definitely admire your exploration and efforts to get up them!

[Boggy B]

You can't make an objective list of peaks without objective criteria.

100%
Ranked, Soft-Ranked, and Named are all objective criteria. For me, completion of the remaining bonus 13ers listed on 14ers.com (at the time) was largely by virtue of their convenient proximity to objectively established peaks.

The list on 14ers.com is currently the best compiled list we have. That's no knock on LOJ either. Not perfect and doesn't have everything but barring a very small number the 14ers.com list a good, solid list of legitimate peaks.

The bonus list on 14ers.com is as arbitrary as your definition of a peak. It's pretty hard to argue it's more legitimate than the one on LoJ, and not only because Bill has stated he considers LoJ the source of truth.
Black Benchmark has 47' of rise. Yahoo = 159'. Crossfire = 186'. Pin Point = 43'. I'm still interested to know why these were added (Bill???) in lieu of Purgatory Point = 120', The Thumb = 140', The Hand = 160', to name a few.

We'd agree on North Summit = 163'. You also like Punta Serpiente = 218', East Babcock = 254', Ski Hayden = 141'. (Spencer is officially named and is listed here).
Some folks here would prefer to see Captain Bivwacko Tower added. 18'!!!

There are towers in the Cimarrons not listed anywhere with greater prominence than East Babcock.

Middle Mountain (12991) above Minnie/Maggie Gulch has only 169', proximate child of unnamed ranked 13076. Yet there's a reason the former is officially named, it looks and feels like a peak, and 13076 with 324' looks and feels like a bump on a ridge. Gray Needle looks like a peak, significantly, from down in Noname. Whereas Noname Needle and the erroneous USGS Gray Needle don't look like peaks from anywhere. And none of them feels much like a peak when stood upon. There must be dozens of examples of this.

How many peaks need to come off the list if we start applying subjective definitions?

Anyway, it sounds like you made a list and you're climbing what you want. That is what we all should be doing.

Maybe the real peaks are the friends you make along the way.

[supranihilest]

Source: https://xkcd.com/927/

[HikerGuy]

I probably should have included my reason for wanting to know what additional unranked peaks are out there beyond the 14ers.com list. I am not looking to complete a list. Many of the peaks on the "list" are not worthy objectives IMHO...Yahoo? Butterknife? Or some obscure point on a ridge. And some are technical towers beyond my ability. I am looking for additional "13ers" beyond the ranked peaks that are worthy objectives that aren't on 14ers.com or that missed the cut. Two examples:

Little Wasatch Mountain (listed on LoJ). It only has 43 feet of rise, but its vertical relief is notable and kind of stands as it's one peak (jut factor?) IMO. It also completes a nice loop.

13,000+ point north of Mount Solitude (not listed AFAIK). This point "feels" like its own peak. It's at the intersection of three ridges. If approaching Solitude from the north, this point has the most fulfilling climbing and Solitude feels like an insignificant higher bump.

I basically want some additional 13,000 foot objectives to fill in my hiking time as I have fewer ranked 13ers to complete. Maybe I should just move down to the higher ranked 12ers.

Thanks for everyone's input!

[Chicago Transplant]

I probably should have included my reason for wanting to know what additional unranked peaks are out there beyond the 14ers.com list. I am not looking to complete a list. Many of the peaks on the "list" are not worthy objectives IMHO...Yahoo? Butterknife? Or some obscure point on a ridge. And some are technical towers beyond my ability. I am looking for additional "13ers" beyond the ranked peaks that are worthy objectives that aren't on 14ers.com or that missed the cut. Two examples:

Little Wasatch Mountain (listed on LoJ). It only has 43 feet of rise, but its vertical relief is notable and kind of stands as it's one peak (jut factor?) IMO. It also completes a nice loop.

13,000+ point north of Mount Solitude (not listed AFAIK). This point "feels" like its own peak. It's at the intersection of three ridges. If approaching Solitude from the north, this point has the most fulfilling climbing and Solitude feels like an insignificant higher bump.

I basically want some additional 13,000 foot objectives to fill in my hiking time as I have fewer ranked 13ers to complete. Maybe I should just move down to the higher ranked 12ers.

Thanks for everyone's input!

The 13075 point north of Solitude is "Vista Peak" or "Vista Point" depending on who you ask, I would say yes as to worthy and have done it a couple of times, class 2.

Little Wasatch I did as part of a loop but would say its less worthy and more of just the end of the ridge on Wasatch.

Butterknife is actually a really fun ski line, but agree its not a peak.

[bdloftin77]

Here’s a picture of the 1968 origin of the 300 foot rule from William Graves T&T no 590. He’s credited as the creator of the 300 ft guideline, though 300 ft was first introduced by the SJM’s in 1930’s, and Graves is also the author of the original 100 highest list. Graves just didn’t want to add 6 peaks to the 14er list and 300 feet was a good number to avoid that with a few caveats. It caught on in the late 1970’s/80’s. I’ll point out his last sentence because it seemed relevant to what masonzastrow was saying “Everything we climb doesn’t have to be on a list”.
IMG_2435.jpeg

Thanks for the picture! Would you mind posting the rest of that page too, as well as the page before and after? (assuming they're all about the 300' standard). It's cool to learn more about the history of the 300' rule.

GoreGalore also mentioned that the 300' rule was in use by the Appalachian Mountain Club in 1931 in addition to the San Juan Mountaineers in 1933. Gore, do you have any pictures of the 1933 SJM edtion by chance that shows the possible Colorado origin of the 300' rule?
viewtopic.php?p=657458

SPENCER SWANGER BECOMES THE FIRST TO CLIMB COLORADO'S HUNDRED HIGHEST PEAKS, 1977
by gore galore

WILLIAM GRAVES AND THE HUNDRED HIGHEST LIST
The original “100 Highest Summits In Colorado” list was compiled in 1968 by William Graves, a Colorado Mountain Club member and a Professor of Engineering at Colorado State University. Graves based his list on a pivotal article he had also published in 1968 in “Trail and Timberline” magazine in which he advocated a 300-foot concept of adjoining saddle to summit rise to determine an individual mountain.

Graves' 300-foot proposal was not original in thought as many think for the 300-foot criteria was first used in the White Mountains of New Hampshire by Nathaniel Goodrich of the Appalachian Mountain Club in 1931 to define the 4,000 footers where “there are a few humps and shoulders which hardly seem to rate as separate mountains” and in Colorado in the San Juans by the San Juan Mountaineers in 1933 to determine a peak from a summit. But there was little need to determine separate mountains except by name as the only relevant list of the time in Colorado was the list of 14,000 foot peaks which were tradition bound.

Graves' article sought to provide an answer to the question of “What is a mountain?” in order to establish an authoritative list of Fourteens in view of the then intense activity of the USGS in resurveying accepted 14,000 foot peaks and potential future ones in ranges like the Sangre de Cristos and Culebra ranges which had no topographic maps at that time. Graves concluded in his article that “a 300-foot cut-off is the only 'nice round number' that hits any sort of large gap on the list.”

The history of “What is a mountain?” in Colorado is a fascinating one of proposals and concepts based on visual observations, climbing difficulties, perceptions, physical characteristics and mathematical formulas that can be traced back to the Georgetown miners of the 1860's who debated whether Torreys was a point of Grays Peak or a separate peak itself. And within that history there are specific reasons why the Colorado Mountain Club considers North Maroon and El Diente as Fourteens, Cameron once was but is no longer and Challenger is not but yet is part of the list of 13,000 foot peaks.

You guys do know that words don't have absolute meanings, right? Right?

So there's no such thing as a "peak" or a "tower" that is objectively definable, and an exercise in "I know a peak when I see one" is just sophistry.

I swear the .com re-invents some aspect of classical philosophy every week. This week it's the Platonic Forms! Whatever will it be next?

[SnowAlien]

I've been slowly chipping away at the unranked peaks last couple summers and the variability really suprises me. The common feature is that there is less than 300 ft of elevation between the saddle and the summit, but more often than not I have to go over 2 ranked 13ers or even 14ers to get to an unranked summit, so the day's vert can be quite significant despite the low prominence. Makes sense that I left them out the first time to focus on the more prominent summits! But the repeats are fun, maybe even more fun than doing the peaks the first time. I am not on LOJ, so I just follow the 14ers.com list since it's user-friendly.
p.s. Ski Hayden is not just a peak, but a 4,000 ft ski line that you can see from the top of the Aspen mountain.

[Boggy B]

You guys do know that words don't have absolute meanings, right? Right?

So there's no such thing as a "peak" or a "tower" that is objectively definable, and an exercise in "I know a peak when I see one" is just sophistry.

I swear the .com re-invents some aspect of classical philosophy every week. This week it's the Platonic Forms! Whatever will it be next?

are you towerblind?