14ers that aren't "official" but should be?

This might be a little off-topic for a site that focuses on technical climbing, but I figure there are many here with 14er experience. I just read Aron Ralston's article in Outside and wondered about his use of the USGS list of 59 named summits over 14,000' for his project. To my mind, this is not necessarily a more strict or more hardcore list because it's still based on an arbitrary number (14,000 of some king's unamputated tarsals). Still, I wondered what others thought in response to Ralston's project establishing a different benchmark for the Grand Slam and if there are any particular summits over 14K that are not in the CMC's "official" 54, but should be.
network54.com/Forum/3897/me…

Jason,
I'm just saying all tick lists are somewhat arbitrary as they are based on someone's sense of aesthetics: the 7 summits, 50 Classics, 14,000'. 14,000 is just an arbitrary number and the units (feet) are based on the length of a monarch's foot. How random is that? A list of 59 summits feels more complete to Aron, even though most people consider 54 to be adequate (and we all get to make our own lists). The question is: if you were coming up with a list of summits that represented your idea of the Grand Slam, which ones would you choose? Would you include any of the 5 that the CMC leaves out but Aron ticked?

Would this difference in issue be to legal access, as the CMC can't condone climbing certain peaks?

Or are we addressing the mathematical determinant for separating peaks?

That's an interesting question, Mark. (no pun intended!) I would guess that doesn't affect the list because Culebra has always been privately owned and even closed at times, but always on the list. Math Shmath. I say the decision of what makes separate peaks is aesthetic, not mathematic.

I think we're addressing what should an acceptable policy be when considering a peak ascent, correct? - This same issue has been debated so many times with/at the CMC.

I would even go farther and say I wouldn't consider a peak ascent if all a person did was saddle hop. Lincoln, Bross & Democrat - yea - go back down the trailhead and climb another route for each peak, then you've climbed all three.

Hamish Gowans wrote:This might be a little off-topic for a site that focuses on technical climbing, but I figure there are many here with 14er experience. I just read Aron Ralston's article in Outside and wondered about his use of the USGS list of 59 named summits over 14,000' for his project.

What are the additional 5 peaks on Aron's list?

Ron Olsen wrote: What are the additional 5 peaks on Aron's list?

It looks like:
Cameron
Challenger
N Massive
Conundrum (very close to being included in the CMC list)
N Eolus (certainly a worthy addition to the CMC list)

In case anyone wants to really flesh out their list, I found a site with some 15 or so more 14,000' summits in CO, including weird ones like "South Bross" and "Southeast Longs".
climb.mountains.com/Project…

Mark Nelson wrote:I would even go farther and say I wouldn't consider a peak ascent if all a person did was saddle hop.

Mark,
That would certainly be an improvement in style. Perhaps a new speed record could be set by doing each peak as fast as possible on its own and then totalling the times, like a race series with each peak being its own event. This would remove some of the advantage of logistical support that makes a 10-day Grand Slam possible. Having someone drive you around and cook for you is just huge. How about heloing from TH to TH? Even faster, but not because of the climber ;)

It is too bad Sunlight Spire misses 14K by 5', this would really throw a monkey wrench in all the 14er climbers plans as the summit block is technical. I'd be tempted to make a 5' cairn on the summit, except the drop to the saddle towards Sunlight Peak is only 50' so it fails to be an official 14er in two ways.

George, you can always do a 59+1T Grand Slam. (just add Sunlight Spire to your list and do it!)

The thing that's always bugged me, is that we have more 14ers than the rest of N America, but California still has one higher than us. I guess we'll have to take quantity over quality .

"Quantity over quality" about sums up the difference between CO and CA, I'd say. The Whitney massif alone has about as much good rock as any 20 Colorado peaks put together.

But hey, any weenie can climb on good rock.

The Diamond on Longs Peak has a lot of quality climbing on it! I don't know of any other 14er in the country that rivals it.

Here is a concept...A speed record for climbing all the Colorado 14ers using only human power. No cars, no motorcycles, no helicopters only human power. It has to my knowledge never been done or for that matter even tried. You could be the first and set the bench mark record. How long would it take? My guess is three months.

Speed ascent - someone from Boulder did the feat a few years ago using only his bike and the summer... I think it was three months that it took him - averaging something like 4 hours of sleep each night. And I think he did all 59.

Mt. Hunter makes all our CO's 14ers and CA's 14ers look a wee bit small, eh?

Leo Paik wrote:Mt. Hunter makes all our CO's 14ers and CA's 14ers look a wee bit small, eh?

Leo, just the vertical climbed makes Mt Washington more of a climb than most 14ers.

Jeremy Hakes wrote:someone from Boulder did the feat a few years ago using only his bike and the summer.

His name was Andrew Hamilton and I think his website is still up.

Also, two friends of mine from Colorado College attempted to climb them all (minus Culebra) by walking between them. They got more than 20, but fell victim to a bum ankle and strep throat. CC churns out some crazy folks. See the related forum post