14ers.com

jdorje wrote:It seems pretty clear Roach intended the Centennials to be more or less the 100 highest peaks, and to have more or less the same number of 13ers as 14ers. Thus the name would be more or less appropriate, and the difficulty of completing the centennials after finishing the fourteeners would be about the same.

It seem pretty clear you have no idea what you're talking about. As I stated earlier, the Centennials are the 100 highest ranked peaks (not more or less): 53 14ers and 47 13ers. The fact that there is more or less the same number of 14ers and 13ers on the list is mere coincidence. And the difficulty of completing the Centennial 13ers after completing the 14ers is not the same. None of the 14ers approach the difficulty of the hardest 13ers on the list. And the use of the term Centennial to denote the highest 100 peaks was in usage long before Roach wrote his 13ers guidebook.

GeezerClimber wrote:Recently I was telling my brother who lives in CT and is a retired atttorney about all the rules and differing interpretations, arguments, etc. about what is and what isn't a peak plus what is and what isn't a climb.

His reply: "sounds like a bunch of lawyers ruining everyone's fun."

After reading this thread, I concur.

Dave

It's a website. 90% of the topics are trivial. 100% of the topics end in an argument.

Shall we throw the list of 59 "winter 14ers by convention" into the mix?

The "rule" here is only that the four men who have completed all of Colorado's 14ers in calendar winter summitted the list of 58 (recognized here) along with North Massive, for a total of 59.

(After March 19 I'm hoping that singular gender above can no longer be used...CAIC yellow and improving in the SSJ...GL, S!)

jdorje wrote:LoJ has a centennials list. It has 127 peaks & points on it, which appear to be every LoJ point higher than Dallas Peak that's in Colorado (it includes Huerfano County HP and many other completely unranked spots). There's also a bicentennials list, which includes just 200 peaks of which Dallas is the 100th.

The centennial list you link to is a custom list created by a user. Here is John's official list. I've always referred to the 47 ranked peaks below 14K that comprise the Top 100 as centennial 13ers or centennials.

I'm not sure if I'll ever climb the Top 200 but I will stir the pot by saying that peaks #101 through 202 are more difficult as a whole than peaks #1 through 100. That is what I see when I look at the names and consider the routes.

rijaca wrote:As I stated earlier, the Centennials are the 100 highest ranked peaks (not more or less): 53 14ers and 47 13ers.

Sure. But if you tie yourself to a list of exactly 100, you're going to be screwed when peaks and saddles are re-surveyed. When North Massive is resurveyed and found to have 302 feet of prominence, are you going to remove Dallas from the list? Or will you remove it if Niagara is given 3 extra feet? I don't think so.

Or if Challenger is found to have 298 feet of prominence, will you add Niagara to the list and discount everyone who hasn't completed it?

rijaca wrote:The fact that there is more or less the same number of 14ers and 13ers on the list is mere coincidence. And the difficulty of completing the Centennial 13ers after completing the 14ers is not the same.

"Climbing the 59 centennial thirteeners [is commensurate to] the goal of climbing Colorado's 55 fourteeners." - attributed to Roach's 13er book, earlier in this thread. It seems to me that he means it is comparable in its volume, not in its technical difficulty. And obviously that's more than 100 peaks. Of course, he also found that a convenient number to write a book about, so in this case there's added reason for the comparison.

Discussing lists, prominence, ranking, and so on is entertaining and can be fun. But if you're getting worked up about it you're gonna be in trouble. Even if measurement was accurate and precise, peak altitudes would still change over time. The problem of having a fixed ranking with so many peaks so close to each other in elevation is fundamentally unsolvable.

jdorje wrote:Sure. But if you tie yourself to a list of exactly 100, you're going to be screwed when peaks and saddles are re-surveyed. When North Massive is resurveyed and found to have 302 feet of prominence, are you going to remove Dallas from the list? Or will you remove it if Niagara is given 3 extra feet? I don't think so.

The Applachian Mountain Club does just this, changing its lists in response to new surveys. People who have already finished under the old lists get grandfathered in, and there's usually a window of a couple years where you can use either list.

gdthomas wrote:It's a website. 90% of the topics are trivial. 100% of the topics end in an argument.

No they don't!

TravelingMatt wrote:

jdorje wrote:Sure. But if you tie yourself to a list of exactly 100, you're going to be screwed when peaks and saddles are re-surveyed. When North Massive is resurveyed and found to have 302 feet of prominence, are you going to remove Dallas from the list? Or will you remove it if Niagara is given 3 extra feet? I don't think so.

The Applachian Mountain Club does just this, changing its lists in response to new surveys. People who have already finished under the old lists get grandfathered in, and there's usually a window of a couple years where you can use either list.

So does the Colorado Mountain Club. Grizzly Peak used to be on the 14ers list before it was re-surveyed. This has happened with the 14ers, not just the Highest 100. A list of the highest 100 peaks contains exactly 100 peaks, based on the accepted (and otherwise arbitrary) rules defining what a peak is, and the best and current information on the elevations available. The lists are recalculated whenever that information changes. People's claims of completion made on good faith and based on a previous version of a list are grandfathered in.

In addition, people are always finding out that maps are wrong. LOJ contains numerous notes for peaks at all elevations about a summit elevation being higher than indicated by the map, where the cartographer left off a contour, as can be determined by sight leveling or other means:
http://listsofjohn.com/PeakStats/Climbers.php?Id=1374" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Also, some peaks have multiple equal highest closed contours, some or all of which may not have spot elevations, leaving the location of the summit and thus the elevation of the peak to be determined in the field. This means that a peak can move up or down on the elevation list as data is discovered about it, which sometimes moves it into a different Hundred group. This almost happened with Nokhu Crags:
http://listsofjohn.com/PeakStats/Climbers.php?Id=1307" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
If the southern summit had been found to be higher, its interpolated elevation would have been 12500, pushing it into the Highest 1000 list.

It's also somewhat common for someone to discover that there is a boulder hidden in the trees that is higher than a previously accepted summit location, so that even if the elevation of the peak doesn't change, the summit does:
http://listsofjohn.com/PeakStats/Climbers.php?Id=2545" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

On top of that, ranked peaks are still being discovered. This peak was recently added at LOJ:
http://listsofjohn.com/PeakStats/Climbers.php?Id=4660" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
At least one person had completed all of the peaks in Mineral County before this one was found and added to the list. Now, no one has completed the county according to the current list.

People who are still physically able to often reclimb peaks or climb additional peaks when new information becomes available. There is a long history of this in Colorado.

Teresa Gergen wrote: In addition, people are always finding out that maps are wrong. LOJ contains numerous notes for peaks at all elevations about a summit elevation being higher than indicated by the map, where the cartographer left off a contour, as can be determined by sight leveling or other means:
http://listsofjohn.com/PeakStats/Climbers.php?Id=1374" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This peak was formerly a highest 400, and moved up to highest 300 for exactly that reason:
http://listsofjohn.com/PeakStats/Climbers.php?Id=510

Teresa Gergen wrote:A list of the highest 100 peaks contains exactly 100 peaks, based on the accepted (and otherwise arbitrary) rules defining what a peak is, and the best and current information on the elevations available. The lists are recalculated whenever that information changes. People's claims of completion made on good faith and based on a previous version of a list are grandfathered in.

Yeah, if you're willing to go that route you won't have problems. I just figured (and still figure) no centennial finisher would approve of the removal of Dallas...

jdorje wrote:

Teresa Gergen wrote:A list of the highest 100 peaks contains exactly 100 peaks, based on the accepted (and otherwise arbitrary) rules defining what a peak is, and the best and current information on the elevations available. The lists are recalculated whenever that information changes. People's claims of completion made on good faith and based on a previous version of a list are grandfathered in.

Yeah, if you're willing to go that route you won't have problems. I just figured (and still figure) no centennial finisher would approve of the removal of Dallas...

I don't believe the list of Centennial peaks has changed in the past twenty or so years (since Challenger Point was named and 'discovered' to have 300'+ of prominence).