3000 Feet?

FAQ and threads for those just starting to hike the Colorado 14ers.

Re: 3000 Feet?

Postby ameristrat » Thu Feb 28, 2013 10:21 am

MonGoose wrote: In my opinion, summiting the peak from the trailhead is what matters most to me. I think it's absolutely stupid to walk up a road an additional few hundred feet just to say you've gained 3,000'.

You cannot stay on the summit forever; you have to come down again. So why bother in the first place? Just this: What is above knows what is below, but what is below does not know what is above. One climbs, one sees. One descends, one sees no longer, but one has seen. There is an art of conducting oneself in the lower regions by the memory of what one saw higher up. When one can no longer see, one can at least still know. - Rene Daumal

User avatar
Posts: 538
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 2:25 pm
Location: Broomfield, CO

Re: 3000 Feet?

Postby smoove » Thu Feb 28, 2013 11:28 am

MonGoose wrote:After climbing both peaks, I did not check either one as having gained 3,000' despite gaining 4,547' from the trailhead and hiking 5,800' on the day.

Why didn't you mark one of them? You gained 3,000' on at least one of them.

User avatar
Posts: 552
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 10:29 am
Location: Buena Vista

Re: 3000 Feet?

Postby GeezerClimber » Thu Feb 28, 2013 11:32 am

MonGoose wrote:In my opinion, summiting the peak from the trailhead is what matters most to me. I think it's absolutely stupid to walk up a road an additional few hundred feet just to say you've gained 3,000'. By the time you sprawl across the Knife Edge of Capitol, sit on the summit block of Sunlight and bang the Bells, it really doesn't matter to me if you only gained 2,800' on Mt Bierstadt. Just my .02 cents.

Agreed. I have better things to do with my limited number of days left than to walk from Alma to Democrat's summit. I've had many 5K+ vertical days and don't need to prove anything to myself or others. It's a bit ironic that it is mostly the easiest and not particluarly appealing peaks that are hard to find a route over 3K.


User avatar
Posts: 2681
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 2:59 pm
Location: Littleton, CO

Re: 3000 Feet?

Postby MountainHiker » Thu Feb 28, 2013 12:10 pm

Are we losing touch with what’s important? What does Oprah say?
Red, Rugged, and Rotten: The Elk Range - Borneman & Lampert

User avatar
Posts: 891
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 8:43 pm

Re: 3000 Feet?

Postby crossfitter » Thu Feb 28, 2013 12:18 pm

The 3000' rule is ridiculous.

If your mountain is so unimpressive that you can get to the summit and somehow be unsure if you actually climbed it, no one in their right mind is going to care if you want to claim it. The 3000' rule "matters" in only the following cases:

* You are a competitive trail-runner working under strict guidelines for a consistent benchmark

* You need to be able to spray about your epic summit of Mt. Bierstadt to the cute girl at the bar, while telling her all the other guys that drove to the top of Evan's and walked to the summit are only "Poser mountaineers"
- A mountain is not a checkbox to be ticked
- Alpinism and mountaineering are not restricted to 14,000 foot mountains
- Judgment and experience are the two most important pieces of gear you own
- Being honest to yourself and others about your abilities is a characteristic of experienced climbers
- Courage cannot be bought at REI or carried with you in your rucksack

Re: 3000 Feet?

Postby SnowAlien » Thu Feb 28, 2013 12:23 pm

I think it just comes down to personal preference/personal goals. If your goal is to have a nice outing with family and friends and hike G&T, will it count? Sure it will. If your goal is to do all the 14ers, you may consider adhering to 3k rule. As others said, once you are done with Capitol, Bells and Wilsons, fulfilling a 3k rule on Bierstadt is a child's play. Although it required the 3rd ascent (in winter) for me to finally get the coveted 3k checkmark on Bierstadt. lol

User avatar
Posts: 6371
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 10:46 am
Location: Craig

Re: 3000 Feet?

Postby Scott P » Thu Feb 28, 2013 12:24 pm

I always follow the 3000 feet rule; it's just that some of the feet are covered while sitting in a vehicle.
I'm slow and fat. Unfortunately, those are my good qualities.

User avatar
Posts: 2666
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 7:36 pm
Location: Minglewood

Re: 3000 Feet?

Postby rijaca » Thu Feb 28, 2013 12:25 pm

No one gives a rat''s behind if you don't adhere to the 3000' "rule"!!!!!

User avatar
Posts: 1455
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 2:33 pm
Location: Crestone, CO and/or Chapel Hill, NC

Re: 3000 Feet?

Postby jdorje » Thu Feb 28, 2013 12:40 pm

Again, the only purpose of the 3000' rule is competition; using it in any other context is pure foolishness. Noncompetitive climbing is recreation and needs to target entertainment, not technicalities. Instead of spending 30 minutes hiking up the bottom end of a trail or road, I'd much rather spend an extra 30 minutes on the summit or throw on an extra peak. Of course if that extra 30 minutes at the bottom is entertaining for you, by all means do it.

That said, I fully approve of Doggler's 14er speed grid idea, not just for competition with others but for self-benchmarking and giving oneself a goal in improving fitness.
-Jason Dorje Short


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ryelken and 7 guests