Why only 53?

[Redleg Bruce]

So Sunlight Spire is now officially a 14er, it is just unranked, right? How many unranked+ranked 14ers are there, then?

[Layne Bracy]

How many unranked+ranked 14ers are there, then?

An answer to this question requires that you define a minimum prominence for an unranked 14er.

How low do you want to go? 200', 100', 40'(single contour)?

There has to be some minimum criteria, or else every rock(and atom) of the surface area above 14K becomes its own unranked 14er!

[PKelley]

I personally would like to see Sunlight Spire added to the 14er checklist on this site, even though it is unranked.

[Jon Frohlich]

To me the bigger head scratcher is including North Maroon but not North Massive. Both have identical names, North + parent peak (as opposed to Challenger or El Diente, with their individualized names), but North Massive is farther from Massive than North Maroon from Maroon, .9 miles to .4 miles, and North Massive rises farther from the saddle, 280 feet to 234 feet than North Maroon(according to Roach). So to include North Massive and not include North Maroon makes no sense to me.

The only remotely legit reason I've seen for it not being included is that 'North Massive' isn't an official name. The other argument is that it doesn't appear to be a separate peak. That one is pretty weak in my opinion. I agree that it should be on the list (and I counted it).

[MountainMan88]

The new official list should be 55, using the new elevations, becuase you have the 53 peaks with 300 feet prominence and yes Challenger Point does make that list with 301 feet prominence, and then you add North Maroon Peak and El Diente Peak to them, even though they don't have 300 feet prominence they are on the current official list. My personal list is 57, adding Conundrum Peak and Mount Cameron to the 55.

[BillMiddlebrook]

Putting ElD and North Maroon on an "official" list can only be done if you ignore the 300' of prominence "rule" or you include them simply because people like them and want to include them on the list. The CMC list just doesn't take into account prominence on ALL named 14ers. If it did, it would exclude ElD and North Maroon and include Challenger. That makes 53.

Maybe the CMC doesn't want to put Challenger on the list because a lot of finishers would have to go climb it. Hey, things change. Wait until "Sunlight Spire" is officially named.

I'll reiterate that the 14er list on 14ers.com is defined by specific criteria, not any personal feelings for individual peaks:
1) Peak is named by the USGS (that currently excludes "North Massive")
2) Peak meets 300' of Prominence
That's it.

I should put a hotkey on my keyboard for this response. :D

[Jim Davies]

Wait until "Sunlight Spire" is officially named.

Maybe somebody should start the process to name it after Spencer Swanger. Spencer's Spire, anyone? :D

[Tabasco78]

What is the prominence of the Spire, btw? It doesn't look like it's over 300.

[tmathews]

What is the prominence of the Spire, btw? It doesn't look like it's over 300.

According to Peakbagger.com, it's "clean prominence" is 195 ft. and its "optimistic prominence" is 235 ft. It lists its elevation at 13,995 ft., though. Didn't that get updated to 14,000 ft. recently?

[Jim Davies]

According to listsofjohn, prominence is 215', separation from parent 0.17 miles, both too small by local standards to be ranked.

[TravelingMatt]

yes Challenger Point does make that list with 301 feet prominence

Does Challenger officially have >300 feet of clean prominence? The KC/Challenger col is between the 13760 and 13800 contours. If we accept Challenger's elevation as 14081 it only has 281' of clean prominence.

I have a hunch people don't have much of a beef with counting Challenger because the standard route up KC goes over Challenger anyway (unlike with North Maroon and North Massive, the lesser summit is reached first), and drops a couple hundred feet below the col so that there's some 500' of "hiking prominence", to coin a phrase.

[Scott P]

Does Challenger officially have >300 feet of clean prominence?

No, but some other well-known peaks don't either. Mt. Bross is one of them.

Any thoughts about Stewart Peak? In the late '60's or early '70's the World Almanac (and possibly CDOT) gave this peak 14,060'. Now it is 13,983'. Seventy-seven feet is quite a loss. Talk about change over time.

Some have been added as well as deleted. For example: Holy Cross was once thought a 13er. Ellingwood Point used to not be on the list (it was known to be over 14K, but wasn't considered an official peak). Mount Ouray was thought to be 14K at one time (and some people still think it is).

Some old lists have 46 only 14ers.

I'll reiterate that the 14er list on 14ers.com is defined by specific criteria, not any personal feelings for individual peaks:
1) Peak is named by the USGS (that currently excludes "North Massive")
2) Peak meets 300' of Prominence
That's it.

Bill; just curious and asking (not debating) about #1. Why would being officially named by the USGS be a criteria?

In Utah for example, a majority of the 12ers and 13ers are officially un-named:

http://www.summitpost.org/list/169944/u ... nence.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This includes peaks with well over 1500 foot prominence and which have much more prominence than even peaks such as Snowmass, Quandary, Wetterhorn and Pyramid to name a few (actually most 14ers would fit this list).

If peaks such as Pyramid, Snowmass or Wetterhorn weren't officially named by the USGS, wouldn't they still be considered 14ers?