3,000 foot rule question?

Items that do not fit the categories above.
Forum rules
Please do not use this forum to advertise, sell photos or other products or promote a commercial website. For more details, please see the Terms of Use you agreed to when joining the forum.
Post Reply
pvnisher
Posts: 1307
Joined: 9/29/2006
14ers: List not added
Trip Reports (8)

Re: 3,000 foot rule question?

Post by pvnisher » Thu Oct 08, 2020 6:22 pm

9patrickmurphy wrote:
Thu Oct 08, 2020 2:07 pm
This post could have ended the whole thread. I just climb mountains for the good views, pedantry be damned.
May I refer you to my Pedants Unite thread?

https://www.14ers.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=57781
Old Hickory
Posts: 62
Joined: 6/21/2013
14ers:summits16 
13ers:summits4 

Re: 3,000 foot rule question?

Post by Old Hickory » Thu Oct 08, 2020 11:48 pm

9patrickmurphy wrote:
Thu Oct 08, 2020 2:07 pm
Conor wrote:
Sat Sep 22, 2018 10:06 am
This whole 3000' thing is boring.
This post could have ended the whole thread. I just climb mountains for the good views, pedantry be damned.
This. I am old and not a hiker with any special goals other than to return to Colorado next year (Covid and crowds deterred me this year) and find mountains with few people on them. I have considered the 3,000 foot "rule" and understand ("pedantry be damned") that it doesn't matter to me. These days, I'm more attracted to 13ers.
nunns
Posts: 1034
Joined: 8/17/2018
14ers:summits41 
13ers:summits4 

Re: 3,000 foot rule question?

Post by nunns » Fri Oct 09, 2020 8:48 am

highpilgrim wrote:
Thu Oct 08, 2020 1:07 pm
shelly+ wrote:
Thu Oct 08, 2020 1:04 pm
yes, sir.
Someone being polite in the forum? How interesting.

Oh, wait; I'm probably just projecting. I learned that from watching the news lately.
You must admit, HighPilgrim, that you don't always set a great example in this regard.

Sean Nunn
"Thy righteousness is like the great mountains." --Psalms 36:6
teamdonkey
Posts: 128
Joined: 8/29/2018
14ers:summits28 winter1 
13ers:summits18 winter1 

Re: 3,000 foot rule question?

Post by teamdonkey » Fri Oct 09, 2020 8:49 am

Old Hickory wrote:
Thu Oct 08, 2020 11:48 pm
This. I am old and not a hiker with any special goals other than to return to Colorado next year (Covid and crowds deterred me this year) and find mountains with few people on them. I have considered the 3,000 foot "rule" and understand ("pedantry be damned") that it doesn't matter to me. These days, I'm more attracted to 13ers.
Not to beat a dead topic, but I assume as the mountains get smaller people care less and less about the 3k "rule". Like is anyone diligently making sure they start at 9k when hiking 12'ers?
nunns
Posts: 1034
Joined: 8/17/2018
14ers:summits41 
13ers:summits4 

Re: 3,000 foot rule question?

Post by nunns » Fri Oct 09, 2020 8:50 am

ltlFish99 wrote:
Thu Oct 08, 2020 6:05 pm
I think I'll hike decalibron 4 times, just so I can say I did each mountain separately.

I am fan of and adhere to the 3,000 foot guideline simply because in the beginning I did not know anything about the mountains, was very curious and heard/read a lot about this.
It just made sense to me in the same way a peak needs to a certain height above the nearest neigh bor peak to be ranked makes sense.
But if you climb DeCaliBron and adhere to the 3000' rule, you will need to start well below Kite Lake every time.
I did that from Montgomery Reservior way back in the day (2003?). It was kind of fun. I only did it once though.

Sean Nunn
"Thy righteousness is like the great mountains." --Psalms 36:6
User avatar
sigepnader
Posts: 188
Joined: 10/17/2011
14ers:summits17 
13ers:summits45 winter1 

Re: 3,000 foot rule question?

Post by sigepnader » Fri Oct 09, 2020 9:31 am

Old Hickory wrote:
Thu Oct 08, 2020 11:48 pm
9patrickmurphy wrote:
Thu Oct 08, 2020 2:07 pm
Conor wrote:
Sat Sep 22, 2018 10:06 am
This whole 3000' thing is boring.
This post could have ended the whole thread. I just climb mountains for the good views, pedantry be damned.
This. I am old and not a hiker with any special goals other than to return to Colorado next year (Covid and crowds deterred me this year) and find mountains with few people on them. I have considered the 3,000 foot "rule" and understand ("pedantry be damned") that it doesn't matter to me. These days, I'm more attracted to 13ers.

Hey now... another Nashville guy who prefers 13ers?

Are we related? 😁
User avatar
highpilgrim
Posts: 2872
Joined: 3/14/2008
14ers:summits58 
13ers:summits82 winter1 
Trip Reports (1)

Re: 3,000 foot rule question?

Post by highpilgrim » Fri Oct 09, 2020 11:08 am

nunns wrote:
Fri Oct 09, 2020 8:48 am
You must admit, HighPilgrim, that you don't always set a great example in this regard.
It's highpilgrim, Mr. Nunn.

I think your point was mostly the point of my point. I don't lack self-awareness in that regard. In fact, I'm perfectly happy poking fun at my shortcomings and I never lack material in so doing.
Call on God, but row away from the rocks.
Hunter S Thompson

Walk away from the droning and leave the hive behind.
Dick Derkase
User avatar
rijaca
Posts: 3107
Joined: 7/9/2006
14ers:summits58 winter4 
13ers:summits244 ski1 winter3 
Trip Reports (1)

Re: 3,000 foot rule question?

Post by rijaca » Fri Oct 09, 2020 12:58 pm

teamdonkey wrote:
Fri Oct 09, 2020 8:49 am
Not to beat a dead topic, but I assume as the mountains get smaller people care less and less about the 3k "rule". Like is anyone diligently making sure they start at 9k when hiking 12'ers?
I can't speak for others, but I'm not aware of anyone doing 12ers/13ers/whatever, that is adhering to the '3000' rule'.
"A couple more shots of whiskey,
the women 'round here start looking good"
User avatar
bergsteigen
Posts: 2239
Joined: 6/14/2008
14ers:summits58 ski52 winter18 
13ers:summits519 ski98 winter18 
Trip Reports (233)
Contact:

Re: 3,000 foot rule question?

Post by bergsteigen » Fri Oct 09, 2020 1:01 pm

rijaca wrote:
Fri Oct 09, 2020 12:58 pm
teamdonkey wrote:
Fri Oct 09, 2020 8:49 am
Not to beat a dead topic, but I assume as the mountains get smaller people care less and less about the 3k "rule". Like is anyone diligently making sure they start at 9k when hiking 12'ers?
I can't speak for others, but I'm not aware of anyone doing 12ers/13ers/whatever, that is adhering to the '3000' rule'.
Nope, because it would be ridiculously stupid and pointless.

3k is only a thing with 14ers, because there really aren’t that many.
"Auto racing, bull fighting, and mountain climbing are the only real sports ... all others are games." - Ernest Hemingway (or was it Barnaby Conrad?)
Your knees only get so many bumps in life, don't waste them on moguls!
“No athlete is truly tested until they’ve stared an injury in the face and come out on the other side stronger than ever” -anonymous

http://otinasadventures.com @otina
User avatar
Boggy B
Posts: 428
Joined: 10/15/2009
14ers:summits58 winter7 
13ers:summits767 winter100 
Trip Reports (38)

Re: 3,000 foot rule question?

Post by Boggy B » Fri Oct 09, 2020 2:21 pm

So, I've actually tried to gain 3,000' whenever possible, and by that I mean often intentionally starting lower than necessary.
The reality is that most 13ers require you to gain at least 3k anyway, with the exception of certain higher trailheads (Yankee Boy, for example).
Curious to see where I landed on that but the checklist download functions don't seem to be working.
onebyone
Posts: 482
Joined: 7/27/2012
14ers:summits58 ski1 

Re: 3,000 foot rule question?

Post by onebyone » Fri Oct 09, 2020 5:26 pm

I tried to stick to the 3,000' rule. Even on Sneffels, I hiked down the road a quarter mile or so to get the 3000 feet.
I tried hiking well below the gate for Sherman and I think I still failed getting the 3,000 feet by a solid 300 feet or so. lol. Started at that intersection whatever elevation that is, if anyone knows,
For Democrat, Bross, etc, I didn't even bother trying to get 3,000 feet. Same with Bierstadt. At some point it gets silly. lol
For others, I started farther down the road. e.g. Antero, Uncompaghre, etc.

Having said that, climbing 14ers is totally arbitrary. Is there really a difference between a 14,005 foot and 13,960 foot mountain? Same with the 3,000 foot rule- totally made up. It's more about setting a goal for yourself and trying to achieve that goal imo.
User avatar
SchralpTheGnar
Posts: 1550
Joined: 2/26/2008
14ers:summits51 ski49 winter1 
13ers:summits28 ski21 
Trip Reports (20)

Re: 3,000 foot rule question?

Post by SchralpTheGnar » Fri Oct 09, 2020 5:44 pm

onebyone wrote:
Fri Oct 09, 2020 5:26 pm
I tried to stick to the 3,000' rule. Even on Sneffels, I hiked down the road a quarter mile or so to get the 3000 feet.
I tried hiking well below the gate for Sherman and I think I still failed getting the 3,000 feet by a solid 300 feet or so. lol. Started at that intersection whatever elevation that is, if anyone knows,
For Democrat, Bross, etc, I didn't even bother trying to get 3,000 feet. Same with Bierstadt. At some point it gets silly. lol
For others, I started farther down the road. e.g. Antero, Uncompaghre, etc.

Having said that, climbing 14ers is totally arbitrary. Is there really a difference between a 14,005 foot and 13,960 foot mountain? Same with the 3,000 foot rule- totally made up. It's more about setting a goal for yourself and trying to achieve that goal imo.
45 feet
Post Reply