14ers.com

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.

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.

highpilgrim wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 1:07 pm

shelly+ wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 1:04 pmyes, sir.

Someone being polite in the forum? How interesting.

Oh, wait; I'm probably just projecting. I learned that from watching the news lately.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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'.

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.