| Welcome to SP! - Sign-In | Register | ||
| | |
| MbPost.com -- It's SP for Mountain Biking! | ||
|
| Andinistaloco | Yo | |
Voted 10/10 | Nice page - I already voted 10/10 on it, so I can't do so again. However, is Escudilla really considered the third highest mountain in AZ? Both Fremont and Doyle are higher, and they certainly have enough more than enough prominence to be considered independent peaks and not sub-peaks of Humphreys. | |
| Posted May 24, 2009 5:43 am | ||
 | ||
| surgent | Re: Yo | |
Hasn't voted | I actually assumed ownership of this page after it was written and other than some photos, have not made any adjustments to the text since it looked pretty solid to me already. In any case, you may have a point. On the one hand, all peaks part of the San Francisco Peaks, which include Doyle and Fremont, would be considered as part of the Humphreys set, and all peaks in the Whites would be grouped in with the Baldy set. Escudilla is sufficiently far from the Whites so that based on this (arbitrary) grouping, then yes, it is #3 in Arizona. This assumes a fairly strict minimum requirement for prominence, and I assume the 2K minimum was used here (neither Doyle nor Fremont have this much separate prominence from Humnphreys). If you allowed a 1K minimum, then you might get a lot of other peaks above Escudilla, etc. This is the classic battle between an objective definition such as prominence or elevation to rank peaks, and the subjective "feeling" of peak rankings. So yes, this page is techically correct, but then, so are you. I hope you like my decisive answer! Personally, I have always avoided lists based on elevation alone since so many of the high peaks are subsidiaries of the range highpoint. Declaring a minimum prominence can create all sorts of lists based on height, and your choice of min prominence, being a subjective variable, thus creates a list ordered by height that is also subjective (dependent on the min prom required for membership). By sheer mass (mostly subjective), I'd rank the peaks thusly: 1) Humphreys and all subsidiaries (including Aggasiz, Doyle, Fremont); 2. Baldy; 3. Pinalenos (Mt Graham and its subisdiaries); 4. Chiricahuas; 5. Catalinas/Lemmon... This leaves out big stand-alone peaks such as Kendrick, Escudilla, Carrizo, etc. | |
| Posted May 26, 2009 4:09 pm | ||
| ||
| Andinistaloco | Re: Yo | |
Voted 10/10 | Thanks for the detailed response! I would absolutely agree with you in that it's all about what system you use... ran into the same problem myself while doing my Sedona Summits list. I tend to default to the rule popularized by Colorado (the 300-foot rule) but of course you can see how that wouldn't work so well in areas where the peaks are much larger or smaller. I had not heard of the 2K rule... wow. That would probably reduce the summits in places like Sedona to one or two! I wonder how long it will take for Arizona to have a more standardized system, like the one CO has (unofficially perhaps) accepted? | |
| Posted Jun 7, 2009 11:21 pm | ||
|
