What do you all think of this system?
http://www4.wittenberg.edu/academics/hf ... ticle.html
by LesterLong » Mon Jun 17, 2013 2:47 am
by ExcitableBoy » Mon Jun 17, 2013 3:00 am
by LesterLong » Mon Jun 17, 2013 3:11 am
by sm0421 » Mon Jun 17, 2013 4:25 am
by Andinistaloco » Mon Jun 17, 2013 7:12 am
by LesterLong » Mon Jun 17, 2013 3:51 pm
by Bark Eater » Tue Jun 18, 2013 4:22 pm
by Fletch » Tue Jun 18, 2013 5:52 pm
by Buz Groshong » Tue Jun 18, 2013 6:32 pm
Fletch wrote:I think glaciated peaks should be in a class all themselves... Whitney as a 7, Hood as an 8, Rainier as a 9 and Denali as a 10? Doesn't seem mathmatically correct. I get what the system is trying to do, but you can't climb Elbert twice and exert the same effort/risk/time/etc as a trip up Denali. I'd classify it more like Whitney a 7, Hood a 6, Rainier a 15, and Denali a 35...
by Fletch » Tue Jun 18, 2013 7:09 pm
Buz Groshong wrote:Fletch wrote:I think glaciated peaks should be in a class all themselves... Whitney as a 7, Hood as an 8, Rainier as a 9 and Denali as a 10? Doesn't seem mathmatically correct. I get what the system is trying to do, but you can't climb Elbert twice and exert the same effort/risk/time/etc as a trip up Denali. I'd classify it more like Whitney a 7, Hood a 6, Rainier a 15, and Denali a 35...
This system is obviously intended just for the high points; it is based on ordering them. It just sort of tells which ones are more difficult than others, not how much more difficult. It also doesn't account for mountains that are not state high points and don't really fit into its system.
by reboyles » Tue Jun 18, 2013 8:17 pm
by LesterLong » Wed Jun 19, 2013 3:42 am
by GEM Trail » Thu Sep 29, 2016 7:59 pm
by spiderman » Fri Oct 07, 2016 7:56 pm
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests