Recently became a 46er and got curious about the history of peak lists.

The 46 list is quite ideal. Reasonable number, has some basis (4000'), but not all the peaks are actually 4000' (based on re-surveying). One 4000' peak is not on the list. In my opinion pretty much all the peaks are worth hiking up (maybe two or three were a little suspect) They have a 46er club with a cool logo. Seems pretty fun.

I am currently working on my CO 14ers. Suitably good list. I kind of like the idea that the list is somewhat in dispute (54 to 58 peaks) depending on how you count. Doesn't seem as "official" as the 46ers (Do they give out numbers?). I thought I read somewhere that the CMC keeps track, but I don't know.

What are the other "classic" lists in the US and Canada. State highpoints? CA 14ers? What is your favorite list that you are working on?

Northeast 115, seems kind of contrived. The list is too long and it is primarily just a combination of other lists. I have heard of the Southern Sixers (6000' peaks), but most of these peaks don't even look like they are worth hiking up.

I just moved to Oregon and the main "list" if you can call it that is top 100. Not that interesting. There is the Cascades volcanoes list. I have already done a few, probably will work on that. I also heard about the Washington state county highpoints that is supposed to be pretty good.

Everything you need to know about every ranked (300 ft of prominence), named, and nicknamed peak in the US:
http://listsofjohn.com/

Some of the lists are menu options on the left. On the left near the bottom is a "Custom List" option where people have submitted their own favorites. You can make up your own lists and see where everyone else who uses the site is on the list already. Lists by elevation, prominence, county, quadrangle, etc for each state are under the "Lists and Stats" state dropdown on the right above the home page picture.

When you select a particular peak, each peak page shows lots of info pertaining to it.

You can log your ascents, even if you don't have all of your dates (put them in with no date in that case).

The Colorado Mountain Club keeps track of the people who complete the CO 14ers, each hundred group (Highest 100, 200, etc), the 13ers, the 12ers, and so forth. Anyone can submit their completion information, and the finisher lists are published once a year in the Winter issue of the CMC's Trail and Timberline publication. Most people feel the need to complete at least 55 14ers before submitting their name: the 53 ranked 14ers (which includes Challenger, but not El Diente and North Maroon), and the 54 "traditionally recognized" 14ers (which includes El Diente and North Maroon but not Challenger). You can't complete the Highest 100, etc (the highest 100, etc peaks ranked by the 300 ft rule) without climbing Challenger.

Great page Catamount - one I've had bookmarked for a long time. Even though I live in Virginia, I have long been enamored of the Northeast mountains and their hiking/peakbagging culture. Of the many lists I'm slowly working on there, the 115 is one of them. I need two in NH and nine in the Dacks.

As far as Lists of John goes concerning the Northeast, as Teresa pointed out - members can add their own custom list to the site and make it public (or keep it private). The main problem is that unless they are named on the map, or it is a county highpoint, the site does not include peaks with less than possible 300' of prominence. This isn't a problem most other places where 300' is the accepted norm to be a "ranked" peak - that is one that would be considered #X highest in a complete state listing. However, John Kirk has some leeway for rectifying this. If a missing peak has an unofficial name published in print somewhere and you contact him with the documentation, he will likely add it. He may possibly also be willing to add a peak lacking an unofficial name if you can document that is is on a long-standing, often pursued list.

Some other lists worth doing are those based on prominence. The biggie in the Lower 48 states is the list of 57 Ultra Prominence peaks (P5Ks) - those are the peaks with at least 5,000' of prominence. All but two are out West. Only a handful of people have done all of them, but you can be assured that nearly all of these peaks are "worthwhile" P2K and P1K are other popular cutoffs. You can work on the most prominent peaks in a given state or a region, like say the Southeast Fifty Finest. See http://www.listsofjohn.com/USPro/USProIndex.php

Similarly, some people like doing county highpoints. http://www.cohp.org/ Many of these highpoints are truly worthless as destinations, but others are great. Like the prominence peaks, you can divide them up into sunsets like the Eastern 50 Highest or the Apex 20 Toughest. I'm hoping to someday complete all the Eastern ones above 3,000'. Still need 26 but I've finished the Eastern 50 Highest, and only lack two for all the Eastern ones above 4,000'. See http://www.cohp.org/indiv/Rickey_Shortt.html . Some people, like Bob Packard, take this pursuit to a whole new level http://www.cohp.org/indiv/Bob_Packard.html !

Isolation lists are yet another set that have the potential to be good, especially in alpine regions. This criteria is based on how far away the nearest higher peak is, so if you are on one, you are on the highest thing around for a long distance. In Colorado, for example, you could do the 23 peaks with at least 25 miles of isolation, or perhaps the Top 25 most isolated from this list: http://www.listsofjohn.com/PeakStats/select.php?S=CO&R=I

Several of the Southern Sixers are pretty miserable, especially in Summer, but there are definitely some good ones mixed in.

Several states also have club based firetower challenge lists too, including North Carolina, New York, and New Hampshire. These don't include every firetower in the state (because of access issues) but they are definitely all worthwhile summits.

Just some ideas and thoughts,
Rick

There is the Bulgers - The highest 100 in Washington.
Hands down my favorite list I know of

There is also the Centennials - Highest 100 in Colorado.

I personally don't get why people would go peak-bagging out east but that's probably because I'm only interested in big and rugged mountains. What is the 46ers?

Well, if you live in the East, for one...

The 46ers are the 46 peaks in the Adirondacks over 4,000'. Actually, they are the 46 peaks that were originally thought to be over 4,000'. Today, only 42 of them are believed to be so. But these are the peaks that Bob Marshall and his brother climbed, being the first people to do so, and this list is the official club list for historical reasons.

True, Eastern mountains are not, generally speaking, anywhere nearly as high or rugged as those out West. But they can still be very challenging, rewarding, and beautiful. Especially in the Northeast, trails can be extremely rocky, steep, and slick. Switchbacks are a rarity. Oftentimes the trails are little more than scrambles with blazes painted on the rocks - no real trail to speak of.

Rick

Matt Lemke wrote:I personally don't get why people would go peak-bagging out east but that's probably because I'm only interested in big and rugged mountains.

?

http://www.summitpost.org/the-cliffs-of-hawksbill-mountain/791761

You can' always do 'em in winter to increase the challenge. In fact, some folks do the "grid": each peak on a list (e.g. the NH48) x every month of the year.

Keep in mind too that being below treeline can make a peak harder. We have this thing called bushwhacking, you see...

There are also combination challenges: Trailwrights: bag certain peaks and do a certain amount of trail work too. Views and Brews: self-explanatory. And many others.

http://www.cohp.org
http://www.peakbagger.com
http://www.listsofjohn.com

The above websites are FULL of info on "lists." There are quite literally, thousands of "lists" --- the ones you choose are not better or worse than any other ones, just different. And people that point out that certain areas or regions or peaks with certain prom or elevation are superior to others, are missing the whole point of hiking/climbing in my opinion. Many times, they simply haven't been there and are speculating at best. If you enjoy being outdoors and like the list you are on, then go for it.

My main list is the Western US county highpoints (i'm at 93/414). Only two people have completed all of them (Bob Packard and Adam Helman) and I, personally, think its a worthwhile list. It includes big-name mountains such as Rainier, Whitney, Hood, Adams, Baker, Shasta, Teton, Gannett, Granite, Borah, Cloud, Longs, Wilsons, Crestone, Pikes, Jefferson, Wheeler, Cleveland, N Palisade, etc... --- as well as highpoints in eastern Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming and Montana that are mere specs on a hill in the middle of a cornfield.

I find the shear difference to be fascinating. As well, I enjoy getting to know the Western US. Many people can get stuck in the Colorado or California or Cascade snobbery/funk/complacancy/whatever and fail to see that the Western US (and all of North America for that matter) is an incredibly diverse place with great people and great experiences in every nook and corner. It doesn't matter what you are climbing/hiking, just that you are having fun.

Lists are great, but we all need to remember that there are no trophies, groupies, or endorsements for finishing. Only inward appreciation and satisfaction.

nartreb wrote: Views and Brews: self-explanatory.

How I have never heard of this? its right up my alley and i've been doing this on my own anyways, check my trip reports.

Anyways the reason i got into state highpointing list is because I wanted to visit all 50 states anyways and this is fun unique way to do it. I also have another mountain list i've created that i haven't started yet that focuses on same types of things. I like varied terrains and seeing new things and places. sometimes places surprise you and my list has taken me to places i'd otherwise never would have went

Fletch wrote:Lists are great, but we all need to remember that there are no trophies, groupies, or endorsements for finishing. Only inward appreciation and satisfaction.

No groupies??? That's what I'm here for! I quit!!!

Sarah Simon wrote:

Fletch wrote:Lists are great, but we all need to remember that there are no trophies, groupies, or endorsements for finishing. Only inward appreciation and satisfaction.

No groupies??? That's what I'm here for! I quit!!!

Hello darling...

Fletch wrote:http://www.cohp.org
http://www.peakbagger.com
http://www.listsofjohn.com

The above websites are FULL of info on "lists." There are quite literally, thousands of "lists" --- the ones you choose are not better or worse than any other ones, just different. And people that point out that certain areas or regions or peaks with certain prom or elevation are superior to others, are missing the whole point of hiking/climbing in my opinion. Many times, they simply haven't been there and are speculating at best. If you enjoy being outdoors and like the list you are on, then go for it.

I decided I am going to make an "Oregon 33 list", because Oregon is the 33rd state. I think it will be fun to try to pick the 33 most interesting/representative peaks in Oregon rather than just do something boring like the 100 highest.

Sarah Simon wrote:

Fletch wrote:Lists are great, but we all need to remember that there are no trophies, groupies, or endorsements for finishing. Only inward appreciation and satisfaction.

No groupies??? That's what I'm here for! I quit!!!

My wife was actually hit on by some ass clown in Denver who opened with a list of climbing accomplishments... she couldn't control her laughter and at one point spit her part of her drink out... (and we grew up in LA and have heard (or used ) every line in the book)... unreal!

I know men do this more than women, but do you ever get the sense that people are compensating for something???

The best peak list is your own.

Here's mine:

http://www.summitpost.org/scott-s-wish-list/335481

Everyone else will have a different list.

Nice, Catamount! We all start out familiar with how things are in one geographical area; Colorado is certainly elevation-centric, although it's also become county oriented as well. Personally, I really like seeing people from other parts of the country add their lists and ascents and broaden LOJ. Sooner or later I'll be retired and looking for other lists in other areas.

I have very little experience in the northeast, but when I was there for state highpoints, I was shocked at how much more difficult the terrain was than I was expecting. Your rocky alpine terrain is the same as ours, it just happens to be lower, and your trails are much harder, with sudden Class 3 slabs and big boulders appearing in the middle of them with no way to detour around them in the thick foliage we aren't used to here. Seemed like a "trail" out there meant any place you didn't need a machete to get through, regardless of what was actually under your feet.