triyoda wrote:

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.

I dont think I would call the 100 highest boring, but here is something pretty close to the 33 Oregon peaks.
Oregon 9000 foot peaks, there are 31 of them
http://www.peakbagger.com/list.aspx?lid=21315

The "best" lists seem...

1) ...to have about 40 to 60 peaks. Not so few that you finish quickly, not so many that you sense you'll never finish.

2) ...have a variety of peaks, ranging from easy road or trail hikes to rugged, demanding summits, just enough so that you'll really have to earn those last few to complete the list.

3) ...have some objective definition as to what peaks are included. (For this reason I have never got too worked up about the Sierra Club's Desert Peaks Section list, which is subjectively populated. Although it has many worthy peaks, and I have hiked many of them, I don't actively consult the list myself. But that's me)

4) ...force you to go beyond your comfort level and to explore places that you might otherwise have ignored.

I have been working on the list of 73 Arizona summits with 2000 feet of prominence. Exactly 6 have completed it, and maybe another 6 are actively working on this list. So that if I finish, perhaps 12 to 20 people in the whole world will actually care. But it means a lot to me, and it does motivate me to get out there, and ultimately, that's what makes it a worthy list.

The California county highpoints (56 peaks covering 58 counties) were the most interesting and diverse group of peaks I've ever done. Lots of different terrain and most of them very worthwhile (not 20 peaks in someone's backyard... just one).

surgent wrote:I have been working on the list of 73 Arizona summits with 2000 feet of elevation. Exactly 6 have completed it, and maybe another 6 are actively working on this list. So that if I finish, perhaps 12 to 20 people in the whole world will actually care. But it means a lot to me, and it does motivate me to get out there, and ultimately, that's what makes it a worthy list.

Funny you mention this. Just today I got in a surprisingly testy argument over the "Ballard & Fissure" issue. I say Fissure, he says Ballard, I say "Do both, just to be certain" he says "No, the USGS is the almighty supreme being, Ballard and Ballard only."

<sigh> I'm not a list-chaser, but even for me, something like a P2K - I would prefer to hedge my bets, visit both summits, and be done.

calebEOC wrote:

triyoda wrote:

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.

I dont think I would call the 100 highest boring, but here is something pretty close to the 33 Oregon peaks.
Oregon 9000 foot peaks, there are 31 of them
http://www.peakbagger.com/list.aspx?lid=21315

I like the 46, because they are not actually the highest 46 peaks in NY, and the list does not even contain all the 4000' peaks. There is a level of arbitrary to it, that makes it unique.

Taking the 31, 9000 peaks skips over some other peaks that seem more worthy IMO than using the 31 highest peaks, with a 9000' cutoff.

Sarah Simon wrote:Funny you mention this. Just today I got in a surprisingly testy argument over the "Ballard & Fissure" issue. I say Fissure, he says Ballard, I say "Do both, just to be certain" he says "No, the USGS is the almighty supreme being, Ballard and Ballard only."

<sigh> I'm not a list-chaser, but even for me, something like a P2K - I would prefer to hedge my bets, visit both summits, and be done.

The side-trip to Fissure from Ballard is easy and adds about 30 minutes to the whole hike. The consensus is that Fissure is higher by a few feet. The USGS makes errors, too.

Teresa, thanks for the link to listsofjohn, cool site.

There has been a recent surge in popularity by crazy canucks hoping to tick the list of the 54 Canadian Rockies 11,000 footers. This is likely due to the release of Bill Corbett’s ( http://www.billcorbett.ca/ ) 11,000ers of the Canadian Rockies back in 2004.

http://www.rmbooks.com/book_details.php?isbn_upc=9781897522400

Years ago I read in the Canadian Alpine Journal of Don Forest’s ascent of all the 11,000’ers and thought the feat was very impressive. Back in the mid 1990’s, an old climbing mentor of mine (British transparent) suggested the idea that we should also climb all of these grand summits. When Ian suggested this I was a rookie and thought there was no way I could accomplish this, but without real tiring too hard, now I have climbed 28 of the 54. I am keen to climb all these peak now, but with a growing family I am getting out less and less, good thing I am not in rush to complete the list.

Last count, only 9 people have completed this list.

Kevin

Sounds like most of my major lists have been mentioned here...

50 state highpoints (and also the 50 state prominence points)--both great lists.

CO 14ers--a bit overpopular but still a classic.

AZ P2Ks--just a perfect one for someone who wants to experience the full diversity of a beautiful state, from gentle pined almost-alpine summits to razor-sharp, desolate ranges in some of the most unforgiving country around. Very few are easy, but neither are most impossibly hard. Access issues exist on some, but aren't completely insurmountable. Even though I now live in CO, it's Arizona's, not Colorado's P2Ks I still hope and plan to finish someday...

Western county HPs of the lower 48--a great lifetime list, for reasons Fletch mentioned.

The 57 Ultras--exposes you to most of the "major mountains" in the lower 48. Virtually all of them *cough*Abercrombie*cough* are truly impressive, sizable mountains that loom above their surroundings...

crshortt wrote: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

I'd like to complete that list some day. How hard is it? Is there any rock climbing involved?

-Mark

Matt Lemke wrote: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?

I personally don't get why anyone would go peak-bagging in Washington or Colorado but that's probably because I'm only interested in big and rugged mountains, like the Andes and the Himalayas.

By the way, there are a number of peaks in the east that are more rugged than Mt. Elbert and some of the other Colorado 14ers.

MississippiMark wrote:

crshortt wrote: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

I'd like to complete that list some day. How hard is it? Is there any rock climbing involved?

-Mark

Mark, no technical skills required on the standard routes. There are certainly technical climbs available on some of them, usually involving some slides. Moderate route finding ability required on some, willingness to put up with rugged terrain, bugs, deep mud bogs, etc.

Mudrat has an impressive list of trip reports on the most challenging routes here: http://www.summitpost.org/adirondack-sl ... ain/827459
But you can definitely get up all of these without a rope.