Mount Guyot

[Mattl]

I think Moutn Guyot should count..as I remember coming off Mount Bond, it seemed very much a prominent peak. Same thing goes for Boott Spur. Sometimes it just doesnt seem that old rule they have should matter, it should be the distance away and how prominent it is. -Mattl

 

[RoySwkr]

Then again, maybe it's like Mount Davis, where the guide says the path goes right to the summit, and doesn't mention how the high point is actually a little bit off the trail.

The summit of Davis is actually about .2 miles off the trail, which actually goes only to the S bump and not the 3889 one. Try it with a GPS if you don't believe me.

With Guyot, there are 2 issues: Which of the 2 bumps is higher and where is the high point on the NE bump? It should be a trivial surveying project to determine which bump is higher, but troublesome to lug the appropriate equipment up there I remember reading about a county highpointer who spent an hour determining which of 2 homeowners had a higher bump in his yard when he could have tagged them both in a couple minutes and been gone. And it's obvious to me that the area S of the trail on the NE bump is slightly higher than the actual treadway, just like on many other peaks, but nobody will care if you walk by and let the little flowers grow.

 

[RoySwkr]

Guyot is a named summit. Just like Bondcliff, West Bond, Bond, South Twin and North Twin.

Hmm, West Bond is not officially named

 

[dr_wu002]

(just kidding)

Hmm, West Bond is not officially named

They should take if off the list then!!!

-Dr. Wu

 

[Mike P.]

Mattl

from Bond it would count, it's the col between guyot & South Twin that is hmm inadeqaute.

 

[Eric Savage]

Mattl

from Bond it would count, it's the col between guyot & South Twin that is hmm inadeqaute.

Actually, if you look carefully at the topo, both cols are marginal (i.e. neither adequate nor clearly inadequate). Two marginal cols is what kept it off of the Four Thousand Footer Committee list.

 

[RoySwkr]

from Bond it would count, it's the col between guyot & South Twin that is hmm inadeqaute.

Actually, if you look carefully at the topo, both cols are marginal (i.e. neither adequate nor clearly inadequate). Two marginal cols is what kept it off of the Four Thousand Footer Committee list.

You guys are both right, the 15' quad the list was originally made from shows plenty of col with Bond but not enough from Twins. When the 7.5' came out, they are now both shown as ~200'. The 4K committee chose to add a peak with one ~200' col (The Cliffs of Bond) but not Guyot with 2.

 

[spider solo]

Perhaps we are not looking high enough...apparently there is a crater on the moon also named for Guyot ...!

 

[Mike P.]

and a 12K peak in CA