Tecumseh out, Guyot in?

[Grey J]

This is not an exact science, visual that is. But Guyot does appear to be higher that S Guyot. Optimistic prominence is one thing. But not being a 4000 footer is something else.

Looking back to Guyot from S. Guyot.

Do other people see Joe's photo here? I just see a blank screen and a minus sign.

PS I' not arguing that South Guyot is higher, merely that my perception at the time was that the two spots appeared roughly equal and that South Guyot felt more "peak-like."

 

[Rhody Seth]

It's conversations like this where you can appreciate the wisdom of the 46ers...

As I've gotten older I've become more accepting of the inevitability of change so I find this topic fascinating. I am (very slowly) chipping away at the Grid and it was always nice having Tecumseh as a Sunday morning option before driving south. What's the policy for those mid-Grid if a change to the 4ks occurs?

 

[maineguy]

As I've gotten older I've become more accepting of the inevitability of change so I find this topic fascinating. I am (very slowly) chipping away at the Grid and it was always nice having Tecumseh as a Sunday morning option before driving south. What's the policy for those mid-Grid if a change to the 4ks occurs?

You have to start over...

 

[SpencerVT]

There are soooo many peaks that should come off the ADK 46. That is the most artificially inflated list ever.
Look at Emmons for example, not even close to 200’ of prominence. There are plenty of others too.
South Hancock is ridiculous and should come off NH.
Unless these lists want to say: “The mountains traditionally considered over 4000 feet” - That would be acceptable.

 

[JustJoe]

Do other people see Joe's photo here? I just see a blank screen and a minus sign.

PS I' not arguing that South Guyot is higher, merely that my perception at the time was that the two spots appeared roughly equal and that South Guyot felt more "peak-like."

This is something new that I've been hearing lately, Have no idea why that is all of a sudden.

 

[JoshandBaron]

This is something new that I've been hearing lately, Have no idea why that is all of a sudden.
View attachment 6603

I think the photo in your original post is the first one you have posted that has actually displayed for me.

 

[maineguy]

There are soooo many peaks that should come off the ADK 46. That is the most artificially inflated list ever.
Look at Emmons for example, not even close to 200’ of prominence. There are plenty of others too.
South Hancock is ridiculous and should come off NH.
Unless these lists want to say: “The mountains traditionally considered over 4000 feet” - That would be acceptable.

Well, that is exactly what the 46 are....the mountains climbed by the Marshall brothers and Herb Clark believed to be at least 4000 feet.

 

[TCD]

Well, that is exactly what the 46 are....the mountains climbed by the Marshall brothers and Herb Clark believed to be at least 4000 feet.

That's right.

>I know we all talked about this already in some earlier thread that I can't find right now.

>I know there is a lot of research published about how the Marshall's came up with the list, and how it changed over some years as various people persuaded the Marshalls to make changes prior to publishing it.

The list of peaks was published in 1927, and has not been changed since then. The 46ers became organized in 1936, and used the fixed, existing list. The list is kept the same as a tradition. Sure, Blake, Nye, Couch, and Cliff are under 4K, and MacNaughton (not on the list) is 4K. But the 46ers would rather hike the existing list, and enjoy the tradition, than quibble over various survey findings. (But to each their own interest, I guess...)

 

[Salty]

At least a couple analyses of the recently published (last year) LiDAR data shows:

Tecumseh: <4k
Guyot: Has >200' prominence in all cols
S. Hancock/Lincoln: Lacks 200' prominence

I have the data somewhere which shows which Guyot is higher, I'll have to remember to look it up.

 

[skiguy]

It seems as far as New Hampshire is concerned most of the Peaks listed, delisted, or a matter of debate are incidental to not all but most hikes anyhow. So really what’s the big deal? For instance who is just going to go hike Guyout without doing at least one of the Bonds or Twins. Not that this is an ironclad argument but why not. I’m mean really. Carter Dome is on the list but why not throw in Mt. Height while your at it if your doing the 4’s. Back when Bond Cliff was not on the list most of us had already done it anyhow if you were well on your way peakbagging. OK not much going on at Tecumseh but the hike over the Sosman Trail has the best views on the Mountain. Point is there is lots of good stuff to be had whether it is on some list or not.

 

[DayTrip]

For instance who is just going to go hike Guyout without doing at least one of the Bonds or Twins

I do that somewhat often via Zealand when I want a longish but not overly challenging hike and desire avoiding crowds of people on 4k missions, although it is not nearly as secluded as it used to be. I think Guyot has one of the best views in the Whites. I don't need the Twins or the Bonds to enjoy that hike.

As far as the lists go, I kind of gravitate toward the "tradition" perspective versus the "splitting hairs" version. Most of these lists originated awhile back and I like the idea of the consistency of the peaks on the list over the generations as a comparison. And I would especially support that idea now with the the huge surge in hiker traffic and the possibility that we turn new peaks into worn out messes like others on the list.

 

[skiguy]

:

I do that somewhat often via Zealand when I want a longish but not overly challenging hike and desire avoiding crowds of people on 4k missions, although it is not nearly as secluded as it used to be. I think Guyot has one of the best views in the Whites. I don't need the Twins or the Bonds to enjoy that hike.

As far as the lists go, I kind of gravitate toward the "tradition" perspective versus the "splitting hairs" version. Most of these lists originated awhile back and I like the idea of the consistency of the peaks on the list over the generations as a comparison. And I would especially support that idea now with the the huge surge in hiker traffic and the possibility that we turn new peaks into worn out messes like others on the list.

OK or Zealand too but not as likely if it were Whitehall and West Field. You could go to South Hale instead.

 

[B the Hiker]

Everyone at the moment is partaking in an odd game where we know (or believe) that several of the 48 do not actually meet the stated criteria for being "4,000-footers." As others have mentioned, if we're going to be correct about it, we should drop those mountains from the list. Or do something different...

An obvious solution (albeit not one that would be acceptable, I suspect, to the members of the AMC Four Thousand Footer Committee of the AMC Four Thousand Footer Club) is to change the name to something along the lines of the "New Hampshire 48 Club." Many of us refer to "hiking the 48" already anyhow.

The current patch has the words 4,000 and AMC on it. It could be changed to 48 and AMC.


Brian

 

[JToll]

Sounds like good idea to me. It avoids all the complications from changing the list for people working on it or the grid.

 

[DayTrip]

Everyone at the moment is partaking in an odd game where we know (or believe) that several of the 48 do not actually meet the stated criteria for being "4,000-footers." As others have mentioned, if we're going to be correct about it, we should drop those mountains from the list. Or do something different...

An obvious solution (albeit not one that would be acceptable, I suspect, to the members of the AMC Four Thousand Footer Committee of the AMC Four Thousand Footer Club) is to change the name to something along the lines of the "New Hampshire 48 Club." Many of us refer to "hiking the 48" already anyhow.

The current patch has the words 4,000 and AMC on it. It could be changed to 48 and AMC.


Brian

Why do we need a "correct" way of looking at this or need a "solution" to this? It's an arbitrary list created to get people in the woods and try out new peaks. Mission accomplished. I don't think we have a problem on our hands. We can make an infinite amount of lists to accommodate everyone's inclusion criteria if we want. This is why I hate lists....

 

[B the Hiker]

This is why I hate lists....

Your signature suggests otherwise.

 

[JustJoe]

Why do we need a "correct" way of looking at this or need a "solution" to this? It's an arbitrary list created to get people in the woods and try out new peaks. Mission accomplished. I don't think we have a problem on our hands. We can make an infinite amount of lists to accommodate everyone's inclusion criteria if we want. This is why I hate lists....

True. And even though Guyot or S. Guyot are a far more desirable destination than Tecumseh (IMO), 90% or better of folks pursuing the 48 will hit Guyot on a Bonds traverse. As far as lists go I swore I was done after doing a fairly lengthy one. But it didn't take long of trying to figure out what to hike, again, turning to a list just made planning easier.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

The greatest "loss" of Tecumseh as a 4K will be to the 4K Every Day pursuers. It's both a short, protected hike, and closer than most to the population.

Tim

 

[skiguy]

The greatest "loss" of Tecumseh as a 4K will be to the 4K Every Day pursuers. It's both a short, protected hike, and closer than most to the population.

Tim

Hopefully they leave their saws at home.

 

[Mike P.]

If the changes come to be and they have been debated for decades, one f the greater losses of adding Guyot is that it will become a destination. I didn't get there this year in the new hiking crowds (and there's no short way to get there either so it's not really a newbie peak.) however, for the times I've been (five or more) there has never been a crowd and the few people I have seen have stayed on the trail. If it gets added to the "official" list, you will more likely find the crowds rivaling other 4K bare peaks. Unlike Garfield, Bondcliff, South Twin, in the area, you don't have a group of large rocks to stand on and they have had scree walls to try and grow back some of the vegetation.

The Southern peak would hold more hikers, however, as other's mentioned, it's a shade lower than the peak along the Twinway.