The Rules

[Scarpy]

When I first became aware of the 4000 footer club and read the rules, there was one thing that bugged me. The fact that two peaks (or more) can be bagged by combining them in one hike via a ridge does not seem right to me. Am I alone in thinking that each peak should be tackled as a singular destination? Wouldn't that open up a few more 4000 footers that don't currently qualify because of the 200 foot rule?

 

[Tom_Murphy]

Do the peaks individually for your list.

I am doing the AMC peaks as part of backpacking trips & when I am done going to get a hiking patch made & award it to myself.

 

[Scarpy]

You make it to a peak under your own power = count it.

The list was built to spread out usage over the whole area, having to do some sections multiple times does not help with that.

Making them a singular destination would be ridiculous.. you have to go up and down N hancock and S hancock separately when they are isolated and very close together... N and S tripyramid, Kinsmans, Osceolas. etc

Right. That makes sense. Did not think of it that way. But I think if you climb say North Hancock and then bag South Hancock, you really did not "climb" South Hancock you really only climbed North Hancock. You just "visited" South Hancock. I've been approaching my list with that in mind. Just for my own peace of mind. Just my opinion. I could be persuaded that i am wrong however. I thought I was wrong once but I was mistaken!

 

[Mohamed Ellozy]

The Trailwrights have adopted the "one peak per hike" rule ... feel free to do so yourself.

 

[Scarpy]

The Trailwrights have adopted the "one peak per hike" rule ... feel free to do so yourself.

Thanks Mohamed! I thought I was alone in thinking that way. I have been approaching it that way but always wondered if anyone else thought the same way.

 

[ow2010]

As with any game, rules must be defined in order to make the game worth playing. The rules as defined by the AMC are just one way to play the game...there of course are others.

You certainly don't have to play by the AMC's rules...accomplish your goals in your own framework

 

[Scarpy]

I climbed down one of them, which I find harder.

I've been to the top of 43 out of 48.. plus 4/5 VT's (stupid .2mi summit spur on Killington woulda made it 5)..

The "rules" are what define the 4000' club if you don't like it... don't do it. I'm sure we could come up with something you do "wrong"

Oh you could find plenty I do wrong. Not trying to be a jerk, I just feel the way I feel. I still like the idea of the 4000 footer club and will get it done. My love of the hills trumps any list anyway. The rules are the rules and I'm ok with them. I just wondered if anyone else felt the same way. To each his own.

 

[Scarpy]

I climbed down one of them, which I find harder.

I've been to the top of 43 out of 48.. plus 4/5 VT's (stupid .2mi summit spur on Killington woulda made it 5)..

The "rules" are what define the 4000' club if you don't like it... don't do it. I'm sure we could come up with something you do "wrong"

To add a bit to your bit that doing Hancocks in one day is easier.. i've also done Presi in a day (24mi version), willey, field, tom, Hale in a day(with full pack because i did Zealand and Zeacliff tr the next day), Kinsmans and Cannon in a day, Wildcats and Carters in a day

I also live 4hr from the Whites so i'm going to use my time efficiently. Not everyone has the benefit of living right next door.

Not saying either is right or wrong. I'd say any hiking is right. I'm a couple hours away myself.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

Trailwrights also have a 100-foot col rule (72 peaks), so you get some of the near-miss peaks, like South Tri, North Carter, Blue, Jim, Northwest Hancock, etc.

You can always adopt a stricter set of rules for the AMC 4K Club, just not a looser set.

Tim

 

[Maddy]

I like Tom_D's idea of making your own patch and awarding it to yourself.

 

[TDawg]

If someone were to try and tell me my ascent of Jackson didn't "count" because it was put at the end of a Presie traverse, I'd tell them where to go!

 

[Tom Rankin]

I like Tom_D's idea of making your own patch and awarding it to yourself.

Yeah! (See my sig)

 

[jrgagne99]

Wouldn't that open up a few more 4000 footers that don't currently qualify because of the 200 foot rule?

Just thought I'd point out that there needs to be a minimum prominence rule with any kind of peak-bagging list. Otherwise the list quickly grows to an infinite number of "peaks". For example, a particularly wily map-maker could call every little mound on the Wildcat ridge a peak, even if it's just a 3-foot boulder. We would easily have Wildcat A thru ZZ up there, and then, with your "one-hike-per-peak rule" you'd need to hike up to the ridge hundreds or even thousands of times in order to bag every little "peak".

 

[BobC]

This is a question I used to ask too, I think bikehikeskifish answered it best by saying that you can always adopt a stricter set of rules for yourself. I've toyed around with the idea of doing the Trailwrights list, just so I can say I individually climbed each peak. It certainly is more of a challenge than the regular NH 48 list.

 

[Tom Rankin]

This is a question I used to ask too, I think bikehikeskifish answered it best by saying that you can always adopt a stricter set of rules for yourself. I've toyed around with the idea of doing the Trailwrights list, just so I can say I individually climbed each peak. It certainly is more of a challenge than the regular NH 48 list.

IMHO, in the case of the Trailwrights, they have both relaxed and restricted the rules, in that it's only a 100' col, but limited to one per day.

It's best viewed as a game. If you want to play, fine, here are the rules. If you don't like the rules, you can advocate for them to change, abide by them, start a new game, or not play. But if you break the rules, you are a cheater. These comments do not apply to anyone in particular, just sayin...

 

[Little Rickie]

You make it to a peak under your own power = count it.

Congratulations as well! Count anyway you want and use any criteria that makes you happy.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

If you do enough "rounds" of the NH 48, then you can get all of them for TW72 credit anyway, even doing multiple peaks per trip (of which you may count only one, the rest of the peaks on said trip being for your own amusement.) You then must go get the remaining 100-foot col, 4000-foot peaks. Some of which are very well worthwhile in their own right - like Clay and Hight.

Tim

 

[RoySwkr]

A different version of the rule is the CO 14-ers where an ascent of 3000' or more is required to count a hike, there are some peaks where a substantial roadwalk is needed to get this

As some peaks are long enough to usually require backpacking and others usually climbed with ropes, it's a bit peculiar to worry about the list being too easy

 

[eddie]

A different version of the rule is the CO 14-ers where an ascent of 3000' or more is required to count a hike, there are some peaks where a substantial roadwalk is needed to get this

I believe with the 14ers that once you are up on the "ridge" after your 3000+ft ascent you can bag multiple summits.

 

[Scarpy]

I climbed down one of them, which I find harder.

I've been to the top of 43 out of 48.. plus 4/5 VT's (stupid .2mi summit spur on Killington woulda made it 5)..

The "rules" are what define the 4000' club if you don't like it... don't do it. I'm sure we could come up with something you do "wrong"

To add a bit to your bit that doing Hancocks in one day is easier.. i've also done Presi in a day (24mi version), willey, field, tom, Hale in a day(with full pack because i did Zealand and Zeacliff tr the next day), Kinsmans and Cannon in a day, Wildcats and Carters in a day

I also live 4hr from the Whites so i'm going to use my time efficiently. Not everyone has the benefit of living right next door.

Edit: i took the "you only "visited" bit as a bit condescending towards people who do whole ridges and loops as part of their 48 list. Scarpy says he didn't mean it like that so i'm sorry for being snappy.

I did not mean it to be condescending at all. Just curious if anyone had similar thoughts on summitting more than one peak via a ridge. I don't feel too strongly one way or the other. It's just one of those things that has been kicking around in the recesses of my mind. The only real goal I have is to spend as much time in the mountains as I can. I think most of us would agree on that