DSunwall wrote:I don't understand this unique peak thing, why shouldn't a peak climbed by 2 same team members count as 2 peaks? It might generate a little more team spirit if that was the case.
That would best benefit those teams where the members actually hike together. I'm not going to dump my hiking partner of four years to hike with a bunch of folks I don't know, who probably have very different lists/goals than I do, just because they happen to be on my team. But, I do see your point. The best case scenario would be if we were allowed to choose our teams from the beginning, so we could be grouped with the people we're most likely to hike with, and then to allow each unique summit of a peak to be counted.
DSunwall wrote:Mostly high peaks really hurts, this is mostly a bottom feeder contest.
I personally have not changed my peak-bagging schedule at all this year, in order to satisfy this contest. Since I'm not training for any "big peaks" this spring, like I have in past years (Rainier, Orizaba, etc.) I'm putting off the (unranked) 14ers and 13ers on my schedule till the summer, before I head to California for some high peaks. No sense wasting all that acclimatization now, when there are plenty of low, fun - and often extremely challenging, I don't care *how* low they are - peaks to climb! The rough terrain, lack of trails, lack of beta, and "access issues" - like dogs, houses, barbed wire, gun-toting ATVers, threatening hunters (
I paid seven thousand dollars to hunt here - hike somewhere else!), not to mention those Texas long-horn bulls - often make up for the altitude. After this week, where I didn't even hit a 9er, my quads are still screaming. So... here's to the bottom feeders! A lowly title, perhaps, but one I'm proud of :-)