Tecumseh out, Guyot in?

[B the Hiker]

Was hiking this weekend with a friend who stated pretty definitively that s/he heard from several sources that Mt. Tecumseh was going to be dropped by the AMC from the 48 four thousand footer list and be replaced by Mt. Guyot.

On the one hand, I don't want to be engaging in baseless rumor mongering, but on the other, my friend seemed to believe this was pretty much a done deal.

Has anyone heard anything regarding this? No offense to Tecumseh, but Guyot is a rather fine mountain!

Brian

 

[peakbagger]

Usually the 4K committee waits for the annual ceremony to announce changes to the list. Therefore my speculation is you have a couple of months to wait. When they made the big change to the 100 highest list 20 years ago they gave the option for some period of time to do either version of the list. Thus the reason why I have not been up Cusputic Snow yet have done the 100 highest list.

 

[nartreb]

Seems unlikely. In the past the 4000 footer committee has articulated their policy for making changes to the list. Can't find the reference now but IIRC the essence of it is that they will keep the list stable unless and until new maps definitely prove that the list is wrong. (For example, showing an unambiguously deep-enough col for Guyot -- or two cols, I think both were "questionable"). If there's a new official map coming out, I haven't heard about it.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

I hope they are clear about which of the two bumps is the one on the list, and if it is the one that is not on the trail with the giant cairn, that people respect the alpine zone and not trample it. I imagine most completers of the 48 have visited Guyot already, and it is on the TW72 list.

Tim

 

[JoshandBaron]

There's a USGS benchmark on Tecumseh with the lower elevation. What does the AMC use to determine "official" elevation?

 

[B the Hiker]

The claim I heard (for whatever that is worth), is that Guyot has a 190 foot dip, and has been deemed a better mountain to include than Tecumseh.

 

[TEO]

If they know that Guyot's col is 190' then they should keep it off, but they should also remove the non-conforming peaks, including South Hancock.

 

[Snowflea]

Good. If it is definitively under 4000 feet, nothing against Tecumseh which I grew to love, but I hope it is out. None of this "tradition" namby-pamby BS. Facts matter. The truth matters.

Snowflea (3.5 time WM gridder)

 

[bikehikeskifish]

Good. If it is definitively under 4000 feet, nothing against Tecumseh which I grew to love, but I hope it is out. None of this "tradition" namby-pamby BS. Facts matter. The truth matters.

If your list is proclaimed to be based on accuracy (which I think the AMC lists are), then I agree. This probably means the death of South Hancock and Lincoln, as well as Tecumseh, and no Guyot.
If your list is historical (ADK 46) then leave it alone.
If your list is the 52WAV, then I'm still confused exactly what criteria are used but I like hiking and will eventually finish the list, such as it is

Tim

 

[ChrisB]

Good. If it is definitively under 4000 feet, nothing against Tecumseh which I grew to love, but I hope it is out. None of this "tradition" namby-pamby BS. Facts matter. The truth matters.

Snowflea (3.5 time WM gridder)

Right on!!

Has there been a LIDAR Bare Earth altitude assigned to Tecumseh and adjacent cols?

 

[Ken MacGray]

I'm currently working with Steve Smith on the next WMG, so I consider him a reliable source. As far as I know at this point, Tecumseh is staying put on the list, unless there's been a very recent development.

 

[Ken MacGray]

Tim, the criteria for the 52WAV are very loose, as is the whole list. The only hard and fast rule is that the peaks must be under 4K. The "minimum" is 2,500K, but with last year's changes there are now some exceptions. There's no prominence criteria.

 

[Grey J]

I hope they are clear about which of the two bumps is the one on the list, and if it is the one that is not on the trail with the giant cairn, that people respect the alpine zone and not trample it. I imagine most completers of the 48 have visited Guyot already, and it is on the TW72 list.

Tim

To me the south bump of Guyot on the Bondcliff Trail seems higher, or at least as high as, the recognized "summit" on the Twinway. I've only been there twice but I like that spot so I am a big Guyot fan and kind of hope it qualifies. However its hard to argue with Snowflea's logic. It either meets the criteria or it doesn't.

 

[Mike P.]

I'm a guyot fan as well, it's a favorite of mine, however, I find it hard to believe there is a 190 foot climb from the col between it and South Twin. I would sad to see Lincoln come off the list.

FWIW, S. Hancock, Guyot, Tecumseh, Lincoln have been talked about for as long as VFTT has been around. Each group as we know makes their own determination. If AMC applied ADK rules, you'd even lose more as they have a 300 col measurement and a distance between the peaks also. If ADK used the AMC 200' rule, you'd have Upper and Lower Tabletop and MacNaughton added while they would lose Blake, Nye, Cliff and Couchsachraga. (The last two are amongst the hardest and remote with a unmarked, lightly maintained trails to their summits and guarded by epic mud poles and puddles.)

 

[JustJoe]

To me the south bump of Guyot on the Bondcliff Trail seems higher, or at least as high as, the recognized "summit" on the Twinway.

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.

 

[peakbagger]

With respect to Guyot's high points it reminds me of the Kinsmans debate, if in doubt visit both since its highly likely that a hiker will be walking past both of them.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

Playing with GaiaGPS and waypoints on South Guyot (Bondcliff Trail) shows the highest point at 4531' vs 4563' on Guyot (Twinway). Not that GaiaGPS is definitive, but I think there is little doubt which summit is officially higher - the problem is where is the cairn and will its inclusion on the 48 mean people trample the other peak looking for the highest rock?

Tim

 

[JustJoe]

Playing with GaiaGPS and waypoints on South Guyot (Bondcliff Trail) shows the highest point at 4531' vs 4563' on Guyot (Twinway). Not that GaiaGPS is definitive, but I think there is little doubt which summit is officially higher - the problem is where is the cairn and will its inclusion on the 48 mean people trample the other peak looking for the highest rock?

Tim

Trailwrights lists Guyot at 4580. No idea where their data came from.

 

[JoshandBaron]

Trailwrights lists Guyot at 4580. No idea where their data came from.

I think they interpolate the USGS 40' contours.

 

[maineguy]

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