To say that you successfully climbed Mount Cecil, does that mean that both of your feet have to have been on the highest point? Does your head just merely have to exceed its highest point? Some other means of counting success?
The former; why wouldn’t you climb the last few steps? More importantly, the attempt should only count if you make it back down alive.
It’s hard for me to imagine it means anything other than standing on the summit (highest point). What would be the point of some other definition? The number of times a mountaineer has made it to within 5 feet of a summit and then been unable to make it the rest of the way must be vanishingly small.
Do you have some specific peak in mind where the last five feet are extraordinarily difficult?
That’s your personal opinion. That’s not the way it is actually counted.
No, but I have in mind a situation where the tippity-top is too small to support two human feet upon it.
I’m sure no one would quibble in such a case, if one actually exists. I’m sure you don’t have to determine which is the absolutely highest pebble on the summit and stand directly on that, either.
The opposite problem arises in the mountains (or hills) near where I live - the tops are often flat, boggy and relatively featureless so that it is impossible without surveying equipment to identify which minor hummock is the highest point. The “rule” I apply for myself to count as having summited is that I am standing on the summit plateau with my head being higher than any point on the mountain.
A single foot would qualify.
And given that climbing on rock routinely means supporting your full weight on a feature with a total area less than that of a penny, standing on even the smallest summit is going to be no problem.
If you can put your hand on the actual summit rock no one would question that you summited. There’s no need to actually stand on it. Many summits have cairns built on them obscuring the actual top, and climbing the cairn isn’t expected.
There are probably some mountains that end at a sharp ridge. But I’d think one foot on each side would count for that.
Note that on the highest, Mt. Everest, the actual summit space is described as ‘about the size of a pool table’. Not much room for a crowd up there!
Mt. Rainier is actually fairly famous in that being a volcano it has a very flat top. After getting up the steep part there is another kilometer with only a couple of hundred feet in elevation so many people get up the steep part and seem to be up but technically there is quite a distance yet to go. However, due to storms, minimizing time at the top, etc. many people turn around at the first “summit” and don’t make it to the technical summit as the extra hour or two don’t really accomplish much more.
I don’t believe that these people are considered to not have summited, but there isn’t a legal log in any case.
I should also add that in my younger days, I and some boy scouts summited Bomber Mountain and Cloud Peak in Wyoming one day and for one of the tops we wandered around to multiple prominences just to make sure that we could legitimately claim it. (GPS has efficiently removed this need.) So there are many peaks in which it isn’t absolutely clear- and I think Anpurna the #5 tallest peak has many many peaks associated with the same mountain structure further clouding the pictures!
I wonder what happens if the mountain’s topography changes. Say there’s a landslide and the top 100 feet of the mountain slide down the slope. Would summitting achievements of the “new” mountain be lumped together with the old ones, even though they’re now easier?
Practically speaking in my experience, for most mountains there is a generally recognized ‘top’, and often some sort of marker. This may or may not be the true summit, but it is accepted as such. If the summit changes due to geological events, found to be elsewhere due to more accurate measurement, or even intentional relocation of that marker to a lower spot (which could be because the true summit is a environmentally sensitive area), it’s all good. Once you summit it it is done and does not need to be redone if the recognized top changes. For areas which are not possible to tell, just wonder about a bit and call it a day.
It happens a bit more often then one may think, well maybe not 5 feet, but…
There are some who believe the summit(s) of one, some or all mountains are sacred and will not approach the summit itself but stay a respectful distance from it. Usually making it to the point where the summit is easily achievable given the overall toughness already traversed and the little/easy amount left to travel to it. Usually people doing this will know when that point is, and to them that is their summit and they can claim they summited it. Basically like a give me in golf where a short put is just granted as a hole.
If you climb to Columbia Crest, you’ve summited Rainier. If you climb to Point Success or Liberty Cap you’ve summited Point Success or Liberty Cap. There’s a similar setup on Kilimanjaro getting to Uhuru Peak, the highest point. It’s just the highest bump on the crater rim, so many trekkers don’t walk around the rim to get it, especially if they are feeling the altitude. They could be said to have hiked Kilimanjaro but not to have summited.
This happened to Mt Cook, the highest point in New Zealand. A major rock slide in 1991 dropped the summit height by 10 meters. Subsequent rock fall and erosion have taken another 20-30 meters. There’s been no distinction between climbing the old summit vs the new one that I know of. There’s always some erosion and uplifting going on, no mountain remains constant.
If your foot was on the very summit, there’d be nothing to hold onto with your hands. On a very windy day, I could imagine standing on the summit to be more hazardous than standing a few feet below.
On a windy day, we invoke the Telemark rule and say that if you put your hand on the peak, you’ve summited.
two guys may have summited Everest back in 1924 but they did not make it back alive. One of their bodies was found in 1999 but there was no evidence on his body to prove he made the summit. There is a debate on whether they made the summit. First official climb was in 1953.
I do. My wife and I drove to the parking area on Mt. Washington in the White Mountains of New Hampshire.
We walked up the stairs to the top area. Restaurant, interesting weather observatory/ small housing for weather scientists, etc. There IS indeed a large boulder that supports the sign signifying the true summit.
If you are looking up at the boulder, you have not stood at the summit. It’s that easy. Now, there are days up there when the wind is only intense. Not brutal. Not abusive. Not dangerous. Not World record wind-speed setting, but serious.
I could well imagine, having clambered up onto the…what, 6 foot-high boulder?..that there would be days when you’d do the drive ( which is in of itself utterly paralyzing if you have heights issues ) and then slowly climb up the stairs, gripping the railing, only to realize you CAN. NOT. GET. UP. THAT. BOULDER safely because of the windspeed.
But a for-real ascent? My gosh. You’re 99.999999% there and don’t truly summit? Can’t see it.
Just squat and hang on with your arm, robotic or organic!
Slightly OT: When I was a Boy Scout 25-30 years ago, significant peaks often had little metal boxes at the top containing a little visitor’s log where you could write your name, the date, and a little message. I still remember seeing an earlier hiker’s message on top of Mount San Gorgonio (11.5K feet): “I can’t believe we live down there in all that smog shit!”
Today I learned from Wikipedia that 1) those books are called “summit registers”; 2) they are sometimes controversial as unnatural features in the wilderness; 3) they are sometimes replaced by digital versions, where summitting is confirmed by GPS readings.