vertical-endeavour.com

This thread discusses the Content article: Defining the Khulus

Discussion is one of the best ways to bring an understanding and definition of the Khulus to maturity. I appeal to all of you share your views on the Khulus: what defines a summit, criteria for classification as a Khulu etc.

Personally I think that Khulus should have some form of separation from each other, but should that be a clinical or a more ethereal approach. Perhaps a mixture as presented on this site is best...? Does it look and feel like a separate peak.

Unfortunately one is dealing with mountains here which very often don't follow rules, and so to have a clinical rule which states that they must be 4-5km apart would exclude some peaks which when you look at them would definitely classify as peaks in their own right. For example: Inner and outer horns would certainly be considered as individual peaks in their own right, but taking this clinical approach may exclude one or the other...

SO certainly a approach where the peak could definitely be classified as an individual peak, should overide other classifications...

Not easy, but worth the effort of going about debating the khulus!

Agreed, mountains do not easily fit into our neatly defined ideals.

But we all have a similar, predefined image in our minds of what a mountain looks like. Looking at the Inner and Outer Horn - they are big, have an obvious summit surrounded by steep slopes and there is an obvious and substantial gap between them. The difficulty in defining the Khulus is not in which criteria to use, but to which degree each criteria should be present - i.e. how steep must the slope be leading up to the summit, how big must the gap between summits be. It is in these degrees that we differ in our opinions and it is this which will make for an interesting debate.

Also, this debate is more relevant for Khulus that share the same ridge as other Khulus - typically not free-standing. For example the monster ridge from Champagne Castle through to Yodler's Cascades has numerous summits that could be Khulus - some are obvious, some not. The Mafadi complex is another is another very relevant case. Some of these debatable summits could be within the top 20 peaks of South Africa - making a careful definition even more relevant. A debate around whether a peak should be included as a Khulu ranked at #137 for example seems trivial compared to a debate around a peak which could be ranked at #8 for argument sakes.

How does a peak get an official name? Eg Mount Newman on the Popple Ridge, I have never seen any reference to it by name on a map or anywhere else.

I say take the top 10 or 20 highest points in the range and they are the khulus,or where does one draw the line as to which one qualifies or not.

By contrast I am a fan of excesive lists of peaks, I would love to know where Rhino peak at 3051m is in South Africa. I think it adds something to the berg to have these lists. Eg I coach a school wargames team and the guys in the club will be ranked 60th in SA, and even though there are only about 80 ranked people in SA, they feel more important because of this ranking, and this feeling of ranking doesn't only apply to children. Its the same with peaks in the berg, if I say I want to climb Rhino Peak, most people don't sound that interested, if I say I am climbing Popple and tell people that it is the 13th highest point in SA, I get a lot more interest. I am fairly sure that if I told someone "I am climbing the Rhino this weekend, its the 156th highest point in SA" (that ranking is a random number), it sounds more impressive and more people are interested in joining on the hike. So I agree that in reality it is largely trivial, but to some it does make a difference.