No time for the usual preliminaries, quizlings. Lay aside all distractions and dispense with today's noodle kugel so that we can put it behind us with out delay:
The earliest known reference a particular practice in print came in a 1909 issue of National Geographic magazine. However, much of the data available for practicioners was not fully accurate (or even known) at the time. It wasn't until 1936 that Arthur Marshall became the official record-holder for this practice, and his feat was surpassed by John "Vin" Hoeman in 1966.
The data has improved considerably since 1909. For example, the ranking of the first ten U.S. states on a list crucial to the practice is:
1. Florida
2. Delaware
3. Louisiana
4. Mississippi
5. Rhode Island
6. Illinois
7. Indiana
8. Ohio
9. Iowa
10. Missouri
What does this list represent, and what exactly is this practice?
First correct answer posted to comments wins a copy of Katie the Ferret. No Googling or leafing through old issues of the Geographic in your great-aunt's basement. One guess per comment, but you may comment like commenting is just about to go out of style (which, I think, it probably is...)
Posted by BT at June 10, 2005 10:04 AM"First correct answer posted to comments wins a copy of Katie the Ferret."
Just so you know, I'm really not comfortable with cloning, Mr. T.
Fortunately, I haven't a figgin' clue, so I guess I don't need to worry.
Posted by: Scott on June 10, 2005 10:29 AMmulberry pie eating.
Posted by: boxjam on June 10, 2005 10:43 AMcatching crawdads
Posted by: Jonathan on June 10, 2005 11:33 AMNothing yet. One clue: the rankings in this list would hold true regardless of the existence of the practice itself.
Posted by: BT on June 10, 2005 11:41 AMadherents of the flat earth society.
Posted by: boxjam on June 10, 2005 11:52 AMThe list represents average elevation, in ascending order.
The practice is jumping.
Posted by: boxjam on June 10, 2005 12:48 PMDelaware is the state with the lowest highest point. I can tell you that.
Posted by: Scott on June 10, 2005 12:54 PMHmm, if it were lowest average height above sea level, the practice would be...rolling? Climbing very small hills?
Posted by: Jonathan on June 10, 2005 12:59 PMSome of you are getting warm.
Posted by: BT on June 10, 2005 01:01 PMVisiting the lowest places in the U.S.
Posted by: Jonathan on June 10, 2005 01:18 PMThe list is what I said before, and the practice is dowsing - the record holder is the guy who could find water the fastest.
Posted by: boxjam on June 10, 2005 01:50 PMMountain not-climbing. It's very Zen.
Posted by: Scott on June 10, 2005 01:55 PMIngenious, Boxjam, but you have failed to dowse the water of truth.
Events that transpired between '36 and '66 are what make Hoeman's record more meaningful.
Posted by: BT on June 10, 2005 01:56 PMvisiting every state's highest point in order from lowest to highest.
Posted by: boxjam on June 10, 2005 02:04 PMbottom-feeding
Posted by: Jonathan on June 10, 2005 02:17 PMselling swamp land
Posted by: Jonathan on June 10, 2005 02:19 PMBoxjam snares the win -- his answer is over-detailed, but I have to give him the credit here, because my formulation might have been misleading. That list gives the states with the lowest highest points, in ascending order (Scott is slightly misinformed -- Florida's Britton Hill is over 100 ft lower than Ebright Azimuth in Delaware).
But the challenge isn't to reach high points of all the states "in order" -- just to visit them all, or (more challenging) to do so within a given period of time. Of course, in 1936 there were only 48 to do, and while the summit of Mauna Kea in Hawaii (13,796 feet) can be almost completely conquered by car (only a half-mile hike to actually put you at the top), Alaska adds a completely new level of difficulty to the task. Mt. McKinley/Denali is the high point not only of Alaska but of North America, and is 20,320 feet. You've got to fly into base camp, set up gear and then make "carries" of equipment up to a high camp around 17,000 feet. Then you climb to the summit.
Anybody like to tell the class what the next-highest state high point in the U.S. is?
I've been up Pike's Peak, CO (my guess) by car, but I climbed Mt. Washington (NH) on my own two feet (albeit when I was 15).
Posted by: art on June 10, 2005 07:41 PMI believe the highest elevation in the lower 48 is Mount Whitney, California. I don't think Pike's Peak is the highest in Colorado; I forget, but the mountain has some name like Elbert.
Posted by: Scraps on June 11, 2005 08:37 AMScraps ascends to correctitude on both counts. What's interesting is how much of a photo finish it is for highest point in the lower 48. Mt. Whitney takes first place at 14, 494; Mt. Elbert, the highpoint of Colorado is just 61 feet shy of Mt. Whitney's loft (note to Aussies reading along at home: please stop snickering over our use of antiquated systems of measurement). And Mt. Ranier in Washington is just 23 feet shorter than Elbert.
If you're still checking in, here's one more extra-bonus question. What state east of the Mississippi boasts the highest elevation? Art, prepare to be disappointed...
Posted by: BT on June 11, 2005 11:52 PMScraps ascends to correctitude on both counts. What's interesting is how much of a photo finish it is for highest point in the lower 48. Mt. Whitney takes first place at 14, 494; Mt. Elbert, the highpoint of Colorado is just 61 feet shy of Mt. Whitney's loft (note to Aussies reading along at home: please stop snickering over our use of antiquated systems of measurement). And Mt. Ranier in Washington is just 23 feet shorter than Elbert.
If you're still checking in, here's one more extra-bonus question. What state east of the Mississippi boasts the highest elevation? Art, prepare to be disappointed...
Posted by: BT on June 11, 2005 11:53 PMScraps ascends to correctitude on both counts. What's interesting is how much of a photo finish it is for highest point in the lower 48. Mt. Whitney takes first place at 14, 494; Mt. Elbert, the highpoint of Colorado is just 61 feet shy of Mt. Whitney's loft (note to Aussies reading along at home: please stop snickering over our use of antiquated systems of measurement). And Mt. Ranier in Washington is just 23 feet shorter than Elbert.
If you're still checking in, here's one more extra-bonus question. What state east of the Mississippi boasts the highest elevation? Art, prepare to be disappointed...
Posted by: BT on June 11, 2005 11:54 PMNorth Carolina?
Mount Rainier doesn't reach quite as high as Whitney or Elbert, but it is majestic in a way they aren't; it isn't rising from a high plateau, but from near sea level, and is (I believe) the tallest land mountain in the world from base to tip. (Mauna Loa and Mauna Kea are taller, if you count from the base of the ocean).
yes, I think NC is correct.
I just found out this fact: Mt Kosciuszko, Australia's highest peak, at 2228m (7310 feet), is taller than NH's Mount Washington.
Posted by: art on June 13, 2005 07:11 AMYeah, it's Mount Mitchell, North Carolina, which I hiked to the top of when I was a young lad at Camp Sequoyah.
Posted by: boxjam on June 13, 2005 11:20 AM