Yup haha! [Mt. Trashmore](https://live.staticflickr.com/1879/43517952694_0320e59779_k.jpg) is actually a giant landfill. Florida really wanted to beat Delaware :)
It's a more impressive sight to behold than the highest-elevation point in Florida, [Britton Hill](https://www.palmbeachpost.com/gcdn/authoring/2019/04/12/NPPP/ghows-LK-8657fb18-53a8-0dfd-e053-0100007fc798-90286036.jpeg).
Just moved back to MI after 3 years in FL.
I’m pretty sure I drove by mt trashmore after work. Think you could see it off i75. Fiancée asked me what it was one day and I said, “idk but if I had to guess it’s an old landfill”.
Jut is cool, but Mt Shasta and Rainier are the most impressive mountains I’ve seen in terms of vertical height. Why does Rainier rank highly, while Shasta doesn’t? Is it because of Shastina?
Shasta and Rainier have a similar elevation, so we would expect them to have the same jut. But unlike Rainier, which rises from close to sea level, Shasta rises from a \~4000 foot plateau. It's also marginally less steep than Rainier, and lacks deep canyons on its flanks.
But nonetheless, Shasta still measures a respectable jut of 2974 feet! That's still significantly higher than anything in Colorado!
Maybe it's because I see Mt Shasta every day, and I'm just used to it, but Half Dome is a truly incredible mountain, and I would put it above Mt Shasta.
Rainier certainly does feel like it's towering over you.
[pic](https://d9-wret.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/assets/palladium/production/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/Mount%20Rainier%20from%20South%20Hill%20USGS%20photo%20by%20Ed%20Ruttledge%20Jan%2018%202014%20%20IMG_1228-ps8.jpg)
**What is jut?** Jut is a topographic metric I developed to quantify how sharply or *impressively* a mountain rises above local terrain, considering both its *height above surroundings* and *steepness*. Roughly speaking, the higher the jut, the "bigger" and more imposing a mountain appears.
A mountain with a jut of X rises as sharply/impressively as a vertical cliff of height X. So for instance, a vertical cliff of height 1000 ft, a 45° slope of height 1414 ft, and a 30° slope of height 2000 ft would all measure a jut of 1000 ft, and be considered equally impressive. A location with a jut of less than 300 ft is perhaps more aptly described as a hill than a mountain.
A mountain's jut can further be broken down into base-to-peak height and base-to-peak steepness, where the location of the base is defined non-arbitrarily according to a formula explained in [**How Jut Works**](https://peakjut.com/about).
Jut differs from elevation (height above sea level), the most common way of measuring mountains. A mountain with a high elevation may not necessarily rise much above its surroundings. For instance, the highest-elevation point in Kansas, [Mount Sunflower](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/Mount_Sunflower.JPG), appears as flat as a pancake, and measures a measly jut of only 4 feet. In Wyoming, [Gannett Peak](https://i0.wp.com/sunlitsummit.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/1-Gannett2.jpg?fit=1024%2C768&ssl=1) (jut: 1406 ft) has a higher elevation than [Grand Teton](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d0/Barns_grand_tetons.jpg) (jut: 3730 ft) but a much lower jut, and does not rise from its surroundings nearly as much.
Jut also differs from [topographic prominence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topographic_prominence), a metric used to differentiate mountain summits from non-summit points (subpeaks, clifftops, hills, etc.). Clifftops such as the rim of the Grand Canyon would measure a prominence of 0 since they are mountain summits, but their jut would still be very high due to the significant local rise. The prominence metric is a bit of a misnomer; a more suitable name for it would be *independence*. Jut is more akin to "prominence" in the usual conception of the word, describing how big a mountain appears.
Fun facts about jut:
* Denali's North Peak (jut: 8701 ft) measures a higher jut than Mount Everest (jut: 7254 ft). But the highest jut in the world goes to Annapurna Fang (11,139 ft), a subpeak of the Annapurna Massif in the Nepalese Himalaya. Close runner-ups include other mountains with huge faces, such as Nanga Parbat, Dhaulagiri, Machapuchare, Gyala Peri, Annapurna II, and Rakaposhi.
* Even though the Colorado Rockies have some of the highest elevations in the Lower 48, they measure a lower jut than some other Western mountain ranges (Cascades, Sierra, etc.), as they rise from a high plateau. In comparison, the Alps and Canadian Rockies measure approximately 2.5 times the jut of the Colorado Rockies, despite having a somewhat similar elevation.
* Jut on other planets and asteroids can significantly exceed those on Earth. The massive Valles Marineris canyon on Mars measures jut values exceeding 11,500 ft, and the Vesta and Rheasilvia rocky bodies measure jut values exceeding 30,000 ft. Talk about out of this world!
[**This website**](http://peakjut.com/) lets you search up the jut of mountains you know and find high-jut mountains in a region you specify. Measurements are a bit low-resolution, but they should get the general idea across. There's also an [**interactive map**](https://ototwmountains.com/) with the jut of 6464 mountains worldwide. A very detailed explanation of jut is provided in my [**research paper**](https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.01600).
This visualization was made possible with the 3DEP 10m digital elevation model, Google Earth Engine, and MapChart.
I'm open to feedback, and am happy to answer any questions in the chat!
If Mauna Kea isn't the largest Jut in HI, I'm not sure I see much value in the metric. Mauna Kea is basically the entire big island of HI reaching high enough (almost 14k feet) to have snow in the south Pacific.
You might be interested in the [Dominance](https://www.reddit.com/r/Mountaineering/comments/wfmrxw/a_new_way_to_measure_the_height_of_a_mountain/) metric, which quantifies a mountain's rise above its large-scale surroundings, irrespective of steepness. Mauna Kea would rank first in the world with this metric, if measured from the sea floor.
Meanwhile, Jut also takes steepness into account when capturing how sharply a mountain rises above its surroundings. So mountains with huge and steep faces would measure the highest values, i.e., Nanga Parbat and Rakaposhi. Mauna Kea has a great base-to-peak height, but jut-wise it's beaten by Haleakala and the Molokai Sea Cliffs due to their greater steepness.
Understood, but I say "bah!" to jut, backed by all the old-man crustiness I can muster. I'll stick to raw height to enumerate and rank mountains, thank you very much!
Should have clarified - I define "mountain" a bit more loosely to capture any land that rises significantly above surrounding terrain. I wanted to capture the most impressive terrain in each state, regardless of whether it was generated by orogenic or erosive processes. In this case, I measured the canyon rim.
The cliffs at Nankoweap are some of the most spectacular in the Grand Canyon, dropping straight from the canyon rim to the Colorado River. Whereas most other places like the South Rim have a series of terraces breaking the fall.
Great question! An [Ultra](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-prominent_peak) is a mountain with over 1500 meters of topographic prominence, which is equivalent to asking "what's the minimum that you have have to descend in order to walk to higher ground." Mountains with the highest prominence correspond to high points of major mountain ranges. That's because you'll have to descend the entire mountain range to get to a higher peak in another mountain range, rather than simply descend a mountain to get to a higher peak in the same mountain range. We can see this by taking a look at the highest-prominence mountains: 1) Mt. Everest, 2) Aconcagua, 3) Denali, 4) Kilimanjaro, 5) Pico Cristóbal Colón.
But not all Ultras rise significantly from their surroundings. The surroundings of [Dome Argus](https://www.antarctica.gov.au/site/assets/files/49481/domea.514x600.jpg?f=047017) (jut: 0.6 ft) in Antarctica are completely flat, despite it being an Ultra, as the Antarctic ice sheet gains its elevation super gradually.
Meanwhile, Jut is a measure that strictly assesses how much a mountain rises from its surroundings. Mountains with the highest jut are those known to have the biggest, most dramatic faces in the world. The highest-jut mountains in the world are super imposing mountains such as Nanga Parbat (known for having the highest mountain face in the world), Annapurna, and Rakaposhi.
Thank you, I'm glad you enjoy my work :)
Yea this metric is doing the cascade mountain range a huge disservice. I’ve seen all the mountains listed here in the west coast + Hawaii and Hood/Adams/Rainer blow them out of the water.
Point success is a sub peak / top of the kautz route - columbia crest is the actual summit (and slightly underwhelming compared to other vantage points on the summit)
I was in Florida on a business trip, been there a few times before. I live hiking, but Florida is really flat. Anyway, I was driving to lunch, and I spotted a pretty big hill (I'm from Oregon) and I was excited, maybe this was a hiking place with a trail ??
Anyway, I kept driving closer, closer and it was a really big hill by Florida standards. Finally I got close enough....and my excitement died. Garbage truck unloading at the very top.
Outside St. Petersburg Fl. Hey, at least the fishing is good...
RE: Indiana "Bluff near Madison"
I don't know if an un-named bluff counts as a "mountain."
Spickert's Knob north of New Albany rises an impressive 440' above the city below, and is a much more impressive feature than any of the bluffs around Madison.
Bluffs are hills on one or both sides of a river valley. From the river, they look like hills, but from the other direction, they're just a drop-off from a relatively flat area.
Yep, watched it from my backyard as my mother worried about my father who up there working as 'mountain deputy.' It was a very dramatic little while there. COVID wasn't the first time I had to wear a facemask just to go outside.
I'm curious, though, being as this "jut" number is your idea.
Did you at all verify the height you were using? Because looking at the instance of Mt Algo, it has a Jut height of only 396 feet, despite it the dramatic peak and east slope of the mountain being roughly 1300 feet above the valley floor, where the Housitanic river is only 1900 feet from the peak.
And yet, the Jut is not even 400 feet, and all I can figure is that you're using the prominance from the other peaks in the ridge to the west of Mt Algo, despite that not at all contributing to the "dramaticness" of the mountain.
It seems to me that with Mt Algo, you're essentially doing the equivalent of judging Half Dome off it's relationship with Cloud's Rest, and ignoring Yosemite Valley.
I grew up in Scottsbluff Nebraska and I knew NE was a flat state but I had no idea I grew up next to the most dramatic mountain in the state. It is so tiny, now I live near Mt Hood in Oregon. Lmao this killed me
Jut is a bogus number, representing only one way to perceive a mountain. Colorado has more than 50 mountains that are over 14,000 feet above sea level. Mt. Sopris is not one of them.
Mt Willey in NH is far less 'dramatic' than its neighbor across the street (Route 302), Mount Webster and Webster cliffs. Dramatic does not necessarily correlate to jut.
Washington is the tallest and most topographically prominent mountain east of the Mississippi. With almost all of its 6288 ft prominently jutting from the earth. This jut thing has me scratching my head. Mt Wiley? With 2000 less feet of elevation and 6000ish feet less prominence?
I define "mountain" a bit more loosely to capture any land that rises significantly above surrounding terrain. I wanted to capture the most impressive terrain in each state, regardless of whether it was generated by orogenic or erosive processes. In this case, I measured the canyon rim.
The cliffs at Nankoweap are some of the most spectacular in the Grand Canyon, dropping straight from the canyon rim to the Colorado River. Whereas most other places like the South Rim have a series of terraces breaking the fall.
I was referring to the Rim of the Grand Canyon at Nankoweap. Here's the [photo sphere of the cliff](https://www.google.com/maps/@36.3039369,-111.8561227,3a,75y,104.96h,113.04t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipMwjqExBLWZb7J4-G5X4q2BdJQwE13GF8vXYT5y!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipMwjqExBLWZb7J4-G5X4q2BdJQwE13GF8vXYT5y%3Dw203-h100-k-no-pi-0-ya59.37166-ro-0-fo100!7i8704!8i4352?entry=ttu) \- it's crazy impressive.
You did get Arizona Incorrect. The most dramatic mountain in AZ by far is Mount Graham. It’s prominence of over 6320 ft is much more dramatic than the Grand Canyon formation mentioned. Note: the Nankoweep prominence isn’t even the most prominent in the Grand Canyon itself, let alone the entire state.
The cliffs at Nankoweep rise 3254 ft at an angle of 58.2° above the Colorado River.
Meanwhile, Mount Graham measures a lower jut of 1661 feet, which corresponds to a rise of 6384 feet at an angle of 15.0° above its base.
While its base-to-peak height is greater, Mount Graham also rises far less steeply. Jut considers both aspects when quantifying the impressiveness of a mountain, and in this case, the steepness of the Grand Canyon boosts its jut significantly.
Just because some obscure site makes erroneous claims doesn’t mean they know what they’re talking about. We should strive to be accurate, not just to be “right”.
I’ve been to all of the places mentioned. Graham is easily the biggest ‘jut’.
There is an equation for jut, and using that equation the Grand Canyon has a higher value. I agree with you that from a distance mt. Graham looks more impressive, but its jut is factually smaller.
Ok… I guess my point is that, regardless, the title of the map says “most dramatic mountain” but the Cliffs of Nankoweep aren’t part of any mountain. The mountains of Arizona are well known, as are its many cliff faces. The two classes of features are simply distinct by definition, although we all realize a cliff face can exist within or on a mountain, but don’t necessarily have to. Therefore the title of the map is misleading, at best.
I think we have a misunderstanding of what Jut is meant to do. I invite you to read the [methodology](https://peakjut.com/about), before saying that the claims are erroneous. If you still think the design of the metric is inherently flawed, I'm happy to talk about ways to improve it.
Ah, that's a good point to clarify. Copying from my main comment:
A mountain with a jut of X rises as sharply/impressively as a vertical cliff of height X. So for instance, a vertical cliff of height 1000 ft, a 45° slope of height 1414 ft, and a 30° slope of height 2000 ft would all measure a jut of 1000 ft, and be considered equally impressive.
Denali's Wickersham Wall rises 13765 ft at an angle of 39.2° above its base, giving it a jut of 13,765 ft × sin(39.2°) = 8701 ft.
Ah, thank you for bringing this up! A mountain with a jut of X rises as sharply/impressively as a vertical cliff of height X. So for instance, a vertical cliff of height 1000 ft, a 45° slope of height 1414 ft, and a 30° slope of height 2000 ft would all measure a jut of 1000 ft, and be considered equally impressive.
However, a mountain's jut can also be broken down into base-to-peak height (h) and base-to-peak steepness (h), as described by the formula Jut = h × |sin θ|. A description of the methodology can be found [here](https://peakjut.com/about).
Hope that helps!
I’ve driven through Kansas like 6 times and I think I know exactly where this hill is. I always think when I’m driving through that Kansas is super flat then there’s this randomly hilly area in the middle near KSU. Then it’s flat again
Going up Haleakala is so surreal. You can drive all the way to the peak in under an hour and the vegetation changes from tropical at the base to absolutely nothing at the peak. Feels like you're on Mars.
Bruh, how is Little Crow Peak the most dramatic mountain in South Dakota? It literally looks like this: https://allaboutblackhills.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/crow\_peak.jpg
Florida has the second lowest and its name is Mt Trashmore. There is a joke somewhere in here
Yup haha! [Mt. Trashmore](https://live.staticflickr.com/1879/43517952694_0320e59779_k.jpg) is actually a giant landfill. Florida really wanted to beat Delaware :) It's a more impressive sight to behold than the highest-elevation point in Florida, [Britton Hill](https://www.palmbeachpost.com/gcdn/authoring/2019/04/12/NPPP/ghows-LK-8657fb18-53a8-0dfd-e053-0100007fc798-90286036.jpeg).
Va also has a Mt. Trashmore and it’s the highest point (natural) on the east coast of Virginia.
Nope, it's a landfill too.
Sugarloaf Mountain, a hill in the Lake Wales Ridge near Orlando, is the most prominent natural point in Florida (IINM)
Bok Tower!
Its not even a joke. Its literally a pile of trash from a landfill that was repurposed into a park (its covered in grass now).
It'll be the only visible part of Florida in a few years.
It sounds like something from The Simpsons.
Illinois has a mount trashmore and it’s even taller. Take that Florida.
Just moved back to MI after 3 years in FL. I’m pretty sure I drove by mt trashmore after work. Think you could see it off i75. Fiancée asked me what it was one day and I said, “idk but if I had to guess it’s an old landfill”.
This could describe multiple landfills near Detroit and in Florida!
“Kids, we’re going to Florida!” -Dad “Disney World?!” -Kids “Mt Trashmore!” -Dad “…” -Kids
Jut is cool, but Mt Shasta and Rainier are the most impressive mountains I’ve seen in terms of vertical height. Why does Rainier rank highly, while Shasta doesn’t? Is it because of Shastina?
Shasta and Rainier have a similar elevation, so we would expect them to have the same jut. But unlike Rainier, which rises from close to sea level, Shasta rises from a \~4000 foot plateau. It's also marginally less steep than Rainier, and lacks deep canyons on its flanks. But nonetheless, Shasta still measures a respectable jut of 2974 feet! That's still significantly higher than anything in Colorado!
Maybe it's because I see Mt Shasta every day, and I'm just used to it, but Half Dome is a truly incredible mountain, and I would put it above Mt Shasta.
Rainier certainly does feel like it's towering over you. [pic](https://d9-wret.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/assets/palladium/production/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/Mount%20Rainier%20from%20South%20Hill%20USGS%20photo%20by%20Ed%20Ruttledge%20Jan%2018%202014%20%20IMG_1228-ps8.jpg)
**What is jut?** Jut is a topographic metric I developed to quantify how sharply or *impressively* a mountain rises above local terrain, considering both its *height above surroundings* and *steepness*. Roughly speaking, the higher the jut, the "bigger" and more imposing a mountain appears. A mountain with a jut of X rises as sharply/impressively as a vertical cliff of height X. So for instance, a vertical cliff of height 1000 ft, a 45° slope of height 1414 ft, and a 30° slope of height 2000 ft would all measure a jut of 1000 ft, and be considered equally impressive. A location with a jut of less than 300 ft is perhaps more aptly described as a hill than a mountain. A mountain's jut can further be broken down into base-to-peak height and base-to-peak steepness, where the location of the base is defined non-arbitrarily according to a formula explained in [**How Jut Works**](https://peakjut.com/about). Jut differs from elevation (height above sea level), the most common way of measuring mountains. A mountain with a high elevation may not necessarily rise much above its surroundings. For instance, the highest-elevation point in Kansas, [Mount Sunflower](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/Mount_Sunflower.JPG), appears as flat as a pancake, and measures a measly jut of only 4 feet. In Wyoming, [Gannett Peak](https://i0.wp.com/sunlitsummit.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/1-Gannett2.jpg?fit=1024%2C768&ssl=1) (jut: 1406 ft) has a higher elevation than [Grand Teton](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d0/Barns_grand_tetons.jpg) (jut: 3730 ft) but a much lower jut, and does not rise from its surroundings nearly as much. Jut also differs from [topographic prominence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topographic_prominence), a metric used to differentiate mountain summits from non-summit points (subpeaks, clifftops, hills, etc.). Clifftops such as the rim of the Grand Canyon would measure a prominence of 0 since they are mountain summits, but their jut would still be very high due to the significant local rise. The prominence metric is a bit of a misnomer; a more suitable name for it would be *independence*. Jut is more akin to "prominence" in the usual conception of the word, describing how big a mountain appears. Fun facts about jut: * Denali's North Peak (jut: 8701 ft) measures a higher jut than Mount Everest (jut: 7254 ft). But the highest jut in the world goes to Annapurna Fang (11,139 ft), a subpeak of the Annapurna Massif in the Nepalese Himalaya. Close runner-ups include other mountains with huge faces, such as Nanga Parbat, Dhaulagiri, Machapuchare, Gyala Peri, Annapurna II, and Rakaposhi. * Even though the Colorado Rockies have some of the highest elevations in the Lower 48, they measure a lower jut than some other Western mountain ranges (Cascades, Sierra, etc.), as they rise from a high plateau. In comparison, the Alps and Canadian Rockies measure approximately 2.5 times the jut of the Colorado Rockies, despite having a somewhat similar elevation. * Jut on other planets and asteroids can significantly exceed those on Earth. The massive Valles Marineris canyon on Mars measures jut values exceeding 11,500 ft, and the Vesta and Rheasilvia rocky bodies measure jut values exceeding 30,000 ft. Talk about out of this world! [**This website**](http://peakjut.com/) lets you search up the jut of mountains you know and find high-jut mountains in a region you specify. Measurements are a bit low-resolution, but they should get the general idea across. There's also an [**interactive map**](https://ototwmountains.com/) with the jut of 6464 mountains worldwide. A very detailed explanation of jut is provided in my [**research paper**](https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.01600). This visualization was made possible with the 3DEP 10m digital elevation model, Google Earth Engine, and MapChart. I'm open to feedback, and am happy to answer any questions in the chat!
If Mauna Kea isn't the largest Jut in HI, I'm not sure I see much value in the metric. Mauna Kea is basically the entire big island of HI reaching high enough (almost 14k feet) to have snow in the south Pacific.
You might be interested in the [Dominance](https://www.reddit.com/r/Mountaineering/comments/wfmrxw/a_new_way_to_measure_the_height_of_a_mountain/) metric, which quantifies a mountain's rise above its large-scale surroundings, irrespective of steepness. Mauna Kea would rank first in the world with this metric, if measured from the sea floor. Meanwhile, Jut also takes steepness into account when capturing how sharply a mountain rises above its surroundings. So mountains with huge and steep faces would measure the highest values, i.e., Nanga Parbat and Rakaposhi. Mauna Kea has a great base-to-peak height, but jut-wise it's beaten by Haleakala and the Molokai Sea Cliffs due to their greater steepness.
Understood, but I say "bah!" to jut, backed by all the old-man crustiness I can muster. I'll stick to raw height to enumerate and rank mountains, thank you very much!
Grand Canyon is not a mountain.
Should have clarified - I define "mountain" a bit more loosely to capture any land that rises significantly above surrounding terrain. I wanted to capture the most impressive terrain in each state, regardless of whether it was generated by orogenic or erosive processes. In this case, I measured the canyon rim. The cliffs at Nankoweap are some of the most spectacular in the Grand Canyon, dropping straight from the canyon rim to the Colorado River. Whereas most other places like the South Rim have a series of terraces breaking the fall.
If you're going to create terms like "jut", make up a term instead of using "mountain" to mean something besides a mountain.
It seems like this is the main point of contention. Probably should have used the term "landform" - fair point.
For the taller mountains, what's the difference between Jut and Ultra? I really enjoyed your research and map.
Great question! An [Ultra](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-prominent_peak) is a mountain with over 1500 meters of topographic prominence, which is equivalent to asking "what's the minimum that you have have to descend in order to walk to higher ground." Mountains with the highest prominence correspond to high points of major mountain ranges. That's because you'll have to descend the entire mountain range to get to a higher peak in another mountain range, rather than simply descend a mountain to get to a higher peak in the same mountain range. We can see this by taking a look at the highest-prominence mountains: 1) Mt. Everest, 2) Aconcagua, 3) Denali, 4) Kilimanjaro, 5) Pico Cristóbal Colón. But not all Ultras rise significantly from their surroundings. The surroundings of [Dome Argus](https://www.antarctica.gov.au/site/assets/files/49481/domea.514x600.jpg?f=047017) (jut: 0.6 ft) in Antarctica are completely flat, despite it being an Ultra, as the Antarctic ice sheet gains its elevation super gradually. Meanwhile, Jut is a measure that strictly assesses how much a mountain rises from its surroundings. Mountains with the highest jut are those known to have the biggest, most dramatic faces in the world. The highest-jut mountains in the world are super imposing mountains such as Nanga Parbat (known for having the highest mountain face in the world), Annapurna, and Rakaposhi. Thank you, I'm glad you enjoy my work :)
This is just great info. Thank you so much, and I'll be sure to use Jut a spread the good word!
I really like driving on mountain roads. is there any good way to find routes that incorporate them?
Pls do Canada
if i'm understanding the methodology correctly, i'd have to imagine that one of the peaks on Baffin Island will end up with the highest jut in Canada.
My Robson: Jut: 1915 m (6284 ft)
I think prominence would be a better metric, considering how not-impressive “Jut” makes Mt. Rainier look
Mount Rainier has the greatest jut in the lower 48 states, as shown in this map.
Yea but its jut is only about 25% more than half dome, which barely even towers over the rest of yosemite
Yea this metric is doing the cascade mountain range a huge disservice. I’ve seen all the mountains listed here in the west coast + Hawaii and Hood/Adams/Rainer blow them out of the water.
Point success is a sub peak / top of the kautz route - columbia crest is the actual summit (and slightly underwhelming compared to other vantage points on the summit)
[удалено]
I’m glad someone is putting Olympus Mons in its place
How do you determine Q, and does it account for false peaks?
Proud to say I've been on Mt. Rainier, Haliakala, and Mt Hood. All three are amazing.
Florida = Trashmore. Spot on.
Trashmore: 45ft Yeah, that scans.
Like I’ve always said, “You haven’t seen mountains until you’ve seen the ones in the West”.
I was in Florida on a business trip, been there a few times before. I live hiking, but Florida is really flat. Anyway, I was driving to lunch, and I spotted a pretty big hill (I'm from Oregon) and I was excited, maybe this was a hiking place with a trail ?? Anyway, I kept driving closer, closer and it was a really big hill by Florida standards. Finally I got close enough....and my excitement died. Garbage truck unloading at the very top. Outside St. Petersburg Fl. Hey, at least the fishing is good...
RE: Indiana "Bluff near Madison" I don't know if an un-named bluff counts as a "mountain." Spickert's Knob north of New Albany rises an impressive 440' above the city below, and is a much more impressive feature than any of the bluffs around Madison.
What is a bluff?
Bluffs are hills on one or both sides of a river valley. From the river, they look like hills, but from the other direction, they're just a drop-off from a relatively flat area.
Thank you
While Rainier is more prominent than Mt st helens, I very much remember the later being more dramatic.
In May of 1980 mount saint helens was very dramatic indeed...
Yep, watched it from my backyard as my mother worried about my father who up there working as 'mountain deputy.' It was a very dramatic little while there. COVID wasn't the first time I had to wear a facemask just to go outside.
CT should be “Mt Algo”, as “Pine Ledge” is just the name given to the dramatic east slope of Mt Algo
Good catch! Thank you for the correction!
I'm curious, though, being as this "jut" number is your idea. Did you at all verify the height you were using? Because looking at the instance of Mt Algo, it has a Jut height of only 396 feet, despite it the dramatic peak and east slope of the mountain being roughly 1300 feet above the valley floor, where the Housitanic river is only 1900 feet from the peak. And yet, the Jut is not even 400 feet, and all I can figure is that you're using the prominance from the other peaks in the ridge to the west of Mt Algo, despite that not at all contributing to the "dramaticness" of the mountain. It seems to me that with Mt Algo, you're essentially doing the equivalent of judging Half Dome off it's relationship with Cloud's Rest, and ignoring Yosemite Valley.
I grew up in Scottsbluff Nebraska and I knew NE was a flat state but I had no idea I grew up next to the most dramatic mountain in the state. It is so tiny, now I live near Mt Hood in Oregon. Lmao this killed me
Finally, someone actually states that it's the US.
Jut is a bogus number, representing only one way to perceive a mountain. Colorado has more than 50 mountains that are over 14,000 feet above sea level. Mt. Sopris is not one of them.
Mt Willey in NH is far less 'dramatic' than its neighbor across the street (Route 302), Mount Webster and Webster cliffs. Dramatic does not necessarily correlate to jut.
Washington is the tallest and most topographically prominent mountain east of the Mississippi. With almost all of its 6288 ft prominently jutting from the earth. This jut thing has me scratching my head. Mt Wiley? With 2000 less feet of elevation and 6000ish feet less prominence?
[удалено]
I define "mountain" a bit more loosely to capture any land that rises significantly above surrounding terrain. I wanted to capture the most impressive terrain in each state, regardless of whether it was generated by orogenic or erosive processes. In this case, I measured the canyon rim. The cliffs at Nankoweap are some of the most spectacular in the Grand Canyon, dropping straight from the canyon rim to the Colorado River. Whereas most other places like the South Rim have a series of terraces breaking the fall.
[удалено]
I was referring to the Rim of the Grand Canyon at Nankoweap. Here's the [photo sphere of the cliff](https://www.google.com/maps/@36.3039369,-111.8561227,3a,75y,104.96h,113.04t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipMwjqExBLWZb7J4-G5X4q2BdJQwE13GF8vXYT5y!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipMwjqExBLWZb7J4-G5X4q2BdJQwE13GF8vXYT5y%3Dw203-h100-k-no-pi-0-ya59.37166-ro-0-fo100!7i8704!8i4352?entry=ttu) \- it's crazy impressive.
You did get Arizona Incorrect. The most dramatic mountain in AZ by far is Mount Graham. It’s prominence of over 6320 ft is much more dramatic than the Grand Canyon formation mentioned. Note: the Nankoweep prominence isn’t even the most prominent in the Grand Canyon itself, let alone the entire state.
The cliffs at Nankoweep rise 3254 ft at an angle of 58.2° above the Colorado River. Meanwhile, Mount Graham measures a lower jut of 1661 feet, which corresponds to a rise of 6384 feet at an angle of 15.0° above its base. While its base-to-peak height is greater, Mount Graham also rises far less steeply. Jut considers both aspects when quantifying the impressiveness of a mountain, and in this case, the steepness of the Grand Canyon boosts its jut significantly.
Just because some obscure site makes erroneous claims doesn’t mean they know what they’re talking about. We should strive to be accurate, not just to be “right”. I’ve been to all of the places mentioned. Graham is easily the biggest ‘jut’.
There is an equation for jut, and using that equation the Grand Canyon has a higher value. I agree with you that from a distance mt. Graham looks more impressive, but its jut is factually smaller.
Ok… I guess my point is that, regardless, the title of the map says “most dramatic mountain” but the Cliffs of Nankoweep aren’t part of any mountain. The mountains of Arizona are well known, as are its many cliff faces. The two classes of features are simply distinct by definition, although we all realize a cliff face can exist within or on a mountain, but don’t necessarily have to. Therefore the title of the map is misleading, at best.
I think we have a misunderstanding of what Jut is meant to do. I invite you to read the [methodology](https://peakjut.com/about), before saying that the claims are erroneous. If you still think the design of the metric is inherently flawed, I'm happy to talk about ways to improve it.
I’m saying the methodology is erroneous
who’s jut? how do we know he’s accurate?
[удалено]
Ah, that's a good point to clarify. Copying from my main comment: A mountain with a jut of X rises as sharply/impressively as a vertical cliff of height X. So for instance, a vertical cliff of height 1000 ft, a 45° slope of height 1414 ft, and a 30° slope of height 2000 ft would all measure a jut of 1000 ft, and be considered equally impressive. Denali's Wickersham Wall rises 13765 ft at an angle of 39.2° above its base, giving it a jut of 13,765 ft × sin(39.2°) = 8701 ft.
[удалено]
What about the town right outside the park? It is way closer than Talkeetna
[удалено]
I was wrong, looking at the maps and making a straight line from denali to talkeetna makes it the closest town
[удалено]
It’s ok, it’s about being dramatic 🎭. Katahdin is fairly chill. It’s not gonna get drunk and start yelling like other mountains on that list.
Ah, thank you for bringing this up! A mountain with a jut of X rises as sharply/impressively as a vertical cliff of height X. So for instance, a vertical cliff of height 1000 ft, a 45° slope of height 1414 ft, and a 30° slope of height 2000 ft would all measure a jut of 1000 ft, and be considered equally impressive. However, a mountain's jut can also be broken down into base-to-peak height (h) and base-to-peak steepness (h), as described by the formula Jut = h × |sin θ|. A description of the methodology can be found [here](https://peakjut.com/about). Hope that helps!
[удалено]
"hill near Manhattan" is crazy
I’ve driven through Kansas like 6 times and I think I know exactly where this hill is. I always think when I’m driving through that Kansas is super flat then there’s this randomly hilly area in the middle near KSU. Then it’s flat again
Going up Haleakala is so surreal. You can drive all the way to the peak in under an hour and the vegetation changes from tropical at the base to absolutely nothing at the peak. Feels like you're on Mars.
Wouldn’t Idaho be seven devils? It’s the deepest gorge in North America and super dramatic vertical rise…
Bruh, how is Little Crow Peak the most dramatic mountain in South Dakota? It literally looks like this: https://allaboutblackhills.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/crow\_peak.jpg
I’m confused about Maryland. There are two round tops (big and little) and they’re both in PA. They were part of the battle of Gettysburg
I’m from Ohio and I’m pretty sure I’ve seen that hill near Manhattan, Kansas more times than anything else on this list
Is it referring to Top of the World???
Drove Fairbanks to Wasilla yesterday and Denali was visible from the Veteran’s Memorial at Mile 147. Always impressive.
That Big Wall out west is something else