Roger Bannister said more people have climbed Mt Everest than have broken the 4 minute mile. True?

Completely true. Around three times as many have climbed Everest. It's much easier to climb Everest than running a sub four obviously.

To climb Everest requires all sorts of planning just to get the opportunity. You can try to break four by stepping outside right now.

According to this source, 4,833 individuals have summited Everest:

http://www.alanarnette.com/blog/2017/12/17/everest-by-the-numbers-2018-edition/

There have been about 514 Americans who have run under 4 for the mile. I couldn't find a world list. Also, these days I think we should include 1500 equivalents of a sub 4. Even counting all those, I would think that Bannister's claim is correct.

Both were monumental accomplishments at the time and I think that for people in the know, the four minute mile is still very well respected. Everest, over time, became more of a financial accomplishment than a physical challenge to overcome. Seems like anyone with enough money and a decent amount of training can summit. It's not just the elite climbers who make it. (Though, no matter how much money you pay, you can't eliminate the danger of death on the mountain!)

Hope someone chimes in with better numbers on the mile/1500.

Ten Minute Norgay wrote:

Completely true. Around three times as many have climbed Everest. It's much easier to climb Everest than running a sub four obviously.

To climb Everest requires all sorts of planning just to get the opportunity. You can try to break four by stepping outside right now.

True, but a big percentage of people who attempted to climb Everest died during the attempt. Thankfully that is not true for runners attempting to dip beneath 4 minutes for the mile.

Manalive wrote:

True, but a big percentage of people who attempted to climb Everest died during the attempt. Thankfully that is not true for runners attempting to dip beneath 4 minutes for the mile.

Yes, but this isn't some kind of feather in the cap on the Everest climbing side.

It simply shows that the physically inferior can buy an attempt at being "pulled" to the summit and sometimes pay for that big style. A four minute mile is all on your own shoulders...

But they die literally during their climb, and we all know that in 2018 this word means nothing anymore.

Rather they fall victim to the grammar Nazis, methinks

1,338 sub-4 runners at 27 April 2014

https://www.nuts.org.uk/sub-4/Sub%204%20Minute%20Mile%20Register%202014.pdf

this is also a good site - even though it only goes up to 2002

http://web.archive.org/web/20080822114849/http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~rsparks/sub4.htm

Has anyone done both? Climb Everest, and run under 4 for the mile?

Even I could have run sub-4:00 with supplementary oxygen and a tether rope attached to a Kenyan pro runner. Of course, to make it fully comparable, I would then have to submit myself to a lottery where 6.5% of those attempting are shot until dead.

Probably not worth it.

Edmund Bannister wrote:

Has anyone done both? Climb Everest, and run under 4 for the mile?

Killian Jornet has run a sub four minute mile