Everest and sub-four

Running sub 4 has always been impressive and, to me, will always be impressive.

Summiting Everest is a huge feat but has lost some of it's allure because of the number of people that simply 'buy' their way to the summit. They pay for a lot of extra equipment and they pay for someone else to carry it.

Here is some research for you from 2008 by Massachusetts General Hospital (and link):

"The overall mortality rate for Everest mountaineers during the entire 86-year period was 1.3 percent; the rate among climbers was 1.6 percent and the rate among sherpas was 1.1 percent. During the past 25 years, a period during which a greater percentage of moutaineers climbed above 8,000 meters, the death rate for non-Himalayan climbers descending via the longer Tibetan northeast ridge was 3.4 percent, while on the shorter Nepal route it was 2.5 percent."

It is probably higher now, given this year's tragedy, but nowhere near 25%, eh?

But I fully agree that mountain climbing is more dangerous than running on a track. There is virtually zero life threatening danger other than a heart attack while running on a track. I don't think that is the theme of this discussion.

I stand by my statement that it is an apples and oranges comparison.

öran_Kropp

rode bicycle from Sweden to Mt Everest…solo summitted without oxygen or sherpas…then rode partway home

Goran Kropp did a completely unassisted, oxygen-free ascent in 1996 (during which the "Into Thin Air" tragedy unfolded). After plowing to within 300 feet of the summit in thigh-deep snow, he returned after the tragedy to complete the climb. This was after bicycling from Sweden unsupported, carrying all his gear. Absolutely the most incredible overall ascent of the mountain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6ran_Kropp#Mount_Everest

The only person I am aware of who has soloed (completely unassisted ) Everest without oxygen was Reinhold Messner in 1980. He also did it from the Tibetan side. This is considered to be the greatest feat in mountaineering history by many.

Hari Mix, former Stanford dude, was attempting Everest this year without supplemental O2 but the tragedy prevented an attempt.

http://hmix.org/2014/03/28/anatomy-of-an-expedition/

Even if you spend a crap ton of money it's not like they put you in a heated bubble and drag your a$$ to the top. Give me a break people.

jcdbwbj wrote:

I went sub-4 with a Sherpa. Does this count?

How many have run a sub-4 WITH oxygen?

And their own mountain guide PLUS sherpas.

More people would be able to break 4 if they paid sherpas to go out and shorten the track beforehand and help push them manually on each lap.

To add to the apples to oranges to strawberries conversation. What about space travelers? Another short list relatively speaking.

From the ever-reliable wikipedia:

As of November 6, 2013, a total of 536 people from 38 countries have gone into space. Of the 536, three people completed only a suborbital flight, 533 people reached Earth orbit, 24 traveled beyond low Earth orbit and 12 walked on the Moon.

Once again, money will add to this list as space tourism takes off. Otherwise, most of these people are highly intelligent. Zero sub-4 milers here too I'm guessing. However, likely many were runners.

Only 2,671 people have swam the English Channel, something folks have been trying to do since back when it first was crossed by Capt. Webb in 1875. Marathon swimmers are the world's most fit athletes hands down.

The "Everest Mile"!

1) $70,000 entry fee.

2) Downhill course, net drop of 200'

3) Consume a six-pack of beer within 15 minutes of start.

4) Wearing roller skates/blades

5) Wearing eyewear with a 3mm slit for visibilty.

6) Tied into a Sherpa who leads on a bike. No lights or reflective clothing allowed.

7) Conducted on an open-traffic course one hour after sunset in a major downtown area (L.A., NYC. D.C., London, etc.)

Sub-4:00 gets "Everest Summit" credit! Certificate signed by Messner(Hillary now deceased) and Bannister!

Bad Wigins wrote:

HardLoper wrote:

Guys like Bekele aren't even on the official sub-4 list.

Ethiopia was never taken over by the British and doesn't care about their obsolete and confusing measurement system.

That's his point.

apples and oranges wrote:

open sesamoid wrote:ANYONE sub-5:00 could climb Everest, with the money and interest to do so.

DUMBEST post of the year.

If this were true the success rate amongst those attempting to summit (ie.e. people who have both the money and interest to do so) would approach 100%.

You seem mad, bro. You must be a yuppie climber yourself to be so defensive. Take a deep breath and calm down.

Sorry, but in fact your post is clearly the ignorant one. Read more slowly next time if that helps your peabrain.

I said that anyone sub-5:00 could climb Everest if they had the time, inclination and most importantly the resources to do so. I am clearly talking about a group of at least mildly fit people (5:00, 17:30, 36:00, whatever). And yes, with years to train and money to burn, 95-99% of such people could climb Everest IF THEY WANTED.

The limiting factors in going sub-4:00 are talent and motivation.

The limiting factor in climbing Everest are vacation time and bank balance.

It's pretty obvious which is more impressive.

Here's another way to think about it, for the slow class (you):

If you give an entire graduating Grade 9 cohort, say 100 people, unlimited resources and training for the next decade, how many will break 4:00? Probably zero. (This is obvious, since THOUSANDS of motivated runners training with few real restrictions from 15-25 fail to sniff 4.)

Given unlimited resources, how many of that group COULD climb Everest? Obviously not each and every one of them, but it is clear that the answer is a non-zero number.

Now go away, moron.

Running a four minute mile is the more impressive physical feat. Only a tiny fraction of all people have the physical capacity to do so. Not so of climbing Mt. Everest.

For example, I am a very fit 30 year old. Were I to dedicate my life to each endeavor, I would give myself a 0 percent chance of running sub four and a 50 percent chance of climbing Everest (depending on whether or not my body responded well to altitude).

However, climbing Everest is certainly more dangerous due to weather.

Already been a thread on that.

Fastest guy that we know of has run a 1500m in 3:45... We couldn't come up with anybody faster...

You are officially a bxxxer if you pay 70k to climb a mountain even if it is the tallest on earth.

How many women have climbed Mt Everest?

How many women have climbed Mt Everest?

May 2012

Kathmandu, Nepal (CNN) -- A 73-year-old Japanese woman became the oldest woman to climb Mount Everest breaking her own 10-year-old record.

Tamae Watanabe reached the top of the 8,848-meter (29,028 feet) peak at 7 a.m, according to Ang Tshering, of the China Tibet Mountaineering Association. Watanabe climbed Everest from the nothern slope in Tibet-China