Prouder Moment in Life: To Climb Mt Everest or Run Boston in under 2 hrs 30 mins?

Two people died climbing Everest just this Friday

I think you seriously underestimate the difficulty of breaking 2:30 in the marathon. What percentage of people when trained are capable of this in their prime? I would say 5% of males is generous. Consider the people climbing everest are past their primes and not the most physically gifted you have a way better chance of being able to summit everest than break 2:30 in a marathon.

Yes everest is more dangerous and you're death likelihood is high. That doesn't mean it's harder to do. And yes less people have done it because it's more exclusive as far as price permits etc.

Take a 100 climbers Vs 100 runners and more climbers are going to summit than runners run sub 2:30.

I agree the general public will be more impressed with everest but I think sub 2:30 takes far more talent as is much tougher overall.

Primo Numero Uno wrote:

I think you seriously underestimate the difficulty of breaking 2:30 in the marathon. What percentage of people when trained are capable of this in their prime? I would say 5% of males is generous. Consider the people climbing everest are past their primes and not the most physically gifted you have a way better chance of being able to summit everest than break 2:30 in a marathon.

Yes everest is more dangerous and you're death likelihood is high. That doesn't mean it's harder to do. And yes less people have done it because it's more exclusive as far as price permits etc.

Take a 100 climbers Vs 100 runners and more climbers are going to summit than runners run sub 2:30.

I agree the general public will be more impressed with everest but I think sub 2:30 takes far more talent as is much tougher overall.

Trust me, I am well aware of how difficult is to run 2:30. But I also know how unathletic many of the people who break 2:30 are. You guys seem to think any rich guy with some free time can get carried to the top of Everest.

Um, if you break 2:30 for the marathon, you are not "unathletic"

I've experienced both worlds and I have to say for the most part high altitude climbers are just not that impressive. Climbers can be athletes, but most are not. Probably few climbers have above average athleticism and those few would not standout athletically off the mountain. Exceptional climbers though posses or have developed long term, multi-day endurance. With the will, most anyone can become a mountain climber, but very few folks could ever run under 2:30 at Boston. See the thing is that unlike most runners, climbers are great propagandists for their there sport. Outside Magazine is able to sell its mountain climbing stories simply because so few people have the time or money to travel to all those exotic high places it covers. And let's not to forget to toss in all the juvenile fascination the magazine generates when it writes about with those climbers who happen to die up on a mountain. Go on any high altitude expedition and the romance and mystique well be gone forever. Climber's achievements are no where near what they would like to have you believe. I wouldn't go as far to say mountain climbers are frauds, but they deserve way less respect than they receive.

If you climb Everest with O2 it's like running a marathon on EPO. Short-roping by a Sherpa is like finishing Boston on a bicycle.

Trumps both: Nose-in-a-day, onsight, swinging leads. Or onsight lead all of Astroman.

I'd be prouder of a toddler successfully using the toilet

Anyone can climb Everest if they have the $$$. Most people couldn't run 2:30 no matter what they do in training.

I would refer you to the quote from Evan Jager's coach about distance runners looking awkward performing a lay-up. Only by a distance runner's definition of athleticism would a 2:30 marathon qualify you as athletic in of itself. Athleticism to most implies some amount of jumping ability, sprint speed, and agility.

Rockgip wrote:

Um, if you break 2:30 for the marathon, you are not "unathletic"

Has anybody here gone up mountains? I've done Mont Blanc and a few mountains in the Northwest. Even some of the climbs where I didn't summit were good memories.

In the end, you guys are kind of measuring athleticism by how fast a person runs. So sure, the 2:30 marathon guy will automatically be more athletic.

Chaim wrote:

Anyone can climb Everest if they have the $$$. Most people couldn't run 2:30 no matter what they do in training.

That's exactly why (not counting the $100k pulled up by a sherpa) climbing Everest is more impressive.

A 2:30 marathon is largely genetics, and percentage wise is equiv to an 11.7 100m, or 4:32 mile. Neither of which are a big deal. Roger Bannister ran 4:2x mile training once a week as a teenager, why would he be proud of that? 11.7 100m is a joke for college and a 2:30 marathon is a walk in the part of east africans. Many Americans could never do any of this no matter how much they trained, it's simply impossible, they don't have the genetics (google avg vo2 max, and how much you can increase through training).

ut, most healthy fit people should be able to climb Everest (some say you need a vo2 max of 50 if no supp oxygen), just like many people could build their own house. It just takes a lot of research, planning, mistakes/corrections and execution. And that's something to be proud of.

Whichever less people are capable of doing, that's the one I'd be prouder of.

Actually if you check the iaaf scoring tables a 2:30 thon is equivalent of a 4:21 mile and an 11.19 100. Not as easy as you think.

Another comparison. In the past 3 years I count 208 sub 2:30's at Boston. May be off by a couple because Boston's result pages suck. This includes both Genders and elites. Over that time about 90,000 people started Boston. I couldn't find an exact count but from my research about 500 people summit Everest every year out of about 1000 who attempt. So not only do more people Summit Everest in a given year but there is almost a 50% success rate. Vs about a quarter percent of Boston runners go sub 2:30. Overall more than 6000 people have climbed Everest.

So it appears in this commercial climbing era running sub 2:30 at Boston is not only harder but less common.

Is the Boston half so hard that you can't break 2:30 easily?

I would take the sub-2:30 marathon--without question and in the blink of an eye. I would want to do it in New Yawk, though, not Bawstin.

There's no predicting how the body will react in the death zone, the last few thousand feet to the summit, no matter how much you have paid to climb Everest. The risk of death is very, very real whether from the individual characteristics of your lungs, the sudden deadly changes in the weather or an unpredictable avalanche.

Not many people risk death on Beacon Street nor walk through Kenmore Square with fingers, toes or a nose missing after running a 2:30; which is more like completing a technically elite rock climb - not a criticism, just an observation.

sub 2:30, although the fact its boston would have nothing to do with it

This thread is an amazing insight into the insecurity of the Letsrun posters who pick something just to impress others instead of what would truly make them intrinsically happy just like the hobby joggers they criticise everyday for doing the same.

I'm picking the sub 2.30 marathon because it's something I set out to achieve many years ago that I seriously didn't know I would ever achieve but I'm within touching distance now. I don't care about climbing some rock like everest because that is all it is to me. I enjoy running and that is why I would pick the sub 2.30 marathon.

This thread is an amazing insight into the insecurity of the Letsrun posters who pick something just to impress others instead of what would truly make them intrinsically happy just like the hobby joggers they criticise everyday for doing the same.

I'm picking the sub 2.30 marathon because it's something I set out to achieve many years ago that I seriously didn't know I would ever achieve but I'm within touching distance now. I don't care about climbing some rock like everest because that is all it is to me. I enjoy running and that is why I would pick the sub 2.30 marathon.