What is more difficult: a marathon, an Ironman, or bagging a 7,000' peak?

standard off wrote:

I think the marathon might be toughest, but it's hard to say. What do you think?

???

how can an ironman be easier than a marathon?

standard off wrote:

I think the marathon might be toughest, but it's hard to say. What do you think?

7000 foot peak? Come on, for some parts of the country that is a mere hike. In fact, in some parts people live higher than that. Now if you mean 7000 meters, I am going with 7000 meters.

luv2run wrote:

standard off wrote:

I think the marathon might be toughest, but it's hard to say. What do you think?

7000 foot peak? Come on, for some parts of the country that is a mere hike. In fact, in some parts people live higher than that. Now if you mean 7000 meters, I am going with 7000 meters.

Agreed. I live at sea level and 7000' is doable if you're in decent shape. It's a long day but not on the level of either of the other two unless it's a technically challenging hike.

7000' net climb can be difficult depending on where you live.

I'd go with the 7,000 meter peak. Although some aren't as technically challenging, just being able to function at that altitude is something.

The difficulty of the 7000' peak depends entirely on your route to the summit. There are 10,000+ foot peaks that are nothing more than a day hike, and there are 200ft cliffs that only a handful of people in the world are capable of climbing. Technical difficulty aside, the 7000' peak will be much less tiring than an all-out marathon or Ironman. The 7000m peak is definitely the hardest of the four because of the altitude. 6000m is generally considered to be the limit for long-term survival.

You all make some good points. I can see how the route up to the peak would make all the difference, regardless of elevation.

In this order:

1)Ironman(there is a marathon within an ironman)

2)Marathon

3)7,000 ft peak. This is not hard whatsoever, i lived at 8,500ft this summer and hiked the mummy range which consists of 6 aprox. 13,000ft peaks. Its not that tough.

Dave Wottle wrote:

In this order:

1)Ironman(there is a marathon within an ironman)

2)Marathon

3)7,000 ft peak. This is not hard whatsoever, i lived at 8,500ft this summer and hiked the mummy range which consists of 6 aprox. 13,000ft peaks. Its not that tough.

gotta agree with this... I did a 2500ft family hike when I was 6 years old. not particularly hard.

7000m would, however, top it all, even if you started out at like 1500, which is what is mostly done.

You have to be kidding about the 7,000 ft peak. Do you realize that Flagstaff, AZ is at 6,900 ft.? Runs for the Lumberjacks in the summer often include Mt. Elden at 9,000 ft? Sure it's only a 2k rise, but it's still just a training run. My 60 year old mother has bagged an 18,000 ft. mountain and she'd have to walk most of a marathon.

Up the antie to 21,000 ft. peak and then it's a discussion. The Iron Man is above the Marathon... the mountain's ranking depends on the height of the mountain. 7k is childs play. 20+k and I'd say it out ranks the Iron Man.

7000' is only child's play if it isn't a technical climb. There are plenty of 6000'-8000' peaks that are very difficult to get to. If there's a trail, it's easy. If getting to the top requires serious rock and/or ice climbing, it can be tough, both mentally and physically.

My gf has a Whooty! wrote:

You have to be kidding about the 7,000 ft peak. Do you realize that Flagstaff, AZ is at 6,900 ft.? Runs for the Lumberjacks in the summer often include Mt. Elden at 9,000 ft? Sure it's only a 2k rise, but it's still just a training run. My 60 year old mother has bagged an 18,000 ft. mountain and she'd have to walk most of a marathon.

Up the antie to 21,000 ft. peak and then it's a discussion. The Iron Man is above the Marathon... the mountain's ranking depends on the height of the mountain. 7k is childs play. 20+k and I'd say it out ranks the Iron Man.