On the home page it reports: Interesting fact: 4,100 people have climbed Mt. Everest and 1,305 have gone sub-4.
When I mentioned this to my wife she immediately responded: "How many have done both?" My assumption is zero. Am I right?
On the home page it reports: Interesting fact: 4,100 people have climbed Mt. Everest and 1,305 have gone sub-4.
When I mentioned this to my wife she immediately responded: "How many have done both?" My assumption is zero. Am I right?
How many people have died attempting a sub-4?
I went sub-4 with a Sherpa. Does this count?
Has anyone ever run sub 4 ON Mt Everest?
Considering that people in their early teens into their 70's have summited Everest (including numerous women), it is no longer an even comparison (maybe back in the '50's with cruder technology/support)
apples and oranges wrote:
How many people have died attempting a sub-4?
How many people pay $70,000 to run a sub-4?
I would pay $70,000 if I got a guarantee. But it still wouldn't have happened even when I was 26 - 50 years ago.
asdfadsf wrote:
apples and oranges wrote:How many people have died attempting a sub-4?
How many people pay $70,000 to run a sub-4?
You factor in shoes, mommy and daddy driving jimmy to/from track practice, supplements, publicly-subsidized (HS & college) coaching, etc. and I'll bet it costs far more than $70,000 to run a sub-4.
With that logic it costs far more than $70,000 to climb Everest also.
Money cancels out, but Everest still poses an existential threat. I win. Deal with it.
How many people have run sub 4 if you count 1500m equivalents?
jklfjdsklfjsdlf wrote:
How many people have run sub 4 if you count 1500m equivalents?
Probably ~5000 by my estimates, maybe less, but it's a lot. Guys like Bekele aren't even on the official sub-4 list.
apples and oranges wrote:
Money cancels out, but Everest still poses an existential threat. I win. Deal with it.
no
ANYONE sub-5:00 could climb Everest, with the money and interest to do so.
VIRTUALLY NOBODY who has climbed Everest could go sub-4:00.
/thread
PLUS, far more people on this earth have the opportunity to train for, and attempt the sub 4 mile than climb everest. You can train for running anywhere but training for everest involves very specific locations and lots of money, making it impossible to attempt for many people. Point is, this makes sub 4 way more impressive because many more people have a realistic chance to go after it!
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%.
Leave it to a bunch of nerds on LRC who have never faced a legitimate threat to their mortality to equate running around circular piece of rubber 4 times with standing on a 10000 foot ledge, severely oxygen deprived, when its -80ºC.
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.
It is an apples and oranges comparison. If the weather on Everest is bad - a blizzard for example - no one can reach the summit. Of course, no one could run sub 4 in a blizzard either. But given good weather, and no avalanches, anyone in decent shape, with a guide and sherpa support, and using bottled oxygen, will have a near 100% chance of making it to the top - and more importantly - back down safely. Soloing Everest without bottled oxygen is another story. I'm not sure how many have done it - probably less than 100.
I agree and disagree. The highest I ever climbed was 23 thousand and I have no interest in climbing Everest on account that it is high investment, uninteresting climb. While perhaps most could find the power (like actual watts) in their body to drag themselves up to very high altitude, but there are plenty who would have a problem with the sensation of feeling like crap for weeks on (you just never feel physically OK at high altitude), the boredom of waiting for weather to clear for days on, being dirty for weeks on... Even with every support possible, climbing at high altitude is no club med vacation.
old white guy wrote:
It is an apples and oranges comparison. If the weather on Everest is bad - a blizzard for example - no one can reach the summit. Of course, no one could run sub 4 in a blizzard either. But given good weather, and no avalanches, anyone in decent shape, with a guide and sherpa support, and using bottled oxygen, will have a near 100% chance of making it to the top - and more importantly - back down safely. Soloing Everest without bottled oxygen is another story. I'm not sure how many have done it - probably less than 100.
You need to do some research. Over it's history, Mt. Everest has about a 25% death rate compared to summits. That means that for every 4 people who summits, one person dies ( it does not mean they summitted ) on the mountain and it usually on the way down. 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. If you are in great shape and get on a great team, chances are you will make it but it is very dangerous. Over a dozen Sherpas were killed in an avalanche this year. To compare this with running on a track is ridiculous.