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

Depends on your 5k and mile PRs. For someone like Mo Farah Mt Everest would be bigger than a 2:29:59 jog

Mt Everest has more prestige for sure. The world sees no difference between amateur 2:27:30 marathoners and 4:27:30 marathoners, so there is no prestige beyond the initial prestige of completing a marathon (as well as BQing)

With 6 figures it's easy to pay your way up that hill

Running Boston under 2:30. Climing Mt. Everest is more of a status symbol than an accomplishment.

If you are a female I would say running Boston. If you are a male I would say Everest.

As others have said, to the general population Everest would definitely be more impressive. But amongst peer runners and mountaineers, its way the opposite.

If you run 2:30, you're a legit runner. Not great, but you've paid your dues, put in some good work, obviously take the sport seriously.

If you climb Everest but never climb another serious mountain that the general population hasn't heard of (because what's the point if you can't brag about it), you're not a mountaineer at all. There are mountains in California, Colorado, etc that nobody other than climbers have heard of, which the majority of Everest summiters couldn't get up without a guide setting ropes for them.

Heartbreak Hill beats Mt. Everest anytime. That's HARD, man.

Everest no question. If you tell practically anyone that you Climbed the highest mountain in the world they will be impressed. If you told a person picked at random that you ran 2:29 at Boston they'd probably say "that's cool I think my friend ran 1:30, he's really fast".

OldSub4h wrote:

Heartbreak Hill beats Mt. Everest anytime. That's HARD, man.

Heartbreak hill hard?Gimme a break!

Have you ever tried to climb above 14,000 feet, how about 20,000 feet, 29,030 feet, with full gear?

Climbing Mt Everest requires money and luck.

Running sub-2:30 at Boston requires hard work.

However ... the experience of being on top of Mt Everest would certainly be more memorable, and would certainly be more interesting to others. Running a 2:29 vs a 3:29 is essentially the same experience. You just have shorter lines plus a chance to get a massage.

21,600 runners have gone sub-2:30 at Boston in its history.

10% of that have summit Everest?

Everest no longer has the allure, because if you have 60-10000k to spend a sherpa can get you to the summit if you are healthy. However you can die very easily there because of altitude related issues/illnesses that you have no control over, as well as unpredictable dangerous weather conditions. But again Everest is not the challenge it used to be with fixed ropes over much of the route and supplemental oxygen used.

If you climb Everest without oxygen tanks and Sherpa dragging your ass and your gear up that would be pretty impressive. But Everest now is just a bunch of rich middle aged people in mediocre shape paying to get to the top. It's not the best of the best of climbing. In fact if you ask people who are skilled mountaineers Everest is nowhere near the toughest peaks to summit. It's the highest but from a technicality standpoint it's not super complicated.

I assume we're talking men because sub2:30 for a women is world class. But yes a huge number or men have gone sub 2:30, way more than have summitted Everest. But only a couple thousand a year can try to climb Everest due to space. Millions try the marathon. From a percentage standpoint way more people are capable of climbing Everest than running sub 2:30.

One thing I've come to realize over the years is that endurance is something most people are capable of, but athleticism is something only some people are capable of. Pure athletes are born. Endurance athletes are made.

Wim Hof made it 22,000 feet up Mt. Everest in just his shorts (I'm 100% serious).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKT1Wvz3xm0

But there's no way Hof could ever run a 2:29 marathon. He doesn't have the athleticism for it.

I think the question you have to ask yourself is if you're more proud of something you've accomplished through hard work alone or through a combination of hard work and genetic gifts. For me, I tend to find athletic feats more impressive than feats of endurance. So in that sense, a 2:29 would be cooler than getting to the top of Everest. My two cents.

I have a feeling that not a single person that has posted in here has ever done Everest or another 9000M summit (including me).

However, I am able to consider the fact that it is an incredibly difficult task to do, regardless of whether you "pay someone to drag you up the hill" or not.

Everest has way more cachet than Boston finisher, and that's a fact.

oh please wrote:

I have a feeling that not a single person that has posted in here has ever done Everest or another 9000M summit (including me).

However, I am able to consider the fact that it is an incredibly difficult task to do, regardless of whether you "pay someone to drag you up the hill" or not.

Everest has way more cachet than Boston finisher, and that's a fact.

No one in the history of mankind has made a 9000m summit, in order to do that one would have to travel to other planets within the solar system.

Xnznzb wrote:

With 6 figures it's easy to pay your way up that hill

Considering only around 600 have ever stood atop Everest, that would be a far far more selective group.

For a man in his 20s or 30s, a 2:29 marathon is not impressive. It's good, but it's quite attainable.

Yeah, climbing Everest is easier than it used to be but it's simple and it's not common. And the "general public" would be more impressed by it.

I would be much prouder to say I climbed everest because then I could say I'm rich enough to blow 100k and take a few months off from the real world pursuing some stupid hobby.

Everest is for a holes wrote:

I would be much prouder to say I climbed everest because then I could say I'm rich enough to blow 100k and take a few months off from the real world pursuing some stupid hobby.

Yeah, not like training full-time for a marathon!

You people are delusional. A significant number of people have died trying to climb Everest, even when well-prepared. Yes, it requires money and the freedom that comes with wealth. That doesn't mean it's easy.