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

How about which is more selfish for the family guy?

The winner is clearly climbing. Ask that dude from Texas.

With 2:30 marathon, you invest a fair amount of time, but you aren't risking life and limbs.

kjVC wrote:

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

10% of that have summit Everest?

More people have climbed Everest than broken 4 minutes for the mile. What is the marathon equivalent? Some 2:25 marathoners could climb Everest but never break 4 minutes for the mile. A 13 year old climbed Everest. Enough said.

Funny how track runners who complain about hobby joggers seeing a marathon as a remarkable achievement and who don't know shit about mountaineering, still think climbing everest these days is a remarkable achievement.

These days it's relatively easy with enough resources and using the easy routes. The problem with Everest these days is the amount of people wanting to do it and the amount of slow climbers clogging the routes.

This question is like going to a climbing gym and asking:

Prouder moment in life: Bouldering V10/Climbing 5.13 or running a 2:30 marathon. Of course they'll choose the climb.

230 sucks. I will admit that itis faster than me, but I've got athletic accomplishments that are far superior to what amounts to a good time for a weekend warrior.

I'm sure there are people to have climbed Everest that are lesser athletes than 230 marathon runners, but the question was what is the biggest accomplishment.

I think standing on the top of the MFin' World is a bigger deal than placing 3rd in a medium sized marathon!

Next question: what is better, finishing a color run or bowling a perfect game?

Bick Withers wrote:

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.

I'm a fairly low body-fat male who would probably freeze to death attempting to reach the top of Everest. About 12 years ago I was in a YMCA and a 70-something year old man was not his usual self. He shared with me that the anniversary of his son's death in a rock-climbing fall was approaching. The son left behind his wife and young daughter.

Opposite of the reality.People devalue that which they are familiar with. Non-climbers can't differentiate a 5.13c from a 5.15c, just as to non-or-slow-runners a 2:30 is as might as well be 2:05. I have plenty of fellow 5.13 climbers who are unimpressed by my climbing but can't fathom my 2:38 PR, which is hobbyjogger status on this board.

my summit wrote:

This question is like going to a climbing gym and asking:

Prouder moment in life: Bouldering V10/Climbing 5.13 or running a 2:30 marathon. Of course they'll choose the climb.

Everest is for pussies. Real climbers go to K2.

Women and children are not possessions

Everest only has about a 50% success rate, but more significantly a 3% death rate. Everest will always hold cultural mystique.

A better running comparison, which has been done several times on lrc, would be a sub-4 mile since they both were epoch-making events of the 1950s.

A 2:29:59 marathon is equivalent to what, a 4:30 mile? How could a 2:30 marathon be more impressive than Everest?

Haile Bekeleselassie wrote:

Opposite of the reality.

People devalue that which they are familiar with. Non-climbers can't differentiate a 5.13c from a 5.15c, just as to non-or-slow-runners a 2:30 is as might as well be 2:05. I have plenty of fellow 5.13 climbers who are unimpressed by my climbing but can't fathom my 2:38 PR, which is hobbyjogger status on this board.

my summit wrote:

This question is like going to a climbing gym and asking:

Prouder moment in life: Bouldering V10/Climbing 5.13 or running a 2:30 marathon. Of course they'll choose the climb.

Well, maybe I should have said 5.14. What would you choose then? A 5.14 or your marathon time? What would they choose?

Climbing is essentially the same as driving a massive truck you don't need to compensate for your tiny dick. You're basically saying I don't have any real ability but I'm going to pay a lot of money to impress people.

2:30 takes talent and dedication. You can't buy your way to it. Read into thin air or watch a documentary following one of the climbing groups, not the Hollywood movies, and you'll see the clowns who are climbing Everest.

everest hands down wrote:

Everest only has about a 50% success rate, but more significantly a 3% death rate. Everest will always hold cultural mystique.

A better running comparison, which has been done several times on lrc, would be a sub-4 mile since they both were epoch-making events of the 1950s.

A 2:29:59 marathon is equivalent to what, a 4:30 mile? How could a 2:30 marathon be more impressive than Everest?

Because you aren't allowed to pay someone to drag you through the marathon course for a sub-2:30 time.

A marathon has nothing like this:

http://coffeekatblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/12-ladder1.jpg

This is the Khumbu Icefall, foot by foot, possibly the most dangerous piece of real estate in the world. This is where all those people on Everest died in the earthquake. And if you fall into a crevasse, they may or may not be able to get you out alive. This is how the climb of Everest STARTS.

Oh, and on the trail to get to the start of the climb, there's a point around 12000-13000 feet where the trail goes straight up so steep that you cannot ever stop going to rest or you are going to slide back down, then you get to the little col at the top and the trail is 18" wide and it's about 5000 feet straight down on the right.

And then there are the Himalayan bridges:

http://www.amardevsingh.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/IMG_49561.jpg

Mind you, none of this is the real climb. You haven't even gotten there yet.

Marathon is what the wimpy little misfit down the street does to try to make believe he's a "real man" He (and you) isn't. Marathoners are simply a bunch of nonathletic losers that can't do anything else. Real men climb 7000 meter peaks.

So you're saying the climber should be prouder because they are stupid enough to pay thousands of dollars to do something extremely dangerous?

Do it with a team of Gringos. No Porters. No set lines. No Aluminum Ladder Bridges. A north face approach would be nice. Then I respect it.Pay $100k and have Sherpas carry your stuff to 20K feet, and have someone guide your oxygenated a55 to the top? I'm impressed with your disposable income-just like I'm impressed with someone who sailed round the world on the QE II or flew on the Concorde. But even the 3 hour marathoner is more impressive from an athletic standpoint.

coach d wrote:

Real men climb 7000 meter peaks.

Definitely not one of the criteria to be a real man.

I'll let you know in six months firsthand, if my project goes down as it should.

my summit wrote:

Haile Bekeleselassie wrote:

Opposite of the reality.

People devalue that which they are familiar with. Non-climbers can't differentiate a 5.13c from a 5.15c, just as to non-or-slow-runners a 2:30 is as might as well be 2:05. I have plenty of fellow 5.13 climbers who are unimpressed by my climbing but can't fathom my 2:38 PR, which is hobbyjogger status on this board.

Well, maybe I should have said 5.14. What would you choose then? A 5.14 or your marathon time? What would they choose?

I dunno. What's a prouder moment, to Run Boston under 2:30, or to drive your own Bugatti Chiron at 230 mph? A Chiron is 2.6 million dollars, so in order to have the opportunity to drive it that fast, you have to be able to afford it.