No sherpas on marathon course.
No sherpas on marathon course.
Climbing Everest, and it's not even close.
StevePrefonDead wrote:
No sherpas on marathon course.
0/10.
Everest is definitely harder than running sub 3 but I don't think its harder than running 2:35. The limiting factor for climbing Everest is that it cost 60K. If not many more would do it. Also climbing Everest is certainly more dangerous with a 4% mortality rate. But difficulty wise id say its about equivalent to a 2:30ish thon.
sub 3:30 is harder
With perfect conditions the Marathon is harder. Plenty of folks have ambled up Everest on a nice day. Those folks might struggle to break 4 or even 5 on a good day for a Marathon.
dbsquirtNXC21 wrote:
Everest is definitely harder than running sub 3 but I don't think its harder than running 2:35. The limiting factor for climbing Everest is that it cost 60K. If not many more would do it. Also climbing Everest is certainly more dangerous with a 4% mortality rate. But difficulty wise id say its about equivalent to a 2:30ish thon.
Come on. Haven't people over 80 summited?
Husband Of Diana Ross wrote: Come on. Haven't people over 80 summited?
person, singular, not people, plural.
cheers.
sub 3 is way harder, Everest is just walking using fixed ropes
everest is like a recovery day for a sub 3 runner
Lol! Have any of the above posters climbed Everest?
It depends.
A lot more people have run under 3 hours than climbed Everest.
Just get up on Everest is more a matter of money these days. You don't really need to be much of a climber. You buy yourself into a commercial climbing outfit and they organize everything. You just need to come up with $60,000 -100,000. That's all.
StevePrefonDead wrote:
No sherpas on marathon course.
Climb it solo, alpine style, no bottled oxygen, and answer your own question.
I've gone sub-3, and a friend of mine submitted Everest a few years ago (said friend was a 2 hour half-marathoner).
There is no doubt in my mind that Everest is the more impressive achievement.
To some extent, going sub-3 is a combo of talent and hard work. I think that climbing Everest is potentially physically achievable for a larger segment of the population, but the hard work and dedication over years that it requires dwarfs what I had to do to go sub-3.
For many runners, sub-3 doesn't require anything different from what they're already doing, no harder workouts. If I wanted to, I could do an unofficial sub-3 at any time on the multiuse paths around town just going out the door and going 26.5 or 27 on the GPS to not underestimate the distance.
Everest is a pain in the ass in comparison, which equals more difficult to me. Just the logistics/research, travel, time taken going up/down make it more difficult, even if you have perfect walk up/down conditions and Sherpas were carrying everything for you and towing you up on a short rope.
If a Sherpa carries all your sh*t up and down Everest for you, then I’m going with sub 3. But going up Everest unassisted is unquestionably more difficult.
StevePrefonDead wrote:
No sherpas on marathon course.
I have never climbed Everest, so I cannot tell you definitively, but I ran 3:13 for my first marathon. I was in 7th grade, and it was at the REVCO Cleveland Marathon.
So I am pretty sure climbing Everest is harder.
They're completely different.
What's harder, apple bobbing or changing the oil in my car?
3hrs wrote:
If a Sherpa carries all your sh*t up and down Everest for you, then I’m going with sub 3.
Everest with sherpas is the climbing equivalent of hobby jogging
There is most likely no definitive answer... I will nevertheless give my point of view :)
Someone might argue that for example a 60+ years old person - with a "moderate good" fitness, Sherpa accompaniment, fixed ropes, oxygen support and of course a good weather window - has VERY high chances to summit Everest (via south col or northeast ridge).
Running a sub 3 marathon for age groupers 60+ is of course - almost? - world class! Therefore one might say running that sub 3 marathon is harder...
HOWEVER!
I am now in my 30s. I am not a talented runner by any standards (started running in my 20s). I ran sub 3 (right now, surely somewhat above 3, but with some focused weight loss and training I will definitely still aim for a 2:48/2:50 marathon in 2020 or 2021).
I have done some ultras (up to 70k 5000m+) and - for this thread most importantly I guess^^ - I have done several 6000m and two 7000m (technical) Peaks in the Himalayas (different styles and kind of support) and NO I have not summited Everest!!!
For me personally those high mountains are an incomparably bigger "achievement". I remember them very fondly... That feeling when you successfully reach the summit and then after safely descending!!! For me personally of course running a new PB - in a marathon - feels nice, after that ****ing pain :D. But I just feel like the mental challenge and the kind of commitment for Everest is a very different one. Finishing a 3 hour run - even if it is VERY painful just feels more like a big Cooper test compared to some final 10+ hours climbing day after days/weeks getting ready below the mountain.
I have to emphasize that I do not say summiting Everest is per se more difficult than running a sub 3 marathon. Physically and genetically that sub 3 might very well be harder. But doing a high mountain is simply a much bigger project one might say?
Just because Kami Rita Sherpa summited Everest for the 24th time a few days ago does not make going up and down Everest simple.
Previous comments
"Everest with sherpas is the climbing equivalent of hobby jogging" or "everest is like a recovery day for a sub 3 runner"
are just bad over simplifications...