View Full Version : AT and Everest
trailfoot
06-03-2008, 12:49
I have read that if you hike the entire length of the AT you will have climbed 16 Mt Everests. Does anyone know where the points are for each Everest on the AT?
ie from Springer to Klingman's dome is the first Everest. From the dome to Mt Rogers is the second Everest.
Thanks
Everest is like 100 times harder. Or more.:-?
but yeah that is an interesting fact. :)
Two Speed
06-03-2008, 13:00
Okey dokey, santa appears to have gotten into an argument with himself and lost.
max patch
06-03-2008, 13:01
Thats an interesting question.
Rather than monitoring your progress by miles, you could monitor your progress by "Everests".
I'm guessing that the "Virginia Blues" may become the "Pennsylvania Blues" using that as a yardstick.
Okey dokey, santa appears to have gotten into an argument with himself and lost.
I have split personalities. :):banana:mad:
RedneckRye
06-03-2008, 13:38
The AT elevation gain is probably many times more then 16 Everest climbs. Everest Base Camp on the north (Tibetian) side of the mountain is at about 17,000 feet. Climbers arrive there in by truck. The summit is at 29,000 feet. 12,000 feet of actual climbing.
I have an acquaintance who has been to Everest 7 times, once to the summit. That sounds much, much tougher than the AT.
4eyedbuzzard
06-03-2008, 13:47
471,000 feet of total cumulative elevation gain is the accepted figure for the AT. So that's the same as climbing from base camp(17K+) to the summit(29K) about 40 times.
Now just hike the AT breathing through a cocktail straw and make sure you hike NH and ME at -40 deg in the dead of a winter storm.
Lone Wolf
06-03-2008, 13:48
I have read that if you hike the entire length of the AT you will have climbed 16 Mt Everests.
if you've hiked the entire AT then you've hiked the entire AT. you've climbed no everests
Blissful
06-03-2008, 13:51
Anyone out there ever been in the area of Everest? Or attempted to climb? Or even hiked to the base camp? Just curious. I've read lots of books on it.
if you've hiked the entire AT then you've hiked the entire AT. you've climbed no everests
leave it to wolf to rain on a parade
Lone Wolf
06-03-2008, 13:57
leave it to wolf to rain on a parade
just statin' a fact kid.
wilconow
06-03-2008, 14:04
leave it to wolf to set things straight, again
Fixed........................
Anyone out there ever been in the area of Everest? Or attempted to climb? Or even hiked to the base camp? Just curious. I've read lots of books on it.
A girl I hiked with on the JMT has walked to Everest Base Camp. That's on my List, so I got some advice from her. She said to go to Katmandu and arrange it after you get there. She said the city is loaded with local companies that can set you up, and that there are plenty of tea houses along the way that can feed you and put you up. She said to allow plenty of time to acclimate to the altitude--don't rush the trip.
I'm hoping to go in 2010...
DesertMTB
06-03-2008, 15:22
if you've hiked the entire AT then you've hiked the entire AT. you've climbed no everests
Well put. Simple and to the point. You would make a good newspaper reporter.
Oh yeah, and then there is the sub-zero temps, and the decreased oxygen. The AT is just like climbing Everest.
NICKTHEGREEK
06-03-2008, 17:09
I have read that if you hike the entire length of the AT you will have climbed 16 Mt Everests. Does anyone know where the points are for each Everest on the AT?
ie from Springer to Klingman's dome is the first Everest. From the dome to Mt Rogers is the second Everest.
Thanks
Get up from the sofa enough to get a beer and a slice of pizza enough and you've climbed the seven summits too. BFD
trailfoot
06-03-2008, 17:11
The idea behind this wasn't to say an AT hiker climbed Everest. It was just to see if anyone knew the stats at what point, on the trail, one climbed from sea level to 29K.
I am not comparing the AT to Everest any way shape or form.
Um... I think the original point was strictly in terms of elevation gain. Nobody is comparing difficulty...
ShelterLeopard
06-03-2008, 17:35
Speaking of the AT- I've heard from more than one person that you don't really want to be (or at least seem) alone on the southern parts of the AT. One person said that someone stopped in a pick-up truck and asked "you ahead or behind?"- meaning are you behind your group, and if you are, you're in for it now. Is this true, or are people just remembering what happened once and was widely spread?
All real hikers climb Britton Hill.
Lone Wolf
06-03-2008, 20:14
Speaking of the AT- I've heard from more than one person that you don't really want to be (or at least seem) alone on the southern parts of the AT. One person said that someone stopped in a pick-up truck and asked "you ahead or behind?"- meaning are you behind your group, and if you are, you're in for it now. Is this true, or are people just remembering what happened once and was widely spread?
baseless untrue BS
More people have sumitted Everest than have hiked the entire Appalachian Trail.
Lone Wolf
06-03-2008, 20:56
pretty unlikely. the AT is pretty easy
airhog794
06-03-2008, 20:59
I agree with lone wolf. They are two completely different monsters. Now which one is harder? Having done neither, I can't really say. But look at how many people complete the AT each year. Then compare that number to those that climb Sagamartha. Not trying to undermine the accomplishment of an AT thru, section, or flip-flop hiker, but Everest is far harder.
Speaking of the AT- I've heard from more than one person that you don't really want to be (or at least seem) alone on the southern parts of the AT. One person said that someone stopped in a pick-up truck and asked "you ahead or behind?"- meaning are you behind your group, and if you are, you're in for it now. Is this true, or are people just remembering what happened once and was widely spread?
That's yankee paranoia talking.
You're in no more danger in the South than in the North, which is to say you're not in much danger at all.
Lone Wolf
06-03-2008, 21:03
I agree with lone wolf. They are two completely different monsters. Now which one is harder? Having done neither, I can't really say. But look at how many people complete the AT each year. Then compare that number to those that climb Sagamartha. Not trying to undermine the accomplishment of an AT thru, section, or flip-flop hiker, but Everest is far harder.
every 4 days on the AT you have a hiker "feed", hostels, shuttles, B&Bs, motels, restaurants, trail magicians, angels, devils, etc. :rolleyes: what's the tough part? plenty of phones and ways to go home.
every 4 days on the AT you have a hiker "feed", hostels, shuttles, B&Bs, motels, restaurants, trail magicians, angels, devils, etc. :rolleyes:
Yeah, but on Everest you could have guides, cooks, and Sherpas with you all the time!
Lone Wolf
06-03-2008, 21:05
Yeah, but on Everest you could have guides, cooks, and Sherpas with you all the time!
for $60,000, yeah
for $60,000, yeah
True, for $60k you could probably buy that kind of service on the AT, too.
I be tyou could hike the whole AT 16 times for the price it costs to climb Everest once.
sasquatch2014
06-03-2008, 21:18
I think can be my new business venture I am going to bring sherpas over and then try to charge 60K to have them haul the gear and their "Clients" along the trail. If need be they can "Short Rope" them up difficult climbs.:D
Lone Wolf
06-03-2008, 21:19
I be tyou could hike the whole AT 16 times for the price it costs to climb Everest once.
sure, but why? for a patch and bragging rights. everest climbers and AT hikers like to tell you all about it :rolleyes:
sure, but why? for a patch and bragging rights. everest climbers and AT hikers like to tell you all about it :rolleyes:
I heard the 16th time you thru hike it little gnomes come and tickle feet. :banana just a rumor though and what ever you do dont stare them in the eyes. :eek:
Programbo
06-03-2008, 22:01
Everest is like 100 times harder. Or more.:-?
I don`t know..I think there was a higher percentage of successful summits of Everest last year than there were completed thrus :p
I don`t know..I think there was a higher percentage of successful summits of Everest last year than there were completed thrus :p
The people who attempt everest know what they are doing. Alot of thru hikers have never hiked before or dont realize what they are doing.
Jim Adams
06-03-2008, 22:30
two different animals. Everest is short term, high risk with extreme difficulty.
The AT is long term, no risk with required extreme endurance in fortitude and will power.
Altitude gain on the AT is more accumulative but far safer.
For $60 grand you can climb Everest. For $30 grand you could pay someone to hike the AT for you and then tell you what it was like. :)
geek
ill do it for a grand or so. Pm if interested. ;) thats 29 g's off. :eek:
Programbo
06-03-2008, 22:45
The people who attempt everest know what they are doing. Alot of thru hikers have never hiked before or dont realize what they are doing.
I hate to break it to you but Everest is now a tourist trap and many who go there have no idea what they are doing..People go ahead and clear trails..lay out ropes and ladders..have the camps set up and food prepared..It`s still a great physical achivement but Everest is probably the easiest of the 8000 meter peaks..I have no doubt that a lot of the folks here could climb Everest if they had the time and money
I hate to break it to you but Everest is now a tourist trap and many who go there have no idea what they are doing..People go ahead and clear trails..lay out ropes and ladders..have the camps set up and food prepared..It`s still a great physical achivement but Everest is probably the easiest of the 8000 meter peaks..I have no doubt that a lot of the folks here could climb Everest if they had the time and money
how are you getting this info? Just did a quick google search. In 2002 185 summits and 5 deaths. How many thru hikers died in 2002?
also doesnt matter which is harder, just saying everest is pretty damn hard
4eyedbuzzard
06-03-2008, 22:54
More people have sumitted Everest than have hiked the entire Appalachian Trail.
ATC has recorded over 9000 reported thru hikes http://www.appalachiantrail.org/site/c.jkLXJ8MQKtH/b.851143/ . Those reporting having done so are assumed to have walked the entire official route.
A little over 3000 successful summits have been recorded on Everest http://www.adventurestats.com/tables/EverestO2Fat.shtml
Interestingly, the success rate is about the same - 29% for AT attempts and Everest attempts with supplemental oxygen. Much lower without O's though.
And then there's that death thing...
4eyedbuzzard
06-03-2008, 22:58
All things being equal, and assuming current skill levels and conditioning, it's likely that every climber who summited Everest could successfully hike the AT. Most thru-hikers would die on Everest.
And those barefoot hikers would be screwed! lol :D
4eyedbuzzard
06-03-2008, 23:04
They'd learn to like eating yak too.
ATC has recorded over 9000 reported thru hikes http://www.appalachiantrail.org/site/c.jkLXJ8MQKtH/b.851143/ . Those reporting having done so are assumed to have walked the entire official route.
A little over 3000 successful summits have been recorded on Everest http://www.adventurestats.com/tables/EverestO2Fat.shtml
Interestingly, the success rate is about the same - 29% for AT attempts and Everest attempts with supplemental oxygen. Much lower without O's though.
And then there's that death thing...
Uh, all 9000+ of those people have not walked the entire Trail. You know it, I know it, they know it, and the ATC knows it. That's not a value judgment, BTW. Just a known truth.
Those listed as having summited Everest almost certainly did.
More people have summited Everest than have walked the entire AT. Many more.
True fact.
Jim Adams
06-04-2008, 07:50
how are you getting this info? Just did a quick google search. In 2002 185 summits and 5 deaths. How many thru hikers died in 2002?
Back to some on Everest don't know what they are doing. Checkout the facts about the '96 deaths. Most who died either had no idea what they were doing or were trying to save those that had no idea what they were doing.:-?
geek
Jim Adams
06-04-2008, 07:52
how are you getting this info? Just did a quick google search. In 2002 185 summits and 5 deaths. How many thru hikers died in 2002?
Uh, all 9000+ of those people have not walked the entire Trail. You know it, I know it, they know it, and the ATC knows it. That's not a value judgment, BTW. Just a known truth.
Those listed as having summited Everest almost certainly did.
More people have summited Everest than have walked the entire AT. Many more.
True fact.
What about all of the hikers that have hiked the AT and not reported it to the ATC?
geek
4eyedbuzzard
06-04-2008, 10:31
What about all of the hikers that have hiked the AT and not reported it to the ATC?
geek
I'd say it's probably a wash - probably have as many extreme blue and yellow blazers claim to have done the whole trail as those who actually have walked every white blaze and just don't care to report it.
Whatever, it just doesn't matter. Everest is a whole different skill set. Average people with no experience can decide to thru-hike the AT and go out and learn how as they go along, without endangering themselves and others to any great extent. It takes a hell of a lot of mental fortitude, but the skills needed and conditions encountered aren't extreme.
High altitude mountaineering s a whole different animal. You can kill yourself and others quite easily. "Inexperienced" on Everest is a releative term. Most reputable guides want their clients in conditioning programs and to have a certain minimum level of glacier travel and technical training/experience along with a summit of a some "lesser" peak(s) like Denali, Anconcogua, Cho-Oyu, etc under their belt. Any guide service that would take a novice climber up Everest should be shut-down. Yeah, clients lie, but it's up to the guides to verify.
The Solemates
06-04-2008, 10:59
All real hikers climb Britton Hill.
I'm a real climber! I've finally made it!
max patch
06-04-2008, 11:05
I'd say it's probably a wash - probably have as many extreme blue and yellow blazers claim to have done the whole trail as those who actually have walked every white blaze and just don't care to report it.
No way. Not even close.
4eyedbuzzard
06-04-2008, 11:41
No way. Not even close.
Perhaps I just don't get it. Why anyone would need a lousy certificate and rocker patch enough to lie about it is beyond me.
warraghiyagey
06-04-2008, 11:47
Okey dokey, santa appears to have gotten into an argument with himself and lost.
http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/laughing021.gifhttp://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/laughing021.gif
I'm a real climber! I've finally made it!
Much harder than anything else people have listed here.
Climbing Everest is an order of magnitude more difficult than hiking the entire AT.
But if you go just by the numbers (the real ones) those who have hiked the entire AT are in a more exclusive group!
Numerically speaking, anyway.
I wonder which WD found more difficult, Ranier or the AT? I'd like to speak with authority on that someday. While many, many people do Ranier, I am not at all sure what the answer would be (for me).
Rockhound
06-04-2008, 12:45
funny but i dont recall the AT reaching 29 thousand feet
max patch
06-04-2008, 12:47
Climbing Everest is an order of magnitude more difficult than hiking the entire AT.
Maybe...just remember that you went the easy all downhill SOBO way. :)
Maybe...just remember that you went the easy all downhill SOBO way. :)
Come one--downhill is harder on your knees.;)
4eyedbuzzard
06-04-2008, 12:57
...But if you go just by the numbers (the real ones) those who have hiked the entire AT are in a more exclusive group!
Numerically speaking, anyway...
How can there be "real numbers" beyond what ATC, ALDHA, etc, keep? If their numbers aren't to be believed, whose are?
Rockhound
06-04-2008, 13:13
seriously who cares? why should it make any difference in your own sense of achievement if some people lie about thru hiking? if it does, perhaps there are some esteem/ego issues that should be explored by both those who lie and those who care. i mean just because i thru hiked the AT twice in 1 year, barefooted, and caught or picked everything i ate, you dont see me waving it in peoples faces or getting upset with the pretenders. OK i hiked 1/2 the AT over 2 years with boots and i once ate a ramp. same thing
I walked from the Bar to the table last night while watching a movie at the Boulder Theather (http://www.bouldertheater.com/). It was an order of MAGnitude difficult indeed.
(I had a Twisted Pine brown ale (http://www.twistedpinebrewing.com/brews.html#twisted). Yummy. Shine A Light (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0893382/) was a MAGnificent movie, too. Scorsese and the Stones..wotta combo)
seriously who cares? why should it make any difference in your own sense of achievement if some people lie about thru hiking? if it does, perhaps there are some esteem/ego issues that should be explored by both those who lie and those who care. i mean just because i thru hiked the AT twice in 1 year, barefooted, and caught or picked everything i ate, you dont see me waving it in peoples faces or getting upset with the pretenders.
Well I danced the whole thing on toe shoes. So there!
warraghiyagey
06-04-2008, 13:57
Well I danced the whole thing on toe shoes. So there!
It's true. I was very near the Legend in making.:):p
Well I danced the whole thing on toe shoes. So there!
do you think i can be the first to moon walk the whole trail?:banana
leeki pole
06-04-2008, 16:11
do you think i can be the first to moon walk the whole trail?:banana
When you do, you've a new trail name....Thriller!
MJ will be proud.
4eyedbuzzard
06-04-2008, 16:53
seriously who cares? why should it make any difference in your own sense of achievement if some people lie about thru hiking? if it does, perhaps there are some esteem/ego issues that should be explored by both those who lie and those who care. i mean just because i thru hiked the AT twice in 1 year, barefooted, and caught or picked everything i ate, you dont see me waving it in peoples faces or getting upset with the pretenders. OK i hiked 1/2 the AT over 2 years with boots and i once ate a ramp. same thing
I'm just curious in who is keeping the "real numbers" as opposed to the phoney ones the ATC has. ;)
max patch
06-04-2008, 16:58
I'm just curious in who is keeping the "real numbers" as opposed to the phoney ones the ATC has. ;)
I see that you're scheduled to do a thru in a couple years.
After you complete you'll have a pretty good idea as to what percentage to apply to the reported numbers.
You seem to think the percentage is close to 100%.
Its a lot closer to 10%.
seriously who cares? ..... if it does, perhaps there are some esteem/ego issues that should be explored ....
Who reallycares that a yak's milk isn't pink?
As trivia goes, observing that fewer people have hiked the entire AT than have summited Everest is at least that interesting, I think.
And far fewer have. Fewer SOBOs have than people have walked on the moon.
Just kidding. But it may be true that fewer SOBOs have than people have won Nobel Prizes.
4eyedbuzzard
06-04-2008, 17:20
I see that you're scheduled to do a thru in a couple years.
After you complete you'll have a pretty good idea as to what percentage to apply to the reported numbers.
You seem to think the percentage is close to 100%.
Its a lot closer to 10%.
So you're saying that out of the 9000+ who have claimed to hike the entire AT, only 900 actually have? I find that pretty hard to believe.
My best guess would be that 10% to 20% or so who report probably aren't true thru-hikers. That's about the same percentageof people who shoplift, cheat on their taxes, etc. Just human nature. But most people aren't liars when it comes to such things. I'd expect hikers to be the same. That or the majority of hikers are wacko liars of some sort.
I wouldn't call a thru-hike false though because someone cut off 2/10 of a mile of white-blazed AT leaving a shelter on a blue blazed loop or something. If you walk 2175 miles from GA to ME, with 99.something% of it on the AT, I'd say you thru-hiked.
All I'm saying in the previous post is that no-one can talk about their numbers being any more "real" than ATC's or anyone else's. Because quite simply, nobody is keeping that accurate of a record.
W
But it may be true that fewer SOBOs have than people have won Nobel Prizes.
And less people have thru-hiked than the amount of people who participated in the invasion of Normandy.
Ergo, thru-hiking is far more difficult than invading occupied France!
Because quite simply, nobody is keeping that accurate of a record.
Thank [insert diety of choice here]!
In this day and age when everything has to be measured, it is nice to think that the simple act of walking still is under the radar a bit.
To walk. To see. To see what you see.
Why make it more complicated? I mean, how many licks DOES it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Roll pop ?!?!?
You see many water ouzels out there Mags? You should!
Programbo
06-04-2008, 18:12
how are you getting this info? Just did a quick google search. In 2002 185 summits and 5 deaths.
2008:..290 summits so far on Everest (1 death)
>>>>All things being equal, and assuming current skill levels and conditioning, it's likely that every climber who summited Everest could successfully hike the AT. Most thru-hikers would die on Everest.<<<<
I don`t know about this...Obviously those who summit Everest and very physically fit but that in and of itself doesn`t account for the majority of success on a thru...Skill levels?...Since the vast majority of modern Everest summits are on catered/guided tours those climbing don`t require a whole lot of long distance self sustaining "skills"...I think most Everest summiteers would drop out of a thru from boredom or loneliness which is part of the difficulty factor...I agree most AT thru-hikers might not be able to summit Everest but I have no doubt more than a handful could pull it off
The Scribe
06-04-2008, 18:19
Well put. Simple and to the point. You would make a good newspaper reporter.
Man, can you imagine Lone Wolf's newspaper? :D:D:D
max patch
06-04-2008, 18:22
My best guess would be that 10% to 20% or so who report probably aren't true thru-hikers.
Let us know what you think after you're out there with fellow thrus for 6 months.
Remember, the criteria is what is set forth by the ATC. Not just the parts you agree with.
these statistics mean nothing. We arent comparing apples to apples. Thru hiking is hard so is everest.
The hiking part is pretty easy. Its more the mental.
Lone Wolf
06-04-2008, 19:36
Thru hiking is hard so is everest.
uh, thru-hiking ain't that hard
uh, thru-hiking ain't that hard
What i ment by hard is missing family/ friends. The hiking isnt hard. Everest is more of a physical challenge
You see many water ouzels out there Mags? You should!
I do. (http://www.pmags.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_gallery2&Itemid=36&g2_view=core.ShowItem&g2_itemId=16353) Then again, I actually do go outdoors rather than just post about how people should spend time outdoors :p
Bulldawg
06-04-2008, 21:49
I have read that if you hike the entire length of the AT you will have climbed 16 Mt Everests. Does anyone know where the points are for each Everest on the AT?
ie from Springer to Klingman's dome is the first Everest. From the dome to Mt Rogers is the second Everest.
Thanks
This may have been already quoted on here, but I just found the ATDatabase that is part of this site on a .doc file. It is quoted as follows:
Each mile of the AT has an average elevation gain of 217 feet, which means a thru-hiker will climb and descend a total of 88.79 miles between Springer and Katahdin. That is the equivalent of going from sea level to the summit of Mt. Everest and back more than sixteen times!"
Just FYI on the starting post.
Remember, the criteria is what is set forth by the ATC. Not just the parts you agree with.
For the Triple Crown plaque, the criteria is set forth by ALDHA-West, not by th ATC. Aldha-W recognizes alternate routes. So if you want a fine walnut plaque with faux gold backing, hike and any damn way you please. Just enjoy it.
WHat does that mean? Jack ****.
Just shows how silly this never ending debate is.
What is harder? What is easier? What way is the correct way?
My inclination is that the more time people spend outside, they less they worry about this silly crap. Someday I'll get smart and not respond to these threads. But I need something to occupy my time during the week. ;)
The wildflowers were quite nice tonight. Should have brought a camera....
I do. Then again, I actually do go outdoors rather than just post about how people should spend time outdoors
Now that "So You Think You Can Dance" is off-air, I can post....
You are talking about other threads, right?
Haven't seen any of that in this one.
4eyedbuzzard
06-04-2008, 23:29
these statistics mean nothing. We arent comparing apples to apples. Thru hiking is hard so is everest.
Lose a glove, lose a hand. Lose your facemask, lose your nose. Fall and get injured, run out of O's, don't get down to camp, get trapped by a storm - die on the mountain. Things like losing gear and not making camps on time tend to be inconvenient and uncomfortable on the AT, but the consequences are minimal. Not so on an 8000 meter mountain. The consequences are usually deadly.
There is absolutely NO comparison as to what is at risk between thru-hiking the AT and summiting an 8000 meter peak.
Thru hiking is hard, Everest is hard - and dangerous.
Lose a glove, lose a hand. Lose your facemask, lose your nose. Fall and get injured, run out of O's, don't get down to camp, get trapped by a storm - die on the mountain. Things like losing gear and not making camps on time tend to be inconvenient and uncomfortable on the AT, but the consequences are minimal. Not so on an 8000 meter mountain. The consequences are usually deadly.
There is absolutely NO comparison as to what is at risk between thru-hiking the AT and summiting an 8000 meter peak.
Thru hiking is hard, Everest is hard - and dangerous.
agreed my 2010 brotha :D:banana:)
fiddlehead
06-05-2008, 00:50
Agreed also. With 3 thru's of the AT behind me, no one can convince me that i could possibly climb Everest 48 times. I know better.
It is strictly elevation gain (from a low level) Does anyone really think that hiking from Fontana DAm to Klingmans is anything like hiking from camp 5 to the summit of Everest?
Agreed also. With 3 thru's of the AT behind me, no one can convince me that i could possibly climb Everest 48 times. I know better.
It is strictly elevation gain (from a low level) Does anyone really think that hiking from Fontana DAm to Klingmans is anything like hiking from camp 5 to the summit of Everest?
And time is not on ones side.
And time is not on ones side.Wildcowboy could climb Everest 48 times regardless of the time-frame alloted. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a fight.:sun Stop holding people back from their dreams.;)
Wildcowboy could climb Everest 48 times regardless of the time-frame alloted. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a fight.:sun Stop holding people back from their dreams.;)
ed,You have it all wrong....IT'S HOPE that i stand by.:)
BTW Your getting a little slow on your post time in your old age.:-?:D
How many have you done to say that?
uh, thru-hiking ain't that hard
How many have you done?
Now that "So You Think You Can Dance" is off-air, I can post....
You are talking about other threads, right?
Haven't seen any of that in this one.
As long as you convince yourself..why do you even care about my opinion? :)
Lone Wolf
06-05-2008, 09:00
How many have you done?
about 5 more than you
dessertrat
06-05-2008, 09:26
This seems like apples and oranges to me. As such, it's one of the dumber debates I've seen on Whiteblaze.
Lone Wolf
06-05-2008, 09:28
This seems like apples and oranges to me. As such, it's one of the dumber debates I've seen on Whiteblaze.
what else is there to bitch about? any and all backpacking quetions have been answered years ago on this site
4eyedbuzzard
06-05-2008, 10:10
what else is there to bitch about? any and all backpacking quetions have been answered years ago on this site
Everything you ever truly need to know about backpacking:
1) Don't do dumb s**t.
A) Respect the land and creatures upon it - this includes other humans.
B) Use gear and techniques suitable for the conditions you will encounter.2) Place one foot in front of the other.
3) Repeat.
Any problems - refer to #1
dessertrat
06-05-2008, 11:01
what else is there to bitch about? any and all backpacking quetions have been answered years ago on this site
That's because backpacking is no more complicated than putting a bag on your back and walking. It doesn't take long to beat that horse dead.
This is an excellent thread!
One thing that kept me up last night was wondering which crossing is more irresponsible (especially for those with young children): crossing the Khumbu Ice flow, or walking across thw Kennebec?
I am not sure. Clearly far fewer people have walked across the Kennebec. Even the stout early thrus were known to take a boat.
Plus, you take ropes and ladders with you over the ice flow. The only safety equipment taken across the Kennebec is between your ears.
Pepper Beard
06-05-2008, 13:19
Here's a question and don't google the answer.
We all know who claims to be the first to climb Everest, Sir Edmund Hillary.
But did you know he wasn't alone.. can you name the other man who co-summited with Hillary on that day? The man that is totally forgotten but did the same feat as Hillary??
Pepper Beard
06-05-2008, 13:20
[quote=Pepper Beard;637732]Here's a question and don't google the answer.
We all know who claims to be the first to climb Everest, Sir Edmund Hillary.
But did you know he wasn't alone.. can you name the other man who co-summited with Hillary on that day? The man that is totally forgotten but did the same feat as Hillary at the same time.
Lone Wolf
06-05-2008, 13:21
[quote=Pepper Beard;637732]Here's a question and don't google the answer.
We all know who claims to be the first to climb Everest, Sir Edmund Hillary.
But did you know he wasn't alone.. can you name the other man who co-summited with Hillary on that day? The man that is totally forgotten but did the same feat as Hillary at the same time.
the Sherpa dude, Norgay
Another couple of trivia questions:
Where on the AT (almost) can you see world class photos of Everest?
Ones worthy to be shown in ANY museum.
And who took them?
Lone Wolf
06-05-2008, 13:44
AMC center in crawford notch
AT is about 2200 miles long. 2200 divided by 16 is 137.5. So, every 138 miles, on average, you've done about the same elevation gain as climbing up everest from sea level. Of course, the south and north that distance would be less, and VA that distance would be greater.
[quote=Pepper Beard;637732]Here's a question and don't google the answer.
We all know who claims to be the first to climb Everest, Sir Edmund Hillary.
But did you know he wasn't alone.. can you name the other man who co-summited with Hillary on that day? The man that is totally forgotten but did the same feat as Hillary at the same time.
Tenseng Norgay. Or however you spell it.
max patch
06-05-2008, 14:51
Another couple of trivia questions:
Where on the AT (almost) can you see world class photos of Everest?
Ones worthy to be shown in ANY museum.
And who took them?
Probably at Williams College in MA. Don't have a clue as to who took them.
dessertrat
06-05-2008, 15:04
Norgay let Hillary step onto the summit just before him. That's what people like him get paid for. Still a great climber and deserving of equal recognition.
Probably at Williams College in MA. Don't have a clue as to who took them.
Wolf was right. There is an entire building dedicated to them at the Highland Center.
The best museum in Williamstown is the Clark Institute. Be sure to check out the Winslow Homer painting of the Whites. The museums impressionists make it something special, however. It was the product of the family behing the Singer sewing machine fortune. They picked the location out of a concern that such great art could get destroyed by bombing of New York. I think.
about 5 more than you
WRONG.I never tried 5 wire to wire and not finished even one like you.
NICKTHEGREEK
06-05-2008, 19:29
I be tyou could hike the whole AT 16 times for the price it costs to climb Everest once.
But what fool would want to?
fiddlehead
06-06-2008, 00:19
Tensing Norgay Sherpa. and they tied. Hillary never said he was first. They refused to tell who was first and claimed they tied.
As far as Rick B's question about the Kennebec vs the Ice Fall. A lot more died crossing the ice fall than the Kennebec. But you are probably right that more have tried it also.
On one of my trips over there, Babu Sherpa climbed Everest for his 13th time beating the (then ) record. He had gone to school with my friend Gelzen Sherpa who i used numerous times on treks over there and he's done some hiking on the AT with me. However, Babu Sherpa died on his next attempt while crossing the ice fall at the bottom.
Tensing Norgay Sherpa. and they tied. Hillary never said he was first. They refused to tell who was first and claimed they tied.
As far as Rick B's question about the Kennebec vs the Ice Fall. A lot more died crossing the ice fall than the Kennebec. But you are probably right that more have tried it also.
On one of my trips over there, Babu Sherpa climbed Everest for his 13th time beating the (then ) record. He had gone to school with my friend Gelzen Sherpa who i used numerous times on treks over there and he's done some hiking on the AT with me. However, Babu Sherpa died on his next attempt while crossing the ice fall at the bottom.
Thanks for that info.;)
4eyedbuzzard
06-06-2008, 01:11
I think because of the number of summits on Everest in recent years, the opening of the mountain to commercial guides, and the media reports of "inexperienced" climbers(which is a very relative thing), people forget just how dangerous big mountains are. The very best in the world, people with climbing skills that put them in a whole other class die up there - Alex Lowe, Jerzy Kukuczka and a whole list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deaths_on_eight-thousanders) of others - including a lot of Sherpas who are as skilled and conditioned(and usually more so) as anyone on the mountain. Very risky s**t climbing big mountains.
A friend of mine just summited Everest 5 days ago.
http://monty-val-everest.blogspot.com/
I don't planning on telling her thru-hiking is harder. :)
We've done back county fondue (http://www.pmags.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_gallery2&Itemid=36&g2_view=core.ShowItem&g2_itemId=10119) together. I don't think she did that on Everest.
4eyedbuzzard
06-06-2008, 10:08
A friend of mine just summited Everest 5 days ago.
http://monty-val-everest.blogspot.com/
I don't planning on telling her thru-hiking is harder. :)
We've done back county fondue (http://www.pmags.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_gallery2&Itemid=36&g2_view=core.ShowItem&g2_itemId=10119) together. I don't think she did that on Everest.
Wow. IMG climb. Nice. Congrats to her.
Monty's ordeal was interesting, including his comment: "... Will I return to try again? I don’t know – it’s too soon to answer that question. There’s too much death and injury on this mountain, and I’ve come to believe getting both up and DOWN has a greater element of luck than skill, at least for a weekend warrior like me..."
The Weasel
06-06-2008, 11:43
Here's a question and don't google the answer.
We all know who claims to be the first to climb Everest, Sir Edmund Hillary.
But did you know he wasn't alone.. can you name the other man who co-summited with Hillary on that day? The man that is totally forgotten but did the same feat as Hillary??
Tenzing Norgay - and I didn't need to look it up - is not "totally forgotten" but has been revered in Nepal and, for that matter, throughout the world. I also believe that Hillary never claimed to be first, and I am pretty certain he and Norgay - they remained close friends - never said which first touched the summit.
TW
Tenzing Norgay - and I didn't need to look it up - is not "totally forgotten" but has been revered in Nepal and, for that matter, throughout the world. I also believe that Hillary never claimed to be first, and I am pretty certain he and Norgay - they remained close friends - never said which first touched the summit.
TW
Hillary took credit for being first late in life.
Blissful
06-06-2008, 20:34
A friend of mine just summited Everest 5 days ago.
http://monty-val-everest.blogspot.com/
I don't planning on telling her thru-hiking is harder. :)
We've done back county fondue (http://www.pmags.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_gallery2&Itemid=36&g2_view=core.ShowItem&g2_itemId=10119) together. I don't think she did that on Everest.
Now that is cool!!!
I went to a talk a few years back from a guy that did Everest. Fascinating stuff.
Now that is cool!!!
She's a very cool person, too. I have no desire to technical mountaineering....but that does not mean I can't admire what person has accomplished.
All this talk about how "easy" Everest is now-a-days seems rather interesting when the people writing it are sitting at a computer. (Not meaning this thread per se; people in the local paper said the same crap in the comments section).
Guess the moral of the story is rather than saying which is harder or easier or better or whatever, it is simply better to celebrate the joy of a person reaching their personal goal.
And that's what it is all about..'eh?
Pokey2006
06-07-2008, 01:23
Ya, I ain't never seen a frozen cornea or a journey-ending nosebleed on the AT...Anything from 12,000 feet on up is NOT FUN, and just cannot be compared to East Coast hiking in any way shape or form.
The pictures on that website are just stunning. Thanks for sharing the link.
Programbo
06-07-2008, 07:37
All this talk about how "easy" Everest is now-a-days seems rather interesting when the people writing it are sitting at a computer. (Not meaning this thread per se; people in the local paper said the same crap in the comments section).
Well it might be hard to type those words and NOT be at a computer :D... I don`t think anyone is saying climbing Everest isn`t a great physical achivement and doesn`t have dangers but at the same time I doubt you would find many longtime serious mountaineers who would disagree with the statement that Everest is among the easier of the big mountains to summit..The only thing that keeps a couple of thousand people a year from doing it is the log jam on the mountain and a shorter window of opportunity in the right season...Look at K2..I think more people have summited Everest this year (Thru May) than have summited K2 ever...I think this thread got sidetracked into people mistakenly trying to compare the dangers of the AT to those of Everest instead of the intended direction of success rates per each compared to attempts.
More people have sumitted Everest than have hiked the entire Appalachian Trail.
This is either a statement about unattainable purity, or else is patently false. As of last summer, the number of recorded 2000-milers (ie, ATC's official count) exceeded 10,000. (Sorry if this was covered elsewhere in the thread.... I'm only up to post 25 or so...:rolleyes:)
what else is there to bitch about? any and all backpacking quetions have been answered years ago on this site
So says the most prolific poster on WhiteBlaze, truly second-to-none in that category.
max patch
06-07-2008, 11:24
This is either a statement about unattainable purity, or else is patently false. As of last summer, the number of recorded 2000-milers (ie, ATC's official count) exceeded 10,000. (Sorry if this was covered elsewhere in the thread.... I'm only up to post 25 or so...:rolleyes:)
Per wikipedia: By the end of the 2007 climbing season, there had been 3,679 ascents to the summit by 2,436 individuals.
So have more or less than 2,436 people really met the qualifications to be recognized as 2,000 milers?
I know the answer to that one. I think.
Purity is not unattainable.
Per wikipedia: By the end of the 2007 climbing season, there had been 3,679 ascents to the summit by 2,436 individuals.
So have more or less than 2,436 people really met the qualifications to be recognized as 2,000 milers?
I know the answer to that one. I think.
Purity is not unattainable.
Do you have better numbers than ATC? Are you better qualified to judge a bona-fide 2000-miler? Are you ready to disqualify 75% of the current claimants to that elite club?
If not, then your question is purely rhetorical, and the answer is obvious. At present, recorded 2000-milers outnumber recorded Everest summiters by about 4 to 1.
max patch
06-07-2008, 11:35
The point Rick was trying to make is that all "recorded" 2,000 milers have not hiked the "entire" trail.
We all have own ideas as to how many of the recorded 10,000 milers have actually met the criteria.
Purity is not unattainable.
Nor is world peace, but I've yet to see it.
Get me some definition of "purity".... and when you do, I'll bet that I could go back through those ancient Rodale Press journals and disqualify at least 90% of the hikers that wrote them, on the basis of whatever you come up with. :D :rolleyes: ;)
The point Rick was trying to make is that all "recorded" 2,000 milers have not hiked the "entire" trail.
And by logical extension: those who have (and we know who we are, wink wink) are more fit to be compared to Hillary and Norgay than the rest of you packsniffers.
max patch
06-07-2008, 11:59
And by logical extension: those who have (and we know who we are, wink wink) are more fit to be compared to Hillary and Norgay than the rest of you packsniffers.
Thats a stupid comment in a stupid thread.
Completing Everest is so much more difficult than thru hiking the AT that comparing the two is laughable.
4eyedbuzzard
06-07-2008, 12:00
...I don`t think anyone is saying climbing Everest isn`t a great physical achivement and doesn`t have dangers but at the same time I doubt you would find many longtime serious mountaineers who would disagree with the statement that Everest is among the easier of the big mountains to summit..
Very hard to assign difficulty ratings due to seasonal and yearly differences in climbing condtions, dfferent routes, guide competency, etc. Cho-Oyu is probably the "easiest" of the fourteen 8000 meter peaks, but climbing it in bad conditions, or having it turn bad, would be far more dangerous than even a K2 summit in good conditions.
I think Ed Viesturs (http://www.edviesturs.com/)has said that no matter how good a mountaineer's skills are, or how conservative one's approach is regarding climbing decisions, that it is ultimately not a matter of if you will get killed on an 8000 meter mountain, but when. Spend enough time up there climbing at those altitudes on the sides of big mountains and something will eventually go wrong and you will die. And Ed is one of he absolute best ever, and probably the most safety conscious when it comes to calling off summit attempts due to conditions - he's aborted several climbs mere meters from summits because conditions weren't to his liking.
Success on an 8000 meter mountain is called getting back home alive - "Summting is optional - getting down alive isn't."
The only thing that keeps a couple of thousand people a year from doing it is the log jam on the mountain and a shorter window of opportunity in the right season...Look at K2..I think more people have summited Everest this year (Thru May) than have summited K2 ever...I think this thread got sidetracked into people mistakenly trying to compare the dangers of the AT to those of Everest instead of the intended direction of success rates per each compared to attempts.
Well, it would obviously be difficult to come up with a consensus on success rates as ATC's data seems to be challenged by many here, and I know of no other compiled source regarding AT thru-hike success/failure. ATC says about 9000 have completed the trail, and a successful completion rate ranging from 17% o 29% between the years . That is challenged by those who say the completion rate is a mere 10% of that number - that only 900 have ever thru-hiked - and no one can agree on what thru-hiking really means - as compounded by the fact that ATC recognizes only 2000 milers regardless of number of years, sectioning, etc. http://www.appalachiantrail.org/site/c.jkLXJ8MQKtH/b.851143/ Obviously, given an unverified honor system regarding recording 2000 mile reports, there will be some who lie to get a certificate and a rocker patch. But I just don't believe that it is 90%. As with most things, I'd imagine the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
But as this discussion also moved to the area of which is harder, climbing Everest vs hiking the AT, I think there is no comparison to be made. They aren't equivelent undertakings. Most high altitude mountaineers could certainly thru-hike the AT starting tomorrow if they had the time and inclination to do so. They have the requisite skills. Most thru-hikers could not do the reverse. And that's probably the biggest difference. Virtually anyone can learn to hike and camp along the AT in a very short period of time. People have left Springer with little or no hiking or backcountry experiece and successfully thru-hiked. But it takes at minimum a few years of training and experience on lesser mountains before any of the reputable guides will even take your money these days for an Everest expedition. I think the death rate also points to a telling comparison. Perhaps a handful of hikers have died over the years from falls and hypothermia on the AT. There are no hard numbers, but certainly it isn't common. Approximately 210 have died on Everest last time I looked. Prior to 1990 the cumulative Everest death rate over the years was around 37% - since then, due to better weather forecasting, medical monitoring, and more conservatism from expedition leaders, it's been under 5%. http://www.mounteverest.net/story/LHOTSEKillerMountainsAnExplorersWebSeriesOct92003. shtml Quite an improvement. How many others have lost fingers, toes, ears, noses, etc or had other permanent injures is unreported, yet obviously these are not uncommon injuries on Everest. Things have gotten better after the '96 tragedy, but I think we all know it's just a matter of time until there is another bad year. It's a deadly environment and every year somebody dies.
A thru-hike of the AT requires a whole lot of commitment and a reasonable degree of physical fitness. And I don't wish to diminish that accomplishment. But the AT is a trail hike that never goes above 6643 feet and is over maintained trails. There are no seracs, icefalls, avalanches, technical climbing or glacier travel involved. No AMS, no HAPE, no HACE to be considered - and no death zone. Just whole different animals when it comes to the danger factor.
I'm not belittling a thru-hike. I just think that comparing the two in many ways betittles an Everest climb.
uh, thru-hiking ain't that hard
No, why not get out and try it? :cool:
max patch
06-07-2008, 12:16
A thru-hike of the AT requires a whole lot of commitment and a reasonable degree of physical fitness. And I don't wish to diminish that accomplishment. But the AT is a trail hike that never goes above 6643 feet and is over maintained trails. There are no seracs, icefalls, avalanches, technical climbing or glacier travel involved. No AMS, no HAPE, no HACE to be considered - and no death zone. Just whole different animals when it comes to the danger factor.
I'm not belittling a thru-hike. I just think that comparing the two in many ways betittles an Everest climb.
Exactly.
The most dangerous thing about a thru hike are the hiker feeds.
And thats a true statement.
Thats a stupid comment in a stupid thread.
Far from me to defend the thread. Far harder, apparently, to understand (much less defend) the position that you and Rickb are taking.
You would be saying that at least 3/4 of claimed AT completions are not really legit. Kinda harsh.
Completing Everest is so much more difficult than thru hiking the AT that comparing the two is laughable.
no argument there. entirely different endeavors.
Lone Wolf
06-07-2008, 12:40
No, why not get out and try it? :cool:
been there done it
The most dangerous thing about a thru hike are the hiker feeds.
Wow. I thought it was the shelters. :rolleyes:
given the risk of life, and limb. I do not admire people, especialy those who have families, who climb Everest. I think it's idiodic.
been there done it
Flip-flopper. Mr. Wolf, for the record, the committee would appreciate a simple, yes-or-no answer: are you, or have you ever been, a thru-hiker?
And by logical extension: those who have (and we know who we are, wink wink) are more fit to be compared to Hillary and Norgay than the rest of you packsniffers.
Not at all.
To make that leap is absurd.
They (and most all high altitude mountaineers) are in a completely different class. A better comparison might be between a thru hike and ascent of Mount Ranier. I am sure there are people on this list who have done both. For me, Ranier would be harder.
My point was that very few people have hiked the entire AT. If that's important.
Most people listed as 2000 Milers haven't, even without the hair splitting stuff. Common knowledge. Not an insult. Fewer people have hiked the entire AT than have climbed Everest. Everest has called to more people over more time, though. Climbing Everest would be a transcendent Experience.
My point was that very few people have hiked the entire AT. If that's important.
If, as you suggest, most folks haven't hiked the entire trail, then one can only conclude that they didn't place much importance in doing so. You kinda answered your own question. ;)
max patch
06-07-2008, 14:55
If, as you suggest, most folks haven't hiked the entire trail, then one can only conclude that they didn't place much importance in doing so.
Thats certainly one possibility.
And not having the mental toughness to do so could be another.
4eyedbuzzard
06-07-2008, 15:56
The most dangerous thing about a thru hike are the hiker feeds.
And perhaps the egos. ;) :D
X climbers who attempt to summit Everest will NEVER be able to do so, because their physiological limitations. X hikers who attempt to hike the entire trail in a thru-hike will "fail" to do so because of a lack of mental discipline. Both adventures have plenty of "grey" areas that others reference to discount the achievement. In the spirit of personal achievement, discovery and experience this amounts to a hill of beans. In the spirit of external validation, this cuts deep if their journey falls short of "pure". I wonder what the proportion is between "thru hikers" and "2000 milers". I would think that the section hikers would have time to reflect and aspire to finishing the endevour. Comments? (as if I had to ask)
Thats certainly one possibility.
And not having the mental toughness to do so could be another.
My point is... your comment about mental toughness (or lack thereof) applies to the majority of claimants to "2000 miler" status. Go ahead and deny that you're making a value judgment. Uh-huh. ;)
And perhaps the egos. ;) :D
Actually, a healthy ego is a prerequisite.
4eyedbuzzard
06-07-2008, 16:42
X climbers who attempt to summit Everest will NEVER be able to do so, because their physiological limitations. X hikers who attempt to hike the entire trail in a thru-hike will "fail" to do so because of a lack of mental discipline. Both adventures have plenty of "grey" areas that others reference to discount the achievement. In the spirit of personal achievement, discovery and experience this amounts to a hill of beans. In the spirit of external validation, this cuts deep if their journey falls short of "pure". I wonder what the proportion is between "thru hikers" and "2000 milers". I would think that the section hikers would have time to reflect and aspire to finishing the endevour. Comments? (as if I had to ask)
Anybody hiking the AT in need of external validation needs to seriously get a life. 'Cause for the most part, in the real world nobody really gives a s**t how you spent a 6 month vacation.
Anybody hiking the AT in need of external validation needs to seriously get a life.
External, internal, I'm not so fussy. I'll take any kind I can get.
Anybody hiking the AT in need of external validation needs to seriously get a life. 'Cause for the most part, in the real world nobody really gives a s**t how you spent a 6 month vacation.
Really? I think thru-hikers should be mandated to carry little passes and have them validated at specific outposts. Have their ticket punched or get a stamp from each state, then they can prove their hikes.
4eyedbuzzard
06-07-2008, 17:08
External, internal, I'm not so fussy. I'll take any kind I can get.
It's just hiking. If you fell good doing it, that's great. But it's not public service or charity work, peace corp, etc. It doesn't benefit anybody but the person doing it. It's 100% a purely selfish endeavor. I'll certainly acknowledge it for the personal accomplishment it is. But it's not like I go ga-ga over the fact that somebody thru-hiked. There are many more laudable things someone could do with 6 months of their time. I'll reserve my cheers and hip-hip-hoorays for them.
4eyedbuzzard
06-07-2008, 17:11
Really? I think thru-hikers should be mandated to carry little passes and have them validated at specific outposts. Have their ticket punched or get a stamp from each state, then they can prove their hikes.
An excellent idea for all those who care that much. Why not just ankle bracelet them and track them by GPS, like prisoners?
And there should be a golden ring dispenser atop Katahdin
too.
saimyoji
06-07-2008, 17:46
of course the debate on wildlife has yet to be brought up. on the AT you've got bears, hogs, rattlers, moose, rednecks......on everest you just have to deal with the Yeti.
the only difference is the death zone. Everest has it the AT don't.
Pokey2006
06-07-2008, 17:50
Really? I think thru-hikers should be mandated to carry little passes and have them validated at specific outposts. Have their ticket punched or get a stamp from each state, then they can prove their hikes.
Hey, that's not such an outlandish idea -- it's what they do in Nepal. At least on the Annapurna Circuit. Every other village had a police checkpost where they would stamp and sign your permit. It wasn't to prove you'd done the hike -- it was more for their own record-keeping and to make sure everyone had their permits. But it does make a nice souvenir!
4eyedbuzzard
06-07-2008, 19:10
the only difference is the death zone. Everest has it the AT don't.
Well, and a few little other things...like avalanches, seracs, crevasses, icefalls, glacier travel, technical sections, -40 temperatures, oxygen failure, the very real health hazards of hemmorages, AMS, HAPE, HACE. But other than those and a few others, yeah the only other difference is the death zone.
Pokey2006
06-07-2008, 19:17
Ya know, even the dangers aside, one thing about Everest is that you're doing physically demanding work while you feel like total crap. It's like continuing to hike on the AT with giardia or something. I've only been to 16,000 feet, but I'll tell you, I felt like hell at that altitude. Worse than hell. I can't even imagine spending more than a few minutes there, never mind continuing to hike up even higher the next day. And that's not even close to the "death zone."
Flip-flopper. Mr. Wolf, for the record, the committee would appreciate a simple, yes-or-no answer: are you, or have you ever been, a thru-hiker?
HELLO...QUIET FROM 5 QUIT.:D
Pokey2006
06-07-2008, 20:12
Well, it is a Saturday night. He probably just has a life. Unlike the rest of us losers.
the only difference is the death zone. Everest has it the AT don't.I doubt that's the only difference, and I have never been to Everest.:cool:
Programbo
06-07-2008, 21:55
Ya know, even the dangers aside, one thing about Everest is that you're doing physically demanding work while you feel like total crap. It's like continuing to hike on the AT with giardia or something....... Worse than hell. I can't even imagine spending more than a few minutes there, never mind continuing to hike up even higher the next day.
True but at least you know it`s just the next day or 2-3 days max..If you get tired or homesick or even bored on the AT you know you`ve still got 4-5 months to go yet til you can go home..I think even some of the professional sherpas from Everest might quit a thru-hike..Not because they couldn`t hack it physically or because it was dangerous..They`d just get bored with it
Pokey2006
06-07-2008, 22:37
True, a climb doesn't take as long as a thru-hike, but it does take a while. Climbers can be gone for several weeks, and often make two or more trips overseas for training (you really have to climb another 8,000-meter peak first before you make an attempt on Everest).
Plus, you're in closer contact with your family on the AT than you would be on a climb. I think the longest I've ever been out of contact with my family was when I was in Nepal, not when I was on the AT. So I don't buy that whole "away from home" argument. Asia is further away from home than the AT. In more ways than one.
Ya, the time commitment of a thru-hike is a factor. Though, funny that I had to quit a job to thru-hike, and I also had to quit a job to go to Nepal. You can't do a trek, let alone an 8,000-meter climb, with a two-week vaca. So the time commitment is actually not all that different, after all.
4eyedbuzzard
06-08-2008, 00:40
True but at least you know it`s just the next day or 2-3 days max...
2 or 3 days??? More like closer to 60. For a climb from the Nepal side, after about 10 days of travel and trekking to base camp from Kathmandu you acclimatize a bit on the way to base camp at roughly 17500 ft. Then it's more like 45 days on Everest itself - short of breath, nauseous, and with a headache much of the time. You climb from base camp(BC) through the Khumbu icefall to camp 1(19500 ft) and then back down to sleep lower and rest at base camp. Then you climb and sleep at camp 1 and back down to BC. Maybe climb again and sleep at camp 2(ABC/advanced base camp 21000 ft) once it's established. Then back down to base camp and a few days rest. Lots of trips through the Khumbu icefall(dangerous as hell) from base camp to ABC(advanced base camp) if you climb from the Nepal side. Then back up and sleep at ABC and then climb to camp 2 the next day and sleep there. Then all the way back down to BC and more rest days. And repeat a similar process again for camp 3 (23,500 ft) and 4 (26300 ft). Then finally you climb to ABC, sleep, then climb to camp 3, sleep, then climb to camp 4 - and get a shot at the summit the next day starting around midnight, climbing with a headlamp, but only if the weather is good. If the weather won't cooperate you have to come all the way back down and rest some more and then go up again. You can't stay at camp 3 or 4 for any length of time or you will die. Pretty much everybody is on supplemental oxygen above 7000 meters / camp 3. You probably climb 10 times the actual elevation change from BC to summit while on an expedition.
And none of this even happens if you get sick in base camp, and lots of people do. Many people just can't acclimatize, even given time. Humans aren't physiologically evolved to live even at BC altitude. There are a few inhabited towns close to that altitude - but only in Tibet, Nepal, and Peru. Those who are born and live there, and come from a genetic lineage that has, like many of the Sherpa people, have a distinct advantage over most foreign climbers. With most climbers coming from much lower altitudes, some find it impossible to acclimatize, and others just reach their own personal limit at other altitudes between BC and the summit. Over 70% of climbers do not summit, most because they just can't physically do it even with supplimental oxygen. And the only way to treat all the altitude related illnesses is to get down - quickly.
Some good photos and a short 2006 Everest climb log if anyone is interested: http://www.everestsa2006.co.za/page_5.htm
Just a walk in the park...
http://www.everestsa2006.co.za/images/Vaughan%20on%20the%20Hillary%20Step,%20290%20pix.j pg (http://www.everestsa2006.co.za/Enlarged_Picture_Pages/vaughan_on_hillary_step.htm)
Programbo
06-08-2008, 08:17
2 or 3 days??? More like closer to 60. Lots of trips through the Khumbu icefall(dangerous as hell) from base camp to ABC(advanced base camp) if you climb from the Nepal side.....
I think the majority of these guided Everest treks use the North Col route and avoid the icefall...But my 2-3 days was for the actual summit climb from ABC and up..Maybe it`s more like 4..You spend a lot of time at lower elevations getting acclimatized...All the trips up and down thru the camps and icefall you mention sound more like an earlier style expedition where equipment is worked up the mountain and camps established and stocked..I would think that all that work is done by sherpas now-a-days and the camps are set and stocked before one even arrives...Don`t get me wrong it`s a great accomplishment to climb Everest but it`s far from what it was even 20 years ago..I think the death rate has dropped to like 4% which for an 8000m peak is amazing
I think the majority of these guided Everest treks use the North Col route and avoid the icefall...But my 2-3 days was for the actual summit climb from ABC and up..Maybe it`s more like 4..You spend a lot of time at lower elevations getting acclimatized...All the trips up and down thru the camps and icefall you mention sound more like an earlier style expedition where equipment is worked up the mountain and camps established and stocked..I would think that all that work is done by sherpas now-a-days and the camps are set and stocked before one even arrives...Don`t get me wrong it`s a great accomplishment to climb Everest but it`s far from what it was even 20 years ago..I think the death rate has dropped to like 4% which for an 8000m peak is amazing
I take it you haven't read Into Thin Air -- IIRC, that was an account of the 1996 expedition season. Anyway, I recall Krakauer mentioning something like a 20% mortality rate. In '96 his group were still doing "graduated" climbs, retreating to base between them. I think there were two or three partial climbs before the major attempt. Max. time at or above the "death zone" (Camp 4, 24,000 feet) still had to be limited since almost everyone was on oxygen.
4eyedbuzzard
06-08-2008, 10:53
From my understanding every guided expedition still does graduated climbs - climb high, sleep low - no way around it. Guides are trying to properly acclimatize, condition, and assess clients' physical conditions, skills, ability, etc. I'm sure there are fly-by-night guide companies, some small teams, and solos doing quicker climbs, but you won't find any serious alpine experts recommending this approach. And clients still carry much of their own personal gear up the mountain even with Sherpa support. Granted, much of the common gear, food, fuel, and oxygen is hauled up by Sherpas, who also fix most of the ladders and ropes, but clients still carry gear up the mountain to the camps when needed.
The North col route has become somewhat more popular than the South in recent times, but it isn't preferred because of safety or success rate or to avoid the ice fall(success rate is still higher on south col climbs), but is more a by-product of Tibet being opened up to climbing, Nepal's permit fees vs Tibet's, and access to a second route - simply putting more people on the mountain and being able to make more money off all the people who want to climb (although Tibet is closed to climbing this year with the torch BS). But the North col route also has it's own increased dangers from exposure, avalanche, and falls. You're correct the death rate since 1990 is below 5%, even with the '96 tragedy factored in.
In the end though, less than 30% of climbers who pay to climb ever summit. About 1 in 3 from the Nepal side, and 1 in 4 from the Tibet side. Most people are laying out $50K to $100K overall for a 25 to 30% chance to summit. And unlike the AT, where most aborted thru-hikes are abandoned out of simply not wanting to continue, most failures to summit on Everest have nothing to do with a lack of desire or giving up. Usually it's things like reaching one's physical limitation, illness, weather, frostbite, and injury that do people in. Some climbers actually get scared and just bug out during an expedition. I can't find fault in that either. It's a dangerous undertaking. Different decisions for different folks.
Well it might be hard to type those words and NOT be at a computer..
So how your hiking this past month?
"Climbing mountains is another process that serves as an example for both business and life. Many people don’t understand that how you climb a mountain is more important than reaching the top. You can solo climb Everest without using oxygen, or you can pay guides and Sherpas to carry your loads, put ladders across crevasses, lay in six thousand feet of fixed ropes, and have one Sherpa pulling and one pushing you. You just dial '10,000 Feet' on your oxygen bottle, and up you go.
Typical high-powered, rich plastic surgeons and CEOs who attempt to climb Everest this way are so fixated on the target, the summit, that they compromise on the process. The goal of climbing big, dangerous mountains should be to attain some sort of spiritual and personal growth, but this won’t happen if you compromise away the entire process."
From "Let My People Go Surfing," Yvon Choinard, founder of Patagonia
Blissful
06-09-2008, 15:49
I take it you haven't read Into Thin Air -- IIRC, that was an account of the 1996 expedition season.
Excellent book.
I also read the one by the guy who lost his fingers and nose (I think it was) on that same journey that year. An exceptional book, a true miracle, really, that he survived.
Blissful
06-09-2008, 15:51
Marta, I just saw you are going to hike to the Everest base camp in 2010? Wow. What would the cost be to do that? Keep me posted, love to hear about it and your planning, etc. :)
[re: Into Thin Air, by Jon Krakauer]
Excellent book.
I also read the one by the guy who lost his fingers and nose (I think it was) on that same journey that year. An exceptional book, a true miracle, really, that he survived.
I'd be willing to guess that more people (well, modern Americans anyway) know about Everest from that book than from any other source. The guy you're referring to is Dr. Beck, I think.
I hear tell Krakauer is, himself, a bit of a controversial figure in the world of technical climbing. All I know for sure is that he's a damn good writer.
Blissful
06-09-2008, 21:11
[re: Into Thin Air, by Jon Krakauer]
The guy you're referring to is Dr. Beck, I think.
That's him. Fascinating story he has to tell from his point of view. Esp the relation to his family vs his overpowering desire in the area of mountaineering.
Programbo
06-09-2008, 21:34
Originally Posted by Programbo http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/wb_style/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?p=639178#post639178)
Well it might be hard to type those words and NOT be at a computer..
So how your hiking this past month?
I have no idea what that means...So...What I meant was that even serious mountaineers who may have some direct meaningful input do find themselves sitting in front of a computer eventually..Simply because someone is making a post from a computer doesn`t in some indirect way imply they have no knowledge of a subject
Pokey2006
06-09-2008, 22:12
Marta, I just saw you are going to hike to the Everest base camp in 2010? Wow. What would the cost be to do that? Keep me posted, love to hear about it and your planning, etc. :)
Trekking in Nepal is incredibly cheap, around $10 a day, give or take. It's roughly double that (or it should be, if you're paying fair price) if you hire a porter. Whatever you do, DO NOT book a package deal before you go. Hire a porter when you get there and pay for lodges and food as you go.
The big cost is the airfare. I paid $1,300, but it's probably going up significantly with the price of oil.
Sorry, I'm not Marta, but I just happened to know the answer...
.Simply because someone is making a post from a computer doesn`t in some indirect way imply they have no knowledge of a subject
Again, how was your hiking this past month or so? Or climbing?
Simple question really.
Thanks.
fiddlehead
06-09-2008, 23:03
Trekking in Nepal is incredibly cheap, around $10 a day, give or take. It's roughly double that (or it should be, if you're paying fair price) if you hire a porter. Whatever you do, DO NOT book a package deal before you go. Hire a porter when you get there and pay for lodges and food as you go.
The big cost is the airfare. I paid $1,300, but it's probably going up significantly with the price of oil.
I agree totally. If you need a contact (Sherpa) in Nepal, i have a good, long time friend there who can help set things up. I also get my typhoid shot over there for around $20-30. He can show you where.
For the price of one of these "adventure travel" companies treks, you could have 4 or 5 people carrying your stuff.
Most AT hikers don't need a porter. You have learned how to simplify your hiking gear and food is something you buy every day so no need to carry much besides warm clothes and camera gear.
Anyway. I guess this is thread drift but if you need contacts or anything (i've been over there 7 times) PM me.
4eyedbuzzard
06-09-2008, 23:21
[re: Into Thin Air, by Jon Krakauer]
...The guy you're referring to is Dr. Beck, I think...
Dr. Beck Weathers. Lost his right arm and all the fingers on his left hand and had a new nose grown on his forehead and then reconstructed. Wrote a book, Left for Dead, about his climb. Grizzly.
Pokey2006
06-09-2008, 23:23
Oh, I think this thread was due for a little drifting...
I agree that most backpackers will find they don't need a porter. The load on a teahouse trek is actually much lighter than what you're used to, since you're not carrying a tent or food. Just be prepared for the stares and questions from locals: "no guide? no porter???" They think we're crazy to carry our own stuff.
I'm happy to answer PMs with questions, too, though I've only been there once, so my experience is nothing compared with yours, Fiddlehead. Seven times...wow!
Pokey2006
06-09-2008, 23:26
The Climb by Anatoli Boukreev is also very good. The tone is a little defensive, but it does offer another perspective. Boukreev survived the 96 season on Everest, obviously, but died a short time later on Annapurna.
4eyedbuzzard
06-09-2008, 23:37
The Climb by Anatoli Boukreev is also very good. The tone is a little defensive, but it does offer another perspective. Boukreev survived the 96 season on Everest, obviously, but died a short time later on Annapurna.
Given the acusations by Krakauer, Boukreev pretty much had to defend himself by writing a retort/book.
Pokey2006
06-09-2008, 23:39
Sure. And there some questions raised in Krakauer's book that are answered in Boukreev's. Boukreev was a skilled and accomplished climber, and many believe he was a hero in 96. He died not due to lack of skill, but in an avalanche.
fiddlehead
06-10-2008, 01:22
Yeah, i think Krakauer hit on Boukreev pretty hard and perhaps stretched the truth a bit and the Russian defended himself.
Pokey: where did you trek? I've done most all the popular ones as well as Manasalu and Dhaliguiri (my definite favourite) Even got to do Everest base camp on the Tibetan side once.
I have a video I made from my last trip in 2004 that i hope to chop up and put highlights on youtube soon. I'll let you know when. (i sell it online also)
I showed it at a gathering about 3 years ago i think it was.
Pokey2006
06-10-2008, 01:40
Love to see that.
I did the Annapurna Circuit and Sanctuary. I hope to return someday to do Everest Base Camp. I loved my time in Nepal.
Don't know if you've heard about the road construction on the Circuit. It's very sad.
Krakauer was under a deadline, at least for his initial magazine piece. Then the book went to print soon after. I think it's a classic example of why it's a good idea to give things a little time to gain some perspective. Krakauer even said that himself. But I still think his book is still an excellent piece of journalism, and a gripping narrative.
Lone Wolf
06-10-2008, 03:54
so do you use hiking poles on a trek and trekking poles on a hike.? what if you just walk? walking poles? :-?
fiddlehead
06-10-2008, 04:59
I listened to you Lone Wolf and don't use either walking poles or trekking poles.
I just hike, it's much simpler.
Actually the professional porters who carry everything up to the mountains use one short stick with a t handle similar to a cane. They rest their packs on it when they stop for a rest.
They also put all the weight on a rope that goes around their head. I've even seen one of them throw 3 backpacks in a basket, put the rope around the bottom of the basket and around his head.
doggiebag
06-10-2008, 05:04
These Sherpas/porters are pretty light wiry guys - any idea what type of loads they can haul? Is it close to 100% their body weight?
doggiebag
06-10-2008, 05:23
A quick google found the answer ... these guys are pretty efficient haulers averaging up to 93% of their body weights for men and 66% for women. Here's the NG article link: Nepalese Porters May Be World's Most Efficient Haulers (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/06/0616_050616_nepalporter.html)
tgrundAT09
06-10-2008, 06:23
Many geologists believe that parts of the Appalachians were much taller millions of years ago than Everest is now.
Just Imagine that thru-hike, I think it killed the dinos
Programbo
06-10-2008, 07:21
Again, how was your hiking this past month or so? Or climbing? Simple question really.
Oh..How WAS my hiking..Yes it is a simple question when it`s worded completely..My hiking has been fine thank you.
fiddlehead
06-10-2008, 07:22
I've seen the Sherpas hire women to carry the heavy stuff more than once.
Most porters are not Sherpas. Sherpa is a tribe and there are many tribes in Nepal.
Sherpas are very humble/strong/smart Buddists who come from the area around Mt. Everest. They immigrated to Nepal about 500 years ago from Tibet and their culture is very Tibetan-like. (hence the humbleness)
Usually porters are hired locally for treks. You can easily tell the pros from their calf muscles. (same with thru-hikers, aye?) Using someone other than a Sherpa can be a gamble as some will rip you off or try to get laid with the ladies, or just general uncool stuff. But the Sherpas are usually very trustworthy and steer you right.
I spent almost a month acclimating for a 20,000 foot climb and the day i summited, 3 sherpas passed me having just started the day before from 9,000' They were almost running.
Oh..How WAS my hiking..Yes it is a simple question when it`s worded completely..My hiking has been fine thank you.
Good. Now quit judging others, being obtuse on purpose and quit your pontificating. Talk about your hikes more. And since you seem to love to talk about the Everest experience from behind a computer, perhaps you could share your climbing experience as well?
Thanks.
A quick google found the answer ... these guys are pretty efficient haulers averaging up to 93% of their body weights for men and 66% for women. Here's the NG article link: Nepalese Porters May Be World's Most Efficient Haulers (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/06/0616_050616_nepalporter.html)
Pretty fricken amazing. Pound for pound, these guys (and gals) are so strong.
4eyedbuzzard
06-10-2008, 09:25
Pretty fricken amazing. Pound for pound, these guys (and gals) are so strong.
There have also been studies that show the Sherpa people have a genetic physiological advantage (not surprising, at least to me)
"Second generation Tibetan lowlanders acclimatize to high altitude more quickly than Caucasians" - http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1664949
Lone Wolf
06-10-2008, 09:26
There have also been studies that show the Sherpa people have a genetic physiological advantage (not surprising, at least to me)
"Second generation Tibetan lowlanders acclimatize to high altitude more quickly than Caucasians" - http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1664949
oh boy, here we go about racial differences
4eyedbuzzard
06-10-2008, 09:40
oh boy, here we go about racial differences
Wasn't my intent to start some sort of Bell Curve debate, but if people feel so inclined, nothing I can do about it. Just doesn't surprise me that generations of people who can actually f&^k at those altitudes without having heart attacks wouldn't have some advantage produced by natural selection. That, or maybe they were just more Intelligently Designed by Buddha to do so... :D
Pokey2006
06-10-2008, 10:20
The locals are much more naturally inclined toward climbing, that's for sure. Hiking isn't a sport for them -- it's a necessity, in order to get from one village to the next.
Porters (not necessarily Sherpas) are known to succumb to altitude sickness just like anyone else, though. Actually, they are maybe more prone to it, since they are loathe to mention any illness they are feeling for fear of losing their job or being made to feel less than manly. It's hard to communicate with a lot of them, as well. Porter work is often done by the more uneducated farmers or teenagers. These guys work hard, and are often underpaid and overburdened by large trekking companies.
Amazing not just the loads they carry, but the fact that they do it in flip flops! Fiddlehead and I both have cool pictures of porters in our galleries.
Where I live, there are many Sherpas who made their home here in the foothills of the Rockies. Many of them are seriously bad-ass trail runners.
One of them, besides being an accomplished climber and trail runner, also runs an awesome Nepalese restaurant called..Sherpa's! (http://www.sherpaascent.com/restaurant.htm) :)
4eyedbuzzard
06-10-2008, 10:31
...One of them, besides being an accomplished climber and trail runner, also runs an awesome Nepalese restaurant called..Sherpa's! (http://www.sherpaascent.com/restaurant.htm) :)
Yak - it's what's for dinner. ;)
Yak - it's what's for dinner. ;)
Don't laugh. I've had yak there before. :)
fiddlehead
06-10-2008, 11:23
Hey Mags, say hi to Yangdi in the kitchen. I've been to Sherpas in Boulder a few times and know her from my first few trips to Nepal back in 89 and 91. She doesn't know me as Fiddlehead though, you'll have to use Glenn. (damn i hate when that happens)
4eyedbuzzard
06-10-2008, 11:32
Don't laugh. I've had yak there before. :)
I honestly wasn't joking or laughing. I ate some Yak dumplings and stew many years ago.
Hey Mags, say hi to Yangdi in the kitchen. I've been to Sherpas in Boulder a few times and know her from my first few trips to Nepal back in 89 and 91. She doesn't know me as Fiddlehead though, you'll have to use Glenn. (damn i hate when that happens)
I believe (don't know for sure) she works at Tibet Restaurant up the road in Louisville. Just opened up this past year.
THat place is great, too!
http://www.tibetsrestaurant.com/
I honestly wasn't joking or laughing. I ate some Yak dumplings and stew many years ago.
The Yak Thupka there is delicious!
Pokey2006
06-10-2008, 16:19
There's no such thing as a Nepali restaurant. Because there's only one dish you can really call "Nepali," Dal Bhat. And who really craves lentils?
I would kill, though, for some Swiss rostis, momos and fresh-squeezed pineapple juice...
There's no such thing as a Nepali restaurant. Because there's only one dish you can really call "Nepali," Dal Bhat. And who really craves lentils?
.
Tell that to Pemba Sherpa..not me. I just enjoy the food. :)
Pokey2006
06-10-2008, 20:12
I looked at the menu -- yes, looks very good! Mostly Indian food. Which is YUM. If I'm ever in the neighborhood...
I looked at the menu -- yes, looks very good! Mostly Indian food. Which is YUM. If I'm ever in the neighborhood...
Yep. It is indeed mainly Indian..with some momos, thupka, etc. throw in. whatever they decide to call it...it is delicious.
Ran by the nicest people too. Who walk the walk (run the runs and climb the climbs) and don't post on Internet forums for some reason. :D
Two sets of friends had their wedding reception at this place. It is an old Victorian type house with an outdoor patio. In fact, one group of friends were the first to have their wedding reception there. It was almost was setup for a joke: Their rabbi was there...and a buddhist monk!
(A rare pic of me in non-outdoor attire at the place (http://www.pmags.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_gallery2&Itemid=36&g2_view=core.ShowItem&g2_itemId=15579) for wedding #2)
Tell you what. Saag makes for a more memorable wedding meal than the macaroni and chicken dinners I had at weddings growing up. :)
Life is good...
Programbo
06-10-2008, 20:25
Good. Now quit judging others, being obtuse on purpose and quit your pontificating. Talk about your hikes more. And since you seem to love to talk about the Everest experience from behind a computer, perhaps you could share your climbing experience as well?
Thanks.
I beg your pardon?..I did none of the things you mention..I am entitled to an opinion as well as anyone..Just because it differs from yours or isn`t what you can to hear on the subject doesn`t make it any less valid..What you think that just because someone hasn`t been on Everest themselves recently they can`t have any knowledge of what those who have been there are saying or believe about the topic?..You need to grow up and learn to face the fact others may have a different and contrary view of things than you...I`m sick of this all anyway...I`ll continue to do my private little hikes on the AT in peace and try and avoid the modern contamination..Bye everybody and have fun and be safe out there..I`m gone
Lone Wolf
06-10-2008, 20:29
Good. Now quit judging others, being obtuse on purpose and quit your pontificating. Talk about your hikes more. And since you seem to love to talk about the Everest experience from behind a computer, perhaps you could share your climbing experience as well?
Thanks.
you ain't been to everest either but you throw out sherpa names and stuff. you sound like an everest sniffer :) i met tiger woods. i'm a golf ball sniffer
Ran by the nicest people too. Who walk the walk (run the runs and climb the climbs) and don't post on Internet forums for some reason. :D
How would you know where they surf to? :-? The Asians (Chinese, Taiwanese, Japanese, Korean, Pakistani, etc.) at my workplace are as fond of the Internet as anyone else, I assure you.
Bare Bear
06-10-2008, 20:30
Why such a discussion about AT versus Everest?
If you want to do really dangerous dumb things, try cave diving. Even the very best, those that write the books on how to do it all die in underwater caves. And yes I have done some (about 15 dives in true caves) and it scared the crap out of me. I do not do it anymore because it does not make sense to me. All you see is the inside of wet rocks.
Lone Wolf
06-10-2008, 20:31
all this sherpa and porter stuff sounds like slavery. carry your own damn *hit.
ose You need to grow up and learn to face the fact others may have a different and contrary view of things than you...
Programbo, since day one, you have been judgemental of other people and the way they do things that are contrary to your pre-definted notions. I think you need to listen to your own words.
People will hike slow. People will hike fast. People will carry little. People will carry a lot. People will party on the AT. Some people won't. Some people will run the trail. Some people will slackpack.
Now you pontificate on topics. Perhaps you are the High Holy Council of Hiking? :D It is one thing to have an opinion..it is nice to have some basis to back up your strident views. I don't see that.
Perhaps I am being harsh..but man..you are a PITA.
Never sharing the joy of the outdoors. Only criticizing others and how they choose to enjoy the trail.
You don't have opinions; you just castigate those who don't hold to your predefined views of how the outdoors should be enjoyed.
The outdoors should be celebrated. Not used as some yardstick to judge people by your own narrow, definied and rigid set of parameters.
Contrary view? I, and many others, celebrate views and different ways of enjoying the outdoors.
You? You use the outdoors as some odd litmus test.
`Bye everybody and have fun and be safe out there..I`m gone
People do. You just don't like how they do it. As you said in almost all your posts. :D
Go out. Hike. Think about your words.
you ain't been to everest either but you throw out sherpa names and stuff. you sound like an everest sniffer :) i met tiger woods. i'm a golf ball sniffer
I'm a momo and chai sniffer... Yum...
(too much of a wimp for technical mountaineering. I admit it. But I do love ot sniff food found in that region!)
How would you know where they surf to? :-? The Asians (Chinese, Taiwanese, Japanese, Korean, Pakistani, etc.) at my workplace are as fond of the Internet as anyone else, I assure you.
It is a joke. Sheesh. Aimed at the people who probably take it too seriously. ;)
Pokey2006
06-10-2008, 20:37
all this sherpa and porter stuff sounds like slavery. carry your own damn *hit.
It is very weird. I hired a porter for one day when I had the flu, and though I was grateful, and probably couldn't have hiked without the help, it was just way too uncomfortable for me.
Pokey2006
06-10-2008, 20:37
I'm an Everest beer sniffer. The kind in the BIG bottles.
Pokey2006
06-10-2008, 20:48
When it comes to beer, Everest wins this silly AT vs. Everest contest:
http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/vbg/showimage.php?i=25476&c=683
fiddlehead
06-10-2008, 21:26
I remember Star beer and Tuborg. Even at 16,000' at Lobuche you could buy a beer. (not cheap at that altitude as someone carried it there AND they are returnable bottles. Good for the Nepalese on that score aye? )
Hey Mags, the best part about Sherpa's restaurant in Boulder is that the waitresses come around with a pot of chai refilling your glass. (like diners and truck stops do with coffee) That is some good stuff.
AT hikers certainly don't need porters to carry their minimal loads. But having a Sherpa along will teach you much about hiking/history/culture and most importantly their humbleness and compassion. Without it, you are missing much of the reason for going.
A good read is Peter Matthieson's "Snow Leopard" Half the book is about his quest for spotting a practically extinct animal, and half the book is about discovering a wonderful culture with their powerful beliefs.
Programbo, since day one, you have been judgemental of other people and the way they do things that are contrary to your pre-definted notions. I think you need to listen to your own words.
People will hike slow. People will hike fast. People will carry little. People will carry a lot. People will party on the AT. Some people won't. Some people will run the trail. Some people will slackpack.
Now you pontificate on topics. Perhaps you are the High Holy Council of Hiking? :D It is one thing to have an opinion..it is nice to have some basis to back up your strident views. I don't see that.
Perhaps I am being harsh..but man..you are a PITA.
Never sharing the joy of the outdoors. Only criticizing others and how they choose to enjoy the trail.
You don't have opinions; you just castigate those who don't hold to your predefined views of how the outdoors should be enjoyed.
The outdoors should be celebrated. Not used as some yardstick to judge people by your own narrow, definied and rigid set of parameters.
Contrary view? I, and many others, celebrate views and different ways of enjoying the outdoors.
You? You use the outdoors as some odd litmus test.
People do. You just don't like how they do it. As you said in almost all your posts. :D
Go out. Hike. Think about your words.
How is that MEAN MARINARA SAUCE coming anyway?:D
A good read is Peter Matthieson's "Snow Leopard" Half the book is about his quest for spotting a practically extinct animal, and half the book is about discovering a wonderful culture with their powerful beliefs.
A great book, indeed. I was surprised by the dangers they faced on a non-technical trek.
Lone Wolf
06-10-2008, 21:30
A great book, indeed. I was surprised by the dangers they faced on a non-technical trek.
a non tech trek is just a hike
when I think of sherpas I think of adventure sportsmen that like a good challenge and
have a crazy enough sense of humour to drag their crazy ass sponsors along with them
Pokey2006
06-10-2008, 21:35
Yep, and a hike is just a walk.
a non tech trek is just a hike
Not exactly. It's been a while since I read the book, but I seem to recall situations where a mis-step would mean certain death. I can't recall any places like that on the AT. (I mean sure, you could off yourself easily on the AT -- but not really by accident.)
4eyedbuzzard
06-10-2008, 21:41
Not exactly. It's been a while since I read the book, but I seem to recall situations where a mis-step would mean certain death. I can't recall any places like that on the AT. (I mean sure, you could off yourself easily on the AT -- but not really by accident.)
Oh, I don't know about that. There are several places here in NH I know of where you could walk right off a cliff, especially in the fog.
doggiebag
06-10-2008, 21:45
I could see paying a Sherpa to be a guide. It is true that AT hikers do not need porters due to experience and minimal gear - it's still important to contribute to the local economy while preserving dignity for all.
Oh, I don't know about that. There are several places here in NH I know of where you could walk right off a cliff, especially in the fog.
I tend to stay put if I can't see where I'm going. ;)
fiddlehead
06-10-2008, 22:07
Here are a few pix from past trips to Nepal.
1st non technical hiking? Crossing a river on the Dhaulagiri trek:
http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg201/fiddleheadpa/P5200049.jpg
and this one showing a heavy load carried with the weight all on the head:
http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg201/fiddleheadpa/sherpawdopo.jpg (http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg201/fiddleheadpa/sherpawdopo.jpg)
By the way, the Sherpa in the first picture has been to Sherpas' restaurant in Boulder although he now is working (legally) in CA. The one in the upper part of the 1st picture is still in Kathmandu and looking for work if anyone is going over there, PM me.
I tend to stay put if I can't see where I'm going. ;)
I agree, plus I always seem to anticipate and remain aware of those "doozies".:)
fiddlehead
06-10-2008, 22:13
Here's a professional porter at work. (not a Sherpa)
http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg201/fiddleheadpa/nepal2004059.jpg
Pokey2006
06-10-2008, 22:31
Good one! Here's another one...I was amazed at how they maneuvered with such wide loads.
http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/vbg/showimage.php?i=25477&c=683
Pokey2006
06-10-2008, 22:33
Oops. I can't for the life of me figure out how to put an image into a post...
http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/vbg/showimage.php?i=25477&catid=member&imageuser=9688
doggiebag
06-10-2008, 22:47
Step 1 - after uploading your picture to the gallery - click it once to view the picture.
Step 2 - place your mouse pointer on the picture you wish to paste on the message and right-click the mouse button and select 'copy'.
Step 3 - Go to the thread you wish to post the picture and click on advanced mode. When the message body opens up - right click the mouse button and select 'paste'. The picture should be pasted onto the message. Wherein you can add your text message.
http://whiteblaze.net/forum/vbg/files/9/6/8/8/s4026044.jpg (http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/vbg/showimage.php?i=25477&original=1&c=newimages&cutoffdate=1)
Image courtesy of Pokey2006
You can either just hit the submit reply button or preview the post to verify the layout of your message. I hope this helps.
Pokey2006
06-10-2008, 23:00
Ah, cool! Thanks!
When it comes to beer, Everest wins this silly AT vs. Everest contest:
http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/vbg/showimage.php?i=25476&c=683
Mmm.....beer!
>>Hey Mags, the best part about Sherpa's >>restaurant in Boulder is that the waitresses come >>around with a pot of chai refilling your glass. >>(like diners and truck stops do with coffee) That >>is some good stuff.
Those free chai refills are dangerous! :) They are yummy and keep me up all night. But oh-so-worth it.
There is a place up the road in Ned(erland) call Kathmandu (http://www.nepalidining.com/)also run by people from Nepal. After a day of ski touring, the bottomless cups of chai are awesome. Some of the people who work at Sherpa's used to work there (see, I *am* a momo sniffer!). At 8k ft, with the Continental Divide as a backdrop, makes a wonderful post ski destination.
>>How is that MEAN MARINARA SAUCE coming >>anyway?:D
Arrabbiata[1]? Molti bene! Devo lasciarlo per cucinare lentamente durante la notte. Gusti piu meglio!
[1] "Angry style sauce". Made with lots of garlic and red chili.
Pokey2006
06-10-2008, 23:20
Chai is good, just steer clear of the Tibetan milk tea. The most awful stuff created by man, IMHO.