If Skiing is Your Passion; You'd Love Pakistan

[El Sidd]

Well the northern Pakistan gives you Wanderlust....

The search for Shangri La is an eternal Quest.

Pakistan the mythical land of the pure.

 

[Ocean]

Rakaposhi looks awesome. I would love to see it in real. The glaciers covering it are impressive.

U shared a video with me to check out some alps or mountains from europe , i couldnt play videos at that time,so idelayed it for sometime and came to see now , but i see your post is gone.

 

[lastofthepatriots]

Very tough terrain. It takes a huge set of balls to climb these ranges otherwise they will freeze.

 

[Pakistansdefender]

Bhai first Apna image teak kero.
Aur wahan pe jahan ski kerna hai, wahan pe kuch facilities to dou...
Look after 70 years bhi political stability nhn ati.
Aur aya bhi kaisa Jub aisa chor aur ghadar hukmaran hoon. They simply don't care. All they worry is for money.
Their childern themselves live and go abroad for vacations.
Even military establishment of even most people in know in military, everyone of them has a family member settled abroad.
How can a ruling elite (civil and military) who lived abroad came to Pakistan for few years to rule....
How?
If only people have enough sense.
I hope imran Khan wins. I do hope.
He doesn't have a magic wand that can transform our country into a developed state in a day. But he can bring somewhat political stability and can do the much needed reforms. If successful would even be able to implement those reforms he would do. He would work with the military establishment much better, would be more powerful as he doesn't have to compromise and because he has somewhat same ideas on the core issues as the establishment.
Can actually being the conservative and liberal on same page.
But all the wishes dobt come true.
Would be able to represent our narrative much better in the global arena .


But I see mujhe kyun nikala, ruling us again. I see another 5 years loosing at all international forums due to failed diplomacy. I see another 5 years where they don't celebrate military achievements and blame the military for every thing to control or manipulate them.
I see another 5 years failing at diplomacy.
I see another 5 years of corruption, corruption and corruption.
I see another 5 years of no accountability of the Sindhi pppp. They would provide the much needed support to pmln for another 5 years. So they do have the privilege to loot the people of sindh and discriminate ..
I see another 5 years, no one paying any attention to Baluchistan.
I see another 5 years no solution to fata issue.
I see another 5 years not giving gilgit baltistan representation in national assembly.
I see another 5 years of incompetence.
Eating ghada meat has its effects .
People starting behaving like donkeys.
Let nawaz and his daughter rule the donkeys of Punjab and inreturn deepen the divide between the coubtry. Jhomoriyat zindabad, awam murdabad....

 

[Taimoor Khan]

For those who have no idea what north looks like, this small clip is a good indicator. Nothing in this God earth comes close to these majestic peaks.

Good luck Pak army in rescuing the climbers on nanga.

https://www.dawn.com/news/1385621/army-launches-operation-to-rescue-missing-foreign-climbers-ispr

 

[Taimoor Khan]

Some nutcase making video on k2 bottle neck

 

[krash]

Placing biasedness aside is best thing.

Firstly noone wants a phillipino from itlay to come and visit pakistan. Secondly, just google up karakorams peaks are the most challenging in the world, climbing alps is a childsplay before karakoram that is why true climbing fans from across the globe visit karakoram.

And since in ur baisedness (which we dont care anout) u wud never be able to learn the relaity it will still be better to google up on why karakoram and himalaya mountains in pakistan are the most sought after climbing summits.

Someone like @krash can put things in better perspective for true climbing emtnusiasts

I had ignored that childish post. Only replying because you asked.


@ValerioAurelius please note that had @Ocean not asked me to respond to you I would have ignored your post and never thought about it twice. It is a childishly absurd post which has no connection to reality. It is born out of ignorance and a tendency to speak when one should stay quiet. Hence, my response will be primarily for the benefit of others who might want to learn a thing or two about some already well established facts. Also, I will not be commenting on the scale of the Karakoram, the Himalayas and the Hindukush but instead only your claims, since otherwise this post would never end. Anyway,

Nope, since the most dangerous mountain is located in the Alps

The Eiger.

No one who has even the most rudimentary knowledge of mountains, mountaineering or its history would ever claim that. No mountaineer has ever claimed that.

While the Eiger's north face (Nordwand) is a respectably challenging face on an average mountain, there are multiple alternative routes to the summit which offer little of note towards climbing difficulty and/or technicality. Whenever there is talk about the challenging climb on the Eiger it is always about its north face i.e. Eiger is not difficult to climb, Eiger's nort face is.

How difficult is Eiger's north face? Most of its infamy spawns from the beginning of the age of mountaineering in Europe. Having only begun exploring what mountaineering was and being only exposed to a handful of technical climbs, of which the Eiger's north face was one of the most difficult, Europe soon grew infatuated with Eiger's north face and remained so until they were introduced to the monsters that lay in the east. While the mountaineering circles have long since moved on from the Eiger, the above stated infatuation has persisted, to some extent, in European pop-culture. Yet you wouldn't find anyone sensible claiming what you have.

People are now speed climbing the Eiger.....solo......freestyle. Ueli Steck holds the record.

More people died on this mountain than on Everest and K2 combined

The death numbers on European mountains is skewed due to 1) staggeringly more number of attempts on it 2) the lesser skill levels of the climbers attempting them and 3) the bulk of the deaths having occurred during the early years of climbing; a time when the pioneers of this sport had little equipment apart from everyday winter clothes, home-made ice axes, anchors which were little more than metal spikes and industrial rope (The movie "North Face" gives you a good idea. Most of the climbing pioneers of that time also had to pioneer the equipment for themselves). Driving on intra-city roads claims many many times more lives every year than motor-sports ever have. Is the route to your house more dangerous than the Nürburgring? The best (still not the most accurate) measure of danger on a climb is the death rate. And I for one could not find the Eiger, or any European mountain, on any list of highest death rates. The ones from the Karakoram and the Himalayas obviously constituted all of every list.

and less people were able to stand on its top than on the K2.

I am calling you out on this claim. Please provide any proof.

Also, if that is an all-encompassing measure of a mountain's difficulty (which it is not) then Baintha Brakk proves to be the most difficult since it's been successfully summitted only 3 times. The first in 1977, the second in 2001 and then the last in 2012. And this was only summitted 3 times due to the difficulty of its climb. Or the Nangaparbat's Rupal face which has only been summitted twice. I could also name quite a few which still remain un-climbed.

And btw, The Karakoram, Himalaysa and Hidukush are for pussies.

Every man's grasp is limited either by his experience or his intellect. Some aren't very fortunate with either.

You can book tours on their summits.

The tours were booked on Everest only. Even then the tour-booked-climbers were not ignoramuses from defence.pk. These weren't anything like the couple of hikes you might have made on the nearby hill. The climbers had trained intensively for the attempts, unlike what is required to climb in the Alps. Yet again you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. In the Alps you don't need any expeditionary help.

They are also not very high themself. The Everest for example is only 3200 meters high. They are placed on a highland, which gives them their absolute altitude.

Mt. Everest is the highest, K2 is the second highest, the Karakoram, the Himalayas and the Hindukush are the highest mountain ranges in the world, the rest don't even come close. The highest mountain outside of the Karakoram, the Himalayas and the Hindukush is Mt. Aconcagua, which isn't even anywhere nearing making the highest 125 mountains list.

The word you wanted to use was "tall". The tallest mountain from base to summit is Mauna Kea (10,210 meters) however its height (ASL) is only 4,205 meters. Even a person such as yourself can climb it in a pair of sandals. The tallest from base to summit in AGL terms was long considered to be Mt. McKinley at 5,486 meters from base to summit (another unremarkable mountain when compared to the Asian behemoths) however, recently it's been discovered that that mantle actually belongs to Rakaposhi's North Face at 5,800 meters from base to summit. Any guess where that is? Mt. Aconcagua in the Andes is only 2,762 meters from base to summit (a giant by Alpine measure though).

All that said, being tall for a mountain means nothing in mountaineering circles. That is the reason why the term "highest" is used and not "tallest". It does however afford childish posts such as yours.

So as it stands, the Karakoram, the Himalayas and the Hindukush are not only the highest but also the tallest in the world.

In sheer height and difficulty the Andes are the most extreme mountains.

Could you quote any mountaineer who would agree with you on the difficulty part? I have already given facts as to which are the highest.

Scientifically speaking, the Karakoram has the highest average height, the steepest average gradient and the tallest mountain from base to summit AGL. The Himalayas have the highest summit and the tallest vertical face in the world (Nangaparbat's Rupal face @ 4,600 meters base to summit compared the Eiger's north face @ 1,800 meters base to summit and its actual height of only 3,967 meters). And then I could give you quote upon quote of the worlds most famous mountaineers stating the ferocity of the Karakoram in general and K2 in particular, e.g. Reinhold Messner (same guy you quoted) calls K2 the Mountain of Mountains. Want more quotes from him?

ps: Did you know that we have a paved highway running almost a 1,000 meters higher than the Eiger? Limitations of grasp.

But what do i talk, with an internet warrior Do you even leave your apartment? Sorry bro but only men with an 8 pack are allowed to talk such things.

Talk to me then. I have been climbing since I was 14.

Here is a point where they all meet. It's just outside Gilgit. Enjoy the picture. Karakoram range infront centre. Himalaya on the right of the picture and Hindu kush on the left with Gilgit river running through them.View attachment 450233

The picture isn't visible, could you re-upload it? Regardless, the river is actually Indus. The Gilgit river falls into the Indus a little north from the junction point.

There is no mountain in the Himalaya with a 6000 feet tall inverted wall to climb.

Except for,

Pakistan:

- The world's tallest vertical face; the Rupal Face of Nangaparbat at 4,600 m
- Ultar Sar southwest face 3,000 m
- K2 west face 2900m
- Baintha Brakk 2,000 m
- The Latok Group 1,800 m
- Spantik northwest face 2,000 m
- Shispare Sar southwest face 3,200 m

Nepal:

- Lhotse south face (Nepal) 3200 m
- Lhotse northeast face 2900m

Also, of the 1,800 m of the Eiger's North Face all is not vertical and is not "inverted".

Or were you talking about an inverted section of the wall at above 1,800 m (6,000 feet)? In that case, how about Muztagh Tower @ 7,276 m for one?

mighty mountain ranges of Pak which offer 4 out of the 14 highest peaks in the world and 100 above 7000 meter mountains.

https://www.dawn.com/news/488738

5 K2, Nangaparbat, Gasherbrum I, Broad Peak and Gasherbrum II.

The K2 absolute height is 4020 meters, which is only 53 meters higher than the Eiger.

You do understand the difference between Altitude and Height?

The K2 altitude is 8611 meters, because it stands on a plateu. Its height from base to top is 4020 meters, which is only 53 meters higher than the Eiger. Mont Blanc in the Alps has a height of 4697 meters, which is more than 650 meters higher than K2. So with all due respect, spare us teh shit.




The K2 is 4020 meters high from base to peak and with this only 56 meters higher than the Eiger...and 650 meters smaller than Mont Blanc. Again you mix altitude with height.

Please tell me you did not believe the K2 is 8600 meters from its base to its top? The K2 with its 4020 meter height stands on a planteu that is roughly 4000 meters high, which gives him 8600 meters altitude.

By your comparission when you stand on a 10m ladder you claim to be 10 m tall?

The lack of education here is astounding.

Are you purposefully acting stupid? The "shit", as you put it, actually is that you want to count K2's height from its base to its summit and then compare it to Eiger's height from sea level to its summit? Eiger's height from base to summit is 1,800 m compared to K2's 4020 m, so that's two Eigers stacked and still no dice. The case looks worse when comparing ASL heights.

This has turned into a joke.

tell me why it is called "Alpine climbers"? Tell me bro.

Funny you should ask. Alpine climbers club is named after the Alpine style of climbing which is climbing with all the equipment on yourself, without any porters or expeditionary support. It is called the Alpine style because for a very long time this style of climbing was only possible in the Alps since they were much easier to climb. For the giants in the East massive expeditions had to be arranged for any meaningful attempt while climbing Alpine style was never considered possible. Only recently, after years of modern gear improvement, the pros have begun climbing Alpine style in our part of the world.

The Eiger Northwall had its 211st victim in Februry 2017

Out of how many that have tried? And out of how many that have successfully summitted?

How is the touristic infrastructure around K2? Any luxury hotels ect? You could boost up tourism if you provide high standard accomindations.

You have to trek for 7-9 days over the worlds largest non-polar glacier to get to its base camp. Its not the Alps.

And thats the problem. I dont say you dont have amazing nature but you dont use it.

Look we have dangerous mountains and people love to see them. We make awesome hotels and infrastructure there and earn lots of money. The ajority doesnt want climb but is ok with just seeing it.

Just look at what Chile does, place awesome hotels near the greatest andes mountains.

Pakistan and the countries around dont use what they have in a smart way.

So how do you build infrastructure on a glacier? Which "tourist" would want to lodge at 5,000 m? This is not the Alps or the Andes.

Some nutcase making video on k2 bottle neck

These guys died that day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_K2_disaster

 

[ValerioAurelius]

I had ignored that childish post. Only replying because you asked.


@ValerioAurelius please note that had @Ocean not asked me to respond to you I would have ignored your post and never thought about it twice. It is a childishly absurd post which has no connection to reality. It is born out of ignorance and a tendency to speak when one should stay quiet. Hence, my response will be primarily for the benefit of others who might want to learn a thing or two about some already well established facts. Also, I will not be commenting on the scale of the Karakoram, the Himalayas and the Hindukush but instead only your claims, since otherwise this post would never end. Anyway,



No one who has even the most rudimentary knowledge of mountains, mountaineering or its history would ever claim that. No mountaineer has ever claimed that.

While the Eiger's north face (Nordwand) is a respectably challenging face on an average mountain, there are multiple alternative routes to the summit which offer little of note towards climbing difficulty and/or technicality. Whenever there is talk about the challenging climb on the Eiger it is always about its north face i.e. Eiger is not difficult to climb, Eiger's nort face is.

How difficult is Eiger's north face? Most of its infamy spawns from the beginning of the age of mountaineering in Europe. Having only begun exploring what mountaineering was and being only exposed to a handful of technical climbs, of which the Eiger's north face was one of the most difficult, Europe soon grew infatuated with Eiger's north face and remained so until they were introduced to the monsters that lay in the east. While the mountaineering circles have long since moved on from the Eiger, the above stated infatuation has persisted, to some extent, in European pop-culture. Yet you wouldn't find anyone sensible claiming what you have.

People are now speed climbing the Eiger.....solo......freestyle. Ueli Steck holds the record.



The death numbers on European mountains is skewed due to 1) staggeringly more number of attempts on it 2) the lesser skill levels of the climbers attempting them and 3) the bulk of the deaths having occurred during the early years of climbing; a time when the pioneers of this sport had little equipment apart from everyday winter clothes, home-made ice axes, anchors which were little more than metal spikes and industrial rope (The movie "North Face" gives you a good idea. Most of the climbing pioneers of that time also had to pioneer the equipment for themselves). Driving on intra-city roads claims many many times more lives every year than motor-sports ever have. Is the route to your house more dangerous than the Nürburgring? The best (still not the most accurate) measure of danger on a climb is the death rate. And I for one could not find the Eiger, or any European mountain, on any list of highest death rates. The ones from the Karakoram and the Himalayas obviously constituted all of every list.



I am calling you out on this claim. Please provide any proof.

Also, if that is an all-encompassing measure of a mountain's difficulty (which it is not) then Baintha Brakk proves to be the most difficult since it's been successfully summitted only 3 times. The first in 1977, the second in 2001 and then the last in 2012. And this was only summitted 3 times due to the difficulty of its climb. Or the Nangaparbat's Rupal face which has only been summitted twice. I could also name quite a few which still remain un-climbed.



Every man's grasp is limited either by his experience or his intellect. Some aren't very fortunate with either.



The tours were booked on Everest only. Even then the tour-booked-climbers were not ignoramuses from defence.pk. These weren't anything like the couple of hikes you might have made on the nearby hill. The climbers had trained intensively for the attempts, unlike what is required to climb in the Alps. Yet again you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. In the Alps you don't need any expeditionary help.



Mt. Everest is the highest, K2 is the second highest, the Karakoram, the Himalayas and the Hindukush are the highest mountain ranges in the world, the rest don't even come close. The highest mountain outside of the Karakoram, the Himalayas and the Hindukush is Mt. Aconcagua, which isn't even anywhere nearing making the highest 125 mountains list.

The word you wanted to use was "tall". The tallest mountain from base to summit is Mauna Kea (10,210 meters) however its height (ASL) is only 4,205 meters. Even a person such as yourself can climb it in a pair of sandals. The tallest from base to summit in AGL terms was long considered to be Mt. McKinley at 5,486 meters from base to summit (another unremarkable mountain when compared to the Asian behemoths) however, recently it's been discovered that that mantle actually belongs to Rakaposhi's North Face at 5,800 meters from base to summit. Any guess where that is? Mt. Aconcagua in the Andes is only 2,762 meters from base to summit (a giant by Alpine measure though).

All that said, being tall for a mountain means nothing in mountaineering circles. That is the reason why the term "highest" is used and not "tallest". It does however afford childish posts such as yours.

So as it stands, the Karakoram, the Himalayas and the Hindukush are not only the highest but also the tallest in the world.



Could you quote any mountaineer who would agree with you on the difficulty part? I have already given facts as to which are the highest.

Scientifically speaking, the Karakoram has the highest average height, the steepest average gradient and the tallest mountain from base to summit AGL. The Himalayas have the highest summit and the tallest vertical face in the world (Nangaparbat's Rupal face @ 4,600 meters base to summit compared the Eiger's north face @ 1,800 meters base to summit and its actual height of only 3,967 meters). And then I could give you quote upon quote of the worlds most famous mountaineers stating the ferocity of the Karakoram in general and K2 in particular, e.g. Reinhold Messner (same guy you quoted) calls K2 the Mountain of Mountains. Want more quotes from him?

ps: Did you know that we have a paved highway running almost a 1,000 meters higher than the Eiger? Limitations of grasp.



Talk to me then. I have been climbing since I was 14.



The picture isn't visible, could you re-upload it? Regardless, the river is actually Indus. The Gilgit river falls into the Indus a little north from the junction point.



Except for,

Pakistan:

- The world's tallest vertical face; the Rupal Face of Nangaparbat at 4,600 m
- Ultar Sar southwest face 3,000 m
- K2 west face 2900m
- Baintha Brakk 2,000 m
- The Latok Group 1,800 m
- Spantik northwest face 2,000 m
- Shispare Sar southwest face 3,200 m

Nepal:

- Lhotse south face (Nepal) 3200 m
- Lhotse northeast face 2900m

Also, of the 1,800 m of the Eiger's North Face all is not vertical and is not "inverted".

Or were you talking about an inverted section of the wall at above 1,800 m (6,000 feet)? In that case, how about Muztagh Tower @ 7,276 m for one?



5 K2, Nangaparbat, Gasherbrum I, Broad Peak and Gasherbrum II.



Are you purposefully acting stupid? The "shit", as you put it, actually is that you want to count K2's height from its base to its summit and then compare it to Eiger's height from sea level to its summit? Eiger's height from base to summit is 1,800 m compared to K2's 4020 m, so that's two Eigers stacked and still no dice. The case looks worse when comparing ASL heights.

This has turned into a joke.



Funny you should ask. Alpine climbers club is named after the Alpine style of climbing which is climbing with all the equipment on yourself, without any porters or expeditionary support. It is called the Alpine style because for a very long time this style of climbing was only possible in the Alps since they were much easier to climb. For the giants in the East massive expeditions had to be arranged for any meaningful attempt while climbing Alpine style was never considered possible. Only recently, after years of modern gear improvement, the pros have begun climbing Alpine style in our part of the world.



Out of how many that have tried? And out of how many that have successfully summitted?



You have to trek for 7-9 days over the worlds largest non-polar glacier to get to its base camp. Its not the Alps.



So how do you build infrastructure on a glacier? Which "tourist" would want to lodge at 5,000 m? This is not the Alps or the Andes.



These guys died that day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_K2_disaster

For someone who makes your claims you seem to have very little knowledge. I climbed the Licancabur and El Tatio in 2016 and the La Raya in November 2017. On top of the Licancabur i was at 5920m altitude. And i´m quite sure thats higher than anything you ever reached.

 

[bananarepublic]

For someone who makes your claims you seem to have very little knowledge. I climbed the Licancabur and El Tatio in 2016 and the La Raya in November 2017. On top of the Licancabur i was at 5920m altitude. And i´m quite sure thats higher than anything you ever reached.

While your puny mountains are at altitudes of 5000 meters we have pastures on such heights. The mountains around my village are higher than licancabur .
I have gone to heights of 6000+ meters and that was on a whim. We have gradmas here going to heights of 6000+ meters just for herding goats and sheeps.

 

[ValerioAurelius]

While your puny mountains are at altitudes of 5000 meters we have pastures on such heights. The mountains around my village are higher than licancabur .
I have gone to heights of 6000+ meters and that was on a whim. We have gradmas here going to heights of 6000+ meters just for herding goats and sheeps.

Licancabur is in Chile.

You should stop herding goats and visit a school that teaches geography buddy.

 

[bananarepublic]

Licancabur is in Chile.

You should stop herding goats and visit a school that teaches geography buddy.

Wherever it is the fact is that mountains here are more challenging than alps . the mountains here are more tougher and very hard to climb . there is a reason why mountains like nanga parbat are called killer mountains.
P.s i never mentioned licancabur being in alps.

 

[ValerioAurelius]

Wherever it is the fact is that mountains here are more challenging than alps . the mountains here are more tougher and very hard to climb . there is a reason why mountains like nanga parbat are called killer mountains.
P.s i never mentioned licancabur being in alps.

You said Licancabur is "my mountain". Its in Chile, i´m Italian. There is also a reason why Vesuvius is called a kilelr mountain, so what?

 

[bananarepublic]

I never mentioned Licancabur being your mountain i only said that alps are puny with highest being around 5000 meters. No metion of Licancabur
I only mentioned Licancabur in the next sentence
Also naga parbat is known as killer mountain around the world just search the term ''killer mountain'' in google .
Maybe should visit schools that teach English

You said Licancabur is "my mountain". Its in Chile, i´m Italian. There is also a reason why Vesuvius is called a kilelr mountain, so what?

 

[ValerioAurelius]

I never mentioned Licancabur being your mountain i only said that alps are puny with highest being around 5000 meters. No metion of Licancabur
I only mentioned Licancabur in the next sentence
Also naga parbat is known as killer mountain around the world just search the term ''killer mountain'' in google .
Maybe should visit schools that teach English

99% of people dont even know nanga parbat But evryone knows Vesuvius.

 

[Dalit]

99% of people dont even know nanga parbat But evryone knows Vesuvius.

LOL look at this Italian Mussolini distorting the facts.

Don't even make us laugh. You have no mountains. Comparing the Karakorum with your puny mountains is a mockery. It is your Italian climbers who have a love affair with our K2. Take a hike to some KKK forum.

I had ignored that childish post. Only replying because you asked.


@ValerioAurelius please note that had @Ocean not asked me to respond to you I would have ignored your post and never thought about it twice. It is a childishly absurd post which has no connection to reality. It is born out of ignorance and a tendency to speak when one should stay quiet. Hence, my response will be primarily for the benefit of others who might want to learn a thing or two about some already well established facts. Also, I will not be commenting on the scale of the Karakoram, the Himalayas and the Hindukush but instead only your claims, since otherwise this post would never end. Anyway,



No one who has even the most rudimentary knowledge of mountains, mountaineering or its history would ever claim that. No mountaineer has ever claimed that.

While the Eiger's north face (Nordwand) is a respectably challenging face on an average mountain, there are multiple alternative routes to the summit which offer little of note towards climbing difficulty and/or technicality. Whenever there is talk about the challenging climb on the Eiger it is always about its north face i.e. Eiger is not difficult to climb, Eiger's nort face is.

How difficult is Eiger's north face? Most of its infamy spawns from the beginning of the age of mountaineering in Europe. Having only begun exploring what mountaineering was and being only exposed to a handful of technical climbs, of which the Eiger's north face was one of the most difficult, Europe soon grew infatuated with Eiger's north face and remained so until they were introduced to the monsters that lay in the east. While the mountaineering circles have long since moved on from the Eiger, the above stated infatuation has persisted, to some extent, in European pop-culture. Yet you wouldn't find anyone sensible claiming what you have.

People are now speed climbing the Eiger.....solo......freestyle. Ueli Steck holds the record.



The death numbers on European mountains is skewed due to 1) staggeringly more number of attempts on it 2) the lesser skill levels of the climbers attempting them and 3) the bulk of the deaths having occurred during the early years of climbing; a time when the pioneers of this sport had little equipment apart from everyday winter clothes, home-made ice axes, anchors which were little more than metal spikes and industrial rope (The movie "North Face" gives you a good idea. Most of the climbing pioneers of that time also had to pioneer the equipment for themselves). Driving on intra-city roads claims many many times more lives every year than motor-sports ever have. Is the route to your house more dangerous than the Nürburgring? The best (still not the most accurate) measure of danger on a climb is the death rate. And I for one could not find the Eiger, or any European mountain, on any list of highest death rates. The ones from the Karakoram and the Himalayas obviously constituted all of every list.



I am calling you out on this claim. Please provide any proof.

Also, if that is an all-encompassing measure of a mountain's difficulty (which it is not) then Baintha Brakk proves to be the most difficult since it's been successfully summitted only 3 times. The first in 1977, the second in 2001 and then the last in 2012. And this was only summitted 3 times due to the difficulty of its climb. Or the Nangaparbat's Rupal face which has only been summitted twice. I could also name quite a few which still remain un-climbed.



Every man's grasp is limited either by his experience or his intellect. Some aren't very fortunate with either.



The tours were booked on Everest only. Even then the tour-booked-climbers were not ignoramuses from defence.pk. These weren't anything like the couple of hikes you might have made on the nearby hill. The climbers had trained intensively for the attempts, unlike what is required to climb in the Alps. Yet again you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. In the Alps you don't need any expeditionary help.



Mt. Everest is the highest, K2 is the second highest, the Karakoram, the Himalayas and the Hindukush are the highest mountain ranges in the world, the rest don't even come close. The highest mountain outside of the Karakoram, the Himalayas and the Hindukush is Mt. Aconcagua, which isn't even anywhere nearing making the highest 125 mountains list.

The word you wanted to use was "tall". The tallest mountain from base to summit is Mauna Kea (10,210 meters) however its height (ASL) is only 4,205 meters. Even a person such as yourself can climb it in a pair of sandals. The tallest from base to summit in AGL terms was long considered to be Mt. McKinley at 5,486 meters from base to summit (another unremarkable mountain when compared to the Asian behemoths) however, recently it's been discovered that that mantle actually belongs to Rakaposhi's North Face at 5,800 meters from base to summit. Any guess where that is? Mt. Aconcagua in the Andes is only 2,762 meters from base to summit (a giant by Alpine measure though).

All that said, being tall for a mountain means nothing in mountaineering circles. That is the reason why the term "highest" is used and not "tallest". It does however afford childish posts such as yours.

So as it stands, the Karakoram, the Himalayas and the Hindukush are not only the highest but also the tallest in the world.



Could you quote any mountaineer who would agree with you on the difficulty part? I have already given facts as to which are the highest.

Scientifically speaking, the Karakoram has the highest average height, the steepest average gradient and the tallest mountain from base to summit AGL. The Himalayas have the highest summit and the tallest vertical face in the world (Nangaparbat's Rupal face @ 4,600 meters base to summit compared the Eiger's north face @ 1,800 meters base to summit and its actual height of only 3,967 meters). And then I could give you quote upon quote of the worlds most famous mountaineers stating the ferocity of the Karakoram in general and K2 in particular, e.g. Reinhold Messner (same guy you quoted) calls K2 the Mountain of Mountains. Want more quotes from him?

ps: Did you know that we have a paved highway running almost a 1,000 meters higher than the Eiger? Limitations of grasp.



Talk to me then. I have been climbing since I was 14.



The picture isn't visible, could you re-upload it? Regardless, the river is actually Indus. The Gilgit river falls into the Indus a little north from the junction point.



Except for,

Pakistan:

- The world's tallest vertical face; the Rupal Face of Nangaparbat at 4,600 m
- Ultar Sar southwest face 3,000 m
- K2 west face 2900m
- Baintha Brakk 2,000 m
- The Latok Group 1,800 m
- Spantik northwest face 2,000 m
- Shispare Sar southwest face 3,200 m

Nepal:

- Lhotse south face (Nepal) 3200 m
- Lhotse northeast face 2900m

Also, of the 1,800 m of the Eiger's North Face all is not vertical and is not "inverted".

Or were you talking about an inverted section of the wall at above 1,800 m (6,000 feet)? In that case, how about Muztagh Tower @ 7,276 m for one?



5 K2, Nangaparbat, Gasherbrum I, Broad Peak and Gasherbrum II.



Are you purposefully acting stupid? The "shit", as you put it, actually is that you want to count K2's height from its base to its summit and then compare it to Eiger's height from sea level to its summit? Eiger's height from base to summit is 1,800 m compared to K2's 4020 m, so that's two Eigers stacked and still no dice. The case looks worse when comparing ASL heights.

This has turned into a joke.



Funny you should ask. Alpine climbers club is named after the Alpine style of climbing which is climbing with all the equipment on yourself, without any porters or expeditionary support. It is called the Alpine style because for a very long time this style of climbing was only possible in the Alps since they were much easier to climb. For the giants in the East massive expeditions had to be arranged for any meaningful attempt while climbing Alpine style was never considered possible. Only recently, after years of modern gear improvement, the pros have begun climbing Alpine style in our part of the world.



Out of how many that have tried? And out of how many that have successfully summitted?



You have to trek for 7-9 days over the worlds largest non-polar glacier to get to its base camp. Its not the Alps.



So how do you build infrastructure on a glacier? Which "tourist" would want to lodge at 5,000 m? This is not the Alps or the Andes.



These guys died that day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_K2_disaster

It is useless to argue with this twat. He is a lost soul. Ignore him.