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
