Which is harder?

Ispin

Climb mt Everest, swim channel or sub 3hr marathon, ...... In terms of fitness, dedication, finances, work situation etc etc?

MrCreosote

Depends on a lot of things like age, fitness starting training, talent etc, but on average I'd say they rank like this in terms of difficulty:

Swim the channel- hardest
Sub 3 marathon
Climb Everest- easiest.

In terms of danger:

Climb Everest (most dangerous)
Swim the Channel
Sub-3 marathon.

In terms of layman overrating:

Climb Everest (most overrated)
Sub-3 marathon
Swim the Channel

walshb

Has to be be Everest. Assuming the person is physically capable of running the marathon sub 3 and swimming the channel, then it has to be Everest. Nobody can know if they can really scale Everest until they try. It presents so much more possible hurdles and difficulty. A run is a run. A swim is a swim; unless on that run and swim we meet hurricanes and major storms at sea. Wit the run/swim one can have a fairly good idea if it's possible. They will train, pace, run/swim, and calculate. How can you prepare as effectively for scaling Everest?

RayCun

walshb wrote: »

How can you prepare as effectively for scaling Everest?

By climbing a different mountain?

robinph

A marathon is something that you can train for and so is swimming the channel. You might just not be physically capable of surviving to the top of Everest and that isn't something that can be trained away. If you can make the altitude though then not sure that the other physical strains for it are that much as you can do it as a tourist.

You cannot do the sub 3 marathon or swim the channel as a tourist without the specific event training. You obviously need to train for getting up Everest, but I don't think you need the years of background of climbing.

Peterx

Everest - The monetary cost alone is staggering compared to the other two.

In fairness the sub 3 marathon is by far the easiest of these three challenges, going by the sheer amount of people who manage it every year compared to the number of folk who either ascend any 8000m peak or swim any channel.

nerraw1111

*grabs popcorn.

Climbing Everest this year was a bit like going for a sub 3 hour marathon and then having to queue to run the last 200 metres. Patiently waiting while the clock ticked down, knowing you are fit enough for it.

Although you are less likely to die and be left on Merrion Square for eternity if you happen to get your pacing wrong in a sub 3 attempt.

walshb

RayCun wrote: »

By climbing a different mountain?

In the Himalayas? Yes, one could try this, and one may never return.

As mentioned too the finance involved for Everest would also pose a big issue.

The run and the swim are things pretty much most people can do, or attempt to do I should say. Climbing Everest poses a lot more possible issues and problems.

Like with like: A reasonably fit person IMO has a better chance to train and prepare and achieve the swim or run as opposed to scaling the mountain. The mountain IMO throws up more unknowns and more hazards etc. This is the big difference.

RayCun

walshb wrote: »

In the Himalayas? Yes, one could try this, and one may never return.

As mentioned too the finance involved for Everest would also pose a big issue.

The run and the swin are things pretty much most people can do. Climbing Everest poses a lot more possible issues and problems.

Swimming the Channel is something pretty much most people can do? But climbing Everest is something only wealthy people can do.
ok

walshb

RayCun wrote: »

Swimming the Channel is something pretty much most people can do? But climbing Everest is something only wealthy people can do.
ok

I did an edit while you were posting.

Pisco Sour

Jaysus, not this again! :eek:

shels4ever

Yep and everyone can fly to the moon its just a matter of funding.

walshb

Funding is just one aspect in case you missed anything.

Remove funding and I still think Everest poses a bigger challenge.

ThisRegard

OP needs to be clearer about who is going to make these attempts. If it's someone who has played a bit of GAA in the past then they're all equally as easy, probably could be done in the same weekend.

hardCopy

ThisRegard wrote: »

OP needs to be clearer about who is going to make these attempts. If it's someone who has played a bit of GAA in the past then they're all equally as easy, probably could be done in the same weekend.

You'd want to throw in a bit of 5 a side once a week before trying Everest.

RayCun

An attempt on Everest has more chance of resulting in death, and more chance that you'll have to abandon the attempt because of weather etc. But get the timing and the guides right, and you don't have to be especially fit to do it.
(And maybe you can't afford to prepare by climbing in the Himalayas, but other mountain ranges are available. Check your local listings.)

A channel swim is less likely to be abandoned because of outside forces, but you have to do all the training and swim every metre yourself.

Pisco Sour

RayCun wrote: »

An attempt on Everest has more chance of resulting in death, and more chance that you'll have to abandon the attempt because of weather etc. But get the timing and the guides right, and you don't have to be especially fit to do it.
(And maybe you can't afford to prepare by climbing in the Himalayas, but other mountain ranges are available. Check your local listings.)

A channel swim is less likely to be abandoned because of outside forces, but you have to do all the training and swim every metre yourself.

My cousins recently attempted to climb Aconcagua in Argentina, highest mountain outside the Himalayas at just under 7000. They've climbed many high mountains before this. They got to around 5500 and had to turn around. One of them said if he went any further he could have got a heart attack. They said the whole undertaking was incredibly expensive and to have a porter carry their bags up would have made the entire attempt completely unaffordable, so they had to drag all their stuff up the mountain themselves, which made the fight a losing battle. Only 1 of the 21 in their group made the top... a chain smoker, probably because she was used to less oxegen going into her lungs. High altitude climbing is a dangerous game. If you have money it makes it easier, but I could have all the money in the world and I wouldn't even dare attempt that. A sub 3 marathon on the otherhand is merely a decent, but unspectacular club running performance, just like a sub 5 mile.

walshb

I can agree that as far as endurance/stamina goes then Everest may not be as tough as a sub 3 hrs marathon. But other than this I think the mountain just has too many unknowns and possible hazards, making it most likely a more difficult challenge.

MrCreosote

Everest= Pay $50k, turn on oxygen tank, clip into rope, plod to top. Descend. Possibly die.

Sub-3 hour marathon= train for months-years, pay $100, hope to get pacing strategy right.

Channel crossing= train for years, hope weather is ok, smear on lots of lard, avoid jellyfish and shipping lanes. Swim for hours.

The channel crossing has the highest combination of physical fitness, uncertainty of outside conditions and risk. The top achievement.

Disclaimer- I've completed none of the 3, but have swum in a 50m pool, and climbed Carrauntoohil twice (approximately 1/4 of Everest ascent).

RayCun

Pisco Sour wrote: »

High altitude climbing ... A sub 3 marathon

I compared Everest and the Channel swim - something fewer people have managed.

fionn_mac

interesting question. as reasonably fit male in 30s who as done none of the above but played a bit of gaa and five-a-side in the past i'd be happy to speculate:P;)

sub 3 marathon: have only ran one, well off sub three but w/o been training exclusively it. have done half marathons at the required pace, would have thought/guessed this the 'easiest' (though maybe shouldn't suggest such a thing in the running forum!). once you do the right training there is less outside factors on the day. though maybe if you said 2.40 or something (or e.g. a four minute mile;)), where you are holding a balls out pace it would be more of a challenge but i guess that's subjective/relative. i think the 3hours on a generic course is a soft target though (unless its after a 180k bike:p)

channel: I wouldnt necessarily agree with 'a swim is a swim' or that the mountain throws up more challenges than the sea. big difference between a 5k sheltered/pool swim and a 5k open rough swim. it is a completely alien environment for man to be alone in the middle of the sea. make it 35k (as the crow flies), add the tide changing every 6 hours, crossing shipping lanes and in your togs:eek:.. the mental side of this shouldn't be underestimated marathon swimming is about as close as you can get to death while you are alive here on Earth. You lose all sense of perception while you are swimming in such difficult conditions, as steve redmond says. the sea is powerful /relentless as we tragically found out this weekend. would have thought this the toughest physically & mentally. though if you sip on warm brandy and swim breaststroke as one fella did back in the day it mightn't be as bad. finance shouldnt really come into it but as far as I'm aware channel is expensive enough. historically 1 in 6 chance but think the channel swimming federation has brought that up to under 50%.

everest: less endurance training required probably but unknowns with how body would react to altitude and weather/avalanche risks makes it most risk of death/injury. the other two challenges training should eliminate alot of the risks involved. those risks are present on all big mountains though, everest only makes the list cause its the highest, a more technically demanding mountain might be more of a challenge. still only 29% success rate though (http://www.adventurestats.com/tables/EverestAgeFat.shtml)

I'd have more respect for someone who's swam the channel. sorry for long post. i should do some work.

ultraman1

walshb wrote: »

I think the mountain just has too many unknowns and possible hazards

there mite be the wrong gels at a marathon....

RayCun

ultraman1 wrote: »

there mite be the wrong gels at a marathon....

water in cups :eek:

shels4ever

Yep and you have none of this at 8000ft

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx1TDFV5Vhk

average_runner

Peterx wrote: »

Everest - The monetary cost alone is staggering compared to the other two.

In fairness the sub 3 marathon is by far the easiest of these three challenges, going by the sheer amount of people who manage it every year compared to the number of folk who either ascend any 8000m peak or swim any channel.

This a stupid post, in saying sub 3 marathon is the easiest with the amount of people completed it.

Why not look at percentages instead:

Whats the success rate of all the people that attempted Everest?
Same for the channel and marathon.


Personally i think this is a stupid topic and going by how things are marshalled by the mods, this topic should be move to the general sports forum.

woody1

Pisco Sour wrote: »

My cousins recently attempted to climb Aconcagua in Argentina, highest mountain outside the Himalayas at just under 7000. They've climbed many high mountains before this. They got to around 5500 and had to turn around. One of them said if he went any further he could have got a heart attack. They said the whole undertaking was incredibly expensive and to have a porter carry their bags up would have made the entire attempt completely unaffordable, so they had to drag all their stuff up the mountain themselves, which made the fight a losing battle. Only 1 of the 21 in their group made the top... a chain smoker, probably because she was used to less oxegen going into her lungs. High altitude climbing is a dangerous game. If you have money it makes it easier, but I could have all the money in the world and I wouldn't even dare attempt that. A sub 3 marathon on the otherhand is merely a decent, but unspectacular club running performance, just like a sub 5 mile.

...a close friend of mine climbed it no bother with a friend and unsupported..ie they carried their own gear up and down to the various camps..altitude affects different people very differently at different times.. same guy got really bad altitude sickness on kilimanjaro along with 3 others while i absolutely flew up it no bother..
anyway aconcagua doesnt compare to everest in terms of dificulty or elevation..
anyway please continue with pointless argument..

Pisco Sour

MrCreosote wrote: »

Disclaimer- I've completed none of the 3, but have swum in a 50m pool, and climbed Carrauntoohil twice (approximately 1/4 of Everest ascent).

LOLOLOLOLOL

SnappyDresser

I think that a more realistic comparison is 100 marathons vs climbing Mount Everest. "More people have climbed Mount Everest than ran 100 marathons":)

menoscemo

i008787 wrote: »

I think that a more realistic comparison is 100 marathons vs climbing Mount Everest. "More people have climbed Mount Everest than ran 100 marathons":)

That's rubbish, it's very easy to run 100 marathons (given no time limit). There's nothing to stop anyone running 1 or 2 marathons a week if not racing them flat out.
Now if you were to say run 100 sub3 marathons, that'd be a different story.

Peterx

average_runner wrote: »

This a stupid post, in saying sub 3 marathon is the easiest with the amount of people completed it.

Why not look at percentages instead:

Whats the success rate of all the people that attempted Everest?
Same for the channel and marathon.


Personally i think this is a stupid topic and going by how things are marshalled by the mods, this topic should be move to the general sports forum.

Good luck with your search for percentages of failed sub 3 hour marathon runners.
Percentages brought up in internet arguments are usually highly selective, about 92% of the time in fact:D

It's all about ease of access. Everest is remote and even for the channel swim you need to live beside the sea. For running you just need a road.

average_runner

Peterx wrote: »

average_runner wrote: »

This a stupid post, in saying sub 3 marathon is the easiest with the amount of people completed it.

Why not look at percentages instead:

Whats the success rate of all the people that attempted Everest?
Same for the channel and marathon.


Personally i think this is a stupid topic and going by how things are marshalled by the mods, this topic should be move to the general sports forum.

Good luck with your search for percentages of failed sub 3 hour marathon runners.
Percentages brought up in internet arguments are usually highly selective, about 92% of the time in fact:D

It's all about ease of access. Everest is remote and even for the channel swim you need to live beside the sea. For running you just need a road.

In fairness the sea no more than 90 mins for most in ireland

clear thinking

shels4ever wrote: »

Yep and everyone can fly to the moon its just a matter of funding.

What would you do to avoid Gimble lock if oxygen tanks exploded and you were spiralling out of control? Get more funding?

rom

menoscemo wrote: »

That's rubbish, it's very easy to run 100 marathons (given no time limit). There's nothing to stop anyone running 1 or 2 marathons a week if not racing them flat out.
Now if you were to say run 100 sub3 marathons, that'd be a different story.

http://books.google.fr/books/about/Passion_for_Distance.html?id=Xis8YgEACAAJ&redir_esc=y Someone has it in print. But doesn't mean that its complete BS also.

menoscemo

rom wrote: »

http://books.google.fr/books/about/Passion_for_Distance.html?id=Xis8YgEACAAJ&redir_esc=y Someone has it in print. But doesn't mean that its complete BS also.

It's a lot more popular nowadays. I know several people who have run over 100 marathons. The most difficult thing is not running the events, rather finding enough official marathons to run, but if you had time and money to travel there are no end of marathons to run in.

rom

menoscemo wrote: »

It's a lot more popular nowadays. I know several people who have run over 100 marathons. The most difficult thing is not running the events, rather finding enough official marathons to run, but if you had time and money to travel there are no end of marathons to run in.

Totally agree. Would rather one sub 3 rather than 100 slower marathons any day. The 100 marathons are just costly 100 LSR's if done for just that purpose. Its totally some bragging rights. The harder the event/achievement the less the bragging usually.

pc11

Whatever about Everest, the Channel is vastly harder than a sub 3 marathon. A talented runner could run sub 3 without practically no training. Even a talented swimmer would need months of training to attempt the Channel.

average_runner

pc11 wrote: »

Whatever about Everest, the Channel is vastly harder than a sub 3 marathon. A talented runner could run sub 3 without practically no training. Even a talented swimmer would need months of training to attempt the Channel.

I know alot of talented runners that didnt do sub 3 without much training.

Also i know one person who has swam the channel from uk to France and did marathons but hasnt managed a sub 3 yet!!

Channel was easier for him!!

I think the real answer is, it depends on the person!!

pc11

average_runner wrote: »

I know alot of talented runners that didnt do sub 3 without much training.

Also i know one person who has swam the channel from uk to France and did marathons but hasnt managed a sub 3 yet!!

Channel was easier for him!!

I think the real answer is, it depends on the person!!

Well, obviously it depends on the person. But, since we were discussing generalities, it doesn't really help. Your knowing people who didn't do sub 3 doesn't in any way rebut my point that there are people who could do it. For a very talented runner, 3 hours is not that fast. 12+ hours swimming in open water is a different beast IMO with the cold, waves, danger, duration, etc.

There's also the technical requirements. You only need fitness to run, but fitness alone won't help with swimming. Months or years of learning to swim well is needed as well as the fitness.

average_runner

pc11 wrote: »

Well, obviously it depends on the person. But, since we were discussing generalities, it doesn't really help. Your knowing people who didn't do sub 3 doesn't in any way rebut my point that there are people who could do it. For a very talented runner, 3 hours is not that fast. 12+ hours swimming in open water is a different beast IMO with the cold, waves, danger, duration, etc.

There's also the technical requirements. You only need fitness to run, but fitness alone won't help with swimming. Months or years of learning to swim well is needed as well as the fitness.

So your comparing a talent runner to a non talented swimmer?

All talented swimmers would already have the technical requirements.

You dont just need fitness to run, you need alot more than that.

pc11

average_runner wrote: »

So your comparing a talent runner to a non talented swimmer?

All talented swimmers would already have the technical requirements.

You dont just need fitness to run, you need alot more than that.

No, you didn't read my post. I specifically mentioned a talented swimmer.

What do you need more than fitness to run? I mean in any meaningful sense, I'm sure you could nitpick minor stuff. There is very little technique involved in running. Anyone can just get up off the couch and run. You can't do that with swimming.

I see you must not know much about swimming if you think talented swimmers do not need enormous amounts of technical work.

"All talented swimmers would already have the technical requirements."


This is just nonsense in several ways, sorry. Even the fittest person will have difficulty swimming 100m if they have no idea how to swim and talented swimmers still have to learn good technique over years. Then there's the cold tolerance to be acquired for another thing. These things simply don't apply for a runner.

Perhaps we have different definitions of "easier". I mean how much work you have put in in advance PLUS the actual achievement. You may be disregarding the preparation and only considering the event. That's a mistake IMO.

Finally, are you seriously disagreeing that the Channel is harder in general? If so, can you give some reasoned arguments? Or are you just arguing on a forum for the sake of it?

average_runner

pc11 wrote: »

No, you didn't read my post. I specifically mentioned a talented swimmer.

What do you need more than fitness to run? I mean in any meaningful sense, I'm sure you could nitpick minor stuff. There is very little technique involved in running. Anyone can just get up off the couch and run. You can't do that with swimming.


I see you must not know much about swimming if you think talented swimmers do not need enormous amounts of technical work.

"All talented swimmers would already have the technical requirements."


This is just nonsense in several ways, sorry. Even the fittest person will have difficulty swimming 100m if they have no idea how to swim and talented swimmers still have to learn good technique over years. Then there's the cold tolerance to be acquired for another thing. These things simply don't apply for a runner.

Perhaps we have different definitions of "easier". I mean how much work you have put in in advance PLUS the actual achievement. You may be disregarding the preparation and only considering the event. That's a mistake IMO.

Finally, are you seriously disagreeing that the Channel is harder in general? If so, can you give some reasoned arguments? Or are you just arguing on a forum for the sake of it?

Some of the stuff you say above is a bit insulting to runners!.

As i said a friend of mine did the channel but he knows he never get a sub 3 marathon no matter how hard he trains as he doesnt have the speed, nothing you can do about that.

So i believe a sub 3 marathon is tougher as you can teach everyone technique and stamina which is what u need to do the channel or a 100 mile run!!

But to do the channel under x amount of time or a sub 3 marathon you need speed and thats a different thing on which one is harder then.

Everyone can gain technique and stamina but not speed.

pc11

average_runner wrote: »

Some of the stuff you say above is a bit insulting to runners!.

As i said a friend of mine did the channel but he knows he never get a sub 3 marathon no matter how hard he trains as he doesnt have the speed, nothing you can do about that.

So i believe a sub 3 marathon is tougher as you can teach everyone technique and stamina which is what u need to do the channel or a 100 mile run!!

But to do the channel under x amount of time or a sub 3 marathon you need speed and thats a different thing on which one is harder then.

Everyone can gain technique and stamina but not speed.

As a runner of 35 years, I think we can take it on the chin, we're fairly tough. Besides, what I was saying was perfectly reasonable.

3 hours is not 'speed'. That's a pace of 25.6 seconds per 100m, which anyone can run at. It's not even speed endurance really. It's about stamina to run a steady pace for a long time.

Your anecdote about one person is just that, an anecdote. As they say, the plural of anecdote is not data.

One thing I do agree on is that we should really specify doing the Channel in under a particular time. Although, given the currents, there is a floor on the speed you need to do it at or you'll never get there, no matter how long you swim.

"Finally, are you seriously disagreeing that the Channel is harder in general? If so, can you give some reasoned arguments? Or are you just arguing on a forum for the sake of it?"

Any answer to this?

rom

Looking forward to next week's poll.<Fr. Damo> Who do you prefer Blur or Oasis ? </Fr. Damo>

average_runner

pc11 wrote: »

As a runner of 35 years, I think we can take it on the chin, we're fairly tough. Besides, what I was saying was perfectly reasonable.

3 hours is not 'speed'. That's a pace of 25.6 seconds per 100m, which anyone can run at. It's not even speed endurance really. It's about stamina to run a steady pace for a long time.

Your anecdote about one person is just that, an anecdote. As they say, the plural of anecdote is not data.

One thing I do agree on is that we should really specify doing the Channel in under a particular time. Although, given the currents, there is a floor on the speed you need to do it at or you'll never get there, no matter how long you swim.

"Finally, are you seriously disagreeing that the Channel is harder in general? If so, can you give some reasoned arguments? Or are you just arguing on a forum for the sake of it?"

Any answer to this?

Sorry but thats wrong about sub 3 hour marathon, not everyone can do it.


I already answer your question. I leave it at that.

pc11

average_runner wrote: »

Sorry but thats wrong about sub 3 hour marathon, not everyone can do it.

Oh dear, you didn't understand my words at all. I didn't say anyone could run sub 3. Read it again.

average_runner wrote: »

I already answer your question. I leave it at that.

I don't see it.