Well jump on it. Maybe you can be the FIRST!

Whats the significance of 26000?

tengobotas wrote:Whats the significance of 26000?

It's 1 foot above 25,999 ft.

What happened to Lhotse? Did the top fall off or something?

What is it in cubits?

twoshuzz wrote:

tengobotas wrote:Whats the significance of 26000?

It's 1 foot above 25,999 ft.

Why not 25,000 ft.; that's a nice round number, or maybe 20,000 ft.?

RIGHT. What's a cubit?

My guess is that there are probably no climbers who have climbed all of those because the climbers who have completed the 8000er list think in terms of meters and not feet. Any other theories?
Gyachung Kang 7985 meters missed out on being a 8000er by only 15 meters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyachung_Kang
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-thousander -- The 8000er completion list

Cy Kaicener wrote:My guess is that there are probably no climbers who have climbed all of those because the climbers who have completed the 8000er list think in terms of meters and not feet. Any other theories?
Gyachung Kang 7985 meters missed out on being a 8000er by only 15 meters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyachung_Kang
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-thousander -- The 8000er completion list

But the list of 8,000ers is too small! If we are going to be a Type A, anal retentive, list chaser, we need a much longer list.

The other absurdity is that 7-summits thing! It should be the 192-summits: the highest peak in every member nation of the UN.

I dont think that those elite climbers think that the list is too small

On an international level, I'm pretty sure people only care about meters. The next significant level would be 7000m I guess?