nartreb wrote:>If you do decide on the Himalaya you may find that the ratio of climbing to waiting around for the weather or getting sick from a foreign bug is not that great.
QFT. The trick with the really big mountains, on guided routes, is wanting it badly. Being a "true mountaineer" is not necessary, being able to put up with a lot of cold, boredom, etc etc is.
It helps to get into decent shape, but you don't have to be Superman. The guides usually know what they're doing and will set a pace that their clients can keep up with.
A lot of folks on this site would rather maximize the time spent on the "fun parts" - the technical climbing, and would chafe at being guided. But I have a hunch that Otto is more interested in "achieving the dream" - that he won't care whether Rainier is twice as fun, if it's not in the Himalaya it won't count.
Thanks again guys for all the help.
I'm the sort of guy that needs a goal to shoot at to keep me motivated. Climbing in the Himalayas would be the "end" goal, but it certainly wouldn't be the 'only" goal. Rainier would count big time in my book. Right now, ANY mountain would count big time for me. I'm looking seriously now at a climbing school in the Cascades or Alaska next summer to get started correctly and to not be a danger to me or especially others that might be on the mountain with me. Like was said earlier in the thread, my clock is definitely ticking so I need to get started pretty quickly. I have started a new fitness schedule and I should be in pretty good shape by summer.
So, here we go.
