Luciano136 wrote:On an international level, I'm pretty sure people only care about meters. The next significant level would be 7000m I guess?

If feet were good enough for Jesus, they should be good enough for you foreigners too.

Religious nuts uses odd units to make everything seem better and bigger than reality.

Matt Worster wrote:RIGHT. What's a cubit?

= 7 palms

It's actually 7,8 palms.
Or 2,6 spans.

Or 1,924e-17 parseks.

What is equivalent to 29 palms?

I can't possibly respond to that in the "General" forums

1044 lines

If you wanted an even greater challenge try every peak UNDER 26,000ft!!!!

Matt Worster wrote:RIGHT. What's a cubit?

Bill Cosby at his finest.

My guess is that the OP mean't all the 8,000 meter peaks, the 14 peaks in the Himalaya and Karakoram ranges. These are generally recognized as the highest mountains in the world. At 3.38 feet per meter, 8,000 meters converts to 26,247'.

The have been several climbers who have climbed all of these peaks but only a few that have done it without supplemental oxygen. The first to complete them all was Reinhold Messner. The only American to complete the list is Ed Viesteurs and he did it without using bottled oxygen .

1. Everest
2. K-2
3. Kanchenjunga
4. Lhotse
5. Makalu
6. Cho Oyu
7. Duhgalari
8. Manaslu
9 Nanga Parbat
10. Annapurna
11. Gasherbrum
12. Broad Peak
13. Gasherbrum II
14. Shsishapangma

RickF wrote:My guess is that the OP mean't all the 8,000 meter peaks, the 14 peaks in the Himalaya and Karakoram ranges.

That was my initial thought but I think he really did mean all the peaks over 26,000 feet, not 8,000 meters. I don't know how many, if any, peaks that would add to the list though.

If you trust peakbagger.com, there are only 3-4 candidates that dropping the elevation threshhold from 26,247' (8000m) to 26,000' will add...

Peakbagger actually lists 24 peaks over 26,247', but only 14 of them 'count' due to prominence thresholds. By far, the lowest prominence of the 14 is Lhotse, coming in at 2002' prominence. The other 13 peaks each have at least 5000' prominence. The highest prominence amongst non-included sub-peaks over 26,247' is Broad Peak Central, a 26,299' sub-peak with 643' of prominence.

It seems to me that leaves the obvious minimum thresholds for inclusion at either 1000' or 2000'. 2000' adds three new peaks, 1000' adds four new peaks. They are as follows:

Gasherbrum III: 26,089' w/ 1512' Prominence
Gyachung Kang: 26,089' w/ 2204' Prominence
Annapurna II: 26,047' w/ 8002' Prominence
Gasherbrum IV: 26,001' w/2356' Prominence

Or, if you prefer more of a challenge, try the 48 7500m peaks with 500m prominence...

paisajeroamericano wrote:Gasherbrum III: 26,089' w/ 1512' Prominence
Gyachung Kang: 26,089' w/ 2204' Prominence
Annapurna II: 26,047' w/ 8002' Prominence
Gasherbrum IV: 26,001' w/2356' Prominence

Yeh, those are generally considered the next 'real mountains' on the list.

Alberto Inurrategi, who did the 14x8K, has climbed G3 and attempted GIV. GK has not been climbed for several years, and only has a few ascents ever. A2 had a winter ascent (by a lone German with Sherpas) a few years ago, but like GK has only a few ascents in total. A small team trying one of these peaks is considerably harder than joining others on an 8000m normal route. They're almost the same size, but with far less structure in place, or psychological support.

One of the Korean 14x8K guys (Um Hong Gil?) was also trying to add 'extras' and climbed Lhotse Shar and Yalung Kang, the sub-peaks of Lhotse and Kanchenjunga respectively. Not sure if he is still going.

Nobody has soloed all 14.

My guess is that the OP mean't all the 8,000 meter peaks

IMy guess would be no. The 26,000 feet list would be much more difficult. Some claim Gasherbrum IV to be the world's hardest mountain, but it seems that such a distinction would be hard to quantify.