Is it impossible to summit every mountain in the world?

by **xDoogiex** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 11:40 pm

I've set my eyes on doing the 50 state highpoints to start off with and gain expirence to be able to do harder ones. I would love to do the 7 summits but no way I can afford it. All small steps to bigger goals. I also have some peaks that aren't on list that just seem like fun, for example the grand teton. I still need more gear and having car payments now is gonna make trying to save money suck!

by **Hotoven** » Tue Oct 27, 2009 12:53 am

xDoogiex wrote:I've set my eyes on doing the 50 state highpoints to start off with and gain expirence to be able to do harder ones. I would love to do the 7 summits but no way I can afford it. All small steps to bigger goals. I also have some peaks that aren't on list that just seem like fun, for example the grand teton. I still need more gear and having car payments now is gonna make trying to save money suck!

Dude, don't waste your time and money with the seven summits, everyone and their mom does those, its like going to a shopping mall every time you want to climb a high peak, loads of people, countless Jerks and money squandering losers. I use to want to do them, but decided to do more remote, and "good looking" Mountains. My Ultimate goal is Laila peak, and when I show photos of that when I have climbed it, it sure as hell looks a lot more bad ass then Everest, or any of the Seven summits.

Just my 2 cents Doogie, I'm not telling you that you shouldn't do them, just their might be better ones out for that are worthy of a Doogie summit rather than a millionaire summit!

by **xDoogiex** » Tue Oct 27, 2009 3:16 am

I hear ya. I wanna travel around the world. Maybe the 2nd seven summits instead. There is a challenge. People at work joke around with me like "when are you gonna climb Everest?" i'm like K2 and Annapurna are way deadlier. The more I get involved in this culture and more experienced the more my goals will change. I wanted to do the explorers grand slam: the 7 summits and both poles.

by **xDoogiex** » Tue Oct 27, 2009 3:48 am

Great post. You're right it's all about having fun.

by **kiwiw** » Tue Oct 27, 2009 4:05 am

+ 1 on laila peak.
I also want to see K2, I don't care if I climb it or not, I just want to go in and look up at it. screw the 7 summits and everest, not worth the money or your soul. get into climbing for the climbing. don't climb a peak cause it's the tallest, or most famous, climb it for the experience...

don't be that annoying d-bag who just does annoying name dropping of big peaks that you want to climb. instead of everest for your 25th bday do the muldrow glacier on denali, or, if your a beast, the W ridge of hunter, something you'll have fun on...

by **Snowslogger** » Tue Oct 27, 2009 4:57 am

Couldn't climbing massive numbers of peaks be considered a huge waste of fossil fuel? (Assuming you're not biking there). Just a thought.

by **drjohnso1182** » Tue Oct 27, 2009 5:16 am

Snowslogger wrote:Couldn't climbing massive numbers of peaks be considered a huge waste of fossil fuel?

I can't think of a better use for it.

by **Hotoven** » Tue Oct 27, 2009 1:03 pm

jhodlof wrote:
Snowslogger wrote:Couldn't climbing massive numbers of peaks be considered a huge waste of fossil fuel? (Assuming you're not biking there). Just a thought.

Absolutely! It is a massive waste of resources and a very selfish personal endeavor. It's purely recreational, and doesn't do anything for the body that can't be gotten in a gym at sea level. Also, given that some of us will expend an enormous amount of fuel to reach the summit of mountains, and resources to make our gear, we have less environmental credibility than many urban soccer moms and materialistic consumers who drive hummers and take their kids to soccer practice and shopping malls. How much is a Mountain Hardware Tent these days? $600? How much fuel is used for one of us to trek to Aconcagua? I'll stick with mountains anyway.

+1

Very good!

by **chicagotransplant** » Tue Oct 27, 2009 2:03 pm

jhodlof wrote:After seeing the 14ers post from Chicago Transplant and the other list prominent posts, I've got ask: what is so great about finishing a list, any list, be it all the ranked peaks of earth, all the CO 14ers or 13ers, or any other? They are all just arbitrary lists based on arbitrary criteria. State high points? Why is a hill in Indiana or Florida great just because it falls within a political boundary? What makes 14ers so great, and why is a 14,001' walk up so important and not a 13,999' 5.7 climb? The rest of the world uses metric anyway and 14,000 feet means next to nothing to them. 4000 meters makes more sense to me, and there are far more of them in the western states, many of them are challenging scrambles and climbs and far more satisfying to summit than some walk up that happens to be 14000'.

I digress, it's not about finishing a list, its about the journey and the experience, the thrill of the summit and the pleasure of being out there. Trying to finish a list makes it about the goal, the end product, and getting done. I know I don't want to be done, I want to be out there. Lists set you up for failure, and it can make the the climb a chore. Why would you want that?

Well some might say that climbing all of the 14ers gets you to places in the state that you would not see if you only stuck to the peaks near your house, when you climb those peaks you see the neighboring peaks and come back to do those etc, etc, etc. I finished the 14ers (53 of them with 300' prom.) last August, I currently sit at 390 unique peaks with 300' of prom in Colorado (plus 3 in Utah and 3 in Mexico), so I think its fair to say that I do a heck of a lot of peaks that are not 14ers. Not to mention all the peaks I have done that don't even have 300' of prominence.

I bolded part of your quote because that is exactly what I do. I have a few lists that I am interested in finishing for sure, but that is not what it is about, having the list is more about getting to places that are new and unique. 50 state high points is just a climbers way of saying "I want to visit all 50 states", some people want to do all 57 "Ultras" (5000' prominence peaks) which takes them to unique and remote parts of the country. Having a "list" really is about the journey, its just another way to motivate you to explore places that maybe otherwise you would never know existed. :wink:

by **surgent** » Tue Oct 27, 2009 2:25 pm

jhodlof wrote:After seeing the 14ers post from Chicago Transplant and the other list prominent posts, I've got ask: what is so great about finishing a list, any list, be it all the ranked peaks of earth, all the CO 14ers or 13ers, or any other? They are all just arbitrary lists based on arbitrary criteria. State high points? Why is a hill in Indiana or Florida great just because it falls within a political boundary? What makes 14ers so great, and why is a 14,001' walk up so important and not a 13,999' 5.7 climb? The rest of the world uses metric anyway and 14,000 feet means next to nothing to them. 4000 meters makes more sense to me, and there are far more of them in the western states, many of them are challenging scrambles and climbs and far more satisfying to summit than some walk up that happens to be 14000'.

I digress, it's not about finishing a list, its about the journey and the experience, the thrill of the summit and the pleasure of being out there. Trying to finish a list makes it about the goal, the end product, and getting done. I know I don't want to be done, I want to be out there. Lists set you up for failure, and it can make the the climb a chore. Why would you want that?

I like lists but usually don't finish them... but they do "open my eyes" to other peaks I might have otherwise ignored.

A good list has a variety of peaks (and maybe hills and etc). It's too easy to stay close to home and climb 80 peaks that all look alike. Being "compelled", so to speak, to travel outside my comfort area and tackle peaks of differing terrain than I am used to is very satisfying.

I agree that strict adherence to a list can have its own drawbacks. It's stupid to ignore a very interesting mountain because it fails some sort of list criteria. One has to keep the big picture in mind. I have been guilty of this often and I consciously try not to be so "list-driven". It's probably ingrained in my mitochondria, though.

An earlier post recommended working in chunks, perhaps off a list (or not). I like that and agree with it. I used to fancy myself finishing all 50 state highpoints. I have 45 done but accept that one or two will likely never be done. I've been working this list for 15 years and frankly, really do not care whether I get the 48th, 49th or 50th anymore. It has been fun in its own right, and that took me a long time to see that aspect.

by **Diggler** » Tue Oct 27, 2009 4:58 pm

JustinShapiro wrote:Could it be possible for an individual to summit every ranked peak in the world in a lifetime? I'm talking about all of them including the 8000ers and all the volcanos. I think that there could be close to like 300,000 ranked peaks in the world, but I could be way off. Is it more or less that that?

I've sorta made a goal to complete all the summits in the world and I'm just seeing if I'm crazy or not.

How about finishing the 100 highest peaks in Colorado first, kid, then re-evaluating. Or even just the 14ers?

Question sorta makes me think of trying to fathom the size, or amount of money, of the federal deficit. It's really not difficult to figure out mathematically (comparatively), but trying to actually comprehend how big it actually is is hard for a person to wrap their heads around...

by **mills** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 11:54 pm

Colorado has 53 14,000 ft peaks, by far hghest than any other state in the U.S, in total it has more than 1,000 peaks over 10,000 feet alone !
I`d love to come over and bag your peaks but to much to do in the Alps

by **Pivvay** » Sat Oct 31, 2009 3:19 am

xDoogiex wrote: I wanted to do the explorers grand slam: the 7 summits and both poles.

If you do anything actually hard, you may come to realize that this is not really exploring anymore. Just a thought...

by **CheesySciFi** » Sun Nov 01, 2009 2:42 am

jhodlof wrote:After seeing the 14ers post from Chicago Transplant and the other list prominent posts, I've got ask: what is so great about finishing a list, any list, be it all the ranked peaks of earth, all the CO 14ers or 13ers, or any other? They are all just arbitrary lists based on arbitrary criteria. State high points? Why is a hill in Indiana or Florida great just because it falls within a political boundary? What makes 14ers so great, and why is a 14,001' walk up so important and not a 13,999' 5.7 climb? The rest of the world uses metric anyway and 14,000 feet means next to nothing to them.

Why 14,000 feet? You're right that in some ways it's arbitrary, but on the other hand, there is some sense to it, as there is nothing that reaches 15,000 feet outside of Alaska. It also makes for a challenging but achievable group of mountains to summit. Expanding the list to 13rs adds hundreds of peaks in California and Colorado alone. Restricting the list of 14ers to the lower 48 states also keeps the list manageable, as some Alaskan 14ers like Mount Hunter are truly daunting.

Another question: Why 300 feet of prominence? Why not 200 or 400? Are there not "subpeaks" that are worthy destinations in themselves?

by **JustinShapiro** » Sun Nov 01, 2009 7:32 am

CheesySciFi wrote:Another question: Why 300 feet of prominence? Why not 200 or 400? Are there not "subpeaks" that are worthy destinations in themselves?

As you probably know, the rule that any mountain that does not have 300+ of prominence isn't a ranked peak and therefor, climbing a peak of 299 feet of prominence would be equivalent to climbing a peak with 1 foot of prominence. Thats the narrow down part. Anything that has a promince of 300 feet and above is on the list.

Is it impossible to summit every mountain in the world?

Re: Is it impossible to summit every mountain in the world?

Who is online