Page 10 of 10

Re: climbing vs. hiking

PostPosted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 10:10 pm
by Andinistaloco
Fair point. I had a friend who loved to do that. Someone at a gathering or party would mention that they climbed something, and like clockwork he'd mention that he'd hiked it.

I suppose if you wanted the shortest definition, you could say climbing is where you use your hands and hiking is where you don't.

If you wanted something definite you could say that class 1-2 = hiking, class 3-4 = scrambling, and class 5 = climbing.

But really, it is pretty much semantics and personal opinion.

Re: climbing vs. hiking

PostPosted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 10:30 pm
by sopwith21
Andinistaloco wrote:you could say climbing is where you use your hands and hiking is where you don't.

If you wanted something definite you could say that class 1-2 = hiking, class 3-4 = scrambling, and class 5 = climbing.

Agree. Both of those are certainly definitive, but also completely arbitrary.

Climbing is defined as the act of going up or ascending, or to rise slowly or by a continued effort. Also to be considered is the fact that a physical barrier of elevation is being ascended... HOW it is being ascended (hands, feet, ropes, etc) is entirely irrelevant to the English definition of the word.

But like you, I fear that many an ego may be crushed by the plain meaning of common English words. ;)

maybe this'll settle it all for ya . . .

PostPosted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 2:25 am
by rlshattuck
Miroslava knows what it's all about . . .

http://www.summitpost.org/user_page.php?user_id=59924


onward . . .

PostPosted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 11:29 pm
by Sierra Ledge Rat
It doesn't matter, we are all climbing bretheren

Re: climbing vs. hiking

PostPosted: Sat Nov 28, 2009 12:37 am
by MoapaPk
sopwith21 wrote:I still fail to understand how someone can get from 1,000 feet elevation to 15,000 feet elevation without climbing anything. Its quite a trick if you ask me.

This brings me to the conclusion that the difference between climbing and hiking depends on the size of one's ego.


I've been from -253' to 11049' in ten hours, and it was definitely a hike, though not an easy one. There was nothing worse than class 2; but I wouldn't argue if someone else called it a climb.

Re: climbing vs. hiking

PostPosted: Sat Nov 28, 2009 2:20 am
by taxinvestor
sopwith21 wrote:I still fail to understand how someone can get from 1,000 feet elevation to 15,000 feet elevation without climbing anything. Its quite a trick if you ask me.


Image

PostPosted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 6:33 pm
by WileyCoyote
I'd say I'm a Hiker and a peak bagger that occasionally "scrambles or climbs" to reach a summit/peak.

As for the difference between trek and hike, talk to at least 5 or so Brits to get a "feel" for that one as they were speaking "English" before us!!LOL

As for the semantics of hike, climb, scramble, etc. I'd say is a bit of a d**kswinging contest that is hard to understand as your "pair" of essential gear keeps clanging too loudly and you guys don't shout loud enough to be heard clearly. :lol: As for what, if you can't figure the refernce of "gear", please rent or find on the inrenet, if available, a copy of the old english language film The Stunt Man starring Peter O'Toole.

I think one thing we can agree on is that the biggest hazrd to the sports of "hiking" and climbing" is Progress" in the form of civilized encroachment i ht eform of real estate and land development and retarded tourists clogging approaches to trailheads and starting points!