Around the world with lots of peaks, inc Matterhorn and Fuji

[CarpeDM]

Obviously, there is a significant range in the estimate of total number of deaths on the Mt Blanc massif but I've chosen a conservative standard to prove the point: Matterhorn is, by any measure, far from being "responsible for more deaths than any other mountain in the world".

I don't have a dog in this fight, but off the top of my head, I can think of two things you missed in analysis:

1) How many attempts / climbers have been on each mountain? That is, what are the rates per attempt?
2) Is it really okay to start counting from the date of first successful ascent? What if it took significantly longer to get the first ascent on one than on the other? And what if it took signficantly more lives before the first ascent on one?
2a) Following on that: Would it be better to come up with some definition of the "modern climbing era" and go from there?

I don't know the answers, and I don't really care enough to devote time to figuring it out. And they may not undermine your main point. Just wanted to point out some deficiencies in case someone else (freak - JK) does care enough.

[Jim Davies]

Matterhorn is, by any measure, far from being "responsible for more deaths than any other mountain in the world".

Especially if you count deaths from volcanic eruptions.

[viejo]

Now now, let's not bicker and argue about who killed who, this is supposed to be a happy occasion!

[tlongpine]

Obviously, there is a significant range in the estimate of total number of deaths on the Mt Blanc massif but I've chosen a conservative standard to prove the point: Matterhorn is, by any measure, far from being "responsible for more deaths than any other mountain in the world".

I don't have a dog in this fight, but off the top of my head, I can think of two things you missed in analysis:

1) How many attempts / climbers have been on each mountain? That is, what are the rates per attempt?

This is a different question. "Deadliness" and "death rate" are two separate measures. Deadliness is the sum total of deaths, while death rate is the ratio of deaths to climbing attempts. Also, not to be confused with dangerousness: a measure of the objective risk present by a mountain.

2) Is it really okay to start counting from the date of first successful ascent? What if it took significantly longer to get the first ascent on one than on the other? And what if it took signficantly more lives before the first ascent on one?
2a) Following on that: Would it be better to come up with some definition of the "modern climbing era" and go from there?

Due to it's daunting profile Matterhorn discouraged serious attempts until about 1857; 8 years later it was summited, almost 70 years after the first ascent of Blanc. To your second question, the first ascent of Blanc generally marks the birth of the modern era of alpinism.

[tlongpine]

Matterhorn is, by any measure, far from being "responsible for more deaths than any other mountain in the world".

Especially if you count deaths from volcanic eruptions.

Didn't even want to go down that road.

[tlongpine]

Here's what I'm able to find on total Mt. Blanc deaths: Alan Arnette(1) pegs it at 1,400, Adventure Journal (2)estimates 6-8k, the Atlantic (3) cites 100 deaths a year. Last year 22 people perished in less than the span of a week, in 2008 68 climbers died, 30 in a single month in 2007 (4).

I believe that 1400 is for the region, rather than the mountain itself (or even the Massif). There was a big debate a couple years ago, starting on SP, but expanding to other sites concerning the world's most dangerous mountain. After much debate we decided to email the rescue services themselves (the contacts are still on the thread I believe). The best they could come up with is just over 1000 deaths for the Mt Blanc Massif and more than 1300 for the region. Given this was a few years ago, the 1400 is probably close.

One thing to keep in mind however, that even with the figure of 1000+ for the Mont Blanc Massif, the Mont Blanc Massif is huge and covers many peaks, while the Matterhorn is a singular peak.

This is the Mont Blanc Massif:

Your 68 deaths figure in 2008, for example, is for the entire Massif and even then the deaths will add up to just over 1000, at least according to the mountain rescue services.

Of course, emailing Alan Arnette and seeing where he got the 1400 figure would be useful (he is a 14ers.com and SP member and I've done a few climbs with him, so I bet he'd be happy to provide some insight).

The Atlantic and Adventure journals are obviously far fetched.

One thing to also keep in mind for both the Matterhorn and Blanc figures, they include other deaths rather than just climbers. They also include skiers on the lower slopes, tourists, etc.

Matterhorn is, by any measure, far from being "responsible for more deaths than any other mountain in the world".

This I agree with (actually I also agree that the Mont Blanc Massif has killed more than the Matterhorn).

Tambora was responsible for over 90,000 deaths. Krakatau over 36,000. More recently (1985), Ruiz killed more than 23,000.

Except for Huascarán (which has killed 10's of thousands), all of the mountains responsible for the most deaths are volcanoes.

*PS, I am posting all this not to argue or to prove anything, but because I am very interested in mountain history and statistics, even if this part of mountaineering history is somewhat morbid. I hope no one is offended by the discussion.

I agree. I'm not trying to be argumentative either. Apologies to OP for so thoroughly derailing this thread. Good luck on your climb of Matterhorn!

[opticstalk]

Here's what I'm able to find on total Mt. Blanc deaths: Alan Arnette(1) pegs it at 1,400, Adventure Journal (2)estimates 6-8k, the Atlantic (3) cites 100 deaths a year. Last year 22 people perished in less than the span of a week, in 2008 68 climbers died, 30 in a single month in 2007 (4).

I believe that 1400 is for the region, rather than the mountain itself (or even the Massif). There was a big debate a couple years ago, starting on SP, but expanding to other sites concerning the world's most dangerous mountain. After much debate we decided to email the rescue services themselves (the contacts are still on the thread I believe). The best they could come up with is just over 1000 deaths for the Mt Blanc Massif and more than 1300 for the region. Given this was a few years ago, the 1400 is probably close.

One thing to keep in mind however, that even with the figure of 1000+ for the Mont Blanc Massif, the Mont Blanc Massif is huge and covers many peaks, while the Matterhorn is a singular peak.

This is the Mont Blanc Massif:

Your 68 deaths figure in 2008, for example, is for the entire Massif and even then the deaths will add up to just over 1000, at least according to the mountain rescue services.

Of course, emailing Alan Arnette and seeing where he got the 1400 figure would be useful (he is a 14ers.com and SP member and I've done a few climbs with him, so I bet he'd be happy to provide some insight).

The Atlantic and Adventure journals are obviously far fetched.

One thing to also keep in mind for both the Matterhorn and Blanc figures, they include other deaths rather than just climbers. They also include skiers on the lower slopes, tourists, etc.

Matterhorn is, by any measure, far from being "responsible for more deaths than any other mountain in the world".

This I agree with (actually I also agree that the Mont Blanc Massif has killed more than the Matterhorn).

Tambora was responsible for over 90,000 deaths. Krakatau over 36,000. More recently (1985), Ruiz killed more than 23,000.

Except for Huascarán (which has killed 10's of thousands), all of the mountains responsible for the most deaths are volcanoes.

*PS, I am posting all this not to argue or to prove anything, but because I am very interested in mountain history and statistics, even if this part of mountaineering history is somewhat morbid. I hope no one is offended by the discussion.

I agree. I'm not trying to be argumentative either. Apologies to OP for so thoroughly derailing this thread. Good luck on your climb of Matterhorn!

Those numbers are all over the place therefore not even worth quoting.

[tlongpine]

Those numbers are all over the place therefore not even worth quoting.

Yeah, that's kind of the point. And why a conservative standard was used.

[Scott P]

For those curious:

Alan Arnette did get back with me about the 1400 figure.

"I researched this a few years ago and took it from a quoted source in Chamonix but cannot find it now".

The "just over 1000 figure" I quoted is from the Peloton de Gendarmerie de Haute Montagne (rescue service) in Chamonix and was retrieved and current as of October 2009 and covers the whole Massif on both the French and Italian sides of the mountain. It was also said that the exact number is unknown.

Apologies to OP for so thoroughly derailing this thread.

Ditto.

Good luck on your climb of Matterhorn!

Ditto.

Anyway, this could make a useful conversation in it's own thread.

[alpiner84]

Anyways...

I emailed a couple guiding companies last night about whether their pre-Matterhorn warm-up climbs are mandatory, and so far one company has emailed me back saying no, they're just recommended if you don't have much experience climbing in crampons.

On a more disappointing note, the company also added that the Hornli hut (main route up the Matterhorn) will be closed in summer 2014 so they can build a new one. They said to email again in May when they have more information about whether the route will be accessible. Maybe I ought to look at climbing it from the Italian side after all...

[TomPierce]

Maybe I ought to look at climbing it from the Italian side after all...

I've been on that route before, but we didn't top out (it was an unusually late winter that year, the guides weren't even taking clients up). We got up to the hut and had to chop away the ice sealing the door to get in. Suffice to say we had the place to ourselves, a fun evening...

Anyway, the Italian route is a notch harder than the Hornli, but not drastically so. Note, however, that the base camp town on the Italian side (Cortina? Something with a C...) is much, much quieter than Zermatt. Pretty sleepy when we were there. But sure, it could be an option for you.

-Tom

[nyker]

Hi everyone,

I'm embarking on a round-the-world adventure next year in the footsteps of my hero, Richard Halliburton, an adventurer/explorer in the 1920's and 1930's. Along the way I'll be climbing a number of peaks, including the Matterhorn, all the famous Greek and Italian volcanoes, and Mount Fuji. I'm looking for advice, tips, and support for these climbs. Check out my website http://www.uneventenor.com

--The Matterhorn: I am assuming I'll need a guide for the Matterhorn. Beyond CO's 14ers, I haven't much mountaineering experience (Gannett Peak and Huayna Potosi, both with leaders/guides). Because I'll be trying to stretch my dollars for a whole year of travel, I really can't afford the roughly $1500 price tag of a guide up the Matterhorn. What are my other options? Ideally I would like an experienced independent climber to help me climb the peak--do any of you have any contacts I might be able to get in touch with?
--Mount Fuji: Richard climbed this peak in the winter, and I was thinking about doing summer instead, until I read about how many people climb it daily in the summer. How are the crowds? Have any of you climbed it in the winter, or have any information regarding a winter ascent?
--Other peaks include Stromboli, Olympus, and Parnassus. Any info?

Thanks in advance!
Sarah

Man, sounds fun. I want to come!