No Everest Summits in 2015

[RobertKay]

When google-verifying the article above, I came across the restriction that climbers this year must have summited a 6500m peak.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/s ... d-climbers
I dont know how seriously they are enforcing this. This would rule out anything in North America, Europe or Africa.

Aconcagua is high enough, but that hardly qualifies someone for Everest. Personally, I think doing Denali would be FAR more beneficial, then Aconcagua. I give them credit for trying, but I don't see how this will make any difference at all, assuming they even enforce it.

It won't be enforced. This is Nepal we are talking about. They are fantastic about making announcements but 100% failures when it comes time to implement.

[skycripp]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wor ... ge%2Fstory

I'm not sure this is a bad thing (the potential decrease of Everest traffic, not the deaths. Death is always a tragedy). I've long thought that the "Everest business" is a complete abandonment of the true spirit of mountaineering, and that it is an insult to the mountain.

I think if climbers were more or less forced to turn to the NE Ridge route, the mountain would see a lot more experienced climbers and fewer inexperienced climbers.

[Scott P]

I think if climbers were more or less forced to turn to the NE Ridge route, the mountain would see a lot more experienced climbers and fewer inexperienced climbers.

Based on what? Overall, the Chinese side of Everest typically attracts the least experienced climbers.

[jrs1965]

Based on what? Overall, the Chinese side of Everest typically attracts the least experienced climbers.

Sorry, China stole that when they invaded in 1950, technically it's the Tibetan side of Everest...

[bichito]

I think the third poster meant that paying 50K does not make one a climber and the experience can not really be sanitized to the point of being harm-proof. Every death is a tragedy, some can be avoided. But this is beyond my skill level. Good night

[climbing_rob]

When google-verifying the article above, I came across the restriction that climbers this year must have summited a 6500m peak.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/s ... d-climbers
I dont know how seriously they are enforcing this. This would rule out anything in North America, Europe or Africa.

Aconcagua is high enough, but that hardly qualifies someone for Everest. Personally, I think doing Denali would be FAR more beneficial, then Aconcagua. I give them credit for trying, but I don't see how this will make any difference at all, assuming they even enforce it.

Well, maybe a good start at least, as you say, if it is enforced.

I would also say the ability to climb Aconcagua is indeed a decent step, I sure did notice that extra couple of thousand feet on Aconcagua vs. Denali. Maybe just because the Aconcagua climb was quicker, so less acclimation. I think climbing both is a nice 1-2 training experience, Aconcagua for that extra couple thousand feet of thinner air, Denali for the extended time in bitter cold and some actual, though very modest, climbing.

[shredthegnar10]

When google-verifying the article above, I came across the restriction that climbers this year must have summited a 6500m peak.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/s ... d-climbers
I dont know how seriously they are enforcing this. This would rule out anything in North America, Europe or Africa.

Aconcagua is high enough, but that hardly qualifies someone for Everest. Personally, I think doing Denali would be FAR more beneficial, then Aconcagua. I give them credit for trying, but I don't see how this will make any difference at all, assuming they even enforce it.

Having done one major expedition (regardless of success or not) doesn't prepare someone for Everest. You could go to Denali, have perfect weather for two weeks (unlikely but it could happen, they had a long period of great weather this past season), and your climb could go perfectly. You could go to Aconcagua and be trapped in a storm at 18k ft for 3-5 days. Being able to deal with things going anywhere on the spectrum from "less than ideal" to "FUBAR" is important for climbing high mountains, and one summit -- whether it's Denali, Aconcagua, or something else over 6000 or 6500m -- doesn't mean that a person has those skills.

[climbing_rob]

Having done one major expedition (regardless of success or not) doesn't prepare someone for Everest. You could go to Denali, have perfect weather for two weeks (unlikely but it could happen, they had a long period of great weather this past season), and your climb could go perfectly. You could go to Aconcagua and be trapped in a storm at 18k ft for 3-5 days. Being able to deal with things going anywhere on the spectrum from "less than ideal" to "FUBAR" is important for climbing high mountains, and one summit -- whether it's Denali, Aconcagua, or something else over 6000 or 6500m -- doesn't mean that a person has those skills.

One high mountain expedition might not do much, but statistically, it is better than zero expeditions, IMHO. So having this new rule, though very modest, is better than nothing and will filter out at least a few total rookies.

Two or more big climbs would be better, of course. I wouldn't consider attempting Everest without at least something in the neighborhood of 7000 meters (like Aconcagua) and a very cold mountain (like Denali). And for myself, having summitted both of those (Denali twice) and in harsh conditions on all three climbs, I still don't believe I'm quite ready for Everest, even ignoring the cost. I'd require of myself another 7000M peak, maybe 7500.