Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigtime
Have I posted in here before that I am 1000x more impressed with those that take on K2 and succeed? Apparently Everest is pretty tame from a technical standpoint, whereas K2 is the real deal.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed
Even then, K2 is probably so much less busy that it becomes much safer.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLAME ENVY
Everest (standard route) is not a real technical climb, it just has the grandeur of being the tallest peak on earth. The over commercialization of Everest is sickening.
K2 is certainly difficult but there are more challenging/technical climbs beyond K2 (Annapurna, Nanga Parbat, Makalu & Kanchenjunga amongst others), it just has greater notoriety being the second most popular eight-thousander next to Everest.
|
Everest is technically relatively simple to climb. K2 is just flat out a beast.
Death rate on Everest is < 1%, it has a large death total (over 280 now) because so many climbers attempt it. In comparison K2 has a death rate of 25%. Almost 80 people have died on that mountain, barely 300 have successfully summited. Only Annapurna has a higher death rate.