greater accomplishment

tylerdurden · #1 10-10-2005, 04:23 PM

Which accomplishment is more impressive: Hillary's first Everest summit or Bannister's four minute mile?

RJT · #2 10-10-2005, 05:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Which accomplishment is more impressive: Hillary's first Everest summit or Bannister's four minute mile?

[/ QUOTE ]

Or will it be Hillary's election as President of the USA?

Bigdaddydvo · #3 10-10-2005, 05:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Which accomplishment is more impressive: Hillary's first Everest summit or Bannister's four minute mile?

[/ QUOTE ]

Though both mind boggling achievements for the time, climbing Everest is much tougher IMO.

SheetWise · #4 10-10-2005, 06:01 PM

Hillary's was more of a human milestone, an intellectual as well as physical challenge -- Bannister's four minute mile was still 3 minutes behind a cheetah.

bluesbassman · #5 10-10-2005, 06:06 PM

I vote for Hillary's, since running a 4 minute mile did not require courage to face the (realistic) possibility of death.

tylerdurden · #6 10-10-2005, 06:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I vote for Hillary's, since running a 4 minute mile did not require courage to face the (realistic) possibility of death.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point, although (eg) driving a car at high speeds through traffic has a strong possibility of death, and isn't necessarily a greater accomplishment than (eg) composing Beethoven's Ninth, which has very little danger.

Since both Hillary and Bannister accomplished their feats around the same time (seperated by about 12 months IIRC), it might help to look at the number of people that have climbed Everest (~1500 by 2001 according to wikipedia) vs. the number of people that have run a four-minute mile (~955 by 2003 according to [1], though I'm not sure "official" data exists on the latter.

[1] http://www.career-in-your-suitcase.c...H/barriers.htm

TomCollins · #7 10-10-2005, 07:22 PM

I am not a running historian, but it seems odd no one ever ran a 4 minute mile before him, yet 50 years later, the record for a mile is nearly 17 seconds faster. Obviously with mountain climbing, technology plays a huge factor. But how much technology is there in running? Can shoes and clothes cut off 17 seconds? Or is it training techniques or training technologies?

Lestat · #8 10-10-2005, 07:48 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe Hillary had oxygen with him.

Also, those who reach the summit of Everest today are aided in both technology and knowledge of those before them in ways that aren't true for todays 4 minute milers.

tylerdurden · #9 10-10-2005, 08:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe Hillary had oxygen with him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. I'm not sure how many people have made the summit without oxygen, but many continue to do it "the natural way" even to this day. Of those that have made the summit without oxygen, I'm sure many first made it with oxygen, then went back and did it without.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, those who reach the summit of Everest today are aided in both technology and knowledge of those before them in ways that aren't true for todays 4 minute milers.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is certainly possible, but not necessarily true in every case. Many continue to climb everest with minimal equipment. Many professionial runners today use as much technology as any other top atheletes.

However, point taken that sheer numbers are probably not a good way to settle this question.

Lestat · #10 10-10-2005, 08:55 PM

Right. I was just trying to point out that of the number of people you used (1500 by 2001), a very small percentage did it without oxygen. One other important point...

In those days it was quite a feat even reaching Mount Everest. It was a very dangerous trip just getting TO and FROM the start of the climb! These days people are helicoptered in and out. This only adds to Hillary's feat in my opinion.