Is there perhaps a resource where there are "stories" of failed attempts? I'm planning for 2021 and very humbly want to walk in the footsteps of others.
[1] http://www.amazon.in/Everest-The-Unclimbed-Ridge/dp/03930187...
Summitting Everest as most people do it now simply isn't that impressive--anyone with a mediocre level of fitness and a deep enough wallet can do it. It's more of a status symbol than an achievement. And in the process you'll end up supporting and industry that pays sherpas a fraction of the profits to risk their lives doing all the difficult and dangerous parts of Everest climbing for you.
Sure, an Everest summit photo will impress your dentist and your mom, but people who climb are just going to laugh at you. There are more difficult faces on every continent, and you can climb an equivalently difficult climb near where you live for a fraction of the cost. People in the know will be much more impressed if you tell them you climbed Rainier than Everest.
Those "in the know" would be impressed by climbing Makalu long before Rainier would be even on the radar. Rainier is a three day climb at most, while operating over 7000m for weeks at a time is an entirely different universe.
Sorry for the rant but that condescending tone some people take when they imply that Everest is just a walk-up has gotten pretty old. When you summit Everest, then perhaps you can belittle those that dream of doing it.
To your point about "more difficult faces on every continent" -- I beg to differ, Killamanjaro is an easy walk up and unless you're doing the north faces in the Alps, they still barely compare with the mental difficulty of Everest. South America has a few nice mountains, but it's an entirely different world above 8000m. I've done a dozen 4000m peaks in the Alps and they don't even compare for a second the difficulty of just walking around at 7000+ meters.
Real climbers (who have summited Everest) don't laugh at anyone who has summited Everest. They might not buy you beers in Kathmandu, but they certainly respect the accomplishment. Everest is really really hard -- guided or not.
Have you personally summited Everest? I'm interested in hearing you talk about your experiences and what it's like to operate at over 7000 meters.
Poser?
I had a stupid incident on a 4K peak in Mexico -- I was doing a one-day climb and O was feeling great then like an idiot I started speed climbing to the summit. No problems until the decent, then I got a severe headache and could barely get down the mountain. I went from sea level to 4K in just a few hours and didn't pay attention to the altitude and without warning, I was almost on my knees. Even popular mountains like Mont Blanc (4810 meters) require a few days of acclimation, yet because Nevado de Colima is an "easy" mountain I didn't take the 4200 meters seriously. Almost a disasterous mistake.
My point is that above 4K, it pretty much sucks in terms of cardiovascular efficiency. Even Everest base camp is over 5k meters -- taller than anything in the Alps. Dehydration, snow blindness, feeling permanent exahausted.. it's a feat to hang out that high for very long. It isn't too hard to suffer above 4K for short stints (such as Mont Blanc for a day or two, but for weeks at a time, it takes a toll, even with acclimation.
I have nothing for respect for "beginners" that tip out on Everest or any Himalayan peak. The mental fortitude required is extraordinary.
Just a point of contention with the comment calling Everest a "beginner" mountain -- with a proper guide, even Eiger or the Matterhorn can be ascended by a beginner. A guide could drag a beginner up K2 (as insane as that might be,) the technical skills aren't the limiting factor on the big mountains, it's the endurance and mental toughness to survive in that environment. Perhaps K2 is a bit extreme, but technical skills are easily taught, what can't be taught quickly is how to read the mountain -- on Mont Blanc for example (and also Paradiso in Italy,) crevasses are often hidden under snowbridges, so you have to learn how to "read" the terrain. Interestingly, Mont Blanc is one of the deadliest mountains because people don't respect it -- they take a 3 day trip to Chamonix and think they're Ueli Steck and fall off the mountain or get hit by a Volkswagen sized rock crossing the Grand Couloir. Pretty much any mountain can be climbed by a beginner with the right guide, but that doesn't make them any less impressive.
By the way, I am not a "good" climber or an expert, I just love being up there and have immense respect for the people that make it look easy. It's anything but!
Don't know if that answered your question, but that's as good as I got!
I have summited Cotopaxi and Chimborazo, however, so I'm well aware of the difficulty of operating at altitude.
Lots of people summit Everest as their first (and often only) major summit. On what basis can you claim that Everest isn't a beginner summit if hundreds of beginners climb it every year?
Lastly, Kilmanjaro isn't the hardest summit in Africa.
Both you and @briandear are correct. On a sustained-alpine-climbing level, there are hundreds of routes/mountains harder than Everest. And to be sure, there are huge, difficult routes with thousands of vertical meters of sustained alpine climbing on 7000m+ peaks that are far beyond the Everest north and south normal routes and only attempted by the top 50 or 100 climbers on Earth.
But nonetheless, Everest is very hard no matter who you are. I disagree that Cotopaxi and Chimborazo have much do with the difficulty of Everest. These are mountains climbed in a single push from a medium-altitude camp, with only one or two hours spent above 6000m on Chimborazo, let alone 7000m. Trekkers in the Himalaya may sleep at higher altitudes than you ever would on Chimborazo. The hut you likely launched your summit bid on Cotopaxi from is not significantly higher than airport you fly in to in Lhasa to climb Everest from the north. Besides the far lower altitude, it's much easier to find a weather window for the 6-10 hour summit bid. I don't mean to downplay the challenge of the Andean volcanoes, but merely to tell you than the higher you go, it gets much, much harder. 6000m is only the beginning of "high altitude". I've climbed 6000m peaks in a weekend coming from sea level with one night of acclimatization. It's not the same by any measure.
Everest is an achievement by any route. No, it isn't the same as soloing huge routes in the Alaska Range like Colin Haley or Steve House, but that doesn't make it any easier.
I don't get your point about Rainier. Disappointment Cleaver on Rainier is a tourist route too, with no significant technical difficulties. Everest South Col is that plus a whole whack of other challenges.
Sure, you can do Everest that way too (and then it is indeed very difficult) but that's not what we're talking about.
Altitude is certainly a challenge, but acclimatization takes out a lot of the difficulty. I actually had a harder time on Cotopaxi than on Chimborazo despite the altitude difference because I had 8 days of acclimatization in between.
It's also worth noting that a lot of Everest climbers have sherpas carry oxygen tanks up for them.
And the sherpas on Everest also use oxygen themselves. Above about 7000m or so, you're pretty much out of the range where the human body can function in any sort of long-term way. You don't acclimatize at that level.
For peaks in the 6000m+ range (and even lower), acclimatization is somewhere between helpful and crucial. And that's about as high as I can go personally. Above that really does become a different game for almost everyone.
For the others, look for Wim Hof. I still don't understand how.
For what it's worth, ascending the Andes is what got me into altitude mountaineering in the first place. I'm looking forward to Cho Oyu which will be the first step towards Everest. Seeing how I'm yet to surpass 7000m (Aconcagua in December), it will surely be a test of faith.
I'm sorry I assumed your motivations. Why do you want to climb Everest? Why that mountain in particular, when there are so many other mountains that are just as challenging but can be climbed with a clean conscience?
Is it really the experience, counting for itself, that those climbers claim to seek? I doubt that. Its about belonging to a exclusive club, either by paying or by having some attribute. And of course, everyone is in it for having the attribute, not the money.
If it really was about the experience, why not just ignore somebody who was never there? Respect comes to those who do incredible things, not regarding what other humans might think about it or consider of this accomplishment. Thus respect is rare.
Sure, you can do the same for Everest, but then you're actually in a class of elite alpinists. That's not really what we're discussing here.
Complete beginners climb Everest as their first and often last major summit. No argument about altitude can prove that it's not a beginner climb if hundred of beginners are doing it every year.
It's basically a warning to people who think they have the ability to do something, only to find out when the rubber hits the road, they were completely unprepared for what happened.
FYI:
Aconcagua - elevation: 22,841
Everest - elevation: 29,029
Aconcagua is the highest mountain outside of Asia. Thus, it is the highest mounting in the Western and Southern hemisphere.