UKC

I assume it doesn't matter a great deal whose list you finish? But to be sure, you have to go and tick two more peaks from the list you have not followed to be absolutely sure that you have climbed all 7?

In reply to zimpara:

Do the second highest ones.

In reply to MG:

Haha hilarious

In reply to zimpara:
Second highest 7 are harder. Have a look: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Second_Summits

Won't get the crowds either.

In reply to Misha:

Do the second highest ones look like they should be HVD, but feel more like F6a+ ?

In reply to zimpara:


Obviously. Its all a bit naff and arbitary really.

In reply to GrahamD:


Naff? Maybe.
Arbitrary? Not really - mostly the opposite. They're pretty clear and defined objectives with a simple reason behind them.

Although Mont Blanc is making something of a comeback in some circles, whose members never liked the idea of Elbrus being the European HP, and who probably climbed Mont Blanc in their preparation anyway, the only variable is Carstenz or Kozciuszko.

Each have reasonable arguments in their favour, but given that most people fly quite a way to Jakarta and spend quite a bit of money to do CP, it's not much more of a hassle to extend to Sydney, hop in a hire car, drive to either Thredbo or Charlotte Pass then hike a few hours to knock off Kozi, drive back to Sydney and have a beer on the beach - possibly even in the same day.

In reply to zimpara:

Maybe you should set yourself more realistic targets ...
http://www.vertexed.com/peaks/netherlands.php

In reply to Damo:

I don't quite get the argument for Kozciuszko since Australia is not a continent, merely the largest country in the continent. If folk want to define continents as being large landmasses surrounded by water then by the same token Greenland would be one and it should be the 'eight summits'. Then again if someone wanted to pick the highest on a major island within the continent they could I imagine go with Mt Cook, a significantly higher and better mountain than Kozciuszko.

In reply to Damo:

Arbitary in the same way all these 'challenges' seem pretty arbitary. Its not like its a particularly 'balanced' set of objectives after all and as your post shows - its not even as though there is an accepted definition.

Not that I'm against arbitary and naff objectives for personal motivation - its just this particular one always strikes me as publicity seeking objective rather than anything else - it certainly isn't the pinnacle of nmountaineering or exploration by any sense.

In reply to Michael Gordon:


By the conventional meaning (*) of the word - see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent - Australia is indeed a continent, one of the seven.

(* You might not agree with that conventional meaning, but that's a different matter.)

In reply to Michael Gordon:

Australia is a country and it is a continent.

In reply to zimpara:

Seven summits is old hat. Ocean's seven is the real deal https://www.scribd.com/doc/40097809/Oceans-Seven

In reply to zimpara:

Who would want to stop climbing anyway. Just climb all possibilities. Climb the second highest too.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

So unlike most other islands in the world, New Zealand isn't part of any continent? Logically it doesn't make sense.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

The continent of Australia doesn't just include the country of Australia and the highest point on the continent of Australia is not the highest point in the country of Australia.

In reply to The New NickB and others:

I would view the continent as being Oceania. I see there are differences in opinion here but there doesn't seem to be much logical reasoning behind some viewpoints. How can the continent of Europe include Iceland but Oceania be merely a region? It's a similar case. I think people confuse 'the continent of Europe' with 'continental Europe'.

If using the landmass definition I don't see how Tasmania can be part of the continent (and yet it is!). By similar reasoning, surely Eurasia would be just one continent, not two (and yet it is!).

In reply to Michael Gordon:

The link Rob posted called the continent Australia, you could equally call it Oceana. The main point is that the highest point in the continent of Australia/Oceana isn't in the country of Australia.

Europe and Asia are two different continental plates aren't they.

In reply to The New NickB:

Yes, you are correct that with Europe/Asia it is done on the basis of continental plates. So (to others) why not here?

I generally agree with you but would point out that any link you check does not say Australia (continent definition) is the same as Oceania. They say Oceania is a region incorporating Australasia, itself another region which includes Australia (which doesn't include New Zealand). But on the basis of other continents, that logic seems flawed to me.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

I agree with you, it is Rob I am disagreeing with. His link doesn't show that the island of Australia is a continent, only that a continent that includes the island of Australia is sometimes called Australia as well as Oceana.

In reply to zimpara:

Doing the top N summits by prominence would avoid all this ambiguity over what's a continent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_peaks_by_prominence#The_125_most_prom...

In reply to GrahamD:



My post indicated that six of the seven are pretty well defined, which I don't think invalidates the whole concept.

Arbitrary? So what? Climbing is bloody arbitrary, why single this form out?

If you dislike it because some whanqurs use it to big-note themselves, that's a problem with the people, not the peaks.

As for not being a 'pinnacle of mountaineering or exploration'? Yes, thanks, we've known this for about 35 years now. Only above-noted whanqurs or their deliberately misinformed, or ignorant, media would consider it such. Again, this is a criticism of the people, not the peaks.

It's like hating bouldering because boulderers wear beanies but not shirts. Bouldering is still fine despite these people.

It was snobbery of Kosciuszko not being a 'real' mountain that generated the dilemma in the first place. It's a geography-based concept, not a technical-skill based concept.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

If you are going on plates, then no, there is only the Eurasian plate. Europe as you know it is just the tail end of Asia.

Have a Google and see that if you accept New Guinea as being part of the same continent as Australia, all on the Australian Plate, then you must accept that there is the Eurasian Plate, not a separate Europe and Asia plate. Image after image shows this.
http://www.worldatlas.com/aatlas/infopage/tectonic.gif
https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/2655774_f520.jpg
https://alsiraatfivesix.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/world-map-plus-tectonic...
http://cdn.whatarethe7continents.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/tectonic-pl...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_Plate

"According to the definition of a continent in the strict sense, an island cannot be part of any continent..."
"The modern border between Asia and Europe remains a historical and cultural construct, defined only by convention..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundaries_between_continents

Therefore, geologically speaking, on plate tectonics, Europe does not exist. It is a modern political convention.

So if you want to prioritise politics over geology, West Papua is Indonesia, which is Asia, not Australia or Oceania. Anthropologically speaking, the western half of the island of New Guinea (i.e West Papua) where Carstenz is located, is Asian, not Oceanic.

You can't have it both ways.

In reply to Damo:
Damo, seeing as you pull some rank on UKC "whether you will admit it or not. " What list do you go off?

Edit*
I am inclined to stray towards the Europe is not a continent or Russia is not in Europe line.
So pure land masses not connected. But then north America and south... hmm

In reply to Mark Bull:


...and the top 10 by prominence would include all 7 summits on the Messner list, plus 3 pretty impressive 'bonuses'- pico cristobal colon, mt logan and pico de orizaba.

has anyone done them? seems like an obvious challenge if not...

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:



Christian Stangl has done all but Cristobal Colon.

In reply to Damo:





Well maybe its a perception thing, but this particular 'challenge' attracts more than its fair share of "whanqurs use it to big-note themselves" and there is probably vastly more misinformed media readership than there is informed readership. So to me at leat, the 'challenge' and the 'whanqurs' are somewhat entwined in this case.

I don't agree with your bouldering analogy. I can't think of any equivalent bouldering circuit 'challenge' that is used to up the profile of the boulderer rather than as a test of their prowess.

In reply to GrahamD:


Yes, I think it is a perception thing, but not true.

Every year around 300+ people summit Everest (not including Sherpas) and around 150-180 summit Mt Vinson. It's a fair assumption, from my experience (mostly with the latter, but also seen on Aconcagua and Denali) that many of these - especially if they pay all that $$$ for Vinson - are on the path to the Seven Summits. If they're doing Everest and/or Vinson, the hardest and most expensive of the seven, then they've almost certainly done the others.

So what this means is that dozens and dozens, maybe a hundred or more, people do the Seven Summits every couple of years - in complete silence and anonymity, using their own funds. You don't know who they are.

What you do see is three or four deluded loudmouth whanqurs banging on about it in an annoying way, and you let those idiotic few define the entire activity, ignoring the majority who are nothing like that.

In reply to Damo:

My mistake, sorry I should have checked regarding the plates. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the accepted logic does seem to be a case of 'having it both ways'. The way I see it there are 3 possible definitions of continent - plate tectonics, landmasses and political areas. It seems the accepted way is done on political areas since as you say Eurasia should not be divided on the basis of either of the other two. Therefore it seems odd to stress the landmass thing regarding Australia rather than picking Mt Cook when NZ would surely be politically in the same ballpark.

In reply to Toerag:


Thanks for the link - I enjoyed reading that. Not sure I'm going to rush out and have a go, though

In reply to Michael Gordon:

Yes, in the case of these two examples, people are going both ways simultaneously. People also pay more for bottled water than they do for gasoline when good drinking water comes free out of the tap. People do mad things.

In the case of Europe/Asia/Eurasia, I can understand the historical political, social and racial desires to have a separation. It's just entirely contradictory to the science and so obviously wrong, just looking at a map. And yet it exists...

In the case of Australia/Australasia/Oceania, given that the nature of the original 7S quest was based on geography, it's understandable the criteria would be nature/geology based, as opposed to political/social/racial. In this case, given the popularity of Carstenz, the science mostly wins, politics doesn't factor so much.

Although I do wonder, having grown up here in Australia and being taught like everyone else here that Australia is a continent - no NZ or PNG included - how much of that was sociology and politics more than science. It would come down to what degree are scientific definitions of continents based on tectonics, or on other scientific factors - regardless of politics and sociology. I'm no earth scientist, so I don't know. Generally here we don't consider West Papua to be part of Australasia - that is basically Aust and NZ - and it's not what people think of when you say Oceania - that implies all the smaller islands further east. And yet WP is on the same plate as us...

You could use one system for one thing and one for the other. The problem comes when mixing the two approaches.

In reply to bpmclimb:


A chap from here is doing them - I think he's done 3 or 4 so far. This is the account of his Molokai channel swim:- http://dailynews.openwaterswimming.com/2016/07/adrian-sarchet-is-punished-a...

In reply to zimpara:

seven summits, seven seas (what happened to graham hoyland's attempt?) solo in one push would be impressive..