No, I haven't climbed Everest. I also have never bought a Lamborghini--I'm not rich. Although if we're only letting people who have done it have opinions, maybe buying a Lamborghini is really difficult. Who am I to say, I've never done it!
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.
The fact that the normal routes on Everest don't present major technical difficulties doesn't change the fact that it is immensely difficult physically and mentally due to the altitude and conditions.
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.
My point about Rainier is that you can do it with your own equipment and planning and that would require more skill and still be cheaper than paying a team to take you to the peak of Everest. People are literally learning to climb 5.6 on Everest.
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.
I understand you argue about "those internet people", but you also choose to question my motives which I find disrespectful. I'm not climbing for anyone but myself.
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.
My objections to people doing Everest aren't that it's overrated in difficulty--nobody is obligated to do difficult things. My objection is more about supporting an industry that makes deals with lawmakers to keep a monopoly, while paying sherpas a fraction of their profits to risk their lives.
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?
>Altitude is certainly a challenge, but acclimatization takes out a lot of the difficulty.
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.
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.