7summits forum!

7 summits and other mountain stuff => Polls => Topic started by: 7summits on Apr 23 2003, 14:14

Title: What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: 7summits on Apr 23 2003, 14:14
This is a poll about the classic 7th summit issue: (http://7summits.com/poll2/poll1.php?poll_id=7)
Possible answers:
- Carstensz Pyramid, Irian Jaya
- Mt Kosciuszko, Australia
- Mt Cook, New Zealand
- I don't know
- I don't care, but this site is cool ;-}

Is Autralia a continent as Encyclopedia Britannica says so? But then there would be 6 summits as Eurasia is one continent. Is it a political border? Or a geaographical one? Oceania vs Australia?

Many sides of the story are explained in this FAQ (http://7summits.com/faq/index.php?display=faq&nr=38&catnr=8&prog=p1&lang=en). But what do you think?

Looking forward to seeing your votes (http://7summits.com/poll2/poll1.php?poll_id=7) and comments here!
Title: Re:What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: peak_bagger on May 17 2003, 19:55
I dont think Kociuszko is even a question, as the highest peak in australia is Mawson peak at 2745m
this peak is located on heard island which is part of Australian teritory
Title: Re:What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: Ronald Naar on May 23 2003, 21:31
It is Hkkabo Razi in Burma.

I plan to climb it in august 2003.
Title: Re:What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: 7summits on May 24 2003, 00:16
Well, 'Ronald', I thought that most Australians would know that Burma /Myanmar is part of the Asian continent  ;)

It is Hkkabo Razi in Burma.

I plan to climb it in august 2003.


Title: Re:What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: Matt B on May 29 2003, 07:16
Kociuszko is definately a consideration.  If the continents are defined as a large land masses, islands are excluded - they are not part of any continent.  Else if we're talking the division of the entire political world into 7 units "continent" then it's Carstensz.  


I dont think Kociuszko is even a question, as the highest peak in australia is Mawson peak at 2745m
this peak is located on heard island which is part of Australian teritory
Title: Re:What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: peak_bagger on Jun 2 2003, 04:37
if were talking political boundries than is'nt Carstwnsz in Indoneasia which is part of asia, and as we all know the highest peak in asia is everest.

we must remember that a continent is difined by land mass and not political boundies,



Kociuszko is definately a consideration.  If the continents are defined as a large land masses, islands are excluded - they are not part of any continent.  Else if we're talking the division of the entire political world into 7 units "continent" then it's Carstensz.  


I dont think Kociuszko is even a question, as the highest peak in australia is Mawson peak at 2745m
this peak is located on heard island which is part of Australian teritory

Title: Re:What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: Attic Tony on Jun 7 2003, 04:28
Kosciuszko is the highest point on the Australian landmass.
But, although most of Indonesia is part of Asia, Irian Jaya is part of the Australian continent in the same way as, for example, the UK is part of Europe. So Carstensz is the true 7th summit.
I'd still climb both though  :D
Title: Re:What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: trunl on Oct 8 2003, 20:02
it is well documented in our history that there are in fact SEVEN continents North America, South America, Africa, Europe, Asia, Antarctica, AND Australia.
Title: Re:What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: Ron on Oct 12 2003, 12:39

Kosciuszko is the highest point on the Australian landmass.
But, although most of Indonesia is part of Asia, Irian Jaya is part of the Australian continent in the same way as, for example, the UK is part of Europe. So Carstensz is the true 7th summit.
I'd still climb both though  :D


i agree m8
Title: Re:What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: trunl on Oct 13 2003, 02:09
actually that would mean that there is no 7th summit as you describe a land mass as a continent a and carstensz in the highest oceania one
Title: Re:What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: dave on Feb 6 2004, 07:08
This is ridiculous , Australia is a continent and Kosciousko is the highest point.

Just admit the reason its not here is because its too flat and easy to climb.  That's the real reason its not on the list.

Let's just be honest! ! !
Title: Re:What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: 7summits on Feb 6 2004, 16:04
This is ridiculous , Australia is a continent and Kosciousko is the highest point.
Just admit the reason its not here is because its too flat and easy to climb.  That's the real reason its not on the list.
Let's just be honest! ! !
Well, thanks for your comment. Kilimanjaro is just as easy to climb, but that is not the point. We think it is ridiculous to exclude non-volcanic islands that are on the same continental plate. The Torres Strait, which is only abot 15 meter deep now was not there between 20-60,000 years ago. Back then the island of Guinea was even connected by a landbridge to Australia!
You can read abou the remaining islands and their history here (http://www.abc.net.au/ra/pacific/places/country/torres_strait_islands.htm).
If there is another ice age, than the strait will be dry again, so then suddenly Guinea is part of the continent again? According to your vision, on which continent is an island like Jersey? Or Schiermonnikoog for that matter  :)
Check out this site about the history of Papua (http://www.worldstates.ws/World_States/Oceania/Papua_New_Guinea/History.htm). Here's a quote:

Quote
The first settlers to Papua New Guinea migrated from Southeast Asia probably at least 40,000 years ago during the Pleistocene Epoch, or ice age. At that time the polar ice caps were larger than they are today, and with more water locked in the ice caps, the oceans were considerably shallower. Many of the present Indonesian islands were part of the Asian landmass, so there were fewer water barriers to human migration. New Guinea was attached to Australia and to Indonesia’s easternmost islands by a land bridge, although it was separated from Indonesia’s central islands by water.
Title: Re:What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: trunl on Feb 9 2004, 05:17
we're not talking 20-60,000 years ago. we're talking about today.
Title: Re:What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: 7summits on Feb 9 2004, 14:36
The continents are the same today, just the water level is a few meters higher. You tell me how that changes the continents underneath?
You tell me on what continent Papua is? And the UK? And Tasmania?
Title: Re:What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: trunl on Feb 10 2004, 06:47
Papua is part of asia. it is listed as it being part of asia in several sources. just tell me if you want me to find some, and i will.
Title: Re:What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: Ron on Feb 10 2004, 13:37
Reveal your sources
Title: Re:What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: trunl on Feb 11 2004, 05:19
in yahoo weather, you go to asia, then papua.

in www.hrw.org/doc?t=asia&c=png, you go to asia, then papua.

papua is listed in Asia Business Today.

at cartographic.com, you look at maps of asia, and papua is listed under there.

is that good enough?
Title: Re:What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: 7summits on Feb 11 2004, 05:26

in yahoo weather, you go to asia, then papua.

in www.hrw.org/doc?t=asia&c=png, you go to asia, then papua.

papua is listed in Asia Business Today.

at cartographic.com, you look at maps of asia, and papua is listed under there.

is that good enough?


No. As asked before, what about the UK, Tasmania, Schiermonnikoog?
And maybe even more important: what about Papua New Guinea, the other half of the same island?? Politically (as that is what you mean) this belongs to Australia. Would that mean that one island belongs to 2 continents?
You can as much find yahoo pages as you want, but it will not change the fact that Papua/PNG are on the same continental shelf as australia, just like tasmania. All other Indonesian islands (that were never connected to Papua) are on the asian shelf. The fact that Indonesia took Papua over from the Dutch (in 1962) does not mean it is suddenly on teh asian shelf, nor does it mean that under the Dutch it was part of the European continent. Politics and geology are 2 completely different things.
Title: Re:What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: trunl on Feb 12 2004, 05:32
i completely understand what u are saying. first of all, if a single island can be split between countries, then, yes, it can be split between two continents, even if it is on the australian shelf. second of all, show me a single source that states what you say. i gave you 4.
Title: Re:What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: 7summits on Feb 12 2004, 05:42

first of all, if a single island can be split between countries, then, yes, it can be split between two continents, even if it is on the australian shelf. second of all, show me a single source that states what you say. i gave you 4.

This is the silliest thing I ever heard ::)
You have no clue what a continent or geology is. Clearly a waste of my time.
Check out the Carstensz list and tell those climbers that they are all stupid and that you will tell them what a continent is.
Let's agree to disagree, ok, and leave this thread open for others...
Title: Re:What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: trunl on Feb 13 2004, 10:03
ok. but i did not say they were stupid. im sorry if i offended you. i did not mean for it to sound like i thought you were stupid. i actually do respect other people's opinions and am willing to listen to their ideas. again, sorry.
Title: Re: What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: MoT on Apr 13 2004, 05:42
Ah crap - does this mean I don't belong to ANY continent?  ;D I used to sit here on the periphery of Europe (in Ireland), now I'm just living in oblivion...  :-[

Although Bertie Ahern is now the new crowned King of Europe (for a while anyway)  :lol)
Title: Re: What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: Bill on Apr 22 2004, 20:53
The seventh summit is on Australia. It is defined as a continent, whereas Carstensz is located on what is clearly an island. This other mountin that is on Heard island is clearly on an "island".

To Quote:
"Unfortunately, there really isn't a good definition of a continent. The Oxford English Dictionary gives a pretty standard definition: "One of the main continuous bodies of land on the earth's surface." Even geology and geography books aren't much more precise. A definition this vague means that the number of continents will vary depending on what criteria you consider.

There are two main ideas that go into what makes a continent. The first is the "large continuous land mass" idea, and the second deals with continental plates. If you look at continuous land masses, then Europe and Asia should definitely be a single continent. But what exactly does "continuous" mean in regard to continents? Africa is definitely connected to Asia, but people usually think of it as being a separate continent. The same goes for North and South America. If you're thinking that any connection is enough to make two land masses continuous, then there are four continents: Antarctica, North and South America, Australia, and Europe/Asia/Africa. Size is also an issue. There's no strict lower limit to how big a piece of land has to be to be a continent, but Greenland, for example, is considered an island, not a continent.

Continental plates may seem to be a good criterion for dividing up continents, as they are fairly separate and unambiguous. Unfortunately, there are lots of them, and they divide up land masses in some pretty odd ways. Here is a good map of the continental plates. As you can see, India would be a separate continent, as would Asia Minor and Central America. One could decide that they are too small to be continents on their own. Making things more confusing, a good chunk of western Siberia would be included with North America!

To summarize, the definition of continent is vague enough that what is and is not considered to be a continent is largely determined by history and custom. It ends up being a mix of continuous land masses, continental plates, and size, so whether there are five or seven continents just depends on how you want to divide up the Earth. As an aside, note that the division between Europe and Asia can't be justified by either the continuous land mass or the continental plates idea; it's just a cultural consensus."
Quote from: Torsten Bernhardt, Staff, Biodiversity, Redpath Museum, McGill University

So, It is really a matter of social consensus and custom as to the definition of a continent.

If one is to start deciding what plate the moutain is on to satisfy this question, then Denali is suspect. It is not a part of the North American continent. It is an accreation that has bound itself to the NA land mass for a time. Elbrus is just a

One has to look at the history of where this whole issue came from. Rienhold Messner, who is the greatest mountaineer of all time and one of my heros, was the one who brought this about. He felt that Kosiusko was not a real challenge ansd looked for another mountain that was harder, and higher. So, he climber Carstensz and then proclamed it the true seventh summit. With his most respectable weight behind the claim, now here we are.

Island versus land mass. Not much to really argue about, in my opinion.
Title: Re: What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: MoT on Apr 23 2004, 14:46
Isn't there some peak in an island south of Australia that's higher than Kosciuszko? It's part of Australia, but not joined to the mainland... It's in stormy waters and awful remote but is technically the highest mountain in Australia... Doesn't that complicate things? Who wants to be the first TRUE 7 summiteer?  :lol)
Title: Re: What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: Bill on May 3 2004, 20:49
It is on Heard Island. But again, that is an "Island" and not a part of the main land mass. Just because it is politically attached to Austrailia, does not mean that it is the highest point on the continent.

I think it is really interesting that Kosciuszko is the only one that is argued about, and that is because it is not a physical challenge. If it were, this would not be in dispute. Challenge doesn't mean the climb itself. The challenge is the whole experience. Having climbed 5 of them, I can tell you that the physical part of the climb isn't what makes the climb challenging. Money, planning, time, coordinating, luck... these are all a part of this challenge that in many of the mountains are more important. Lets face one fact. 5 of the seven summits are not really a mountaineering challenge. They are considered "hiking' mountians, and not technical at all. Everest itself is not a technical climb. Challenging to be sure!!

Anyway, I think the mountaineering community in this argument focuses to much on the heighth of the hill, or the physical challenge. These are a part of the process, but not the end all be all.

Title: Re: What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: trunl on May 4 2004, 04:37
whats the big argument? why does it have to be Carstensz or Kosciuszko? why not both? (but not cook)

thats what i vote for. the eight summits.

trunl
Title: Re: What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: Bill on May 5 2004, 01:55
Well, I think you might have the answer in the end. Since most folks are doing both, one day it may be the "8 summits", and there will be no more issue.
I figure that each person on this path will decide for themselves what thier 7 are. It is a life accomplishment. Just doing Everest itself is a life accomplishment. Hope to finish up my seven there myself.
Title: Re: What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: 7summits on May 6 2004, 15:09
In my view the continents together must cover the entire earth. Papua is certainly no part of the Asian continent, in fact is it physically part of the Australian continent; only a few thousand years ago the ice caps started melting again and then the land connection between Australia and Papua (as well as Tasmania) was covered in shallow water.

Again: if the Uk Islands would contain a mountain of 6000m, would it not be considered Europe's summit?

I think the debate between Mt Blanc vs Elbrus vs, Eurasia has more grounds actually..

I figure that each person on this path will decide for themselves what thier 7 are. It is a life accomplishment. Just doing Everest itself is a life accomplishment. Hope to finish up my seven there myself.
Now that's a statement I can live with  8)
The seven summits are the best way to see, enjoy and understand the world around us. In the end you should climb it for yourself, but ofcourse sometimes only lists like the 7summits can help in getting sponsorhip etc, that's ok.

Keep climbing and enjoy!
7summits
Title: Re: What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: Brian on May 11 2004, 08:45
sooo...speaking of Blanc Vs Elbrus, why is that issue not up for more debate?  why is Elbrus considered the highest summit of Europe when Russia isnt really what most people think of when they think of Europe?

regarding the original question about the "7th summit", I would have to go with Australia as a continent, not including surrounding island, regardless if they are part of the same continental plate, and therefore Kosciuszko as the 7th summit...IMHO.

cheers all!   :)
Title: Re: What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: trunl on May 14 2004, 06:55
lol. mt. blanc isnt going to be a seven summit just because russia isnt what most people consider of when they think of europe. come up with a stronger argument.
LOL.  ::) ::)

trunl
Title: Re: What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: Dave on May 19 2004, 08:42
To 7 summits.  "politically Papua New Guinea is part of Australia"!?!?! Its been an independent country since 1975.

Continents are North America, South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, Australia Antarctica.  Islands are islands, and continents are continents.

Why can we JUST BE HONEST and say that Kosciousko is too boring to be included.  God!
Title: Re: What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: 7summits on May 19 2004, 12:33
To 7 summits.  "politically Papua New Guinea is part of Australia"!?!?! Its been an independent country since 1975.

Continents are North America, South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, Australia Antarctica.  Islands are islands, and continents are continents.

Why can we JUST BE HONEST and say that Kosciousko is too boring to be included.  God!

Hey Dave, not the land Australia, but the continent Australia. In this part of the world (Europe) this is what geography teaches us: the world is divided into 7 parts. This means the entire world is divided into 7 parts. Those parts are called "world-parts" in European Geography. Some countries belong politically to one or more of these worldparts. Russia for example is part of Europe and Asia.

One of them is the world part of Australia, but this 'part' also includes new zealand, tasmania and PNG. Thanks to the dutch and Indonesians, the line was drawn there, although ofcourse all papuas are ethnically the same with the Aboriginals as the countries used to be one/connected until a very short period ago as you know.

How come no-one ever answered my previous question
Quote
Again: if the Uk Islands would contain a mountain of 6000m, would it not be considered Europe's summit?

How can you exclude a large part of the world if you divide the world into 7 parts? Yes, one definition says a continent is something wich is surrounded by water but not an island and is one of the following (Eurasia, NA, SA, Af, AU An). But of you follow that definition then NA &SA are one continent as well as Af/Eurasia, leaving only 4 real continents. So that definition is self contradictory.

Instead another definition of continent regards the earth and divides it into 7 parts based on geology, including everything/covering 100% of the earth's surface. Doesn't that sound more sensible?
To me this is the truth as I was taught this way at school; but ofcourse your truth can be totally different as is apparent in the world today. That's ok, that's why we have 2 7 summits lists 8)
Title: Re: What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: Dave on May 19 2004, 20:31
Historically the word continent means a continguous land mass. Think of the sayings; "the continental United States" (not including Hawaii), "the australian continent".  People in the UK would often say that he or she is "on the continent" when they travelled to Europe.
Certainly here in australia we refer to Continental Australia, ie Tasmania is not on the Australian continent.

I've never come across a grouping which includes islands as part of continents; I suspect this is a new trend, so there now is SOME reference to the UK being part of the Continent of Europe. 

But really really really really the reason this is being argued is that Kosciousko is too boring to be included.  Come ON!

Title: Re: What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: trunl on May 20 2004, 05:37
in response to 7 summits:
"NA &SA are one continent." if im not mistaken, then you ment North America and South America are one countinent if the definition of continent is based on physical appearance rather than political.

THIS IS FALSE

even if you went by this definition, North America is separated from South America by the PANAMA CANAL. and yes this is man-made, but it still completely separates the continents!

trunl
Title: Re: What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: 7summits on May 20 2004, 12:50
Hey Trunl,
if that manmade canal makes sense then the locks in it must be considered as fixed connections as well. There will always be at least one closed to prevent the water from flowing when they level it.
Same for Suez channel in Africa.
Title: Re: What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: trunl on May 21 2004, 04:40
but the locks do not always connect the continents. and by defintion a continent is always connected to itself (always).

trunl
Title: Re: What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: 7summits on May 21 2004, 12:12
but the locks do not always connect the continents. and by defintion a continent is always connected to itself (always).

trunl
Nope, a continent is surrounded by water (always), which is slightly different and not the case.
Title: Re: What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: guest on May 21 2004, 12:27
but the locks do not always connect the continents. and by defintion a continent is always connected to itself (always).
That ridiculous.  First of all, there is always some connection, even if it is not static.

But secondly, and more importantly, a canal, even an unborken one, is not enough to make a seperate continent.  If it was, then Ontario, Quebec, and the rest of NE Canada would be considered an island, since they are seperated completely from the rest of North America by rivers that flow north from the great lakes to the Hudson, and east from the great lakes to the Atlantic.  Similarly, all of the Eastern US would be one island thanks to the river flowing south out of Lake Michigan that eventually reaches the Missisippi.  I could provide more examples if you like.  Rivers and other shallow waterways are simply NOT sufficient to divide a continent.

The fact is that we do have only four major continents: Antarctica, the Americas, Australia, and Africa/Eurasia.  For reasons of tradition, we have split the two largest of these into five continents.  That's fine, it's a nice self-contained exception to the rule.
Title: Re: What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: 7summits on May 21 2004, 13:22

Rivers and other shallow waterways are simply NOT sufficient to divide a continent.
That's exactly my point for including Papua/PNG as part of the Australian continent. They were connected only a short period ago and now the water level has just risen enough to cover the connection with a shallow layer of water. But I would watch out with big deep cruiseships there ...
Title: Re: What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: trunl on May 22 2004, 04:10
it doesnt matter how thick or thin the waterway separating the continents are. it just matters that they are there. and can you please give me the source of the definition you found that says that a continent is completely surrounded by water (always)?
Title: Re: What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: Thea-Mari on Jun 15 2004, 18:47
Howdy
Right, it is Carstensz for me, I suppose everyone have to make up his/her own mind!  But to go climb Kosciuszko would be to take the easy way out!  >:D
Title: Re: What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: Ron on Jun 15 2004, 23:33
Hehehe.......agree.....but i think if your a real climber Carstensz is pretty easy too.
The political situation is the biggets challange there. ;D
Title: Re: What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: tottelott on Jun 17 2004, 19:08
Just climb Everest, Acongaua and Vinson! ;D Since the other summits can be disscussed and argued about beeing a continent or not its a waste of time :lol)
Title: Re: What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: trunl on Jun 28 2004, 03:23
talk about taking the easy way out!  :eek) :eek)

trunl
Title: Re: What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: Juz on Jul 5 2004, 05:21
7summits wrote:
----------
"One of them is the world part of Australia, but this 'part' also includes new zealand, tasmania and PNG. Thanks to the dutch and Indonesians, the line was drawn there, although ofcourse all papuas are ethnically the same with the Aboriginals as the countries used to be one/connected until a very short period ago as you know."
----------


A continent is easy to define: your original Brittanica defintion summed it up neatly. Then you proceeded to muddy the waters by talking about continental shelves & Ice Ages. Quite simply, the "here & now" definition of a continent is as per the EB.

BTW, what the hell is a "world part"? I have never heard this phrase used before... continents, yes; regions, yes; hemispheres, yes... world parts, never. I think that your spurious definition of continents (which you have then morphed into "world parts") is almost as erroneous as your geography of the Australasian region.

To examine the errors in your above statement (and some other posts of yours in this thread):
Title: Re: What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: Ron on Jul 5 2004, 12:35
translated from Dutch a continent is the same as world part  :_)
Title: Re: What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: sylvester cletus ukpong on Aug 7 2004, 05:30
 :_[i want to learn more about the 7 countinent.
 
interesting things that is happening in the countinent.
                                                       
                                                             thanks.
Title: Re: What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: trunl on Sep 22 2004, 06:21
could you explain more?


trunl
Title: Re: What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: Alex on Nov 7 2004, 08:25
It cant be Cook. If you include New Zealand you should include New Guinea too.


Unfortunatly Kosciuszko is not really (Fine!.... it is BORING) 7 summit material in my mind. I split the world into 7 regions. The heck with continents! If we choose to go strictly with landmasses for 7 summits than mountians like Carstensz get left out. Lets at least agree that if you make the world into 7 regions- NA, SA, Europe, Africa, Asia, Antartica and Oceania (Indonisia included) that Carstensz is the 7th summit. Those regions are the boundries my 7 summits.
Title: Re: What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: Tasty on Nov 8 2004, 02:44
The problem is Alex that Indonesia is geologically split between oceania and asia...More over it is politically part of Asia...as result I would have to disagree with you that Indonesia is part of oceania...whether or not Cartenz is the 7th summit or not is up for debate...
Title: Re: What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: trunl on Nov 9 2004, 05:21
ok we got south pole (a land mass, not north pole, because it is just ice), n. america and s. america (split by the panama canal) eurasia (one mass), australia (one mass), greenland (not usually thought of as a continent, but if australia is big enough, then why not greenland), and last, the oceania (includes all ocean area, and all land masses not mentioned above).



trunl
Title: Re: What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: Alex on Nov 9 2004, 06:03
i dont know about greenland. on normal mapprojections it looks sizeable but it really is prettly small. I really dont think "continents" or "landmasses" are really exceptable ways to define the 7 summits. They are contriversial. Is the U.K. part of Europe? Is Madagascar part of Africa? Is Long Island NY part of the North American continent/landmass? Based on the continents I think we can make the world into regions (NA, SA, Europe, Asia, Africa, Antartica, and Oceania) and take the highest mountains from those to make the 7 summits. If the worlds highest mountain was in Hawaii (which it is from base to summit) how could it be denied as part of the 7 Summits?


P.S. Also: would the highest mountain on greenland be Mt. Forel?
Title: Re: What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: MikeW on Nov 9 2004, 06:27
Hey Guys!

Most people define a continent based on their tectonic plate. Greenland is part of the same tectonic plate as North America even if it's part of Denmark. The same is true with the island of Irian Jaya (Cartensz Pyramid is on that island), it is part of the same tectonic plate as Australia, New Zealand, the islands of Fiji. etc... even if Indonesia is part of Asia politically.

Technically speaking, North America and South America are part of the same tectonic plate (the Panama Canal is man made ::)), as Europe and Asia but they separate the Americas and Europe and Asia. It's fine with me.

So if you follow this logic of the tectonic plate, than Cartensz is the obvious choice for the highest peak in Oceania, but since it's closed to the general public, than make Kosciuszko the 7th summit for now.  ;D  ;) ;D

MikeW
Title: Re: What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: Andreas on Nov 9 2004, 15:28
P.S. Also: would the highest mountain on greenland be Mt. Forel?

To my knowledge Mt. Forel is 3360m, and the only mountain to exceed that height in Greenland is Gunnbjörns fjeld, Hvitserk, of 3700m. 

Title: Re: What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: tasty on Nov 9 2004, 21:59
I think geologists are still arguing about which plate Irian Jaya is on...My understanding is that 50% think its on Asia's plate...the other 50% think its on the Australasian plate...

Title: Re: What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: Alex on Nov 10 2004, 03:30
Hey Guys!

So if you follow this logic of the tectonic plate, than Cartensz is the obvious choice for the highest peak in Oceania, but since it's closed to the general public, than make Kosciuszko the 7th summit for now.  ;D  ;) ;D

MikeW

Not Kosciuszko, climb Cook!

Nonetheless however Carstensz's unavailibility shouldn't keep it from being the 7 summit though.
Title: Re: What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: trunl on Nov 10 2004, 05:47
well, currently, the 7 summits are based purely on political boundries... but my proposal above is for physical boundries.



trunl
Title: Re: What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: ThomasL on Apr 23 2005, 20:30
Gosh ... Once for all:

The problem is:
1. Should each of the seven summits be in a Part of the World or in a continent?
2. If continent, what is a continent?
 
My answers:

1. Since all people seem to climb Elbrus as the highest peak of Europe, they have to consider Europe as a Part of the World, not a continent (by the classic definition of "a large continuous land mass") . And if you consider Europe as a Part of the World, the same should be done when deciding every other highest peak. Therefore, Mt. Wilhelm is the highest peak of the OCEANIAN Part of the World.

2. Following the argument above, if you decide to climb every CONTINENT'S (by the classic definition of "a large continuous land mass") highest peak, then Elbrus shouldn´t be climbed at all, since Europe and Asia together form the Euroasian continent, and the peaks climbed should be:
* MT. EVEREST        (Eurasian continent)
* MT. KOSCIUSZKO (Australian continent) alternative KARTENSZ PYRAMID if the island New     
                             Guinea is considered to be a part the Australian landmass.
* MT. VINSON        (Antartic continent)
* MT. ACONCAGUA (American continent, which consists of the Parts of the World South and   
                            North America; the Panama channel makes no difference. [And     
                            definitely not if Kartensz is the highest mountain of the Australian   
                            continent, since this must prove that shallow water between landmasses
                            doesn´t matter when deciding what a continent is in this case.])
* MT. KILIMANJARO (African continent)

(Add Mt Elbrus and Denali if Parts of the World is preferred.)

---

From a lot of sources you can read that there are seven continents instead of five, as I wrote above. If this is correct, then the definition is not that a continent is "a large continuous land mass". And in fact, nobody knows how this "new" continent should be defined. If it is the same as a Part of the World, then it is a piece of cake though.
Title: Re: What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: Roger on Jun 2 2005, 16:23
Can someone outline when Carstensz overtook Kosciuszko as the "7 summit".  When did people start to choose Carstensz over Kosciuszko.  Did it happen to coincide with some clever marketing and offering of trips to this "new" 7 summit by a select group of expedition companies?  A new twist to their offerings?
Carstensz seems like a very expensive expedition and yet so close to me in Sydney. $10,000 US in some cases land only.  Seems a good earner especially if permits were available!  Please explain why this small mountain in these very poor regions costs so much to attain?
For me  climbing is more than just getting to the top it is enjoying the journey and culture of the particular region you choose to climb.  How many go to a climb and spend serious time experiencing the culture and people? I expect most go just to get to the top and then get back home asap.  How many write detailed journals of their experiences around the mountain and not just on it?
Roger
Title: 7 summits - Clever Marketing?!
Post by: Anne on Jun 2 2005, 17:04
Hi All,
Have you ever read Dick Bass' book on midlife crisis climbing?  ;)
He climbed Kozzie because it was easier, this makes him the 'first' seven summiter ever (1985). However Pat Morrow, did the climbing thingy on Carstensz and is the first one on the official list (1986). 
Note: even everestnews.com has 2 lists, so as not to disappoint the people who achieved all but Cartsensz. Best to do all eight I guess.
NB I learned in school that there were seven, Oceania (AKA Australasia) being no 7. Comprising NG (that is Irain Jaya (the Indonesian ;province;) and PNG), NZ, Ozzie and the islands.
It is just a practical thing to choose Kozzie over Carstensz. The island is politically instable (so the Indonesians want us to believe), so sealed off for foreigners. And K is a lot easier than Cook.
By the way Roger, Elbrus is NOT in Ukraine, but in Russia proper!
Europe is all east of the URals and north of the Black Sea/Bosporus. Russia has been part of Europe for ages (at least since Peter the Great) and has been beating our sports teams ****s all the time in European Championships (bastards)


Title: Re: What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: ThomasL on Jun 2 2005, 20:03
Reply on #58:

And as I wrote above in my too-long-contribution, if Cartensz is climbed, Denali and Elbrus shouldn't be climbed at all, leaving only FIVE tops totally left to be climbed.
Title: Re: What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: pete on Jun 13 2005, 15:06
Hello education,

Over the past few weeks I have been bombarded with inquiries about Mt everest.

My question to your department is: Why is Mt Everest being touted as the "Worlds highest mountain"?

That point is, in effect wrong.
Granted it is the worlds highest "peak", but not mountain. 

It appears that mountain height is taken from sea-level.  Which would appear to be wrong.

everest should be measured from camp 4. being 26,000',
the peak then being 3,028' and not 29028' as taught.

By that reckoning, If I stand on the shoulders of my son then I can honesty say that I am 14'6", correct?

However, Kilimanjaro stands on a plain and rises 19,340'.

So it would be the planets tallest terrestrial mountain, would it not?

If the worlds highest mountain was in Hawaii (which it is from base to summit).

It seems odd that we teach our young false-hoods and do not mind.  Is this the standard that National geographic is lowering itself to?

Kilimanjaro, Everest, Vinson, Aconcagua, Elbus and Carstensz are all "tall mountains but the wording should be tall "Peaks"
Title: Re: What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: landrover on Jun 14 2005, 00:05
dear pete,

they say, "the higher the altitude the lower the IQ". my question is: are you at a high altitude at the time of your writing ? :?)  or just plain high on vegetables  :lol) when you made your observations ? just kidding pete  ;D

peak is defined as the top most or highest portion of a mountain, a hill or a mound.

a mountain is always measured from sea level.

some people might actually enjoy your line of thought if they were actually reading your statements on a 8,000 meter peak  :o
Title: Re: What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: landrover on Jun 14 2005, 00:26
dear trunl, i believe your point of view.

dear 7summiteer, your point is well taken.
THE BRAIN HAS TWO SIDES. both of you are obviously on two different sides of the human brain.

as i am using both sides of my brain, so i will climb both peaks.
Title: Re: What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: trunl on Jun 17 2005, 02:54
Pete:
it could be argued by someone that everest, measured from base to top is 29,029 feet, if someone were to measure the base as sealevel of a continent.... so E would still be the highest....



Trunl
Title: Re: What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: Neil on Jun 18 2005, 01:32
Hello education,

Over the past few weeks I have been bombarded with inquiries about Mt everest.

My question to your department is: Why is Mt Everest being touted as the "Worlds highest mountain"?

That point is, in effect wrong.
Granted it is the worlds highest "peak", but not mountain. 

It appears that mountain height is taken from sea-level.  Which would appear to be wrong.

everest should be measured from camp 4. being 26,000',
the peak then being 3,028' and not 29028' as taught.

By that reckoning, If I stand on the shoulders of my son then I can honesty say that I am 14'6", correct?

However, Kilimanjaro stands on a plain and rises 19,340'.

So it would be the planets tallest terrestrial mountain, would it not?

If the worlds highest mountain was in Hawaii (which it is from base to summit).

It seems odd that we teach our young false-hoods and do not mind.  Is this the standard that National geographic is lowering itself to?

Kilimanjaro, Everest, Vinson, Aconcagua, Elbus and Carstensz are all "tall mountains but the wording should be tall "Peaks"


I think I got stupider reading that. Height is measured from sea level. You do know that the plains on kilimanjaro are not at sea level and are over 8000 feet from sea level. Also your're pretty ignorant to label a mountains height by superficial obeservations. Instead of saying it should be measured from camp 4 maybe you should say height should be measure from a mountains col.
Title: Re: What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: sierramtngoat on Jun 21 2006, 06:31
Holy crap, I just found this board and I'm amazed by this discussion.  Dick Bass is the first to climb the "7 summits," it was his idea, his quest, his journey.  People from all around the world took notice because of his book, and were inspired by it because HE WAS NOT A MOUNTAINEER.  If you want to follow in the footsteps of a visionary, climb the 7 he did, anything else would not the "7 summits" that he popularized.  People that want to make Carstensz #7 are foolish!  Why redefine perfection?  I respect Messner's skill, but he's just a jealous of Dick's vision.  Why must the mountaineering community try to redefine one man's vision?  Does it really matter if Carstensz is part of Australia or Oceania?  The point of the "7 summits" was to go beyond yourself in some way, set a goal, and see the world, not to be sucked into this stupid thread that started with a mountaineer's jealousy over something that has little to do with the sport of mountaineering.  The "7 Summits" includes Kozzie, because that is what Dick did.  Any other list should be called something else... like "7 Highest Points on Various Disputed Continents/Regions/World Parts/Land Masses that Exceed the Size of Greenland."
Title: Re: What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: 7summits on Jun 21 2006, 11:25
Thanks for that eloquent first post on the board  ::)
Did no-one ever teach you that if your opinion differs from somebody else's that that doesn't autmatically mean the other person is 'Stupid' or 'foolish'?

Ever been in a real discussion without reverting to useless comments like that? A little respect for other people's opinion will get you much further than useless comments like these, doesn't matter what subject and who is 'right'....

I guess anybody that doesn't live in your country, doesn't drive teh same car you do, has a different religion, votes differently or has a different skin colour is also stupid/foolish, correct?

A little respect will make this world a better place to live in.

Thanks and keep climbing
Title: Re: What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: sierramtngoat on Jun 22 2006, 07:31
Okay, who is being judgmental now?  If you cared at all about other peoples' opinions, Mr. 6+1summits, then you would have a list of 8 and cite Dick Bass as being the one who invented the "7 summits."  It is obvious that you are from the school of thought that a guy (from my country) who has vision, but isn't a mountaineer, has no business on any peak list and should be excluded by tweaking the 7 Summits list.  What is disgusting about this web site is that it is built up around Dick Bass’s catch phrase “7 Summits”; I find that highly provocative and cheesy considering you are making money off it and trying to promote some list other than Dick’s.  I see this as plagiarizing, and it shows no creativity and respect in the end.  You really should do the right thing and pay homage to the man (Dick), despite whether you agree or disagree with his7 picks; it was his idea that has motivated so many people to do the 7+1. 

I’ve also gotten the impression that this site seems to be all about you stirring your own pot and not letting others vent their passions.  I have no problem discussing things with people that aren't in the business of ripping someone else’s idea (7 Summits) and trying to make it their own by trying to convince unknowledgeable people that your list is correct and not citing Dick so that (maybe) he’d be forgotten.  7 Summits is not your thing, and I am posting here to remind others, and you especially, of that fact.  This discussion about how many continents there are, and what the highpoints are on those continents would be fine in the context of geography lesson, but the 7 Summits, in my humble opinion, has little to do with what is geographically and/or politically correct.  Lift the smoke screen.  Encourage your readers to read Dick Bass’s book “7 Summits” so that they too can see the whole picture and be inspired by Dick's quest.

Thanks for the compliment on my eloquence; I know that I must have made my points juicy and clear, otherwise you wouldn't have felt so threatened by them and replied in the way that you did!  What a silly thread.  There is only one 7 Summits list; any other list would be a customization.

Respect is something that is earned; you are not in businees to earn respect so don't expect it from me cheese-ball.

Good day to you.
Title: Re: What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: sierramtngoat on Jun 22 2006, 07:47
P.s..  Hey 6+1summits,
FYI, I am happily from and living in the San Francisco Bay Area, which is probably one of the most politically, religiously, ethnically, and sexually diverse places on Planet Earth.  I don't own a car either, so, your rip on me like I'm intollerent was way off base.  My advice to you would be to do your homework before lashing out, and remember, I can say what ever I please where I'm from.  Also, because I'm educated, expect me to comment first on the crap that you say because what you are selling is inaccurate.  If you'd like to do the same about what I write, then you'd have a leg to stand on; I'd also be impressed (not holding my breath on that one).
Title: Re: What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: 7summits on Jun 22 2006, 11:56
thanks for proving my point  ;D

I love San Fransisco, well done. It's the only place that comes near Amsterdam with regards to being politically, religiously, ethnically, and sexually diverse.
But even here we have people that call other people's opinions 'Stupid/foolish', so the geographic position clearly not defines the respect the inhabitants have for other people.

Anyway, if you would have looked a bit closer at the site you would have noticed that there are 2 lists, for both variations of the 7 summits. Also that I have said the following (amongst many other things) about Dick Bass:

"Dick Bass did what he wanted to do and it was a great achievement. He has inspired me to do mostly the same as he did, but new insights have led me to believe that my quest for the 7 summits is the real one. There is no absolute truth here though as the 7summits simply have not been defined/or have been defined in different ways if you like, my definition is one of many. "

And about Dick's book:
"This is the book that started it all and it is a great one. No it's not just two rich men buying themselves to the 7 summits, it's about men with a vision and the persistence to follow through. Read it before you judge, this is truly one of the 20th century mountaineering classics. It will help you with your dreams. (Harry)"

Of course you can call that crap as well, or any expedition operator that organizes CP trips (like Mountain Madness, Alpine Ascents, Mountaintrip or 7summits.com) etc cheeseballs, but frankly my dear, I don't give a damn. If you do not like this site, please visit something else, I won't cry about it. If you want to discuss and add something useful to this or other threads, I will let you even though it is my site and my opinion is different (and you revert to calling names). That is called discussion and respect. But you should know that, as you are from San Francisco.

There is no absolue truth in this matter and I do not claim to have it. If you do, then you are simply wrong, we both have opinions, and neither makes the other 'stupid/foolish'. By using words like that you take yourself out of a discussion and place yourself in a place without respect. But hey, that's my opinion, so it is probably crap & foolish  8)

And just to get a bit back on your views: Messner climbed 6 of the 7 summits before Dick Bass even started his quest. There was just no way that he could go to Vinson, else he would have finished before and his version is with CP. So just the fact that Mr Bass wrote a book first does not automatically mean he came up with the idea, even people before Messner have already tried (but not finished it). But Messner (Carstensz) definately started before Bass (Kozzie). Sorry, but that is not an opinion, but fact.

Best wishes from the lowlands
Title: Re: What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: Bill on Jun 23 2006, 02:44
It doesn't matter anymore. There are two lists, one for each one's own idea about what compromises the 7 Summits. To argue the point is to waste your time. I chose the K version. Other climbers chose the CP version. No one is more right than the other, and to get excited about it (seirramtngoat) only goes to show that you prob. haven't climbed any of them.

There are two lists, so deal with it. Not a darn thing can be done to change it now.
Title: Re: What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: sierramtngoat on Jun 23 2006, 04:35
Actually Bill, I'm not all that excited about it, I'm just board here at work like everyone else and have an opinion that I'm not afraid to voice.

7summits, your drop down list at the top "The 7 Summits" does not include Kozi, so a resonable person would think that it's not one, or that you don't believe that it's one.  Yes this is your site and you can post what ever you like but what you are projecting is that you are not one that recognizes the achievements of ordinary people or people that have vision.

"...but new insights have led me to believe that my quest for the 7 summits is the real one. "  Ah, so your quest is the correct one eh, so Dick was wrong all along and it is you that deserves the attention?  Dude, it's not you thing.  You just have a web site; if you seek glory, you'll have to try a bit harder, maybe come up with something original perhaps.  In the meantime, try making your site more comprehensive so that people that have a contrary view to the 7, or no view, will have all the information.

Messner never said that he wanted to climb the "7 Summits;” his goal was all the 8000ers.  Only after Dick had completed his journey did he proclaim that Dick didn't complete it correctly in attempt to deny him the prize.  It's ironic really, Dick being the first client on Everest, leaving a good portion of the mountaineering community, and perhaps yourself, licking their chops at the opportunity to climb Everest, a road that Bass basically paved for people that can't find enough sponsorship, that he would be denied complete recognition for what he did.

"Messner climbed 6 of the 7 summits before Dick Bass even started his quest."  I know this.  Clearly it was not Messner's quest to do 7, otherwise he would have called Chris Bonnington himself and set up the trip down there.  What Dick had was an original idea and for some reason, that didn't rest well with some mountaineers.  What I don't get, since Kozi is just a formality, is why Messner even bothered with climbing it.  Interesting.

"There is no absolute truth in this matter and I do not claim to have it."  Sure, you claim to have the truth, up above, you claim your quest is the "real one."

Personally, I don't see the point in digging deeper on this site.  Rooting around on sites that only focus on 7 peaks is not practical for me as I'm out every other weekend in the Sierra and am also not in the position in my life to spend tens of thousands of dollars climbing peaks that I have no personal attachment too.  I do want to climb D, A, and K someday, but not because Dick did it; I personally see no point in dropping 20K to climb an easy rock wall like CP; what a complete waste of money.  This site does have a lot of information about Messner's 7 though, so good job.  My beefs were just that you are using the name "7 Summits," and deny Kozi on your main list.  Also, with regards to the survey, I thought that it was provocative because you don't recognize Kozi and when people didn't sound off about that, or seemed denied a clean discussion by you, I got on my soap box.  I'm sorry I called you foolish, a cheese-ball, and I'm sorry if I've offended you.  Smoke a bowl for me there and and have fun with your creation.  I'll go away now.

cya
Title: Re: What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: Mountain John on Jun 23 2006, 06:31
Hey cya,

There is no problem with differing opinions, but it does seem a tad strong.  Sometimes postings appear to be stronger than they are.

Listen, I am also in SF.  Did you make one of my presentations?  I did 6 of them here in the Bay Area.  If not, I have 2 more in the Sacramento area next month.  That is okay if you are not interested!

I talk about both those summits and the debate.  I mention Dick Bass is the first person, but there is legitimate debate in the rest of the world.  That is okay.  Dick is the first one on the Kosciuszko list.  I also talk about Harry and the 7summits.   Harry, not Dick, came up with this website, and he is nice enough to publish your postings.  I know many other hosts (other websites) that really micro manage and delete postings.

As far as Dick's mountaineering ability...I agree, so what.  Honestly, I have never heard that before, about discrediting him.  He did it.  Gotta respect that.  I haven't finished his book yet.  I met a guy in 2003 that told me he would not read Dick's book, because it was HIS (the guy i met) dream, and he did not want help from Dick's book!

I also talk about what constitutes a summit.  For instance, people ask me why can't you get assistance with gear on Denali.  I say, because i accept the mountaineering standard for each climb.  So the standard is carry your own gear, and start at 7,200 feet.

If you get assistance (porters, others), well, then it is up to you if you summitted, but others will judge you too.  That is okay, use your own standards and principles.

Check the info about the presentation here (http://www.rei.com/stores/store_event_detail.jsp?pid=72F3A6C8D1338648DC2A3172984A69D7&template_id=14&template_family=webDetail&ignore_cache=1).

When I talk about these mountains, repeatedly people tell me they appreciate my humbleness.  I tell them it is hard work, but they should go after their dreams and passion.  Live your passion.

Mountain John
Title: Re: What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: Bill on Jun 23 2006, 23:33
cya,

No worries. I happen to agree with you about this whole thing.



[I met a guy in 2003 that told me he would not read Dick's book, because it was HIS (the guy i met) dream, and he did not want help from Dick's book]

Mountain John, did you by chance meet that guy at a presentation about Denali and the seven summits??

If so, I bet that was me!! HAHAHA
Title: Re: What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: Bill on Jun 23 2006, 23:35
I meant to say I agree about the K vs. CP.
I know Harry and think he is great guy just doing what he loves. I also think this is a cool site with tons of info for anyone who wants to climb these mountains.
Title: Re: What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: Mountain John on Jun 24 2006, 02:56
Hi Bill,

Yes, that was you!!!  How ya doing?  I went to that presentation about your and Guatam's wild trip up Denali.  I used your advice for training, when you guys climbed a mountain 3 times a week for 4 months.  I took it pretty seriously and summitted Denali the next season.  then Aconcagua and Everest.  so i now have 5.  when i met you, I only had one done (Elbrus).  full circle huh?  I remember you guys were going back to Aconcagua as only one of you had summitted.

Did you know I met Guatam and his girlfriend and friend for dinner earlier this year, to give advice for Everest.  I followed his trip, and I think he got ill or something and did not make it.

We'll have to get together soon.  John
Title: Re: What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: Mountain John on Jun 24 2006, 03:00
and yes, Bill, I remember you were very strong on K. not CP.

and yes, you were very strong on not reading Dick's book.  That surprised me a little, but hey, it is your dream!!
Title: Re: What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: m.c. reinhardt on Jun 24 2006, 03:56
O.K.  Here is an opinion of someone who is not currently on a quest to do the 7 summits.  Key word is opinion.  If I were on such a quest, I personally would choose to attempt both versions.  But it seems to me that each individual climber should select the list they feel is right for them.  Out of the three current lists, CP, K or both, none of them are "wrong" (in my opinion.)

My understanding of "continents" is that the definition has changed throughout history.  And to compound that fact, currently the definition of a continent is taught differently all over the world.  In other words, what I was taught in school is not necessarily what someone else was taught.  There are quite a few versions of how many continents there actually are.  And if you go with "7", that brings you to this discussion!

Lastly, I will leave you with the following link.  I don't know how accurate it is but it is an interesting addition to this discussion.
http://www.abc-of-mountaineering.com/articles/historysevensummits.asp

Cheers,
MC  :)
Title: Re: What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: Bill on Jun 26 2006, 03:55
Mountain John,

How cool to meet you. I remember Gautam talking about a guy who after our presentation went out and had more summits than us!! Nice job.  It is a whole lotta work to get these done, and 5 in 3 yrs. is a pretty good job.

When is your next presentation? Would love to go check it out.

What I meant about the Dick Bass book was that I wanted it to be as "pure" as I could have for my try. Of course it was done by alot of other folks before me, but I wanted to learn and experience it as best could be done without having a "guide book" so to speak. It aint just my dream, as can be seen by a whole lotta folks now doing it. I meet people all the time who are going to do the 7. I think that is why mountains like Everest are getting more and more "crowded".

Anyway,I just do not want anyone to think I was conceited enough to say it was my dream, as in the first, etc. I am just trying to follow in the footsteps of giants.

I had issues this year on Everest, and now I am trying to get back there next year. Money, money, money. I climbed with the 7summits-club expedition along with Harry.

Bill
Title: Re: What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: jedi-knight on Jun 26 2006, 13:43
woah!...we are back discussing on CP vs K vs MC.

i think.....no no no...i hope.....if i reach the stage of completing of the 7summits, i'll just do all 3  ;D

that way, no one will dispute it and say that i didnt do the correct version, etc.
*sigh*....are we going to argue about Elbrus vs Mt Blanc too?  ???
Title: Re: What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: m.c. reinhardt on Jun 27 2006, 01:18
woah!...we are back discussing on CP vs K vs MC.

i think.....no no no...i hope.....if i reach the stage of completing of the 7summits, i'll just do all 3  ;D

Hey, JK, I think you might want to rephrase this...doing all 3.  ;)   ;D  Just kidding, I know what you meant.


*sigh*....are we going to argue about Elbrus vs Mt Blanc too?  ???

I am guessing that no one will be arguing about Elbrus vs Mt Blanc.  The two men who are credited with the 7 summit's lists both agree that it is Elbrus.  We should be good on this one!   ::)   ;D

Cheers
MC 
Title: Re: What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: Mountain John on Jun 27 2006, 07:08
Hey Bill,

yes, very cool to meet.  wow, i didn't realize you were with 7summits/7 summitsclub!  that is sweet.  so yes, you know Harry, and then Lorenzo and Noel too.  of course, I climbed with them last year.  since they are all my Everest family, I guess you are now my step brother!  :)

well, next presentation is July 12 in Sacramento.  if you go, you can join me, Tim and the gang for dinner afterwards.  but that is a little drive, so, as far as the Bay Area, I am working out another presentation with a different store, and will let you know.

I understood what you are saying about you and the book.  totally.  your dream, i get it.  and also, I hope guides keep this as "pure" as it is now, and don't put in chairlifts anytime soon, on these mountains!

Good luck raising money for Everest.  I am working on sponsor ideas, and will let you know if they work.

Mountain John
Title: Re: What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: Bill on Jun 27 2006, 21:32
I did get to know Harry, Lorenzo and Noel. I really liked them. Great guys and I am glad Lorenzo and Noel made summit. Glad to be a part of the family!

What time on the 12th?
Title: REI presentation
Post by: Mountain John on Jun 28 2006, 02:12
Bill, start time is 7:00 pm sharp.  I am supposed to finish at 8:30, but have gone past that every time, as there is so much to cover.

REI came out with 7summits shirts a couple years ago, and North Face just came out with 7summits jackets, but they are pretty lame.  I am in marketing, so I will advise North Face I can do much better for them!!  :)

Description
 here (http://www.rei.com/stores/store_event_detail.jsp?pid=72F3A6C8D1338648DC2A3172984A69D7&template_id=14&template_family=webDetail&ignore_cache=1)

Directions:
here (http://clients.mapquest.com/rei/mqinterconnect?screen=map&link=map&id=21&lat=385983&lng=-1214498&level=7&event=zoom)

Yes, I have met so many people too.  For instance, Tim will be there again, and we'll have dinner with his friends.  Tim just attempted Denali earlier this month.  That would have been his 50th (and last) State Highpoint, and his 1st continent.  He did everything right, but had problem teammates, and had to abort his attempt for safety reasons.  good decision.

John
Title: Re: What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: 617 on Sep 27 2006, 19:56
Historically the word continent means a continguous land mass. Think of the sayings; "the continental United States" (not including Hawaii), "the australian continent".  People in the UK would often say that he or she is "on the continent" when they travelled to Europe.
Certainly here in australia we refer to Continental Australia, ie Tasmania is not on the Australian continent.

I've never come across a grouping which includes islands as part of continents; I suspect this is a new trend, so there now is SOME reference to the UK being part of the Continent of Europe. 

But really really really really the reason this is being argued is that Kosciousko is too boring to be included.  Come ON!



There is another reason: it's so much fun to see the Ozzies get pissed off about it:)
Title: Re: What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: rbarta on Jun 7 2007, 19:44
By continent it is K.  Since the exact phrase "Seven Summits" comes from Dick Bass and he used the Encyclopedia Brittanica at the time he climbed to define the seven, then "Seven Summits" should be K.  According to how he chose, if the oceans drained and Guinea then connected to Australia by land bridge, then it would change to C.  Our planet is ever changing and I have no problem with the 7 changing as the planet does over thousands, perhaps millions of years.  I don't think we should change the definition of continent to mean tectonic plate, or then we will have 15 continents (or more). 

By tectonic plates it is C.  However, by tectonic plate, there would be many more than 7 summits to conquer.  Those talking about tectonic plates saying that it excludes Denali/Elbrus probably have not seen a diagram of the plates.  There are 7 major plates and many other minor ones and I can pretty much make them fit the seven defined by those choosing C.  African (Kilimanjaro), Antarctica (Vinson), South America (Aconcagua), North American (Denali), Eurasian (Elbrus), Australasia (Carstensz) and Indian (Everest).  However, this replaces the major Pacific plate with the smaller Indian plate and leaves out many other small but significant plates (Pacific, Arabian, Caribbean, Scotia, Nazca, Cocos and Juan de Fuca).  Also it begs the question, is Everest on the Indian or Eurasian plate, is Denali on the North American or Pacific Plate and is Aconcagua on the South American or Pacific plate as they are each formed by the interaction between the plates.  In any case, if we are to define by plates we should end up with 15 summits (possibly more) and perhaps one of you can be the first to accomplish that feat!!!! 

Likewise, if we are to use the "land bridge thousands of years ago" reasoning, then Denali gets excluded as NA/SA were connected same with Elbrus and Kilimanjaro and the list becomes C, E, V, A....only 4 summits.  In fact it was all connected at one point in the earths history, so we just get Everest, 1 summit.

Once you start changing the definition, the whole concept can be changed and perhaps end up with something different than 7 summits.  I plan to climb them both because I like to see the world, climb mountains and challenge myself; but the more I think about it, the more I think K is the 7th as originally defined and C is changing the definition which brings into question the whole idea of 7.

BTW, I love how the C list is defined as the Messner list, though Pat Morrow was the first to climb it and Messner took the time to climb K before he finished the 7 (both versions) on Vinson.  And when Pat Morrow did the Messner version he said 'Being a climber first and a collector second, I felt strongly that Carstensz Pyramid, the highest mountain in Australasia … was a true mountaineer’s objective.'  Funny, I've never heard of a continent called Australasia, that's the name of a tectonic plate.  Also, I'm beginning to think that the 7 are a collection that won't necessarily appeal to the mountaineering professional.
Title: Re: What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: MikeW on Jun 7 2007, 20:01
Hey Robert!

I think that the issue has been discussed at length here and at a lot of other places, but the major argument against K is, in my humble opinion, that every pieces of land on this planet should be part of a continent. It doesn't make sense that Hawaii or the Carribean or Papua should be excluded from a continent. And if you include all of the islands into continent, than one of the indicator is the tectonic plates, it's not the only indicator but it is a strong one. And that is why the island of Papua is part of Oceania (that's the name of the 7th continent, it's been used in French for a very long time, Océanie).

MikeW
Title: Re: What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??
Post by: rbarta on Jun 7 2007, 20:25
Yes, discussed at length and I just read through it all.

That each piece of land on this Earth should be part of a continent does not fit the definition of Continent.  "Continents are understood to be large, continuous, discrete masses of land, ideally separated by expanses of water."  Then again, Europe does not fit this definition, unless we are to let "ideally" slip to nothing.  Never made sense to me as a kid in school either.  Changing the definition to meet geological discoveries (to me) is wrong, and if you do that, surely the first thing to drop is Europe from the list of continents.  It is what it is.  If we are to include continental shelf or beyond, or all islands, or tectonic plates, then that is a different word with a different definition.

Besides, I just can't figure out what continent Hawaii would be part of....Pacifica?  Then we gotta climb Mauna Kea, the 8th summit.  See what I mean, you change the definition of Continent and then you get more (or less) summits.  And that is alright, but a different challenge.  Some have changed definitions to include C, but not applied the same reasons to the rest of the world so they can still have 7.

(This reminds me of my girlfriends brother in Hawaii telling me that Mauna Kea is the worlds highest mountain because it rises from the sea floor.  I said that the definition of highest is measured from sea level, but he insisted.  So I told him that the highest is Chimborazo in Equador because it is farthest from the center of the earth.  See what happens when you change the definition)  And with that, I'm adding Mauna Kea and Chimborazo to my list of things to do.