Red5, I was thinking that a good way to measure would be to do what you said. Figure out what percentage of climbers ever redpoint 5.12b and then figure out how many triathletes finish a half ironman.

One of the reasons I do triathlons is because I'm naturally not good at it. It just feels soooo haaard. Climbing is really natural for me, and after I do Coeur d'Alene, I'm going to go back to climbing with what I learned from training something that is this hard.

Just to chirp in, I would say that doing a 5.12b is harder then doing a HIM, in that less people out of a 100 random people could actually ever do it. That being said, I kinda think finishing a HIM is more of an accomplishment... actually thought about it some more, and I am not so sure, if there was a climb you had worked on for months straight trying to nail all the moves then put it all together the day you finally got it all right would feel pretty damn good too...

Its kinda a neat question, cause the sports are similar in some wierd way, both reward steady consistant work with steady improvement which is what I think I have always liked about both sports.

In conclusion... I have no idea which is more rewarding, but if you've managed to do both in your life I salute you !

What dialect is this? ;)

I don't think achievement is necessarily related to how dangerous something is. I think it's all about the pride you have in reaching the goal.

That said, the biggest achievement is the one you take more pride in :) It might be a tie, that's ok!

This is REAL climbing language...I could start talking about chicken heads and nostrils or mashies,bashies and copperheads and throw in the odd comment about a "funkness device."
Or I could really mess with folks and mention expanding cracks and jugs...or French technique (but that's ice climbing.)

But whatever...all my successes, in tri's or climbing, pale in comparison to being a successful father or a good son...

Who wants to catch some air?

Just for the sake of the conversation, Anton, nothing more..

Of course you can compare these two things - you just choose the variables you want to compare. We do it all the time. Never mind the old "apples and oranges" conundrum. I like Brahms better than AC/DC, so what?

1. Take Risk as a parameter for example.

Going 70.3 is within the scope of any average athlete who can dog paddle and owns a bike. What's the risk? A blister on your little toe? For any averagely fit, healthy individual a 70.3 is a doddle.

Climbing a 5.12 is a life threatening experience. For experts only, and on a closed course. Do not try this at home.

2. Energy demands? Well, Pete didn't say how long the pitch was, but Lynn Hill could probably do it in a lunch break and barely break a sweat. Even the best Pro tri-athletes are going to be exhausted at the end of 70.3 miles if they do it at their usual race pace. Your Age Groupers might need an IV afterwards and definitely aren't going to be in great shape the next day.
What this highlights is that relatively speaking a 5.12 is a sprint (even though you don't 'rush" at it) and the 70.3 is an endurance event.

3. Speed - covered in the above #2.

4. Equipment needs, vis-a-vis costs/weight? Well we know you need a list of stuff for HIMs as long as your arm but you don't carry all of it at once and costs vary - 'cos you can use 2nd hand stuff, borrowed stuff or used stuff, but you don't climb a 5.12 with used, 2nd-hand or borrowed stuff! At least I wouldn't. And there won't be a lot of it, weight wise for obvious reasons.

and so on.

I think questions like these are fun to think about. Sometimes they lead to interesting revelations. Sometimes they just help kill a little time. Thanks Pete.

PoC

I wish I knew more about climbing so I could respond intelligently here.
I understand the top rope thing vi-a-vis risk reduction. The climb ratings are relevant. Since you press me.. my point is rather that triathlon is low risk in the relevant areas compared with climbing - notwithstanding various qualifiers we could employ.

Articles have appeared over the years comparing sports to determine the "Toughest sport" - I believe Heavyweight Pro Boxing was considered the toughest in that one. It is subjective to a degree so qualifying the question carefully helps in keeping the issues clear and up front.
Pete's question was simply put and invited all kinds of comparisons (which we indulged in) - he might even have been bragging a little (we forgive you Pete).

At some visceral level the appeal of a sport is couched in the perception of the athlete who is thinking about doing the sport.

I'm chicken. I don't want to fall off anything, rope or no rope, so I view rock climbing as a high- risk activity and doing a HIM as a doddle: a nice morning swim, a 90k bike, then a 20k brick. It builds an appetite. Nice.

and I know others may be horrified at the thought, so be it.
If it was easy, everybody would do it.

PoC

I LOVE this! Thanks Pete! A thread on trifuel that's about something totally different!
Of course danger is relative...I'm thinking of the three folks who slammed into each other at 40 mph going down the 9k drop at IMLP...race over.
And Pete..if you got up 5.12, i don't care if it was a top rope or runout with manky pro....good on you!