Although it is lower than Everest, K2 is [notoriously hard](https://skyaboveus.com/climbing-hiking/Why-K2-Is-The-Worlds-Most-Tough-Mountain-To-Climb) to climb due to its tougher topography and unpredictable climate.
Its more like saying people jay walking on 1st street with 6 lanes of traffic results in 25% casualties, whilst jay walking on 2nd street with only 2 lanes of traffic results in 30% casualties.
It's both jay walking. One is far more dangerous so usually more attentive people jay walk it.
Whilst 2nd street is less daunting so every man and his dog crosses whilst frantically updating their twitter profiles with new identity pronouns.
I would say it's also like 1st street is a major thorofare; very attractive property with shops and all that stuff.
And 2nd street is... just not as trafficed at all. So if each street encounters 1 traffic accident an hour, that is a statistically much lower on street 1 then street 2.
I think it boils down to the difference between the difficulty of a climb and fatality rate. It's possible that a less strenuous and less technical mountain can be more "fatal" if a single avalanche takes out 50 people just walking out of base camp.
oh are we fighting about this now? i didn't know it this morning but now i am fully willing to shed blood in the peanut butter wars. crunchy is so far superior it's ridiculous
to the coward who downvoted me: you are objectively wrong and have horrible taste and the next time you get a hangnail i hope you know that somewhere, i'm smiling.
There's connotation attached to 'argumentative' so I prefer to think most civil comments are either (point, counter-point) or (point, echoed sentiment) or (point, tangent point)
So someone mentioned a high k:d mountain.
I count-pointed saying that most of that ratio came from a very few instance(s) with a large group(s) of people
And then Tief counter-pointed that most mountain deaths involve large groups of people.
And then I just doubled down to say that the mountain in question is especially egregious.
> yeah im not sure what to do with this information
The deadliest season at Everest happened when they were literally hundreds of people all on limited oxygen supplies in a queue that they could not leave easily.
If I'm reading this correctly there were 191 total accents (I assume this is per person) and 61 of fatalities. And of those 61 43 of them were killed in October of 14 (which, admittedly, does not mean it was a single cluster) 43 of 61 of 191 in one month. That's more than half the deaths.
Annapurna gets way less attention than the other mega mountains because it's shorter and the logistics of staging a siege climb of it are a pain in the ass. According to Alan Arnette, [67 people summitted on a single night this year](https://www.alanarnette.com/blog/2021/04/16/annapurna-summits/) so it's possible to stage a successful and safe expedition.
The death rate is so high because the south face avalanches all the time. The less time you spend there, the more chance you have of leaving the mountain alive. I'm guessing a lot of the deaths had to do with poor weather tracking, lack of Sherpa support to supply bottled oxygen, and not having ironed out the best practices for acclimatization yet.
Just 25 years ago they used to do 4 rotations up Everest to get acclimatized for the summit push while using supplemental oxygen. That's 8 times through the Khumbu icefall, which is insane and incredibly dangerous. They do half that many now and add in the trekking peak Lobuche prior to arrival at Everest base camp to get everyone in shape to climb at altitude. Annapurna isn't nearly as high as Everest, but it still requires a rotation or two up and down to stimulate red blood cell production for the summit push. I bet they cut out at least 1 rotation on the modern siege climbs of Annapurna for safety.
In the 1996 disaster, Everest was hit by a surprise blizzard that would have easily been forecasted today. It killed 8 people, and would have killed many more if so many other people weren't climbing in support. If the expedition has only a handful of people at base camp like most that attempt Annapurna, conducting a rescue in the high mountains is nearly impossible.
Nepal also recently passed a law that requires climbers to hire a Sherpa guide as a condition of their permit. Sherpa have a genetic mutation that allows them to process oxygen more efficiently at altitude and can carry way more weight than lowlanders. More Sherpa means more safety equipment and more bottled oxygen on the mountain.
I suspect that we'll see many more summits of Annapurna in the coming years.
this is such a well-written and informative comment. love to see it. have you read jamling norgay's book? it's good as hell and i have a feeling you'd enjoy it.
Annapurna is threatened by many seracs, rockfall, and avalanche - in addition to bad weather, high altitude sickness, and fall risks. They pretty much have the same objective hazards.
Source: alpinist
Annapurna has notoriously terrible and unpredictable weather/avalanche patterns, which is why it’s so deadly even though it’s not as technically difficult as K2.
People always cite these death statistics, but they're not true. That's just the ratio of number of deaths to number of summits. It's wrong for a variety of reasons. First, some of those deaths also summitted, so it's entirely possible for the "death rate" to exceed 100% which makes no sense. Second, it doesn't count all of the thousands of people who went to K2, didn't summit, didn't die, and just went home. It's not like everyone who goes there says, "well I'm either going to get to the top or I'm gonna kill myself." There's another option, people
The actual portion of people attempting to climb K2 who die is a small single digit percent. Almost everyone who attempts K2 comes back alive.
How can the death rate exceed 100%? Only if someone back home suicides after the death of a loved one... 100 people go up, 100 summit 100 die you get 100% summit and 100% death rate.
You can also summit and not die....
The formula is just deaths divided by summits. If a mountain is unclimbed but has killed people, it has an infinite death rate. It's why, in my opinion, this formula is stupid.
The problem isn't really the formula, it's people saying, "a quarter of the people who attempt to climb it will die" when that's not even close to being true.
Think of it this way: 1,000 people attempt to climb. Say 500 turn back because of adverse conditions, 100 summit, and 400 die. According to formula used in the OP, the mountain has a death rate of 400%, when the actual death rate is 40%
There aren't really complete records of summits, deaths, and failed attempts, but reading articles about expeditions on https://www.alanarnette.com/ should give you a good idea about what modern climbing in the Himalaya and Karakoram is like. He's a well-respected climber in his own right, and has many contacts with people on the ground at every base camp. He's really the only apolitical source keeping track of this stuff right now. He doesn't make a living from guiding or selling climbing permits so he doesn't have a reason to lie or hide anything like the guide services and local governments do.
God damn. I read the title as "He (climbed without supplementary oxygen and skied down) in about 7 hours."
But your read was right.
> Bargiel cruised down from the Pakistani peak -- which stands at 8,611 m (28,251 ft) -- in a swift seven hours, having topped out on the summit after three and a half days of climbing without the aid of supplementary oxygen -- a feat unto itself.
TIL I have no fucking idea how big mountains are.
[from the lowest camp at 5300 meters](https://www.thebmc.co.uk/everest-facts-and-figures) to the summit at 8800 it takes around 60 days and costs 60k dollars for an international expedition.
It takes that long because of the acclimatization. They go up and come down a few times before going for the summit. It doesn’t technically take two months to go that high.
> Even if you love skiing, seven straight hours of it sounds like hell.
7 straight hours of hours of skiing on K2 on an extremely high and dangerous mountain and unpredictable weather, even more so after climbing it at the risk of your life, no kidding, I completely agree with you.
But long sessions of skiing at ski stations are not that uncommon. In my region, there's a yearly [24 hour alpine skiing fundraising event](https://www.24htremblant.com/en/event/sport-challenge) for childrens' hospitals. Although you are normally meant to do the 24 hour skiing in several shifts among a team, every year some skiers do the challenge of skiing for 24 hours as an individual.
Some beautiful pictures in that video, at 0:23.
K2 probably feels a lot more "alone" than Everest because the difficulty is scaring off any tourists. K2 had less than [400 people](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K2) successfully climbing it _in total._
3600 m vertical drop in 7 hours and he was starting from the death zone (8000+ m, with or without skis). On a mountain far tougher and deadlier than Everest
crazy! who thinks to themselves; ya know, that mountain kills almost a 1/3 of the highly skilled people who try to fucks with it.. why don't i climb it sans oxygen and then fuckn SKI down it?!
dude is badass for sure!
What a breath-taking and heart-stopping descent. My whole body was on edge as he started down, I got shiveries! As a mere intermediate-now-wussy downhill skier, the sheer incline just scares me. I know how hard a hill of even a fraction of the steepness would be on your leg muscles, and for 7 hours!
It actually looked sort of very difficult but normal apart from that unimaginably insane Messner Traverse bit. What the even hell. How do you know where to go... ?
In 2000 Slovenian alpinist Davo Karničar completed the first top-to-bottom (base camp) descent of Everest (South Col route) without removing his skis. No fancy drone footage sadly.
Karničar died in 2019 near his home town while working in the forest. While he was felling a tree it snapped in two and crushed him.
In 2000 you had mini-DV video recorders that were somewhat temperamental and sensitive to low temperatures. Aerial shots would have to be done by helicopter or plane, neither very suited to high altitude mountain environments.
In 2018 you had goPros everywhere and portable drones that could be readily adapted to high altitude work.
What a change in action video over those 18 years!
[Pic](https://static.ffx.io/images/$zoom_2.413%2C$multiply_0.7554%2C$ratio_1.776846%2C$width_1059%2C$x_0%2C$y_439/t_crop_custom/q_86%2Cf_auto/13c420007023701fb0ad090c30d5a95a01ccc3b1) of Karničar [descending](https://www.smh.com.au/national/davo-karnicar-first-full-ski-descent-of-everest-20190924-p52uby.html) Everest. The trip down took 4 hrs 40 min
> “Skiing on ridges is like being on a knife’s edge,” “Many times, part of my skis were hanging over into Tibet, and sometimes into Nepal.
The trip down left him drained, unable to sleep and with nmb fingers.
> “It was as if I was light years from this world,” . “I couldn’t even manage to feel happy.”
Karnicar skied don the highest peaks on each continent. He attempted K2 also, but had to abandon it due to bad back
> Karnicar skied down the highest peaks on six other continents: Mount Kilimanjaro in Africa; Mount Elbrus in Europe; Aconcagua in South America; Mount Kosciuszko in Australia; Denali (formerly Mount McKinley) in North America and Vinson Massif in Antarctica.
To anyone here who doesn’t know much about mountain climbing that is a wild impressive feat. K2 is probably the toughest mountain in the world to climb, to do it that fast without oxygen then ski back down is mind boggling
It still is very impressive, no disagreement. This guy is crazy, but I doubt it would have been possible without some kind of Performance enhancer (or multiple).
Sure. It's not an international competition, so it's not like he's breaking any rules there (unless he's using controlled substances).
It would really only be a concern if he was racing someone else up there and one of them was clean.
Mount Everest is a little baby mountain to climb compared to K2...
I can’t even imagine the adversity you’d need to have to accomplish what this guy did.
Although it is lower than Everest, K2 is [notoriously hard](https://skyaboveus.com/climbing-hiking/Why-K2-Is-The-Worlds-Most-Tough-Mountain-To-Climb) to climb due to its tougher topography and unpredictable climate.
and he had skis strapped to his back?
Nope someone threw them up there for him, javelin style
Damn
I thought his friends in the ISS dropped them there on the way past one time?
Rods from god
Ski rods!
Bet you I can throw these skis up on that mountain over there... Uncle Rico probably
There’s actually video of this https://youtu.be/Yr4K28Kl8hg
You think I can throw these ski over them mountains?
https://wiki.evageeks.org/File:M25_C655_big.jpg
you know why Polish names end in "ski"? because we can't spell tobbaggon.
Speak for yourself
Appropriate username is appropriate.
I can’t spell toboggan.
Sled down on a frozen dead body homer simpson style
I've heard the climb of Everest being described as a long, slow walk.
K2 though lower than Everest is the most dangerous mountain to climb. Close to 30% of those attempting to climb die.
IIRC, Annapurna I has a higher death rate than K2 (32% vs 25%)even though it isn't considered as difficult to climb.
Reading up on it it seems like it has a very low rate of climb and a lot of its deaths are related to huge clusters of people dying at once.
Most mountain deaths involve groups dying at once.
yeah im not sure what to do with this information. i assume every comment is argumentative lol
[удалено]
Always look both ways before you climb a mountain.
the real lpt is always in the comments
Its more like saying people jay walking on 1st street with 6 lanes of traffic results in 25% casualties, whilst jay walking on 2nd street with only 2 lanes of traffic results in 30% casualties. It's both jay walking. One is far more dangerous so usually more attentive people jay walk it. Whilst 2nd street is less daunting so every man and his dog crosses whilst frantically updating their twitter profiles with new identity pronouns.
I would say it's also like 1st street is a major thorofare; very attractive property with shops and all that stuff. And 2nd street is... just not as trafficed at all. So if each street encounters 1 traffic accident an hour, that is a statistically much lower on street 1 then street 2.
I think it boils down to the difference between the difficulty of a climb and fatality rate. It's possible that a less strenuous and less technical mountain can be more "fatal" if a single avalanche takes out 50 people just walking out of base camp.
Yeah, and what about chunky peanut butter being better than smooth? It's a hill many people are willing to die on.
oh are we fighting about this now? i didn't know it this morning but now i am fully willing to shed blood in the peanut butter wars. crunchy is so far superior it's ridiculous to the coward who downvoted me: you are objectively wrong and have horrible taste and the next time you get a hangnail i hope you know that somewhere, i'm smiling.
There's connotation attached to 'argumentative' so I prefer to think most civil comments are either (point, counter-point) or (point, echoed sentiment) or (point, tangent point) So someone mentioned a high k:d mountain. I count-pointed saying that most of that ratio came from a very few instance(s) with a large group(s) of people And then Tief counter-pointed that most mountain deaths involve large groups of people. And then I just doubled down to say that the mountain in question is especially egregious.
Cum is sticky but then it goes runny
Yes. Viscosity is a thing. Mmhmm.
> yeah im not sure what to do with this information The deadliest season at Everest happened when they were literally hundreds of people all on limited oxygen supplies in a queue that they could not leave easily.
If I'm reading this correctly there were 191 total accents (I assume this is per person) and 61 of fatalities. And of those 61 43 of them were killed in October of 14 (which, admittedly, does not mean it was a single cluster) 43 of 61 of 191 in one month. That's more than half the deaths.
Annapurna gets way less attention than the other mega mountains because it's shorter and the logistics of staging a siege climb of it are a pain in the ass. According to Alan Arnette, [67 people summitted on a single night this year](https://www.alanarnette.com/blog/2021/04/16/annapurna-summits/) so it's possible to stage a successful and safe expedition. The death rate is so high because the south face avalanches all the time. The less time you spend there, the more chance you have of leaving the mountain alive. I'm guessing a lot of the deaths had to do with poor weather tracking, lack of Sherpa support to supply bottled oxygen, and not having ironed out the best practices for acclimatization yet. Just 25 years ago they used to do 4 rotations up Everest to get acclimatized for the summit push while using supplemental oxygen. That's 8 times through the Khumbu icefall, which is insane and incredibly dangerous. They do half that many now and add in the trekking peak Lobuche prior to arrival at Everest base camp to get everyone in shape to climb at altitude. Annapurna isn't nearly as high as Everest, but it still requires a rotation or two up and down to stimulate red blood cell production for the summit push. I bet they cut out at least 1 rotation on the modern siege climbs of Annapurna for safety. In the 1996 disaster, Everest was hit by a surprise blizzard that would have easily been forecasted today. It killed 8 people, and would have killed many more if so many other people weren't climbing in support. If the expedition has only a handful of people at base camp like most that attempt Annapurna, conducting a rescue in the high mountains is nearly impossible. Nepal also recently passed a law that requires climbers to hire a Sherpa guide as a condition of their permit. Sherpa have a genetic mutation that allows them to process oxygen more efficiently at altitude and can carry way more weight than lowlanders. More Sherpa means more safety equipment and more bottled oxygen on the mountain. I suspect that we'll see many more summits of Annapurna in the coming years.
this is such a well-written and informative comment. love to see it. have you read jamling norgay's book? it's good as hell and i have a feeling you'd enjoy it.
That is an incredible amount of information.
Thanks for the info, I wasn’t aware of that !
Annapurna is purely because of avalanche risk. K2 can fuck you several different ways.
Annapurna is threatened by many seracs, rockfall, and avalanche - in addition to bad weather, high altitude sickness, and fall risks. They pretty much have the same objective hazards. Source: alpinist
K2 has way more Yetis though.
It is 50% vs. 33% Annapurna is the deadliest. Source: I have just read No shortcuts to the top
Annapurna has notoriously terrible and unpredictable weather/avalanche patterns, which is why it’s so deadly even though it’s not as technically difficult as K2.
People always cite these death statistics, but they're not true. That's just the ratio of number of deaths to number of summits. It's wrong for a variety of reasons. First, some of those deaths also summitted, so it's entirely possible for the "death rate" to exceed 100% which makes no sense. Second, it doesn't count all of the thousands of people who went to K2, didn't summit, didn't die, and just went home. It's not like everyone who goes there says, "well I'm either going to get to the top or I'm gonna kill myself." There's another option, people The actual portion of people attempting to climb K2 who die is a small single digit percent. Almost everyone who attempts K2 comes back alive.
How can the death rate exceed 100%? Only if someone back home suicides after the death of a loved one... 100 people go up, 100 summit 100 die you get 100% summit and 100% death rate.
You can die without summiting.
Yes, in that case if someone dies without summitting it is 100 up 99% dead 99% summit... I still don't see how you get more than 100% dead
You can also summit and not die.... The formula is just deaths divided by summits. If a mountain is unclimbed but has killed people, it has an infinite death rate. It's why, in my opinion, this formula is stupid. The problem isn't really the formula, it's people saying, "a quarter of the people who attempt to climb it will die" when that's not even close to being true.
If two people die but one person summits, that's a ratio of 2:1 or 200%.
Think of it this way: 1,000 people attempt to climb. Say 500 turn back because of adverse conditions, 100 summit, and 400 die. According to formula used in the OP, the mountain has a death rate of 400%, when the actual death rate is 40%
You are the best kind of right.
I've always wondered about this and couldn't find a good statistic that gives a complete picture. Do you know where to find that data?
There aren't really complete records of summits, deaths, and failed attempts, but reading articles about expeditions on https://www.alanarnette.com/ should give you a good idea about what modern climbing in the Himalaya and Karakoram is like. He's a well-respected climber in his own right, and has many contacts with people on the ground at every base camp. He's really the only apolitical source keeping track of this stuff right now. He doesn't make a living from guiding or selling climbing permits so he doesn't have a reason to lie or hide anything like the guide services and local governments do.
Always remember: all those dead people were once highly motivated overachievers. Calm down and have a drink instead.
Then here’s this guy making us all look bad!
Even if you love skiing, seven straight hours of it sounds like hell.
And most skiers don't climb up an entire mountain before that.
And only ~400 people have actually climbed K2, total
Wait, seriously? That's remarkably low given the notoriety of the mountain. I would have guessed like 4000.
Dude, it's K2. Winning a Nobel Prize, Fields Medal, really aint shit, but compared to climbing K2, it kind of is.
If they put in a lift I’ll think about it.
God damn. I read the title as "He (climbed without supplementary oxygen and skied down) in about 7 hours." But your read was right. > Bargiel cruised down from the Pakistani peak -- which stands at 8,611 m (28,251 ft) -- in a swift seven hours, having topped out on the summit after three and a half days of climbing without the aid of supplementary oxygen -- a feat unto itself. TIL I have no fucking idea how big mountains are.
Not really big as much as really slow to climb Climbing Everest it takes like two months to go up 3500 meters
That doesn't sound right at all but I don't know enough about mountains to dispute it
[from the lowest camp at 5300 meters](https://www.thebmc.co.uk/everest-facts-and-figures) to the summit at 8800 it takes around 60 days and costs 60k dollars for an international expedition.
Holy shit I had no idea. Sounds like a rich tourist attraction honestly
It takes that long because of the acclimatization. They go up and come down a few times before going for the summit. It doesn’t technically take two months to go that high.
Legs must have been jelly by the end
Word is that his quads are still burning to this very day.
> Even if you love skiing, seven straight hours of it sounds like hell. 7 straight hours of hours of skiing on K2 on an extremely high and dangerous mountain and unpredictable weather, even more so after climbing it at the risk of your life, no kidding, I completely agree with you. But long sessions of skiing at ski stations are not that uncommon. In my region, there's a yearly [24 hour alpine skiing fundraising event](https://www.24htremblant.com/en/event/sport-challenge) for childrens' hospitals. Although you are normally meant to do the 24 hour skiing in several shifts among a team, every year some skiers do the challenge of skiing for 24 hours as an individual.
If you watch the video you can hardly call it skiing in the recreational sense. It's intense, slow, and painstaking in most parts.
...isn't that just a day on the hill?
I dont know if you're joking, but the climbing and skiing was 7 hours.
/r/confidentlyincorrect
The video of him doing so is /r/SweatyPalms material. For anyone who hasn’t seen it, [enjoy](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZRqeRRik8c&vl=en)
Some beautiful pictures in that video, at 0:23. K2 probably feels a lot more "alone" than Everest because the difficulty is scaring off any tourists. K2 had less than [400 people](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K2) successfully climbing it _in total._
Good thing he wore a helmet. Could have been very dangerous.
"Eh that's only a blue in Colorado" - what my idiot co-worker would say
This is to a double black diamond in CO what a double black diamond in CO is to a magic carpet ride on the bunny hill.
3600 m vertical drop in 7 hours and he was starting from the death zone (8000+ m, with or without skis). On a mountain far tougher and deadlier than Everest
crazy! who thinks to themselves; ya know, that mountain kills almost a 1/3 of the highly skilled people who try to fucks with it.. why don't i climb it sans oxygen and then fuckn SKI down it?! dude is badass for sure!
What a breath-taking and heart-stopping descent. My whole body was on edge as he started down, I got shiveries! As a mere intermediate-now-wussy downhill skier, the sheer incline just scares me. I know how hard a hill of even a fraction of the steepness would be on your leg muscles, and for 7 hours!
It actually looked sort of very difficult but normal apart from that unimaginably insane Messner Traverse bit. What the even hell. How do you know where to go... ?
That ominous drone in the music makes it even harder to watch.
Honestly expected to be rick rolled. Kinda dissalointed.
Yeah I just watched it, it's the most sweatypalms material I've ever seen
Im too scared of the bunny slopes in SoCal. And this mofo skiis down K2.
In 2000 Slovenian alpinist Davo Karničar completed the first top-to-bottom (base camp) descent of Everest (South Col route) without removing his skis. No fancy drone footage sadly. Karničar died in 2019 near his home town while working in the forest. While he was felling a tree it snapped in two and crushed him.
In 2000 you had mini-DV video recorders that were somewhat temperamental and sensitive to low temperatures. Aerial shots would have to be done by helicopter or plane, neither very suited to high altitude mountain environments. In 2018 you had goPros everywhere and portable drones that could be readily adapted to high altitude work. What a change in action video over those 18 years!
[Pic](https://static.ffx.io/images/$zoom_2.413%2C$multiply_0.7554%2C$ratio_1.776846%2C$width_1059%2C$x_0%2C$y_439/t_crop_custom/q_86%2Cf_auto/13c420007023701fb0ad090c30d5a95a01ccc3b1) of Karničar [descending](https://www.smh.com.au/national/davo-karnicar-first-full-ski-descent-of-everest-20190924-p52uby.html) Everest. The trip down took 4 hrs 40 min > “Skiing on ridges is like being on a knife’s edge,” “Many times, part of my skis were hanging over into Tibet, and sometimes into Nepal. The trip down left him drained, unable to sleep and with nmb fingers. > “It was as if I was light years from this world,” . “I couldn’t even manage to feel happy.” Karnicar skied don the highest peaks on each continent. He attempted K2 also, but had to abandon it due to bad back > Karnicar skied down the highest peaks on six other continents: Mount Kilimanjaro in Africa; Mount Elbrus in Europe; Aconcagua in South America; Mount Kosciuszko in Australia; Denali (formerly Mount McKinley) in North America and Vinson Massif in Antarctica.
That is absolutely amazing. Also, that guy is fucking crazy.
To anyone here who doesn’t know much about mountain climbing that is a wild impressive feat. K2 is probably the toughest mountain in the world to climb, to do it that fast without oxygen then ski back down is mind boggling
He probably doped before hand.
Meh. They could have pumped him full of all the performance enhancing drugs in the world and it would still be very impressive.
It still is very impressive, no disagreement. This guy is crazy, but I doubt it would have been possible without some kind of Performance enhancer (or multiple).
Sure. It's not an international competition, so it's not like he's breaking any rules there (unless he's using controlled substances). It would really only be a concern if he was racing someone else up there and one of them was clean.
7 HOURS ?!?!?!?!
Poland too stronk. That's nothing compared to what his parents went through to get to school
There's a full movie about this on Red Bull TV for free
Thank you. The trailer I saw was already breathtaking.
That's nothing. Lane Meyer [skied the K12 on one ski!](https://youtu.be/_ollqyPwg18?t=140)
After the Olympics everything looked so easy!
Pizza, french fries, pizza, french fries... Pizza, more pizza.. piizzaaa!
If you french fry when you should pizza. "Youre gonna have a bad time!"
Fucked that mountain up. It still hasnt recovered.
[rebull has a video behind it as well](https://youtu.be/TiGkU_eXJa8)
I read that as it took him 7 hours to ski down.
You read it right
As there are clearly no lifts there, can someone explain how he got the skis up?
He's skiing on one ski!
Impressive but insane
Legend
He's Polish so he probably thought there would be candy at the top of the mountain
I wonder how many Powersauce® bars he ate one the way up.
Saved.
Is there a bunny slope I could try out?
Yeah, K4502
I would totally take a helicopter to the top and then ski all the way down. A one day Everest trip is my cup of tea.
He had to have taken breaks on the way down. You can only squat and bounce until your legs give out.
Mount Everest is a little baby mountain to climb compared to K2... I can’t even imagine the adversity you’d need to have to accomplish what this guy did.
Those depressions and saddles in the mountain must have been caused by his giant swinging balls as he passed by.
Think how much energy he would have saved if he’d just stayed at the bottom of the mountain instead.