|
|
|
|
thewyseclimber
Jan 18, 2006, 4:55 PM
Post #1 of 25
(5331 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 3, 2004
Posts: 179
|
Related to my earlier post about the Edmund Hillary book, I was thinking as I read lately about alpinism and style.
I have no experience in this area, unfortunately, but would certainly love the opportunity to get into the alpine climbing. My nearest experience is class 3 walkups. This aside, I still enjoy reading and hearing discussion of climbing style and ethics, especially in the alpinism vein.
My questions are numerous. I'll just throw some ideas out and hopefully this will create some dialogue.
Reading about Hillary and company and their all-out assault on Makalu in 1961, it struck me that this sort of climbing sounds extremely unappealing to me. They spent laborious days cutting steps, fixing ropes over terrain that today would be unnecessary, and other such things as limited by the gear, technology, and know-how of the day. For their time, perhaps this was the acceptable ethic, and maybe the only way of doing things. Again, this to me sounds like the opposite of fun and appeal.
I know little about the practicality and possible implementation of alpine style attempts, currently or in the past, in a variety of mountain ranges and terrains. From what I understand, the higher and longer the ascent, the less possible it becomes to achieve a clean alpine style attempt. However, what satisfaction is gained by laying a month-long siege to a peak, to eventually subdue it by sheer force of numbers and over-preparation? Among other concerns, involving numerous Sherpas or other able-bodied porters to haul your crap so you can have the "pleasure" or distinction of summiting is outrageous. Stylistically, ethically and aesthetically, this type of ascent cannot be justified in my mind.
I would like to hear from a wide range of climbers here, people with Himalayan experience, time in the Alps, Andes, 7 Summits, etc., adhering to the variety of styles and climbing preferences.
|
|
|
|
|
phaedrus
Jan 18, 2006, 5:19 PM
Post #2 of 25
(5331 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 24, 2002
Posts: 3046
|
phaedrus moved this thread from General to Alpine & Ice.
|
|
|
|
|
ebonezercabbage
Jan 18, 2006, 5:21 PM
Post #3 of 25
(5331 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 10, 2004
Posts: 151
|
Where to start....
I may not be one of the climbers you listed at the end of the post, as i am so far away from acomplishing any of those at this juncture in my life, however i have a few opinions.
As for the preperations and long planning, my mindset has always been, i'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it. And though i haul all my own gear around, and sometimes the gear of my fellow climbers, ( i'm called bear, but "workhorse" would have worked well too), i can definitely see times when having sherpas with you is not only a plus, but a need. In the thin air about 3000 meters, your needs are much different, you need different things to survive and loads are harder to bare.
When i set out to summit a mountain, i look at it as my own siege. I spend a good deal of time planning, looking for possible routes, trying to get all the information i can to plan the best trip for myself and my group. If i do these things for my little mountains in the 'dacks and some out west, i can only imagine what it must be like for much greater mountains.
I don't know if this answers any questions, or is even relavent actually, its just what was brought to my mind when i read your post.
|
|
|
|
|
climbingaggie03
Jan 18, 2006, 5:56 PM
Post #4 of 25
(5331 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2004
Posts: 1173
|
I'd attribute their choice of tacticts to the gear that was available to them. Their clothing and crampons were vastly inferior to what we have available to us today, as was much of their gear. Their gear was also much heavier, requiring more effort and people to haul it.
I think now tactics are determined by your goal. If your goal is to stand on the top of one or several of the worlds tallest mountains, then hire a guide, train hard, and go. It won't be easy, but it will be easier than doing it unsuported. But if you have the skills and experience necessary, and you want to do a line in an aesthetically pleasing style, and truly test your limits then alpine style is the way to go.
|
|
|
|
|
roy_hinkley_jr
Jan 18, 2006, 6:32 PM
Post #5 of 25
(5331 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2005
Posts: 652
|
Climbing an 8000-meter peak like Makalu is a different ballgame...nothing in the Americas even comes close. Most of them you can't even reach basecamp without hiring porters and/or pack animals and hiking for 1-2 weeks. Even for the two that you can drive to, the body requires many weeks to acclimatize. Getting HAPE or HACE is the opposite of fun and appeal. Climbing with Sherpas and learning about their culture is one of the pleasures of mountaineering. Read "Expedition Planning" from the Mountaineers if you want a better idea of what's involved. No such thing as over-preparation when you're at 25,000 feet and a storm is rolling in.
|
|
|
|
|
agrauch
Jan 18, 2006, 6:44 PM
Post #6 of 25
(5331 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 20, 2001
Posts: 217
|
While the gear of 50 years ago, or even 30, may have contributed to the use of siege tactics, it certainly doesn't today. But people continue to use those tactics today, look at guided groups or some of the Russian high altitude climbers.
It seems to me that the choice of tactics has a lot to do with your cultural climbing background. Just because silly Americans can't find satisfaction camping on the side of a peak for a month, doesn't mean that someone else won't.
As much as I hate to admit it, laying siege to a mountain seems like a pretty good way to acclimatize. You could spend your acclimation time climbing lesser peaks or pushing you route upward. Personally, I'd rather climb smaller stuff first.
It's incredibly impractical to think that you can get away with not using porters in some place like the Himalaya or the Andes. Regardless of how you climb, you still have to eat. And if you're staying in base camp long enough to acclimatize, you have to bring a lot. Sure you could carry it all yourself, but shuttling loads when the approach is a day or more is not really going to happen.
Getting people to carry your junk up the route for you is another story.
|
|
|
|
|
olderic
Jan 18, 2006, 8:34 PM
Post #7 of 25
(5331 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 17, 2003
Posts: 1539
|
I'm drawing a blank as to the name and the author but there is an oft quoted article written 30+ years ago that does a pretty good job of describing this. The author divides climbing into 7 categories ranging from simplest (bouldering today) to most complex (expedition game - which you were talking about). The rules for what is allowed are strictist for the simplest category and get relaxed as you move up. Bouldering you have no extraneous gear, no dabbing etc. Expeditions allow anything - fixed ropes, oxygen, porters and so on. Anytime you can play a higher game by the stricter rules of a lower one you have improved things.
His principles pretty much have predicted the way climbing has evolved - what that has to do with what you enjoy doing - well taht's up to you.
|
|
|
|
|
stymingersfink
Jan 18, 2006, 9:04 PM
Post #8 of 25
(5331 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 7250
|
how about a more recent historical look at expeditions? covering expeditions twenty years after hillary, this book may give you some insight on the progression of ethics and tactics. Here is a picture of the cover from Powells books (another fine bookseller) http://www.powells.com/....cgi?isbn=0898864364
An excellent read, too.
|
|
|
|
|
toml
Jan 23, 2006, 9:08 PM
Post #9 of 25
(5331 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 6, 2004
Posts: 71
|
That article is "Games Climbers Play" by Lito Tejada-Flores, in the intermittent publication "Ascent", in 1964.
This is an excellent article that has been, I think, reprinted in various mountaineering anthologies. I'm sure you can dig one up, especially with 5 minutes and a librarian.
Hillary's 1961 expedition was about tackling something that, at the time, was believed to be [and almost certainly was] too difficult, too ambitious to be achieved in better style than they did. To achieve it AT ALL would be monumental. Over time, better technology and knowledge has allowed modern climbers to try the same objectives in better style, and allowed that lower 'style' to be applied to even more ludicrously difficult objectives.
And while climbers quibble about the style of a given ascent, most of the quibblers are incapable of replicating the ascent even in its 'inferior' style, or perhaps in any style. Most of the valid quibbles revolve around damaging the mountain (garbage, drilling bolts, etc.) such that the experience for succeeding climbers is altered. Tejada-Flores, I think, draws a line between 'ethics' and 'style' (or was this someone else?), where 'ethics' involves the damage done, and 'style' is about the bar you set for yourself (e.g. no porters).
In reply to: I'm drawing a blank as to the name and the author but there is an oft quoted article written 30+ years ago that does a pretty good job of describing this. The author divides climbing into 7 categories ranging from simplest (bouldering today) to most complex (expedition game - which you were talking about). The rules for what is allowed are strictist for the simplest category and get relaxed as you move up. Bouldering you have no extraneous gear, no dabbing etc. Expeditions allow anything - fixed ropes, oxygen, porters and so on. Anytime you can play a higher game by the stricter rules of a lower one you have improved things. His principles pretty much have predicted the way climbing has evolved - what that has to do with what you enjoy doing - well taht's up to you. |
|
|
|
|
kixx
Jan 25, 2006, 1:40 AM
Post #10 of 25
(5331 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 23, 2005
Posts: 178
|
WOW, I am really into this discussion so I hope some good intuitive responses come along... even ones I disagree with.
First of all I agree with some of the posts so far that are citing past sources in saying that when getting up something the first time style can be discounted, although ethics need to be adhered to (inventing an aircraft that can fly to the summit is un-ethical climbing). Every climb after that on any particular route must be done in an improved style to be credible.
I grew up mountaineering in the North East US (yes I said mountaineering and North East US in the same breath) and here we link climbs and go on summit bagging trips, refining our style every time out. When a record is set it is up to challengers to not only beat that record but do it in better style - no support, no car, etc.
As far as laying siege to a mountain I think we should all be WAY beyond that style and attitude toward the mountains. Siege tactics are for people with a lot of money for a lot of useless crap, to carry up a standard route, that they are not even in shape to carry in the lowlands. If that is your bag than hire a guide and stick to the standard yak routes - you'll have a blast.
If you are really into pushing the limits of style there is another problem; A lot of wannabe alpinists brag about suffering through a bivy with hardly a sleeping bag, very little food, and then continuing the next day with no water etc etc. Yes bad things happen and sometimes we just have to push on, but instead we should hear more bragging about how gear was used intuitively to limit the load, increase speed, and still stay comfortable... that is the ultimate in style.
To achieve this ultimate style takes years of experimentation and failures along with successes. By reading some of Steve House's articles over the years you can virtually witness the progression to this style. Steve in one example of only a few folks who are truly pushing these limits.
For me I will never bring anything just in case and the thought of "I would rather have it than not have it" is for people who don't like to think about anything and have no interest in improving themselves. I borrow ideas from through hikers, alpinists, distance runners, rock climbers, and all those who came before me and were smart enough to write about their experiences in the mountains. Leave no stone unturned in your quest to become better. I make and dry all my own food, modify my shelters, and rip apart all my gear, sewing it all back together the way I need to travel more efficiently, and more comfortably>>> Improving my style.
I failed on the north side of Denali by taking too much crap in bad expedition style and trusting somebody else to help carry it all to the mountain - NEVER AGAIN.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jan 25, 2006, 2:23 AM
Post #11 of 25
(5331 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
I've never done a big peak though I have a modest alpine resume, nothing to brag about, standard punter fare. I do have a smattering of big wall first ascent experience though, mostly in the company of better climbers, but not always.
I can't stress enough, feeling the terrible weight of mortality, its visceral, its like a physical force, always bearing down. The bigger the project, the greater the force.
And we know the risks up there, we've made it our business to study them. We're all too acutely aware of the million ways to die. We carry each one of them up the hill every time we climb too.
To contemplate the big wall equivalent of alpine style? A rope and a rack and the shirt on our backs; GO!
To seriously contemplate a virgin grade V or harder, one that is obviously at the limit of your ability from the git go? I can't kid myself in that situation...
You really could die up there. Alpine... you can do everything right, and die anyway. Its that freaking risky. We call it a style, but that doesn't do the risk it carries justice. Its a choice, and it may carry death as a result.
We even say it funny... alpine style, like we're combing our hair back with a smooth motion as we examine our handsome mugs in a frosted mirror on the way out to a hot date with a super model... oh yes, we sent it alpine style...
Cheers!
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
roy_hinkley_jr
Jan 25, 2006, 3:10 AM
Post #12 of 25
(5331 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2005
Posts: 652
|
The OP started with a tough 8000-meter peak as the example. For high-altitude peaks, the likelihood of both success and team safety are much greater using expedition style. So it's your choice: "style" with slim chance and very high risk or "proven" with a reasonable chance and moderate risk. On lower peaks like Denali, the dichotomy is less distinct.
|
|
|
|
|
rleggett
Jan 25, 2006, 3:39 AM
Post #13 of 25
(5331 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 24, 2004
Posts: 12
|
Roy, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that you are pro "expedition/siege" style.
|
|
|
|
|
kricir
Jan 25, 2006, 3:46 AM
Post #14 of 25
(5331 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 15, 2005
Posts: 434
|
agrauch said
In reply to: It seems to me that the choice of tactics has a lot to do with your cultural climbing background. Just because silly Americans can't find satisfaction camping on the side of a peak for a month, doesn't mean that someone else won't. As much as I hate to admit it, laying siege to a mountain seems like a pretty good way to acclimatize. You could spend your acclimation time climbing lesser peaks or pushing you route upward. Personally, I'd rather climb smaller stuff first.
This makes me laugh. Americans have long been the laughing stock of the alpine world. We take out huge amounts of supplies to siege a technically easy route that a European will blast in a few days to acclimatize, then walk around to the back side and actually “climb”. I Would argue that if there was any nationality of climbers who are happy camping out for a month it would be those from the U.S.
And yes, those who climb high peaks in alpine style do acclimatize, just like the expedition style folks. They just do it on lesser peaks or on easier, safer routes. This acclimatization can take just as long as on a siege expedition.
I am a great supporter of alpine style, I have not yet applied myself to the worlds greater ranges (Im 19) but I have scratched my way up a few alpine routes closer to home, and try to do so in the best style I can. I agree that style will be the next great step in climbing. The big mountains have now been climbed, what's left is to climb them in better style and by harder routes. That said, I also think its important to not criticize others for climbing in a style other than your preference, as long as they are not trashing the place too much.
Its really about what you need to do to feel satisfied with your accomplishments. Some are happy spending a month walking up snow with a sherpas doing all the work, others need to be fast, light, and independent. Sure, alpine style is more dangerous in many ways, but safer in others. The storm that rolls in at 25 k would pin down the expedition climber in there well stocked camps for a week, while the good alpinist would of pulled the plug at the first hint of weather. Its about being in the danger zone the least amount of time. This means failing more, but being alive and having the resources to come back and try again.
|
|
|
|
|
glyrocks
Jan 25, 2006, 4:59 AM
Post #15 of 25
(5331 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 614
|
In reply to: Its really about what you need to do to feel satisfied with your accomplishments. Some are happy spending a month walking up snow with a sherpas doing all the work, others need to be fast, light, and independent. Sure, alpine style is more dangerous in many ways, but safer in others. The storm that rolls in at 25 k would pin down the expedition climber in there well stocked camps for a week, while the good alpinist would of pulled the plug at the first hint of weather. Its about being in the danger zone the least amount of time. This means failing more, but being alive and having the resources to come back and try again.
Well put.
|
|
|
|
|
nonick
Jan 25, 2006, 5:15 AM
Post #16 of 25
(5331 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 28, 2001
Posts: 174
|
Its wrong to assume that Hillary and company didnt climb alpine style because of lack of mordern equipment. Plenty of people had attempted big peaks alpine style (read shipton and tillman to find out more) even in the old days.
What is alpine style? Is it climbing without fixed ropes? Without high altitude porters..carrying everything you require on your back?
I've personally met people who were on the first ascents / made first ascents of 8000 m peaks. In my opinion, many of them just didnt know any better. The 53' Everest Expedition that was sucessful was led by John Hunt who had an army background nd since then everyone assumed that big himalayan peak could only be done with fixed ropes and sherpas.
According to me the real challenge of climbing alpine style is being able to move fast with a lot of weight at high altitude. Add to that a technical terrain and things become really complicated, especially in the Himalaya. The classic himalayan style allows mountaineers the safety of numbers and a reasonable way to acclimatize. On the other hand, repeatedly moving up and down the mountain to stock up camps can be a huge problem because of objective hazards.
Personally I'd say just pick and choose the style your comfortable with. Modern day alpinists look down on the classic himalayan style, but hey..for ordinary mortals it may be the only way up a big peak.
|
|
|
|
|
roy_hinkley_jr
Jan 25, 2006, 7:33 PM
Post #17 of 25
(5331 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2005
Posts: 652
|
In reply to: Roy, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that you are pro "expedition/siege" style.
Not really. For little peaks (read: 90% of the world), alpine style makes more sense for all the usual reasons: lighter, faster, more flexible, etc. But when you're talking about peaks over 25,000 feet, the reality is expedition style is more practical, safer, and has much better odds of success yet still far from a sure thing. So far, the alpine-only proponents appear to have never been on a high altitude climb and simply don't know what it's like to have only a third of your aerobic capacity after acclimatizing.
|
|
|
|
|
rleggett
Jan 26, 2006, 6:52 AM
Post #18 of 25
(5331 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 24, 2004
Posts: 12
|
Wow JR, You sure must be bored being that %90 of the your world is "little". Just for credentials sake, maybe you should enlighten us as to what your 7500m+ experience has been.
The OP was regarding style, not rate of success. Given that within the last two years, the largest alpine face on earth (Nanga Parbat-26,658 ft.) and the longest rock climb on earth (Great Trango 20,608) were both climbed in "perfect alpine style" (and both by American teams-Kricir), Jr's argument that "expedition style is more practical, safer, and has much better odds of success yet still far from a sure thing" is moot (and almost arguable) regarding this thread.
Going back to the OP of style (and possibly opening the debate on the definition of success), I would like to hear if people would rather:
A: Spend 20+ days fixing ropes, jugging fixed lines, moving camps, working with 50+ people who are part of your "climb", all in the hope that you may attain the oh-so-illustrious title of an 8Km climber
OR
B: Attempt a huge route in under 7 day, relying purely on your partner, your two ropes, and the shit you are able to carry in your pack, facing the immense consequences of error and the increased potential for failure.
"It's better to die on your feet then live a lifetime on your knees" (read: Alpine style is WAY better).
|
|
|
|
|
akicebum
Jan 26, 2006, 3:05 PM
Post #19 of 25
(5331 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2003
Posts: 258
|
Here's a little fact for you. In 2003 I was on the Japanese route on Pumori. It was my first time on a mountain that size, we had acclimated on island peak. We were climbing the route in a total seige style, 3500ft of fixed lines two camps. The first two weeks the weather was decent, but then we got blasted with snow. By the time we reached the upper snow slopes teh new snow fall made them impassable. Had we climbed Alpine Style we would have no doubt stood on the summit.
Last year on Denali, we first acclimated on the west butt then climbed the Cassin Ridge in 84 hours from basecamp to basecamp. 51 hours on the actual route. The easier you make your escapes the more likely you are to fail. I believe that mountains require our best efforts. If you can't climb a mountain by fair means then you have no business being there.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jan 26, 2006, 3:36 PM
Post #20 of 25
(5331 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: I would like to hear if people would rather: A: Spend 20+ days fixing ropes, jugging fixed lines, moving camps, working with 50+ people who are part of your "climb", all in the hope that you may attain the oh-so-illustrious title of an 8Km climber OR B: Attempt a huge route in under 7 day, relying purely on your partner, your two ropes, and the s--- you are able to carry in your pack, facing the immense consequences of error and the increased potential for failure. "It's better to die on your feet then live a lifetime on your knees" (read: Alpine style is WAY better).
I would probably do neither, as I have done neither to date. I think a huge part of this 'style' discussion involves doing. But... I would only make a serious alpine attempt such as you describe if I was supremely confident in my ability to retreat. I would not, at this stage of my life, commit to an all or nothing over the top route. I would bet good money that when confronted with the reality of a life gamble, most of us climbers would back away.
Which leads me to your last sentence: those are the words of a young man (totally cool, don't get me wrong). If style is more important than your life, that's your choice. I bet that puts you in the .01% of climbers who would be willing to bet it all to reach the summit.
As I've grown older and become a family man, survived two near fatal accidents and lived with the consequences of breaking my body, I gotta admit... I'm not interested in a gamble on something as ephemeral as style.
If that is life on the knees so be it. Its worked for humanity heretofore, it will continue to work on the extended event horizon.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
rleggett
Jan 26, 2006, 4:10 PM
Post #21 of 25
(5331 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 24, 2004
Posts: 12
|
Cheers Dingus, I totally agree with you. My argument is...If you are going to do something, do it right and do it well. I don't want to die for the sake of style. I do however want my existence and actions to be progressive. Big mountain climbing is ludicrous, however if you do participate, realize that you may die (no matter your style), and do it safely and properly. Challenge yourself and advance your game and the sport. Climbing is (used to be) about adventure and challenge. I fail to see either in expedition style tactics.
Just because you are able to jug fixed lines and got a bit winded doing it doesn't mean s--t. That's not climbing.
For an argument regarding the "safer" style, read J.Lowes letter in Alpinist # 5. I think he knows a bit about the game.
Gotta run, the school bell just rang.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jan 26, 2006, 4:13 PM
Post #22 of 25
(5331 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
Cheers mate. Just packed my youngest out the door to class herself... 4th grade!
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
jackscoldsweat
Jan 26, 2006, 4:52 PM
Post #23 of 25
(5331 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 18, 2003
Posts: 380
|
In reply to: agrauch said In reply to: It seems to me that the choice of tactics has a lot to do with your cultural climbing background. Just because silly Americans can't find satisfaction camping on the side of a peak for a month, doesn't mean that someone else won't. As much as I hate to admit it, laying siege to a mountain seems like a pretty good way to acclimatize. You could spend your acclimation time climbing lesser peaks or pushing you route upward. Personally, I'd rather climb smaller stuff first. This makes me laugh. Americans have long been the laughing stock of the alpine world. We take out huge amounts of supplies to siege a technically easy route that a European will blast in a few days to acclimatize, then walk around to the back side and actually “climb”. I Would argue that if there was any nationality of climbers who are happy camping out for a month it would be those from the U.S. And yes, those who climb high peaks in alpine style do acclimatize, just like the expedition style folks. They just do it on lesser peaks or on easier, safer routes. This acclimatization can take just as long as on a siege expedition. I am a great supporter of alpine style, I have not yet applied myself to the worlds greater ranges (Im 19) but I have scratched my way up a few alpine routes closer to home, and try to do so in the best style I can. I agree that style will be the next great step in climbing. The big mountains have now been climbed, what's left is to climb them in better style and by harder routes. That said, I also think its important to not criticize others for climbing in a style other than your preference, as long as they are not trashing the place too much. Its really about what you need to do to feel satisfied with your accomplishments. Some are happy spending a month walking up snow with a sherpas doing all the work, others need to be fast, light, and independent. Sure, alpine style is more dangerous in many ways, but safer in others. The storm that rolls in at 25 k would pin down the expedition climber in there well stocked camps for a week, while the good alpinist would of pulled the plug at the first hint of weather. Its about being in the danger zone the least amount of time. This means failing more, but being alive and having the resources to come back and try again.
somebody has been reading Twight.
regurgitated.
JCS
|
|
|
|
|
brutusofwyde
Jan 31, 2006, 12:56 AM
Post #24 of 25
(5331 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 3, 2002
Posts: 1473
|
In reply to: My argument is...If you are going to do something, do it right and do it well.
Right and well by whose definition? mine, or yours??
In reply to: I do however want my existence and actions to be progressive.
Willi Unsoeld had something to say about it. Although he abhorred expedition climbing, one of his best days in the mountains was on the fixed ropes of Nanga Parbat.
In reply to: Challenge yourself and advance your game and the sport. Climbing is (used to be) about adventure and challenge. I fail to see either in expedition style tactics.
Thank you for defining for all of us what climbing is about. You feel that way, fine. Don't go on expeditions. Personally I don't set my sights so high. Nor do I take myself so seriously. I see significant challenge and adventure in expedition style tactics.
In reply to: Just because you are able to jug fixed lines and got a bit winded doing it doesn't mean s--t. That's not climbing.
In your not-so-humble opinion.
I get winded standing in the parking lot outside the bar. But I still enjoy myself in the mountains. And I don't care if you think it's climbing or not.
Whether its using oxygen, expedition tactics, rap bolting, crash pads, performance enhancing drugs... whatever, it all boils down to the same tired discussion:
"That's not climbing!"
"Yes it is"
"No its not!"
"Yes it is!"
"'Real' climbers don't do (insert subject of the moment here)!"
"Yes they do!"
"No they don't!"
"Yes they do!"
Brutus
|
|
|
|
|
drake
Jan 31, 2006, 3:27 AM
Post #25 of 25
(5331 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2004
Posts: 136
|
Hehehe....
you can tell Brutus has been around the block. It would be my guess that he is one of those wise old (relatively speaking) dogs that gets off the porch and get his game on in the mountains, from time to time. Maybe more so than several posting above.
Anyways.......beauty is in the eye of the beholder fella's. What others will tout, others will dismiss as a sham.
Just when someone claims a pure alpine endever, someone else will do it lighter faster and more pure. And so it is and will always be.
I have my opinions but it similar to discussing religion. When people are passionate about a topic, there is soon to be arguments about, "my style is the best and you can't change my mind......" Bouldering sucks.....sporties blow.......aid is cheating........ice tools are aid (duh! but they're fun)...........climbing is cold weather is stupid..........yadda yadda....
It's all about YOUR style and whether it satisfies you.
With the original topic.
There are many good points. Most alpinist (and mountaineers) strive to better their ability to climb peaks a little more efficiently, a little lighter, faster and in good style. It comes with the territory. Just look are what we are doing. The general nature of our personalities is of someone who is not lazy. Someone who has ambition and drive.
If we could all go into the mountains a leave no trace of our trespass, that would be in the best style.
light is right
get strongerr and faster
and dare to fail
Jedi
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
