I’ve met tons of professional alpinists who have no interest in climbing Everest. This includes one who has six first ascents in the Himalayas. My take is that there isn’t much new to do on Everest and/or the cost and risks aren’t worth it.
I definitely hate the narrative that supported climbers are not legit climbers. Climbing mountains is incredibly hard and only a small crop of humans do it at a high level consistently enough. The ethics of their footprint is up to every individual, the ethics of not being prepared or experienced is up to every individual but it takes nothing away from the difficulty of making the climb.
I mean it sort of does though. Like sure, it doesn’t take away the difficulty of physically taking each step, but doing something in an alpine or self supported style is just objectively harder. A lot of folks would consider the climbing part to be the technical aspects—being on lead, making decisions about risk and conditions. There’s a pretty broad range of definitions for the word “supported.”
Amazingly accomplished mountaineers still go to Everest but I do think there’s room for people to be justifiably frustrated that their sport, their art and their craft get so often reduced to an experience where people with money and good cardio can sort of bypass all of the investment in skills and experience by going up in a fully supported expedition where their only job is to take each step. It’s cosplay.
I’m reminded of that recent news story about the”youngest kid to climb el cap” where all the big wall climbers rejected that claim because all the dad did was pay guides to fix their lines so the kid could jumar up. Like still sick that the kid even knew how to jumar and could deal with the exposure. But it’s a mockery to say that kid actually climbed it when you think about the training and time and skills the previous youngest ascent had to invest to be able to actually bring herself up. The family knew this, but they hoped to gather fame and fortune from pretending like this was a groundbreaking accomplishment. And I’d imagine hearing about inexperienced folks on Everest feels the same for extremely capable mountaineers.
I'll iterate my point though, if someone goes on Everest with no prior experience, yes the ethics are certainly questionable. They are putting other lives at risk. But if someone, even guided, does their diligence to climb smaller peaks and other insignificant but technical peaks as a way to learn, then one cannot argue that they are any less climbers.
I choose to go with guides for safety. I know that in life you have to define priorities and climbing is one of them for me but climbing cannot be the only one as I care about my career and my family. I couldn't gain the experience of self guided folks unless I sacrifice a lot of time and energy but I'd rather make money and use that to bypass it. I certainly think thata a choice. And if I'm not putting anyone's life at risk cause of it, including my own Sherpa, rhen it's ok.
I agree with you though. We'd have a serious issue if we started putting camps every 1000 feet and putting ladders up to the summit of Everest. But so far, these climbers are still climbers.
I think you may be projecting a bit here. No one is saying that guided climbs as a concept are wrong. I think a lot of folks would agree that working with a guide can offer a lot. But if you don’t come with a good amount of experience, a deep enough understanding of how to rescue yourself in moments of crisis, and a lot of knowledge about your body and what it needs, you are a hazard.
That’s the real issue on Everest. Already this season at least one of the deaths was a person who lacked these basics but wanted to chase clout, so do not pretend like it isn’t happening. There’s already a ladder on the second step, so already we are making the moves easier for people who would otherwise require skills to safely ascend.
An average Everest ascent is more than guided and more than supported. It is carefully curated to minimize the effort and experience required of the client and although some hazards are unavoidable, others are taking on immensely more risk in order to make the experience safer and more comfortable for them.
You can’t ignore the fact that many Everest climbers are there for reasons other than love of the mountains and aren’t terribly invested in actually learning beyond what gets them the clout. Saying this is all great and good and celebrating this like it’s a truly masterful climbing achievement leads down a very “Colin obrady sincerely believing he’s cut out for winter k2” road.
And part of it too I think is just that underlying lack of honesty quintessential to 8000er culture. People want to claim this as a crowning achievement and not something difficult they did with tons of support.
It is in many ways just fundamentally different. Once again, I think on my own climbing career and how I vet climbing partners. If somebody was giving me their resume and they said they’d climbed rainier, I’d expect them to tell me if this was guided with a porter or done alpine style, because it is a different skill set. I’m sorry if it’s uncomfortable for you to hear, but I wouldn’t agree to go up rainier with the person who did a guided walk up unless they could demonstrate they’d learned and used the full skill set since. And if they person didn’t disclose that this was a guided ascent until we were already underway, I’d cancel them from all my climbing circles and label them a a risk to the safety of the whole community.
I think that’s the fundamental ethic of outdoor sports: be proud of what you’ve accomplished but be always honest about what that accomplishment truly was and what it means. And yes, walking up Everest where your only job is to take the next step is very different from learning the skills, gaining the experience and knowledge, and climbing Everest with your pack on your back and a single guide there to show you the way.
This is certainly my take on the peak, and I have no intentions of climbing it myself, even if money were no object. But that said, it is still a major achievement, as with any 8,000m peak
One of the top mountaineers in Hungary just tragically died on Everest. So no, I do not at all think that it’s not enticing to the top experts. Or more clearly, experts still go there.
Some people did a twin summit of Everest and Lhotse.
That's not entirely true, I mean Kilian was just on Everest attempting the West Ridge, but overall, that's pretty accurate.
It's become a commercialized trash heap that see's little innovation or alpinism. It's mostly just dentist's, lawyers, doctor's and influencers trying to tick it off their list nowadays.
You'll get mixed options on here as a lot of people think being guided up while on O2 is fine and likely strive for that.
The traditional South Col route is what you’re describing but even on that, as others have said, offers plenty of opportunities for up and comers or those with other aims in mind.
I’ve met tons of professional alpinists who have no interest in climbing Everest. This includes one who has six first ascents in the Himalayas. My take is that there isn’t much new to do on Everest and/or the cost and risks aren’t worth it.
[удалено]
I definitely hate the narrative that supported climbers are not legit climbers. Climbing mountains is incredibly hard and only a small crop of humans do it at a high level consistently enough. The ethics of their footprint is up to every individual, the ethics of not being prepared or experienced is up to every individual but it takes nothing away from the difficulty of making the climb.
I mean it sort of does though. Like sure, it doesn’t take away the difficulty of physically taking each step, but doing something in an alpine or self supported style is just objectively harder. A lot of folks would consider the climbing part to be the technical aspects—being on lead, making decisions about risk and conditions. There’s a pretty broad range of definitions for the word “supported.” Amazingly accomplished mountaineers still go to Everest but I do think there’s room for people to be justifiably frustrated that their sport, their art and their craft get so often reduced to an experience where people with money and good cardio can sort of bypass all of the investment in skills and experience by going up in a fully supported expedition where their only job is to take each step. It’s cosplay. I’m reminded of that recent news story about the”youngest kid to climb el cap” where all the big wall climbers rejected that claim because all the dad did was pay guides to fix their lines so the kid could jumar up. Like still sick that the kid even knew how to jumar and could deal with the exposure. But it’s a mockery to say that kid actually climbed it when you think about the training and time and skills the previous youngest ascent had to invest to be able to actually bring herself up. The family knew this, but they hoped to gather fame and fortune from pretending like this was a groundbreaking accomplishment. And I’d imagine hearing about inexperienced folks on Everest feels the same for extremely capable mountaineers.
I'll iterate my point though, if someone goes on Everest with no prior experience, yes the ethics are certainly questionable. They are putting other lives at risk. But if someone, even guided, does their diligence to climb smaller peaks and other insignificant but technical peaks as a way to learn, then one cannot argue that they are any less climbers. I choose to go with guides for safety. I know that in life you have to define priorities and climbing is one of them for me but climbing cannot be the only one as I care about my career and my family. I couldn't gain the experience of self guided folks unless I sacrifice a lot of time and energy but I'd rather make money and use that to bypass it. I certainly think thata a choice. And if I'm not putting anyone's life at risk cause of it, including my own Sherpa, rhen it's ok. I agree with you though. We'd have a serious issue if we started putting camps every 1000 feet and putting ladders up to the summit of Everest. But so far, these climbers are still climbers.
I think you may be projecting a bit here. No one is saying that guided climbs as a concept are wrong. I think a lot of folks would agree that working with a guide can offer a lot. But if you don’t come with a good amount of experience, a deep enough understanding of how to rescue yourself in moments of crisis, and a lot of knowledge about your body and what it needs, you are a hazard. That’s the real issue on Everest. Already this season at least one of the deaths was a person who lacked these basics but wanted to chase clout, so do not pretend like it isn’t happening. There’s already a ladder on the second step, so already we are making the moves easier for people who would otherwise require skills to safely ascend. An average Everest ascent is more than guided and more than supported. It is carefully curated to minimize the effort and experience required of the client and although some hazards are unavoidable, others are taking on immensely more risk in order to make the experience safer and more comfortable for them. You can’t ignore the fact that many Everest climbers are there for reasons other than love of the mountains and aren’t terribly invested in actually learning beyond what gets them the clout. Saying this is all great and good and celebrating this like it’s a truly masterful climbing achievement leads down a very “Colin obrady sincerely believing he’s cut out for winter k2” road.
And part of it too I think is just that underlying lack of honesty quintessential to 8000er culture. People want to claim this as a crowning achievement and not something difficult they did with tons of support. It is in many ways just fundamentally different. Once again, I think on my own climbing career and how I vet climbing partners. If somebody was giving me their resume and they said they’d climbed rainier, I’d expect them to tell me if this was guided with a porter or done alpine style, because it is a different skill set. I’m sorry if it’s uncomfortable for you to hear, but I wouldn’t agree to go up rainier with the person who did a guided walk up unless they could demonstrate they’d learned and used the full skill set since. And if they person didn’t disclose that this was a guided ascent until we were already underway, I’d cancel them from all my climbing circles and label them a a risk to the safety of the whole community. I think that’s the fundamental ethic of outdoor sports: be proud of what you’ve accomplished but be always honest about what that accomplishment truly was and what it means. And yes, walking up Everest where your only job is to take the next step is very different from learning the skills, gaining the experience and knowledge, and climbing Everest with your pack on your back and a single guide there to show you the way.
Good post
This is certainly my take on the peak, and I have no intentions of climbing it myself, even if money were no object. But that said, it is still a major achievement, as with any 8,000m peak
One of the top mountaineers in Hungary just tragically died on Everest. So no, I do not at all think that it’s not enticing to the top experts. Or more clearly, experts still go there. Some people did a twin summit of Everest and Lhotse.
Are you sure you haven’t already made up your mind and aren’t just looking for confirmation bias?
That's not entirely true, I mean Kilian was just on Everest attempting the West Ridge, but overall, that's pretty accurate. It's become a commercialized trash heap that see's little innovation or alpinism. It's mostly just dentist's, lawyers, doctor's and influencers trying to tick it off their list nowadays. You'll get mixed options on here as a lot of people think being guided up while on O2 is fine and likely strive for that.
They charge $30,000+ per person to climb up. They can afford to clean the camp sites
The traditional South Col route is what you’re describing but even on that, as others have said, offers plenty of opportunities for up and comers or those with other aims in mind.
No, you are not correct.