i agree asterisk what is not the norm i will agree with that whole heartedly.

Cool Matt! I don;t think you're naive. Are we supposed to sing Kuhmbaya now?

I think both you guys should give a group hug and sing a little song!! LOL!
i'm kidding of course............

I think the important thing to remember about style is that better style (doing more with less) usually evolves from style that uses more to gain little. Messner's first expedition to the Himalaya was with a large group that had oxygen and fixed ropes. Messner didn't use oxygen on that ascent of Nanga Parba but he used the ropes where they existed. Eventually his own style evolved whereby he didn't even need partners, ropes or women in basecamp.
That was his ideal style. Sometimes he faltered and relied on a partner and ropes. Sometimes not. This shows that individual style sometimes falters and we climb in a less ideal way than we would want. Are we less of a person if we do? Not if that style does not impact anyone else.

Lynn Hill's one day ascent, all free, all female of the Nose was only made possible by a history of aid climbing, multiple days on route, hang-dogging, sport climbing and competition. She used parts of all these styles to go back and repeat the route in the best way she could. That style (the way she climbed the Nose all free in one day)does not define her for all time but she was trying to climb in the best style FOR HER at that time that she could. She's still a awesome climber but just climbs in a different style.

Vince and Steve's ascent of the Rupal Face was achieved in admirable style but was only possible through years of experience climbing in other styles. So it goes with other, less ambitious climbers. Including the ones that use oxygen on big mountains.

I usually climb as best I can and I try and keep it simple. Simple because there is less that can go wrong with fewer people, logistics and equipment. I rarely attempt to climb in a particular style because it is the trendy thing to do. I find that kind of thinking dangerous and not much fun, which is not my style!. When I attempted to climb K2 I sometimes used the fixed ropes and sometimes did not. It was my first time attempting a 8000 meter peak and I felt that good style was getting back alive with all digits. If I were to try K2 again I would use a more minimal approach and not use fixed ropes. More for personal satisfaction than anything else. The Dutch expedition that succeeded ahead of us climbed in bad style. Meaning that upon their success they departed from the mountain leaving all their camps, trash and destroyed equipment behind. We at basecamp didn't care that they used tactics from 50 years prior. It was their trashing of the mountain that mattered to everyone in camp.

I say climb for your own enjoyment and satisfaction and learn from experience and then attempt routes in better style. So long as your style does not impose on anyone else
it matters little. And keep it safe. Trying to rush experience by climbing Denali naked and alone doesn't count if you have to be rescued by fellow climbers....I think most people are trying to climb in the best way they can at any given time. There are just many ways of expressing that. We all evolve at different speeds at different times but I think the goal is the same for all.

Peace,
JACK

Jack pretty much summed it up. I don't think it has been mentioned yet but the first ascent - Hillary and Tenzing - used oxygen. Historically in climbing to get respect for a climb you need to do it in no worse stye then the first ascent. So there is that precendent.

Another common theme is doing it in no worse style then the majority of the current people use. No one is going to get dissed for aiding the Nose. More questionable would be using a hammer on the Nose. The majority of people climbing above 8K meters use oxygen - so I wouldn't discredit anyone else who does. But the first ascentsionists were not waited on hand and fit and dragged up the mountain so someone today - paying client - might not deserve as much respect.

But ultimately - as has been repeatedly mentioned in thi sthread - people should be able to create their own adventures - the only real unethical thing is when they impede others on their adventures. Climbing aboce 8K now is a business - maybe not a big business but still very commercial - not the place for quibbling about pure climbing motives.

Some of you have a problem with the rope analogy and I don't blame you. So forget it, and use the insulated jacket instead. Indeed, the two most common injuries on high peaks seem to arise from either cold or lack of atmosphere. So use those two environmental factors and how they are dealt with.

Cold is mitigated with a parka and lack of air is mitigated with supplemental O2. To me, choosing to go light and not taking O2 may be the same sort of novelty as someone choosing to go light and not taking an insulated coat. It's certainly possible to do either, even if it's maybe silly to some. It certainly doesn't reflect poorly on anyone else.

People all over the world climb all kinds of things without parkas/O2. That means nothing when it comes to high altitude stuff.

No matter who you are or how you acclimatize, you will eventually die if you stay too long above 8000 meters. No matter who you are or how much fat you have, you will eventually die if you stay below zero without insulation. That still doesn't make a parka aboslutely necessary if you are very fast and willing to risk frostbite, just as O2 is not absolutely necessary if you acclimatize well and are very fast and willing to risk HACE. Parkas let you function better in that environment, though, just as O2 does.

All of this is not to say that it is not a hardman feat to climb at that altitude without oxygen. You are a sicky if you can. But I just can't agree that it's a style thing. It's just choosing to go without standard gear (the historical to contemporary, average normal kit being standard). Noteworthy, but nothing more.

What? Rope anology is way better than a Insulated Parka Anology.

When was the last time you saw or heard of anyone climbing an 8000 meter peak without an insulated parka. Not.

O2 is not required to climb these peaks, as proven by many.

Parka's on the other hand are required unless you do in fact have a death wish, which of course will more than likely lead to not making the ascent in the first place. But then agin I may be wrong maybe some fat, hairy, Yeti, of a man has done this in a t-shirt.

Try again.

Oxygen is used by many guiding services to level the playing field and offer their non-mountaineer clients a glimmer of hope of reaching a summit. These clients are taken to the mountains without having to put in the time and effort to learn the skills necessary to survive in this dangerous environment.


This should not be tolerated in the climbing world in my opinion.

Peoples lives are being put in danger to make buck, or several thousand in this case.

On another note, im pretty sure gear has changed significantly in the last 50 years when the summit of Everest was first reached. So has science.

Pacoarg9,

Tolerated??! Last I heard it was still freedom of the hills. People can use oxygen. It doesn't matter to me
so long as they carry out the empties on the way home.

While it may be obvious that being guided on o2 up everest may differ greatly from lower altitude climbs, such as the diamond, El Cap, Eiger N.W., Could it be important do discuss the respect of the mountain, rather than the sport? e.g. Who is worse, someone that aid climbs the casual route, or someone that abandons a tent full of trash after they have reached the summit? Or: the guide that short ropes clients through obvious bad conditions vs. the guide that demonstrates unsafe/disrespectful practices to a beginning climber?

sorry, tolerated was a little strong.....anyone has a right to do whatever they want.....lets go with severely discouraged

Ian, maybe you made my point. Everyone uses parkas because it'd be stupid not to, unless you want to risk death more than others who attempt a peak with a parka, all in the name of "style." Even though they are heavy and give you a "cheating" advantage against an average person's ability to survive in the cold. It's only not cheating because everyone does it.

Everyone used to use oxygen on Everest attempts. Messner was literally called a lunatic for climbing some high peaks without it. It was "proven scientifically" impossible to climb Everest in that way. Until it happened. Perhaps one day the same will be said for puffy jackets. No one knows that it won't. In the mindset of 2009, it would be retarded for someone to even try, because why would you? Most anyone would die in the attempt. In the "style" and mindset of 2009, a puffy jacket has nothing to do with style and not using one means only that you have a deathwish. That doesn't mean it is literally impossible. That doesn't mean that some day, somebody won't try, succeed, and stand on top of Everest without one - that one day, someone will succeed without that artificial aid. Then he can look at all us cheaters and put asterisks by our names, having proved that it can be done. And then, he'd hopefully be seen as a retard for insisting we're all doing it in poor style for continuing to use our artificial aids when it is possible to go without.

I think someone should start the O2 special operations force; along with the belay tactical squads and the wilderness off-trail hiking nazis....


somewhere in this camp is a regulator, I wanna know who's it is, and I wanna know right f'n now!

Unless I missed it, nowhere (as this thread branches out into ethical areas) does anyone mention the tons of garbage left on 8km peaks. This includes, but surely isn't limited to empty canisters.

I think the time is long overdue for us as climbers to realize that there is no place remote enough on this planet to be treated as a garbage dump.

Cheers,
Thom

When people litter, I keep my mouth shut, then I get up early to shit in their boots. When they get pissed, I say: "I thought it was ok to drop your shit anywhere."