Preuss’s rules of climbing

Paul Preuss proposed 6 rules of climbing In the early 1900’s.

The six rules of Preuss:

1. One should not only be equal to any climb that one undertakes, but be more than equal to it.

2. The standard of difficulty which a climber can conquer with safety when descending, and for which he can consider himself competent, with an easy conscience, should represent the limit of what he should attempt on his ascent.

3. Hence the use of artificial aids only becomes justifiable in case of sudden threatening danger.

4. The piton is an emergency aid and not the basis of a system of mountaineering.

5. The rope may be used to facilitate matters, but never as a sole means to make a climb possible. (meaning tension traverses were OK, but not pendulums).

6. The principle of safety is one of the highest principles. Not the spasmodic correction of ones own want of safety, obtained by the use of artificial aids, but that true primary safety which should result, with every climber, from a just estimate of what he is able, and what he desires, to do.

Jim Erickson wrote a more succinct version in Climbing:

Preuss listed his personal six rules of ethical climbing as:

1. You must not only be good enough for your chosen line. You must be better
2. “Not one step up where you cannot go down.” The skill of down-climbing needed to be learned and continuously practiced
3. Physical aid (ropes and pitons) are only to be used when an unexpected danger arises
4. Pitons are not to be used for upward progress, either for direct support or psychological aid
5. No weighting the rope to progress: up, sideways, or down
6. Security is paramount, yes, but it comes from training and experience, not from equipment.

It seems like the translation could be simplified even further:

1. Don’t climb anything you couldn’t solo.
2. Be able to downclimb anything you can upclimb.
3. Only use aid in an emergency.
4. Any weighting of gear is aid.
5. Any weighting of the rope is aid.
6. Get better before you try to climb something you couldn’t solo.

Just finished David Smart’s book on Preuss, good read.  Smart only lists 5 rules, but I recall delving into some old dusty primary research book and there were six.  But maybe I was actually reading a secondary report.

Any Dolomite historians out there?  Please get in touch.  Working on some history at http://bigwalls.substack.com

Anyone care to further refine Preuss’s rules with the latest climbing lingo, please share!

Have fun and don't die.

I have my doubts about Preuss and the first, the second not.

We can't ignore that Preuss died at 27 following those rules. Smart's book is a very interesting read, as is his more recent one on Comici.

Alan Rubinwrote:

We can't ignore that Preuss died at 27 following those rules. 

Agree. The climbing community has a problem with fetishizing danger/boldness, while overlooking the direct outcomes of that boldness.

There are many other characters throughout climbing history that this same issue applies. 

I would think that Preuss was breaking the rule #1 if he died, but I don't know the specifics... clarification would be helpful in understanding.

I really like this kind of information... thanks for sharing.

One slightly related question I keep pondering is... if those are the rules (3 nd 5, especially), how come modern climbers rappel as a general practice?  How come being on rappel (as opposed to down climbing) isn't aid?

It might be a dumb question, so feel free to disregard, but I figure that yall might have a useful take on it.

Preuss died attempting the solo FA of a route (on questionable rock) in the Bavarian Alps in poor conditions. His body was found at the base after he didn't return home, so it is unknown what caused his fall.

Rappelling--or really roping down, was very primitive in Preuss's day (pre-WW1)--often climbing down a rope hand over hand, but he did consider that to be aid (though did use the technique on occasion). I am not clear if his 'rules' required that the climber down climb the same route s/he ascended or if down climbing a separate route was acceptable (which is what I think he did after the FA of his route on the Campinale Basso in the Brenta Dolomites).

But, even in his day (and well before the Nazi's attempted to 'cancel' his memory and contributions because of his Jewish background), Preuss was considered to be extreme in his beliefs, and the climbing mainstream--then and since, has gone in a different direction

Alan Rubinwrote:

But, even in his day (and well before the Nazi's attempted to 'cancel' his memory and contributions because of his Jewish background), Preuss was considered to be extreme in his beliefs, and the climbing mainstream--then and since, has gone in a different direction

Generously put! A rather troubled soul one fears, being Austrian, Jewish then converting to Catholicism isn't a good start.

Years ago (probably on the centenary of his death) when the great and good were putting up statues and stuff (Messner and his clique) there was a cartoon going around. Grizzled old guides sent to recover the body standing around the corpse. "Rule 6, eh?" Cruel but to the point.

Rule 7: $hit happens.

Hold can break, storm rolls in, etc. Poof, you're done. 

John, i doubt climbers of the day could have imagined both the difficulty of the climbs today, but also the safety and security.  At one point Preuss derided a imagined route that had gear every 5 meters—that would be considered a runout route today.
i am reading now of a route in the Dolomites, before WWI, where a climber was rappelling down to inspect and place pitons for later assistance on a big unclimbed wall. But  I think the “ground-up” ethic was implied in all the “rules” discussions back then.

the counterpoint of course was Dulfer, who was also a talented free climber but who was more like today’s expeditionary big wall climber, who uses both free and aid to climb the most efficiently.  That was generally my style on the big jobs, so it is interesting to finally have easy access to all the original (and often arcane) German/French/Italian/etc Alpine club articles (via Google translate). In the end, it all comes down to the same thing expounded on by both active climbers and armchair mountaineers for the past century—just go do stuff.  And that it is the actual practitioners who make the “rules”, not the armchair guys.

(for me, delving into history again at http://bigwalls.substack.com is my current “do” for climbing related fun this antipodal winter)

John, I presume that you've read Doug Scott's Big walls book, which covers a lot of this ground. As you suggest, if you did a climbing 'ethics family tree', it would be Dulfer's 'branch' that has grown and expanded, not Preuss's--as much as I am impressed by his passion and willingness to live (however briefly) and climb according to his principles.

Alan Rubinwrote:

John, I presume that you've read Doug Scott's Big walls book, which covers a lot of this ground. As you suggest, if you did a climbing 'ethics family tree', it would be Dulfer's 'branch' that has grown and expanded, not Preuss's--as much as I am impressed by his passion and willingness to live (however briefly) and climb according to his principles.

I have not, but I have just ordered it from Amzn.  To be clear, I ordered the $8 paperback, not the $950 hardback.

Thanks for the responses.  I will also be checking out the substack.  Very neat-o topics.

(Lots of John’s)

Doug Scott’s book is the classic, best deal on the internet!  Used to be hard to come by after it went out of print.

John Middendorfwrote:

(Lots of John’s)

Doug Scott’s book is the classic, best deal on the internet!  Used to be hard to come by after it went out of print.

I played bass on a recording session with a John on guitar, one executive producing, one engineering, one on drums, one on BG vocals, and one producing the session.

It's a very confusing life.

Matt Nwrote:

Rule 7: $hit happens.

Hold can break, storm rolls in, etc. Poof, you're done. 

Arguably, because of this #7, combined with modern gear and ropes, I think his #3 could justify the modern direction, for many. Gain that ability....but use what means are prudent for the unexpected. Unexpected by definition, is, duh, not what you were expecting when you launched.

A good list, thanks! 

27 is way too young. Three times that is still too young, for someone that compelled toward competency. And yeah, I've met some true badasses who are still at it and way older than my 64!

Best, Helen

"the code is more what you'd call 'guidelines' than actual rules."

Seems to me, #2 is the observation that the last part of a climb is often the hardest part, so you better have enough in the tank to pull it off.

Once you've reached your objective, now have to get back down without dying, while exhausted, potentially under significantly different conditions.

Preuss's #1 should be the first rule of free solo club.

And the 2nd. 

And the 3rd.

These rules reflect the time they were created in. Rules 1 and 2 don't apply to most climbers in most situations today, imo. To me, rule 2 reads like "don't climb something you can't downclimb" because that made sense when "leader never falls" was the norm. Nowdays there's no need for that to be a hard rule.

Kurt Owenswrote:

These rules reflect the time they were created in. Rules 1 and 2 don't apply to most climbers in most situations today, imo. To me, rule 2 reads like "don't climb something you can't downclimb" because that made sense when "leader never falls" was the norm. Nowdays there's no need for that to be a hard rule.

i truly don't mean this to be rude, but the immediate irony is too good even if I agree with what you're saying.

I vaguely remember googling your anam report after you posted about it in a thread – didn't you deck after ripping a piece while downclimbing?

If you want grim, check out the accident reports in the British Alpine Journal in the 1930's to 1950's.   A sizeable percentage of all climbers were dying every year.

Just realised the first "rules" I wrote above are Doug's Scott's translation, I think I gave up.  When you read Smart's book, he calls them his thesis--German is always hard to translate exactly-- it really appears that they were trying to create rules like the rules you have in other sports.  But there were too many grey areas.  The topic of the South Face of Marmolada, which was first climbed by Beatrice Tomasson  and Bartolo Zagonol in 1901 with a few pitons, was discussed.  Rules were soon all thrown out the window anyway.

This article delves deeper into the debate at the time, great piece:   issuu.com/randisi/docs/maue…

k twrote:

i truly don't mean this to be rude, but the immediate irony is too good even if I agree with what you're saying.

I vaguely remember googling your anam report after you posted about it in a thread – didn't you deck after ripping a piece while downclimbing?

Damn, kyle taking stalking to new heghts!