To be able to climb Mt.Everest

[pube-in-my-taco]

The whole "running joke" thing comes off strange to me as well. What it boils down to is this debate between Krakauer and Boukreev, and who was correct. It seems that there are credible people on both sides of the debate.

To me, the whole situation seems childish.

Krakauer wrote Into Thin Air as he saw it, and I'm convinced that he is honest in the opinions presented. I've not yet read The Climb, but when I do, I am sure that I would come to the same opinion: that Boukreev presented the events as he saw it, and is honest in the opinons he presents.

Both are personal first-hand accounts of a complicated event with a high public profile, but they are from different perspectives. You can defend Boukreev until the cows come home, but you're not going to change what Krakauer saw from his perspective as a client.

[snowsprite]

I am fairly certain this person is more intelligent than to poll Maggots and then based on the answer either embark on climbing Mt. Everest or rule it out altogether.

Seems to me it was just a little "dreaming out loud," and every huge accomplishment in life begins with that little seed tossed out, contemplated, and nurtured.

Don't stomp it out man, help him grow it. For all of you who think about this, I hope that one day you can build up the needed physical and mental toughness required and do this if it's something that really calls you. (and yeah, I'd love to do it too someday )

Sprite

[Viva]

Here's a recent review article by the great John West, the pappy of high altitude physiology. It details many of the most important physiologic traits to adaptation to extreme elevation. John also has fleas in his house...well, at least he used to.

Should the below linky no worky, I will e-mail the PDF to anyone interested. You ought to be able to download, however.

http://www.annals.org/cgi/reprint/141/10/789.pdf

[homeless]

Zach,
I think you should go back and do some real research about Krakauer's climbing record. Yes, he didn't have much high altitude experience, when he went to Everest.
As a tecnical mountaineer he has a very full record. Example, he was on the first ascent of the Ham and Eggs Couloir on the Moose's Tooth, in Alaska Range in 75'. He was also on the first ascent of the South arete of Xanadu peak in the Arrigetch Peaks of Alaska in 74'.First ascent of the west ridge of Mount Arthur Emmons in the Brooks Range, in 74'... And I think he has been to the Devil's Thumb on the Stikine Icecap of Alaska. And all these climbs where before he went to Everest.
As far as "Into Thin Air," being a running joke in the mountaineering community, I haven't heard any laughing. I thinkt its hard to laugh at someone who has stood on the summit of Everest, and come home with all their fingers and toes....
Cheers,
Halsted

You're right; Krakauer was and is a gifted, technical climber. However, in 96' he had had nowhere near the same amount of experience at high altitudes as others on the mountain... especially Boukreev.

I'm also not suggesting that Krakauer is a running joke, rather that "Into Thin Air" is a running joke. His account was clearly sensationalized and inaccurate... understandable considering the weight of the emotions sorrounding the events. However, for years he has refused to back down from the positions that he laid out in the book, even when they have been incontrovertably debunked.

I don't think that there's any real lingering animosity towards him, but a lot of folks shake their heads at his insistence at not revising that account.

Zach

[Will]

As a tecnical mountaineer he has a very full record. Example, he was on the first ascent of the Ham and Eggs Couloir on the Moose's Tooth, in Alaska Range in 75'. He was also on the first ascent of the South arete of Xanadu peak in the Arrigetch Peaks of Alaska in 74'.First ascent of the west ridge of Mount Arthur Emmons in the Brooks Range, in 74'... And I think he has been to the Devil's Thumb on the Stikine Icecap of Alaska. And all these climbs where before he went to Everest.

West Face of Cerro Torre in '92 as well.

As for Everest, assuming you're doing the traditional slog, as far as I know to reach the top you need the following:

1) Basic Mountaineering skills
2) Shitloads of cash
3) To be in good shape; less than Lance, more than your average weekend warrior.
4) The ability to acclimatize well.
5) Luck (with the weather, with logistics, with the abilities of the rest of your team, with objective hazards, etc....)

- 1, 2, & 3 are things you can prepare for.
- 4 can be improved through exercise, but at the end of it all your ability to acclimatize is genetically determined.
- 5, it's luck, what do you think?

[lemon boy]

heinous
sufferfest

[Arty50]

Why climb?

[oosik]

I'm also not suggesting that Krakauer is a running joke, rather that "Into Thin Air" is a running joke. His account was clearly sensationalized and inaccurate... understandable considering the weight of the emotions sorrounding the events. However, for years he has refused to back down from the positions that he laid out in the book, even when they have been incontrovertably debunked.

I don't think that there's any real lingering animosity towards him, but a lot of folks shake their heads at his insistence at not revising that account.

Zach

Before Everest he also had done the North Face of the Eiger. He was more experienced as a climber than probably almost all the other clients, he just hadn't been chugging up other 8000meter peaks before.

I don't agree that his account has been incontrovertably debunked. The biggest contrary position is taken by Boukreev. For some reason, folks that read both books want to believe Boukreev's book more (penned by someone else on his behalf). Clearly Boukreev had a lot riding on his reputation and would have been highly motivated to come out smelling like a rose.

Unless you are an inherently evil person, why would someone write something they didn't believe about someone else when he had nothing to gain by it? You can't make me believe it was to sell articles and books, since regardless of what happened, it was clear both would have sold just based on what actually happened. Krakauer himself expressed remorse at not getting all the details quite right for the Outside article (mostly details on what happened to certain folks leading up to their deaths and the effect it had on remaining family members), but thought he followed up on things well enough by the time the book came out. By the time a more deluxe hard-bound version of the book came out, apparently the hounding by Boukreev resulted in him providing some counter claims to Boukreev's accusations in an appendix.

I've met folks that have met Krakauer in person and basically "ripped him a new one" even though they weren't there and had only press accounts and various books to go by (plus they were armchair climbers to boot). Ultimately it is who you want to believe, and since Boukreev is dead, there won't be more new arguments emerging. Krakauer's previous writings show a great deal of research and care at getting the story right, so I would be more inclined to believe this story got told as accurately as he was able to from his perspective and experience.

[homeless]

This is, honestly, the first time I've heard his account defended... it could be a coincidence of the folks I know and have spoken to about it.

The way I read it, Krakauer consistently placed a high degree of blame on Boukreev for not using supplemental oxygen, and he characterized Anatoli as having been in flight from his senses and selfish in his actions. The primary reason for his position was an interaction that he had with Boukreev on the descent in which supposedly Anatoli was disoriented and flippant. The inverse of John's account, though, is that he himself was mostly incapacitated and only able to take care of himself....
I read it such that Krakauer's ego wouldn't let him admit that he could barely take care of himself, let alone be part of the rescue effort.

It also seemed like Krakauer really wanted someone to blame, and Boukreev made an easy target by not using oxygen. I tend to be on the side of those that see that not being on supplemental Os gave Anatoli a better chance at being consistent and having greater endurance (Oxygen was running out and everyone wsa crashing).

The characterization of Boukreev as being more ambitious than helpful also kind of rings hollow when placed against the actions that he took to carry out a rescue when everyone else was giving up.

I've got nothing against Krakauer... In fact, I'm a fan of his writing in general. I've just heard more compelling arguments on the other side of this story, and for the most part, I have heard the opinion that "Into Thin Air" is more fiction than truth, where it counts... and thus a bit of a joke.

Again, could just be who I know.

[truth]

Why climb?

No doubt Arty. When ya wanna go? I think a picnic basket is in order.

[tranzformer]

The reason I asked the questio is just to get a general idea of what you guys thought the requirements would be like. I have been climbing/hiking for several years and I know I am no where close to being ready for Everest but it is a dream of mine. As far as the difficulty question, I have heard people say that K2 and Mt.McKinley are more challenging of a climb than Everst. Anyone else hear this?

[iceman]

Oosik and Homeless, thanks for the well-written and -reasoned debate. I'm not sure who is right but it was interesting reading.

[Z]

Oosik and Homeless, thanks for the well-written and -reasoned debate. I'm not sure who is right but it was interesting reading.

Yup, great read.

One question, say someone were to climb everest WITH oxygen, does that just mean they would have a canister at there disposal whenever they were feeling it?

[homeless]

If you climb with supplemental oxygen, you pretty much have to stay on it once you start or until you descend lower than the alititude at which you started... Otherwise, the crash is pretty brutal, if you run out or turn it off.

K2 is harder than Everest by just about any route, except for maybe the Kangshung face which is just ridiculous. Denali is generally easier. Though you can get yourself into just as much trouble.

Zach

[Alioops]

I would have to agree with homeless. Krakauer certainly seemed to point the finger at Boukreev. I would also have to agree with Pube re: Left For Dead. It was an amazing story, I just didn't like the way it was written and finished the book not liking Beck Weathers attitude too much. The question is what caused the disaster? Weather? Too many people on the mountain? Pitmans and others excess? The guides trying to bag the summit for clients? All of the above plus more? After reading what I have, it seems the disaster had a good chance of being avoided if they started descent at the agreed turn around time.

I have always been obsessed with Everest and would love to do the climb, but know that it is not realistic for me. I would be happy to go to base camp.

[wookalar]

I used to think it was something I could do, but as I look at it more and more I really don't think I could...60 grand to blow or not, it's still a lot of uphill....

[char]

The question is what caused the disaster? Weather? Too many people on the mountain? Pitmans and others excess? The guides trying to bag the summit for clients? All of the above plus more?

Start lining up the holes and eventually a decision is going to kill you.

[Dave "The Poacher"]

This is, honestly, the first time I've heard his account defended... it could be a coincidence of the folks I know and have spoken to about it.

The way I read it, Krakauer consistently placed a high degree of blame on Boukreev for not using supplemental oxygen, and he characterized Anatoli as having been in flight from his senses and selfish in his actions. The primary reason for his position was an interaction that he had with Boukreev on the descent in which supposedly Anatoli was disoriented and flippant. The inverse of John's account, though, is that he himself was mostly incapacitated and only able to take care of himself....
I read it such that Krakauer's ego wouldn't let him admit that he could barely take care of himself, let alone be part of the rescue effort.

It also seemed like Krakauer really wanted someone to blame, and Boukreev made an easy target by not using oxygen. I tend to be on the side of those that see that not being on supplemental Os gave Anatoli a better chance at being consistent and having greater endurance (Oxygen was running out and everyone wsa crashing).

The characterization of Boukreev as being more ambitious than helpful also kind of rings hollow when placed against the actions that he took to carry out a rescue when everyone else was giving up.

I've got nothing against Krakauer... In fact, I'm a fan of his writing in general. I've just heard more compelling arguments on the other side of this story, and for the most part, I have heard the opinion that "Into Thin Air" is more fiction than truth, where it counts... and thus a bit of a joke.

Again, could just be who I know.

I haven't discussed these books with many people but I read both of them when they came out and I've always had the same opinion as homeless. Boukreev is a hero in my opinion ,and his actions on the mountain were superhuman.

[Franz Klammer]

Krakauer, Boukreev, Viesturs ...

... they're all sissies compared to the one and only:

Hermann Buhl - first climber (only one other - Kurt Diemberger) to have two first ascents of 8000ers to his name, first ascent of an 8000er without oxygen, first ascent of an 8000er in alpine style, ... the list goes on.

[pube-in-my-taco]

To expand on Homeless' point about Denali; it is easier, safer, lower, and cheaper to climb Denali's easiest route than it is to climb Everest's easiest route.

The main thing about Everest is its extreme elevation, and subsequent lack of oxygen. Even properly acclimized, if not for supplemental oxygen most people would pass out (& die) within a couple of hours of being above camp 4. An everst climber is exposed to seracs in the khumbu icefall, avalanches on the lhoste face and elsewhere, and an extremely difficult evacuation should anything happen above the icefall. Denali climbers on the West Buttress are relatively safe from these dangers, and given decent weather, can be evacuated by helicopter should they succumb to HAPE or HACE.

Because of its longitude, however, denali *is* colder. Much colder. The park's brochure says that Denali is colder in the summertime than Everest is in Winter

Bottom line is that most American people, given proper experience and fitness, are capable of scaling Denali via the West Butress route. This is not the case with Everest's Western Cwm, even if the monetary concerns were out of the way.

By the way, Minus 148º is an excellent book detailing a "worst possible scenario" on Denali - getting caught in a 5-day storm on the upper flanks of the mountain in winter. I highly recommend it.

[shamrockpow]

Don't stomp it out man, help him grow it. For all of you who think about this, I hope that one day you can build up the needed physical and mental toughness required and do this if it's something that really calls you. (and yeah, I'd love to do it too someday )

Sprite

When people throw out a question like this (especially if they're not a climber) I think the most important question to ask is WHY? Why do we climb is a complicated question, but why people climb Everest is more clear: EGO. I'm not saying that applies to everybody there, but certainly a lot of folks aren't in it for the right reasons.

I just came across this book next to my desk. Is it a good read?:

[Viva]

I just came across this book next to my desk. Is it a good read?:

Yes, it's a very good book. It covers a few adventures, including the 96 Everest snafu and the first American ascent of K2. By strange coincidence, during the time I read this book, I was also collaborating with Lou Reichardt, who climbed K2 with D. Breshears and is mentioned in the book. Lou didn't want to talk much about climbing or the book, however.

[oosik]

To put it into perspective, Krakauer was there to write an article about guiding on Everest. He might have had some ideas about whether guiding in that environment was a good thing or not before going there.

What he got was a convergence of bad weather with poor logistical management when it counted, as a "client' of a guided group. Now ordinarily, a guide tries to ensure the safety of the client by watching over where they go, what they do, encouraging them when needed and trying to make things as efficient as possible so you get the job done and everyone gets back in one piece. A very valid question is how can a guide do that when they are not travelling with the client?

Nobody questions the efforts that Boukreev took to rescue people after they were already in trouble as being heroic, Krakauer included. The question is whether, as a guide, he did all he could have to prevent people from getting in trouble in the first place. He left them to fend for themselves, then went back to get them only after it was clear there was trouble.

The very real conclusion is that in an environment this hostile, a guide isn't really able to make up for the failing strength of a client. One of the few tools you have is to try to be smart and efficient, which is difficult to do with an oxygen deprived brain. So to help the client to continue moving and make good decisions, a guide could be helpful. But to do that, the guide needs to be there, at the side of the client, to help them through issues when the brain is dull. It was that line of reasoning that questioned whether Boukreev should have been using oxygen, to put himself in a better position to think clearly to tend his clients. The other consequence of not using oxygen is that you get colder too, which was thought to be the reason Boukreev skedaddled off of the mountain so that he himself didn't get cold.

Climbers are reflective. When mistakes are made they try to learn from them, knowing that under different circumstances, it could have been them that turned into a popsicle. For Krakauer to have concluded that a guide abandoning his clients was a good thing for the safety of the clients would have been inexplicable.


Now, to address the original question, apparently being fit does make it possible to succeed, even without an extensive climbing resume (though now you need money as well). The group that put the first American woman on the summit included a Seattle bike messenger who made it to the summit a few days later. Her experience wasn't extensive, though judging by her success, under good weather it proved to be sufficient to get the job done.

[homeless]

IMO - Krakaer's argument is too simplistic... and, it ignores a few things;

1. There were two other guides with Boukreev's group, and per their planning it was Anatoli's job to get back to high camp and be available for a rescue. Again, it could just be who I talk to, but I know a few high-altitude guides that actually employ this tactic regularly and have given me the impression that it's not uncommon.

2. Any guide will tell you that at those altitudes, guides can not guarnatee that they will have the energy or mental fortitude to "take care of you." I thikn it's pretty much accepted that one job of guides on Everest is to decide who is capable of making the summit attempt and to turn away those that aren't.

3. The problems on that day were all being heavily aggravated by the fact that the group Krakauer was in was moving waaaaayyy too slow - this is where I need to go back and re-read. I'm open to corrections - I always got the impression that this was a source of embarrasment for Krakauer.

4. Again, this may be where I need to go back to the books, so bare with me if I'm wrong... The only person that died in Boukreev's group was the head guide (don't remember his name off the top of my head,) and it's prety much agreed upon that his own ambittions were what killed him.

Zach

[chaka]

Krakauer vs. Boukreev...

Both accomplished climbers, Boukreev more hardcore. I got an inslide scoup from a dear friend of Scott Fischer's, and also a previous guide for Sandy Pittman on several major climbs. His take- Krakauer took some serious artistic license in his characterisation of both Pittman and Fischer, and he vehemently disagreed with alot of it. How someone could paint Boukreev in such a negative light following what they guy pulled off during the rescue (while laying huddled in is tent during the whole event) is amazing to me. There definitely could be some blame placed on Boukreev for his personal desires possibly put ahead of the client's care, but to put down prose in a book that seriously affects a guy's stature in his world (the climbing community) is going to far...

On to more interesting stuff.

SheRa. I just satiated a bit of my thirst for Nepal, have returned from a five week trip to a remote region west of Khumbu/Everest, called the Rowaling Valley, for some climbing trekking. Didn't lug the skis, but man.... there are some frigging sweet areas to set up a camp and ski numerous most likely first decents topping out around 6000m for a few weeks. I could envision snow conditions being agreeable as well. You can see Everest from many of the climbing peaks. The Khumbu region, while still very cool, is much more crowded and commercialized. If being in a pristine environment is more your thing, head to Rowaling!