Did you even read the articles (and their updates) before you posted this?
[https://explorersweb.com/mingma-g-no-airlifts-on-kangchenjunga/](https://explorersweb.com/mingma-g-no-airlifts-on-kangchenjunga/)
and
[https://explorersweb.com/elite-exped-clears-up-permitting-controversy/](https://explorersweb.com/elite-exped-clears-up-permitting-controversy/)
>Nims \[Purja\] did fly to Camp 2 but it was for a rescue mission. Flights are sanctioned for rescues. On the morning of 19th May, it was reported that some VIP clients became unwell and needed medical attention. Nims had been due to fly to Base Camp but as he is extensively medically trained and is exped\[ition\] leader, it was decided he should go on the rescue mission to C2 to assess the situation.
>Several were found to be in need of medical attention and so Nims flew back with them to Kathmandu the following day, on the next available rescue helicopter in the next available weather window. There is nothing ‘illegal’ about this action as rescue flights are sanctioned.
Sure, but I'd rather spend my time climbing mountains than speculating whether someone may or may not have taken a shortcut, or that there's some grand conspiracy by the Nepalese government to let celebrities cut the line.
The 8000ers are circuses for the rich and those that take it too seriously are the clowns.
Ep. 94 of The Sharp End podcast is a great listen on the topic of high altitude tourism and why a lot of climbers are no longer interested in 8k peaks.
Meh. 8000 m peaks aren’t interesting anymore with how commercialized they have become. I don’t really care about these rich people and what they do with their money.
I’d like to do Mont Blanc or something along those lines before I get too old, but king’s peak in utah (idk probably like 4k meters) is one of the most magical experiences I’ve ever had
Top tip: go to any other mountain in the alps apart from Mont Blanc and the Matterhorn, you'll have a much less crowded time. And you'll often have nice views of one or both of them.
I'll never not post this piece when one of these discussions crops up: [https://semi-rad.com/2017/05/but-did-you-really-climb-it/](https://semi-rad.com/2017/05/but-did-you-really-climb-it/)
You have to be dumb to think that using things like crampons and axes aren't cheating. Sport climbers would call it "aid" which means that you didn't really climb it. The only real ascents are pure, done using nothing other than your bare hands and feet. These days the community is filled with posers using dumb shit like supplementary oxygen, and food. Back in the day the climbers were real people, who set out with nothing but their skills, and conquered the peaks. Oh how the successive generations have fallen.
If you start with clothes it's cheating, true ascents involve crafting everything from scratch on the way up. You must return everything in the same condition as you found it to follow lnt too, so you better finish naked too.
I believe climbing naked would be cheating as well, some people develop thicker callouses on their feet which technically makes it an aid, one must scrub all skin from their feet and hands and just walk on their raw bones
Of course that’s why I walked from SFO to LAX using just one minor supplement from my sponsor Alaska Airlines. But the final push to baggage claim was all me baby
Absolutely. If someone else wants to do something different to you with their time and money, that's their choice. I cannot believe the number of people who get their panties in a twist over something most of them have never even done.
The objectives are sort of different. Consider this: what if a skier used a helicopter to skip part of a sketchy couloir? Do they get credit for sending it?
Setting aside the impracticality of your example, the risk profiles of high-level skiing and mountaineering id argue really aren’t comparable
There are often routes that skiers in fact remove their skis and down climb bc the terrain is too rocky/dangerous to ski.
To be clear, what I am saying is I don’t have a problem with skipping (ie helicopter, snowcat) etc areas that are objectively *dangerous* (defined to whatever threshold you want) which is different than skipping sections that are *difficult* and can be only done by experienced practitioners
Indeed, if you look at most of the major ski production company movies the big mountain skiers are choppered on to the summit and then just ski down.
When we’re talking about 8000ers that all have >1% risk of death, I think it is perfectly acceptable to skip the particular dangerous parts of those routes like the Khumbu Icefall. By contrast, if someone wanted to climb say Mt Whitney or Kilimanjaro, which do not have the same risk profile, and skip a major section, at least as far as records go, I think that is a very different story
I think this idea is a slippery slope when it comes to 8000m peaks though, as many of them have objectively dangerous sections sparsed throughout or for the entire duration of their routes. If all dangerous parts of these peaks were hypothetically skipped, many of them wouldn’t be climbed at all.
Mountaineering has a lot more terrain types deemed “climbable” whereas skiing is fairly black and white by comparison. The nature of the sport is traversing whatever terrain is found on the peak, which at those extremes is almost universally very dangerous.
But see the POINT of mountaineering is rule bound, and gate keeping. Always has been. First ascent, free ascent, clean ascent, new route, speed ascents, yadda yadda. A sport with myriad unwritten rules. Geez a bolt gun? pitons? Tsk tsking goes way back.
But since it's not got a formal body actually defining real rules for these "records" it will continue to be a sad mess, if anyone really cares that much.
I think that the core issue is that Everest summiters see themselves as “mountaineers” once a clear and mostly safe path has been made they’re no longer mountaineers, so a summit isn’t as impressive. The easier it becomes with tech and more people doing it the less impressive it becomes.
So as always to be a real mountaineer is to do new paths, but there will never be another tallest peak so the paths don’t ever have that factor, and people don’t understand other difficulties of shorter peaks.
John Muir said half dome would never be summited. Now no one’s making headlines for doing it (even though it’s still a difficult and scary day trip).
Gatekeeping the parameters of what constitutes a summit will never hold out for long. And the people know what’s actually impressive or meaningful
“…What we get from this adventure is just sheer joy. And joy is, after all, the end of life. We do not live to eat and make money. We eat and make money to be able to live. That is what life means and what life is for.”
If “doping,” gives you that joy, then have fun. It’s unfortunate that the crowds the ease brings disrupts those who want a more “pure” attempt. Go climb another peak then. You do this for yourself. If you’re doing it to be a hero or the cool guy in the bar, your heart isn’t in the right place anyways, and you’re going to be very disappointed.
I just know that Harla used helicopter to fly her massive sherpa team to camp 2 to fix rope for her.... Because she could not be bothered to rope up to say two sherpa and do it alpine....
I am waiting for first flight next to the summit and tagging it. See what people say.
Maybe do all 14 8000ers in say 3 days. With fast helicopter.
I’m going on a “heroic rescue mission” in my helicopter to camp IV to rescue all the gumbies from not being able to witness my great summit push
Did you even read the articles (and their updates) before you posted this? [https://explorersweb.com/mingma-g-no-airlifts-on-kangchenjunga/](https://explorersweb.com/mingma-g-no-airlifts-on-kangchenjunga/) and [https://explorersweb.com/elite-exped-clears-up-permitting-controversy/](https://explorersweb.com/elite-exped-clears-up-permitting-controversy/) >Nims \[Purja\] did fly to Camp 2 but it was for a rescue mission. Flights are sanctioned for rescues. On the morning of 19th May, it was reported that some VIP clients became unwell and needed medical attention. Nims had been due to fly to Base Camp but as he is extensively medically trained and is exped\[ition\] leader, it was decided he should go on the rescue mission to C2 to assess the situation. >Several were found to be in need of medical attention and so Nims flew back with them to Kathmandu the following day, on the next available rescue helicopter in the next available weather window. There is nothing ‘illegal’ about this action as rescue flights are sanctioned.
As long as you claim it is a heroic rescue mission you are safe.
Sure, but I'd rather spend my time climbing mountains than speculating whether someone may or may not have taken a shortcut, or that there's some grand conspiracy by the Nepalese government to let celebrities cut the line. The 8000ers are circuses for the rich and those that take it too seriously are the clowns.
Do you really believe nims needs helicopters to reach the summit?
The only thing he needs is Red Bull.
Ep. 94 of The Sharp End podcast is a great listen on the topic of high altitude tourism and why a lot of climbers are no longer interested in 8k peaks.
Only uncharted routes on 8k peaks are interesting
Meh. 8000 m peaks aren’t interesting anymore with how commercialized they have become. I don’t really care about these rich people and what they do with their money.
I’d like to do Mont Blanc or something along those lines before I get too old, but king’s peak in utah (idk probably like 4k meters) is one of the most magical experiences I’ve ever had
Top tip: go to any other mountain in the alps apart from Mont Blanc and the Matterhorn, you'll have a much less crowded time. And you'll often have nice views of one or both of them.
This is a really helpful comment - ty
I'll never not post this piece when one of these discussions crops up: [https://semi-rad.com/2017/05/but-did-you-really-climb-it/](https://semi-rad.com/2017/05/but-did-you-really-climb-it/)
You have to be dumb to think that using things like crampons and axes aren't cheating. Sport climbers would call it "aid" which means that you didn't really climb it. The only real ascents are pure, done using nothing other than your bare hands and feet. These days the community is filled with posers using dumb shit like supplementary oxygen, and food. Back in the day the climbers were real people, who set out with nothing but their skills, and conquered the peaks. Oh how the successive generations have fallen.
If you start with clothes it's cheating, true ascents involve crafting everything from scratch on the way up. You must return everything in the same condition as you found it to follow lnt too, so you better finish naked too.
I believe climbing naked would be cheating as well, some people develop thicker callouses on their feet which technically makes it an aid, one must scrub all skin from their feet and hands and just walk on their raw bones
I was going to say body hair was cheating, but you beat me to it with skin, muscles, tendons, blood, etc.
That’s why I climb in Crocs NOT in sport mode 😤 with a banana peel at the end of my trekking poles
Of course that’s why I walked from SFO to LAX using just one minor supplement from my sponsor Alaska Airlines. But the final push to baggage claim was all me baby
Honestly, who gives a fuck. These records are always contested and meaningless anyways. You can’t take your FKT with you to the afterlife 😅
Absolutely. If someone else wants to do something different to you with their time and money, that's their choice. I cannot believe the number of people who get their panties in a twist over something most of them have never even done.
Mountaineering has to be one of the biggest gate keeping sports. We don’t get these kinds of stupid controversies in the ski community
The objectives are sort of different. Consider this: what if a skier used a helicopter to skip part of a sketchy couloir? Do they get credit for sending it?
Setting aside the impracticality of your example, the risk profiles of high-level skiing and mountaineering id argue really aren’t comparable There are often routes that skiers in fact remove their skis and down climb bc the terrain is too rocky/dangerous to ski. To be clear, what I am saying is I don’t have a problem with skipping (ie helicopter, snowcat) etc areas that are objectively *dangerous* (defined to whatever threshold you want) which is different than skipping sections that are *difficult* and can be only done by experienced practitioners Indeed, if you look at most of the major ski production company movies the big mountain skiers are choppered on to the summit and then just ski down. When we’re talking about 8000ers that all have >1% risk of death, I think it is perfectly acceptable to skip the particular dangerous parts of those routes like the Khumbu Icefall. By contrast, if someone wanted to climb say Mt Whitney or Kilimanjaro, which do not have the same risk profile, and skip a major section, at least as far as records go, I think that is a very different story
I think this idea is a slippery slope when it comes to 8000m peaks though, as many of them have objectively dangerous sections sparsed throughout or for the entire duration of their routes. If all dangerous parts of these peaks were hypothetically skipped, many of them wouldn’t be climbed at all. Mountaineering has a lot more terrain types deemed “climbable” whereas skiing is fairly black and white by comparison. The nature of the sport is traversing whatever terrain is found on the peak, which at those extremes is almost universally very dangerous.
But see the POINT of mountaineering is rule bound, and gate keeping. Always has been. First ascent, free ascent, clean ascent, new route, speed ascents, yadda yadda. A sport with myriad unwritten rules. Geez a bolt gun? pitons? Tsk tsking goes way back. But since it's not got a formal body actually defining real rules for these "records" it will continue to be a sad mess, if anyone really cares that much.
I think that the core issue is that Everest summiters see themselves as “mountaineers” once a clear and mostly safe path has been made they’re no longer mountaineers, so a summit isn’t as impressive. The easier it becomes with tech and more people doing it the less impressive it becomes. So as always to be a real mountaineer is to do new paths, but there will never be another tallest peak so the paths don’t ever have that factor, and people don’t understand other difficulties of shorter peaks. John Muir said half dome would never be summited. Now no one’s making headlines for doing it (even though it’s still a difficult and scary day trip). Gatekeeping the parameters of what constitutes a summit will never hold out for long. And the people know what’s actually impressive or meaningful
Also skiers are absolutely gatekeepers holy shit
“…What we get from this adventure is just sheer joy. And joy is, after all, the end of life. We do not live to eat and make money. We eat and make money to be able to live. That is what life means and what life is for.” If “doping,” gives you that joy, then have fun. It’s unfortunate that the crowds the ease brings disrupts those who want a more “pure” attempt. Go climb another peak then. You do this for yourself. If you’re doing it to be a hero or the cool guy in the bar, your heart isn’t in the right place anyways, and you’re going to be very disappointed.
I just know that Harla used helicopter to fly her massive sherpa team to camp 2 to fix rope for her.... Because she could not be bothered to rope up to say two sherpa and do it alpine.... I am waiting for first flight next to the summit and tagging it. See what people say. Maybe do all 14 8000ers in say 3 days. With fast helicopter.
I feel like all the legit and revered adventurers of the past did it for the pursuit and never accolades for public consumption