UKC

Hello,

I have read an article the latest issue of Summit mentioning two different types of climber.

The Article was about alpine climbing but I think it can be applied to other forms of climbing.

The climber said that there are two types of climber: Lite and Hardcore.....

The Lite climber's mind is occupied with many things most of time including chasing pretty ladies whilst on the other hand a Hardcore climber thinks about climbing most of the time and will achieve his climbing goals on a trip.

Did anyone else read this article?

Who agrees with me and the author of the article?

Is what he is saying making sense?

Bye

Sav

In reply to Mountain Spirit:
I've not read the article, but if that's an acurate summary of what's been written then they were probably desperate for something to fill space. There are as many types of climber as there are types of people. Limiting the field to Alpine climbers is pretty irrelevant.

Would the Lite climber be allowed to chase pretty young men?

In reply to Mountain Spirit:

There is a saying I quite like. "There are two types of people. There are those who do what they say they will do, and there is everyone else."

Like your article, it is basically saying there is only one type of climber - one that achieves the "climbing" goals they set out. However, you could rephrase it to say a completely different thing. You could say that there are two types of climbers. There are those who set out to have a fun holiday away from work. Who do a bit of climbing, tick a few routes, enjoy a few beers and look at the ladies.... and then there is everyone else.

As Frank says - desperation for copy is more likely. Types of climbers articles pop up every few years, as do most climbing articles. This is why I don't bother with climbing mags any more. There are only so many ways you can write the same thing.

In reply to Mountain Spirit:

It's not an article about different types of climber, it's an article about different types of climbing. The types of climber stuff is just a bit of fun, not a serious attempt to analyse climber types.

It's a decent article; read it, enjoy it if it floats your boat, even go climbing in the Aiguille Rouge as it suggests, but let's not try and pick it apart as a psychology piece, for heaven's sake.

In reply to Mountain Spirit:

I think the article is more about the everyday man's alpine adventure. It's about embracing the mountains in a way you find enjoyable and fulfilling. The best mountaineer is the one having the most fun and if that means getting a chair lift half way up so the f what?

In reply to Frank the Husky:

Hi Frank.

It was just part of the article....

But I thought it was worth a mention

Yes. very funny.
Sav

In reply to ByEek:
Hi.

I agree with you.

I read climbing magazines but I do not subscribe to Climb and get Summit as part of my BMC membership.

The issues of Climb that I have are old back issues.....

I prefer to read books and love to have quick look through guide books.

Sav

In reply to Purple:

Hi.

I have read the article.

It was an enjoyable read.

Bye

Sav

In reply to SteveoS:

Hi.

I agree with you....

But I thought that part of the article wopuld interest climbers.

Bye

Savvas