UKC

I picked this up from a thread on Supertopo.com. Quite apt I thought in light of some recent activities...

Especially Preuss's "Künstliche Hilfsmittel auf Hochturen" – where he delineates his philosophy of climbing in six "theorems".... listed below.

Paul Preuss (19 August 1886 – 3 October 1913) was an Austrian climber who achieved recognition for his bold solo ascents and for the purity of his climbing style. Born in Altaussee, he attended Gymnasium in Vienna and, later, studied at the University of Vienna and Munich University, where he was awarded a Dr.Phil. degree in 1912. His major subject was the physiology of plants, but soon after gaining his degree he turned to empirical philosophy, hoping to become a university lecturer in that academic specialty.

As a child he was very weak, but grew into slender, well-developed athlete, proficient in chess, tennis, fencing, and, of course, climbing. Still a boy, he became fascinated with a particular climb that had been done on the Trisselwand near Aussee. After several weeks of studying the route, he soloed it – his first adventure on the heights.

Working his way up the ladder of difficulty, he made a solitary ascent of the west face of Todtenkirchl in 1911, taking only 2¾ hours, including a new variation in the upper section.

He climbed more than 1,200 routes in the Eastern Alps, including the northeast face of Crozzon di Brenta and the east summit face of Guglia di Brenta. He also did a cross traverse of the Kleine Zinne, doing all four routes that existed at that time, in a period of one day.

In the summers of 1912 and 1913 he journeyed to the Western Alps, where – under the tutelage of the English climber, Oscar Eckenstein - he learned the skills of ice climbing. Once he felt confident, he began a series of climbs around Mont Blanc, including the direct ascent of that peak via its Brenva flank. He did several noteworthy traverses, including one of the Grandes Jorasses by its Hirondelles ridge.

Preuss published several papers on climbing a year before his death. In one of these – "Künstliche Hilfsmittel auf Hochturen" – he delineates his philosophy of climbing in six "theorems", starting with the axiomatic assumption that a climber should only attempt climbs that are below his highest level of competence. The following are paraphrased versions of his rules:

**1. One should be more than equal to the demands of the proposed climb.
2. One should ascend only those climbs that one can downclimb safely.
3. Artificial aids are justified only in sudden dangerous situations.
4. Pitons should be used only for emergencies, never as a basis of mountaineering.
5. The rope is to be used to facilitate a climb, but never as the sole means for making a climb possible.
6. The principle of safety derives from a reasonable estimate of what one is capable of, not from the use of artificial aids.

Geoffrey Winthrop Young, the great British climber, echoed these sentiments years after Preuss was gone.**


Paul Preuss was said to be amiable and good-natured, and to be a faithful comrade in the most demanding of circumstances.


He died of a thousand foot fall in October 1913 while making a solo attempt of the north face of the Mandlwand.

Origin: http://www.supertopo.com/climbers-forum/999560/Paul-Preuss-Our-Founding-Fat...

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

hmmm, austrian you say.

so young mr lama should have no trouble reading Künstliche Hilfsmittel auf Hochturen were he to be sent a copy?

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Perhaps Preuss isn't a good example of someone whose advice other climbers should follow? I tend to value the theorising of those who have climbed and survived.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Wasn't Preuss the guy who also said something about the purity of line, the purest being to follow a vertical line dropped from the summit. The origin of the diretissima?

In reply to Fredt:

I think that was Comici.

In reply to Tom Knowles:


Really? so such visionaries as Hermann Buhl, Emilio Comici, Lionel Terray, Pete Boardman, Joe Tasker, Alex McIntyre, Renato Cassaroto, Al Rouse, Todd Skinner, etc, etc, etc have nothing to teach you? How sad.

In reply to Jamie Bankhead:

Well, how "visionary" were they? Many of them died through bad judgement. They're not people I'm going to take advice from. As I said before, I would rather listen to those who have carved a successful career from climbing, those who have climbed and retired, such as Reinhold Messner, Doug Scott, Chris Bonington, Patrick Gabarrou, Walter Bonatti, Ricardo Cassin, Mark Twight, Andreas Heckmair etc. Their survival is not all about luck.

In reply to Tom Knowles:

Seems a very black and white viewpoint!!!!!

I'm not sure you are completely right, although my alpine experience is very limited. But it seems very blinkered to say that climbers who have died in the mountains weren't visionary or that they were't very competent.

However I did ask Andy Cave that question.

Mick: How does luck figure into an alpine ascent?

Andy: If luck helps you find a great partner, excellent. If luck means you find the route of your dreams in perfect condition, superb. But on the mountain you make a lot of the luck. Most accidents start with an error, being in the wrong place at the wrong time, or a loss of concentration. On big routes you need relentless mental energy in order to concentrate for long periods - up to 18 hours without a break for example, maybe four days on the trot.

http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=2075

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Luck is the truth perverted to satisfy a negative force, Fred Smyth from his book "In high hills" (I think)

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Mick, I deliberately went for the "black and white viewpoint" to illustrate my own point - of course, there are always shades of grey but, essentially, the excerpt you've chosen from the Andy Cave interview helps to explain further that luck, whether good or bad, is often generated, as opposed to it "just happening". Fatal accidents that appear to be "a bolt out of the blue" often have a history to them.

In reply to Tom Knowles:

But I do not think you can dismiss a climbers contribution to mountaineering like Preuss or as Jamie said Hermann Buhl, Emilio Comici, Lionel Terray, Pete Boardman, Joe Tasker, Alex McIntyre, Renato Cassaroto, Al Rouse, Todd Skinner and many many more, because they died climbing.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

I'm not dismissing their "contribution" at all - their contributions ie. their routes, are always going to be there. I do, however, question their motivations, their actions and their advice. It's healthy to question, especially so in a pursuit like climbing where bad decisions can lead to dire consequences.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
Are there to be any assumptions on these 'rules'?
by equal to the demands i assume he means in fitness of body and mind. if so I agree
If this was to be followed then we wouldn't have some of the hard routes we have today.
unless you are aiding, that is
pitons are/have been/ will be a basis of mountaineering - without them i refer back to my point about rule 2
see point in rule 2
by artificial aids does he mean, god forbid, a rope? a piton? Luck?

irony?

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: Didn't Whillans suggest that if you died climbing, it wiped out all your previous achievements?

I understand what he was getting at, and I think it's a good philosophy for young hotshots to have in the front of their minds, but it was a bit harsh to apply to those whose luck ran out.

Good post about Preuss though - IIRC from various articles he was a bit of a romantic hero to many European climbers between the wars, and he certainly influenced Messner. It's good to be reminded that Europe hasn't always solely been about grid bolting crags or neutering classic mountain routes with fixed gear.

In reply to Jamie Bankhead:

Emilio Comici was an Italian longshoreman when he began caving on weekends. After a particularly difficult cave exploration--setting the world's depth record near Trieste--he ran to the nearest summit on the Karst Plateau and forever made a pact to spend his free time in the open air of the mountains instead of underground. He became an expert of the "Bavarian technique" pioneered by Dülfer, Herzog, and Fiechtl, and revolutionized climbing by perfecting a new style well suited for the extreme cliffs of the Dolomites, and ultimately, the big walls of the world. Comici was the inventor of modern aid technique using multi-step aid ladders, solid belays, complex rope maneuvers, hanging bivouacs, and climbing with a trail rope as a means stay connected to your belayer for hauling up extra equipment as needed. Realizing that he had a choice to reject the use of mechanical aids or accept them wholeheartedly, he chose the latter, and made heavy use of the new tools.

In 1931, he put the new systems to use on the 4000 foot northwest face of the Civetta. This was the steepest and perhaps the most difficult climb in the world at the time (and is still to this day is a challenging 26 pitch vertical adventure), but not satisfied, he wrote "I wish some day to make a route and from the summit let fall a drop of water and this is where my route will have gone." He realized his dream of such a route, a direttissima as it became known, with his direct line up the 1500 foot overhanging north wall of the Cima Grande in 1933. The line wavers slightly but no more than if the mythical drop of water were buffeted back and forth by an unseen wind. On the steep initial half of the wall, Comici and Giulio Benedetti used just 75 pitons -- on average only one every ten feet -- hardly excessive considering that the wall overhangs continuously and is composed of less-than-solid rock.

From;
http://www.bigwalls.net/climb/mechadv/

In reply to Tom Knowles:

Tom, you learn from both teams, those who died and those who survived. ~Sometimes it is just bad luck and others bad judgement. Nobody knows which it was with Preuss. He was soloing and may have had a hold break, had a stone fall on him knocking him off or simply slipped.

There is one common factor with most of the survivors, they have been in near death situations but had the will to live and get down when accidents happened.

You cannot say someone who got hit by avalanche used bad judgement, sometimes they just happen due to a serac high above breaking, as happened to someone Luca posted about early this year. The avalanche then hit easy ground with no snow 6000 feet lower and if it had gone another 800ft would have killed lorry drivers going through the Mont Blanc tunnel

In reply to sutty:

I agree that there are always lessons to be learnt, and that the information gathered from an accident is often or more use than information concerning a success.

We know enough about Preuss that he issued a set of rules that he believed should be adopted by other climbers. We also know that Preuss died while climbing. That alone is enough to make me question what he wrote.

I wouldn't necessarily suggest that survivors have a greater "will to live" than those who have perished. While it may be the case in some situations, there are many other factors that come into play, such as simple physical resilience.

Avalanches, like many other dangers, can be assessed and evaluated. There's a difference between entering a situation blindly and making decisions based on calculated risk.

That's not to say I don't believe in luck. I do. The vehicle travelling the wrong way down a road towards you is impossible to predict.

In reply to Tom Knowles:

I doubt the pensioners shopping yesterday thought of the risk of getting shot either, but they did end up dead.

In reply to Tom Knowles:


That would perhaps make some sense if he'd written: "The way to avoid dying on a climb is...". What he actually wrote was some statements about his own attitude to climbing and what makes it worthwhile for him. Big difference. Yes, you should question anything you read, but I don't think you should automatically dismiss any statement made by a climber just because they died while climbing.

I happen to think that I have a nice looking bike. Does my opinion become any more ro less valid if I get hit by a car on the way home tonight?

In reply to Jamie Simpson - Alpine Dragons:

totally.
isnt luck one of those silly superstitions like rock spirits, rabbits feet, allah or tarot cards?

the more i climb the less evidence i see for luck, replacing it with the very modern term of 'probability'.

to think luck killed or didnt any climber is as archaic as holding chicken entrails or a peyote ceremoney responsible.
probability on the other hand is responsible for all deaths - climbing or on the sofa - and devalues no one.
probability fluctuates in complexity and death on the hill can be the result of factors related to climbing only superficially.

if mark twight dies on his way to visit steve house at starbucks do we blame that on dubious climbing judgement?
will gadd might die from a dodgy red bull as he tops out on his next M10. climbing or not?
if messner blows a valve at the crag with his grand kids is he suddenly less of climbing integrity?
its ridiculous to then say their luck ran out, they had questionable motives and devalue them as climbers.

they simply succumbed to probable outcomes of complex factors.
luck has nothing to do with it.

i dont care what whillan says, theres more in valuing a climber by their life than their death.

In reply to Marek:

I don't dismiss any statement made by a climber just because they died while climbing. But I am more likely to question it.

Preuss wasn't writing a personal diary when he wrote his "theorems". Instead he had them published, to be read by the wider climbing community.


Well that depends. If you have written about how cycling should be best approached and had it published, then are killed by cycling on a road where cyclists are banned, then I would certainly question what you had written. It may not mean that your written word was incorrect, I may just value it less.

In reply to ice.solo:


Everything has to be in context. If Mark Twight dies on his way to Starbucks by doing some ill-considered, reckless piece of climbing, then yes, I would question his climbing judgement, especially as he has written about how to avoid that kind of thing.

If he died, however, due to a non-climbing related scenario, then there MAY be a need to question judgement, but not climbing judgement.

In reply to Tom Knowles:

Tom.... do you go alpine climbing? If so what is the breadth and depth of your experience?

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

I wondered when that question would rear its ugly head! It's traditionally the response of those who can't put forward a constructive argument. I'm sure you've even pointed that out before Mick?

My experience in the mountains is irrelevant. You have no idea what I've done, what I've seen or experienced and nor should you.

Unlike Preuss, who sought to publish his ideas on what he felt was a style of climbing that should be widely adopted, I have simply expressed my own personal view. You can agree or disagree, the points I have made are simply my points, they don't require a "background check".

In reply to Tom Knowles:

Great answer, and a common one.

So you aren't prepared to discuss managing risk and luck/no luck in the mountains and it's relation to a philosophy about how we treat the mountain environment, and to back up your argument with your experience.

Are arguing for argument's sake? Are you bored?

How do you think the mountain's should be treated?

Do any of Paul Preuss's wise words resonate with you, or are they a nonsense because like many other great and wise mountaineers he died in the mountains?

In reply to Tom Knowles:

OK, let's go for some specific examples. Can you give me arguments about how the specific way various people died in the mountains negates what they wrote about? Let's use Mick's list: Hermann Buhl, Emilio Comici, Lionel Terray, Pete Boardman, Joe Tasker, Alex McIntyre, Renato Cassaroto, Al Rouse, Todd Skinner.

Did HB extol the virtues of cornice hopping? Did TD moan about how climbers are too fussy about the state of their harnesses? Did AR regularly poo-poo himalayan weather forecasting? If not then what's the relevance of their deaths to the value of what they wrote? Examples please.

In reply to Tom Knowles:
It's lunchtime, so here's a thought experiment...

Two climbers, A and B. Both write impassioned articles about how the mountains and wilderness should be protected for the enjoyment of future generations, blah, blah. You read their articles and (for argument sake, agree with them).

A and B go climbing independently. A is later found dead at the bottom of a cliff face, he was soloing. B went tradding but found the route too hard, so banged in some bolts to get too the top. Remember, this is just a thought experiment.

One die, one survived. Do you alter your opinion about what they wrote? A died, so what he wrote must be questioned. B didn't, so less questioning there. But they wrote the same thing! If you hadn't actually read what they wrote until after you were aware of outcome of their climbing trip, you may approach their writing differently, but in this case you may actual value the writing of A who seemed to practice what he preached more than of B, a hypocrite. Even though A died and B didn't?

Anyway, lunchtime over...

In reply to Marek:


I doubt you'll get a response from the OP, so I'll take it up:

Buhl developed the idea of westalpinstil and exported it to the Himalaya. He made the first oxygen-less and solo ascent of an 8,000m peak still regarded as one of the most committing (Nanga Parbet) and a few weeks later became the first climber to summit two of them. He walked through a cornice attempting a first ascent of Chogolisa - a momentary lapse.

Comici introduced the idea of the Diretissima to the Eastern Alps, showing that with enough belief and committment faces like the Tre Cime could be taken by the most direct and truest line. He slipped on an easy route while messing around with a female student. Drink had been taken.

Terray performed heroics to assist Lachenal and Herzog down from their first ascent of Annapurna. He later made his own first ascents of iconic and difficult peaks like Makalu and Fitzroy, and was a driving force in opening up the Peruvian Andes. He died in a fall at one of his local crags, far away from his preferred snowy arena.

Boardman and Tasker turned himalayan climbing on its head with their ascent of the West Face of Changabang in 1975. It was at that time unthinkable that such a technical objective at altitude could be climbed by a solitary pair. It is still unrepeated. They took that approach to even bigger mountains, and eventually perished trying a new route on Everest.

McIntyre made first ascents of a string of classic lines in Scotland and the Alps, culminating in an Alpine-style ascent of a new route on Shishapangma. He was killed when he was knocked over by a single stone on Annapurna.

Cassoroto made a series of audacious solos such as his new route on Huascaran, but these were eclipsed by his first ascent of Messner's fabled "Magic Line" on K2. He fell into a crevasse half a mile from basecamp on the way down.

Rouse vied with McIntyre for "best British all-rounder" but was a better rock-climber (see Positron). He got caught out by unexpected bad weather high on K2.

Skinner was one half of the team who first free-climbed El Capitan, a feat many thought impossible and still only achieved by maybe 15 people. He fell a long way when his harness mysteriously parted.

Some of these fatalities were mundane or bad luck, others were an inevitable occasional consequence of climbing in a high-committment environment. What none of them do is negate those climber's massive contribution to the development and inspiration of their sport.

I think it is better to judge people by their lives, not their deaths.

In reply to Tom Knowles:

'Everything has to be in context...'

fair call.
what i mean is, how far do we expand that context? whats constitutes a 'climbing' death and therefore being worthy of having ones reputation negated.
and what constitutes recklessness?

my point i suppose is that to die climbing may not be directly because of climbing. it may be the end result of something seemingly unrelated when it was initiated and blossomed on the abruzzi spur.

example:
i had a close call during winter when my concentration lapsed.
it lapsed because id missed my evening coffee, which didnt happen because the coffee shop wasnt open when i left that morning so i got the only coffee i could from a supermarket which didnt turn out to be strong enough at 6am so i drank the one saved for the evening as well. i missed the coffee shop the night before because i was busy mending a glove my daughter had used as a sock in a school play so it had a hole in it. she had to use the glove because she has no black socks and without them she couldnt perform, which would have meant tears....etc etc etc.

so, if id died (and if i were a great climber to begin with) would that go down against me to make me unworthy?
is it just a climbing accident? or does the context make it a parenting accident, a sock accident, a caffeine accident or theatrical accident?

for all we know alex lowe had missed his coffee too that fateful day on shishpangma - but does that mean he died a reckless death that overrides his years of amazing climbing whilst being reknowned as mr safety?

even if he died doing a handstand on his icetools with his underpants on his head and phone number written in lipstick on his butt cheeks - who are we to question his judgement?
ive been fortunate to spend time with some radical elite climbers and some seem like nutters to me when simply they have a level of understanding that makes what seems insane to me possible to them.
if the day comes when one of them dies climbing i wont think its due to recklessness or dubious judgement - you dont get to levels they do without a deep understanding of these things and the chain reaction of events that lead to accidents.

guy lacelle had about the highest potential risk climbing style imaginable, yet to him he never went into anything unless he knew he could do it. he worked totally with probability. then he died by being swept of a gully probably even i wouldnt protect by a truckload of snow.
there was no recklessness. 'reckless' and 'guy lacelle' have possibly never appeared in the same sentence until now. it was competition conditions as controlled as possible and he was climbing with a regular schmoe like you or me.
it would be insulting (i hope whillans can hear this wherever he is) to diss his career as argueably the finest ice soloist because of this.

i think these guys deserve our respect for pushing so deep into probability. they know the ways probability can go.

In reply to ice.solo: 'it would be insulting (i hope whillans can hear this wherever he is) to diss his career '... I don't suppose for a moment Whillans was aiming his comment at highly experienced and talented climbers who were unlucky. I suspect that he was more getting at gung-ho types who tried to make their marks by throwing themselves at projects they were not equipped or ready for, and sometimes got lucky enough to survive and give themselves bragging rights.

We've all met people like that in Chamonix, and I'm sure most of us know poeple like that who didn't get lucky and in those cases, I think he was right - their climbing achievements were more down to luck than judgement.

In reply to Tom Knowles:

You are basing your choices on who hasn't been unlucky, not who are necessarily the better mountaineers. Sure the survival of the above has not all been down to luck, but I'm pretty sure all of them have experienced times when something has gone wrong and they just happened to avoid the worst through being lucky. Mountaineers such as Bonington and Scott have hurried past seracs which only slightly later killed other members of their expeditions. Did they have better experience and judgement? No.

In reply to ice.solo:

'Luck' of course is a human construct. So is probability. I think in this context they are simply different ways of saying the same thing - one in airy-fairy language, one in science speak.

To be 'unlucky' to me would imply that someone has suffered as a result of something bad happening which one would have thought very unlikely to happen. To me 'lucky' would imply that someone had avoided disaster (in whatever form) as a result of something good happening (or something bad not happening) which one would have thought very unlikely.

That sounds very similar to someone 'succuming / not succuming to probability' to me. 'Luck' simply takes the faceless science and humanises it, i.e. says whether this is a good or a bad thing and throws in some judgement for good measure.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:


The Wikipedia entry on Paul Preuss has been corrected and greatly expanded:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Preuss_(climber)

In reply to randisi:

Here is a more accurate translation of Preuss's six principles:

1. You should not be equal to the mountain climbs you undertake, you should be superior.
2. The degree of difficulty that a climber is able to overcome with security on the descent and also believes himself capable of with an easy conscience must represent the upper limit of what he climbs on the ascent.
3.The justification for the use of artificial aids consequently only arises in the event of an immediately threatening danger.
4. The piton is an emergency reserve and not the basis for a method of working.
5. The rope is permitted as a relief-bringing means but ought never be the one true means for making the ascent of the mountain possible.
6. The principle of security ranks among the highest principles. But not the frantic correction of one's own insecurity attained by means of artificial aids, rather that primary security which with every climber should be based in the correct estimation of his ability in relation to his desire.

If you're interested in reading Preuss's actual essay (which has never been published in English) and the entire published controversy sparked by it known as the Mauerhakenstreit or the "Piton Dispute", check out this thread starting with post #183:

http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=999560&tn=180

In reply to randisi:


5. The rope is permitted as a relief-bringing means but ought never be the one true means for making the ascent of the mountain possible.

So you can't climb up it but dogging's ok?

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

I read about Preuss some time ago but I can't remember in what book, either he was mentioned in the auto-biography of another well known continental climber or in a history of Alpinism. It struck me then how modern his approach was, compared to the rope throwing and combined tactics used at the day by some but his "purism" was clearly pushing things very far. The notion that one should always be able to down-climb anything is good sense, especially when soloing (!), but would appear to place a pretty severe limit on technical possibilities. He was very controversial even then but one point that hasn't been mentioned on this thread is the limits of ropes of the day... when leading on hemp after a few meters you probably wouldn't be that much safer than soloing and as you'd have the rope drag to contend with his attitude isn't as weird as it seems to us today for whom the rope means safety.

Although I don't think we can dismiss any climber who dies climbing it certainly is significant concerning a climber who advocates solo climbing as the only "pure" way, and it may explain why his "route" wasn't followed after his death. He is still an inspiration though, but one that few have the ability to follow in its totality. I think it's stage too "pure" as a valid "normal" method of climbing but translated in modern terms his basic theme of relying on competence, and being ready to admit defeat and retreat rather than using excessive means to force the passage is still valid... and still controversial!

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
>
I think it's stage too "pure" as a valid "normal" method of climbing but translated in modern terms his basic theme of relying on competence, and being ready to admit defeat and retreat rather than using excessive means to force the passage is still valid... and still controversial!

If one was to follow this mantra then why would there be a need to retreat?

Surely if you are climbing within your ability it is easier to continue up than to downclimb!

It doesn't make sense

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

You don't really understand this climbing thing do you? If you climb within your ability you can retreat, but putting up a new 1000ft route solo means you have to be able to see when the next move is too hard, and you have to retreat.

Not your fault if all you have ever known is gritstone where you can toprope or have a rope thrown to you but a different thing altogether on a big route in the alps.

In reply to sutty: no need to get shirty, only my interpretation of whats being said.
so please, don't attack my climbing CV if I have an opinion on a statement.

In reply to Tom Knowles:
>


I used to see thing exactly in the same way, but I've long learned that things are unfortunately very different. Death in the hills is often the result of bad judgement, but survival is almost always a matter of luck. Mountains are dangerous, and no matter how level-headed and experiencedyou may be, you can't be sure - actually, not even vaguely sure - something bad may happen.

This point was (horrifically) brought home yesterday here, as the Turin climbing community suffered another loss (in a year that has already seen way too many casualties): Francesco Zavattiero, 57, and a very experienced ski mountaineer, died in a fall during a routine descent on Mt. Croce Rossa, 3557m, a very popular 3500+ peak of the Southern Graians (near the French border). There's no explanation why he fell - it may have been a sudden health problem, or he just slipped. He fell for 300m.

This picture of him was taken yesterday, on the summit of Croce Rossa, few minutes before the accident happened. It was posted on the Internet with the agreement of his family.

http://www.lafiocavenmola.it/modules/xcgal/displayimage.php?pid=86966&f...

This doesn't mean that accident are not provoked by bad judgement, or that bad judgement doesn't lead to accident... but the reverse is sadly not always true.

In reply to sutty: BTW, what you said makes even less sense. If you are climbing something new, you cannot know if its within your ability, so by definition you are not following what he has stated!!

In reply to Luca Signorelli: is that a dog in the background Luca?

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

Yes, the name was Ambra, and was Francesco's dog. She's missing now as well now, as she refused to leave his master's body, then disappeared when the rescuers came to retrieve the body. I know that Francesco's friends are trying to locate here, but the area is quite remote, and chances are very slim.

In reply to Luca Signorelli: indeed, bad times man. I haven't heard of him until now. a sad loss

In reply to Luca Signorelli:

I was going to jump in and reply to this before I'd got to the bottom. Fortunately I waited and saw Luca's reply.

This is the point:
...

So those two lists of names further up the post are probably separated as much by luck as they are by judgement. Any great / famous climbers must have had their fair share of good judgement as well as talent (unless they really are only famous for being dangerous and I can't really think of many), but equally they have all pushed it a bit at times, exposing themselves to a greater degree of risk / chance of bad luck than many of us would be prepared to.

Very sad to hear the story of another casualty which seems, as Luca says, to make the point very obviously.

Thanks Luca.

In reply to sg:

...equally they have all pushed it a bit at times, exposing themselves to a greater degree of risk / chance of bad luck than many of us would be prepared to.



I suppose this fact is what defines them from those of us who have day jobs!

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

Obviously as he climbed long alpine routes he could not know in advance what he would find on new climbs, hence his idea of never climbing beyond ones ability to reverse back down. He clearly envisaged difficult retreats as he admitted that a rope or pitons could be legitimate in the case of unforeseen problems, emergency etc.

I don't think his "rules" were to be taken absolutely literally, just his views... which he lived, and died, by. I think he left a family behind him which is another aspect no one has touched on.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Hi, Bruce.

Preuss didn't think a mere unforeseen problem was sufficient to justify the use of pitons. There needed to be some imminent danger (this may have included objective dangers such as crossing crevasses, but he is not clear on this point).

Preuss advocated learning and mastering the art of down-climbing. He was known to climb up and down a section of rock until he knew it blindfolded. So no unforeseen problem should arise from the downclimbing in and of itself.

Preuss never married. He left behind a mother and two sisters, as well as a gaggle of friends.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

Just for the record (and apologies to the OP for hijacking his thread): last Saturday's tragedy had a somehow positive coda as Francesco's husky pet dog, Ambra, was found alive after a two day search in a barren and wild area (even by alpine standards). It was a collective effort who was organized and directed by Aldo Fantozzi, the mayor of Usseglio, a tiny village on the top of the remote Viù valley. And big cheer to Fausto Perrino, the warden of the Rossa reservoir, who did actually locate Ambra and take her to safety, with not small personal risk.

Francesco's friend have organized a selection of pictures of him during his most recent climbs, including the very last one when he died. They're taken in the Southern Graians, an area he was particularly fond of (as I do). You may see them here

http://www.lafiocavenmola.it/modules/xcgal/thumbnails.php?album=4641

In reply to Luca Signorelli:

It was Mikes thread - he won't mind for such a sad story but with a sliver of good news in the matter