Jordan Romero aged 13 years just has Everest and Vinson to do. He is leaving for Everest on March 10.
http://jordanromero.com
http://jordanromero.com/weblog

Good on the young Man (Sorry, but 17 y/o's AREN'T Children any longer)....

I got ten bucks that says he ends up being a well rounded human being, outstanding fellow worker, loyal Husband and persevering/good Father and just plain success throughout his entire adult life.

Hope that he considers joining the Navy and becoming a "Frog".


Oh yeah, I hope that he decides to get on and do this wall while he is young and strong, to round off his endeavor's, before moving on to something bigger and better....

Spot on Rick. I have stated many times that the 7 summit objective is not as much about climbing as it is endurance. This young man has just started his climbing career really, if he choses to continue. Today I get much more satisfaction from completing a technical objective than climbing to the summit of Mount Robson, but that was my progression as well, mountaineering, peak bagging to technical rock and ice climbing. I transformed from pure endurance to endurance+skill. Imagine he will do the same. We use to never think of 17yr olds running marathons either. There would be many in the medical field advising against it actually (affects physical development they say). I helped spot a 17 yr old in the St. George Marathon last year. Unreal endurance at that age...and he was not alone. Guess the "40 is the new 30" trend trickles down. Hope it is trickling up!

Dow Williams wrote:Spot on Rick. I have stated many times that the 7 summit objective is not as much about climbing as it is endurance. This young man has just started his climbing career really, if he choses to continue. Today I get much more satisfaction from completing a technical objective than climbing to the summit of Mount Robson, but that was my progression as well, mountaineering, peak bagging to technical rock and ice climbing. I transformed from pure endurance to endurance+skill. Imagine he will do the same. We use to never think of 17yr olds running marathons either. There would be many in the medical field advising against it actually (affects physical development they say). I helped spot a 17 yr old in the St. George Marathon last year. Unreal endurance at that age...and he was not alone. Guess the "40 is the new 30" trend trickles down. Hope it is trickling up!

Good post Dow. Especially the last part. "27" is the new "17" I guess does apply here.

Wonderful achievement.

Snowslogger wrote:Somebody's daddy's got
$$$$$$$$$$

Imagine how insufferable this kid is going to be for the rest his life.

Dow Williams wrote:We use to never think of 17yr olds running marathons either. There would be many in the medical field advising against it actually (affects physical development they say). I helped spot a 17 yr old in the St. George Marathon last year. Unreal endurance at that age...and he was not alone. Guess the "40 is the new 30" trend trickles down. Hope it is trickling up!

This is not new. Check out this article. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/sport ... hon&st=cse

divnamite wrote:

Dow Williams wrote:We use to never think of 17yr olds running marathons either. There would be many in the medical field advising against it actually (affects physical development they say). I helped spot a 17 yr old in the St. George Marathon last year. Unreal endurance at that age...and he was not alone. Guess the "40 is the new 30" trend trickles down. Hope it is trickling up!

This is not new. Check out this article. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/sport ... hon&st=cse

no, but it has gotten more prevalent in long distance running, and thus even more controversial...I did everything with my girls in moderation (track, climbing, paddling, swimming, skiing, horses, lacrosse, etc) until they went to college as I worried that they could get burnt out mentally if I did not watch their pace, not to mention the desire to expose them to everything to see where they might flow naturally without prejudice....so never worried about the physical development side of it, but I am sure it is real

Dingus Milktoast wrote:

Bob Sihler wrote:It certainly doesn't say much for this notion of climbers being a tribe that we take such delight in trashing the achievements of others and questioning their motives.

Actually is shows tribalism in all its glory.

DMT

True Socialism at it's best.

Exact reason why some of us here totally disdain any connection to it what so ever.

That is why many of us here prefer to be alone when in the mountains. To get away from mental "need to be with the group" confines of those in the "tribe" that insist that their Social Culture Club ideals are the pure mannerism and the true definition of what a purist climber should be.

No thanks....


And, I really do not believe that this young man was after the ideals of this so called tribalism.

Rather, the spirit of adventure and the awesome reward of accomplishment ones gets after busting their ass, on their own and not with a group of others.

This dude was on his own and claims no association to any frkn "tribe" what so ever. That is what I respect in this whole story. One Class Act of an accomplishment. No sign of social action to impress his fellow masses. Just himself.

Tomaz Humar wrote these very simple words that I dearly respect:

"I climb for myself and by myself. In doing so, it allows me to freely step into unknown territories where others fear to go."

And these whispered words by Bonatti tell his story...

"I must go at it alone these days... I find it more peaceful that way."

Just bear in mind, fewer people have climbed the set of 33 New Mexico county highpoints than have completed the 7 summits!

I don't doubt that. I assume that many of the New Mexico highpoints are probably not worth visiting, which is why the low numbers. I know that many of the Colorado highpoints, especially the ones in the east are not. That's a whole new topic though. (PS, the comment on county highpoints was not directed at you; only a general statement on peak list).

You are right. Maybe 10 of the 33 HPs are worth it. The rest range from amusing to questioning sanity. I did not take your comment personally.

I have enjoyed lurking this thread. The sociological analogies are interesting.

I still maintain that for a 17yo to have done this, there had to be someone fronting the money, a lot of it. It does not detract from the feat itself, but to ignore the cost factor is not correct either.

I have a personal aversion to "youngest" records since it drives others to break such records, with the inevitable tragedy to come. Kudos to this particular young man. But he did have some advantages others did not, and the story glosses over that.

Like I posted...

This young man took the challenge and did so on his own behalf. He did it on his own. He did it for no nor with any cheering crowds nor did he do it seeking out the kudos from/with the masses.

He did it for himself, by himself and through himself... regardless where the damn funding came from.

That is the reason I find this entire story totally inspiring.

Dow Williams wrote:

divnamite wrote:

Dow Williams wrote:We use to never think of 17yr olds running marathons either. There would be many in the medical field advising against it actually (affects physical development they say). I helped spot a 17 yr old in the St. George Marathon last year. Unreal endurance at that age...and he was not alone. Guess the "40 is the new 30" trend trickles down. Hope it is trickling up!

This is not new. Check out this article. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/sport ... hon&st=cse

no, but it has gotten more prevalent in long distance running, and thus even more controversial...I did everything with my girls in moderation (track, climbing, paddling, swimming, skiing, horses, lacrosse, etc) until they went to college as I worried that they could get burnt out mentally if I did not watch their pace, not to mention the desire to expose them to everything to see where they might flow naturally without prejudice....so never worried about the physical development side of it, but I am sure it is real

I think you're right about mentally burning out. A kid won't burn out if they really want to participate in a given activity. For example, Gretzky used to be approached by parents that would ask them to tell their kids to practice as much as he did as a kid. He refused. He said that for him it wasn't practice, it was fun. When I was 15/16 (grade 10) I played in about 80 hockey games in addition to my other sports. I wanted to do it. Some activities may be more dangerous in terms of affecting development. Anyway, I wish I had the time to be as active as I used to be. I also wish I would have been mountaineering as early as the kid in the OP. Oh well. Cheers.

Another take on this. Not saying this isn't a great accomplishment for him. One problem I have with the youngest to climb xyz, is I think that people may tend to push to do things before they are ready. Maybe it doesn't matter that much if you have a competent guide/group (don't know if he went guided or not - I assume so though. I have seen this firsthand though, where somebody thought they wanted to do something and realized they were over their head.

surgent wrote:

Just bear in mind, fewer people have climbed the set of 33 New Mexico county highpoints than have completed the 7 summits!

I don't doubt that. I assume that many of the New Mexico highpoints are probably not worth visiting, which is why the low numbers. I know that many of the Colorado highpoints, especially the ones in the east are not. That's a whole new topic though. (PS, the comment on county highpoints was not directed at you; only a general statement on peak list).

You are right. Maybe 10 of the 33 HPs are worth it. The rest range from amusing to questioning sanity. I did not take your comment personally.

I have enjoyed lurking this thread. The sociological analogies are interesting.

I still maintain that for a 17yo to have done this, there had to be someone fronting the money, a lot of it. It does not detract from the feat itself, but to ignore the cost factor is not correct either.

I have a personal aversion to "youngest" records since it drives others to break such records, with the inevitable tragedy to come. Kudos to this particular young man. But he did have some advantages others did not, and the story glosses over that.

What would be an acceptable way for someone to pay for the 7 summits in your opinion?..you know so not to detract form the achievement and put him in a level playing field?

Gahugafuga wrote:He has the undivided attention of more than enough outdoor companies to make this happen without a dime from his parents.

That's true. He seems like a well adjusted fully sponsored athlete to me. Here's his take on the whole thing:

http://www.doglotion.com/blog/bd-athlete-johnny-collinson-becomes-youngest-person-climb-seven-summits

Wow, alright, I'm not going to lie, I'm a little Jealous! haha got to give it to the kid though. he sure has drive, that will get him far in life if he doesn't get killed in the process.