Diego Sahagún wrote: visentin wrote:
Diego Sahagún wrote:It doesn't mean that the peak was an unclimbed peak Eric
Yes, but unclimbed peaks are fun too isn't it ? Diego, since you are a bit Pyrenean, tell me if you've ever heard of Pic de la Pez, that's the three-thousander in question.
I haven't climbed Pico de la Pez but I know that it's near Bachimala, wich I ascended once. I knew about the controversy that you are refering but Juan Buyse included it in his book "Los Tresmiles del Pirineo" in 1993.http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_UIAA ... n%C3%A9ens
I climbed Pico de la Pez some years ago (and all the three-thousand of massif of Bachimala... maybe someday I will write some in SP). It's a correct name because the col gives the name to the peak. We think that usual is a mountain giving the name to a col, but when you have an important peak above a col (in this case Puerto de la Pez) it's tradition to use the name of the col. You have a lot of examples in Pyrenees: Punta del collado de la Rimaya, Pic de Port Vielh, Pic de Port de la Picada, Tuc del Port de Vielha... the problem was when they gave the name of the secondary peak of Pico de la Pez whitout name and they used Pico del Puerto de la Pez... well, this name is an invention, but the name is correct. Really Pico de la Pez=Pico del Puerto de la Pez, it's the same peak with two summits!!!!. Really it's not a new name, it's an alternative name of the same peak.
And all the main peaks of Pyrenees and Picos de Europa were climbed by somebody and we have pretty peaks for climbing in three or four lifes in this places, ... I don't need to search rare aiguilles in strange and uncanny faces as aiguille SW of Balaitous (I think it was climbed a few of years ago by the first time).