SummitPost.org

Hugh? Seige Style?

The term is Expedition Style or Expedition Mountaineering.

Who created this 'seige style' term?

And Vitality, what you are refering to him calling Mountaineering...., you are correct. The term is Expedition Mountaineering or Expedition Style. He just mixed up the term.

There are two main climbing philosophies in Mountaineering for ascending the highest peaks. Alpine Mountaineering & Expedition Mountaineering.

Damien's explanation of 'alpine style' is correct although I wouldn't call it a method. The method they are using is Alpine Moutnaineering. Even the methods that Expediton Mountaineers use is the skillsets of the Alpine Mountaineer. They aren't 2 separate sports.

Alpine Style is just a word used in guidebooks or journals to qualify an ascent that met certain criteria...ie. single push, no fixed lines...as you explained. When someone says 'alpine-style', climbers know exactly what it means. Light & Fast, no elaborate system of tents etc....

Regarding this 'Capsule Style', this is Expedition Style. Not everything exists in a vacuum, but people generally get the idea of what qualifies a group for Expedition Mountaineering vs the other. Sometimes you'll even see the term "Expeditionary Mountaineering" or "Expeditionary Climbing"...they all mean the same thing ie. Expedition Style.

Uh, symantics. Who cares?

Just to jump back on the original topic, I am scheduled to take climb with the Northwest Mountain School next summer on Mt Adams. I did a fair amount of research across all the different guide services and schools based on programs, price, contents, logistics, etc. I found Olivia at NMS to be the best of them all. Though I won't rate the actual experience with them yet (the climb is Summer 2012), my interactions with them thus far have been stellar, as is their reputation.

http://www.mountainschool.com/

I believe folks witll start seeing a lot more choice when it comes to guide services in the US. There is a group working to allow independent guiding in the US, much like it is run in Europe. The adoption of IFMGA certification standards through the AMGA was a really good step. Supporting small guide companies who employ fully IFMGA certified guides, including John and Olivia at NWMS, is a great way of supporting these efforts which will ultimately result in greater consumer choice.

Bergshrund wrote:Hugh? Seige Style?

The term is Expedition Style or Expedition Mountaineering.

Who created this 'seige style' term?

Not sure who coined it, but it has been in constant use since I started climbing over 20 years ago.

Steve1215 is back!? Where have you been?

Steve1215 wrote: Alpinism involves rock climbing that is rated at least 5.9 in difficulty...or ice climbing of 65 degrees or greater.

I'll just assume that's a tongue-in-cheek shot at some comedy, in which case, thanks for the laugh. But you've got a way to go to beat the rich satire of Bergschrund's post above ...

ExcitableBoy wrote:

Bergshrund wrote:Hugh? Seige Style?

The term is Expedition Style or Expedition Mountaineering.

Who created this 'seige style' term?

Not sure who coined it, but it has been in constant use since I started climbing over 20 years ago.

Sounds like a silly word created by the alpine style propogandists

I've seen the term 'siege tactics' written before. Term sounds silly if you ask me, it's an army thing. For 20 yrs experience Excitable, I'm surprised you still don't understand what it is i've been explaining to you, in the bottom of your Alpinism educational course.

My god boys, are you still debating this.

Alpinism is the European term for Alpine Mountaineering. Why is this so difficult to comprehend.

It comes from the Alps, the terminology.

It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the technical rating of a climb. The word 'Alpinist' does, it is generally applied to a dude climbing more difficult ascents. Then again, even that is a subjective idiotic term. The word 'difficult' is so subjective.

In science there are what are reffered to as 'lumpers' and 'splitters'. Perhaps there is a bit of that going on here, some folks are reductive by nature while others are expansive.

Bergshrund wrote:For 20 yrs experience Excitable, I'm surprised you still don't understand what it is i've been explaining to you, in the bottom of your Alpinism educational course.

No, I do understand what you have been saying. Once again, I simply don't agree. And once again, you have climbed JACK SHIT for proper alpine routes and lack any prespective to make any credible arguments regarding mountaineers vs alpinists.

Bergshrund wrote:Hugh? Seige Style?

No, siege-style.

Who created this 'seige style' term?

The term 'siege-style' has been used for at least 30 years, by people who actually climb, and write books about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expedition_style
http://suburbanmountaineer.com/2011/10/ ... ine-style/

Damien's explanation of 'alpine style' is correct although I wouldn't call it a method.

I'm sure you wouldn't ...

The method they are using is Alpine Moutnaineering.

There is no such 'method'. The term 'alpine mountaineering' is a very vague term and almost a tautology - can you go mountaineering in a non-alpine area? It is too general to use for distinguishing differences within a broader subject.

Even the methods that Expediton Mountaineers use is the skillsets of the Alpine Mountaineer.

Some are, some are not. They use crampons, axes and ropes. But do you pay Sherpas to carry your loads while climbing in the European Alps? Do you pay Sherpas to fix ropes for you? Do you shuttle loads up the normal route on Mont Blanc over a period of weeks? Do you use oxygen on the Matterhorn?

Alpine Style is just a word used in guidebooks or journals

No. It was coined from 'westalpinstil' by Buhl / Schmuck / Wintersteller after their 1957 Karakoram expedition where they made lightweight ascents of Skilbrum and Broad Peak, climbing in a manner that was closer to how they would climb at home in the Alps that the way in which such large mountains were traditionally climbed.

.. to qualify an ascent that met certain criteria...ie. single push

No. 'Single push' is a further subset of 'alpine-style' - they are not exactly the same thing. On a single-push ascent you don't stop and camp, but on an 'alpine-style' ascent you can stop and camp, using the gear you're carrying, without going down and back up. There is a definite and recognised difference, whether you understand it or not.

Regarding this 'Capsule Style', this is Expedition Style.

Again, there is a subtle difference, whether you understand it or not. Capsule-style is regarded as being more committing and difficult than traditional siege-style expedition climbing, because you become cut off from the ground.

...but people generally get the idea of what qualifies a group for Expedition Mountaineering vs the other.

Clearly not.

Different words have different meanings, that's why we use them. They are an aid to understanding, based on collective use and refined over years by those with experience and understanding of applying the definitions in real life. They're not randomly interchangeable just because you don't know any better or are too lazy to learn them properly.

None of these terms exist in a vacuum. You guys are thinking too narrow. The terms are general in a sense, they all (ALPNISM/ALPINE MOUNTAINEERING/MOUNTAINEERING) equate to "Mountain Climbing". They are old and not so exact. Back when the terms were created, nobody obsessed with minor details like these.

The section on Excitables page, the closer I looked at it could have the Crevasse/ice section renamed to GLACIER, ICE, SNOW CLIMBING. His claim that "Mountaineers stick to the easy routes" sounds like it's written from a novice. It's the whole, I climb bigger routes than you, therefore I'm better. "Bigger" or "Harder" is also highly subjective. Who says? It sounds small, you should remove it. The difficulty or technical barriers on a single route have no defining difference for the term "Alpinism" or "Mountaineering".

Excitable: YEARS and # OF ASCENTS unfortunately do not equate to validity of data. Also do not assume you know anything about me. What I choose to tell you, is what you know. What I choose to tell you, may not be everything. Like read this:

"And once again, you have climbed JACK SHIT for proper alpine routes and lack any prespective to make any credible arguments regarding mountaineers vs alpinists. "

Your a grown man, and your kicking and screaming like a 10-yr old with a temper tantrum. You should be ashamed of yourself.

This mode of thinking sounds like the factory proletariat who says he turned a Stanley wrench for 30 years, therefore his choice of Stanley is the right one, BECAUSE he has so many years experience.

As far as Damiens, rant, I'm not even going to go through each line. The funny thing is, when you read each line you don't actually say WHY each statement is incorrect. You quote, then you go off on a rant about something, that could in fact be very legit, but unfortunately has little to do with proving the INVALID-NESS of my statement.

I encourage you dudes to keep this up, you guys are like my new promoters. We are having fun now. However we need some new blood, this is getting long in the tooth.

I await your response.

Bergshrund wrote:... you don't actually say WHY each statement is incorrect. You quote, then you go off on a rant about something, that could in fact be very legit, but unfortunately has little to do with proving the INVALID-NESS of my statement.

In every line of my response I show how your statement is wrong, out of line with the accepted collective knowledge of the worldwide climbing community refined over decades. You can't see it, we know this But you have made the self-centred mistake of thinking that I am talking to you, Bergschrund, for you. I don't care who you are, or what you have, or have not, done.

I'm just correcting all the incorrect things you say for the benefit of others who may peruse these threads, looking to learn or understand better. I consider SP to be a community that exists for the collection and dissemination of knowledge and experience, by anyone who wants to contribute, for all who come here. Anything can be challenged, but with verifiable fact, not hyperbole. Errors or points of debate can be noted, discussed, argued, even if those involved never agree. These forums and threads are like a record, and a mine of information that everybody can access. People will read them and make up their own minds based on the quality of the information presented, which they can go and check somewhere else if they like. Feel free to post third-party expert information that contradicts my statements and supports yours.

I don't give a crap about personal vendettas, elves or playground squabbles. I only care about the information, not who posts it.

Oh, and if you think that was a rant, from me, you really must be new here ...

Bergshrund wrote:The section on Excitables page, the closer I looked at it could have the Crevasse/ice section renamed to GLACIER, ICE, SNOW CLIMBING. His claim that "Mountaineers stick to the easy routes" sounds like it's written from a novice. It's the whole, I climb bigger routes than you, therefore I'm better. "Bigger" or "Harder" is also highly subjective. Who says? It sounds small, you should remove it. The difficulty or technical barriers on a single route have no defining difference for the term "Alpinism" or "Mountaineering".

I wrote an article for the edification of those seeking to climb alpine routes. Other than you, nobody has taken exception to my distinction between mountaineering and alpinism. I have no idea why you are getting so hung up on semantics, but when you write your book about climbing you can write anything you want.

Bergshrund wrote:Your a grown man, and your kicking and screaming like a 10-yr old with a temper tantrum. You should be ashamed of yourself.

When you write your magnum opus, learn some basic grammar.

When I read Alpinist magazine, a magazine devoted to alpine climbing, I read about Damien and his awesome alpine climbs in Antartica, so I consider his opinion more highly than yours.