Did Mallory and Irvine reach the summit of Everest?

Post general questions and discuss issues related to climbing.
no avatar
KathyW

 
Posts: 1656
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 7:07 am
Thanked: 53 times in 39 posts

by KathyW » Mon Nov 24, 2008 1:27 am

They might have made it to the top, but it wasn't a successful climb because they didn't make it back down.

User Avatar
MoapaPk

 
Posts: 7779
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 7:42 pm
Thanked: 787 times in 519 posts

by MoapaPk » Mon Nov 24, 2008 3:22 am

wingding wrote:They might have made it to the top, but it wasn't a successful climb because they didn't make it back down.


You read my mind.

User Avatar
Proterra

 
Posts: 1416
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:19 am
Thanked: 121 times in 79 posts

by Proterra » Mon Nov 24, 2008 2:20 pm

MoapaPk wrote:
wingding wrote:They might have made it to the top, but it wasn't a successful climb because they didn't make it back down.


You read my mind.


Aye...

Isn't it like summiting is optional, getting your arse back to BC is mandatory??? They might've achieved the first feat, but the facts are pretty solid against them on that second, most important part. To me, Hillary/Norgay still stands like a rock, simply because of the fact that they were the first ones able to produce a nice wee TR. Unfortunately for us, it was still 48 years BSP. :wink: I bet it would've easily gotten a 99.5% score by now... :) :) :)

Cheers,
Clint.

User Avatar
Charles

 
Posts: 14939
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 9:20 am
Thanked: 1061 times in 783 posts

by Charles » Mon Nov 24, 2008 3:22 pm

MoapaPk wrote:
wingding wrote:They might have made it to the top, but it wasn't a successful climb because they didn't make it back down.


You read my mind.

Reaching the summit has surely nothing to do with getting back down. It is of course preferable to do that too, but if someone is first to climb a hill, i.e. reach the summit, then they´re the first.

User Avatar
Diego Sahagún

 
Posts: 14449
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2001 6:21 pm
Thanked: 719 times in 660 posts

by Diego Sahagún » Mon May 04, 2009 10:10 am


User Avatar
Patrick B

 
Posts: 148
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 1:47 am
Thanked: 2 times in 2 posts

Re: Did Mallory and Irvine reach the summit of Everest?

by Patrick B » Thu May 07, 2009 11:32 pm

Diego Sahagún wrote:Yes, a famous climber (I don't remind who was now) said: you don't climb a mountain till you descend it (more or less). And I think he was right. Also my thought is that is better a good partner than an experienced one but not useful. With this, I don't want to say Odell was a bad partner. Hasta luego.


"Summiting is optional. Getting down is mandatory." Ed Viestures

User Avatar
Diego Sahagún

 
Posts: 14449
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2001 6:21 pm
Thanked: 719 times in 660 posts

by Diego Sahagún » Thu May 07, 2009 11:58 pm

I think he was older than Viesturs

User Avatar
Andinistaloco

 
Posts: 6331
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2002 2:32 am
Thanked: 69 times in 43 posts

by Andinistaloco » Fri May 08, 2009 3:34 pm

charles wrote:
MoapaPk wrote:
wingding wrote:They might have made it to the top, but it wasn't a successful climb because they didn't make it back down.


You read my mind.

Reaching the summit has surely nothing to do with getting back down. It is of course preferable to do that too, but if someone is first to climb a hill, i.e. reach the summit, then they´re the first.


Exactly. A first ascent is just that - a first ascent. It's not called "first ascent and descent." Certainly getting killed on the way down a mountain is failing on a number of levels, but it does not change the fact that someone was the first to climb it.

User Avatar
Alpinisto

 
Posts: 554
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 1:39 am
Thanked: 5 times in 4 posts

by Alpinisto » Fri May 08, 2009 3:40 pm

Andinistaloco wrote:Certainly getting killed on the way down a mountain is failing on a number of levels, but it does not change the fact that someone was the first to climbit.


Not to mention cutting down on your book deal, sponsorship and/or lecture tour opportunities... :roll:

User Avatar
Diego Sahagún

 
Posts: 14449
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2001 6:21 pm
Thanked: 719 times in 660 posts

by Diego Sahagún » Sun May 10, 2009 11:14 pm

Everest is not descended in a day by everybody. Many of the climbers don't reach CB the same day of summit

no avatar
Murph1

 
Posts: 214
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 3:24 am
Thanked: 14 times in 9 posts

Was Mallory & Irvine First Up Everest?

by Murph1 » Tue May 12, 2009 2:40 am

I personally have to say that all the circumstantial evidence points to the fact that Mallory and Irvine never made the top of Everest. Most likely senario is that high winds and lateness in the day forced them to turn back On the descent one of the two, most likely Irvine slipped and fell dragging his pardner off too. These were gutzy guys but their clothing and boots were no match for the conditions on Everest. The high winds near the summit would have cut through their woolen clothing, and their leather, uninsulated boots would have frozen along with their feet very quickly. No sign was ever found at the summit or above the Second Band which indicate they got there.
As to the debate about "Is it a first ascent if the climber or climbers never make it down alive?" I can only say that reaching the top first does qualify as a first ascent, but it sure as hell doesn't qualify as a successful first ascent. If achieving the top is more important than coming back alive it is in my opinion a hallow achievement. Cimbing is a sport, not a death wish. The German teams on the Eiger in the 30's represent the worse senario in the sport. The "Reach the Summit or Die" approach to climbing is in my opinion not good for climbing. There will always be great risk in extreme climbing, but
there is a point when the chances of reaching the summit and coming back alive are so low that prudent climbers say, Turn back today and try again when conditions are better. :wink:

User Avatar
Charles

 
Posts: 14939
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 9:20 am
Thanked: 1061 times in 783 posts

Re: Did Mallory and Irvine reach the summit of Everest?

by Charles » Tue May 12, 2009 3:53 pm

gingerking wrote:
Dingus Milktoast wrote:I hope no answer is EVER found. I wish people would stop looking. I like the enduring mysteries of our sport. If I found the ice man I wouldn't tell anyone.

DMT


+1

humans and this terrible itch we have to know. its not important and, IMO, the people who discover the greatest things in life are those who accept that there are things they will never understand. they dont chase ghosts untill they can prove that ghosts are just loose sheets in the wind, they enjoy that there are still wild things and unknowns in the world.

if i found a 1950s lookin camera on everest (never gonna happen) i would smash it to pieces. why? its not important.

they tried. they had more balls than anyone else. give them the respect they deserve and drop it out of respect. dead men have no pride so all that can be gained from knowing is just that, knowing. a cure for the itch of your curiosity. what a selfish sentiment.

+2

User Avatar
Diego Sahagún

 
Posts: 14449
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2001 6:21 pm
Thanked: 719 times in 660 posts

Re: Did Mallory and Irvine reach the summit of Everest?

by Diego Sahagún » Wed May 13, 2009 12:57 pm

gingerking wrote:
Dingus Milktoast wrote:I hope no answer is EVER found. I wish people would stop looking. I like the enduring mysteries of our sport. If I found the ice man I wouldn't tell anyone.

DMT


+1

humans and this terrible itch we have to know. its not important and, IMO, the people who discover the greatest things in life are those who accept that there are things they will never understand. they dont chase ghosts untill they can prove that ghosts are just loose sheets in the wind, they enjoy that there are still wild things and unknowns in the world.

if i found a 1950s lookin camera on everest (never gonna happen) i would smash it to pieces. why? its not important.

they tried. they had more balls than anyone else. give them the respect they deserve and drop it out of respect. dead men have no pride so all that can be gained from knowing is just that, knowing. a cure for the itch of your curiosity. what a selfish sentiment.


+2.5. If the camera wouldn't be important for you. Why smashing to pieces :?: Why not leaving for other who consider it would be important :?: No, I wouldn't break thought its film could be fogged

User Avatar
radson

 
Posts: 1968
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 11:34 pm
Thanked: 122 times in 86 posts

by radson » Wed May 13, 2009 7:51 pm

humans and this terrible itch we have to know.


having to know, would probably be one of the main reasons mallory and irvine were there in the first place. I would have thought exploration is the pursuit of knowledge.

User Avatar
Diego Sahagún

 
Posts: 14449
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2001 6:21 pm
Thanked: 719 times in 660 posts

by Diego Sahagún » Tue Feb 02, 2010 3:37 pm


PreviousNext

Return to General

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests