Alpynisto wrote: We should all be thankful Chief stays out of the or he'd be raising the death toll even higher.

Buz Groshong wrote:

Brad Marshall wrote:

OK, let's put this item to bed and move on!

You guys aren't paying attention!

The Chief wrote:Questions?

Bruno_Tibet wrote:

Bruno_Tibet wrote:

The Chief wrote:

Bruno_Tibet wrote:From the little I know about the 96 tragedy, Boukreev is probably the main hero, and not the villain as depicted in Krakauer's book.

But Boukreev is precisely the kind of "guide" you have been bashing over the last 15 pages, I mean he saw his own role as "the one to be here in case" rather than a "guide" in a strict sense. At least not the one to remain 24/7 within 10-15 feet of his clients as you are advocating.

Don't forget that Boukreev reached the summit ahead of all his teammates, started his descent while some other clients were still ascending, and reached C4 ahead of everybody, leaving ALL other clients behind. A criminal attitude in your eyes. But then Boukreev was present to successfully rescue and save the life of several climbers when the need arose. Once nothing more could be done, he did not let himself die on the mountain next to his dead companions. He went down, and faced the critics of people like you.

I, for my side, don't criticise him. I rather honour his memory.

Have a good climb,
Bruno

PS. Another acronym question: what does actually FA mean, to which you always refer? Follow my Advice?

Dude.. this post is one bigass contradiction.

First you say I bashed Boukreev and then you claim he is the epitome of what I claim as what a guide should be.

I never bashed nor criticize Boukreev, not once. I applaud him as an example for the rest to follow. He put his ass on the line several times in the shitiest of conditions to save others. Exactly what all guides that have taken on the responsibility, should do without hesitation. Period!

First Ascent

I started playing this game back in '68 Vitalitym.

Jefe!

I sometimes wonder whether you just pretend not to understand (like me kidding you with my slightly sarcastic comment about Follow my Advice instead of First Ascent), or whether you really do not understand.

The Chief wrote:First you say I bashed Boukreev and then you claim he is the epitome of what I claim as what a guide should be.

I did not say you bashed Boukreev. I said you bashed the type of "guide" he represented.

Trying to summarise: over the last 15 pages you basically said that a good guide must fulfil the following two criteria:

1) NEVER ABANDON a fellow climber needing rescue, whatever the conditions are.

2) STAY ALWAYS with his/her client(s), 24/7 and within maximum 10-15 feet (not sure how you do on rocky sections or steep ice, 10-15 feet is a bit short for a pitch…)

About Nr. 1, everybody agrees on this thread that a good guide (and by extension every mountaineer) should do his/her outmost possible to save fellow climbers. The only disagreement between SP members is at which point you are morally allowed to abort the rescue: before you are dead yourself, or after you are dead; I did not express myself on this point.

About Nr. 2, you seem to be the only one advocating this baby-sitting style to be the only acceptable guiding standard on high Himalayan mountains.

Now back to Boukreev: while both of us will agree that he perfectly fulfil the first criteria, you should accept the fact Boukreev represents exactly the opposed guiding style you have advocated regarding criteria Nr. 2: Arriving first on summit, not waiting for fellow climbers, descending back to C4 before everybody. Fore sure, he was not within 10-15 feet of his clients during good part of the summit day. Not nice, Chief, to misuse the name of dead climbers in order to prove your points.

The Chief wrote:I never bashed nor criticize Boukreev, not once. I applaud him as an example for the rest to follow.

Shall I conclude that you are now ready to applaud the guides / expedition leaders who don't necessary stay within 10-15 feet of their clients?

If this is the case, why did you start a whole scandal about "Chris" guide(s) not being there all the time?

Wish you a good FA,
Bruno

OK Chief, back to serious things...

I guess nobody disagrees with you, Boukreev and Vitaliy by saying that there are far too many Sunday climbers on that hill. My point was not about your opinion and Boukreev's opinion on climbers. My point was about guiding ethics and guiding style.

So let me ask again my two questions, in regard to Boukreev's guiding style on Everest:

Shall I conclude that you are now ready to applaud the guides / expedition leaders who don't necessary stay within 10-15 feet of their clients?

If this is the case, why did you start a whole scandal about "Chris" guide(s) not being there all the time?

Thanks in advance for giving a clear answer!

Edit: Edit

SoCalHiker wrote:I completely agree with you. Being on a guided team that came together to climb a mountain can give you a false sense of security. They climb together but for themselves. To have a partner on a mountain is a entirely different story.