These days the term alpine climbing is tossed around freely. Depending upon who you talked to alpine climbing could be a six-pitch rock climb with a two-hour approach or a virgin route up a 7000 m peak and everything between. While no one argues with the later being termed an alpine climb, the former's designation is debatable. Adding to the confusion is the unabashed braggadocio and, let's call it, bending the truth which is fluent in the alpine climbing world. Not that either chest-beating or lying (just read anything about Maestri and Cerro Torre) is new but the instant gratification of the internet age is such that even relative common alpine climbers can appease their egos. Nobody is interested in establishing moderate climbs even if the routes are in fact moderate. Grades are sticky and no one wants their new route to be any easier than a Grade IV, 5.10, Wi4 or M5. Unfortunately alpine climbing operates on the honor system and will always be susceptible to the machinations of self-aggrandizing climbers.
I am advocating a return to reason in alpinism. Instead of exaggerating the significance of your climb to ensure that you get a paragraph in next year's American Alpine Journal give it an honest grade so that future ascensionists might know what to expect. Alpine climbing is rarely about technical difficulties. The hardest section of a climb rarely correlates with its overall difficulty. Rather the sum of its parts is nearly always more significant than any pitch. Give an honest grade. Don't call your route 5.10 if it maybe had one move on the second pitch that went at that grade.
We should return to the day when a climber would be embarrassed if their climb was repeated climb and found much easier than graded. At the very least we should strive for honesty.
No comments:
Post a Comment