Just reading Alpinist 28 and marveling at some of the grades that guys were pulling down even in the 70s. Grades like 5.9 A4, which might go free at 5.12. Considering the harnesses back then I’m surprised these grades were even established, as even a minor lead fall on those look like they would push your guts into your legs or head.
Interestingly, even then there seemed to be a rancorous debate on standards, that continues today. However, reading about a modern alpine climb up Jobo Rinjang, Nepal (by Joe Puryear and David Gottlieb) done in alpine style (as opposed to siege, or expedition style - with a large team and carries of gear up to established camps) and in an area of the world were there are few maps and no routes, I come across one of brightest pieces of mountaineering writing I have seen in a while:
I wish I’d been born thirty years ago, so I could experience the great mountains before all the lines were drawn on them. But now I know, in fact, there still exist many large, untouched peaks in the greater Asian ranges. We are only limited by our own perceptions and those of others.
…I climb alpine style to climb as lightly as I can. …That way, the next climbers won’t even know that I’ve been there: they, too, can have a mountain without any garbage or old fixed ropes, without the human impact of long sieges. Nothing but pure ice, rock, and snow.
But that is just my way. It’s not a matter of elitism or of ethical judgement. It’s simply my own vision of beauty.
Contrast the feeling of Joe Puryear’s attitude with that of Marc Twight, speaking of one of his ground-beaking ascents near Chamonix, also in the same issue of Alpinist. The attitudes are identical at the core, but there is a huge difference in feeling:
We called it ED+, 5.9, A3, 90 degrees in the condition we had, but it’s a trade route now, and bolted by those without ethics.
Which is more persuasive?