Did you see the announcement from the American Alpine Club about its new membership structure? Well, it used to be almost $100 to be a member for a year. I joined to receive the American Alpine Journal annually (in print) and have the privilege of borrowing books from the Henry S. Hall Jr. American Alpine Library in Golden, Colorado; plus I only had to pay the return shipping!

Now the AAC includes the Library at the Supporter level for just $45. And if you want your copy of the AAJ, that is available at the Partner level, which starts at $65. Click here to learn more and see the other benefits.

So while I am on my six-month blog sabbatical, I have been reading things not on my personal climbing library shelves (well, not yet anyway,) and not even from the AAC Library. Here I have a book from a symposium I attended, a Christmas present, and a book Emily Candors from Penguin Random House’s Dutton publishing house asked me to review; since it was by Synnot, I couldn’t say no, even on my sabbatical! So here is what I am reading now:

Forces for Good: The Six Practices of High-Impact Nonprofits by Leslie R. Crutchfield and Heather McLeod Grant (2008) — I attended (virtually) the New Strategies symposium out of Georgetown University last fall in my official role for my local Habitat for Humanity affiliate. There I met Leslie Crutchfield. She was there talking about the work in her newer book, How Change Happens: Why Some Social Movements Succeed While Others Don’t (2018). We had several copies of Forces for Good on our shelves. I had glanced at the chapter titled Advocate and Serve when I was lobbying in DC but hadn’t read the whole work. It’s more relevant to me now as a manager and not just as an advocate. Crutchfield wrote the book because for too long nonprofit consultants had been measuring nonprofits by for-profit business standards, and this book makes the point that that is wrong because successful nonprofits flout those “rules” and are considered success for for six other reasons, which she writes about with concrete examples.

The Third Pole: Mystery, Obsession, and Death on Mount Everest by Mark Synnott (2021) — Ordinarily, I wouldn’t read a book about climbing Everest after the 1990s, when the mountain became the setting for commercial expeditions and off-grid climbing was where the real action was. But publicist Emily Candor from Dutton reached out to me with another Synnott book and it was about looking for Sandy Irvine and his camera. The Lost Explorer by Conrad Anker and David Roberts (1999) was about the discovery of George Mallory’s remains, and it gave me a great blend of classical mountaineering when it was exploration and current-day Everest by contrast. I am a fifth into it and it has been very enjoyable, if not great. It is being released to the public on April 14th.

Golf’s Holy War: The Battle for The Soul of a Game in an Age of Science by Brett Cyrgalis (2020) — I play golf for fun and I dabble in following pro golfers and what organized clubs are up to, but I prefer ignoring that to just taking pleasure being outside and making the ball fly to where I envisioned it going. It’s thrilling! Still, I play and pay attention enough to see that is a movement toward technical perfection and efficiency in the golf swing. This book goes through the history of how that came to be, how instructors and computers play an increasingly larger role with a growing group of players, but how the — well, I’m not sure what else to call it — metaphysical side of the game, is still strong for a minority of golfers. I am still reading it, and set it aside to finish Synnott’s book, and have yet to see the whole story through. The first chapter was mesmerizing and I feel like Cyrgalis has me on a path and I am picking up new insights in each one about the game, and even what I prefer in the midst of all this noise with spirituality and technology.

Well, that’s it for now. Its going to be nice Saturday so I’m taking the family for a hike. I hope you get out too!

As I was about to edit this part three of three posts about Ueli Steck and his climb on the South Face of Annapurna, I was wrapping things up at work and taking nearly two weeks vacation, when there were still family responsibilities for Christmas undone, and, perhaps worse of all, I came down with a sinus infection. As if that wasn’t enough, my doctor wanted to rule out the plague of 2020, so I got tested and waited anxiously to see if the disease would ruin our Christmas plans. Fortunately, it was not detected and we carried on. For Christmas, Natalie gave me a copy of Nan Shepherd’s The Living Mountain, which is on my long short-list of books to read, which I look forward to finally reading. But lets get to the reason you’re here… the conclusion.

HE MAY NOT HAVE REACHED THE TOP

The two glaring incidents that mare Ueli Steck’s remarkable climbing record to many knowledgeable climbers and climbing historians were his climbs on Shisha Pangma in 2011 and the South Face of Annapurna in 2013. Randolphe Popier analyzed what we knew about both climbs and gave more credence to anyone with any doubt. Still, Steck was honored with a Piolet d’Or for completing the Béghin-Lafaille route on the South Face of Annapurna in a continuous 28 hour push.

I have been writing about this in my last two posts, the culmination of two years of research and pursuing interviews about Steck’s alleged or disputed Béghin-Lafaille route first ascent. Unfortunately, there is no new groundbreaking evidence. Popier and climbing data collectors like Eberhad Jurgalski and even Damien Gildea have all made a solid case against Steck about those climbs. While their points are impossible to argue, there is the chance that despite the lack of evidence, Popier’s conclusions are wrong. None of us were there. Perhaps that works into the favor of a solo climber.

The most persuasive argument against the summit on the South Face of Annapurna was that at night, without instruments, and not being intimately familiar with the features around the summit, it would be difficult to say with confidence, yes, you were there. Steck’s headlamp was seen high on the Béghin-Lafaille route at night, but not at the top. And at the end of the vertical portion of the Béghin-Lafaille line, there are a series of slopes that would easily be mistaken for the mountain’s highest point. Could Steck have thought there was no higher to go after one of of the slopes — a hump, really — descended, but not realizing it was a modest col before the final rise, or next-to-final rise, to the summit?

WAS STECK INCENTIVIZED TO LIE?

Going into this climb, Steck was in a traumatized state. Earlier the same year, Steck, Simone Moro, and Jonathan Griffith were going to attempt a new route on Mount Everest. It was early in the climbing season and the fixed lines of the commercial guide services were not yet finished by the guide services’ local skilled climbers, colloquially referred to as Sherpas these days. Steck, Moro, and Griffith, ascended independently without the Sherpas’ fixed lines. The fixed lines to the summit were not finished and the Sherpas were still building the anchors between Everest and Lhotse, and that’s where the conflict erupted. Steck, Moro, and Griffith were trespassing according to the Sherpas; their work wasn’t complete and it was unsafe and disrespectful to pass them. Shouts ensued with some derogatory language aimed at each other. The disagreements turned to violence and threats with punches and thrown rocks in Camp 2. Melissa Arnot has been credited with brokering a truce.

Steck and his partners did not return to their route but instead went home. Steck says in his autobiography that he felt as though life was out of control on Everest. He tried to return to training and climbing, though in retrospect he admits that he was merely covering up his emotions rather than dealing with the events. Was this enough to motivate him to take great risks, of himself and his honor, to feel accomplished and in control again? The expedition to Annapurna had been on his itinerary for the fall even before he left for Everest, and the opportunity to attempt and succeed on the Béghin-Lafaille route took on new significance.

It can’t go unsaid that professional climbers like Steck also make their money in advertisements, promotions, and public speaking. Steck, I was told by a climber familiar with European professional climbers, that Steck would be paid more than most and had enough means, if he avoided debt, to keep anyone reasonably content. Of course, like in any career, does that income continue to flow if there become a string of failures? After the Everest mob, did Annapurna also create a need to grab, a by any means possible, a historic milestone?

A scene from the television sitcom Seinfeld keeps coming to my mind where the character George gives Jerry golden advice on lying: “It’s not a lie, if you believe it.”

WHO STANDS BY STECK?

Ueli Steck was called the Swiss Machine because he climbed fast, often alone, and seemed to rarely stop moving. He died in 2017, which seems longer ago than when I thought. He fell 1000 meters, though we don’t know precisely if he slipped or the snow and ice wall on Nuptse he was climbing gave way. He was 40 years old. In remembrances, everyone expressed admiration. He was unique, special, a good guy, a good husband, and a great climber.

Steck has been a star of many amazing climbing films and stories. His autobiography, My Life in Climbing (2017), came out, ironically, in December after his fateful fall in April. Steve House wrote the Afterward, dated September 2017, and expressed admiration for Steck how we should follow his approach to life. I reached out to House about the South Face of Annapurna. House and I have exchanged messages over other topics before to help my stories or introduce me to people. My questions about Steck and the South Face of Annapurna, which there were several over months, were all read, but I never received a reply.

I reached out to Steck’s other climbing partners multiple times. I didn’t get any replies about this subject. Everyone was quiet. Considering the controversy, I understand the silence about the South Face of Annapurna. What advantage do they have in defending him now, and why reopen a wound.

I believe that Steck believed he climbed the Béghin-Lafaille route, but that he could not prove to anyone, nor disprove to himself, that he did not reach the summit. Camera lost? So what, it’s damn dark out here. Altimeter and GPS tracking broken? Crap. But who would doubt me if they see my headlamp on this clear night. And isn’t this climb supposed to be more about the climb than the summit anyway?

Steck’s ascent of the Béghin-Lafaille route is notable. It was not a hoax. It was unique. It was flawed. It was exciting. Just like the man who climbed the line.

SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT: I’M TAKING A SIX-MONTH BREAK

After a lot of thought I have decided that I will take a six month break from blogging on The Suburban Mountaineer starting now. It is my blogging sabbatical. I’ve been blogging for over 10 years on this site. I have a stack of unread books about climbing and non-climbing subjects, and hope this will allow me to read them as well as complete other projects in a timely manner. Moreover, I am hoping this will refresh my perspective. I may just continue blogging or do more print article submissions. We’ll have to wait and see how life guides me.

However, I will still be posting on Twitter and the Facebook page (mostly Twitter, by the way.) I enjoy blogging here, so you can bet I will return in July 2021. I will still be reading and taking notes — I can’t help myself — so maybe I will have some posts from the inspiration I find over my break.

For now, be well. Have a good 2021. Climb safe. And keep reading!

Thanks again for stopping by. And if you enjoyed this post, please consider following me on WordPress or Twitter.

Before I get into Ueli Steck and Annapurna, I want to take a moment to acknowledge the contributions of a very special and influential alpinist. As you probably heard, Sir Doug Scott passed away on the evening of December 7, 2020. He was part of the first ascent of the Southwest Everest expedition in 1975–where he was benighted and suffered through the highest open bivy to date on the descent–and embraced traveling in small light teams on his 30 other ascents that included El Capitan, Mt. Asgard, Denali, Mt. Waddington, Shivling, Nanga Parbat, Kangchenjunga, Pic Lenin, and many more. He also did a great deal of charitable work benefiting Himalayan communities.

As accomplished and pioneering as Scott was, he was not unapproachable. Alex Rodie, the editor at Sidetracked Magazine, shared a story like several others I recalled hearing over the years but hadn’t recorded to share. Rodie gave me permission to share what he tweeted about Sir Scott’s passing: “Saddened to read this. Doug Scott was once very kind to me as a young and clueless amateur climbing historian nosing around in the Alpine Club archives.” I raised a toast, and hope you’ll join me, “To Sir Scott: For his accomplishments and that he lived to be 79.”

Last week, I asked if you believe Ueli Steck climbed the South Face of Annapurna in a continuous 28 hour push through the night, and more importantly why? Many of you admitted that you were not familiar with the controversy, some stated firm positions on both sides, several significant partners of Steck were deliberately silent, and one asked posed a different question for all of us. But first, let’s get everyone caught up on the facts.

OCTOBER 9, 2013

Camped on a grassy knoll, Steck’s intended partner, Don Bowie of Canada, and Tenji Sherpa, one of Steck’s climbing friends, Dan Patitucci, a climbing photographer, and a filmmaker named Jonah, waited in camp at the base of Annapurna to the south. Steck and Bowie only went up to camp at 6,100 meters on an earlier attempt days before, and came down. Bowie was sick, or at least not in good shape, and wasn’t going to proceed with Steck. Steck immediately started thinking about going alone. Now he had been gone for over a day, saying he was going to cross the Bergshrund, which he felt was in bad shape, and go as high as he could, perhaps only 5,000 meters at ABC or their high point. But Tenji Sherpa saw a headlamp creep up slowly during the night, and saw it as high as about 200 meters below the summit.

The South Face of Annapurna had been climbed only a few times. It is one of the largest continuous slopes globally, quite steep, and requires advanced technical climbing skills across snow, ice, and rock. The first ascent was by Don Whillians and Dougal Haston as part of a seige-style British expedition lead by Sir Chris Bonington in May 1970. It was the most challenging route on an 8,000-meter peak to date. Nil Bohigas and Envic Lucas went up another line to the east of the first ascent that was more direct to the summit in 1984. Then there was an attempt by a route that captured Steck’s imagination created by Pierre Béghin and Jean Christophe Lafaille in 1992. Béghin died during the retreat and created a true epic for Lafaille over a five day struggle to return safely to home. Lafaille tried again in 1995, 1998, and then, reached the summit in 2002 by the East Ridge with Alberto Inurrategi.

Steck is a speed climber and traveled very light to begin with. He brought with him a down jacket, a fleece hoody, a GPS watch, a camera, a 6mm rope, propane and a stove, a thin primaloft jacket, a tent, heavy down mittens, hardshell pants, double-layer gloves, a little food most of which appeared to be energy bars and chocolate, five bolts, and an ice screw. He didn’t bring a sleeping bag or wear the hip belt on his pack. It was very light and, generally speaking, proven on his solo excursions in the Alps.

In the morning, Bowie, Tenji, and Patitucci went up the snowslope prior to the ice fall to meet Steck with tea. He was alive, well, and reported he had successfully summited the mountain. News flew over social media fast and reached my device. Sometime in the next day or two, Steck was interviewed by Elizabeth Hawley, the great Himalayan climbing archivist, in Khatmandu. She recorded his solo ascent as a bona fide successful climb to the top.

However, while Miss Hawley was satisfied, Steck’s story faced stringent scrutiny from a new generation of critics who’s standards were far more technical than Miss Hawley’s questioning about the climb and what the climber saw, and weighing the climber’s character. At the heart of the evidence against him, Steck had no route data due to a malfunction in his GPS wrist-watch and he reported losing his camera during a small avalanche early on the ascent. While he was clearly on the Béghin-Lafaille line started in 1992, whether he reached the top in the dark was disputed.

DOUBT AND A PIOLET D’OR

During climbing’s rise to being mainstream (not that alpine climbing has ever truly been mainstream,) the New York Times covered this topic: “Swiss climber’s feat honored despite lack of proof,” read the headline. The Piolet d’Or is an annual award that honors the greatest climbs of the year. If you believed Steck, there was no doubt his ascent was worthy of such a trophy.

When I first heard the criticisms, I wasn’t annoyed. The critics were nitpicking; Steck had an honest character. He had no need to lie, conflate, or exaggerate his claims. But my attitude shifted during my annual volunteer work for the Banff Centre’s annual literature competition; I read Ed Douglas’ story in Rock and Ice #251 from July 2018, “The Other Annapurna,” a title inspired by how Maurice Herzog ended his book on the first ascent of the mountain, “There are other Annapurnas in the lives of men.” Douglas wrote about two French climbers, Yannick Graziani and Stéphane Benoist, nearly eclipsed by the fanfare around Steck.

The coverage here in the states about Graziani and Benoist was limited to PlanetMountain.com, if I recall correctly, but it was there. The news I read at the time was modest, but the gist was shortly after Steck returned, the Frenchmen went up the Béghin-Lafaille route too and experienced much harsher conditions, made it to the summit, experienced severe frostbite, and were rushed to Kathmandu for treatment after an eight-day slog. Shortly after they returned, Douglas says Graziani might have seen some ice axe pick marks in the snow higher up but could not be certain. The only other sign that Graziani and Benoist did see was a tent platform cut out, and that, they told Douglas, was before the “real difficulties.”

Douglas also mentioned a report on Steck’s 2011 Shisha Pangma climb that struck Graziani in retrospect. The author was French climbing analyst Randolphe Popier, and he concluded, though Steck was on the route, he could not have made it to the summit of Shisha Pangma in 2011. Graziani told Douglas: “If [Steck] can lie once then he can lie twice.” Popier produced an even more thorough analysis on Steck’s 2013 Annapurna South Face climb. In the Annapurna report Popier used more photo illustrations and points in time to demonstrate credible reasons for doubting Steck. Asking other’s opinions on these reports, after having read them most tell me the same thing: He climbed incredibly but he could not have actually reached the summit and he lied to all of us.

Graziani’s and Benoist’s story was far more credible than Steck; compared to their Odyssey on Annapurna, Steck’s seemed vague, and as Popier and others have pointed out, inconsistent. How can you believe Steck? But could we all be wrong? Or could Steck have been so consumed by pressures that delusion and ego rose up and enveloped his sense of truth? My curiosity rose from just doubt and suspicion to Steck, to a new question: Could Steck still, in light of this research, have made the top of Annapurna, and if he didn’t what happened that compelled him to claim he did?

Thanks again for stopping by. And if you enjoyed this post, please consider following me on WordPress or Twitter.

Before I even had my coffee on a sunny morning in Alexandria, Virginia in October 2013, I woke to several notifications all with the same simple news: Ueli Steck returned to basecamp after climbing Annapurna’s South Face solo in a continuous push over 28 hours. I was mesmerized and aglow from that news all day.

I remember the sunlight shining through early fall leaves into my old condo’s kitchen as I poured the coffee into my favorite mug from Middlebury, Vermont. I was re-tweeting posts and posted on Facebook about the news. This was special. It was the most significant human achievement in the mountains I had witnessed since I started this T.S.M. blog just a couple of years earlier. And it was something to share with my non-climbing friends, which were mostly nonclimbers then, because even they saw videos on YouTube of Steck climbing fast solo in the Alps. I was a witness to a great moment.

I didn’t have a great deal of detail about Steck’s climb that morning, but I was aware the South Face was arduous and rarely climbed. (I think I thought the route was similar to Denali’s avalanche prone Wickersham Wall, which wasn’t precisely the sole challenge. It’s also at high altitude and steeper.) It was first climbed by an expedition lead by Sir Chris Bonnington in 1970, via a vulnerability on the western side of the South Face. Steck climbed the route started by Pierre Béghin and Jean Christophe Lafaille in 1993. That first attempt was Lafaille’s epic. Béghin died during their retreat, and he wrote about it in a memoir, Prisonnier de l’Annapurna (2003).

Steck was nominated and won a Piolet d’Or for the ascent. But before he earned a Piolet d’Or, doubt had crept in. He climbed without his partner, Don Bowie of Canada, his altimeter wristwatch malfunctioned, and he had no photographic proof; his camera fell early on during the ascent. He had no documented proof of his climb — a notable first ascent of a new route. The New York Times even covered the controversy.

Considering Steck’s lack of evidence, I have been asking questions and trying to come to conclusions. Is what he did reasonable for Steck? If he lied, why would he have done so? Was he mistaken? Delusional? Was it media pressure for a professional athlete? And does good reputation and Steck’s character overcome all doubt? I’ve struggled with wanting to believe he pulled it off, but the more I’ve dug, the more complex is the story and our own human judgments.

Over the next two weeks, I hope to have a conversation with you over social media and over email. At the same time, on this T.S.M. blog, I am going to share what I have learned from interviews, what I can share from some confidential sources, and what other climbers have written about Ueli and whether he actually climbed the South Face of Annapurna, or whether its a hoax, a delusion, or something else entirely that points its finger back at ourselves.

Before we go down this rabbit hole, the key question is this: Do you believe Ueli Steck climbed the South Face of Annapurna in a continuous 28 hour push through the night, and more importantly why? Leave me a comment on Twitter or Facebook or shoot me an email (which is on my About page.) I look forward to hearing from you.

Read the next post in this series by clicking here.

Thanks again for stopping by. I’ll be back next week. If you enjoyed this post, you might want to follow me on Twitter and Facebook.

After you reached the top of Denali, you tugged at your left mitten with your teeth and let the fingerless glove dangle on its tether. Your hand, covered in a blue fleece glove unzipped your chest pocket and reached in for your camera. You snapped shots of the view, with the ever-changing camouflage pattern of gleaming white and gray cast over the West Buttress by shifting clouds. Finally, you put your arm around your two partners and snap a selfie.

When you tell your story with your family or your Mountaineering Section of the Appalachian Mountain Club, that photo of the three of you always comes out. To you, it was the culmination of so much time, money, and above all, heart. The photo shows the three of you, with grey sky on the left and bright sunshine on the right and in between your heads is snow and indication of a valley, or maybe that’s just dark from a cloud’s shadow. In fact, your other photos, of the North Summit and the West Buttress, and possibly the one of not-so-distant Begguya, were better proof of your arrival on the summit.

The honor system is widely applied worldwide. Climbers generally accept other climbers claims so long as the climber claiming their first ascent or summit is of good character. For infrequently visited summits, if the story is doubted, a summit record is occasionally disputed in the record. Usually only the larger mountains, that are more competitively climbed where climbers doubt and dispute summits.

My favorite example is the dispute of Frederick Cook’s claim that he made it to the top of Denali in 1906, then referred to as Mount McKinley. Cook visited the range, retreated, and suddenly turned around with one lesser partner and returned with news that he had climbed the highest peak in North America. He even had a photo as proof. His story was dubious to knowledgeable climbers, yet Cook published a book and was generally regarded as the first ascentionist among the general public. The doubt spread by climbers incensed at his injustice, and in 1910 Belmore Browne and Herschel Parker, who Cook made the initial retreat with, returned to the Alaska Range and replicated Cook’s photo-of-proof and debunked the climb altogether. Cook went on denying any hoax.

Summit photos are evidence, particularly with landmarks, even at a distance. Narratives are evidence, and the timing and conditions must be reasonable. Maps or even a GPS-tracked route, are very helpful. All of which could be fabricated, but the honor system still holds generally speaking. As Ronald Reagan once famously said, “Trust, but verify.”

Eberhard Jurgalski of 8000ers.com has records, some of which aren’t widely known, of disputes around the summits of Annapurna, Dhaulagiri I, and Manaslu. To be more precise, there are questions of whether the climbers reached the actual summit. And if the actual summit wasn’t reached, has a custom or norm been created where the area surrounding the summit is considered a successful climb?

Over the last year, in between more pressing life things, I have been talking to established climbing researchers and perusing Jurgalski’s website and have been fascinated by the system he and others have developed using peak photos. Through some painstaking work, they have collected quality views from and of the summit, and labeled all of the notable features with letters, A, B, C, and so forth. The photos submitted as evidence of a climb can then be compared to these points. For example, if the rock covered in snow forming a knob, feature E is always in line with peak D in the distance with a certain amount of visibility from the lower peak in front of it, from a southwest camera angle, then you can clearly see where on the climber stood on the summit.

Of course, with so many instances of climbers reaching the top but not actually arriving on the summit, Jurgalski and others have suggested in 2019, for a point of discussion, introducing summit Tolerance Zones. This is essential for the work on 8000ers.com where counting climbers, by name and date, who reached the summit. When it was assumed everyone was reaching the true tippy top, tallying summiters was simple. The photographic evidence has shown the treatment of summits as a, well, slippery slope.

I believe the summit is the summit. We should be reaching the top, even if there is only room for one person at a time. I’ve done that on much less significant peaks. However, I would hate to have my “expedition” scrutinized like this. I like the self-reporting of the Alpine Journals everywhere, but while the Elizabeth Hawley-like verification prevents more Frederick Cooks, I just want to climb, I don’t want to write a book about how I was first. Of course, too many are speaking to corporate circles and giving Ted Talks (supposedly) about their perseverance and vision through their summit of an 8000-meter peak. Fine, go climb and tell. I’m going to find some better peaks that are under the radar and enjoy it for what it is, a summit. And I know there are others, that will find more impressive lines to go up than a summit to verify. Thanks, I hope I’ll stumble on your story.

UPDATE (Nov. 30, 2020): A few days after I posted this essay, the American Alpine Club published an extensive piece by Damien Gildea, Antarctic alpinist and author, about the dilemma of climbers claiming summits they have not stood upon. He goes in depth into the discovery and the challenge it presents to archival accomplishments as well as what we do going forward.

Thanks again for stopping by. And if you enjoyed this post, please consider following me on WordPress, Twitter, and/or Facebook.