Cerro Torre, A Mountain Consecrated - The Resurrection of th

assiduously stop just short of "I've never met a bolt I didn't like",

Bridwell is to blame.

Bridwell was actually the first to climb the Compressor Route without chopping bolts, thereby setting a dubious precedent for all subsequent climbs

There was nothing dubious about Bridwell and Brewer's FTA (first true ascent)

Bridwell was actually the first to climb the Compressor Route without chopping bolts...

The Brewer/Bridwell ascent was badass. What Maestri did was badass as well, just wrong and dishonourable. Bridwell is not to blame for Maestri's route!

I just read Brewer's article again. Enzolino cherrypicks some nice quotes above, but none of them refer to the actual headwall bolt ladders that Kruk and Kennedy removed.

http://www.thecleanestline.com/2012/02/a-word-.html

//A Word …

by Yvon Chouinard
Ridgeway_r_0024_2


The siege tactic used on Cerro Torre’s Compressor Route is perhaps the most egregious example of alpinism’s egoistic “manifest destiny” philosophy, one that calls for conquering the mountain by any means, then leaving in place the pitons, bolts, ropes and cables. This debases a route, leaving it accessible to those without the skill or nerve to climb in good style. It is the alpinist’s equivalent of hunting with headlights.

Unfortunately, you can see the damage in so many places, in the Dolomites especially, where routes first done in great style in the 1920s now sport bolts every few meters.

Thank God there are a few young climbers like Hayden Kennedy and Jason Kruk who exemplify the best qualities of alpinism. The magnificent southeast ridge of Cerro Torre has been unshackled and can now be an inspiration to future alpinists who have the courage to climb rather than merely summit by any possible means.//

I haven't checked this thread in a few weeks and I'm bored with it now but this quote I found interesting:

"As far as I'm concerned the discussion is not just about the KKK chopping but also the previous Garibotti's and Haley's despectful, deceptive and unfair anti-Maestri propaganda."

What's confusing here, to me, is that I thought it was pretty well established that Maestri perpetrated two enormous hoaxes per his supposed 1959 ascent with Toni Egger, and his Compressor debacle in 1970. In the later, it was always assumed that he actually summited the peak. Not till Bridwell and Brewer completed the line a few years later did the climbing world realize Maestri never finished this ascent either.

In perpetrating such wholesale frauds on the adventure community, playing the world for fools, was Maestri himself not the epitome of someone being "disrespectful, deceptive and unfair." To turn this around and accuse those calling Maestri out for being a bald faced phoney, and ascribing him historical merit and authorship of "classical" routes he never actually completed, seems to border on insanity.

JL

Maestri always declared that he reached what he considered the top of Cerro Torre. WHich for him was just the rock.
So he was quite self-consistent and honest about what he said. If he didn't reach the summit of the mushroom and he would have said that he did reach it. In that case you could say that he was a liar. So I wonder where you see his dishonesty.

His account on the 1959 ascent was inconsistent, but this is not a proof that he lied. Climbing history is plenty of inconsistent accounts.

In conclusion, also in this case, I wonder if dishonesty, unfairness and insanity is just in the eyes of the beholder.

This is like the people who claim they did a new route that ended when they reached the "end of the technical difficulties", far from the summit, and they decide to rappel off. This is called reinventing reality to fit your ego.

I consider basecamp the top of the mountain. Impressed by my ascent?

Maestri always declared that he reached what he considered the top of Cerro Torre. WHich for him was just the rock.

His account on the 1959 ascent was inconsistent, but this is not a proof that he lied. Climbing history is plenty of inconsistent accounts.

I'm beginning to wonder if it's insanity, the lack of Patagonian climbing mileage or the lack of logic that can give this kind of comments.

The summit is the summit and nothing else. The compressor bolts ended before the top of the rock. Pretty much proves he didn't reach the top of the rock like he claimed. It's like climbing the Salbitchijen in the Swiss but not doing the Nadel because "it's not the summit".

1959 thing has been discussed too many times already but If you've ever climbed anything in the massif, it's very evident that failing on the "approach" with 50's gear makes it totally impossible doing the first ascent with an alpine style push to the summit from the col like he claimed. This year that such push was done by Bjorn-Eivind and Ole on Torre Egger but with Nomics and loads of experince on WI6+ ice. The Ferrari first ascent was done with fixed ropes.