Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
'Pass the Pitons' Pete
Big Wall climber
like Ontario, Canada, eh?
|
|
Holy dichotomy, Batman! The plot thickens. What polarizing viewpoints. Incredible.
Lucas - it's really great to have you here. There is nothing that would make me happier than to believe that Maestri really did climb Cerro Torre, but I just can't. In fact, I am always the one to offer the accused the benefit of reasonable doubt. Any defense attorney would want me on his jury, that's for sure.
And in spite of my willingness to offer this benefit of reasonable doubt, I find it very difficult in the case of Maestri, especially in light of Jim's firsthand observations above. So why are you able to do so? What do you know that we don't? Do you know Maestri himself, and if so, what is your relationship with him?
Most importantly - could you somehow convince ME to give Cesare the benefit of the doubt?
I hope you would be so kind as to share your thoughts with us, not just your interpretation of the facts, but also your gut feelings, and why you have them. I love to root for the underdog.
With thanks,
Pete
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Looking at it with a lawyer's eye, and having followed this issue since the 1970s, but never having been there:
There is no evidence that Egger and Maestri got to the summit of Cerro Torre, or anywhere near it, apart from Maestri's word. No physical evidence, and his story of the route above the Col of Conquest does not match the reality. His assertion is otherwise unproveable, in the evidentiary and perhaps philosophical senses. You believe it, or you don't.
OTOH, there is very considerable circumstantial evidence that Egger and Maestri did not get to the top, and probably did not get to the Col of Conquest.
In a Canadian or US court, with the evidence to date, Maestri would not be found, on the balance of probabilities, to have done the climb. It is very unlikely he would win a defamation suit against those who say he didn't do the climb.
Maestri is clearly a fascinating character, and was an outstanding climber.
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
Fascinating thread.
(just a minor point Pete, their soloing grade 6s isn't the same as when you and I soloed Grade VIs)
EDIT:
NO NO NO Pete, not temperature.
Their "grade" is a free climbing rating (so solo means unroped)
Our Grade is an overall assessment of the size of the climb.
|
|
tradmanclimbs
Ice climber
Pomfert VT
|
|
The only way he could have done it would be if there was ice. The only way to try to verify that would be through weather reports for the whole season and photographs of the mountain from close to the date that he claimed to have climbed it. Then there is the conflict between his description of the climbing and what Jim found up there. Again it might look diferent if covered in ice but maby not that much diferent??
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 2, 2009 - 10:36pm PT
|
I have a photo of Toni Egger low on the route with the upper part of the climb to the col showing- it looks drier than when we did it. In my many trips to Patagonia I have never seen ice on the route sufficient for climbing. Even if that happened, there would never be enough ice for V-Threads- where are the rap anchors? Maestris's description of the traverse into the Col of Conquest is completely wrong ice or no ice. Oh! and where did Maestri's 60 degree ice route fron the Col to the summit go to? There is no such thing as 60 degree anything on that piece of mountain real estate.
I know that climbers always want to believe their peers, but this guy is a scoundrel and needs to be outed.
|
|
Hummerchine
Trad climber
East Wenatchee, WA
|
|
This is one of the most awesome threads that I have ever read on any forum on the internet...ever! And I'm an internet junkie! This is what make Supertopo so awesome. I don't even look at it for weeks at a time, then I check in and find stuff like this. Wow! I have a strong opinion as to this story but I don't even want to go there (let's just say I believe Jim Donini far more than...you know...). But hey, miracles happen sometimes...
Anyway, I have already said too much. My point was this thread blows my mind, everyone's posts are just incredible. If you don't find this interesting there is something seriously wrong with you...
Tom Michael
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
Venice, Ca
|
|
I asked this question at least a month ago on this thread and to my knowledge there has been no answer: Are there any photos of CM on the "summit" (below the ice mushroom) during his compressor ascent? Never mind the supposed 1958 ascent, is there any hard evidence that he got to the top of the rock face during the compressor effort? Are we really supposed to believe there was no camera on hand during the climb - in fact, I've seen pics from lower down on the route, just not on "top."
If the man never got to the top of the rock wall during either of his efforts, the whole business is pathological and tragic. I hope for the sake of his own peace of mind that he summitted both times, but I wouldn't bet my life on it. Who would?
JL
|
|
tradmanclimbs
Ice climber
Pomfert VT
|
|
"I have a photo of Toni Egger low on the route with the upper part of the climb to the col showing- it looks drier than when we did it" end quote;
That pretty much works for me. We know he could have soloed grade 3 ice quickly but whers the ice?
they wouldn't have known about threads and would have had to use bollards or snargs but still wheres the ice? and wheres the 60% slope that would allow grade 3 ice climbing?
|
|
justthemaid
climber
Los Angeles
|
|
thanks for reposting that link Aquacaliente. It is a great read.
Quote: "I had fallen about 40 meters, broken some ribs, chipped an elbow, badly bruised a hip and rearranged my mind... No serious damage."
My favorite line.
|
|
Steve Grossman
Trad climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
Maestri will fall from his throne long before the ice mushrooms topple. If even he won't provide a straight and honest answer about his adventure at this point in time then the case is closed in my mind. No style, no conscience, no summit-- no peace of mind....and certainly no underdog, Pete!!!
|
|
'Pass the Pitons' Pete
Big Wall climber
like Ontario, Canada, eh?
|
|
Agua - thanks for the link, but that is knott the article to which I am referring. What I'm looking for is an interview of Bridwell - I believe in Mountain - where he is asked about Cerro Torre, and his thoughts about what Maestri did or didn't do.
Can you find that one, Steve? [C'mon Steve, we all know he probably didn't climb it, but at least let Lucas try to convince us that he might have!]
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 3, 2009 - 10:22am PT
|
Probably didn't climb it...y'all should go down to Patagonia and have a look for yourselves then you might not want to be apologists for the "underdog." Bridwell's article is about the Compressor Route which was put up in 1972 is an entirely different issue.
|
|
'Pass the Pitons' Pete
Big Wall climber
like Ontario, Canada, eh?
|
|
Jim, please do not get the idea that I am an apologist. I am merely trying to find reasonable doubt, which so far I have been unable to do, so I therefore remain firmly in your camp of non-believers. I was merely hoping Lucas could explain his gut feelings and why he [seems to] have reasonable doubt.
|
|
Bldrjac
Ice climber
Boulder
|
|
I thought there was a picture from CMs original article that shows him at his highpoint standing either on top of or next to the compressor. I'm looking through my archive for to see if I can find it. I think it was in La Montagne magazine,
Jack
|
|
lucasignorelli
climber
Torino, Italy
|
|
Jim D:
> You say that it can never be proven that Maestri lied and that he suffers because he rubbed people the wrong way. What do you consider proof?
I consider (negative) proof of a climb - from a mere "investigative" point of view either
1) Someone was seen somewhere else away from the claimed route in the same claimed timeframe, o NOT seen there by external witnesses
or
2) The claimed line was clearly and physically impossible to climb with the materials available at the time AND (mind you, not or) the claimant had clearly not the abilities to do that.
Everything else is just circumstantial evidence. Which bring us to the heart of the problem - 50% of the history of alpinism is based on circumstantial evidence. We're more often than not the only witnesses to our own climbs, and distorting/lying/cheating the crucial details of a climbs very easy. And this is true for - again - 50% of climbing "exploit".
In the majority of the cases, we accept climbers word for face value, even if often their claims are difficult to substantiate. It's a sort of unwritten rule that runs through the entire history of climbing. So, if we decide that "climber's word" is not enough for Maestri - which is what we want to do here - why should we not the same for the rest of the history of climbing? Why shouldn't we decide that the only "acceptable" climbs are those for whom we have supportable evidence?
> Perhaps a confession, but would that be proof because someone who lies once is likely to lie again.
You're right about that, but once again - Maestri is not exactly renowned for lying (outside the Torre thing). In fact is renowned for the opposite - opening his big mouth a bit too often to say what he feels about people.
To make things clear - Maestri ALWAYS made himself well know for saying the wrong thing at the wrong time (see his public clash with Messner in 1974 - another event that's now coming back to haunt him).
>If you take time to read what I have written and the definitive >article by Rolo Garibotti in the AAJ, you might come to the >conclusion that the body of evidence against him is >overwhelming.
I've read your statement (I was tempted to start discussing the topic with you in Chamonix, but you were way too busy with the Piolets D'Or, so I thought it wasn't neither the time nor the place). It's a very articulate and intelligent rebuttal of Maestri claim, but, as Rolo's article on AAJ (which I've read both in the original and the translated version) they're not - in my opinion - enough as final evidence that Maestri lied.
>Because someone is "larger than life" is no reason to believe >them.
I've never said that. I just meant that being Maestri very often a major pain in you know what and - quite frankly - a bit too outspoken for its own good, had a lot of people (particuarly in Italy) quite anxious to see his downfall (which of course has happened)
>Maestri has tried to degrade and intimidate everyone, including >Bonatti, who disagrees with him.
I'm afraid that the person that could seriously "degrade" and "intimidate" Bonatti (at least in Italy) is yet to be born. The last time anyone tried to "intimidate" him (almost 40 years ago) they had his car tyres slashed and his house windows broken. THAT's intimidating
>His cynical, and in the light of the evidence, laughable >dismissal of Bonatti and Mauri for naming the col between CT >and the Adela the "Col of Hope" is one of the most ergregious >statements in climbing history. To refresh your memory: Maestri >said in explaining why he called the col between CT and Torre >Egger the "Col of Conquest" and directly referring to Bonatti. >"There is only the will to conquer, hope is the weapon of the >weak." Guess what: Maestri never set foot on the Col of Conquest.
This is another thing that I find enormously disturbing on some of the backlash against Maestri - he did NOT write that. What he did write was:
"In montagna non esiste la speranza, solo la voglia di conquistare. La speranza è l'arma del povero."
Which translated mean.
"In the mountains there's no hope, only the desire of conquest. Hope is the weapon of the poor."
"Poor", not "weak" - in Italian they've a completely different nuance, and given Maestri political leaning, I don't think the choice of word was just casual. And given that he clearly changed the name of the col as a sort of joke against Bonatti (who at the time had views completely opposite to those of Maestri) and Mauri, I believe this meant a lot more than just a "cynical" joke.
>One of the reasons I have been passionate about climbing for so >many years is due to of the quality of the people I meet. >Exceptions like Maestri come along rarely but they do exist. >Thankfully he is proof positive that the exception makes the >rule.
I understand your point, and you're maybe even right about this, but still, even if we assume that Maestri lied on the 1958 climb (and even taking in account the bolting of the Compressor Route), well, he just lied about a climb, and bolted a route. Hardly anything new or worth making him the Hitler of mountaineering, as I'm afraid he has become in the last ten years. Personally, I would be far more critical of the - many - climbers of the past that, because of their personal climbing pursuits, have wrecked their families, neglected their children, exploited their friends, bullied and sometime damaged their weaker "rivals" and taken advantage of their political connections - often with totalitarian powers, just to keep climbing and climbing and climbing. While I agree with you that there are many wonderful people who climb, and I agree that THEY make climbing worth the effort, I'm afraid they're not exactly the majority.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Thanks Lucas for writing your response.
It's very interesting and thought provoking .....
|
|
'Pass the Pitons' Pete
Big Wall climber
like Ontario, Canada, eh?
|
|
"Hitler" of the mountaineering world is pretty strong language, Lucas. Is this really true? Is Cesare considered such a pariah? How do you think this has come to be, especially within the last ten years? Is it because of opinions of people like Jim and Rolo, or is there more?
|
|
lucasignorelli
climber
Torino, Italy
|
|
Jim D. again
> I have a photo of Toni Egger low on the route with the upper >part of the climb to the col showing- it looks drier than when we >did it. In my many trips to Patagonia I have never seen ice on >the route sufficient for climbing. Even if that happened, there >would never be enough ice for V-Threads- where are the rap >anchors? Maestris's description of the traverse into the Col of >Conquest is completely wrong ice or no ice. Oh! and where did >Maestri's 60 degree ice route fron the Col to the summit go to? >There is no such thing as 60 degree anything on that piece of >mountain real estate.
I feel a bit silly arguing with one of the greatest Patagonia luminaries while a) I've never been there and b) today I had a lot of trouble completing four pitches max F6b, but still, I'll try to explain my point going on a terrain I'm more familiar with
Errors, even HUGE errors on completing the description of a route, aren't not "per se" evidence that the route was not climbed. The first example that I've in mind - in 1954 Tom Burdillon (of Everest fame), together with Rawlinson and Viney, completed in two day the climb of the SE ridge of the Southern Aiguille de Pra Sec, a satellite of the mighty Grandes Jorasses, on the Italian side of Mt. Blanc. It took them two days to complete the climb, and they wrote a very detailed description of the route.
The Aiguilles de Pra Sec are among the least climbed, least know and most obscure and remote mountains of the MB range - they may be climbed once or twice every decade. In 1964 Ottavio Bastrentaz and Dino Rabbi climbed the entire Pra Sec ridge up to the summit of the Grandes Jorasses (in three days), linking the smaller Petites Aiguilles de Pra Sec with the bigger Aiguilles climbed by Burdillon and C. To their suprise, the route had absolutely no relation with sketch written by Bourdillon, except in a couple of points. I've talked again with Dino a couple of years ago (Ottavio died in 2003) and he confirmed that the route he climbed (a narrow and difficult ridge almost 500m high) was completely different from the one described by the Brits ten years before (by the way, Ottavio and Dino climbed the route twice, the second time in 1967 to make the first ascent of the Central and Northern Aiguille)
Now, what should we assume from that? Maybe that Bourdillon lied? Of course this is completely preposterous. The Aiguilles de Pra Sec are absolutely obscure items no one would risk his reputation to claim their ascent, let alone Tom Bourdillon! So the answer must be something else - in my opinion, that they really climbed a parallel rib far more to the R. But it's just an opinion - I guess I'll never had any chance to really find the truth about this (and this is a place I've been!).
Writing on the climbing history of MB I could make a lot of examples of these "wrong/mixed up route descriptions that aren't really lies" - aren't we sure that Maestri doesn't fall in this category?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!