Ueli Steck Killed

Social Faux Paw wrote:

food for thought. wrote:

Who are we to judge anyway?

The victors always write the history books. And with how Steck caused a riot amongst hundreds of Sherpas because he almost killed some of them with falling ice by not listening to their instructions, I think we can summarize that Steck was a narcissistic jackass. He even had the gall to insult the Sherpas afterwards.

Revenge is a dish best served cold!

Selfish. Tough luck for him.

Steck was one of the best and a great athlete. Did he have the same blend of speed/aerobic capacity/endurance as a Kiprop, Bekele, etc? No, of course not. High altitude climbing is very expensive and dangerous. It is largely the province of the people who have the money to travel to remote places and take a lot of time off work. There are at least 100x as many people that try to run a 1500/5k/marathon as fast as they can vs. the # of people that have had crampons on over 5000m. I would guess it is probably closer to 500x. The "most fit" climber is not nearly as fit as the most fit runner. It does require a different kind of mental toughness.

The most famous names in climbing are not necessarily the best guys. Ed Visteurs was the first American to do all 8000m peaks without oxygen. Its incredibly impressive. He could not do the same things as Conrad Anker, Jimmy Chin, or Ueli Steck. Not even close.

Steck pushed the limits but never took absurd risks. If you spend 20+ years climbing seriously it becomes a mathematical function for the risk of an avalanche, falling rock, etc. Alex Lowe was one of the best in the world and died in an avalanche his partner survived. Mugs Stump died on a mountain that hundreds of people summit every year. Its part of the calculus mountaineers accept.

-College track guy who was mediocre (1:54, 3:54, 14:51). 3 of the 7 summits and a decent amount of peaks in continental US and the Alps.

Great post. Thanks.

Why would anyone other than someone who is borderline suicidal take the route with a 50% chance of survival rather than the one with a 93% chance of survival if they both end up at the same point anyhow (then again why would you do either one?). Kind of reminds me of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1rZDp2lwVs

Harambe wrote:

Cha-Ching wrote:

Stupid analogy. These mountain idiots die at astronomically higher rate than runners being run over by cars.

Wrong. What Steck was doing was essentially a day hike. Akin to, perhaps, a midweek medium-long run.

Everyone here just proves my point. Some of you seem to run for the 'wrong' reasons. Then again narcissism is likely necessary for most people to dedicate themselves to something as mundane as running.

Nothing at 20,000 feet is the same risk profile as a midweek medium-long run, no matter the skill of the participant or the ease of the terrain. Period.

Odds of dying on a run: somewhere between 1 in 200,000 and 1,000,000

Odds of dying climbing the dark side of Everest: greater than 50%

Not a fair comparison at all.

As both a avid climber and runner, the loss of Ueli was tough. He was one of my biggest inspirations. Climbing and running are similiar in both sports are individual and progress is quantifiable. Where the sports differ is around the culture.

Most runners are focused on improving, breaking 3 hours, sub-4, sub-16. Everyone runner wants to improve and chase the next level. In the climbing world, that desire to improve is looked down on. Talking about grades and wanting to send 5.14 or flash V10 is taboo. No one vocalises that he wants to climb for the sake of climbing a certain grade (although internally every climber wants to hit a grade). The cool thing was to say I climb for "the line" or "the beauty of the movement." As a goal oriented runner first and climber second this always frustrated me. Not because I think everyone should think like me, but I knew we would only pretend not to care to fit in. Ueli was different.

Ueli (and similarily Paxti Usiobaga) inspired me to train and stick to my goals. I pretty much had this video on repeat:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUWBbepsdmY

for a few snapshots of his weekly training:

http://daddygoneclimbing.blogspot.com/2013/11/training-tips-from-ueli-steck.html

RIP to the Swiss Machine

naturist wrote:

Odds of dying on a run: somewhere between 1 in 200,000 and 1,000,000

Odds of dying climbing the dark side of Everest: greater than 50%

Not a fair comparison at all.

So we're in agreement that runners are wusses compared to alpinists.

soyouadmitit wrote:

naturist wrote:

Odds of dying on a run: somewhere between 1 in 200,000 and 1,000,000

Odds of dying climbing the dark side of Everest: greater than 50%

Not a fair comparison at all.

So we're in agreement that runners are wusses compared to alpinists.

I think too much time at altitude has hindered your comprehension skills.

naturist wrote:

Odds of dying on a run: somewhere between 1 in 200,000 and 1,000,000

Odds of dying climbing the dark side of Everest: greater than 50%

Not a fair comparison at all.

This is so damn stupid.

Ueli successfully completed climbs/routes much more difficult that Everest, every year.

This is akin to saying: odds of running sub 16:00 in 5k 1 in 15,000, thus when Farah steps on the line he only has a 1 in 15,000 chance of breaking 16 min.

naturist wrote:

Odds of dying on a run: somewhere between 1 in 200,000 and 1,000,000

Odds of dying climbing the dark side of Everest: greater than 50%

Not a fair comparison at all.

Except, as pointed out multiple times in this thread, Steck didn't die climbing on "the dark side of Everest" (whichever side you might mean by that nonstandard term). He died on a basic acclimatization day climb on Nuptse. Whatever you think of Steck/alpinists/risks/etc, you should at least get the basic facts right about what happened.

And a priori, people would have put the odds of Steck dying on that specific climb (i.e., on that route that day on Nuptse) as less than 1%, probably more like your 1 in 200,000 to a million, given that he had routinely climbed much harder and more dangerous routes. Again, I'm talking about the specific day that Steck perished, not his overall Everest project.

If a runner died on a 10 mile run while training for a 1,000 mile ultra race, it would be dumb to say, well of course they died, they were trying to race 1,000 miles. But welcome to LRC I guess.

This is exactly the kind of hubris that killed Steck. You have no respect for the dangers and the need for safety equipment and practising climbing techniques that don't endanger other people like the Sherpas.

Just about every single mountain guide I know has had more than one incident where they walked away because, and only because, they got lucky. And sometimes things don't go our way.

ohio_miler wrote:

The most famous names in climbing are not necessarily the best guys. Ed Visteurs was the first American to do all 8000m peaks without oxygen. Its incredibly impressive. He could not do the same things as Conrad Anker, Jimmy Chin, or Ueli Steck. Not even close. .....

Jimmy Chin? Wtf? Jimmy's a good climber and athlete, but he's not on the same planet as these other guys. He's better known as a photographer than an athlete. It's like you just lumped Bekele, Komen and wejo together,

I agree that his comparison wasn't fair.

Still, nothing at 20,000 feet is the same risk profile as an average midweek run.

He died climbing alone with no ropes at high altitude on the North Face of a 25,000 ft. mountain (he also nearly died nine years ago on another route that claimed one of his contemporaries and injured another). He set many records for the fastest solo ascent of many routes and many mountains. I guess his final record will be for the fastest descent of mount nuptse.

My post is free of hubris. I just pointed out that Steck died on a route (basic acclimatization on Nuptse) that, a priori, would have been considered low risk for him. That's a fact. I didn't say no risk. And I said nothing about his (or anyone else's) safety equipment or climbing practices, positive or negative.

That you leap from a simple statement of fact to entirely unrelated inferences about my level of respect for the hazards of climbing is hysterical, especially since I've posted nothing about myself.

Maybe try reading posts before losing your s--- responding to them?

rmess wrote:

soyouadmitit wrote:

So we're in agreement that runners are wusses compared to alpinists.

I think too much time at altitude has hindered your comprehension skills.

I think too much time in your mom's basement has hindered your sarcasm detecting skills.