Tough guy or idiot?

"He really pushed himself as hard as he could," he said. "It was only because he was such a motivated and driven person that the accident happened, but those were the qualities that made him so incredible."

Or maybe those were the qualities that got him killed. Stupidity is no substitute for courage.

Why do dead fools get the accolades?
Young British adventurers killed...

Depends, they aren't releasing details about the accident - and mountaineering is inheritly dangerous. He may have been an idiot - or may have just been taking the risks many people outdoors take (including ourselves) and gotten unlucky. You can't really count on pseudo-eulogies to put any perspective into what happened.

Lindbergh flew solo from New York to Paris when this feat was nearly impossible. He came close to getting himself killed by doing that. But he also was a firm believer in taking care of the details, down to the smallest, and double or triple-checking all his equipment.

As phat said, without knowing more of the details we don't know how much foolhardiness was involved and how much calculated risk-taking. No one has to get killed climbing a mountain, because no one has to climb a mountain at all. But the same is true for backpacking. We hikers take risks, too, but not so near to the hairy edge as mountaineers.

I'd say they were extremely fit and bold and replaced experience with enthusiasm and continued where other wiser men with more fear for their lives would have turned back. Such is youth.

Unfortunately going into very "different"country than what you are familiar with, without any training or preparation, can be fatal. They deserve accolades for their achievements, and they also deserve Darwin awards.

I had a buddy who was a world class ice climber who soloed hundreds of peaks including all of the big ones in this hemisphere but Denali, he was more into the Andes. He laughed at death and returned time after time until he had a heart attack on an easy weekend climb.

He accomplished a lot, if climbing mountains counts for something. I guess falling in the arctic seas is something I can skip, as is being in an avalanche or rock slide. Does it make you a hero to survive something with great objective danger? If you die on your next event does it negate what you did in the first?

How bout the guy who soloed Everest in a day? He didn't carry a tent!!! or the ten essentials! Yet is he the greatest solo alpine climber of all times? A lot of people think so. Was he an idiot?
Jim

Sorry, I can’t judge. Also from this sight: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew...tlett-died.html

“Local authorities are mystified as to the cause of the tragedy since there was no trace of an avalanche, the weather was good and the men were well-equipped.
…"We are unsure about the cause of the accident at the moment."
He added: "One theory is that they may have been hit by a piece of falling ice that broke off from the serac.
”

Thus too little info to say anything.
Accidents could happen to any of us such as a tree falling on you (happened with my nephew--- and he lived!)

-Barry

I tend to have more admiration for those who do incredible things, really know their stuff and keep doing it into thier old age. Like Rheinoldt Messner. These young guys were fools. They were tempting fate (evidenced by their previous trip) - lucked out only so long. Yes, this particular accident may have been a freak accident but the way they were going, they were going to die young at some point. When you depend on luck and bravado, it runs out at some point.

It's like they say about flyers: "There are old pilots and there are bold pilots but there are no old, bold pilots."

Maybe he was a tough idiot.

Sometimes, ignorance is blis!

For quite a few years I helped build driving systems (Vans they could drive themselves) for C4-C5 quadriplegics. A lot of them were risk takers. Motorcyclist, Racers, Hang Gliders, Skiers, Climbers, Construction workers, Veterans. They all have a story about how they were injured.

You have to admire these types of people because they're often the ones that push technologies to the point where they can be used by the masses. But that's not what really drives them. The common denominator is the love of risk.

As a side note, these types were more likely to rehab faster and deal with their injuries with a more positive attitude. They also put more miles on the vehicles and power chairs, and many found new ways to keep pushing the edge of risk.

It was paraplegics that designed and built the racing style chairs with the rear wheels titled in towards the top so they could push the wheel rings easier. They moved the footrest forward to change the center of gravity and they made the chairs way lighter too. All so they could go faster

We do learn from these risk takers. I think we can admire their accomplishments and forgive their failures.

Bill

NOTICE FROM TOMD:
This thread was the subject of discussion by the moderators after I deleted the whole thread yesterday. After some discussion, it was placed back into the forum.
My reason for removing it is as follows:
No one here knows what happened to the two climbers killed in the Alps. Yet several of you, including the OP, have taken it upon yourselves to announce to the rest of us that these two guys were fools and idiots for doing what they were doing and that's why they are dead. The article praising them listed their accomplishments. Why is it so important to you to belittle what they did before the accident that killed them? I thought one purpose of this forum was to encourage people to do more than just sit around on their butts and watch television. Am I missing something?

Criticizing people with no basis in fact other than they were climbing seems to me to be absolutely pointless. If you think all climbers are idiots, then fine, make that clear. I am sure there are a few climbers here who would disagree with you. I know a couple of very smart people who are climbers and have read about many others. I consider making those kinds of statements with no facts to back you up to be irresponsible at best or more accurately, arrogant and ignorant.

TLB encourages all types of opinions. I express them myself on occasion and call people foolish as well at times, but I only do so based on at least some knowledge of the consequences of what the person I am criticizing has either done or has proposed to do.

Equating risk taking with being stupid or foolish is equally off base in my opinion. Using that as a guideline, then much of human progress has been made by fools and idiots and I don't believe that for a minute.

One of the good things about this site is that it is a place to learn from others mistakes. I've posted some of my own. However, namecalling does nothing to move the knowledge base forward and serves no useful purpose other than perhaps make someone feel superior to someone else. If anyone wants to demonstrate how much smarter they are than the rest of us, I can assure you, calling people names doesn't do it.

Tom you know I agree with most all you've said, but I reread the thread and I think there wasn't any real personal derision intended. Some responses were too short to convey an opinion. They were merely comments, and not necessarily directed at those mentioned in the article, but I think intended more generically.

Still, your points are well taken.

I just started reading "Into the Wild" by Jon Krakauer. I'm pretty sure this book is newer to me than most here and has probably been throughly discussed, but I have to say that Daisy's assessment might accurately apply to "Supertramp". I'm only on page 39 so that's all I know at this point about the whole story, still...

But to continue the discussion...

Breaking new ground usually requires some historical perspective and prior experience. Here's a good example (if this is true) of this currently in action:

Base Jumpers take a new kind of leap...

I haven't looked into it, and I know video effects can make this kind of stuff, but I have seen this type of thing verified.

Now here's my point... We all know someone will die doing this. But even if you know you'd never, ever, try it, you have to want too. How can anybody not at least "want" to do that?

Daisy, even you have to "want" to do that This has to be true because you too take risks.

If it was as safe as driving to the store, I'd do it. I'd do it over and over again.

Like "Supertramp" in the book, these guys are probably foolish. But I'm not sure this makes them fools. A fool would never make it that far, would they?

Bill

Tom,

Thanks for your comments. After rereading the article & my comments I have to agree some of your criticism of me is deserved. I apologize for calling these young men names and for allowing my choice of words to paint the world with to wide a brush, but I also think my initial suspicion was correct in that brash, unthoughtful, uncalculated, irresponsible risk taking led to the death of these two 21 year olds.

Here's another story about these guys in previous risk taking.
Adventurers of the Year

Here's some quotes:
"Never mind that they had no serious funding, very little time to plan, and no sailing or dogsledding experience. Never mind that they would almost die (twice, it turned out)...Prudence wasn't necessarily their main concern. They just wanted to throw themselves out there."

"They'd planned to travel on the flat coastal sea ice, but it was so thin they had to climb over rocky headlands instead. That meant glaciers and crevasses. They didn't have good maps or local knowledge or even the right equipment for this. They just skied behind their sleds on the downhills, hoping for the best."

"Gauntlett came very close to dying...His family, Hooper's family, and their trip supporters all recommended stopping, so Hooper presented this to Gauntlett in the hospital in Upernavik..."Rob told me to piss off, we were definitely carrying on." "So they set sail only a few days later, June 2, on the Ice Maiden for a month of dodging icebergs and very little sleep. They had almost no experience at sea, but that was in the spirit of the trip."

I read both articles and I don't get that they've brought anything to any sport other than recklessness. They are advertised as lacking in knowledge, experience and equipment.
I read about their disregard for the opinions of others that they are clearly beholding to for support.
I read about the lack of appropriate gravitas given to the advice of those that do have experience & knowledge of the areas/conditions they were in.
It all adds up to make me suspect that they are largely responsible for their own deaths by not being ready to be where they were.

Please join me in prayer for my two boys:
"Dear God, Please don't let my sons go to the North Pole without knowledge of how to survive in those conditions nor without the necessary stuff to do it. Please don't let my sons rappel off cliffs without first learning how to rappel or deep sea dive without learning to snorkel first. And, Lord, please forgive my smart aleckyness, because you know, Lord, that I love adventure and that my intent is good. But, Dear Lord, let my boys have appropriate common sense, develop their skills first and not kill themselves at 21 years of age. Because, Lord, I don't think it's enough to just show up in extreme environments with nuthin' but attitude, so please help me to teach my boys not to do that. And don't let TomD delete my backpacking.net account. Amen"

Bill

I'm game...
The ONLY reason I do not base jump is a prohibition decreed by my wife some time after I took up solo climbing. I told her that it was safer to jump off than to down climb - maybe the wrong thing to say...
Jim

Coyotemaster, I don't have the power, or the inclination to delete anyone's account. I do get to do a few things others can't do and that includes arguing that some posts should be removed. But, it usually is a collective decision.

Maybe these two were just overly ambitious or lacked common sense; I have no idea. But since I don't, I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. There have been some bad accidents in the mountains this year, some of which could have been avoided if people had been more cautious and heeded warnings. I'm thinking of the snowmobilers killed in the two avalanches in BC. Hard to say what they knew beforehand, but obviously, not enough.

I've done some pretty stupid things myself or shall we say, things I would not encourage others to do without the same skill sets I have and even then, probably not, so I understand when others take risks and things don't turn out well.

You can't protect yourself from everything. People get killed here in LA just standing in their front yard by drive by shootings-happens all the time.

Taking large risk should be a personal decision. The media today really glorifies pretty stupid stuff and is always going for the sensational stories. Those of us with some years and experience can read this stuff with both some admiration as well as realizing that even the foolish are lucky most of the time. We put it into context.

My concern is that our young are subjected to this sensaitional stuff all the time - thinking that what they see on TV is real. Yes, getting yourself killed doing a sensational stunt may get you fame. Taking a calculated risk (even if it is a high risk) once you are competent and have done your "homework" is one thing. To have the hubiris (SP?) to go out and assume you can do anything just because you got up Everest (with the help of a guides) is foolish. Perhaps calling them idiots is not OK. Calling them swayed by the media and foolish youth is appropriate. I sure would like to see a lot more media given to successful expeditions. But if everything goes OK, where is the drama? It is a sad story. I really feel for their parents and loved ones. And I doubt at the moment they died, the said "hey, cool". You do not need to hear a lot of details to make a fair bet that with their attitude that they were eventually going to get nailed.

This is a health and safety section of a forum that a lot of young folks view. I think we need to be responsible and not add to the glorification of the outrageous by the inexperienced.

I agree with WD, this is a good place to emphasize that the risks as well as the rewards need to be considered. I also agree with Bill that few of the comments on this particular thread were belittling, I feel that they simply commented, in a generic sense, on some of the potential consequences of high-risk behavior.

wandering_daisy, that's all very true and it covers an aspect I ignored in my previous posts.

The people in the wheelchairs that I worked with were severely injured. I'm sure if it was their own risky behavior that led to their condition they have had regrets.

I learned a lot from the stories they told me. It made me more careful. And it's made me try to make sure others are careful too. I failed to do that in my previous comments.

And it made me realize how true TomD's point is about how random accidents can change peoples lives in an instant, because not everyone I worked with was a risk taker.

I have had some issues with the media and in a few cases I took action. I called Subaru a few years back and told them to stop running a commercial they had with a car driven by teen boys zooming through mountain roads (They played the song "Radar Love" in this spot). They pulled the ad that week.

I wrote CNN a year or two ago and told them to stop showing the names and faces of "Shooters" a zillion times. I wrote directly to Jeffery Toobin. They, as well as other networks scaled that back a lot, and I'm talking the next day.

What I told them both was basically this... That I would call the next victim and tell them that I had wrote to the company and urged them to stop promoting the issue at hand. And I would offer to testify in court, bring copies the letters I wrote and I would prove they were informed of my concerns, which were detailed, and fully aware of the problems I'd pointed out, and continued with their reckless behavior.

That's a pretty big stick, so it works. At least the times I've done it, it worked.

Bill

It occurs to me that these fellas were very well aware of the risks involved in their pursuits and were willing to accept death as a consequence. It is possible that their defiance of death during their extreme trek may have given them a sense of overconfidence in their abilities and skills. None-the-less, I do feel that people have the right to push their own envelope so long as they do not expect anyone to come rescue them.

MNS

I agree with that. Calculated risks are ok.
They may have been taking less risk than driving a car.
Shit happens. Sad because they were really living.

I think its good to have Search and Rescue, and those guys and gals are great, but for some adventures it would be better to just go and have nobody know your out there. The only thing is family. That makes it different. Society can stuff it though, like they have any better ideas on how one should live wisely.

I was watching the nps video on backcountry hiking in the Grand Canyon. They must have stated 1/2 dozen times that you are responsible for your own rescue and that there is a possibility that nobody will come looking for you. At least that puts the burden of cost and responsibility on the victim. We all know they (nps) will at least attemp rescue, given that they are aware of the situation.

Same goes for Denali NP. Unless someone says your missing, you're on your own. They don't keep track if you've left on the day you were supposed to, so they'll never know to come looking. They make that quite clear.

I think SAR is mostly for incompetent fools that unknowingly put others at risk. Having said that, an important survival skill is being willing to admit it when you discover that you were an incompetent fool that put others at risk. So its always good to bring some communications device, or one of those EPIRBS, and not be ashamed to use it. After your rescued you can maybe discover a cure for cancer or something like that.

Its funny though, the lengths we go through to rescue some tourist on a mountain, while children are starving or suffering from lack of medical car, less than half a world away or not even that far. Makes you wonder.

I don't mean to be argumentative here, but I am compelled to comment on your message...



If you understand them.

Read up on the calculated risks associated with the first 25 Space Shuttle Launches. Then, knowing what you know now, consider getting onboard the Challenger's last flight.

Risking the loss of a buck in the lotto is one thing. Risking the loss of your right arm with the same calculated odds is quite another.



I can't make that stretch.



I'd have to define "Really Living" a bit differently. These guys were whippersnappers. Still wet behind the ears.

It's easy to ignore advice from experienced old men and women. It's harder to become one.



Well, that sort of ignores the impact that celebrity and media can have on some parts of society, especially youngsters, which was the thrust of OP's point, and my most recent one as well. There is a valuable collective wisdom within societies.

I'll share some that was given to me by a good friend that piloted prop driven planes for the Air Force and U.N. for over 20 years.

"When I had flown my first 1000 hours I felt like I was it. I could call myself a pilot and mean it.

When I hit 5000 hours I knew I was the best of the breed. I could fly anything anywhere. Handle any situation.

When I hit 7500 hours I realized that I had seen a lot of great pilots go down. Guys I knew were as good as me. It dawned on me
that is was really luck that had saved my tail quite a few times and not my extraordinary skill. That was a real shocker.

I figure I'd used up my luck at 10,000 hours and retired."

That was told to me by Robert Lane when he was 76 years old. He's been all over the world many times and he is one of the smartest people I've ever had the pleasure to meet. He now lives in the Ozarks on 80 acres about 10 miles from me.

That's living (according to me

But here's the point... Robert's wisdom, gained from a lifetime of experience, can only be passed on to a society. It's up to individuals to benefit from it.

So, after really thinking about it, I believe these young men were at the very least, inexperienced, reckless, and careless. Those are not qualities I admire as a rule. There may be circumstances where they are selfless and heroic qualities, but this was not one of those cases either.

Society has a responsibility to hold knowledge and experience in high regard. Right up there with the gift of life.

As the original post suggested, we should not shower posthumous accolades upon those who ignore collective wisdom and lose their lives in the process.

Bill

I've read the comments on this subject and don't wish to be seem biased but as an Englishman living in Australia for the last 30 years it seems that you guys forget that risk takers were the reason we go out to the back country /bush /arctic etc.Tensing- Nepalese
Hillary---NZ,Scott-Antartic,Grylls-Everest,Hargreaves-K2,Nasa -the Moon--Or I am having a go here.
Sorry but having experienced altitude sickness in the Himalayas at only 2700 metres I have nothing but awe and admiration at people who can push the limits knowing the risks involved.Only got to Langtang which is a bit pussy for us Aussie hard men!!!!!!!!
That was eons ago but i guess my point is that although we all get out there in the wild we are all really insignificant when it comes to adventure.

That's absolutely true (except for wondering_daisy and Jim Shaw and it's a point well taken. But, it is also true that opportunities for fame and fortune as a result of one's adventures have dwindled down to Bear Grylls type sensationalism for mainly entertainment purposes.

The closest thing to real adventurers I've heard of in a long time are these two guys...

Footsteps of Marco Polo

But I'm quite satisfied with my little adventures. Though not epic, they are a lot of fun

Bill

So this next winter, when I hit the big Five O, I plan to be camping in a wilderness somewhere in celebration and I'll toast to these two youngster risk takers that passed before me and showed me the way.

Bill:

Thanks for that. Adventure can be just a few steps from our doorstep.

Well thank you Bill,
I feel like I walk amongst giants... thank you WD.

But to address your post - many of us old farts took to the wilderness like those early himalyan mountaineers - no fear - do it or die along the way, and that was alright with us. You'll notice that WD, Pika, myself, and others who are really experienced are also old and fearless. There are old climbers, and bold climbers, but few old bold climbers. Notice that amongst this bunch, most are not only climbers, but extreme climbers, and people who have lived for extended time in extreme environments, like Pika in Antarctica. We do not approach the wilderness with the attitude of lets go have some safe fun on trail. We go with the idea of lets wait for a mtn storm, then we'll ski into the teeth of it and do a mixed rock/ice climb when we get there. A lot of us backpacked to get our ropes to the particular rock we wanted, and we carried 25 pounds of climbing gear and our camping gear, BUT it takes second place to the climbers of the golden era who carried 50 pounds of soft iron pitons and hemp ropes.

Point is - modern camping is based on safety, old time camping was intended to be more on the edge. Modern campers rarely risk their lives on a daily basis for fun, like sport climbers. The majority of people who read this group fall into that group. The differences in opinion about the reliability of gear comes from the fact that some have to rely on our gear to survive, and some rely on their gear to get them down a relatively safe well travelled path.

I err on being prepared, its kept me alive. But to say that I'm not an idiot who has done all kinds of dangerous things simply because they were dangerous would be inaccurate. I am way crazier than most, but it has given me the opportunity to perfect skills that others do not have and that keep me alive.

I am a solo rock climber and solo winter ski camper. I just say that to define my level of crazy. Because of this, my gear has to be up to my crazyness. Your camping style probably does NOT require the same gear.
Jim