Reinhold Messner on the Jon Krakauer/Anitoli Boukreev Everest Contoversy
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 вер 2024
- Simone Moro, an heroic Italian climber, in an interview with John Martin Meek said Anitoli Boukreev had more than once asked Jon Krakauer to help him rescue other climbers on Everest in 1996 and Krakauer had refused. In a 2011 interview with Meek Reinhold Messner defended Krakauer's decision.
![[UA] Eternal Fire проти NAVI | EPL Season 20 Malta](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/chvlsDygrZM/mqdefault.jpg)
Boukreev has the attitude that you have to be trained enough to climb Everest. Scott Fischer and Rob Hall wanted to make it possible for anyone with enough money and experience with mountains. So I can understand Boukreev. He was able to save the people because he was trained enough. Unlike all the others. That's the big problem on Everest, that too many people want to storm the summit, even though they are not suitable for it. Neither mental nor physical.
They made Everest in to amusement ride. I dont know how I feel. Humans suffering a strides of great achievement make it easier for future generations . Or money the corruption of corporations.
@@danecap3188 I hate this idea that Sandy Pittman was a novice. She had climbed the highest peaks on 6 of the seven continents, and this was her third attempt on everest.
@@duxmealux281 Anotoli went 3 times to rescue people in horrible conditions
The problem is that many mistakes were made, no fixed ropes, people didn't turn around when they should have. You cant expect someone else to risk their life.
Hall, Fischer made huge mistakes
They all should have turned around
Sad ..
The climbers in the Hall and Fischer groups were far from novices. Rob Hall and Scott Fischer were the "pros" and they allowed a late summit. That combined with the storm was what did them in. Rob and Scott made the same mistakes as the "amatuers".
According to every credible source, what you say is much more true about the amatuers going up there today than it was 25 years ago.
@@tinamarief51 "They all should have turned around " Yep. That was the biggie.
Boukreev was in the Scott Fischer's expedition, where nobody died, except Scott. The leader was the only one who died. The tragedy occurs with Rob Hall's expedition, with 4 deaths and 1 seriouly injured by frostbite. Mountain Madness and Broukreev's tatics worked well after all, exceot for Scott Fischer. But he had autonomy and made his own decisions. It was not Boukreev's fault.
One group had 4 oxygen bottles per person, and the other had 3. It made a difference.
@@Deveshh I didn't know that, an interesting point.
“Mountains are not stadiums where I satisfy my ambition to achieve, they are the cathedrals where I practice my religion.” ANATOLI BOUKREEV
that's a pretty powerful quote/philosophy
@@andrehb thats not the point
I saw him on several interviews after the 1996 summit and subsequent disaster (e.g., Larry King) . There's no question he was extremely skilled. But he certainly was an odd duck. A bit on the arrogant/pushy side. It may have been bc he was from Russia. Still, I was saddened when he perished in an avalanche. He told an amazing story.
@@taffycat93 "A bit on the arrogant/pushy side. It may have been bc he was from Russia"
What on Earth is this even supposed to mean...
@@SvalbardSleeperDistrict You dope! It means that there are cultural and language differences that MAY come across differently to those NOT from Russia! Did you really need me to explain that?
At the end of the day I find it really hard to try to blame anything on Boukreev or Krakauer. Blaming anyone in particular seems a pointless exercise, but if I had to pick I'd say It seems in my research that the real blame rests with Scott and Rob (RIP great climbers, and pioneers). Rob didn't follow his rigid turn around time by over 2 hours, and Scott had his team and especially Lopsang overworked, pulling people up the mountain along with so much senseless "equipment" that they were tired out. Scott also didn't rest and pushed himself too hard.
Then it's your fault.
Agree
@@petergianakopoulos4926 what are you even saying?
@@isaacfox4222 I forget
i dont think you can blame one man for the events that occurred on that day, but we can for sure talk shit about krakauers lack of care for his fellow climbers on the mountain. i understand he was more worried about his own life, but he literally rolled over in his sleeping bag when asked to help stranded climbers. that is an extremely piece of shit move to pull
Krakauer's own account said he was spent while on the summit. He never claimed to be a 8000 meter man.
+crosstimbers2 That's true. It's interesting that Hall and Fisher both died while trying to summit far past the turn around time.
I have read both books twice, and I agree with BOTH Boukreev and Krakauer, because they are both essentially saying the same things. Krakauer doesn't blame Boukreev -- in fact, he calls his actions "heroic". Krakauer does question Boukreev's approach to guiding, but clearly there WAS some disconnect between Boukreev and Fischer on Boukreev's role. I saw it as less "blaming Boukreev" and more "yet another example of miscommunication in the haze of altitude". Boukreev himself admits that Fischer was unhappy at times with his guiding, and he also admitted that his belief is to adapt "the man to the mountain", not "the mountain to the man". These admissions essentially validate much of what Krakauer wrote.
So much went wrong on March 10, 1996, that there's plenty of "blame" to go around, if you choose to view it as blame. When I read Krakauer's book a second time, the only thing I would say Krakauer was openly criticizing was the commercialization of the mountain, something I think Boukreev would agree with. I read Krakauer's analysis of that night as a "what if..." analysis, not a "you should have..". And Krakauer does not exclude his own actions from this analysis -- he writes at length of his agonizing over not doing more.
Boukreev (RIP) was a hero. I think Krakauer captured that. But Boukreev was also human, and he made mistakes. I believe his mistakes were primarily in communication, and under normal circumstances (even "Everest normal") they would not have caused any problem. But on that night, when everything went wrong, even the slightest misstep had tragic consequences.
Mike Carrato Beyond heroic
Mike Carrato Dear Mike, I have also read both books twice (in German) and I think that your commentary on what happened in May 1996 on the Mount Everest is very helpful, since you try to "mentalize" - you try to put yourself in Boukreev`s and Krakauer`s shoes. Thank you
Corinna Buck-Lachenmann too many egos and tourist up there on the 8000 peaks, leave that stuff to the pros and accept you can die, guide/sherpa- there is NEVER a guarentee, accept it.
MultiMrMiles Ja. Thank you for answering
no worries bro- the stuff is interesting though...
I don't think Krakauer needs any defense. I think Krakauer felt he was unable to benefit other climbers at the time he was asked to rescue. When you climb a mountain like Everest you have to accept the reality that you are "on your own" to a degree. Krakauer is the only one who knew what his capabilities were at that moment in time. Sour grapes.
Agreed. Over and over, many say it really is, every man for himself.
Yes, Krakauer was capable of staying in his tent while Boukreev risked his life to save three others. That's pretty clear.
With respect, Krakauer had no legal duty to go onto the mountain and rescue climbers in lethal conditions but Anatoli and Neil Beideman, being employed by Scott Fischer, did have a legal duty.
@@ThisIsMusic1985 Krakauer going out there at that point would have just meant another body. He was totally exhausted. He couldn't even carry himself, how could he have carried another?
So Krakauer says. I think Krakauer is haunted by the fact there was some cowardice on his part.
Krakauer had just summited Everest! I bet the man could barely walk much less go reclimb sections of the mountain.
And Bukreev had done the same climb as Krakauer....and yet went back 3 more times. #respect
@syanditbiswas4874 Bukreev came down hours before Krakauer and was drinking tea. Maybe the people who got lost on the way down, wouldn't have got lost if they had a head guide with them. Just saying.
There wouldn't be so much of a 'controversy' if there weren't people like this interviewer trying to stir shit up. And Messner's right to disregard the testimony of Moro, who wasn't even there. Karakauer and Boukreev agreed on much of what actually happened; they just had different ideas about what a guide's role should be. And Messner's absolutely correct: First, Boukreev wrote the book to refute/ defend what Krakauer said in his book. Second, and more importantly, Fischer and Hall's competition to get to the top and disregard for safety had a much greater impact on the events of May 1996.
Both men made the correct decisions and lived to tell about it.
It is my understanding that Krakauer was physically unable to assist with the rescue, and given that he had never been above 17,200ft before this expedition that strikes me as perfectly credible.
Though it is not Krakauer's fault that the guides made poor decisions, I think his mere presence in the group did influence the course of events. Rob wanted Doug to get the summit, why? Because it will make a better story. Likewise, Scott Fisher may have insisted on tagging the summit for worry that if he didn't it would hurt his image. I also believe that Rob would have had a shot at survival even the morning after Hansen died had he continued his descent, and that he chose not to descend because he lost a client, because he felt the shame and dishonor of surviving when a client had died would torment him forever. He preferred to go down with the ship in my interpretation. Another major mistake that is often overlooked: Hall ordered Beck Weathers to stay exactly where he was until Rob came back to help him down, which meant hours and hours of standing inert in the cold becoming increasingly hypoxic. Evidently Hall didn't consider what would happen if he never came down. "Forever" is a pretty long wait. None of the major blunders were Krakauer's. He did his job: returned to his tent safely and expeditiously, becoming one less client to worry about, look for, or rescue. He made no bad choices.
+Jeff Scott A bit of a late response, but I don't think Hall wanted Hansen to reach the summit for the story. He denied Hansen the summit the year before and after that called him many times trying to convince Hansen to try it again. He didn't want to let him down a second time. Also, Hall had a kid on the way and wife he probably loved more than to go down with the ship. We never know what happened when Hansen died but it could've been anything.
Another late response, Krakauer did much more than he could have chosen to do, even by simply trying to maintain SOME communication with the lower camps by radio, and passing on information such as the offer from the IMAX crew to ALL climbers at camp 4, of their oxygen. For anyone playing armchair quarterback, put your money where your mouth is and put yourself on the sharp end... and DO BETTER than either of the two men at the heart of this tempest in a teacup. Bourkeev was a guide, acting in what he believed was the best interests of his (AND OTHER!) clients... Krakauer was a client, and although an accomplished alpinist, was not in any way a high-altitude mountaineer. Both did the best they could, under circumstances that only those who have been on the mountain can even guess at. Peace out.
I agree completely. Doug Hansen was told to turn back; on his 1995 summit attempt; by Rob Hall and then Rob offered ; even encouraged ; Doug to come back in '96. I feel sure that Rob felt like he owed it to Doug, to allow him to reach the summit; even though they were running way past their turn around time.
@@themittonmethod1243 krakauer did nothing at all though. he didnt even try. the problem is he put blame squarely on people when even he didnt know that the weather would turn out as bad as it did.
Not only Krakauer on Rob Hall's team, but Sandy Pittman on Scott Fischer's team who was also writing about the expedition
Boukreev was doing his own thing. When things went bad, he was fresh and did the best he could to save people. RIP to those who lost their lives.
Boukreev seemed like he was a good man saved their butts that night, that wasn't snobbery it's just Eastern block. He was killed in an Avalanche, that was a low blow saying "he's dead the other one's not" jerk.
It's to accept Messner being so crass and heartless, some commenters here claim he didn't mean it like that which I try to accept.
Messner came off as a snob himself here so I don't know wtf he's talking about.
This guy and his sherpas survived 2 whole night in the dead zone without oxygen while everyone else just dies of edema and hypothermia. Also him and buddy made it to summit and back without oxygen as well. This guy knows how to do it right.
well he did all the 8000 whitout oxigen
not sure about that
A guide should climb an 8000'er without oxygen. On his own, go for it.
If you're serious about understanding the 96 disaster, I recommend Lou Kasischke's book "After the Wind". Rob Hal was a great man but he made terrible decisions that day. The worst being that his and Fisher's teams would summit together. That caused the deadly delay that led to the disaster. Kasische also suggests that Krakauer’s presence alone was a big problem. He thinks Hall took unnecessary risks to ensure Krakauer wrote a positive story.
Krakauer’s blaming Anatole Boukreev for the disaster is his way of dealing with his guilt. Boukreev turned out to be the hero. In 1997 Anatoli Boukreev was awarded the David A. Sowles Memorial Award by the American Alpine Club for his rescue of three climbers that terrible night. The award recognizes people "who have distinguished themselves, with unselfish devotion at personal risk or sacrifice of a major objective, in going to the assistance of fellow climbers imperiled in the mountains”. I think that sums up who the real hero was.
Two things can be true at once. Bukreev indeed behave heroically when he saved those people but at the same time his earlier decision to guide without oxygen was roundly criticized by almost every expert climber with the exception of Bukreev's personal friends. That doesn't diminish his later actions, but this is not either or.
When you investigate an accident like this, which is almost always caused by confluence of many factors, you have to be able to look on all aspects of the accident without prejudice. The fact, that economically motivated decisions overrode safety considerations is widely considered to be most important factor. But Bukreev's decision to guide without oxygen, therefore consciously diminishing his own safety margin, is important aspect too (most clearly because oxygen is now mandatory for guides). And so is both Fisher's and Burkeev's inability to agree on what was Bukreev's role as a part of the expedition.
The fact that someone does heroic deeds doesn't, ... cannot in fact, exempt him from criticism. Safety is continuous process that cannot rely on personal heroism.
Regarding Krakauer's book, he did probably the best job in considering all of the above mentioned aspects, including his own presence and how it may have influenced the decision making. That's remarkable level or retrospection. It may not be perfect, but the criticism that was leveled against him is pretty unfair. He didn't 'blame' Bukreev for the disaster. He mentioned him and his decisions among many other aspects of the disaster. That's in my opinion only fair.
Kasischke brought up those important points that are usually not part of the conversation. Because he published so much later, I did not even stumble onto it until September of 2020 and I suspect that not too many people are aware of his book and his perspective. Well worth it though. I read it in one day.
Benjamin Franklin: “By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail.”
That's all that happened there. Money and personal ambitions.
Messner: You judge a man by his ACTIONS, not his words. In the end, Boukreev went out several times in gale conditions and saved the lives of all his clients. The majority of people that died were in Rob Hall's party. Ultimately, an individual is responsible for his own life. Hall, Harris, Hansen, Fischer, & Namba blatantly ignored the turnaround time.
Messner: first human being to summit Everest without supplemental oxygen
OP: some random nobody on the internet
Makes me wonder whose opinion I should take seriously in terms of mountaineering?
That's the hard fact of it all.
I've read Ed Viesturs account of the situation and he essentially agrees with Messner's description of what happened and who they were. He's careful not to say anything too negative but you can tell that he is supportive of Krakauer's account, and rather than cast any negative light on Boukreev he simply says that some of his actions that day were heroic, and that he was an impressive climber. If you read between the lines on the different ways he describes them, you can conclude what his opinion was.
He was very close to Rob Hall, Scott, and others who were there. In fact, some of them had attended his wedding.
Much respect for and awe of Ed Viesturs. I have read all of his books. Without a doubt Boukreev and Viesturs were the two strongest climbers on that mountain in the spring of 1996.
I watched the movie Everest and it piqued my interest in Boukreev! What an amazing mountaineer. All of Boukreev's clients made it. From whatever I've read and researched from different sources - Boukreev did what he could and saved lives. If you're a mountaineer you need to make judgment calls, and you're not going to be of any use to anybody if you don't honor your own body's requirements. The way Krakauer is slandering Boukreev is very off putting! Boukreev is and will always remain one of the very best. People who are not trained mountaineers should never venture into situations where they can become a liability on the one's who know what they're doing.
+Suman Kachroo Didn't they also USE all of the oxygen left behind by other groups?!?!?! If the movie was correct, he didn't take any oxygen up, but definitely descended with oxygen........
+Suman Kachroo What slander? Krakauer writes that Boukreev was the bravest guy he'd ever seen. If Boukreev hadn't gone all Russian on Krakauer, there'd be no controversy and he'd have come out of Krakauer's book a hero. The fact that he'd descended early would be a footnote.
The movie Everest was horrible and did little justice to the story. Krakauer was a fool to sell the rights to it. Into The Wild was such a great book and movie b/c the family was involved in the making of it and Krakauer left it up to people who maybe weren't there? I don't know for sure, but too much was left out and the put things in the movie that no one knows if they happened. Maybe he just didn't want to relive it again, but he should have b/c the movie was awful compared to the book.
+Jme Wink There was Oxygen at the South Summit and usually the Sherpas carry extra. If Boukreev definitely descended with it (I don't know where you got that info from but the movie is inaccurate in places)he likely got it from Camp 4 when he got back from the summit.
+jaelynn zee Bookreev was an absolute proponent of climbing without oxygen as he believed it made or could make him dependent on it and he wouldn't be able to climb without it...
I find it bitter for the dead that Messner does not remember Scott Fisher and Rob Hall names, and then he adds: It is not important.
Regina Bianchi Agreed. It's a bit harsh. He's just too used to the fact that no one will ever forget the name of Reinhold Messner.
+Regina Bianchi i love reinhold really he is a legend but when he mention the factt that Anatoli is only caring for himself is kinda makes me laugh considering the personality of messner
To me boukreev is a legend he saved lives in a hell of condition that night without him up there there would have been even more dead
Krakauer him he stayed quietly if may say inside the tent without doing anything good to try and help people but shit on them judging them. I understand that in the krakauer situation he did not want to risk his own life but then to go and write shit things on any of them i mean those who were on that expedition
The blame goes on both team leader expedition that is to say rob hall and scott fischer thats it
And yes its kinda harsh not to remember rob hall hall as u noticed
+Regina Bianchi Yeah, how about that. I think he said "it doesn't matter" which sounds like someone else in the political arena. In the end, Boukreev, 15+ saved. Krakauer, 0. I think it would have been good to put one's money on the former.
+Regina Bianchi I really understand your point but he did a common translation mistake. He translates typically german phrases into english which causes problems with the context on "it is not important". I'm sure he means Rob Halls person and by that also his name is not important for the conflict between Krakauer and Boukreev or what happend on their descend.
Never seen such utter bullshit in a comment then this one lol. On the topic of not knowing the name, on this topic it is not really important. The 'feud' between Krakauer and Boukreev does not involve Scott Fisher and Rob Hall, yeah they were on their teams. But actually who did what doesn't concern Hall or Fischer in this matter.
Just imagine if Krakauer had tried to help in his extremely distressed state, and walked right off the mountain. I can't follow the logic, it's as if Boukreev and Krakauer and supposed to be equally fit enough to help. Clearly we have to take Krakauer at his word that he wasn't able to assist anyone.
And Boukreev did go out and save people. Good on him. If Krakauer literally couldn't help then that is understandable.
He was stuck out in the storm without O for hours. It's actually a huge credit to his ability and fitness that he was one of the few (two actually) clients who got themselves down in that shit without needing any help, IMO. The fact that he was half-dead after it kind of mitigates his responsibility here, I doubt he was even conscious when Beidleman returned - Toli however was well-rested and had not been exposed to the storm at all.
There at 8k meters, unless your a Russian who fuels off vodka no one can do it
There's a lot to be said for knowing one's limits and abiding by them. Krakauer would have been a liability in his spent, hypoxic state and in staying behind, he did the right thing considering.
It was Krakauer who left Beck Weathers the next morning because Weathers was going to die. Krakauer had rested so he could have stayed around to see if he could do anything.
lost all respect for Messner there.... comparing Krakauer being alive when both came off the mountain is nonsense, Anatoli died a year later ...
Nowadays they climb at very different times, they start at midnight, summit in the morning, and then have all day to get back to camp, and rescue the stragglers.
They leave at like 8pm or 9pm the night before now and summit before noon.
In '96 they left around midnight but due to the fuck up with ropes at the Hillary Step everything was delayed, though most still summited before the turn around time of like 2pm.
ROB HALL!
Yes, sadly the major blame for the 96 disaster must be placed on Hall's decision making that day. He decided the two teams would summit together which caused the delay, the ropes weren't fixed high up as planned and Hall decided to continue up with Doug Hansen well after his own established turn around time. RIP all who died especially Boukreev who ended up being the real hero that day.
@@r.j.randall4549 "Never Bring the Postman Twice"
R. J. Randall I’ve heard that rob pushed Doug to keep going even when Doug was ready to turn around after 2pm . He felt guilty after so he stayed with him ..
This shouldn't be a "controversy." Theres so many poor choices along with the storm. Yes,I have read every memoir written about the 5-96 tragedy. Toli,by his own admission, had poor understanding of English. He claims in his book Climb,Scott wanted. Him to go down and then back up if someone needed him. Three people would've died,if he hadn't had the rest to rescue people. No-one else,even a majority of the sherpas ,except for Lopsangs dad,had the strength to help anyone.
What really ticks me off,is how people climb and automatically want someone to rescue them if something happens no matter high up they are.
This is absolute nonsense. We were there in 1996. Not only did Krakauer refuse to help. Other climbers (that Anatoli didn't mention since they were his friends) also refused to help. In 1997 we did a non-commercial small expedition to Everest and were not treated that well by the big commercial expeditions. Anatoli came over to help us and put his tent next to ours. He was a great guy. Maybe Anatoli was only "up-nosed" when meeting Reinhold - he surely was not with us.
That was 1997, he helped you put up a tent. You didn't meet him in the the middle of an emergency on Everest in a raging blizzard. Anatoli was someone who expected people to be self sufficient and not babied that is very typical of the Russian culture, they are a tough and self reliant people. I think Messner is using a sort of short hand to say this, he's not trying to insult.
@@crimesofthecentury2714 It does not depend on the mentality, it is different. It was forbidden to climb mountains without permission in Soviet Russia. The death of a large group of Dyatlov in the Ural Mountains is an example of this. This tactical difference is paid for in blood.
Tom Sjogren, Reinhold is talking about something he knows nothing about, he is jumping in the Krakauer bandwagon to try to tarnish Anatoli Boukreev because Anatoli was the greatest climber the world has ever seen.
Thank's for setting the record straight on Anatoli, the true hero of that day.
I can’t recall the interviewer, but Krauker said, when told, “So Anatoli possibly risked his own life to save the other-“ JK cut him off and emphatically said, “Not ‘possibly,’ ... ABSOLUTELY, UNEQUIVOCALLY he did.” This was within a year of returning.
Say what you like about Anatoly now that he isn't here to defend himself, but what he did that night in 96 went way beyond heroism. The man should get the credit he deserves, he could have stayed in his tent like Krakauer did!
Correction: Anatoly DID stay in his tent...for hours...AFTER he abandoned his clients and did NOT help them get down to safety earlier. It's all very well to be "heroic" dragging folks back in the middle of a blizzard, but it would have been far SMARTER to say to
yourself, "where the hell is everybody? maybe something went wrong?" Did Anatoly make a move BEFORE he was told people were in trouble? Do you think maybe Beck Wethers has a slightly different opinion about Anatoly's "heroism" after he was left for dead by him?
Publishers LOVE this kind of controversy.
Has no one considered that Boukreev may have asked Krakauer three times to go with him so that a WRITER on assignment could report his "heroic" exploits? If that sounds cold, then consider that
Boukreev apparently never wondered "Where the hell is everybody?" for hours and did nothing.
The real question here is: if Neal Beidleman HADN'T stumbled into camp and said, "get out there and help", do you think Boukreev would have done ANYTHING AT ALL?
I don't understand why this guy is being interviewed and allowed to talk about the event and people he barely knew. It's like asking the audience about their opinion on a favourite show or the shopkeeper about his customer's private life. He appeared to have had a lot to say on a topic, as many of us. However, he miserably failed to remember the names of people he has been so openly criticising. Above all, and to his embarrassment, he couldn't even distinguish the underlying principles between the ghostwriter and co-writer which, shows the level of his general knowledge. Further, Boukreev never had the opportunity to learn English in school. He didn't have this type of privileges or means, and therefore, it's perfectly understandable as to why he needed a co-writer. Before throwing other people under the bus, this man needs to ask himself how many books has he written? None. How many people has he saved in the storm over 8000m? None. If so, he should have kept his opinions to himself especially, on things he knew nothing about.
people like to gossip dude...it's sad but few are above it.
Anybody who tries to climb Everest and dies in the process has nobody else to blame but their own damn selves
Dude went out into a storm up in the death zone several times and saved people...that's all you need know. A man is defined by his actions - who went out and who stayed in? End of story.
After looking at this over the years..it's clear that many should not have even been up there. To commercialize Everest and to bring low skilled climbers who were rank amateurs and some publicity seekers, was the most dangerous thing that was done. It was just a matter of time before an incident like this was going to happen. One can blame any one of the experts for what happened, but it's clearly obvious to me that this was going to happen way before this incident took place. Messner, Anatoli, Krakauer..these are the kinds of climbers that should be on the mountain, many others whose names need not be mentioned, need not have been there...they just didn't have the skill or experience to deal in such a harsh unforgiving environment, let alone making small mistakes that will cost you big!
krakauer is a type of person that if he got stuck on a bad situation, he will only think about himself and he dont give a fuck to another.
+Jhon Price Most people would if they were in the situation the group was in on Everest. Krakauer was still just a client, and not a guide. At the end of the day, the most important life is your own.
+CoDWiiPS3Gameplay it is my understanding yasoku and beck collapsed only 300 yards from the camp 4 tents and this is also where anotoli rescued those people IMHO krakhauer guided by anotoli could have walked that short distance to help however if he said he was unable than we have to take him at his word Do I think his accounts of the events protect himself Of course
You are obviously just forming an uninformed opinion about a man who was a good climber and a client on this ill fated expedition. He did was anyone else would have given the state that he was in when he was asked to join the search. I advise you to do conduct more research before throwing up inaccurate, slandering comments. Btw, Krakauer is a man of sheer integrity. Enough said..
Mr Messner: if you weren't there yourself, if you've got nothing really to say, if you can't even speak the language properly, why are you talking? You've met both Krakauer and Boukreev - so what? Does that add any information? This interview is a crying shame.
Messner is completely disregarding a lot of really good argumentations that Anatoli wrote in his book - Messner seems to take into account only the (mostly false) allegations made by Krakauer.
Messner did always save his life first in opposite the others of his companions, who died trying to save others life. If you watch some documentaries, you will not be surprised Messner sides with Krakauer.
what else would you expect from two nazis.."
@@splifstar85 lol
I do hope Reinhold is now aware of who Rob was. He was an amazing human being.
LOL, no, Messner is an amazing human being, he just climbed the mountain himself, as a true mountaineer would do. He didn't start a mountain guide business and sent inexperienced people to their deaths on the mountain for no reason. And the mountains have answered, too: look who is still alive and well today to tell the tale. And who had long been dead and wind dried and is still bleaching on the mountain right now? Nuf said!
@@terranrepublic7023 I think ther is a difference between an amazing human being and amazing climber. Messner has his own share of controversies that dont make him look like a good person. to me he could be the best climber in the world (which he probably is or was in his prime) but saying someone's name doesnt matter comes off pretty arrogant. Messner probably surpasses Hall as a mountaineer but as a human being.. not so much.
an amazing human being most certainly but not a professional leader or mountaineer at all. and thats what caused his demise unfortunately
Anatoli Boukreev was a great climber and earns my total respect, with his records and achievements and his love of the mountain. That's what counts, more than his failure as a guide.
May he rest in peace in the paradise ot mountaineers.
Boukreev was awesome and i respect him for not holding clients hands
Fascinating, though I can't believe the bloke interviewing someone of the stature of Rheinhold Messner didn't even seem to know the names of Scott Fisher and Rob Hall! Bizarre. My (what I feel is a very important take) was that Krakeur was (in a sense re; marketing/advertising) a client. Boukreev was not. And that, is a very critical difference.
The difference between Boukreev and Krakauer is that Boukreev didn't live by the 'every man for himself' axiom. Using the argument 'He (Krakauer) knew his limits' to save the world 'another casualty' because he was 'smart' (God-forbid you should think he was uncaring) is a fallacy akin to saying, "A went out to save others but he is uncaring. B did not go out to save other (to save his own life) but is genuinely caring."
It was the plan all along for Anatoli to summit fast so he could go back to camp4 and get extra oxygen for the ones coming down. Except he didn’t go back to carry oxygen. No more time, the storm was there. He went out to save lives. More than others did. Also, Anatoli is also the only expedition leader that survived.
Let's not forget that one may not have been physically strong enough to go out into the night and may have made things worse.
I like Krakauer but he seems oblivious to the stress he and his publicity added to the weight that both leaders carried. He did seems quite guilty about not really encouraging Beck to descend with him, and possibly not helping Anatoly do his rescues. Ive also heard for the first time that they knew Beck and Yamba were still breathing nearby, but they made the decision to leave them.
Though I also think Anatoly contributed to Fischers exhaustion, by abrogating his head guide responsibilities, including one-on-one client support.
But independently to them, the Storm driven constant low pressure system brought lower barometric pressure, and therefore significantly lower O2 partial pressures. (15% lower) So only air with 25% pressure now. That would increase bad judgement calls, obsessions, exhaustions, and for the leaders, eventually the complete inability to actually get up from a seated position at all. Did you realise that?
He looks like a full grown Peter Dinklage 😆😆😆
I think it's easy to Monday morning QB the tragedy of
'96. No one is perfect. There were a lot of people on Everest that had no business being there. It seems like no one was following protocol. No one was turning back before 2PM. Then a storm hit. It was the perfect environment for things to turn to shit, and they did. Anatoli did more than most people would have done. If were him, I would not have done the same, I would have made it clear to everyone that if you don't turn back if you can't summit by 2PM, you're on your own. Being a guide does not mean that you need to risk your life for people that are too stupid to be on the mountain in the first place. Jon just wrote about his experience, what he saw...and lived through. All the outside criticism is just noise. You were not there.
From "the Climb" book:
In late July, Boukreev obtained his copy of the Krakauer article and, coincidentally, on the same day Martin Adams arrived in Santa Fe to visit with Boukreev. They hadn’t seen each other since Kathmandu. In the last hour of daylight on a summer evening, sitting on a patio around a large circular table with friends, Boukreev and Adams listened as the article was read aloud. When Krakauer referred to him, Boukreev leaned forward, trying to understand the words and their meaning: “Boukreev had returned to Camp IV at 4:30 P.M., before the brunt of the storm, having rushed down from the summit without waiting for clients-extremely questionable behavior for a guide.”
Boukreev looked around the table, wondering if the people around him had heard the words as he had.
Scott authorized my going down, to be ready to go back up. This was the plan. It worked. I don’t understand why he would write this.
As Krakauer’s article continued, he implied that had Boukreev descended with clients, they might not have had the problems they did coming down, and that suggestion was devastating.
I had no clear idea that the weather was a potential problem until I was well down the mountain. My concern, as was Scott’s, was that the climbers’ oxygen supplies were going to run out. I did the job Scott wanted me to do. If I had been farther up the mountain when the full force of the storm hit, I think it is likely I would have died with the clients. I honestly do. I am not a superman. In that weather, we all could possibly have died.
Boukreev excused himself from the table and went into his friend’s house to retrieve his Russian-English dictionary. When he returned, he thumbed through it, looking up words as the reading contin��reaued: “Boukreev’s impatience on the descent more plausibly resulted from the fact that he wasn’t using bottled oxygen and was relatively lightly dressed and therefore had to get down.”
This time Boukreev said nothing when he left the table, but he returned within a few moments, some photographic prints in his hand. As he laid them on the table amongst the wine bottles, Martin Adams picked one up, one of him and Boukreev taken on the summit. “Toli,” Adams said, “I don’t need the pictures. You were as well dressed on the mountain as anyone I know. I’m the one who gave you the climbing suit.” Taking a cigar out of his mouth, Adams shook his head. “This guy! This guy is so much smoke!” The picture that Adams had in his hand showed Boukreev in the climbing suit Adams had purchased as a gift for him when, just before the expedition, Adams had bought the exact same model for himself.
On the issue of Boukreev’s climbing without oxygen, Boukreev was just as puzzled as he had been over the issue of how he was dressed.
I have climbed mountains for more than twenty-five years, and only once on an assault of an 8,000er did I ever use it. Never has it been a problem for me, and Scott approved my climbing without it.
As the article concluded, Krakauer offered a dramatic narrative describing how, just above Camp IV, he had encountered one of Rob Hall’s guides, Andy Harris, and had a conversation with him about the danger of an icy slope that stood between them and the safety of their tents. Harris had slipped and fallen down the slope, Krakauer reported, and then had presumably walked off the face of Lhotse and vanished forever. Adams, listening quietly as the section was read, interrupted and spoke, a measure of cynicism in his voice. “That was me. That was me he saw above Camp IV, and I’ve told him that.” In the weeks prior to Adams’s coming to Santa Fe, Krakauer had called Adams and asked if it could have been Adams and not Andy Harris that Krakauer, on his descent, had encountered above Camp IV. Adams hung up and reread an interview that Krakauer had granted shortly after the disaster. Considering again Krakauer’s physical description of events above Camp IV and drawing upon his own memory, Adams came to the conclusion that Krakauer had made a mistake. He called Krakauer back to say that he had become convinced that the person Krakauer had actually encountered above Camp IV had not been Andy Harris, that it had been him. When Krakauer seemed reluctant to accept Adams’s conclusion, Adams said, “Let’s make a bet. Ninety-nine to one. It was me.” Krakauer, according to Adams, wanted more evidence and did not take the bet.
Boukreev was stunned and offended by the article, but more, he was baffled. What possible motive could Krakauer have for representing him as he had? Boukreev had given Krakauer a copy of the answers he had offered to Wilkinson, and in those responses was an explanation for his descent ahead of the clients. Had Boukreev misunderstood Krakauer’s questions? Had Krakauer misunderstood him? Moreover, when Boukreev had been invited to the office of Outside in early June to discuss the potential use of some of his expedition photographs to illustrate Krakauer’s article, he had provided the editorial department of Outside a copy of the same Wilkinson interview that he had given to Krakauer.
According to Boukreev, no one at Outside fact-checked with him the details of his discussion with Scott Fischer above the Hillary Step or the manner in which he was dressed on summit day. On July 31, Boukreev, with the help of friends, wrote a letter to Mark Bryant, the editor of Outside.
Great! THANKS FOR THE TRUTH!!
4:45 ''ROB HALL'' !!! was the New Zealander and leader of the other expedition.
Ошибка Б У К Р Е Е В А,в том, что он согласился идти в команде Ск Фишера и выполнять его "команды".
in fact, no one but scott fischer died from boukreev's expedition
The WSJ says (5/29/97) that in "Into Thin Air", Anatoli Boukreev comes across as "an intransigent Russian guide who doesn't help clients, and that while Mr. Krakauer slept and no other guide, client, or Sherpa could muster the strength and courage to leave camp, Mr. Boukreev made several solo forays into a blizzard in the dark at 26,000 feet to rescue three climbers near death." Krakauer's book fails to paint the big picture of one of the most amazing & daring rescues in mountaineering history.
At one time or another it seems that all serious alpinists face an inquisition by the sea level moralists; perhaps no more than Messner. I just re-read The Naked Mountain and back in the day Messner was a pariah as the moralists, most who had never been to 8000m, painted Messner as a glory seeker who was willing to put his brother's life at risk for summit glory.
If you are offended by anything Messner or Krakauer have said or written that does not make you "right".
02:10 - "Summit Bitch" - lol
This is pathetic, they don’t even know the names of the people they are talking about, disgraceful. Rob Hall ( that New Zealand guy, it doesn’t matter !!!!! DISGRACEFUL ) was an amazing climber and Anatoli Boukreev probably the greatest ever.
How dare you say "That New Zealand guy", Rob Hall did everything he could to see that Doug Hanson reached the Summit and then tried everything he could to get him down safely, he gave his own life and stayed with Doug till Doug died and by then it was too late for himself! Anatoli Boukreev is a hero to me and Jon Krakauer just see's it in another way. Listen to Anatoli's own words about the events!
@@barbaramejias2886 well yes, he really did try to get Doug Hanson to summit but at the cost of both their lives. He should've send him down instead of up. I do agree that it's quite disrespectful that they don't even remember the names of the people involved here.
lol
They should have referred to him as "the guy who got his expedition killed." Side note, in 100 years nobody will remember any of the people involved.
Messner you disappoint me so much! Jealous only!
If I'm not a guide, and I'm at my literal limit, its not "assisting." It's adding more death. It's no more a "controversy" than not offering to jump back into the ocean if I'm not the Coast Guard and I've been treading water for days. You can't "blame" untrained, exhausted, unseasoned, unfamiliar climbers for not venturing back into a situation that *absolutely* would've killed them too.
Exactly! Like that is just literally more bodies. I don't blame Jon
The thing is if anything happened to him, would he want to be rescured?
None of these people should be there in the first place. Basically they're playing Russian roulette with their lifes. Should anything go wrong they need the pros to attempt to save them or they're dead for certain. So while you're right that it could have been dangerous for him to help, the same goes for anyone. Why should Boukreev bother then if it's each man for himself? Let them all die. And guided tours should be completely banned.
@@ramdas363 You’re just never going to get it. Some people have to experience something to understand. So you just won’t. You seem to think it’s better if more people die as long as they were trying to help. Wouldn’t that just be more work for Anatoli?
I get the feeling Messner doesn’t think too highly of commercial mountain climbing guides.
Boukreev was one of the guides. Krakauer was one of the clients. Messners point is Boukreev wasn't, and never pretended to be a hand holder - that is clearly understood. His actions did not lead to anyone's death and yes he saved lives that fateful night. Krakauers actions were what anyone one of us would have done, dragged our ass into our tent and crash.
Right on.
Your very right... but it's pretty well known that if you are in trouble of any kind.. your shouldn't expect rescue.... this is not a vacation guide.. you are in a very dangerous place... so when things go wrong ... you are extremely lucky to have any help at all...
thefuck? How the hell did KRAKAUER put anyone at risk? He was one of the *few* sensible people on the mountain that day...
Joel Hassig
oh, so he turned around at "turn around time" and was in the camp when blizzard hit..?
I don't get why that should be a problem? I would suspect if that is what you climb knowing than that is what you operate on. If anything the people who stayed on top waiting for Fischer and Hall to arrive should of gotten out of there.
Boukreev is a legend. Many people owe him their lives. Hope there's mountains for him to climb in heaven!
it hurts me that people glorify krakauer as some sort of unique thinker. in reality, he just wrote a compelling story about people dying. We dont know if what he writes is fiction or not, because all of the witnesses tend to die in his stories.
the true legend is Boukreev
Was*
@@exi8550insanely braindead take. Krakauer's story was corroborated by everyone in attendance, including Boukreev. You have to be projecting a great deal of insecurity to interpret Krakauer's account of things as a shirking of his own insecurities and strictly blaming the events on others. People enjoy Krakauer because he is a succinct and humble writer with a strong pulse on reality. It's possible for both figures to be respectable.
@@dylansies9943In Reality no one corroborated Krakauers Account on what happened- even Krakauer destroyed his own story by writing different things in an Article, a First Version of his Book and than in a second Version of his book with pictures he changed his Story again even going so far that his description of a Picture doesn’t fit with the actual Story told in the same book.
Neil Biddelman got the climbers all the way down the hill to the point where Anatoli could rescue them. People don’t talk enough about what Neil did that night.
Krakauer said that Boukreev was a hard-nosed guy. He didn't say the he WAS "uncaring:" he was just saying that he came off that way. He then goes on to describe the events during that night and I get the vibe from Krakauer that he viewed Boukreev as one of the heroes of the night.
I think you hit the nail on the head here. Krakauer gave a talk promoting Into Thin Air, the way he speaks about Boukreev is far closer to reverence than criticism. He mentions guiding without oxygen in passing, but describes Boukreev as amazing and heroic at length. I think Boukreev reacted the way he did because in a disaster, people are quick to play the blame game and demand someone be held accountable, and I can understand the desire to deny any criticism.
imo - Hall and Fischer deserve the blame for guiding people that never would summit on their own. Sandy Hill aka Pittman needed to be short-roped up the mountain. How can a Sherpa save lives and take care of other climbers when he has to literally carry someone up the mountain? I was a climber back in the 90's and wanted to do Everest until I learned about guided climbing and the deadly traffic jams on that mountain. The most dangerous things on that mountain are now someone else's bad decisions and people that should not be there...Boukreev was a hero.
Agree. The Sherpa Lopsang had responsibility for setting the ropes on the Hilary Step. Instead he spent 5 hours pulling Sandy Hill Pittman up Everest. This caused the delay that kept them on schedule. Consequently they were engulfed in the storm on the descent. If Pittman had not been on the climb, nobody would have died.
Tossing this out for the discussion:
The Boukreev controversy is a sideshow (and a bit of a distraction) to the real faults and failures of Hall's and Fischer's expeditions. Most importantly these three:
1. The ascent should have been aborted by 1pm-- Hall's absolute final turnaround time;
2. Fischer did not provide adequate radio communication to his guides and sherpas;
3. Doug Hansen wasn't feeling well and wanted to descend, but Hall convinced him to keep climbing.
These are the real failures. Had they not occurred, there would be no Boukreev controversy, Fischer would have lived as would Hall and everyone on his team.
Boukreev was the most experienced climber. He apparently felt no responsibility for anyone else in spite of his experience.
gildone84 Plus Fiesturs already went down as they went up- Fiesturs didnt trust it, but the big egos thought they knew better...now theyre dead...
Hi MultiMrMiles. Thanks for chiming in. Actually, since I posted this, I found out that Viesturs' team was getting daily weather updates (The IMAX team was getting them) He knew the weather was deteriorating. Mal Duff's camp (Scottish expedition leader there too) was also getting daily weather updates. One of the teams was sharing the weather info with Rob Hall and Scott Fisher. Read Graham Ratcliffe's book: A Day To Die For. They knowingly took their teams up in deteriorating weather conditions.
true, i read fiesturs book, indeed, thats the aspect i dont understand, why doing that with all the expierence, taking such a risk?
hmm, yeah, still very interesting, you are right. Also the story repeated itself in one way on K2, different yet same story, maybe its a combination of different aspects.
It seems what happens on Everest stays on Everest.
Just ask Beck.
+Arie l ??? Beck Weathers came down from Everest!!!
+Hanks Tschännel Some of his limbs died on everest... I think that's what he meant.
No, I'm talking about the controversies. eg. oversights, neglect, cowardice, unprofessionalism, who left whom to die, incompetence ... those sorts of things.
Bokreev saved lives. Period. How many did at 8000+ metres. If he was not rested after early descent, more people could be dead now.
Richard Simko PERIOD!!!!
Or, because of his action, he made the clients more vulnerable, with the lack of a truly experienced guide (Anatoli), during their descent. Who will ever know!
And btw, you can’t fully trust anyones story from this incident. They were all beyond exhausted, both physically and mentally. And the possibility that they, at the time, knew most events around them, are slim to non.
Every single climber, knew the circumstances of climbing everest. You can’t blame anyone but your self up there. You’re on your own, and every climber knows it!
@@patrikpersson9364 That's why I trust Krakauer's book quite a lot more than Boukreev/Dewalt's: Krakauer actually took the time to research deeply, interviewing a ton of people, while Dewalt just basically wrote a book to exonerate Boukreev for what he did on the mountain, both on the fateful day, as well as in the days and weeks prior to that, when his behavior drove Fischer crazy.
@@kevinscottbailey8335 @Patrik Persson to research what? There is only one question whether Fisher ordered Boukreev to meet clients on descent or not. If he did there is nothing to blame Boukreev for AT ALL. If he didn't the Boukreevs decision to rest was unprofessional yet right nonetheless
@@user-sw7ln9ro7y To research what various people heard Fischer talk about regarding Boukreev, for example. And Fischer was NOT happy with Boukreev's performance on the mountain, though you'd never know that from Dewalt's hagiography. This is not to say that the tragedy lies at the feet of Boukreev, just that those who deify him are off-base. He climbed without oxygen, for example, which is WHY he even NEEDED to go down and "rest" instead of staying on the mountain and helping.
as it was, boukhreev stayed up on the summit about ONE HOUR, unlike his boss hall, who stayed for HOURS. boukhreev would have been justified in staying only TEN OR FIFTEEN MINUTES like krakauer did. that is SMART summit practice, not cowardice. the job description of "guide" does not include, "throwing your life away after your expedition leaders and the tour guests violate safety rules." the role in these tragedies of a SWAGGERING, MACHO ethos of PUSHING THE RULES, summiting late, and LINGERING FOR HOURS in the deadly air at the top of the summit, has not been properly examined. ironically given the later controversy, the climbs and descents of boukhreev and krakauer, were, far from being cowardly, the two most INTELLIGENT and RESPONSIBLE climbs and descents of the day. the one thing i would fault boukhreev for is, once he was almost down, passing a climber from his own group, who came down with himself and krakauer. he honestly thought this guy was ok and they were nearly to the tents, but the guy ended up nearly not getting into the tents--i do think boukhreev should have walked that guy in.
did boukhreev himself summit dangerously late the next year, when he took 2 indonesian military men up there? YES. but he took the only 2 original team members who had survived the brutal conditioning and training regimen he required everyone to complete in order to be allowed to attempt the summit, and they were MILITARY MEN on an express mission to summit for their nation, who KNOWINGLY chose to assume that risk. this is very different from what occurred with the "into thin air" expeditions.
why, why, WHY do people insist on trying to assign blame for the "into thin air" tragedies anywhere but the place where it belongs: with the decisions of Hall and Fischer, the 2 men who led the 2 expeditions????
they blame because they are afraid of the truth and offending the 2 fuck ups families
Glinda Quadling very well put imo
Just to be clear Boukreev was Fischer's guide, not Hall's.
Anatoli Boukreev was not employed by Robert Hall. He was employed as a guide by Scott Fischer. Probably wasn't interested in rescuing Yasuko Nambo and Beck Weathers.
Boukreev should not have summitted alone, he should have stayed with his clients on the ascent, and guided them back to Camp 4 when it was time to turn around and when the conditions deteriorated.
This disaster was caused by the incompetence of HALL and FISCHER. If they stuck to there own advice and rules. All would of walked off the mountain. They broke every one of there own rules. The good thing from this is there is no way these two fools can lead other climbers to there death.
Exactly! Fisher made countless mistakes and it seems was in over his head. The best thing he did was hire Anatoli and Neal, which was the only thing that prevented the death of most of his clients. Hall's big mistake was breaking his own rules.
Bingo. The problem with Krakauer is he wanted to paint a picture of himself as having chosen the superior expedition. Ego. He wanted to paint Rob Hall as superior to Fischer. So he slandered Fischer and glorified Hall. Of all the mistakes on the mountain, the worst, by far, were made by Hall. Not turning Doug around and then essentially committing a senseless suicide and leaving his soon-to-be-born child without a father were the most avoidable and least excusable. But not one word of criticism from Krakauer. It was Hall who failed to have a radio with Ang Dorje. Between Ang Dorjie and Lopsang, by far the worse performance was from Ang Dorjie, but again, Krakauer heaped all the criticism on Lopsang and rationalized Dorjie b/c Lopsang was on Fischer's team and Drojie was on his team. 3 climbers and 2 guides on his team died. Not a single climber on Fischer's team died and none of Fischer's guides died. Andy Harris was over his head and not qualified to be a guide. But because Krakauer liked him, no criticism of Hall or Harris. Fail and fail.
@@biscaynediver We must have read different books with the same title.
This whole feud was ridiculous. If you read the entire book "Into Thin Air" objectively, Krakauer simply gives a factual account from as many sources as he can. When those facts reflect badly on somebody, he still reports them. He clearly is harder on himself than anyone else in the book. His main criticism of Boukreev is climbing without oxygen as a (highly paid) guide and not assisting the ailing Mountain Madness clients from the summit to the South Col. He writes Anatoli like a superhero during the midnight saves, which he was.
Anatoli was completely broke and didn’t even have a home to go back to. Scott knowing this and being the big hearted person that he was hired Anatoli. Prior to this trip they we were very good climbing friends, they were 2 the best climbers on the planet, and THE two best on Everest that day. They were aerobic animals, both had previously summitted Everest and K2 without oxygen, but not as guides. Unfortunately Scott greatly miss judged how Anatoli would handle being a guide. He would deliberately disobey orders and also chose summating himself over His other responsibilities as a guide. Had he not been a paid guide his actions would be 100% acceptable but when you accept the responsibilities of being a guide it changes things. Unfortunately Scott died by overexerting himself trying to take up the slack left by inexperienced Sherpas and guides.
@@kylemma33 Do you think that Scott would have survived if he had turned around when he got to his group (led by Neal) and not tagged the summit alone and so late?
@@2HitWonder Quite possibly. An expected climber like Boukreev should also had recognized the state Fischer was in (slow and late) and turned him around when he got down to him.
Agree. I actually thought Krakauer’s account vindicated Boukreev’s “no babysitting” philosophy, as being slowed by weaker climbers contributed significantly to the tragedy. I also think comparing Boukreev and Krakauer makes no sense; Boukreev was an experienced guide and Krakauer was a first timer on Everest who barely survived the descent to begin with, something Krakauer himself is extremely straightforward about in his account. The expectations for them SHOULD be different, and even with that said, Boukreev clearly went above and beyond to rescue the others.
I agree I went into the book thinking Krauker had been very critical based on media around it. In reality I don't think he minimized what a hero Anatoli was that day at all rather he was giving an account of the facts:
1. Boukreev did not use oxygen which was thought to be risky as a guide by many on the mountain that day
2. Boukreev did decend without any clients
3. Boukreev did this based on his beliefs that oxygen was risky if you were acclimatized using it and ran out and that clients should not need their hands held
4. Boukreev then went on a solo mission and single handedly rescued 3 clients
He was a hero without any doubt but his guiding style did seem at odds with other guides was all - regardless had he not been in the position he was that day many others likely would have perished
I don't get where readers took from Krakauer's account that he thought Boukreev was some awful person or liability on the expedition in 96. He describes Boukreev as courageous and brave, and paints a picture of him as someone who had a hard-nosed attitude towards Everest climbers. Krakauer's writing and feelings on Everest actually seem to align with Boukreev's view that not just any fool with $70,000 should be able to climb Everest. Frankly I agree with this notion. Krakauer's only somewhat explicit criticism of Boukreev was that as a guide it might not have been the best choice to not use oxygen when he was hired to be a support for clients (regardless of his feelings on their abilities). Krakauer has even written a postscript to Into Thin Air where he states very clearly he didn't blame Boukreev for anything that happened on the mountain, even though some of the other guides and Sherpa's were keen to do so. To me it seems that some folks want there to be a controversy because Krakauer is able to see and write about people as complete human beings with both strengths and flaws, and some readers don't want their heroes to have flaws. Boukreev is perfectly capable of being an absolutely heroic individual and one of the greatest climbers of all time while still making a poor choice here and there.
He toned down much of what he said and wrote about Anatoly after other journalists and climbers began to criticize his book. Subsequently, he added passages about the heroism of Anatoly, about his reward for salvation, but it was his book that turned Anatoly into the main villain of this story.
It is thanks to his book that Anatoly and his actions, and not Fisher and Hall, and their decisions are still the main focus in the discussion of this tragedy. It was at the suggestion of Krakauer that people concluded that Anatoly did his job poorly, that he was allegedly lightly dressed during the ascent (the photographs confirm that this is a lie) which forced him to descend from the summit without waiting for clients.
To this day, people criticize him for not saving more people. Although he saved three (!). Hall and Fisher turned into unfortunate victims, especially Hall, and Anatoly turned into an arrogant, money hungy russian guy who left his clients.
Although it was the presence of journalists that encouraged the leaders of both teams to act stupid in an attempt to put their company in the best light in press.
Krakauer stated that he did not include an interview with Anatoly in his book, because his words cannot be trusted and allegedly he contradicts himself. But Anatoly did not speak English well, hence there could be inaccuracies. But Krakauer did not discuss the differences with Anatoly and did not provide tapes of the interview.
Moreover, when Anatoly's book came out, Krakauer accused him and his co-author that the book was allegedly written to "whitewash" Tolya reputation. So Krakauer knew what exactly he did by portraing Anatoly as arrogant and irresponsibl guy in his book.
@@zzz7103 Did you read "Into Thin Air?" I have read the original 1997 version and the 1999 version to which he added his "Author's Postscript." I cannot find instances in the body of the book where Mr. Krakauer "toned down much of what he said and wrote about Anatoly after other journalists and climbers began to criticize his book" or "added passages about the heroism of Anatoly." If you are referring to that postscript, he did not write it because "other journalists and climbers began to criticize his book," he wrote it to defend his work against some allegations in the ghost-written work that he believed could not be corroborated, plus frequent personal attacks by the ghost writer himself in articles, TV interviews, on the internet, even in letters to family members of those who died on Everest!
btw, "Ghost writer" ≠ "co-author".
After having read both books (Krakauer and Boukreev), I feel that Krakauer has been a little harsh in his judgement of Boukreev's actions. Sometimes, an inability to communicate due to lack of language skills can be translated as aloofness. Boukreev did what was asked of him by his team leader and then performed beyond the call of duty. I have nothing but respect for this man.
+zubin balaporia I haven't read Boukreev's book but did he respond to the claim that Scott Fischer was frustrated by Boukreev's actions during the expedition? Boukreev did save climbers but he also left them in the first place. I'm not sure where the "blame" lays in a situation like this but Hall and Fischer clearly made disturbing mistakes that costs lives.
who did he "leave"??? his job was to lay out the route and come back - he did just that!!
Scott Fischer was "frustrated" that Anatoli did not want to pull anyone on the sledge - but then it's exactly this idiocy that killed him and the others.. i'm fairly sure Anatoli was frustrated with the fact that people like Fisher clearly do not understand the dangers of climbing yet call themselves "experienced and professional", taking people who simply have no ability to summit just for the money and risking everyone's lives!!
and if Anatoli listened to idiots like Fisher, rather than being a true professional and quietly doing his job and coming back - the lost party wouldn't have seen his lights and heard him calling from camp 4 and possibly would end up dead lost in stormy night, he wouldn't have saved those people that he went out to save and probably would've died himself like the two idiots who charged people money and organized this whole pathetic charade!!
his truly professional decision to come back was what gave this situation structure and a platform for rescue - otherwise they would have all scattered around the area and died!!!
If you don't want to babysit, don't take a job in the fucking kindergarten.
Fisher had to make an unplanned descent to basecamp on the 6th because Toli shirked his guiding duties. This extra trip undoubtedly contributed to Fisher's death. The fact that Fisher had to dress him down on the mountain in front of clients, and then called his publicist and partner to complain shows that Fisher was really unhappy with Toli's work ethic days before this incident occurred.
Maybe Fisher wouldn't have had to go past his limits if he hadn't been forced to do the job of two people, maybe he would have made better choices if he hadn't been so tired because the guy he paid to help him basically did nothing and believed he wasn't really required to actually do any guide work. I actually agree with his view that people up there should be self-sufficient, but it was deeply irresponsible to take the job of lead guide believing that. Nobody forced him to take that job, but when he did he should have conformed to the expectations that come with it.
dick dastardly not sure where you got that information from, but Scott Fisher decided to descend on May 6 to help his friend Dale Kruse. It was nothing to do with Anatoli Boukreev. Boukreev did do a lot of work fixing ropes and making trail, although it does seem like he wasn’t the most personable person, and clearly he couldn’t schmooze the clients. This probably rubbed people up the wrong way too.
We can never know if his decision (apparently with Scott’s approval) to come down ahead of clients cost lives or enabled him to make the heroic saves he did. But what is also clear is that many things went wrong that day - had Rob Hall stuck to his turnaround time (like he was famous for doing) then he could have assisted other climbers and chances are not so many climbers would be outside when the storm hit. Scott Fisher also pushed it too much and it seems curious he continued to the top when his clients were already on the way down. The sherpas also seem to have not done the ropes as they were meant to have, and the radios that Mountain Madness were using were woefully inadequate. Beck Weathers was told by Rob to wait for him, and unaware of the problems he did exactly that even though other people passed him and offered to take him down (which eventually he did). Lastly the weather did turn very horrible unexpectedly.
The point is, there were many factors at play, and it feels that a lot of the blame is rested on people like Anatoli and Sandy when in reality, there were so many issues that came to a tragic head.
@@steves1015 He did not have "Scott's approval" to leave the clients behind and descend before everyone else. That's something that he and Dewalt invented after the fact in "The Climb." Not even Martin Adams (who was friends with Boukreev) backed up his claim that Scott told him to head back to Camp 4 before everyone else.
Quote from Jon Krakauer's "Into Thin Air" 1999s Postscript (p. 328): Simone Moro's reference to the author: "You are American; he was Russian. You were new to 8000-meter peaks; he was the best of all time at these altitudes... In my opinion you are like a man who, after reading a book about medicine, pretends to teach one of the world's most famous and capable surgeons how to be a doctor... When judging the decisions made by Anatoli in 1996 you must remember this: no clients on his team died."
Being a great climber, even the best of all time, does not mean that your decisions are always correct and not to be questioned.
It's probably been 25 years since I read Into Thin Air and I think I'll pick it up again. I do remember watching Anatoli Boukreev on Larry King. He came across as extremely arrogant. He died soon after in an avalanche.
@@taffycat93 Read Graham Ratcliffe's A Day to Die For. Krakauer's account completely leaves out a vital part of the story.
The team leader died
@@corneliussuttree6754 What decisions of Boukreev should we question? The decision to save lives?
This is where mountaineering is ugly. I hate the politics that comes when someone like Messner voices an opinion when he know nothing about the event and comes across as authoritative. Case in point. He didn’t even know the names of some of the most prominent climbing persons of a generation. What an insult to both Scott and Rob.
That said, move past this old style European redericand if you want to form your own opinion learn the facts. I suggest reading the “Climb” but Boukreev “Into Thin Air” by Krakauer and Ed Vieter’s “No Shortcuts to the top.
The climb and Into thin air give a view of the events that transpired that day but Ed Viesturs really goes into the character and personality of Bourakov that paints a picture knowbody else has.. There is an old saying, don’t judge a man until you’ve walked 20 miles in this boots and
philip grech just read fiesturs bookand yeah, he gives a geniune picture imo- also about his friends who fucked up totally, they underestimated everest, a guarenteed summit they offered....in the end...whas it worth it...?
they went to the summit way too late, group was splintered also, it added up and than the storm also..
true, but too many Kraukauer dick riders out there, no understanding of what went down..
+Niklaus Manuel D
blah blah blah You do know Steck was not the first to summit Everest don't you?
And the Brits that financed Hillary's climb don't even have a decent practice hill in the British Isles.
Viesturs clearly respected Anatoli as a climber, but he also shares Krakauer's opinion that is a mistake to guide Everest without oxygen (Ed used oxygen as a guide but otherwise did not, as I'm sure many already know) and also feels it was a mistake for Anatoli to leave Adams and descend to Camp 4 ahead of everyone else. He does not blame Anatoli for the disaster that unfolded by any stretch, he just disagrees with those specific decisions. Ed notes that Hall and Fischer likely got caught up in their rivalry and the desire to summit in the presence of a journalist (Hall's promises to Doug Hansen and Fischer's HACE also seem to have played large roles as well).
Ed also mentions that Anatoli's diaries in "Above the Clouds" paint a better and more complete picture of Anatoli's thoughts and motivations than DeWalt's book. That dovetails a bit with my suspicion that Weston DeWalt was the primary culprit for the enmity between Krakauer and Anatoli. Krakauer admits he made mistakes and expresses his regret for them. He also acknowledges Anatoli's heroism in rescuing the Pittman and Fox. Without DeWalt fanning the flames, I feel like it would have been easier for the two of them to come to an understanding without the public back and forth that occurred.
This disaster falls on Rob Hall & Rob Hall alone. Had he turned Hansen around then most if not all those climbers live. He was made out to be a hero in the film but in reality he made some stupid decisions that cost the lives of people he was responsible for.
Let's not forgive the short roping of Sandy Pitman. No one who summitted after her came back whole, if they came back at all.
Boukreev, in my opinion, did everything he was on that mountain to do. He wasn't on the mountain to be a hand holding "guide". That was for Scott and others to do. He was wisely recruited because if you're on a mountain like that, you want to be with a world class, no nonsense mountaineer, in case anything happens, minor or major. He proved his worth, beyond any doubt.
He was literally hired to be a hand holding guide, and when he wasn't performing such job to the satisfaction of his boss (Fischer), he was reprimanded fiercely as indicated in the book, when a client overheard Fischer got into a verbal argument with him.
If you have an attitude that you shouldn't be a hand holding guide, that's all well and fine, just don't take the fucking job, go find a boss whose climbing style is suitable to yours aka where every client is highly qualified and achieved high mountaineering expert so they can all go up the mountain on their own and you don't have to do anything.
If you took the job, perform the fucking job as described in your duty, don't be a fucking dick and just pocket the money without doing what is told, it's a capitalist world, not your soviet empire where everything is free, no one is supposed to pay you then let you do what you want.
If you're correct about his role then it's a fair point you make. Most guides are assigned a single person to watch over. But I don't know whether he had some sort of exemption.
@@terranrepublic7023
> He was literally hired to be a hand holding guide
> perform the fucking job as described in your duty
Are there any proofs to that? Any details about Boukreev and Fischer deal, Boukreev duties, etc.
What exactly was he hired to do if not stick with the clients? How do you "guide" anyone if you are asleep in your tent? That's not hand holding. That's called guiding. He only set the ropes because his team's Sardar did not do his job. Then he summited and raced down the mountain going right past numerous clients. How is that "guiding". He was a hero no doubt, but he left it to Groom and Biedleman to "guide" the clients down the mountain.
@@rodneysmith9177 Boukreev survived and all his clients survived. Scott Fischer died, Rob Hall died and two of their clients died. It should be pretty clear who's the better guide, yes?
in krakauer's defense, krakauer was not the only guest on the expedition who refused that night when boukhreev went around the tents asking for help. it was not krakauer's job to go out and get people, nor was it the job of the other guests. is this cowardly? yeah, kinda, particularly if they all could have tied lines to boukhreev and each other and thus followed boukhreev safetly out there to serve as extra arms so that all could be saved. but it was NOT their responsibility and it could have led to more deaths.
in boukhreev's defense, it is untrue that his job was "to look after people." an everest guide is not a lifeguard, particularly when safety rules are being broken as RECKLESSLY and CRIMINALLY as they were broken by the tour leaders on this trip. it was NOT boukhreev's responsibility to go along with the reckless negligence of the tour leaders who permitted inexperienced climbers who hadn't reached the summit to continue climbing AFTER the safety cut-off time. it CERTAINLY was not his job to stay up on that summit in the death zone for HOURS waiting for stragglers as those IDIOTS and MORONS did. [this is another thing that krakauer did right--he tagged the summit and he turned around and went right back down. it is UNSAFE to linger up there, and anyone who chooses to LINGER up there does so at their OWN RISK.]
this comment is 7 years old and couldn't be more true. It seems that everyone who has read this book is attempting to take hard stances on either Jon or Anitoli. The truth is, both had their own perspectives, experiences, and reasons for the choices they made. It isn't as simple as saying "Jon was a coward" or "Anitoli was selfish" like people in comment sections regarding this subject have stated.
Jon said he was never asked by boukhreev to save people, where did you get this from?
@@john26razor340 Boukhreev I believe said in his book regarding the situation that he asked Jon, but Jon claimed something different in "into thin air", but take what I say with a grain of salt, I'm just recalling this off the top of my head.
@@john26razor340 Well, I guess we could say there are contradicting accounts or viewpoints. Boukhreev stated that he went to the tents of that group (remember, the people still in the huddle outside at that point were Krakauer's group), called to everyone and asked repeatedly, and no one answered or helped. Krakauer says he never heard anything. So perhaps "refused" wasn't the right word. But hypothetically, for the sake of argument let's say Krakauer heard, but did not come forward. Technically it's true that it wasn't his responsibility. But the guests in Boukreev's group (headed by Fischer) were well enough trained by Boukreev to survive, or rescued by Boukreev, and none of them died. It was guests in the group Krakauer was in (headed by Rob Hall), who were not well enough conditioned, and who perished. Krakauer is deflecting from the shit-show that was the Rob Hall group. Well, both groups were a shit-show. But the Hall group was worse.
Yep. But one small point. These were not inexperienced climbers. You are correct that the leaders were reckless. But several climbers had the sense to turn around when it was clear they were not going to reach the summit by the turnaround time. Those wise souls got back to camp just as the strom hit. The rest of them could have done the same. They were all over 21.
It's easy for anyone to make accusations when you're not present to take into account the mental, physical and environmental conditions of this unfortunate disaster. Extreme adventures sometimes have extreme situations on consequences. Hopefully there are lessons learned that will reduce the risk of this happening again.
Before anything, Boukreev did NOT lose any client of his (Fisher's) expedition. And he saved 3 clients from Hall's expedition to which Krakauer belonged. When nobody else did save anyone that nigth. I read both books at least twice. So what the hell is Messner talking here? He is just attracted by Krakauer because he is sure a better writer and story teller than De Walt (Boukreev). Way more dramatic, Hollywood style. And Messner, as a quite average writer himself, simply falls under Krakauer's charm.
"... In a 2011 interview with Meek Reinhold Messner defended Krakauer's decision...."
NO, Messner does not!!
Messner says that Krakauer's description of Boukreev's personality is perfect. Exactly identical to Messner's opinion on Boukreev's character.
Messner also sayed that Boukreev was the hero that night and did the right thing.
+Paolo Barbero Krakauer said the same thing in his book! He WAS a hero, we get that, but he made mistakes too and was a bit arrogant and that's what Krakauer didn't like about him. Boukreev made a big stink on his own. Jealous, I expect, of the awesome book. A book that wasn't supposed to be about a disaster, but about the commercialization of Everest.
jaelynn zee I will try one more time:
"... In a 2011 interview with Meek Reinhold Messner defended Krakauer's decision...."
NO, Messner does not!!
@@jaelynnzee9091 Hate to resurrect something this old, but there are a lot of things that Krakauer did in his book that many climbers and their families did not appreciate. As an example, Rob Hall's widow never agreed to publish their last PRIVATE radio communication (hers and her husband). Krakauer never asked her if this would be ok either. Krakauer published a smear, gathered a lot of money for it. I think four other people published books too (members of said expeditions), somehow they did not manage to do things that Krakauer did. Somehow they had some respect for the dead.
IF he was so against the commercilisation of Chomolungma treks, then why on earth did he even participate in one? Is he against himself then? Or was that just an excuse to get more material for his "book" and earn money? I mean, look at how he even started this expedition. He was already signed up with Fischer's company (which Boukreev was part of, BTW) to do the trek, BUT he got a cheaper offer from Adventure Consultants (Rob Hall's company). He took the cheaper offer.
In the end who ends up failing miserably during this trek? Adventure Consultants. They lost 2 of their guides, AND 2 of their clients. How many people died in the company that employed Boukreev? ONE - the owner himself, Scott Fischer. I mean, if anyone needs to be scrutinised and criticised in this is the company owners themselves. They caused this mayhem, their decisions cost people lifes. The only person that prevented the disaster from getting EVEN worse was Boukreev, who went out there to rescue people that weren't even members of his expedition. When the owners and other guides pushed for the climbers to summit and the sherpas and Boukreev thought that was stupid and descended, who in retrospect made the right decisions? The sherpas are fine and alive till this day. Boukreev died a year after Chomolungma disaster.
Krakauer may have seen Boukreev as arrogant, maybe he even was. Just for a moment though, can you even take word of a man who NEVER before climbed anything above 8000m as equal to the words of the people who do this professionally? I know I wouldn't. Just because knowledge of English is and was better with Krakauer than Boukreev it doesn't make him the expert on himalaism, quite the contrary.
He literally said "In this case I'm defending Krakauer" at 1:19
But I guess some random nobody on the internet named Paolo Barbero understands mountaineering legend Messner better than Messner himself, lmao
Krakauer’s team lost its leader and clients. He helped no one and in fact had to be helped back down the mountain to the South Col. Boukreev saved the lives of several people. He was the only hero from this story. These modern day wanna-be climbers have no business being on 8000 meter peaks!
Well Messner apparently did not read "The Climb". Yes Boukreev had to use the help of someone to publish his version of events because contrary to Krakauer he's not a professional writer so he decided to collaborate with G.Weston DeWalt. To call DeWalt a ghostwriter is not correct, he's more of a co-author imo and also he's clearly not as skilled a writer as Krakauer is. The book is based on personal and taped interviews with Boukreev and some other climbers involved plus diary notes and official reports. The part about Boukreev's saving mission is actually reproduced verbatim exactely as he was taped by DeWalt after Boukreev had come to the States. Boukreev had recounted the events in English without the help of an interpreter so DeWalt decided to publish the interview verbatim. It's not like Boukreev had singled out Krakauer as the one who refused to help him. Actually he recounts how he went repeatedly from tent to tent, asking clients and sherpas from different teams for help and looking for usable oxygen tanks. He goes into how he became increasingly distressed and had trouble to get a clear picture (he didn't know at first if Scott was with Beck/Yasuko/Sandy etc. for example). Basically everyone refused either to help, was clearly in no condition to do so (like Kasischke who was snowblind) or did simply ignore his pleas when he stood outside the tent (Taiwanese for example). One sherpa at first told him he'd be willing to help but then changed his mind because all the other sherpas of his group had refused and since he was neither on Fischer's nor Hall's payroll he decided ultimately not to join Boukreev. I remember that Boukreev recounted how he went into Lopsang's tent (Fischer's main sherpa) and found him with an oxygen mask on. Boukreev said he was pissed because Lopsang had often expressed his contempt for prof.climbers who used oxygen and there he was lying in his tent using oxygen. He said he simply took the mask and tank away from him, put it in his backpack and that Lopsang didn't say anything or fight it but clearly didn't like it. According to Boukreev he had counted 15 full oxygen tanks in this camp and now the sherpa in charge told him there were only 3 available. Boukreev didn't believe him but had no time or energy to protest or search and simply took the 3 tanks and left to rescue the others. I don't doubt Krakauers characterization of Boukreev and Anatoli himself went in his book into how he'd pondered this question if working as a guide with high paying customers was for him or not. But the fact remains when it counted he was willing to risk his life and went out and saved some of the others who had been left to die basically. So I do have lots of respect for Anatoli. And Messners argument about Krakauer living and Boukreev being dead has nothing to do with what transpired that fateful night.
No, he only met your hero in person. He's also a living legend.
TheMundusvultdecipi
Anatoli Boukreev - the greatest!
I have a feeling Messner wasn't a huge fan of Boukreev, and sure Fischer might've had issues with Boukreev himself during the expedition but Boukreev was there as a safety valve and in the end he came through. Even Fischer himself dying on the mountain said to Lopsang go get Boukreev and send him up.
According to the Boukreev book a person working for Mountain Madness said that it was actually one of Fischer's back-up plans to have Boukreev go down early and fast so as to be ready to come up again with oxygen and help people get down if necessary.
Also, when you read the book it is clear that climbing without oxygen isn't just a macho thing for Boukreev, there is a rationale behind it. He also prepared very well to acclimatize, much more than other people in the team. And he did take oxygen up the mountain for himself as a safety precaution, but gave it to another climber who had run out.
Messner seems pretty pissed off here. 😆
However, there’s a story when the Sherpas didn’t wanted to get outside the tent on Everest because they were afraid of descending.
But when Messner got angry& shouted to them, they moved.
They feared him more than death.
In the end, Messner was right. If they stayed up there, they would’ve died.
(I hope I recall the details right. If not, let me know)
I read both books "The Climb" and Jon K.'s "Into thin air , both are great but the Climb describes in more detailthe courage of A.Boukreev, J.K. was dead exhausted, Anatoli had more High Altitude experience that is why he saved 4 peoples live but Jon was weaker. He could not save his team members because of the terrible storm they were caught in and killed them.
Shall we adhere to the turn around time?....nah don't bother.
When Messner said that Krakauer was alive and Boukreev was no longer alive, what was his point?? Boukreev was hit by an avalanche not because of a lack of skill. The 'ghost writer' bit was another cheap shot....the book was based on Boukreev's own diaries.
There’s context to the topic not discussed in the video, but the immediate meaning is that risk taking is the ultimate reflection of self-centeredness, and Boukreev was much more of a risk taker and self centered than Krakuaer and thus he later died from continued risk taking. You’re thinking, self centered? But Boukreev wanted to help! Well, the big picture is that the original criticism of Boukreev is that he passed one of the climbers on the way down who was in serious trouble (snowblind) and he didn’t help him out (he left it up to a guide to take care of him, even though there was no guide in sight). After hearing the criticism created from Krakauer’s book, Boukreev’s published a book which gave the account of him begging Krakauer to help after they descended and the storm passed, which this guy hints was supposed to redeem Boukreev but probably, if true, was actually too little, too late from Boukreev. He says his personal experience with Boukreev seems to gel with this idea of him as a self-centered risk taker.
He's talking about the book, "Will to Climb," not the diaries. Do your research.
the interviewer should have known Rob Hall's name...poor preparation on his part.
Cannot understand the root of all discussions about Boukreev: looks more like all the tragedy is the responsibility of Rob Hall. 1) Didn't enforce turnaround at settled time. 2) Was tolerant to his client's caprice disregarding the safety. 3) And as consequence he didn't help other climbers down the slope coming back.
Anatoli's actions had nothing to do with Hall or his clients dying. Anatoli, in leaving Fisher's clients behind, likely caused his own clients to be just slow enough in getting down (with only one guide for the whole group) that they got caught in the storm. He made up for it by rescuing them in the South Col, which nobody else could/would.
Anatoli Boukreev was hired to be a guide and do what he was told to do. He didn't. He chose to put his own ambitions and ideology over the safety of his clients. That, in my mind, makes him a complete idiot.
Not quite. Read Boukreev's account and Graham Ratcliffe's "A Day to Die For". Krakauer left out some key details.
Krakauer simply wrote an account of what he observed on the mountain that season. I thought he was fair in nearly all his analysis of what happened. The whole thing became such a sensation that any little issue became front and center. I don't blame the tragedy on anyone really. Climbing at high altitude is dangerous and that's all.
This is the most ridiculous controversy. Both sides thinks Boukreev is an excellent climber whose actions were astoundingly heroic. The original conflict was regarding Bourkreev's hands off approach to guiding, where he tended to want client climbers to fend more for themselves, and whether it was responsible on a commercial expedition. Krakauer himself is highly critical of such expeditions existing and believes it was not responsible for novice climbers who needed so much help to be on the mountain. So fundamentally, the two are very nearly in agreement.
If you want to point to the central mistakes of the whole thing, the lax turnaround, hubris, inexperience, and failure to heed warning signs were highly consequential. The incentives of commercial climbing contribute to the inexperience of climbers and poor responsibility structure (delays in setting lines even when able climbers were available, Krakauer's failure to address Harris' confusion/illness, Wethers waiting for Hall to descend, chaos in the rescue when the two leaders were absent). Hall and Fischer cannot be fully scrutinised because their accounts are lost, but no doubt many small and large factors drove their role in the disaster.
It was Groom and Biedleman that got the large group close to camp. The documenties I have watch never seem to account for every climber.Lemme and Kleve are often over looked. Wikipedia (pasted below)seems like as accurate an account as any, with some minor discrepencies I won't go into. The point is that if Groom and Biedleman had not got them close to camp and told Toli where they were he couold not have effected the rescue, so give them credit too.
"Several climbers got lost on the South Col during the storm. Mountain Madness guide Beidleman and clients Klev Schoening, Fox, Madsen, Pittman, and Gammelgaard, along with Adventure Consultant guide Mike Groom and clients Beck Weathers and Yasuko Namba wandered in the blizzard until they could no longer walk, huddling some 20 m (66 ft) from a drop-off of the Kangshung Face.[23]
Near midnight, the blizzard cleared sufficiently for the team to see Camp IV, some 200 m (660 ft) away. Beidleman, Groom, Schoening, and Gammelgaard set off to find help. Madsen and Fox remained on the mountain with the group in order to shout for the rescuers. Boukreev located the climbers and brought Pittman, Fox, and Madsen to safety. Boukreev had prioritized Pittman, Fox, and Madsen (all of whom were from his Mountain Madness expedition) over Namba (from the Adventure Consultants expedition), who seemed close to death; he did not see Weathers (also from the Adventure Consultants expedition). All of the climbers then at Camp IV were exhausted and unable to reach Namba and Weathers."
Just read "After the Wind" by Lou Kasischke who was part of Hall's expedition. He did an excellent job of recalling the 96 expedition though he had limited contact with the Mountain Madness team and Boukreev. But still, a terrific read.
Agree with a couple of the comments that Hall and Fischer were the real culprits here, INEXCUSABLY negligent in at least 2 areas: 1. They DID NOT turn around and head back to camp at 2 PM, the latest safe time to do so, instead trying to complete their summit of/lingering on the mountain until 5 PM, when the storm hit; 2. They DID NOT heed the daily weather reports they had access to that TOLD them a storm was coming--an ATROCIOUS lack of judgment for experienced mountaineers. A lesser culprit that no one has mentioned here is Hansen: he ignored a sherpa's request to head back, and cost Harris his life when the latter went after him, also Hall's for choosing to stay with him when he was incapacitated. Krakauer and Boukreev deserve mixed marks: Krakauer for apparently realizing he didn't have anything left to help with a rescue he may well have died in; while I'm sure he still feels guilty about this, he made the decision to live rather than die a hero. While I applaud Boukreev for his truly heroic rescue efforts, I blame him for making such efforts necessary in the first place by leaving the group. I especially blame him for not bringing the clearly incapacitated Weathers down with him, as this would've justified his early descent.
[[[While I applaud Boukreev for his truly heroic rescue efforts, I blame him for making such efforts necessary in the first place by leaving the group.]]]
he didn't make the efforts necessary in the first place by leaving the group. the group huddled out there who needed rescuing were people who SUMMITTED LATE. they CHOSE to, and they were UNFORGIVABLY ALLOWED TO, by the tour leaders. efforts were necessary because the TEAM LEADERS permitted people to summit LATE, and permitted them to LINGER and HANG AROUND up on the summit, which of course meant they were COMING DOWN LATE. being an everest guide does not mean you have to "stay with the group" past all sane time deadlines. the team leaders PAID WITH THEIR LIVES for staying up on that summit for HOURS with late stragglers. and by letting people summit late, they GOT PEOPLE KILLED. this was NOT boukhreev's fault. it was not his job to particpate in FOLLY. there is a saying, "Respect the Mountain," and it is a phrase that has been used about Boukhreev--he "respected the mountain." others did not, and there were CONSEQUENCES.
i will say that he should have shepherded in those who were going down when he went down, but he did NOT make the rescue efforts necessary. THAT was caused by the fact that all those were up there WAY, WAY late. which is their OWN choice, and the choice of the RECKLESS, NEGLIGENT TOUR LEADERS. i don't mean the tour leaders were bad people. to all accounts they were wonderful people. but they LOST SIGHT OF COMMON SENSE, and LOST THEIR OWN LIVES, and the lives of OTHERS.
Glinda Quadling If you'll reread my comment, there is NO DOUBT that I feel the tour leaders were the lead culprits in this tragedy. That being said, as the group's strongest climber, Boukreev's staying with them became EVEN MORE IMPERATIVE when the fatal mistake was made to summit late in spite of the oncoming storm; he was employed by one of them, after all, and as an employee his primary job was to ensure the safety of the group's members. I also blame him for not taking Weathers down with him, I suspect because it would've slowed him down.
S.A. Hogan
no, you actually blamed Boukreev as well; "I blame him for making such efforts necessary in the first place by leaving the group". If Hall and Fischer had stuck to the turnaround time people would have been disappointed and out of pocket, but they would be alive, and it sounds like Fischer should have been going down not up. Messner states that his interpretation of Boukreev's role is to prepare the way, go ahead as the strongest climber, not drag people up and down the mountain, he did that. The only reason I post to discussions like this is I really don't like the way Krakauer made a fortune from doing a hatchet job on Boukreev, everyone excuses Krakauer for laying in his tent recovering as he wasn't a guide, absolutely fair, what isn't fair is his and seemingly your criticism of someone who saved lives while others could only try look after themselves. I think we really should leave these mountains to people like Messner or Boukreev or any other climber who realises they are responsible for themself up there, and they need to be good enough, not just have saved up enough money, to do it
S.A. Hogan [[he was employed by one of them, after all, and as an employee his primary job was to ensure the safety of the group's members.]]
it certainly was not. that is not in the job description of "everest guide." it is not a bodyguard, lifeguard, or nanny job. he stayed up at the summit more than enough time---ten minutes would have been justifiable, and he apparently stayed around an hour. enough's enough. the other guides who stayed up there for hours to please those swaggering tour leaders (the role of little-boy hero worship, of hall and fischer, in all this has not been properly examined) have themselves to blame for not standing up to them and drawing a line about the folly that was going on. of course, boukreev should have done that as well, true enough.
it is true that some of the guides supposedly got tainted oxygen and lost their heads---except, of course, for the one person who was in good enough condition not to need oxygen, therefore did not get bad air, and kept his head, which quite sensibly told him it was time to descend.
Granville Marsden Yeah, I DO blame Boukreev---for not taking Weathers down with him; for not remaining with the team he was WORKING FOR when the storm hit---just as I DO give him credit for risking his life to save others. I don't see Krakauer as any sort of hero, either: just a guy aware of his own limitations who made the wise---as opposed to courageous---decision to save his own skin. Bottom line: If Boukreev is responsible ONLY for himself then he has NO BUSINESS being on a team, which carries with it the expectation of looking out for one's teammates. The Marines call it "no man left behind."
Fair enough, Krakauer wasnt an experienced guild and didnt want to join a rescue attempt but dont then go and write a book slagging him off! Yes, Krakauer is still alive but so was Boukreev after his valiant rescue attempt, he died later on a different mountain while Krakauer was counting his money from his book sales!
Valiant rescue, true, but if Boukreev would have maintained his position as a guide instead of descending and leaving the inexperienced group behind, maybe more would have survived. Maybe not.
Ben Ellis Very doubtful. Among the group of those who were within reasonable reach of rescue ( aka not Rob ) only one died. That group already had two guides with them and were still unable to make it to camp due to the white out conditions between the top of the South Col and the camp where getting lost could have easily led them off a cliff edge. Really without altering turnaround times and such it's hard to imagine things turning out much better then they did. Neil and another guide helped get everyone within a short distance of camp four and a rested and provisioned Boukreev able to drag three of those incapacitated of the group the rest of the way to camp. Remember that those three lives are put in jeopardy when you consider altering where Boukreev was and I'm not at all certain that they come out ahead with Boukreev helping them down.
This whole fiasco would have been avoided if A) Hall abided by his turn around time table and B) not climbing up that God forsaken death trap to begin with.
It's kind of hard to place blame in a situation that could have not existed in the first place.
If krakauer had the balls to go up there in the first place he deserves every nickel for coming back alive and telling the story.
Its the guides fault for bringing incapable climbers to the top for money. But really I blame anybody idiotic enough to go to that God forsaken place to begin with.
Krakauer was a paid client, not a guide. Krakauer an accomplished climber, was NOT a professional climber, he was an author that was contracted by Outside magazine. To suggest that Krakauer would not have been exhausted, hypoxic and partially snow-blind , is ridiculous... Yes, he was more experienced than other paid clients, however, people were collapsing all over the mountain (some of which that could barely make their way to the summit,). It is totally unfair to expect Krakauer to sleep for a few hours in the deathzone and then go and drag clients back to the tent, especially since he had no clue where they were.
Boukreev did do a heroic thing, however, that was his job and what he was paid to do. Does that diminish his heroism? No, of course not, but it is unfair to hold Krakauer to the same standard.
Reinhold Messner was not present in Everest. He played based on the book of Krakauer and knowledge that had to Boukreev. He was partial. It was unfair. Bourkreev is definitely a great hero.
If Krakauer cannot get on his feet at near 8000m in bad weather he should refuse, he could easily dye wandering around in the dark in such conditions. Krakauer was a guide and dead person worshiper, he said little negative about Hall who haled someone with a summit death wish to the top because he had throw his life savings at Hall to make 2 trips, both died because of a foolish decision be the leader. In fact you can probably link several other deaths to that decision because the expedition leader was dying near the summit rather than being a sweeper helping with encouragement, experience, and advise the people who paid him so much money as he descended. If Hall and Fisher told Bourkreev they planned to die high on the mountain today, he might have agreed to play sweeper.
To be fair to Reinhold, even if he wasn't present on the mountain in 1996, he is a great mountaineer himself and has a right to have an opinion on the issue at hand.
Messner is a legend...but I find it staggering he believes he can comment on these events with certainty, but finds it hard to remember Scott Fishers name & cannot recall Rob Halls name at all. These two were central to almost everything of note in this. I've read a lot about these events & these names stick in my head, because they are so everpresent in the story.
That's true, neither Messner was there. I agree with Simone
@@seanlyons5512 It's kinda hilarious that Messner isn't allowed to give his opinion because "he wasn't there when things happened" but everybody and their momma is allowed to use the UA-cam comment section and give their opinion. You weren't there either. Why is your opinion more valid? Because you are a better mountaineer then Messner? Because you are the better guide through all 8000ers? Because you've been on countless expeditions? Because you organise expeditions? Because you're an experienced Sherpa? Because you lived in Halls, Fisher and Boukreevs head? Because you have a time machine? Or is it only because you remember two names, tho kit being able to remember a name doesn't mean you're unable to recall a story correctly? Because you read a book Messner might not have read, but you don't really know?
Is that only arrogance or is it more like hypocrisy, since you hold Messner to standards you can't fulfill either?
In retrospect Andrei probably shouldn't have signed on as an expedition guide if he wasn't going to stay with his clients and guide them back to camp. This does not diminish his greatness as a climber and mountaineer, only as a guide.
For additional first-hand description see Neal Biedelman's ua-cam.com/video/jL9UHk1zTeY/v-deo.html
I,ve read J.Krakauers book 'Into thin air' and it was rivetting,very moving & also inspiring . Also read 'Eiger dreams' ,great read.Of all the poor souls who perished I was particularly moved by Rob Hall -who against better judgement would not leave
his slowest client behind.The last call to his wife is very moving.
I believe Anitoli Boukreev was pure mountaineering. OK he had a little scorn for the paying clients but I think he made up for it with the later rescue.Krakauer must have been totally exhausted.Having been through all that nightmare-the last thing you might want to do is go back up!? Who knows. Quote '..each mans soul is his own....'.
Great admiration for A.Boukreev. Also read 'left for dead' by Beck Wethers. Triumph of the human spirit if ever there was.
Shame about Messners memory for names -given the subject matter
I totally agree with you and also with the latter. How could you be so involved and not remember Rob Hall's name ?!
Krakauer said Anitoli more than redeemed himself once he understood that not everybody had made it back. He spent the rest of that long night risking his own life. ua-cam.com/video/q5LtdIwZF50/v-deo.html
Ha it's not so important now.
He could not remember the New Zealand guy's name.
Dude was so disrespectful. It’s Rob Hall🙄
@@bbartlow0307 Daaaamn..."redeemed". For what god dammit???? Another evidence of Krakauer's bastardiness.
Messner & I have the same hero: Ernest Shackleton (buried in Grytviken)
Fun Fact: From my hometown comes the first individual buried in Antarctica. The Southern Cross 1899 expeditions Zoologie expert, Nikolai Hanson. At cape Adair. Hanson’s peak. The loneliest grave in the world. His wife was pregnant when he left and had a daughter that went to be 101 years old. Her son has written a book about it. David Vogt. Nikolai got sick in the Antarctic winter, but lived long enough to see the first penguin pup come back. He held it. Which pleased him. Half an hour later, he died. Kristiansund, Norway.
Reinhold Messner criticized Anitoli Boukreev for his arrogance or as he describes it...having his nose up in the air. But he doesn't realize his own arrogance and smugness in the way he brushes off the names of Rob Hall and Scott Fischer.
Maybe Boukreev was not the most pleasant person but it seems to me that his going down early is what saved several people. If he had stayed waiting on the summit with everyone else he would have been caught in that storm as well. The guides who stayed with the clients only barely made it back to camp at all and then they were far too weak to go back and help.
Correct, Anatoli Boukreev was the only one acting with discipline that day, seems that some stupid people think he should have been as stupid as the rest. His actions brought about one of the greatest rescues in mountaineering history.
Yes, he went down early, by himself, with no radio to communicate with Fischer or Beidelman. How in the fuck was he even supposed to know that there WAS an emergency had Beidelman and Mike Groom not made it back to camp? Perhaps if he'd stayed with the clients to begin with, there wouldn't have been an emergency where someone died.
They all should have had good working radios.
If others wouldn't have helped Pittman, Fox, and Madsen down to the South Col, then went and told Anitoli exactly where they were, Boukreev's method would not have saved anyone, and those three Fisher clients would likely have died that day. He deserves the credit for those saves in the South Col (which Krakauer gave him fully), but it does not mean that he did everything perfectly during that expedition.
@@2HitWonder Agreed. See Neal Biedelman's first hand account for additional context. ua-cam.com/video/jL9UHk1zTeY/v-deo.html
Krakauer was not a guide, he was a client. Was not there to help others, and he probably didn't have the strength to do anything anyways. I think the thought was that Boukreev was a bit of a snob and he was more in it for himself, leaving his team on the summit and descending alone showed some of that attitude. Obviously as was said in the interview he saved lives and was given much respect by Krakauer and others for his actions that morning.