Dane

MH Compressor Hoody is awesome and a bit lighter than the Patagonia Micro Puff. Been using one all winter and love it. I have a XL puff for sale btw.

Really hard race in a tough sport! Good on him! Looks liek he is doing well, best wishes that his father is as well. "I’m kinda lucky because I only broke my collarbone. It could have been a lot worse," Farrar told VeloNews. "Hitting the deck at 60kph isn’t fun." "Dr. Ed Farrar, a prominent Wenatchee orthopedic physician and father of professional bicyclist Tyler Farrar, sustained a "serious spine injury" in a bicycling accident when a car hit him head-on. The 57-year-old physician has been an orthopedic surgeon at Wenatchee Orthopedics for 25 years."

Couple of random thoughts. Nothing wrong with always trying harder or being the "first" at anything. There are always risks involved other wise it would have been done long ago. Climbers, really good ones, aren't any better technically but they are mentally...their imaginations run wild compared to the rest of us and just as importantly are willing to follow through. When ambition gets ahead of experience and skill I see a problem, a disconnect. When kids jump start an alpine career with a guided ascent of an easy 7000m peak it might well be a great thing. But to continue down along those lines is a major disconnect IMO. The old saying of "teach a man to fish and he can feed himself"....instead of "hand a man a fish and he has dinner" comes to mind. Not trying to rain on Braydon, we were all 15 once and felt the fire. One of the hardest things I have done lately was drop by and have this converstaion with Braydon's mom. But, climbers owe their partners a couple of things, honesty and trying to keep them from making bad judgement calls are two of them. It isn't a "kid" thing to me but a "climbing" thing. I'd have the same comments, "you're likely to get your ass handed to you so get a good baby sitter" to anyone with the same experience and ambitions. I just won't be so genteel or take the time for someone older.

You have what, a bit less than 5 years, to beat Jess' time frame? I'd get hold of JR and Carlos and ask them. Since he is local I'd also make an effort to talk to Ed Viesturs, 206-780-0205, eviesturs@earthlink.net Check your email. But 35 ascents of Rainier by half a dozen routes would teach you more about climbing than one guided ascent of Pumori and give you at the very least, twice the time in the mtns. Shit happens on big mtns. I have known, iirc, nine Everest summiters by 3 or maybe 4 routes. None thought it easy and all used O2. Many thought Denali almost as hard and much colder. All were exceptional ice climbers. Rainier and waterfalls would be a good start. You want to be the youngest...? Get on a '12 team and a '13 team and come in from the north.

5.21.03: JESS ROSKELLEY BECOMES YOUNGEST AMERICAN TO SUMMIT WORLD'S TALLEST MOUNTAIN Word has just been received via Iridium satellite phone that at 7:30 am on May 21 (NEPAL TIME), American climbing legend John Roskelley, 54, and his son Jess, a college student and mountain guide, reached the 29,035 foot summit of Mount Everest. Jess at 20 years old is now the youngest American to ever climb the mountain. Their final ascent day was very difficult with snow and heavy winds all the way up. They spent a short time on the summit and were returning to high camp at 27,500 feet when they called at 9:30 PDT this evening. The return to base camp will take a few days, depending on conditions, and they expect to leave the mountain and return to the U.S. by the end of the month. Jess Roskelley: Jess was born in Spokane, Washington in 1982. Throughout his years in junior high school and high school, he competed in a variety of sports, such as wrestling, cross-country, track and mountain biking. After graduating from Mt. Spokane High School in June 2001, Jess tested and was hired as an apprentice guide for Rainier Mountaineering, Incorporated, Lou Whittaker’s prestigious mountain guide service on Mt. Rainier. In September 2001, he continued his education at Spokane Community College, working to fulfill standard requirements. Jess worked another summer guiding on Mt. Rainier in 2002, before transferring this past year to the University of Montana to study Recreational Management. While the Generations on Everest expedition will be Jess' first Himalayan climb, he has proven his technical experience on 35 ascents of 14,410 Mt. Rainier. (plus climbing since childhood with one of the best in the world, his father) Jess loves mountaineering, waterfall ice climbing and rock climbing and looks forward to each new experience. Over the past several years, he’s had several opportunities to join his dad, John Roskelley, adventuring throughout the Himalayas. In 1997, he trekked in Ladakh, northwest India, and summitted on 20,187-foot Stoke Kangri. In 1999, Jess assisted his dad on a trek into Gangor Punsuum base camp, located in north central Bhutan on the Tibet border. He thoroughly enjoys Asia–it’s people and customs–and plans to use his guiding experience to lead treks in the future.

Braydon, The idea I was trying to get across...is "experience" will be invaluable keeping you and Marc alive. Up high no one can take care of you, but you, no matter how good the guide. You are not being realistic if you think one trip on Rainier, and a walk up Aconcagua is "altitude" or a something like N face of Observation rock..technical. When things go wrong...and they do, you'll need every little bit of the experience you do have (and it isn't enough right now) to get out of what ever mess you get into. Aconcagua should have been an eye opener to you. There were climbers there from all over the world. Take the time to get hold of some of them, that have real altitude and technical experience and ask them what you should be doing right now with your time and money to actually become a competent alpinist that doesn't need a guide dragging them around. You'll be hard pressed to find a full UIAA guide or guide service willing to take a 16 old with your specific experience level on Pumori. I know it is not something you want to hear or believe but obviously something no one has bothered to clue you in on.

Lots of resources available for a proven team. I got a AAC grant years ago for a Alaskan trip. All you have to do is ask. But it is generally a stipend and not close to the full amount you'd need to finance a trip. A selection board picks the teams they think worthy. Advice? You asked but it is going to be harsh. Get some more experience on something lower (and cheaper) than a 7000m Himalayian peak before you get you ass handed to you. What you guys don't know about altitude sickness, snow conditions, glacier travel and weather is what will most likely get you into serious shit. Doesn't matter if you are 15 or 35. Assuming you have the technical skills, without that experience base and knowledge you had better have a good fucking baby sitter that can literally pick you up and haul your ass off the mountain if something goes wrong. Can you do that now for each other? Do you know when you should? Know how to put a med kit together and use it? I say that with all due affection for you guys while having a buddy still sitting at 23,000 on GII and a five more buried forever in avalanches. Climbing above 10K is serious stuff. Getting above 20K even more so. Next to Kilimanjaro, Aconcagua is one of the easiest mtns in the world. You can go to 20K' in tennis shoes on either or die there in a storm the next day. Oct. is Fall and post monsoon. Do you know the difference between post and pre monsoon season? The temp differences? http://www.mounteverest.net/story/DaughterofEverestnotinthemoodthisyearNov102004.shtml http://www.mounteverest.net/story/PumoriwinterattempthaltedatcrevasseJan192005.shtml My suggestion? Take 2 weeks off in winter and climb Libery or Ptarmigan Ridge or Robson if you want an adventure. Pick a date and just go do it. Just like on any mountain the weather will dictate just how far you get. Be a lot cheaper and you'd learn more. Plus you'd have the same opportunity to die in a glorious fashion close to home. High altitude alpinism or just plain old alpinism is a serious, very dangerious and extremely complicated game. Takes some time and real effort to get even the smallest parts of it sorted out. The costs of a mistake are huge. Making that kind of a mistake might well change your life forever or simply end it.

Obviously too many You need a third tool Braydon!

Only problem I have had is they are too sticky. Place I have noticed it is holding a tube while trying to wind the screw in. Gloves were too grippy on the tube of the screw so you can't spin them in holding the tube. Bad way to place a screw anyway. But never seen them ice up on the outside (and I know what you mean) and they are really tough. Good for lots of rappels. PC had something like 9 or 10 60m raps plus another 12 or so this winter and my other gloves with the same palm show no sign of wear at all. I'm generally rapping on dbl 7.8mm ropes which are slick anyway in a ATC and the rubber palms give you enough friction that it seems like a reasonable thing to rap on even with fully hanging and scary 60m rappels.

Virtually new Quark. New pick that never touched ice. No leash or peg. Hammer or adze, you choose. It is a spare I used a total of one day. I replaced the original pick with a new one, so you can call the tool "new". I'll pay postage CONUS. Still one of the best all around tools made. $180.00 Pay Pal is easy.

I dropped by the OR store in Seattle this morning and got to try on all their glove line. Besides being partial to the "Extravert" ($59.) for cold weather leashless I also found two other gloves I had not seen that I liked a lot. The thiniest one is the Vert glove. Soft shell, cut on the curve, lots of leather in the palm , fingers and thumb. with an elastic cuff that isn't too short and lightly lined. More insulation on the back of your hand and a little in your palm. Reasonable, if they last, at $45. The other is a long cuff, gauntlet style all nylon glove with a rubber thumb, finger and palm. It may be the best of the bunch for cold weather leashless. The "Snowline Glove", is thin enough to comfortably get in a tight set of Nomics. Thinner than the Extravert but still insulated and likely warmer. Almost the same grip thickness as the Vert but obviously a lot warmer. Strap and elastic at the wrist and draw cord on the long cuff. Lightly lined but not removeable. Water proof, breathable liner. Inbetween glove for when the temps really drop or alpine leashless? But still light enough for serious M. Most like my tried and true Mtn Hardware "Epic" but with just a bit more warmth, gauntlet and water proof. Price? Amazing $39.00 FULL retail!

Thin gloves with a bit of padding for ice are getting hard to find.

Big fan of the OR Extravert for cold conditions leeshless...like the Parkway in Canada. Lighter yet works cragging or around here but I get tired of carrying 3 or 4 pair of lwt gloves and changing them out all day as they get wet. http://www.altrec.com/outdoor-research/mens-extravert-glove Mtn Hardware (Epic glove) and REI ( copy of the Epic) make a really light glove that I have used a lot and like but carry 3 pair and big belay gloves if I'm out all day. One spare pair with the Cloudveil Ice flow or a similar glove from Arcteryx the Gamma and the Stinger. Really like the durability of leather palms as well when you start rapping. But no question these are the best bang for the buck.

Hey it is climbing, wouldn't be any fun if we all agreed! When I use the word "reinvented" it wasn't without some thought. Who made that change and when is speculation on everyone's part. I know from my own experience that at times people were climbing things that seemed giant leaps from what was commonly being done. I am the first to admit the majority of those "leaps" have been the imagination of the climbers involved and not the gear. Buggs comes to mind adding slings to Terros for cold hard ice. Lowe and Weiss on Bridalviel is another. Technically harder than what most could yet envision. Nothing similar in size and committment had been done before on water ice. When the Canadians, the small group of local ex pats, and visiting Americans started getting out in the Canadian winter things were about to change very quickly. Duncan Ferguson: .…” But it was only after reading about Scottish climbing, “that I sorted out what I wanted to do with my ice climbing--forget the ‘thick ice’ part of it and see how far I could go with a pair of Terrors and a new attitude and vision. A redefinition of what ‘ice climbing’ was…. Spent the entire rest of the season wandering around by myself and bouldering and traversing and soloing short mixed climbs. Rock climbs really, with a set of Terrors and crampons. Thin ice, snowed up rock, rock moves between patches of ice and pure rock.…” Ferguson's word, "redefinition". And I think rightfully gives credit to the McInnes and his Terro for our current "mixed climbing". The Terro is also the basis for the tools we now climb ice with. In my mind there is not question it wasn't Chouinard who "invented" modern ice climbing but the Scots and the Terro. “Without the Terrordactyl, we’d still all be swinging.”--Duncan Ferguson, 2001. Duncan Ferguson again: “even though credit for much of the impetus for modern ice climbing has gone to Chouinard and his curved tools, I strongly feel that it is the Scots and MacInnes in particular and [his Terrordactyls] that ushered in the birth of modern mixed climbing.” Take that comment a step further. Water fall ice climbing at the WI3 level and a bit more can easily be done with Chouinard's curved tools. Taken farther yet by experinced climbers with the skills and strength to match and WI5 did get done on occasion. But WI6 and even WI7 generally waited for hooked tools and the accumalative skills. By the time we were introduced to the "m grades" curved tools were long dead for technical climbing and everyone was climbing on reverse curved, hooking picks. Pure water ice climbing has changed little in the past 35 years. If you climbed with a Terro originally switching to a Nomic would be easy, natural really, and it would make your climbing just that much easier. Suddendly WI5 is going to feel more like WI4 and even stuff that once was WI6+ R might well be "just" WI5 now if my own experince is any indication of the grade "changes". Of course the newest ice screws have a lot to do with the R rating. But warm stretchy clothing, lwt weight boots, mono points, big clearence, and most importantly leashless tools make a huge difference. But ice climbing is still "just" ice climbing. Nothing really new there other than the grades have moved about a bit. But mixed? Wasn't long ago climbing 5.10 on sight, in mtn boots and crampons was the realm of a very few. Climbing at that level would mean you generally climbed 5.11 trad in shoes on a sunny day. Add a pack, big boots, crampons and shitty rock generally scared the "lookie loos" away. It was a serious sport. Leaders didn't generally fall and get to tell the story or get to try it again. Today? Not the same sport. Gyms, bolts and most importantly tools that are designed for and able to take dry tooling and torqes are the norm. Climbers are stronger and smarter. But the tools and what we accept as the ethical norm today allows us to pull on any wall. M5/M6 (5.9/5.10) is now a trivial M-grade in the mtns when you consider current technical standards. Modern leashless tools not only allow you to use the tool as a "sky hook" but correctly fitted, it is a TCU through a medium size cam, a good thin hand to full hand jam, and works as a decent nut to pull up on from 1/4" to over an inch all usable for BOTH hands on one tool. Raphael again, "Dry tooling where a few years earlier climbers would have tried rock climbing and, failing that, resorted to aid, has also helped turn some alpine testpieces, like the Andromeda Strain, into trade routes. To some extent, a new generation of mixed climbs in the Canadian Rockies is blurring the distinction between M- and alpine climbing." "to some extent?" Raphael's article is 7 years old and already out of date. Just as ice climbing changed radically in the mid '70s mixed has as well in the first decade of this century. A-Strain is now regularly done as "crag" climb, car to car @ M5/6 AI4 with great pro. This rating is from a recent winter ascent in terrible, dry conditions. A-strain was originally rated as a V 5.9 A2 WI4, as a 2 day summer climb and state of the art in '83 after years of attempts. Most of the great Canadian North faces have fallen to similar tactics, time and grade changes. We are all using the M-grades now for mixed. I think we should acknowledge that beyond a new grading system, somewhere along the line the mixed climbing game changed. My take is that change occured the moment we had picks that you could torque in a crack with full body weight or do a stein pull on.

Funny, I talked at length to the Petzl folks just before the last show this winter. They mentioned there was no desire by Petzl to build a hammer for the Nomic. Could be wrong of course.

Whoaaaaa.... I've never climbed in Cody or Boseman. Just trying to relate what I was told, but in jest as well. PC? Hell, it is still a VI to me. "The topo I had drawn for me listed the pitches as 35m WI3, 35m WI3, 20m WI2, turn the pencil, 50m WI3, 90m WI3, (final tier, right side) 40m WI3+, 25m WI 4-." This might be a bit light though at the moment (or on any of my 1/2 dozen times up the climb) From the bottom... bit of WI 2 (70m) WI3+/4 pitch (roped start of the climb) snow to the pencil turn the pencil on WI2 avi slope out and back WI 3 pitch the ribbon, WI4, long or two short snow bench last tier (2 pitches easy 4 and a bit of 5 on the start of the last..difficulty depends on the condition of the ice.) Most will climb roped for only 4 or 5 pitches total and you'll want to be able to climb real WI5 to actually enjoy the climbing. It is a decent day out for most. 6 to 8 hrs climbing depending on conditions and 3 to 5 to rap back down. A full 30 years later and PC is still a long, classic and dangerious ice climb not to be underestimated. Belay every pitch and you'll have a full on grade V WI5. There is good reason climbers come from all over the world to do this route. Forget the grade and just go do it. I have a decent topo. If anyone wants it send me your email addy.

Several ways to do it. Milling a Quark hammer and Nomic pic to mate on teh bolts is the right way to do it imo. Look here for a drawing. http://www.ascent-design.com/projects/other_ice_hammers.html I cut and welded a Quark hammer to a Nomic pick...as there is pleanty of room. But it will fail with use and is expensive. I suspect the most expensive is pull the head as Kock did and replace it with a Quark head. But I don't see the advantage over modifing the Quark shaft instead. And the disadvantages imo of the Quark mixed picks. The answer many have decided on is to carry an alpine/wall hammer as a third tool for pounding pins. Also donesn't change the balance of the Nomic. That may be the easiest and least expensive answer.

"Degrees Of Freedom" From dry tooling to figure fours, M-climbing in the mountains is redefining the vision of what’s a climbable line. By Raphael Slawinski First published in the American Alpine Journal 2002 “We cannot solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”--Albert Einstein Mixed climbing has come a long way from its beginnings in mountaineering. The early mountaineer with his nailed boots “providing an equally good grip on rock and ice” (Heinrich Harrer, The White Spider, 1959) seems barely recognizable in the modern alpinist making rapid ascents of huge mixed walls from Alaska to the Himalaya. Certainly the pioneer seems to have little resemblance to the “M-climber” figure-fouring their way across an icy roof. In fact, aside from the fact that they both use some form of ice axes and crampons--and even this basic equipment is becoming increasingly specialized--do the alpine and M-climbers have anything in common? By recalling some milestone climbs, I will trace the evolution of mixed climbing into the multifaceted activity it has become. The beginnings: Scots and north walls “It was half superb rock-technique, half a toe-dance on the ice--a toe-dance above a perpendicular drop. [Heckmair] got a hold on the rock, a hold on the ice, bent himself double, uncoiled himself, the front points of his crampons moving ever upwards, boring into the ice.” --Heinrich Harrer referring to the first ascent of the north face of the Eiger, in 1938, The White Spider. Mixed climbing as an activity practiced for its own sake originated in the early 1900s in Scotland. Seeking added challenge, Scottish mountaineers attempted summer rock routes in winter, a startlingly modern concept. Around the same time, the development of crampons (initially not adopted by the nailed-boot-shod Scots), helped inaugurate the golden north wall era in the Alps. On large alpine routes, mixed climbing was--and often still is--a means to an end, rather than an end in itself. Nonetheless alpine climbs of the 1930s, such as the north faces of the Eiger and of the Matterhorn, defined the state of the art in mixed climbing for decades to come due to of their unprecedented length, sustained difficulty, and fearsome commitment. Not until the 1960s were mixed climbing standards raised again, on routes such as the Orion Direct on Ben Nevis and the Bonatti-Zappelli on the Grand Pilier d’Angle of Mont Blanc. By the end of that decade existing equipment and technique had likely been pushed as far as was possible. For an advance to occur, both would have to be reinvented. The interlude: Waterfall ice “Apart from the loomingly obvious Cascade Icefall […], nothing was done until the full potential of modern ice climbing equipment was realized....”--Bugs McKeith, Canadian Alpine Journal, 1975. The breakthrough came in the late 1960s with the introduction of the curved pick by Yvon Chouinard and the Terrordactyl’s radically drooped pick, by Hamish MacInnes. The new technology revolutionized ice climbing and paved the way for free-climbing on vertical ice. The revolution in ice climbing eventually would also alter mixed climbing beyond recognition. But ironically, the explosion of interest in waterfall ice initially distracted climbers from mixed climbing. By the early 1980s ice climbing, from being merely one of the techniques in the alpinist’s arsenal, had evolved into a full-blown technical art. The skills gained on waterfalls also gave rise to a whole new generation of alpine climbs. Slipstream in the Canadian Rockies blurred the distinction between waterfall ice and alpine climbing; the Moonflower Buttress in the Alaska Range applied the highest levels of ice climbing skill to a major alpine first ascent; and the list goes on. Waterfall ice climbing, though initially pursued for its own sake, ended up revolutionizing alpine climbing. Ahead of their time: Mixed climbing in the 1970s “Without the Terrordactyl, we’d still all be swinging.”--Duncan Ferguson, 2001. For most winter climbers of the 1970s and 80s, vertical ice was the end of the rainbow. The one place where mixed climbing continued to advance was Scotland. Duncan Ferguson recently commented to me that, “even though credit for much of the impetus for modern ice climbing has gone to Chouinard and his curved tools, I strongly feel that it is the Scots and MacInnes in particular and [his Terrordactyls] that ushered in the birth of modern mixed climbing.” Indeed modern mixed climbing in the Alps was not a native development, but arrived only when Rab Carrington and Al Rouse exported Scottish attitudes to establish their now classic route on the north face of the Aiguille des Pelerins in the winter of 1975. In North America Ferguson, who was years ahead of his time in his pursuit of mixed climbing, was likewise influenced by Scottish climbing: “I started ice climbing in about 1971.… After [a] short-lived fascination with steep and thick ice, I got frustrated with the clumsy and brutal nature of ice climbing.…” But it was only after reading about Scottish climbing, “that I sorted out what I wanted to do with my ice climbing--forget the ‘thick ice’ part of it and see how far I could go with a pair of Terrors and a new attitude and vision. A redefinition of what ‘ice climbing’ was…. Spent the entire rest of the season wandering around by myself and bouldering and traversing and soloing short mixed climbs. Rock climbs really, with a set of Terrors and crampons. Thin ice, snowed up rock, rock moves between patches of ice and pure rock.…” It would be over a decade before Ferguson’s redefinition of ice climbing would gain widespread acceptance. Hard and fast: Alpine mixed climbing into the 1980s “The wall was the ambition. The style became the obsession.”--Alex MacIntyre, Shisha Pangma: The alpine-style first ascent of the South-West Face, 1984. “Winter alpinism is hard enough without the added dilemma of free-climbing ethics.”--Barry Blanchard, Climbing #117, 1989. Perhaps because most alpine routes require some mixed climbing, the development of waterfall ice climbing had a more immediate impact on the sort of mixed ground being climbed in the mountains. It was only later that climbers began to seek out hard mixed ground at the crags. Thus in 1974 in the Canadian Rockies Jeff Lowe and Mike Weis applied the lessons learned on waterfall ice climbs such as the first ascent of Colorado’s Bridalveil Falls to set a new standard of mixed climbing difficulty on the Grand Central Couloir of Mt. Kitchener. On the crux pitch, “with only knifeblades between frozen blocks for protection, the climbing was extremely nerve-wracking. Seldom would the tools penetrate more than half an inch before meeting rock” (Jeff Lowe, Ice World, 1996). The bar was raised again in 1978, when Jim Logan and Mugs Stump made the first ascent of the Emperor Face of Mt. Robson. Typical of alpine climbing with its overriding emphasis on getting up, they had no qualms about resorting to aid, yet the runout nature of the climbing also required free-climbing at a high standard. For three days they surmounted pitch after pitch of difficult, poorly protected mixed climbing, with considerable exposure to objective hazards and scant possibility for retreat. On the final day Logan took eight hours to lead the crux pitch, “at first around a roof with all tied-off pins, then onto a tied-off screw, then a bit of ice climbing…. At the top of the pitch I ran out of piton placements and ice, and set off for 30 feet of rock climbing on overhanging loose snow-covered rock with no protection” (Jim Logan, Climbing #52, 1979). The Logan-Stump remains unrepeated to this day, a testament to its difficulty and seriousness. In the Alps the north face of the Grandes Jorasses was a forcing point for advances in alpine mixed climbing. In 1975 Nick Colton and Alex MacIntyre climbed a line of icy runnels and chimneys on the right flank of the Walker Spur. While the Colton/MacIntyre also comprises difficult ice and rock climbing, the main difficulties are mixed. When it was first climbed, the route was undoubtedly one of the hardest of its kind in the world. The Grandes Jorasses remained at the forefront of alpine mixed climbing into the 1980s with a number of difficult new routes: the famous No Siesta in particular was likely ahead of its time. Established in 1986 by the Slovak climbers Stanislav Glejdura and Jan Porvaznik, it featured much thin vertical ice, and difficult free and aid climbing on often poor rock. One of the first routes to bring a higher standard of mixed climbing difficulty to the greater ranges was the Infinite Spur of Mt. Foraker (5304 m) in the Alaska Range, established in 1977 by George Lowe and Michael Kennedy. In describing how they were motivated to attempt the route in pure alpine style in keeping with the new Alaskan idiom of “speed, commitment and technical competence,” Kennedy could have been writing today. They encountered much 60-degree ice and rock up to 5.9. The crux was three pitches of mixed climbing high on the route: “My mind was clear and surprisingly calm as I visualized the way ahead, keenly aware of the chalkboard-screech of crampons on rock, the rattling thud of an axe in too-thin ice, a sling on a frozen-in spike, the dull ring of a bad piton behind a loose block, calf muscles screaming for relief, choking spindrift in eyes, throat, down the neck” (Michael Kennedy, American Alpine Journal, 1978). In the Himalaya, large and technical mixed faces were also beginning to be climbed in alpine style. To name but a few: the Hungo Face of Kwangde (6100 m) in 1982 by David Breashears and Jeff Lowe; the south face of Annapurna (8091 m) in 1984 by Nil Bohigas and Enric Lucas; the Golden Pillar of Spantik (7027 m) in 1987 by Mick Fowler and Victor Saunders; and the list goes on. The ultimate achievement in completely committed alpine mixed climbing was Voytek Kurtyka and Robert Schauer’s 1985 first ascent of the west face of Gasherbrum IV (7925 m). As described by Kurtyka, “the conditions on the face proved very difficult and dangerous.… Altogether, we climbed four pitches of [5.6]–two of them at 7100 and 7300 meters […] without a single belay point. The real nuisance was the very deep snow on the mixed ground through which we tunneled vertically…” (Voytek Kurtyka, American Alpine Journal, 1986). The compact rock and light rack meant that retreat was not an option. Finding the difficulties of the lower face greater than anticipated, and trapped by a multi-day storm on the upper face, they ran out of food and fuel. Reaching the summit ridge on the seventh day, they spent another three descending an unclimbed ridge. Bolts and figure-fours: The M-revolution “It appeared to us that ice climbers had reached the limit of technical difficulty. After all, water can only drop so vertically, and ice can only be so rotten before it can no longer support the weight of the climber. So what was to be next?”--Jeff Marshall, The Polar Circus No. 2, 1987. “There are very, very few ice climbs in the world that are actually hard, but these mixed climbs, on the other hand, they were hard. You could pitch on them….”--Will Gadd, Rock and Ice #89, 1998. Though mixed climbing had been going on in the mountains for decades, M-climbing, the new wave of technically extreme mixed climbing, grew chiefly out of waterfall ice climbing. Bored with the predictability of thick ice, climbers turned their attention to lines previously considered to be unformed. In 1991 in the Canadian Rockies Jeff Everett and Glenn Reisenhofer aided up a ropelength of rock to reach the hanging ice of Suffer Machine (200 m, WI5 A2); the following year in the Alps Jeff Lowe and Thierry Renault also used aid to connect the ice features on Blind Faith (400 m, WI6+ A2). Though initially such discontinuous ice smears were linked up with little regard for the style in which the rock was ascended, it nevertheless took a visionary attitude to even conceive of these mixed lines as potential routes. Lowe in particular was inspired by the possibilities and, with his 1994 ascent of Octopussy (20 m, M8) in Colorado’s infamous Vail amphitheatre, the style in which a mixed climb was accomplished returned to the fore with a vengeance. “Let’s get real here. No one does a figure-four ice climbing.”--Karl Nagy, Canadian Alpine Journal, 1997. “The third time, however, was magic. This time I did a second figure 4 immediately following the first one, which allowed me to get a good stick higher up with my right tool.”--Jeff Lowe, Ice World, 1996. With its pre-placed protection, redpointing tactics, and exotic moves, Octopussy signaled a radical departure in mixed climbing. Technically, it was by far the hardest mixed climb yet made. The easy access, reliable protection, and lack of objective hazards freed climbers to pursue pure technical difficulty. This was of course similar to what happened in rock climbing some 10 years earlier, when the acceptance of bolt protection paved the way for sport climbing and, ultimately, higher technical standards. Vail continued to be a crucible for M-climbing with Will Gadd’s 1997 first ascent of Amphibian (40 m, M9). Stevie Haston was at the cutting edge of M-climbing in the Alps, with routes like 009 (M8+) in 1997 and X-Files (M9+) in 1998. As the dry tooling craze took hold, mixed climbing began to look increasingly like rock climbing with axes and crampons. The athleticism of the new wave of M-climbing also attracted a new breed of participants, often superb rock climbers. With routes like Tomahawk (M11-) and Mission Impossible (M11) in the Alps, and Musashi (M12) in the Canadian Rockies, Robert Jasper, Mauro “Bubu” Bole, Ben Firth, and others are pushing dry tooling into a realm of previously unimagined technical difficulty. With the added catalyst of competition in the three-year-old Ice World Cup, the movement skills required for hard M-climbing have evolved far beyond the static positions of traditional mixed climbing: dynos, figure fours, heel hooks…. The equipment is evolving just as quickly: leashless tools, lightweight boots with integrated minimal crampons…. So what? “The hype pretended that M7 or 8, or 12 for that matter, had never before been climbed until the current practitioners rap-bolted some overhanging choss heap, rehearsed it, climbed it, did photo shoots on it, and treated it as commerce.”--Mark Twight, Climbing #178, 1998. “009 had a crux dyno on it that […] will, by its very nature, eliminate 98% of the old ice climbers.”--Stevie Haston, High #184, 1998. Hard mixed climbing at the crags is nothing new. Scott Backes recently commented to me, “the routes at the crags [are] why I am able to go into the mountains and do what it is I do. I’ve been climbing at two 27-meter quarries since the 80s. The quest for pure difficulty mostly on top-rope has led me to know as well as can be known the limits of adhesion and made the routes done high over gear thinkable.…” What is new is the attention devoted to what before was considered mere practice. While some have deplored turning “ice climbing into sport climbing,” it is worth recalling that the 5.12, 5.13, and 5.14 barriers were not broken by mountaineers rock climbing on rainy days for something to do. They were broken by climbers single-mindedly pursuing pure technical difficulty for its own sake. Similarly, M8, M9, M10, and beyond were climbed only when climbers divorced mixed climbing from alpinism and started mixed climbing for mixed climbing’s sake. M-climbing has yet to approach the physical demands of the hardest rock climbs. But it has made a good start by jettisoning the traditionalist baggage of its mountaineering roots. Nonetheless, one might question whether the pursuit of technical difficulty for its own sake is not missing the point. As Duncan Ferguson recently commented to me, “I strongly feel that the heart and soul of climbing, rock or ice or mixed, have to do with intimate adventure and challenges to the vision and spirit and are not necessarily fed by pure technical difficulty.” More pragmatically, one might question whether extreme M-antics at the crag have any relevance for what goes on in the alpine realm. Certainly, after spending time at an M-crag witnessing the dynos, the figure fours, the leashless tricks, it is hard to believe that any of it will ever be used in the mountains. But even if not all of these techniques find their way onto alpine routes (some of them already have), the main import of M-climbing might be in breaking down psychological barriers regarding what is and what is not climbable. To quote Ferguson again: “I see the move onto modern mixed climbs (bolt protected or not) as being a healthy part of the process of raising standards--of forcing new lines of VISION. The M12 [at the crag] directly translates into an ‘impossible’ M10 pitch way off the deck….” Or, as Mark Twight recently commented to me, “those mixed climbers participating at the highest levels of the discipline are too consumed by its demands to apply their skills in different arenas…. That said, ‘new wave’ mixed climbing must influence alpinism. Just as high levels of rock climbing ability obtained by sport climbing ‘stars’ raised overall standards for everyone, high levels of mixed climbing ability will raise the general level of every climber simply by existing.” This brings us to the thorny issue of bolts. Much of the recent push into extreme technical difficulty in mixed climbing seems inconceivable without them. Yet they remain controversial, particularly in the mountains. In the words of a staunch traditionalist, “[bolts] do not require any weakness in the rock or any skill to place, and they destroy the traditional challenge of mountaineering” (Mick Fowler, American Alpine Journal, 2000). Whether one considers bolts to be justifiable, particularly in the mountains, hinges on what one believes constitutes a route. Mark Twight recently summarized the dilemma to me thus: “The person who chooses to bolt insists that because he can climb a particular passage, a route exists, regardless of the natural opportunities for protection…. The person who chooses not to bolt insists that a route does not exist simply because he can physically climb there, natural opportunities for protection must exist also if the climber has need of same.” Part of the reason why bolts have become an issue in mixed climbing is that rising standards have expanded our notion of what is climbable. Where it used to be that climbable and protectable lines more or less coincided, the new dry tooling skills have expanded our notion of climbable terrain far beyond what may be naturally protected. Conversely, it is absurd to pretend that mixed climbing standards would have risen as high and as quickly as they have without wholesale acceptance of protection bolts. Having said that, it would seem a pity if the challenge of mixed climbing were reduced to merely executing a sequence of difficult moves. As demonstrated by routes such as Robert Jasper’s 1998 Flying Circus (145 m, M10), which only used bolts at belays, truly hard mixed climbing and bolts are not always inseparable. Another criticism often leveled at M-climbing is that, as Topher Donahue recently commented to me, “most modern ‘mixed’ climbs have maybe one true mixed move on them, the rest […] being dry tooling or ice climbing.” While this characterization of M-climbing is certainly accurate, I would argue that M-climbing has given us a new perspective from which to look at the mountains in winter. It is also a perspective that is more relevant for alpine climbing. Rock that because of adverse conditions cannot be “rock climbed” often presents the greatest difficulties on alpine routes. Dry tooling skill acquired on M-climbing testpieces adds an awesome weapon to the alpinist’s arsenal. From the new perspective, ice climbing, “true” mixed climbing, and dry tooling are all just different aspects of winter free-climbing. Of course, unlike in rock climbing, the notion of “free” in mixed climbing is controversial. Mixed climbing involves the use of tools: whether or not leashes are used, one still brandishes a skyhook in each hand. To turn our backs on dry tooling and use our hands no matter what the conditions in the name of free-climbing seems a backward step, as dry tooling is an extremely effective winter climbing technique. But the use of tools does make it difficult to be dogmatic about free-climbing. (On the other hand, hazy though the free versus aid distinction might be in theory, attempting a sustained overhanging mixed route quickly makes clear the difference between relying on one’s axes, crampons, and skill alone, and making progress by resorting to aid climbing tactics where one can rest on the gear.) Ultimately, the stand one takes on such issues hinges on what is thought to be “good” style. In alpinism, a climb was traditionally considered to be in good style if it was executed with limited means and, generally, “… with little of the frigging around normally associated with a major […] ascent.” (Dave Cheesmond, The Polar Circus No. 1, 1986). However, remarkably little attention has been paid to free-climbing ethics: on large alpine routes such considerations have usually taken a back seat to simply getting up. But alpinists have traditionally placed limitations on themselves to prevent “the murder of the impossible.” If by placing a bolt one does not face up to the full “challenge of mountaineering,” so also by pulling on gear one evades that challenge. (Seen from this perspective bolts are not an absolute anathema but just one more crutch, such as aid climbing, that we occasionally lean on.) By borrowing from the strict free-climbing ethos of rock climbing, the new generation of M-climbers has the ability to redefine what constitutes good style in alpinism. And finally, whatever one’s stance on the importance of free-climbing ethics in mixed climbing, free climbing is almost always faster. And speed in alpine climbing is both good style and good sense. Into the Future “I wanted one-arm pull-ups, big swings, speed, and see-through frozen lingerie.”--Stevie Haston, High #184, 1998. “… I found myself back on the south face dry tooling some M5/6 pitches in the death zone at about 7600 meters.”--Tomaz Humar, American Alpine Journal, 2000 Andy Parkin and Mark Twight’s 1992 first ascent of Beyond Good and Evil on the north face of the Aiguille des Pelerins was an important milestone in alpine mixed climbing. They took 26 hours to climb 14 pitches of thin vertical ice and rock up to French 5+ and A3. As Twight recently commented to me, “when we started working on it […] there had not been many, if any, routes of that level of sustained difficulty combined with inobvious protection done in the Alps.” The route’s reputation kept it from being repeated until 1995, when taking advantage of good conditions Francois Damilano and Francois Marsigny made the second ascent. However, within the span of the few years since the route was first done, standards have risen to the point that the second ascent was quickly followed by further repeats, all parties completing the route in a day and dispensing with most of the aid. Even accounting for the fact that the original finish to the route is still rarely done, the quick transformation from feared testpiece to modern classic is remarkable nonetheless. Stevie Haston has also done much to bring hard mixed climbing to the mountains, with a strong emphasis on free climbing. His routes on the east face of Mont Blanc du Tacul, the 1994 Pinocchio (M6+) and the 1995 Scotch on the Rocks (M7), were both groundbreaking achievements. While they are not routes of the stature of No Siesta or even Beyond Good and Evil, they are nevertheless sustained multipitch offerings (around 350 meters in length) in an alpine setting, and they were established without bolts (in the case of Scotch, without pitons). In 1997, Robert Jasper added Vol de Nuit (M7+) to the right of Scotch, again climbing the route all free and without bolts. Each of these routes, when it was first done, represented a significant step forward in traditional (if not exactly alpine) mixed climbing. Yet within the span of a few seasons they had become trade routes, sometimes seeing multiple ascents within a single day--yet another stark proof of the rapidly rising skill levels. It is then perhaps surprising that a route like Vol de Nuit remains one of the hardest (quasi-)alpine mixed routes in the Alps. This is but one example of the striking disparity between technical standards at the crags and in the mountains. In the Canadian Rockies, rising standards fostered on M-climbing testpieces are also having an impact on alpine mixed climbing. For instance when in 1996 Alex Lowe freed Troubled Dreams (150 m, M7) on the Terminator Wall, it was hailed as a major accomplishment. Lowe admitted to being “really pushed” on the crux, and the route went unrepeated. In 2000 Rob Owens, employing many of the new M-climbing techniques including figure fouring on lead above natural gear, added a direct start to Troubled Dreams called Stuck in the Middle. This more sustained variation quickly received several repeats but, tellingly, went nearly unreported. For the new wave of M-climbers, skilled in dry tooling, it was just another day out climbing. Dry tooling where a few years earlier climbers would have tried rock climbing and, failing that, resorted to aid, has also helped turn some alpine testpieces, like the Andromeda Strain, into trade routes. To some extent, a new generation of mixed climbs in the Canadian Rockies is blurring the distinction between M- and alpine climbing. In the past few years a number of long, quasi-alpine mixed routes have gone up, many of them the work of Dave Thomson. The combination of technical skill and bolt protection has redefined the vision of what constitutes a climbable line. One of the best of the new routes, Rocketman (350 m, M7+), situated in a high glacial cirque, has bolts protecting the technical cruxes yet the easier climbing is quite engaging. When I free-climbed the route in a long day, the effort and focus required were no less than on many alpine routes, and the technical difficulty significantly greater. In a more traditional vein Steve House, with his new routes like the 1999 M-16 (VI, WI7+ A2) on the east face of Howse Peak, and the 2001 Sans Blitz (V, WI7 5.5) on the east face of Mount Fay, has done much to bring higher standards to truly alpine routes. Climbers are also taking the technical skills acquired at the crags to the greater ranges. In 1996 Jack Roberts and Jack Tackle established Pair of Jacks (M6 WI5) on the north face of Mt. Kennedy (4238 m) in the St. Elias Range with the explicit goal “… of establishing a difficult new standard of [mixed] climbing via a new route on a beautiful mountain” (Jack Roberts, Canadian Alpine Journal, 1997). Climbing in a hybrid of alpine and capsule styles they covered 36 pitches of hard mixed ground. Yet Roberts admits to misgivings about their tactics. He recently commented to me, “hauling of packs in a major way, and bivouacking in portaledges, this does not constitute alpine climbing.” Although an ascent dispensing with these would certainly have been in better style, the tactics used on Pair of Jacks probably represent a necessary step in the evolution of alpine mixed climbing. At some point, perhaps soon, climbers will be strong and fast enough to climb such routes in lightweight style. But when Pair of Jacks was first done, a heavier approach was likely instrumental in Roberts and Tackle getting up the route, and doing it almost entirely free. Significantly, a very strong team later attempted to repeat their route in a single push and failed. Single push style was successfully applied by Scott Backes, Steve House, and Mark Twight on their 2000 ascent of the huge and technical Slovak Direct route (5.9 M6 WI6+) on the south face of Denali (6194 m). Inspired by Voytek Kurtyka’s concept of “night naked” climbing, they carried no bivi gear and blitzed the route in 60 hours of virtually non-stop climbing; the previous alpine-style ascent took a week. The following year Stephen Koch and Marko Prezelj upped the ante by climbing a new route on the southwest face of Denali in this style. They warmed up with the first free ascent of the Moonflower Buttress (M7?), accomplished in a 36-hour round trip from base camp. Moving on to Denali, they established Light Traveler (M8?) in 51 hours round trip from a high base camp, with Prezelj free-climbing the crux pitch on sight. Modern mixed climbing standards are also making their way into the Himalaya. Many noteworthy climbs have been made; the few selected below merely illustrate the state of the art. In 1996 a strong French team, climbing in alpine style, climbed Extra Blue Sky on the north face of Kwangde beside the then unrepeated 1982 Breashears-Lowe route. The new route was described as steeper and harder than the north face of Les Droites. In 1997 Andrew Lindblade and Athol Whimp completed the much-attempted direct line on the north face of Thalay Sagar (6905 m). Their route, which involved thin ice up to WI5 and cold rock climbing up to 5.9, was also climbed in alpine style. The big news in 1999 was Tomaz Humar’s bold solo of a new route on south face of Dhaulagiri (8167 m) with mixed difficulties up to M7+. A direct comparison of the difficulties of crag and Himalayan mixed routes is of course highly problematical. A more meaningful assessment of the evolution of standards in Himalayan mixed climbing is provided by the recent repeats of some of the testpieces of the 1980s, and it would appear that even the repeat ascents have done little to lessen their reputations. Thus in 2000 a strong international foursome made the second ascent of the 1987 Fowler-Saunders route on Spantik. Describing the difficult and poorly protected mixed climbing they encountered, one of the members of the team wrote: “The moves, which years ago I would have dared to execute only if protected at least at waist level, were dainty in spite of the rare air and protection” (Marko Prezelj, American Alpine Journal, 2001). In 2001 the 1982 Breashears-Lowe route on Kwangde finally received a second ascent. The second ascent party took six days for the round trip, the same as the first, and avoided the thin ice crux of the original route. While today there is undoubtedly a broader base of alpinists climbing at a high standard, the Himalayan testpieces of the 1980s were so far ahead of their time that arguably they have yet to be surpassed. In spite of the great advances in mixed climbing made over the last quarter of a century, one is struck by how slowly the technical standards in the mountains advance relative to standards at the crags. Whereas in the 1970s mixed-climbing standards did not appreciably differ between crag and mountain routes, today the gap between them has grown to such an extent that they almost appear to be different disciplines. While on the one hand this points to the immense possibilities for applying M-climbing techniques to the mountains, it also underscores the degree to which the high standards of M-climbing rely on a controlled crag environment. While the gap between the two is likely to grow, perhaps the rising standards at the crags will contribute to a corresponding rise in the alpine realm. Ultimately, the ideal in alpine climbing has always been one of doing more with less. Aiding, bolting, fixing, jumaring, and hauling are often necessary taints, but taints nonetheless. Just as the development of ice climbing gave climbers the skills to create new alpine testpieces and turn old ones into trade routes, so the greatest contribution of M-climbing may be to give climbers the physical and technical means to reduce a major ascent to simply climbing. In fact, I believe that this process is already well under way. While I have tried to plug the many gaps in my knowledge of mixed climbing throughout the world by extensive reading, in the end there is no substitute for first-hand experience. Thus I want to thank Scott Backes, Topher Donahue, Ben Firth, Will Gadd, and Jared Ogden for sharing their insights into mixed climbing. I particularly want to thank Aljaz Anderle, Duncan Ferguson, Jack Roberts, and Mark Twight for taking the time to answer my questions; Tom McMillan for suggesting the title; and Scott Semple for many thought-provoking exchanges and for suggesting the opening quote."

It is suggested that I talk to "players involved". I mentioned two climbs I did in the early '70s, not my climbing resume. By most definitions, climbing then and now, has made me a "player". I offer my own 1st hand observations from climbing over the past 40 years. My opinions and comments are not based on interviews or 2nd hand info but personal experience. YMMV to the value of my "historical accuracy" of course. Your climbing resume tells me if you can climb.....or not. The amount of time you have spent climbing over the years tells me much about your perspective on climbing history. Tool and ethics have changed. As Marko (and Raphael) rightly point out bolts have made us all aware of the even more possibilities on mixed. Just as "working" and rap bolting has done to rock climbing. This thread was about my observations of 30 plus years of changes in the "mixed world". My personal observation is that most recently those changes have indeed reinvented mixed. You want to stick with Raphael's definition as "redefinded" you certainly can. But Raphael's comments are also baised by his limited time in the sport ('89?) no matter how high his skill level. Twight among others will certainly give a differing opinion on m-climbing and how it is related to mixed. Bonatti is definded by his own experiences as Gordon mentioned earlier. Raphael has clearly stated his opinions of how much bolts have influenced modern M-climbing. (ytube) Even more history in the sport would quickly point out the new gear (clothing , boots, 'pons and tools) that has given us the possibility of taking advantage of the bolts and then climbing similar terrain with that confidence on natural pro. Hafner and places like it are virtually out door m-climbing gyms. Nothing wrong with that imo if you have unlimited natural resources. I have seen popular rock climbing areas trashed more. Technical skills shoot up in any area where similar venues are available. My original point was not to point at any opinion as right or wrong, but that climbing mixed, in the alpine or at the local crag has changed in a few short years...a lot. Bolts? Good question but already a dead debate imo. Happened 30 years ago ..."Bolt or not to Be" and it is the only way many m-climbs could be done safely. The standards raise in any case and then harder climbs get done on natural gear sooner. Less dying is always a good thing. There will always be bold climbs and bold climbers pushing the limits. Bolts and new gear and changing ethics just make the limits of impossibility closer for all of us.

The credit card one is new on me. Using CCs in Canada might need a phone call to your bank before leaving but wasn't the problem here. The vendor made a charge varification of an arbitrary amount for gas or goods (say $77.76 for 13.00 worth of gas or $100.11 for a $7.00 coke and sandwich) might make it really hard if you are running on a tight budget over a weekend. As the extra money won't be released until the actual charge is ran through. It is obvious that the Petro-Canada station in Radium isn't playing by the normal rules. These guys are on the corner just before heading upto the park entrance with a Subway inside. Don't trust the Subway charge either. I sat in their parking lot and called my bank to find out what was happening with both my business and personal cards after using them on their gas pumps. Similar thing happened on one of Brian's cards as well. Banks obviously saw something we didn't and turned the card off, thank goodness. Which is how I found out the charges they were making on my card instead of the actual amount of the purchase. Gas can be typically a $25 or $50 charge here in the states until the actual amount clears but $100+ is not normal.

Only dick measuring and hype is your attitude and thinking things haven't changed. Being ignorant of the facts isn't pissing on me just showing your own inability to realise what has happened in tool advancement and differing ethics.

Just so there is no confusuion I was actually climbing in the early/mid '70s. With small things like a 1st ascent of the N. face of Temple and the 2nd of Super Coulior on Deltaform among others. So I do have some small personal idea of what was being done in Canada. And was certainly aware of what was being done elsewhere at the time. You have made a number of comments that aren't accurate. Here is just one easy example. Don't know where you were but Bridalveil was done by Lowe and Weiss in '74, free and no hangs. By '77/'78 Grade 5+/6 ice was being done free, no hangs, in Canada and by '80 Nemisis and Weeping Pillar had been freed. By a few American's first and then the Canadian's. By the time you started climbing hanging on ice was lonnnnnnnnngg considered aid. Easy enough to document that info. There is nothing not done on the shoulders of those who climbed before us. Having been there at the start of waterfall ice climbing in Canada (Sniveling, Weeping Wall in '74 as early examples) I can make some rather accurate observations today as I continue to climb ice and mixed. No argument that US climbers or Candians for that matter made little contribution to alpine or super alpine until the last 30 years. I would say that has changed little but I am no expert on that. Lots of very difficult climbs done by many alpinists from different countries over the years. Few land mark climbs were done by Americans but they can be pointed out in specific arenas. But that isn't the original point of the post is it? In the last 30 years things have changed a lot. Mixed climbing IS different, hence the new name... "M-climbing". As Raphael Slawinski so succinctly put it, "From dry tooling to figure fours, M-climbing in the mountains is redefining the vision of what is climbable" AAJ, 2002, "DEGREES OF FREEDOM" by Raphael Slawinski Great article on the subject which describes the transitions to where we are now in m-climbing. What many don't realise is that modern M-climbing has opened climbing on what I would now call "moderate terrain". Big mountains will always take more than new tools and techniques. But difficult technical terrain is now more managable because of the improvements in gear, techniques and yes, even our "new" ethics today.

"Getting to lead?" More like a whip and lash if you didn't. Key was to make you think it was YOUR decision Age? Hey! When the tourista chicks we were trying to hit on passed me off to her mother I was a bit pissed. But nothing wrong with a hot MILF. Grand mothers on the other hand can be scary!! For those that know Boseman and Cody...PC has now offically been down graded to a Bozeman "III WI3" by the new generation. Canadian WI5? Boseman WI4. Hafner? "Nothing much past M5". Me? I'm just happy owning a pair of Nomics. Strong effort and proud send on Half and Half and your other leads Brian. Refused to take even after dropping a tool and a perfect snag on the toss back up! The money piece going in...

Anyone using these and need something a little extra the effort seems to be justified.

Maybe I should be more specific? How about "REinvented hard mixed climbing"... simply 'cuz it aint anything like mixed climbing has been up until even just a few years ago. Jeff Lowe writes of seeing torqueing and hooking picks as a logical extension of climbing with tools. He was doing it back in the '70s by his own admission. His routes are clear testimony to his skills and less obviously the techniques he was adapting to during those early years. Jim Bridwell specifically mentions hooking stone and "nuting" with a pick of a Forrest Serac Saber (over grown Terro) on the 1st ascent of the Moose Tooth with Stump in '81. "A deperate struggle insued at these overhangs. Ice axes and hammers became useless weapons against these fortifications. Forced onto tiny edges fro crampons and shaky pitons for handholds, I often used my ice tool picks as cliff hangers on rock edges or wedged in cracks, nut fashion." "Dance of the Woo Li Masters" Hooking and using tools while aid climbing on "M routes" is obviously the norm today, with the tools, boots and crampons all developed specifically for modern mixed climbing. In '81 it was seen as a desperate set of circustances to get yourself out of a bad spot. There were few replaceable pic tools (Chacal and Forest Lifetime)then. None were 100% on ice, putting any of them on rock was a sure way to break a pick. Imagine using a fixed pick axe like the "Serac" in the same circumstances with no spare tools handy. Great stuff but lets not try to pass it off as any type of climbing that was done as the norm in the past.