General Mark Inglis vs. Sir Edmund Hillary

Wiki_old

Guest
Does anyone else agree with me?

I can't believe Sir Hillary has lashed out like this, it has really dampened Inglis's acheivment.

Look the fact is, 8 people have already died this season climbing Everest. You climb it expecting to die. Thats basically your expectation, and if you don't die then you are something special.

8000 feet up, and there is a man NEARLY dead. He didn't have oxygen or anything. Inglis's men did check, but noticed that he was nearly dead and probably decided that they were risking it trying to do anything more to save him. Anyone recall a climber who stopped to help someone and ended up dying himself directly because of helping?

The fact is, while you would say that you would help someone who is dying, you have to put it into perspective. Inglis is a double amputee. He is something special and regardless of who it is, you are on a mountain renowned for how many people it has killed.

I don't see how people can lash out at Inglis when nobody (including me) knows the situation. The fact is, when climbing this mountain you walk over dead bodies that stay fresh because of the cold. It would be awful.

The man was nearly dead. Also everyone is overshadowing the fact that Inglis's men did check on him and he was basically dead already.

Give Inglis a break.

:evil:
 

Jesbass_old

Guest
Yeah, give Inglis a break, I say. He's a quality player, and deserves to be representing the Storm on a regular basis.

Hehe, seriously, though - I'm in agreement with you, Wiki. There's only so much that can be done.
 

IanR_old

Guest
Jesbass said:
Yeah, give Inglis a break, I say. He's a quality player, and deserves to be representing the Storm on a regular basis.

Hehe, seriously, though - I'm in agreement with you, Wiki. There's only so much that can be done.


Aw, you beat me to it.


But i agree.
 

Bulldog_old

Guest
Maybe you should rephrase the heading of your thread..."Inglis should not have helped the dying climber"??? Mate, he didnt even help the guy.

My opinion is that he should have TRIED to help him..in fact 40 people walked past the guy. I think thats the point Sir Edmund is trying to make....people are more important than money or fame.
 

Wiki_old

Guest
Bulldog said:
Maybe you should rephrase the heading of your thread..."Inglis should not have helped the dying climber"??? Mate, he didnt even help the guy.

My opinion is that he should have TRIED to help him..in fact 40 people walked past the guy. I think thats the point Sir Edmund is trying to make....people are more important than money or fame.

Do you think Mark Inglis, a double amputee cares about money or fame? He cares about the goals that he set himself. Yes, the others could have helped but what makes them different to Mark? The point is that up there, its hard enough to keep yourself alive, let alone anyone else. If he hadn't been so close to his death, I have faith that they would have stopped. But being so close to death, the risk was just too high imo.

The guy was basically dead. He chose not to climb with anyone but himself. Now I'm not saying that he deserved to die, but he didn't take any precautionary measures either. He didn't have oxygen and he didn't have gloves. Inglis's team did check, and they were told to go on as he was basically dead. I feel for the guy that died, I really do. He was trying to acomplish something that none of us would even dare to think about. Just making the first step is a huge deal. But the fact is, up there it is basically every man for himself.

Sorry the heading isn't very PC but then again, I'm angered at the way society has come down hard on Inglis.

I should have rephrased it a little as it is a little harsh on the man that lost his life. My bad there, apologies.
 

Bulldog_old

Guest
Wiki said:
Bulldog said:
Maybe you should rephrase the heading of your thread..."Inglis should not have helped the dying climber"??? Mate, he didnt even help the guy.

My opinion is that he should have TRIED to help him..in fact 40 people walked past the guy. I think thats the point Sir Edmund is trying to make....people are more important than money or fame.

Do you think Mark Inglis, a double amputee cares about money or fame? He cares about the goals that he set himself. Yes, the others could have helped but what makes them different to Mark? The point is that up there, its hard enough to keep yourself alive, let alone anyone else. If he hadn't been so close to his death, I have faith that they would have stopped. But being so close to death, the risk was just too high imo.

The guy was basically dead. He chose not to climb with anyone but himself. Now I'm not saying that he deserved to die, but he didn't take any precautionary measures either. He didn't have oxygen and he didn't have gloves. Inglis's team did check, and they were told to go on as he was basically dead. I feel for the guy that died, I really do. He was trying to acomplish something that none of us would even dare to think about. Just making the first step is a huge deal. But the fact is, up there it is basically every man for himself.

Sorry the heading isn't very PC but then again, I'm angered at the way society has come down hard on Inglis.

I should have rephrased it a little as it is a little harsh on the man that lost his life. My bad there, apologies.

I think a lot of money is involved with an Everest climb, and I'm wondering what pressure was on the Inglis team to reach the summit, otherwise it would have been a complete waste of time and money. Inglis is a determined man, as evident by his missing limbs. He will do whatever he needs to do to achieve his goals, as you say. Under the circumstances, I dont think the dying climber stood any chance of receiving help.

"Basically dead"? ...gosh, surely if he was still breathing, then he wasnt dead...one should still be entitled to receive some assistance to live dont you think?
 

PB_old

Guest
Whether he could/couldn't or should/shouldn't have tried to save the other guys life is irrelevant. IF his advice was that there was noting he could do then it was a given and fair enough.

The issue for me is that at least he could have offered his time to ensure the guy didn't die alone. There was no need to leave that to someone else.

Interesting though, that a guy who owes his life to being rescued by others from the clutches of a mountain didn't feel the need to help someone in a similar position.
 

ozbash_old

Guest
the pom knew what he was doing when he set of on a solo climb without oxygen. took the risk and paid the price.
he was as good as dead when inglis found him .

sir ed is out of line.
 

Northern_Union

Guest
Inglis is a mongrol in my opinion. I live in his home town, there is a ground swell of opinion that he put money before life and has tained his damaged his name badly.
 

*Kimmy*_old

Guest
Its hard enough getting to the top of everest, and getting back down without carrying practily a dead body!!

Give him a break Ed!!

Atleast they called for help, no other team did
 

PHANTOM MENACE_old

Guest
I can see both points of view.

35 other climbers went past him before the Kiwi bloke did. Are the others getting grilled like him.

Also in round the world yachting there is an unritten rule that if someone is in danger the closets boat put their sails down turn on the motors and go help regardless of where they are in the race.

So yes i can see both points
 

AliN_old

Guest
The English climber chose to climb alone, knowing the risks and without oxygen or gloves for Christ sake. He wasn't tramping in Samoa!
He chose to climb alone, and unfortunately would die alone.
 

da mad maori

Guest
The unwritten law of all mountaineers.......

Where saving ones life could put anothers at risk, you move on.

Sad law, but one they,[the sufferer] understands.

I feel sorry for Mark, who took every pre-caution to make sure his climb and his party's, was as safe as possible, only to be faced with this barrage of critisism, when he came down.
 

Wiki_old

Guest
RS_Dragon said:
Inglis is a mongrol in my opinion. I live in his home town, there is a ground swell of opinion that he put money before life and has tained his damaged his name badly.

Sorry but ...what money?
 

Wiki_old

Guest
PHANTOM MENACE said:
I can see both points of view.

35 other climbers went past him before the Kiwi bloke did. Are the others getting grilled like him.

Also in round the world yachting there is an unritten rule that if someone is in danger the closets boat put their sails down turn on the motors and go help regardless of where they are in the race.

So yes i can see both points

Thats actually not the issue here.

The issue isn't about why didn't anyone help him, the issue is danger.

As I said already, 8 people have died on Everest this season.

This climber chose to:

a) Climb alone
b) Not take enough oxygen
c) Not wear gloves

Now, you are 8,500 metres up and you are practically fighting for your own life. You see a man nearly dead and you halt.

You check in with the team leader who says to go on, and you proceed. He explains that he was nearly dead and he isn't the first to die up there. He was unprepared and he basically could NOT be rescued by helicopter and would not survive the trip back down.

So now there are two points.

a) Inglis was not the team leader.

b) They would have put their life in danger (remember this is death zone) to help someone who couldn't be saved regardless of what they did for him AND they would have put their life in jeopardy to save someone who was ill prepared.

You know the last time someone tried to help someone on Everest, both of them died.
 

Wiki_old

Guest
da mad maori said:
I'm interested in that reply too Wiki.

Yeah lol.

This trip didn't make Mark any money. It fact, it would have cost him in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Guides don't just go climbing up the worlds tallest mountain for peanuts.

Mark didn't do this for glory or for fame or for money.

He did it because he is a soldier. He has overcome a tragedy in his life and has not let it disadvantage him in anyway possible.

Put it this way. I would NEVER in a MILLION YEARS consider climbing Mount Everest.

The fact that a double amputee did it, thats nothing short of astonishing.
 

Jesbass_old

Guest
Wiki said:
He did it because he is a soldier. He has overcome a tragedy in his life and has not let it disadvantage him in anyway possible.

I absolutely agree with you, Wiki. The personal demons Inglis must have dealt with on this climb - in light of the manner in which he lost his legs - must have been huge!
 

da mad maori

Guest
[quote="Wiki"

Put it this way. I would NEVER in a MILLION YEARS consider climbing Mount Everest.

And yet climbers put their own lives at risk, just in New Zealand. Especially tourists
*************************************************************

The fact that a double amputee did it, thats nothing short of astonishing.[/quote]

He'll probably get a nice offer from some sort of magazine, in fact I play bowls with an amputee, [no feet or arms] and I tell you, he is very good. Represented New Zealand in the Commonwealth games. I take my hat off to those types who dont let any sort of handicap stop them from seeking goals.
 

Bulldog_old

Guest
Wiki said:
da mad maori said:
I'm interested in that reply too Wiki.

Yeah lol.

This trip didn't make Mark any money. It fact, it would have cost him in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Guides don't just go climbing up the worlds tallest mountain for peanuts.

Mark didn't do this for glory or for fame or for money.

He did it because he is a soldier. He has overcome a tragedy in his life and has not let it disadvantage him in anyway possible.

Put it this way. I would NEVER in a MILLION YEARS consider climbing Mount Everest.

The fact that a double amputee did it, thats nothing short of astonishing.

You almost stumbled on but missed the whole point. The "money" is not in reference to any reward that Inglis would get for reaching the summit (think women magazine interviews, a book maybe, speaking engagements, etc) ...no, its about the money he put into the climb as you have noted, and from my understanding, it runs into tens of thousands of dollars. Helping a dying man would have jeopordised the whole climb and therefore the loss of that substantial amount of money, and may I say, the effort to get up that far. Inglis a "soldier"? ....nahh, please dont insult the memory of soldiers who risked their lives on the battlefield to save a dying comrade. Some soldiers risk their lives just to bring the dead bodies of their mates back to base. I'm not taking any thing away from Inglis...he is a fearless, courageous individual, but perhaps this was the one time in his life where he could have put his own ambitions aside and try and help a fellow man in need. He had the right no to do so of course, and thats the decision he made.
 

Similar threads

Replies
12
Views
896
Kav_old
Replies
4
Views
777
playdaball_old
Miket12
Replies
0
Views
561
Miket12
Miket12
Replies
7
Views
1K
mrblonde_old
Replies
18
Views
2K
AmeriKiwi_old